Who should get the last CFP spot? Ohio State or Alabama?

Who should get the last CFP spot? Ohio State or Alabama?

  • Ohio State should get in the CFP

    Votes: 42 62.7%

  • Alabama should get in the CFP

    Votes: 25 37.3%
  • Total voters
    67
Donate To GopherHole
DEGopher said:
Here is what you really need to know. Last year they bumped a 1 loss OhSt over a 2 loss conference champion PSU. The same logic was used this year to put Bama in over OhSt. The committee needed to be consistent and they were.
Click to expand...

This is where I will disagree a little bit. Here's why: Last year Ohio St was ranked #2 going into the final weekend of games. After the final weekend (where they did not play) the Buckeyes moved DOWN to #3. Obviously still good enough to make the playoff, but they did move down in the rankings.

Alabama actually moved UP in the rankings without playing a game. They are the first team to go from out of the top 4 to being in the playoff without playing a game on the final weekend. Bama benefited from not making their conference championship game.

That's the part I have a little bit of a problem with. I don't think losing a conference championship game should be able to hurt a team when other teams don't have to play in them. I'd feel better about it if Bama were #4 going into the final weekend, and maintained their position without playing a game.

I'm satisfied with the result, as I think Alabama deserved to be in the playoff, but I don't like the way the committee got them there.
 

I'd still argue that a 4 team playoff is still miles better than a 2 team playoff which was twice as good as just naming a national champion based on games played with no head to head competition.

We are hung up on who should be the 4th. Big Whoop, top three are spot on an 4th seed will likely be in the rear view mirror after Jan 1. Still get the top teams playing each other and I don't see the need for expansion.

In the old system Ohio State, USC would have had no shot at being named national champs with 2 losses. If committee is using that as the yard stick to measure who should be in, then Alabama is the correct pick for 4th.
 

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Ultimately this is one of those years where more than 4 teams are legitimate contenders. All of the selectees have flaws as in bad losses, or a weak resume as in Alabama’s case. Even if AL ultimately proves to be the best team they played one less game than Ohio State and didn’t beat any top tier teams.
 

“I am not saying #USC is one of the best four teams in the country. The playoff committee is a joke. Paging Larry Scott.”


All you had to say.
 


It'd be great for Ohio State and USC to be joining the other P5 champions Clemson, Oklahoma, and Georgia. Plus Alabama and Wisconsin as the two best non-champs, and UCF as the best G5. It would be fun.

Just won't be happening any time soon.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Ultimately this is one of those years where more than 4 teams are legitimate contenders. All of the selectees have flaws as in bad losses, or a weak resume as in Alabama’s case. Even if AL ultimately proves to be the best team they played one less game than Ohio State and didn’t beat any top tier teams.
Click to expand...

Agree. All contenders for the 4 spot had some flaw. Personally, I think OSU should have gotten the 4 because if you remove the name Alabama & replace it with some non-blueblood school, the 2 top-10 wins by OSU would take bigger weight than no bad losses, but no win over a team in the top 15. But OSU has nobody to blame but themselves for their loss at Iowa. Not the biggest injustice in sports history to not include OSU.
 

bizzle22 said:
This is where I will disagree a little bit. Here's why: Last year Ohio St was ranked #2 going into the final weekend of games. After the final weekend (where they did not play) the Buckeyes moved DOWN to #3. Obviously still good enough to make the playoff, but they did move down in the rankings.

Alabama actually moved UP in the rankings without playing a game. They are the first team to go from out of the top 4 to being in the playoff without playing a game on the final weekend. Bama benefited from not making their conference championship game.

That's the part I have a little bit of a problem with. I don't think losing a conference championship game should be able to hurt a team when other teams don't have to play in them. I'd feel better about it if Bama were #4 going into the final weekend, and maintained their position without playing a game.

I'm satisfied with the result, as I think Alabama deserved to be in the playoff, but I don't like the way the committee got them there.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. I have no issue with Ohio State not going, but if the committee had auburn ranked ahead of Bama last week how are they still not?
They lost a rematch to a team that is better than any team Bama beat all year and now their win over Bama doesn’t count? If the SEC got two, had to be Auburn. Auburn should’ve boycotted SEC title game, they’d be in the playoff and out some money.
 

The biggest error with the rankings is that teams got penalized worse for being in a conference Championship and losing (whether close or not), as if it' was just a regular game.

These conference championships aren't just regular games. You're playing the top or second best team in the conference.

Moving the third place team over the 1st or 2nd place team because they lost is wrong.

Just like WI was above Alabama. They lose and now they are instantly worse that Bama, who they were better than just a week ago.
 



Seems like an undefeated UCF should have gotten a shot instead of a flawed and already once defeated AND non-champion Alabama.

So what are the selection committee criteria?

Wins and losses? (nope)
Strength of schedule? (nope)
Advanced stats? (nope)
Conference champion? (nope)

Power five status? (yep)
Specifically, SEC member (yep)
Eye test? (yep)
Reputation? (yep)
Saban? (Yep)
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Seems like an undefeated UCF should have gotten a shot instead of a flawed and already once defeated AND non-champion Alabama.

So what are the selection committee criteria?

Wins and losses? (nope)
Strength of schedule? (nope)
Advanced stats? (nope)
Conference champion? (nope)

Power five status? (yep)
Specifically, SEC member (yep)
Eye test? (yep)
Reputation? (yep)
Saban? (Yep)
Click to expand...

Protocol listed here
 


Goldmember said:
The committee clearly no longer follows this protocol at all.
Click to expand...

No Kidding. The third bullet point wasn't used at all in determining who was better choice between Auburn, Alabama, USC and OSU, because if they had, Bama would have been 4th between all those teams as the other three won championships and Bama won nothing.
 



Buck_Buchanan said:
Protocol listed here
Click to expand...

That’s a pretty frustrating document. It doesn’t really explain any of the particulars and the devil is always in the details.

How much is each factor weighted? Is there a formula? How is strength of schedule determined? Why isn’t margin of victory or advanced analytics used?

Bill Connelly goes into the CFP selections and their flawed approach here: https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...otball-strength-of-schedule-rankings-2017-sos
 

A big issue for me right now is the diffence in conference games. It should be the same across conferences.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom