Alabama AD to reevaluate nonconference slate after CFP picks

[mcrow47]

Nonconference 2024
Georgia: Clemson, TN Tech, UMass, G Tech
Texas: Col State, Michigan, UTSA, UL Monroe
Tennessee: Chattanooga, NC State, Kent State, UTEP
Alabama: W KY, S Florida, Wisconsin, Mercer
Ole Miss: Furman, MTSU, Wake, GA Southern
South Carolina: Old Dominion, Akron, Wofford, Clemson

We might see teams like Clemson, Michigan, NC State and Wisconsin dropping off future schedules. The funny thing is that all those were wins this year. Regardless, they are tougher games that can wear on a team. I'm probably safe in saying the SEC won't be moving to 9 conference games like the other conferences.

It's not like the BG10 top teams set the world on fire with their schedules, but they have 1 more conference game.

Oregon: Idaho, Boise, Oregon St.
Penn State: UVW, Bowling Green, Kent State
Ohio State: Akron, W Michigan, Marshall.
Indiana: FIU, W Illinois, Charlotte

Yeah, most teams purposely use non-conference as the college equivalent of preseason games.


Clemson
SMU
Oregon
Georgia

are really the only teams in the running for a playoff spot that scheduled actual good team in the non-conference schedule. Alabama whining about it while playing nobody is rich.

 

[TwistingMyMelon]

i get that there’s no sympathy for Alabama (or the SEC), but does anyone on here actually believe SMU, Clemson, and Arizona State are better than Alabama, Ol Miss and South Carolina?

I don't know and I don't care. Even when there were only four playoff teams, one or two of them demonstrated that they were head and shoulders above the others. I don't think the identity of the 10th, 11th, and 12th teams matter much.

 

[TwistingMyMelon]

It's not like the BG10 top teams set the world on fire with their schedules, but they have 1 more conference game.

Yes, and so does the Big 12. That's a significant part of why the Big 10 has 6 teams that are not bowl eligible and the Big 12 has 7 while the ACC and the SEC have 4 and 3 respectively.

 

[Panthadad2]

Yeah, most teams purposely use non-conference as the college equivalent of preseason games.


Clemson
SMU
Oregon
Georgia

are really the only teams in the running for a playoff spot that scheduled actual good team in the non-conference schedule. Alabama whining about it while playing nobody is rich.

Plus Texas schedule Michigan which at the time was thought to be a top opponent.

 

[GophersInIowa]

I am confused as to why they have chosen to lock in on this as a major issue as it had zero to do with them not making the playoff. I mean I guess I get it in theory if strength of schedule isn't going to play a factor then there is very little incentive for Big Ten and SEC teams to schedule games against power 4 conference teams because the loss would hurt them more than the win would help them. May as well just play all cupcakes to guarantee you win them all.

But in this particular case Alabama's non-conf schedule isn't what kept them out of the playoff since they ran the table against the mediocre slate of teams they faced.

This isn't directed at you but more than SEC whinners. We know strength of schedule is a factor, otherwise Alabama wouldn't be ranked ahead of Miami while having one more loss.

Ultimately, it's about SMU having 1 loss before the conference championship vs 3 losses for Alabama. I have little doubt Alabama would have been ranked ahead of SMU if it was 1 loss vs. 2. Strength of schedule would have put them ahead as well even with one more loss. But when comparing P4 teams, strength of schedule should not be enough to overcome a 2 loss difference. Especially when two of those losses were against average teams.

 

[Panthadad2]

Yes, and so does the Big 12. That's a significant part of why the Big 10 has 6 teams that are not bowl eligible and the Big 12 has 7 while the ACC and the SEC have 4 and 3 respectively.

The Big 12 is now a glorified G5 conference. They're the JV of Power 4. The Power 3.5 really. With 16 teams, they should absolutely be playing 9 games.

 

[leib0039]

i get that there’s no sympathy for Alabama (or the SEC), but does anyone on here actually believe SMU, Clemson, and Arizona State are better than Alabama, Ol Miss and South Carolina?

So your thought is to just use recruiting rankings and don't even play the games? If you took away the media/recruiting rankings and put bama's team in Illinois jerseys, there wouldn't be 1 person complaining about this team not being in. And that's the issue.

 

[MNfootballfan]

As long as SEC only plays 8 conference games, I hope they get excluded as often as possible. If you removed Wisconsin from this year's schedule for Alabama and replaced them with even a middling SEC team, they may have ended up with a record of 8-4.

Wisconsin was easily their toughest non-conference oppoenent!

