Never Listen To Playoff Pundits Who Emphasize That Conference Title Thing

selmaborntidefan · Jul 23, 2017

Searching through the internets and came upon an article by Barrett Sallee....

The only way would be in the doomsday scenario mentioned above where Ole Miss also wins out and finishes the season at 11-2 (7-1 SEC) with an SEC title in hand. In that case, Ole Miss would get the benefit of a conference championship and a win over Alabama to show off to the College Football Playoff selection committee, while Alabama would be stuck without as much as a division title and that September loss to the Rebels hanging over its head.

I'm not sure if Ole Miss would get in given that scenario, because a lot would depend on what else happened around the country. But I'm positive Alabama would not.

What we now know thanks to Ohio State last year - this was never true. I realize a lot of people thought it, and it did sound reasonable given Mouth Delaney's comments. But it was the same scenario Alabama would have had, and we played a much tougher schedule in 2015 than OSU did in 2016.

One thing I CAN admit - the committee has gone 12 for 12 so far in the four-team selections, they really have.

My only problem is the subjectivity of how they can do it.

gtgilbert · Jul 26, 2017

selmaborntidefan said:
Searching through the internets and came upon an article by Barrett Sallee....

The only way would be in the doomsday scenario mentioned above where Ole Miss also wins out and finishes the season at 11-2 (7-1 SEC) with an SEC title in hand. In that case, Ole Miss would get the benefit of a conference championship and a win over Alabama to show off to the College Football Playoff selection committee, while Alabama would be stuck without as much as a division title and that September loss to the Rebels hanging over its head.

I'm not sure if Ole Miss would get in given that scenario, because a lot would depend on what else happened around the country. But I'm positive Alabama would not.

What we now know thanks to Ohio State last year - this was never true. I realize a lot of people thought it, and it did sound reasonable given Mouth Delaney's comments. But it was the same scenario Alabama would have had, and we played a much tougher schedule in 2015 than OSU did in 2016.

One thing I CAN admit - the committee has gone 12 for 12 so far in the four-team selections, they really have.

My only problem is the subjectivity of how they can do it.

12 for 12? Even Michigan State for 2015? Surely there was someone better. Same thoughts on Washington 2016.

selmaborntidefan · Jul 26, 2017

gtgilbert said:
12 for 12? Even Michigan State for 2015? Surely there was someone better.

If there was someone better then whom?

gtgilbert said:
Same thoughts on Washington 2016.

Once again , whom?

TideEngineer08 · Jul 26, 2017

gtgilbert said:
12 for 12? Even Michigan State for 2015? Surely there was someone better. Same thoughts on Washington 2016.

Better? Perhaps. More deserving? Doubtful.

Sure, USC was a better team at the end of the year than Washington last season. But they had lost 3 games.

tide96 · Jul 26, 2017

selmaborntidefan said:
What we now know thanks to Ohio State last year - this was never true. I realize a lot of people thought it, and it did sound reasonable given Mouth Delaney's comments. But it was the same scenario Alabama would have had, and we played a much tougher schedule in 2015 than OSU did in 2016.

One thing I CAN admit - the committee has gone 12 for 12 so far in the four-team selections, they really have.

Who knows. Because it was Alabama who got it without winning its division in 2011, there might have been a bigger campaign to keep them out. I still think Penn State should have got in over Ohio State.

skrayper77 · Jul 26, 2017

selmaborntidefan said:
Searching through the internets and came upon an article by Barrett Sallee....

The only way would be in the doomsday scenario mentioned above where Ole Miss also wins out and finishes the season at 11-2 (7-1 SEC) with an SEC title in hand. In that case, Ole Miss would get the benefit of a conference championship and a win over Alabama to show off to the College Football Playoff selection committee, while Alabama would be stuck without as much as a division title and that September loss to the Rebels hanging over its head.

I'm not sure if Ole Miss would get in given that scenario, because a lot would depend on what else happened around the country. But I'm positive Alabama would not.

What we now know thanks to Ohio State last year - this was never true. I realize a lot of people thought it, and it did sound reasonable given Mouth Delaney's comments. But it was the same scenario Alabama would have had, and we played a much tougher schedule in 2015 than OSU did in 2016.

One thing I CAN admit - the committee has gone 12 for 12 so far in the four-team selections, they really have.

My only problem is the subjectivity of how they can do it.

12 for 12?

Honestly, only one semi-final match has been a good game - Alabama vs Ohio State in 2014. The last two years Alabama and Clemson have won their semifinal matchups by an average of 33-6, and if throw in the Oregon vs FSU matchup from 2014, it's 38-9. The closest margin was 17 points.

Based on the actual games, the only ones we know they got right were Alabama (2014-16), OSU (2014), Clemson (2015-16)

I'm not saying there were more qualified teams out there. I'm just saying that we cannot be certain they get all 12 right if so many of the matchups are so lopsided (including the fact that none of the losing teams ever scored more than 20 - while all winning teams scored at least 24 - and there were two shutouts and another where the losing team only had one score).

The Ols · Jul 26, 2017

Easy to say after the games have been played. Beforehand though, Selma's right...so far they have been pretty darn good with the picks. Results...not so much... RTR!!!

skrayper77 said:
12 for 12?

Honestly, only one semi-final match has been a good game - Alabama vs Ohio State in 2014. The last two years Alabama and Clemson have won their semifinal matchups by an average of 33-6, and if throw in the Oregon vs FSU matchup from 2014, it's 38-9. The closest margin was 17 points.

