CFP Playoff Committee shoehorns in Alabama at the last minute for the second year in a row ... this year with 3 losses...

Donate To GopherHole
It’s a joke. The regular season needs to matter. Game performance needs to matter. Otherwise just pick the teams off of recruiting rankings & draft prospects.

They are turning CFB in to the NFL. We already have the NFL. Don’t need another one.
 

Lou Brown said:
It’s a joke. The regular season needs to matter. Game performance needs to matter. Otherwise just pick the teams off of recruiting rankings & draft prospects.

They are turning CFB in to the NFL. We already have the NFL. Don’t need another one.
Click to expand...
It’s worse than the nfl
In the nfl there is an objective standard for how to make the playoff
 





Unregistered User said:
indiana had a 5-ply schedule. Their best win was probably Washington.

A lot of teams would have won 11 with that schedule.
Click to expand...
Not Alabama. Alabama is 3-2 against teams that were .500 or worse

So if they played 11 garbage teams they’d statistically win 6 or 7 of those.
Then one top 12 team which they were .500 against

So if Alabama went and played Indiana’s schedule and performed as they did this year they’d win between 6-8 games.

Alabama was killer against 7-5, 8-4, and 9-3 teams though
Great teams like south Florida and Florida
 

Some guy said:
Not Alabama. Alabama is 3-2 against teams that were .500 or worse

So if they played 11 garbage teams they’d statistically win 6 or 7 of those.
Then one top 12 team which they were .500 against

So if Alabama went and played Indiana’s schedule and performed as they did this year they’d win between 6-8 games.

Alabama was killer against 7-5, 8-4, and 9-3 teams though
Great teams like south Florida and Florida
Click to expand...
Yep this argument that they’d win because you think they’d win is actually patently false based on the teams they lost to and who they rank around unless you just want to ignore all data and say their helmet has a script A on it so it must be true
 

upnorthkid said:
Yep this argument that they’d win because you think they’d win is actually patently false based on the teams they lost to and who they rank around unless you just want to ignore all data and say their helmet has a script A on it so it must be true
Click to expand...
Yeah. And I don’t actually think they’d go 7-5

But to say Many teams would go 11-1 vs Indianas schedule when Alabama lost to multiple 6-6 teams and ole Miss lost to a 4-8 team….
Maybe many teams would, but bama has proven they wouldn’t.
 





Some guy said:
Excluding wins gained by playing Alabama


Alabama is 1-2 against FBS teams who finished with losing records


I’m not sure they could handle the gauntlet of a big ten west schedule
Click to expand...
Alabama was 1-0 against the Big 10 West this year.

They beat Wisconsin in Madison. Join the club.
 

Posters say the system needs to be objective. I know, let's come up with a system that values wins over good opponents. We can spell everything out before the season starts so everybody knows the criteria. The exact same rules apply to everybody. We'll consider each team's strength of schedule based upon their opponents records and their strength of schedule. Oh wait those are computer rankings and everybody hates them.

The problem this year is there are only 11 deserving teams for a 12 team field. It would be cool if the committee could just give #5 a bye.

A strict 2 loss limit won't work unless you really like cupcakes.

I think if this 12-team format lasts long enough we'll see the ACC and XII get multiple teams in whenever they finish the regular season with one loss. A second loss in a CCG won't matter. B1G and SEC teams will always get in with two regular season losses. Any more than that and...this is America, so we'll just give the benefit of the doubt to whoever started with the most advantages because that's who is supposed to be good.
 

What a mess.

To beat the deceased horse a little longer, why would non-P2 conference bother with a conference championship. Does the projected revenue of that game exceed a playoff appearance. The obvious solution is straight out of Rosemont, IL; arrange for the game to have a certain outcome. Subtle or obvious doesn’t really matter. Just get it done.

This is what it’s come to.
 



Pompous Elitist said:
What a mess.

To beat the deceased horse a little longer, why would non-P2 conference bother with a conference championship. Does the projected revenue of that game exceed a playoff appearance. The obvious solution is straight out of Rosemont, IL; arrange for the game to have a certain outcome. Subtle or obvious doesn’t really matter. Just get it done.

