Are Total Wins All That Will Matter? (Selection Committee Concern Cont.)

I am not going to allow myself to get worked up until/unless there is something to get worked up over. Makes for interesting conversation, but not a concern to me at this point.

As for your specific concerns - I don't think it will play out like that but we will have to wait and see. But, even if it does during an odd year, the new system will be no worse than the current system. The two best teams will still make the 4 team pool and have a shot at the championship.

If you want to be sure to get in, don't lose. One of the things that I love about college football - every game matters.

It's more than just total wins that matter. I think Wichita State's Final Four run last year gave them a bit more credibility this year. Similar to Boise State's Fiesta Bowl win giving them credibility in subsequent years that resulted in higher rankings.

So while total wins may have been a factor, it wasn't the only factor.

Like B1G posted, it's hard to get worked up just yet, since we don't really know how the selection committee is going to rate teams.

But if I was going to worry, I'd be more worried about the seeding of Virginia. According to Wake Forrest's AD (chairman of the selection committee), UVA's conference championships (regular season and the tournament) trumped the higher RPIs of Villanova when it came to seeding. In a tournament the size of the basketball tournament that's not a huge deal. But if we are talking about the difference between team 4 and team 5 in football, do conference championships beat better record in a better conference?

That will be interesting to watch.

It's not all that matters. Basketball and football are quite different. Since the basketball season is a marathon, I don't care what conference you are in, going 34-0 is an accomplishment - much moreso than going 12-0 in football. I mean, the last team to enter the tournament undefeated was 23 years ago - UNLV. Mid-majors go undefeated almost every year in football.

A 12-0 Cincinnati type-team may replace the #4 team. The playoff committee would never put two undefeated mid-majors over one-loss BCS conference champions. While I am highly skeptical about the ability of the committee to pick the best teams, if they picked Boise State and Cincinnati, it would be a death wish for the playoff. Fans of Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida State, etc., would be traveling to the bowl locations giving them their money while the playoff folks couldn't fill seats.

SoS will be a factor, but an undefeated season will be rewarded. However, a one-loss SEC champion will get precedence over an undefeated Conference USA champ - just like a 2-loss SEC champion got the preference over undefeated Wichita State (For the #1 overall seed). Undefeated may get you there, but big conferences will still get the favor.

alwayshavebeen said:

I have been pretty adamant on here about my concerns with the new football selection committee. (Not who is on it, but the entire notion this is better than the BCS standings). While we don't know that much about the process yet, and it is a bit of apple to orange comparison -take a hard look at what happened yesterday with the NCAA Basketball selections. Wichita St. #1 seed with nation’s 94th ranked strength of schedule! I heard over and over the experts talking about looking at the number of wins. Sure it is impressive that a team goes 32-0 or whatever, but who in the world did they beat? Look at who got bumped to #2 seeds Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas and Villinova. In football, does this leave open the possibility that a team such as Cincinatti could go 12-0 and march their way in to our football final four leaving out a 11-1 team from a power conference? If so, doesn't that mean that every team in the SEC should be getting on the phone and cancelling every future game against solid programs and loading up with cup cakes? It's darn near impossible to run the table in the SEC, and win the SECCG, and beat top tier teams from other conferences. Pretty concerned about this whole thing.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what will happen with a committee, and why I hate it. Just wait and see....

alwayshavebeen said:

I have been pretty adamant on here about my concerns with the new football selection committee. (Not who is on it, but the entire notion this is better than the BCS standings). While we don't know that much about the process yet, and it is a bit of apple to orange comparison -take a hard look at what happened yesterday with the NCAA Basketball selections. Wichita St. #1 seed with nation’s 94th ranked strength of schedule! I heard over and over the experts talking about looking at the number of wins. Sure it is impressive that a team goes 32-0 or whatever, but who in the world did they beat? Look at who got bumped to #2 seeds Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas and Villinova. In football, does this leave open the possibility that a team such as Cincinatti could go 12-0 and march their way in to our football final four leaving out a 11-1 team from a power conference? If so, doesn't that mean that every team in the SEC should be getting on the phone and cancelling every future game against solid programs and loading up with cup cakes? It's darn near impossible to run the table in the SEC, and win the SECCG, and beat top tier teams from other conferences. Pretty concerned about this whole thing.

