We need to figure out a way that we just have no ACC teams in.
Is there a scenario where we still back into the playoffs?
- Thread starter spidermayin
- Start date
Yep. The BCS was the most objective and fair system.
just wait until we expand again and all conference winners get included.
who doesn't want to see uga take on Miami, Ohio?
Let's petition for playoff games to have the total purse paid out in point percentage.
80 points total and UGA scores 63 of that. That'll pay M-Ohio a whopping 21%, but hey, it'll still be a program booster!
I heard a bunch of talking heads yesterday basically put out the argument that "Well, if we push SMU out with a loss, think of the repercussions! No one would want to play the conference championship games".
However, what I don't hear is what my counterpoint to that would be, which is, what would the repercussions be of leaving IU and SMU in the field? To me, it says that teams like Alabama, etc., should immediately change their schedules (i.e. - remove FSU and Wisconsin next year and replace them with Wake Forest and Purdue) since the only thing that matters is the record.
I had thought that we were told that the 12-team playoff would "encourage" better non-conference games. Instead, I think that if the committee puts in IU and SMU (and, quite honestly ND), what they are really telling teams is to schedule the worst teams that you can to pad your record.
However, what I don't hear is what my counterpoint to that would be, which is, what would the repercussions be of leaving IU and SMU in the field? To me, it says that teams like Alabama, etc., should immediately change their schedules (i.e. - remove FSU and Wisconsin next year and replace them with Wake Forest and Purdue) since the only thing that matters is the record.
I had thought that we were told that the 12-team playoff would "encourage" better non-conference games. Instead, I think that if the committee puts in IU and SMU (and, quite honestly ND), what they are really telling teams is to schedule the worst teams that you can to pad your record.
I love how no one is making the argument for Boise State to get in even with a loss. It shows how a lot of these people are disingenuous.
While I do miss the BCS ranking system (and the BCS itself), I have come to believe that the BCS computers and system is now a bit antiquated. To be clear though I'd take the BCS over the committee any day. For the record Alabama's BCS computer score is 10th.
However, these computers date back to the 90s or earlier, and are from an era where there were more power conferences but less college football teams. Back then everything skewed heavily on wins and losses. Not all of those computers are keeping up with the super-conference era.
Sagarin's system holds up well, but some of them are literally smoking crack. I say this as arguably the biggest defender of the BCS here.
Here's an actual BCS computer ranking:
#5 SMU
#6 Ohio State
#7 Indiana
#8 Georgia
#9 Boise State
#10 BYU
#11 Iowa State
If you go oh well may be they're just confused... here's another one
#6 SMU
#7 Indiana
#8 Georgia
#9 Boise State
#10 Iowa State
Wait, we have one more
#6 SMU
#7 Georgia
#8 Indiana
#9 BYU
#10 Boise State
#11 Miami
#12 Iowa State
Despite these absurd rankings, the BCS is still better than the committee so that should say something about the entire process.
But, if you look at FPI, a modern computer aggregate, Sagarin, etc... you see that there are clearly some older ranking systems that need to go in the trash heap because they're not built to appreciate the diversity of opponents and default to who has the most wins.
Last edited:
That might be subconsciously possible, but I always thought it had more to do with not wanting an immediate Michigan vs Ohio State rematch.
Our only chance at that playoff was if K-State had won a 50-point wipeout.
I think the FPI is a terrible ranking. Oregon is 6th in the current ranking and Ohio State is 3rd, it even has us at #4. There is no world where that should be the case. USC is 18. I have no idea what goes into that ranking, but it has always had extremely questionable results. My guess is it puts way too much weight into roster talent.
Computers will do weird things, you can't judge them entirely in isolation. The list I posted showed a pattern of antiquated computers over-rating teams with better winning records (Georgia below Indiana and SMU) but the quirks otherwise are part of the feature.
You absolutely need something to blend them together into something more palatable and even then I think there should be a human element. Having said that, if (modern) computers start saying something it is worth looking at why they might be saying that. Humans could be missing something the data reveals.
Sagarin also has Ohio State over Oregon (which does not take rosters into the equations at all). I'm not going to jump too far into the fray there, but Oregon has played a fairly soft schedule as well so Oregon is arguably over-rated but of course one can question Ohio State being over them.
But, look at this ranking:
Composite College Football Power Rankings & Ratings
Calculated by aggregating computer generated college football power rankings from around the web and determining each team’s average ranking.
powerrankingsguru.com
We can disagree on the positions, but what's wrong with the teams in the top 12? Is anything wrong with it? That's probably the best list of top 12 teams if you ignore the positions that I've seen.
So, it's easy to look at computers and forget for a second they are computers and just go man I don't agree with that position, but if you zoom out a little you go wait they are getting a lot of things right. For instance even if we agree Alabama shouldn't be 4th or 5th, they also don't belong below teams like Boise State either.
If I take a computer ranking like that though and then I just blend it with the AP poll for instance (I also believe there should be a human element) , suddenly I get something like this:
#1 Texas
#2 Oregon
#3 Notre Dame
#4 Ohio State
#5 Georgia
Penn State
#7 Tennessee
#8 Alabama
#9 Indiana
SMU
#11 Ole Miss
#12 South Carolina
#13 Miami
Now, we can still argue a bit over those rankings, but it injects a good bit of logic to the rankings. You can see where it fixes some problems with the polls and values SoS over simply winning games. While I would personally swap a couple places around I think that might be the most accurate ranking relative to actually considering SoS I have seen. Perfect? Nope, but a step in the right direction...
No way Bama will be left out even if SMU loses a close one to Clemson. 3 Top 25 wins for the Crimson Tide and none for SMU if they lose.
Not only that - what about Clemson? It's a CFP play-in game for them - think they want to sit out the ACCCG?
Unfortunately Greg McElroy was one of them which really surprised me.
It just isn't right for a 3 loss team like Clemson (if they beat SMU) to have a bye.
The whole thing is preposterous!
The whole thing is preposterous!
There definitely needs to be some changes to the rules.
I'm with you there. It's perfectly fine with me if the conference champions get automatic bids, but there shouldn't be automatic byes. If the ACC and B12 champions are not ranked in the top 4, they have no business getting a bye. If they're not in the top 8, they should have to play an away game in the first round. Seems pretty simple to me.
2024 Penn State has to be one of the most ignored and dismissed 11-1 No. 3 ranked teams in recent years.
I do not want Alabama to have to travel there in round 1.
I do not want Alabama to have to travel there in round 1.
TideFans.shop - 25% off Fan Favorites!
TideFans.shop - 25% off!
Get this and many more items at our TideFans.shop!
Purchases may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
Yahoo: Jalen Milroe: 'That's why I play football, just to touch people'
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
Yahoo: David Pollack Names SEC Team That Could End College Football Playoff Drought
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0