This is what it’s come to.
Click to expand...
The solution is probably to play a flex game not a championship.

Miami should be playing BYU or UNLV so both have a chance to get another win rather than a championship game for the conference

College basketball did something like this at one time
 

BeenHazy said:
Posters say the system needs to be objective. I know, let's come up with a system that values wins over good opponents. We can spell everything out before the season starts so everybody knows the criteria. The exact same rules apply to everybody. We'll consider each team's strength of schedule based upon their opponents records and their strength of schedule. Oh wait those are computer rankings and everybody hates them.

The problem this year is there are only 11 deserving teams for a 12 team field. It would be cool if the committee could just give #5 a bye.

A strict 2 loss limit won't work unless you really like cupcakes.

I think if this 12-team format lasts long enough we'll see the ACC and XII get multiple teams in whenever they finish the regular season with one loss. A second loss in a CCG won't matter. B1G and SEC teams will always get in with two regular season losses. Any more than that and...this is America, so we'll just give the benefit of the doubt to whoever started with the most advantages because that's who is supposed to be good.
Click to expand...
They already are ignoring strength of schedule and made it clear that for SMU it is to SMUs disadvantage to play in their conference championship game.

This is all happening now. Not because some theoretical rules.
 


BeenHazy said:
Posters say the system needs to be objective. I know, let's come up with a system that values wins over good opponents. We can spell everything out before the season starts so everybody knows the criteria. The exact same rules apply to everybody. We'll consider each team's strength of schedule based upon their opponents records and their strength of schedule. Oh wait those are computer rankings and everybody hates them.

The problem this year is there are only 11 deserving teams for a 12 team field. It would be cool if the committee could just give #5 a bye.

A strict 2 loss limit won't work unless you really like cupcakes.

I think if this 12-team format lasts long enough we'll see the ACC and XII get multiple teams in whenever they finish the regular season with one loss. A second loss in a CCG won't matter. B1G and SEC teams will always get in with two regular season losses. Any more than that and...this is America, so we'll just give the benefit of the doubt to whoever started with the most advantages because that's who is supposed to be good.
Click to expand...
Personally I don’t hate computer rankings and think college hockey has the best selection criteria purely because it’s objective, everyone knows the criteria before the season, and you have the autobids in place. Instead you’ve got a bunch of random people in a room who watching varying amounts of football and who yells loudest in the room about those “ranked similarly”? It’s part of why I thought expanding the field further becomes progressively dumber given generally there are not 12 deserving teams with this few conferences. They have no real criteria and just make it up for how they see fit while not really holding true to what they’ve said which is very typical for this crew where the right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing
 

upnorthkid said:
Personally I don’t hate computer rankings and think college hockey has the best selection criteria purely because it’s objective, everyone knows the criteria before the season, and you have the autobids in place. Instead you’ve got a bunch of random people in a room who watching varying amounts of football and who yells loudest in the room about those “ranked similarly”? It’s part of why I thought expanding the field further becomes progressively dumber given generally there are not 12 deserving teams with this few conferences. They have no real criteria and just make it up for how they see fit while not really holding true to what they’ve said which is very typical for this crew where the right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing
Click to expand...
100% agree

I don’t follow hockey much but would love the same type of system to those rankings for football
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
They already are ignoring strength of schedule and made it clear that for SMU it is to SMUs disadvantage to play in their conference championship game.

This is all happening now. Not because some theoretical rules.
Click to expand...
They are not ignoring strength of schedule when they have Alabama over Miami
They have South Carolina over byu
Etc

Maybe they aren’t factoring it as much as you want but it’s a huge piece of why it isn’t just a list of teams with fewest losses for the rankings
 

Wonder what the temperature is in the room making all these decisions?
 

This was never a good idea on my book, 12 is/was too many. Make it 8, your top 5 Champs and 3 wild cards.

Regular season doesn't really matter. Bama OSU Oregon those teams are just getting in unless they go 500. There is so much bias "who would be favored " great Bama and OSU have more 5* guys. Cool why even play. Bama is not good, lost 3 times, but welp put them in!