Click to expand...

Wichita State went to the final 4 last year after beating pitt, Gonzaga and ohio state on the way. they only lost to Louisville by 4 in the semis and they have a combined record over the last 2 years of 64-9. I see no problem with them having a #1 seed.

That's actually not the part that really made me uneasy. The part I really didn't like was the committee checking in on injury status before seeding a team.

Health should be of no concern at all! They should not be picking who they think will win, they should be picking based on the body of work. It spits in the face of what a team has accomplished to demote them not because of what they did on the field, but because of who is healthy. This extends to not counting a loss because of an injury. Alabama doesn't have to give back the championship because Colt got hurt, you don't get a do-over in the playoff, so whether or not an injury factored into a loss should be irrelevant.

alwayshavebeen said:

"Wichita State went to the final 4 last year after beating pitt, Gonzaga and ohio state on the way. they only lost to Louisville by 4 in the semis and they have a combined record over the last 2 years of 64-9. I see no problem with them having a #1 seed."

You might change your mind when only 4 instead of 68 teams have a chance of winning the National Championship. BTW what does last year have to do with it?

Click to expand...

I was responding specifically to the point being illustrated by Wichita State, which I do not believe is a very good illustration. Last year matters in the context of this discussion because the initial insinuation was that Wichita State going undefeated this season was unconvincing. When you consider that this team has lost to only the national champion in its last 40 games, that means quite a lot. It makes just as much sense to consider their final 4 run from last year as it does to rank Florida State or Alabama #1 or #2 next season simply because they were really good last year.

That said, I wouldn't have a problem if (let's use Cincinnati since it's been used in this thread) Cincinnati got invited to the college football playoff over a 1 or 2 loss SEC team after it won a BCS game one year (I think it's fair to equate a bcs win with a final four appearance) and then went undefeated the following year. considering that a team like that would have to basically go undefeated (or at worst go something like 26-1) over two entire seasons, I would have no problem with it

Well - as long as we don't see another situation such as Notre Dame getting into a championship game year before last that they had no business being in....I'm good to go.

Let's see what happens. It could be a positive.

Bazza said:

Well - as long as we don't see another situation such as Notre Dame getting into a championship game year before last that they had no business being in....I'm good to go.

Let's see what happens. It could be a positive.

Click to expand...

but they're Notre Dame and they're "good" for college football.

It's really hard to say because we haven't seen it in action yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BamaJama17 said:

It's really hard to say because we haven't seen it in action yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

the only thing we know for sure is that there will be half a dozen teams that complain that they got jobbed.

davefrat said:

the only thing we know for sure is that there will be half a dozen teams that complain that they got jobbed.

Click to expand...

Yeah we're taking one loss teams right. Then the "expand it to 8" and so on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

alwayshavebeen said:

I understand what you are saying...we just disagree on some hypothetical situations that will occur sooner or later. I hope it doesn't bite Alabama or even other SEC schools who stumble one time with the conference schedule we all play. That would be unjust IMO. Bottom line to my entire point is - I wish they had kept a BCS like formula with the 4-team playoff.

Click to expand...

Considering that Wichita State is ranked #2 in both human polls and is #4 in the RPI computer rankings, they would have been in even with the BCS formula.

It's all about control and money. The NCAA gets most of it's money from tv. TV wants games that attract the most viewers. It's not about the obvious choices, the problem is gonna be the not so obvious choices. A couple of years ago during the Okie St./Bama debate the BCS chose Bama. TV and the PTB at the NCAA didn't like it, so what did they do? Change the process so the outcome can be controlled. This committee can be controlled a lot easier than the BCS. Plus they have several variables (injuries,conference champs, etc.) to use as excuses, err, I mean reasons to include or exclude teams.

Suppose next year there are three undefeated obvious choices, with say four one-loss teams battling for that last spot. Who's gonna get it? The best team, or the team tv thinks will draw best. They're not always the same team. Then there will be an outcry to expand to eight. The we'll have four 2-loss teams trying for that last spot, etc.,etc.,etc. Look at the I-AA playoffs. They started in 1978 with four teams. Four years later they went to 8. Five years later 12. Nine years later 16. Now they're at 24.

I think this committee will come back to bite the SEC (and by default Bama). Afterall, the stranglehold of SEC teams caused it.