 

[GophersInIowa]

I understand the point but conference schedules are not going to be equal in strength each year. Texas for instance, only played 1 ranked team in the regular season. Hypothetically, if they had lost another game and didn't play in the conference championship, their resume at 10-2 all of a sudden doesn't look that great.

 

[TwistingMyMelon]

The Big 12 is now a glorified G5 conference. They're the JV of Power 4. The Power 3.5 really. With 16 teams, they should absolutely be playing 9 games.

Yeah, whatever. Sagarin has the Big 12 with an almost identical, but slightly higher, ranking to the Big Ten so those two conferences are rated second and third with the ACC coming in 4th.

 

[Some guy]

i get that there’s no sympathy for Alabama (or the SEC), but does anyone on here actually believe SMU, Clemson, and Arizona State are better than Alabama, Ol Miss and South Carolina?

I think SMU might go .500 in the SEC, which might make them super dangerous for bama since they were 4-2 against teams .500 and below.

I think SMU would beat the hell out of Kentucky. And Kentucky beat ole miss.


I think if Clemson and South Carolina played 4 times theyd probably split 2-2.


I don’t know if this answers your question

 

[MNfootballfan]

Yeah, most teams purposely use non-conference as the college equivalent of preseason games.


Clemson
SMU
Oregon
Georgia

are really the only teams in the running for a playoff spot that scheduled actual good team in the non-conference schedule. Alabama whining about it while playing nobody is rich.

The simple (not so simple) solution is to create conferences and divisions and let the NCAA or whoever is in charge create the schedules similar to how the NFL does. This year the Vikings played the AFC South and NFC West.

 

[Panthadad2]

This isn't directed at you but more than SEC whinners. We know strength of schedule is a factor, otherwise Alabama wouldn't be ranked ahead of Miami while having one more loss.

Ultimately, it's about SMU having 1 loss before the conference championship vs 3 losses for Alabama. I have little doubt Alabama would have been ranked ahead of SMU if it was 1 loss vs. 2. Strength of schedule would have put them ahead as well even with one more loss. But when comparing P4 teams, strength of schedule should not be enough to overcome a 2 loss difference. Especially when two of those losses were against average teams.

The committee's consideration of strength of schedule was very inconsistent. First of all, there's no way Boise should have been rated as high as they were leading into conference championship week which cornered the committee into giving them a bye, which seems ridiculous. Oddsmakers would place Boise as a fringe top 25 team according to Sagarin and Massey.

The committee also handcuffed themselves by rating SMU too high leading into this week. As close as SMU made the game at the end, a very flawed Clemson made them look bad for most of the game.

The CFP isn't really about getting the top 12 teams in the tournament that have the potential to run the table. It's about getting the top 5 conference champions and the 7 other teams that had the best season, not necessarily the best teams. I'm OK with that. It all makes sense if you look at it in those terms.

 

[Panthadad2]

Yeah, whatever. Sagarin has the Big 12 with an almost identical, but slightly higher, ranking to the Big Ten so those two conferences are rated second and third with the ACC coming in 4th.

Conferences are about teams and champions, not the aggregate. It's a hell of a lot harder to beat out Oregon, Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan (in most years) than ASU, BYU, Iowa State and Colorado. It's not even in the same neighborhood.

 

[Some guy]

The committee's consideration of strength of schedule was very inconsistent. First of all, there's no way Boise should have been rated as high as they were leading into conference championship week which cornered the committee into giving them a bye, which seems ridiculous. Oddsmakers would place Boise as a fringe top 25 team according to Sagarin and Massey.

The committee also handcuffed themselves by rating SMU too high leading into this week. As close as SMU made the game at the end, a very flawed Clemson made them look bad for most of the game.

The CFP isn't really about getting the top 12 teams in the tournament that have the potential to run the table. It's about getting the top 5 conference champions and the 7 other teams that had the best season, not necessarily the best teams. I'm OK with that. It all makes sense if you look at it in those terms.

It would be better if they just said that.
“Best teams” language is stupid. It’s all subjective.

They should be tasked with picking the best seasons or most deserving teams. And then given objective criteria to measure it in order:

# of losses if 1 or fewer
Conference champions - proved you are the best of a group of teams
Quality win to bad loss ratio
Especially quality wins (wins against teams with 10+ wins)
Quality wins (wins against teams with 8+ wins)
Bad losses (wins against teams 6-6 or lower…because a loss to a 6-6 team means they are below .500 if they didn’t beat you)
Mitigating circumstances of losses (overtime, key player out, etc)
Strength of schedule
Analytics metrics break a tie (game control, etc)

Or, remove the committee for all but seeding and just have an objective numerical ranking formula. Pair wise, BCS, something else

 

[fmlizard]

Alabama finished 5-3 in their conference, only a half game better than Minnesota did. (that half game was Mercer in November)

Alabama lost twice to 6-6 conference foes including perennial laughingstock Vanderbilt. Minnesota only lost to winning Big Ten teams that finished at least 7-5.