They framed this as it helps teams who get better. That's ASU and SCar both those teams started a bit slow but now are rolling. Reward those teams, not frigging Bama who got rolled by Oklahoma.

They absolutely need to lock the rankings after this week every year. You should not be hurt by playing extra games. Lock them and say the changes only are for teams playing. By that I mean teams who win can get in but if SMU is ahead of Bama now, it is impossible for them to slide below. I don't care the score. Indiana is not good, but they lucked out and lost a tiebreaker so they are locked in to a spot, what sense does that make??

I hated this idea from the start and now I hate it more. The NCAA has to be the least competent organization ever. And I know the playoff is different from that per se but it's all together. It's just a disaster that turns into roses because everyone loves football.
 


leib0039 said:
This was never a good idea on my book, 12 is/was too many. Make it 8, your top 5 Champs and 3 wild cards.

Regular season doesn't really matter. Bama OSU Oregon those teams are just getting in unless they go 500. There is so much bias "who would be favored " great Bama and OSU have more 5* guys. Cool why even play. Bama is not good, lost 3 times, but welp put them in!

They framed this as it helps teams who get better. That's ASU and SCar both those teams started a bit slow but now are rolling. Reward those teams, not frigging Bama who got rolled by Oklahoma.

They absolutely need to lock the rankings after this week every year. You should not be hurt by playing extra games. Lock them and say the changes only are for teams playing. By that I mean teams who win can get in but if SMU is ahead of Bama now, it is impossible for them to slide below. I don't care the score. Indiana is not good, but they lucked out and lost a tiebreaker so they are locked in to a spot, what sense does that make??

I hated this idea from the start and now I hate it more. The NCAA has to be the least competent organization ever. And I know the playoff is different from that per se but it's all together. It's just a disaster that turns into roses because everyone loves football.
Click to expand...
I agree on this as well. Shouldn't be punished and I also don't really think they should release any rankings other than the final ones. It biases you when you have a prior set of rankings and further you shouldn't make the rankings based on "well they will go up when they win next week so it's fine they're lower now". Rank them based on merit the one time. In reality it should be computer rankings followed by direct h2h comparison of like teams and if you can all come up with a consensus in the room to move a team up or down within a band, then go ahead and do so.
 



Them finding a way to include Alabama in the top 12 is the least surprising thing ever.

Basically Big Ten vs. SEC with a couple other teams tossed in for flavor. Would be awesome if the other teams dominated and we somehow ended up with a final 4 with all the other guys. :)
 

Some guy said:
Not Alabama. Alabama is 3-2 against teams that were .500 or worse

So if they played 11 garbage teams they’d statistically win 6 or 7 of those.
Then one top 12 team which they were .500 against

So if Alabama went and played Indiana’s schedule and performed as they did this year they’d win between 6-8 games.

Alabama was killer against 7-5, 8-4, and 9-3 teams though
Great teams like south Florida and Florida
Click to expand...
Who they trailed in the 4th quarter. Anyone remember that?? I do.
 


MNVCGUY said:
Them finding a way to include Alabama in the top 12 is the least surprising thing ever.

Basically Big Ten vs. SEC with a couple other teams tossed in for flavor. Would be awesome if the other teams dominated and we somehow ended up with a final 4 with all the other guys. :)
Click to expand...
It finally isn’t that big of a deal
Back in the 2 team era putting two teams in made SEC win a national title automatically.
Then the next year they needed to be rated high because they won X of the last X national titles

In the 4 team era putting two in really gamed the system into its own confirmation bias


At least in a 12 team system if bama doesn’t deserve to be there they’ll simply lose
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I would not be opposed to a 3 losses and you're out rule.
Click to expand...

What if there aren't 12 teams with less than 3 losses?

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I know folks would be upset about how it impacts scheduling but it's pretty fucking clear the committee doesn't give a rats ass about strength of schedule in some cases anyway.
Click to expand...
No offense directed towards you, but how is anything clear? Kinda sarcastic, but still...?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom