Video: Pate on the CFP rankings 11/25
- Thread starter Cruloc
- Start date
Yep, Bama is in a tough spot.
I don't even like some of the other ranked teams (Miami for example), but some of these teams are getting bad treatment, not just Bama. I really only care about Bama though. I think they should either get rid of the committee or re-do the entire committee.
I think we should get rid of the SEC Championship Game. It seems to be a liability these days, not a reward.
BYU does have a better strength of schedule and strength of record than Notre Dame.
SOS:
Bama - 9
BYU - 27
Notre Dame - 34
Miami - 48
SOR:
BYU - 6
Bama - 9
Notre Dame - 12
Miami - 15
BYU will finish 11-1 and get a rematch vs Texas Tech, who will also be 11-1. Tech won the 1st matchup 29-7. Outgained BYU by over 100 yards. BYU also had 2 fumbles and an interception. Tech won the turnover margin 3-0.
Texas Tech hasn't been challenged outside of the BYU game and their one loss vs Arizona State. All their other games have been comfortable margins.
Notre Dame has played some of the worst defenses in college football. Purdue, Arkansas, NC State, Boston College, Syracuse.....all have putrid defenses.
There are 136 teams in FCS.
A 128-team playoff would take 7 rounds.
Today, most P4 teams play 12 regular season games. Then there's conference championships for some, followed by possibly 4 games in the playoff. Total possible games 17.
Play 10 regular season games, eliminate conference championships, and seed teams according to the old BCS formula. For teams ranked too low to qualify for all BCS metrics (i.e., human polls), they're seeded by a consensus of the computer models in the BCS, down to #128.
The bottom 8 are left out of the playoff -- hope nobody thinks that's too harsh.
Games are played at the home field of the higher seed. Win and advance; lose and your season's over.
Maximum of 17 games for the champion, same as today.
It's absurd, but no more absurd than expanding again and guaranteeing conferences a minimum number of places (looking at you, B1G), or playing a soft schedule, not having to worry about any conference championship game, and riding mystique into the playoff (looking at you, Notre Dame).
So I can't decide whether any or all of it should be in blue font. Take your pick.
A 128-team playoff would take 7 rounds.
Today, most P4 teams play 12 regular season games. Then there's conference championships for some, followed by possibly 4 games in the playoff. Total possible games 17.
Play 10 regular season games, eliminate conference championships, and seed teams according to the old BCS formula. For teams ranked too low to qualify for all BCS metrics (i.e., human polls), they're seeded by a consensus of the computer models in the BCS, down to #128.
The bottom 8 are left out of the playoff -- hope nobody thinks that's too harsh.
Games are played at the home field of the higher seed. Win and advance; lose and your season's over.
Maximum of 17 games for the champion, same as today.
It's absurd, but no more absurd than expanding again and guaranteeing conferences a minimum number of places (looking at you, B1G), or playing a soft schedule, not having to worry about any conference championship game, and riding mystique into the playoff (looking at you, Notre Dame).
So I can't decide whether any or all of it should be in blue font. Take your pick.
Last edited:
I don't like the committee's decisions either. But as regards Alabama, I see it a bit differently.
If we beat the barn, we're in. We won't be in the Top 4 anyway, so we won't have a bye regardless. The only question is whether we'd host the first round playoff game. That would require a 5-8 seeding, and it'd be close whether that would happen.
If we lose to the barn, we're likely out. And with 3 regular-season losses, I really wouldn't have a problem with that.
If we hadn't yakked up a hairball against FSU or turned the ball over against OU, we wouldn't be in this position. We put ourselves here.
Last edited:
Pate is right. The day a 3 loss SEC championship game loser doesn't make it it is the day the SECCG should be eliminated.
That whole idea brings up some interesting questions:
What is the risk that any team in any conference championship game -- in no way limited to the SEC -- could play themselves out of the playoff?
Are conference championship games factored in at all? Regardless of whether they are or not, should they be? Side Note: The committee has been deafeningly non-committal on this point. I expect they'll use CCG results like they do a lot of other stuff -- inconsistently and with an opaque process.
How would they handle a situation where a multi-loss P4 team upsets an undefeated or maybe a 1-loss opponent in a conference championship? Does the multi-loss team get into the playoff simply by virtue of being a P4 conference champ?
Not liking to point out a problem without offering a solution, here's my take: For purposes of determining CFP participation, conference championship games shouldn't be factored in at all. CFP participation should be based on the body of work for the season as a whole. You cannot help or hurt your chances for the CFP, or your seeding, in a conference championship game.
So if there's a 3-4 loss team that upsets its way into a conference championship, that doesn't get them into the CFP. A 2-loss team that is in the Top 12 immediately before its CCG doesn't get bounced or even downgraded seeding for losing a CCG. They retain whatever spot they had prior to the CCG.
The field and seeding for the CFP should be determined immediately after the regular season, before CCGs are played. The obvious corollary is that there are no guaranteed spots. Which is how I think it should be.
No guaranteed spots, not even for P4 conference champs. No spots allocated to G6 teams. You must play your way in (or out) over the course of a season.
So sez me. Strangely, the committee hasn't called for my opinion.
Last edited:
Why wait, I would love to see the SEC come out with an announcement that this is the last year of the SECCG.
Guys.. unless the SEC runner up is left out then there is 0 chance they get rid of the SECCG. Also getting rid of it adds alot more controversy than it solves. Take this year for example. Let’s say aTm finishes off Texas, Vandy beats Tennessee, and Alabama beats Auburn… aTm would have only beaten 1 SEC team in the top 10 of SEC rankings and would have only played 2 in the top 10 of SEC rankings. Bama meanwhile would have gone 5-1 vs the SEC top 10. So by taking the SECCG component out you are doing 2 things… 1) you are rewarding bad schedules and 2) you are leaving champions up to the committee. This is the prime reason that I’ve wanted divisions or pods once we expanded to 16.
Mega conferences have caused this issue since schedules can now be very lopsided. Look at 8&4...they played 7 of the 8 lowest SEC teams...Ohio st..played NONE of their top 4 teams..Indiana played one..and then you have the ACC/B12 with mediocrity top to bottom because they had to fill their conference slots with mid-major teams basically. Now its nigh on impossible to judge teams equally...but the committee still says one team who wins 8-9 games vs sub 500 teams are better than a 1 or 2 loss team who played 5+ ranked teams...unfortunately there is no logical way out the way the system stacks up today.....and the fact the committee are using their "eyeballs" and not metrics apparently. In the land of the Blind, the one eyed man is king....or the CFP committee in this case
The committee gets worse and worse every season. When it started they went out of their way to way to not rock the boat, get people on board with the system. Now they are blatantly just winging it and there is zero consistency.
I think arguments could be made for and against putting a 3 loss team in the CFBP
I personally don’t like the idea of it under normal circumstances.
It feels like there would have to be enough chaos around CFB that you literally couldn’t fill out the bracket without choosing a 10-3 or 9-3 team.
That chaos hasn’t happened yet.
There are about 16-17 teams right now with 2 or less losses competing for 12 spots.
As far as we go losing to A&M in a vacuum isn’t a bad thing.
Losing to OU shouldn’t have happened at home at all but it doesn’t look horrible because their record is better than they are… they could easily be 6-5 instead of 9-2
But we just can’t ignore having arguably one of the worst losses of any team in contention in that FSU game.
It’s potentially being 10-3 with 1 loss that shouldn’t happen and 1 loss that’s just horrendously inexcusable.
Probably the best thing to do is just eliminate the ‘Kickoff’ game that starts the season.
Just go 9 SEC games and 3 FCS games.
I’ll be really surprised for the SECCG to go away other than it somehow knocking out a team at 11-2… but that seems highly unlikely.
What it does is open the door for teams (whose record allows it) to purposely throw a regular season game to secure a spot in the playoff but not have to play in the SECCG.
Not really. They put one loss OSU, who won their conference championship 59-0, at 4 over…..one loss Baylor and one loss TCU.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Bobcats put Smith on leave, Hauser named interim- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Kiffin ready to make LSU nation's 'best program'
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Sources: BYU coach Sitake focus of PSU search
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
ESPN: Miami AD: ACC should revisit tiebreaker system
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-