Alabama played a non-conference easier than Minnesota's. The only P4 team they faced, @ wisconsin, Minnesota also soundly defeated.

You don't hear us over here bitching about not being in the playoff.

 

[Goldmember]

Clemson's only way in was winning their conference championship game which to their credit they did. Had they lost they would have been like Iowa State on the outside looking in.

That’s nice for them.

But our team, for instance, is a lot more likely to be in South Carolina or Ol Miss’s position than Clemson or Arizona State’s.

Shouldn’t we have a path to the playoff that is similar to theirs?

 

[MaxyJR1]

Here's my issue with the SEC. Do they get the best players?, Do they get the most NFL draftees? Do they have the most bought in fans? Have they won the most National Titles? Mostly YES! That's great.

However, they signed onto a model that exists. A model designed for inclusion of G5, and all four P4 conferences. A model to have a "National" champion, not a regional or conference champion. They signed on for Auto Bids, etc. Get over it and bring your grievances to the 2026 model. You chased the $$$ and brought in Texas and Oklahoma lessening the chances of some of your own teams.

South Carolina, Ole Miss, and Alabama didn't finish top 3 in your conference. They didn't lose out of conference, so their grievance is with their own conference for scheduling. No one is talking about Illinois and Missouri because they aren't as vocal and lost the expected games they might lose. Ole Miss has a terrible loss to Kentucky, Alabama has two terrible losses.

Illinois, Miami and South Carolina are the teams to me that should be up for the final spot. Don't lose to teams that can't even get Bowl Eligible.

Another issue is where G5 teams are ranked. It skews the polls and wrongfully affects resumes. I can listen to arguments about Notre Dame playing Army and Navy. They are not top 25 or 30 teams. They aren't. G5 had one team and it was Boise and they are probably about the 15th best team in the country. Memphis and UNLV are not top 25 teams. Just rank the G5 teams in their own poll and give them the 12th spot.

 

[MNVCGUY]

That’s nice for them.

But our team, for instance, is a lot more likely to be in South Carolina or Ol Miss’s position than Clemson or Arizona State’s.

Shouldn’t we have a path to the playoff that is similar to theirs?

Sure...in theory every team should be on an equal footing but that isn't the way college athletics works. Teams keep moving and the landscape keeps on shifting. Not long ago the Big 12 at least had a couple marque teams in Texas and Oklahoma....now it has been reduced to a collection of second tier teams.

Look at Colorado....in the Pac 12 last year they were an afterthought, in the Big 12 they were in the championship mix. If the U were to move to a conference like the Big 12 or ACC our chances of making it to the CFP would go way up. Having said that I would not want to see the Gophers leave the Big Ten. Means a CFP bid is going to be much harder to come by but as Indiana just showed it isn't impossible if you get the right mix of players and soft schedule.

And even though those conferences are weaker they still deserve to be represented in the CFP mix.

 

[SeaBee_Gopher]

Sure...in theory every team should be on an equal footing but that isn't the way college athletics works. Teams keep moving and the landscape keeps on shifting. Not long ago the Big 12 at least had a couple marque teams in Texas and Oklahoma....now it has been reduced to a collection of second tier teams.

Look at Colorado....in the Pac 12 last year they were an afterthought, in the Big 12 they were in the championship mix. If the U were to move to a conference like the Big 12 or ACC our chances of making it to the CFP would go way up. Having said that I would not want to see the Gophers leave the Big Ten. Means a CFP bid is going to be much harder to come by but as Indiana just showed it isn't impossible if you get the right mix of players and soft schedule.

And even though those conferences are weaker they still deserve to be represented in the CFP mix.

We are very much in agreement. People seem to forget that Colorado got crushed by Nebraska and yet they were in the running for the Big 12 championship. I'm not sure if those conferences "deserve" to be in the CFP mix, but I'm happy they are. It's better for the sport. Most people still want college football to be national. Everyone makes more money if it is. If the B1G & SEC shoehorn too many of their teams into the CFP, it will hurt the sport nationally and overall interest will fall. They will cut off their nose to spite their face. I love the CFP field this year. It's a mix of blue bloods and outsiders. It's awesome and will be so much fun to watch!

 

[SeaBee_Gopher]

Here's my issue with the SEC. Do they get the best players?, Do they get the most NFL draftees? Do they have the most bought in fans? Have they won the most National Titles? Mostly YES! That's great.

However, they signed onto a model that exists. A model designed for inclusion of G5, and all four P4 conferences. A model to have a "National" champion, not a regional or conference champion. They signed on for Auto Bids, etc. Get over it and bring your grievances to the 2026 model. You chased the $$$ and brought in Texas and Oklahoma lessening the chances of some of your own teams.

South Carolina, Ole Miss, and Alabama didn't finish top 3 in your conference. They didn't lose out of conference, so their grievance is with their own conference for scheduling. No one is talking about Illinois and Missouri because they aren't as vocal and lost the expected games they might lose. Ole Miss has a terrible loss to Kentucky, Alabama has two terrible losses.

Illinois, Miami and South Carolina are the teams to me that should be up for the final spot. Don't lose to teams that can't even get Bowl Eligible.

Another issue is where G5 teams are ranked. It skews the polls and wrongfully affects resumes. I can listen to arguments about Notre Dame playing Army and Navy. They are not top 25 or 30 teams. They aren't. G5 had one team and it was Boise and they are probably about the 15th best team in the country. Memphis and UNLV are not top 25 teams. Just rank the G5 teams in their own poll and give them the 12th spot.

Your exactly right on the G5. You see G5 schools ranked in the lower part of the AP poll, yet when you look at their records, they played one P5 school and lost, yet they are ranked above the Gophers and Illinois. While the gulf between Alabama and Minnesota has shrunk, the gulf between the G5 and P4 has increased. Well, and let's remember the P4 keeps absorbing the best G5 schools anyway.

The SEC is trying to use past dominance to their advantage now, but the landscape has changed...and they know it. You can't fault them for trying. Well, this year's CFP will show us a lot. If all three SEC teams win and crush the rest of us, then I guess things haven't changed as much as we'd hoped. That's unlikely however. Even if it does happen, it's just delaying the inevitable. Maybe ten high resource southern schools just do not have enough money to outspend ~120 other FBS universities (and alumni bases) spread out across the US.

 

[stocker08]

Shouldn’t this be an argument for Bama to schedule stronger OOC opponents? If they’re going to pick up SEC losses then to make an argument for the playoff they need a stronger SOS and more opportunities for quality wins. Unfortunately this year Wisconsin wasn’t even a “>.500” win as they’re referring to, but if it was like 9-3 Wisky team that they beat, it would’ve strengthened their case.

No. They don't have to increase their SOS seeing as how being in the SEC inflates their SOS already. This is proven by the fact that they were ranked over numerous two loss Big 12/ACC teams.....and were being considered to bump out an ACC team that went 11-1 in the regular season.

If anything has been shown here.....it's that the ACC and the Big 12 need to schedule multiple P5 games OOC to boost their SOS so SEC teams with more losses don't jump them in the pecking order.

 

[Some guy]

SOS is kind of a fake measure
ACC and SEC naturally have higher SOS because they’ve scheduled themselves into fewer losses per team.
The big ten has an extra .5 losses per team.

The big ten should have their 18 schedule MAC, FCS, and Conference USA for 5 games each:
The 18 teams combine to go 88-2 in those games.
Then play 7 conference games. And the big ten will all have high SOS numbers due to everyone in the conference being bowl eligible with just one conference win.

Which is a tougher schedule?
2 9-3 teams
4 6-6 teams
2 2-10teams

oR
8 6-6 teams
Because non efficiency SOS says bottom is a harder schedule

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I think the tournament needs a new structure. I think I would have put Bama or South Carolina in it this year. It's so subjective when you're comparing a 2 loss SMU team with a three loss Bama team.

When you get down to 12, they all have warts, if they all have warts, I don't know any better criteria than "who do you think is the best". It'd be one thing if the system was always settled by some mathematical formula (see NFL playoffs) but this system is always going to be really subjective for the last few spots.

Case for Bama:
They beat South Carolina and South Carolina beat Clemson who beat SMU

Case for SMU:
They lost fewer games and their losses were to teams with better records

Case for South Carolina:
They have some good ones and their losses are all to pretty good teams.

I think we'd still have some of this with an 8 team playoff but not as much.

Take the champions of the Big 4, have two wild cards, and then give the two other spots to some play in game (MAC Champ v. MWC Champ) and (Sun Belt v. Pac 12).

 

[Wally]

It's great that Alabama didn't make the first 12 team playoff. Coach is on the hot seat