Based on the actual games, the only ones we know they got right were Alabama (2014-16), OSU (2014), Clemson (2015-16)

I'm not saying there were more qualified teams out there. I'm just saying that we cannot be certain they get all 12 right if so many of the matchups are so lopsided (including the fact that none of the losing teams ever scored more than 20 - while all winning teams scored at least 24 - and there were two shutouts and another where the losing team only had one score).

KrAzY3 · Jul 26, 2017

I don't like the committee, I don't think it needs to exist. I was fine with the BCS formula. Having said that, I have argued all along that the committee would have a hard time leaving out a clearly more qualified team and so far they've actually done the right thing. It's inclusive, backwards thinking people that want to push multiple loss conference champions on us.

UntouchableCrew · Jul 26, 2017

TideEngineer08 said:
Better? Perhaps. More deserving? Doubtful.

That's my attitude. Realistically I think Michigan State was the 3rd best team in the B1G in 2015, but hey, they beat Ohio State and Michigan, had one flukey loss and won the conference. How could you leave them out?
TBH the only "questionable" decisions were including Ohio State over Baylor (which was obviously the right decision in hindsight) and including Ohio State over Penn State, (which was fair given the circumstances.)

KrAzY3 · Jul 26, 2017

UntouchableCrew said:
I think Michigan State was the 3rd best team in the B1G in 2015, but hey, they beat Ohio State and Michigan, had one flukey loss and won the conference. How could you leave them out?

I remember there ended up being a few years in a row in which USC was the "best team" in football as far as a lot of people were concerned. They had a ton of talent, they obviously had a good team, but they were finding a way to lose games and fall out of contention for a championship. At the end of the day, wins and losses matter. Not just who you lose to either, but whether or not you lose. Conference championships as criteria end up being flawed because they count some games more than others. You can't do that and properly evaluate a team, you can't just say ok let's forget out of conference, alright now lets make these games count more than those. You just can't do that. Beyond that though, luck and all of that is just part of the game. At the end of the day, either a team got it done on the field or they didn't. It should be about the best resume, not the best team.

TideEngineer08 · Jul 26, 2017

KrAzY3 said:
I remember there ended up being a few years in a row in which USC was the "best team" in football as far as a lot of people were concerned. They had a ton of talent, they obviously had a good team, but they were finding a way to lose games and fall out of contention for a championship. At the end of the day, wins and losses matter. Not just who you lose to either, but whether or not you lose. Conference championships as criteria end up being flawed because they count some games more than others. You can't do that and properly evaluate a team, you can't just say ok let's forget out of conference, alright now lets make these games count more than those. You just can't do that. Beyond that though, luck and all of that is just part of the game. At the end of the day, either a team got it done on the field or they didn't. It should be about the best resume, not the best team.

The whole conference champion thing works in other sports because they are able to include so many teams in their playoff fields. You can grant an auto bid to the conference champs in basketball, because they have 70 billion teams included in the playoff, and can guarantee all the deserving teams get in via all the at-large berths.

A 4 team playoff leaves no room for requiring a conference title, and frankly, neither does an 8 team field. But I hear a lot of clamoring for an 8 team field so we can grant auto-bids to the power 5 conference champs.

B1GTide · Jul 26, 2017

I don't really care if they get all 4 teams right every year as long as the two best teams are among those top 4. Having 4 teams gives us a greater chance of providing the best two teams with a shot every year, but it doesn't throw in so many teams that it makes the regular season any less meaningful.

And if some of the first round games have been blow-outs, that just means that they got the most important part right - they got the two best teams in, and they won handily because they were better. Do we really need more from a playoff system?

gtgilbert · Jul 26, 2017

selmaborntidefan said:
If there was someone better then whom?

Once again , whom?

2015 - ohio state. just a close loss to MSU and a way, way better team.

2016 - hate to say it, but chokelahoma would have provided a better matchup.

techster79 · Jul 26, 2017

gtgilbert said:
2015 - ohio state. just a close loss to MSU and a way, way better team.

Maybe they'd get more credit if not for scheduling 10 cream-puffs a year. :cool2:

81usaf92 · Jul 26, 2017

I still say that they will put 4 teams from 4 different conferences in there. Case and point is Oklahoma over tosu in 2015. There was no reason that Oklahoma should have been there over a defending national champ. Then you get another interesting situation in 2014 in which TCU actually had a stronger schedule going into to selection Sunday than tosu.

My point is they will always spread the wealth and make money the tie breaker.

colbysullivan · Jul 26, 2017

What I find hilarious about this whole thing is almost all the semifinal games have been bad games, proving that we don't actually need a playoff system in the first place. It's usually pretty obvious each year who the 2 best/most deserving teams are, so why do we even have this system?

colbysullivan · Jul 26, 2017

KrAzY3 said:
I remember there ended up being a few years in a row in which USC was the "best team" in football as far as a lot of people were concerned. They had a ton of talent, they obviously had a good team, but they were finding a way to lose games and fall out of contention for a championship. At the end of the day, wins and losses matter. Not just who you lose to either, but whether or not you lose. Conference championships as criteria end up being flawed because they count some games more than others. You can't do that and properly evaluate a team, you can't just say ok let's forget out of conference, alright now lets make these games count more than those. You just can't do that. Beyond that though, luck and all of that is just part of the game. At the end of the day, either a team got it done on the field or they didn't. It should be about the best resume, not the best team.

That's a fair assessment

B1GTide · Jul 26, 2017

colbysullivan said:
What I find hilarious about this whole thing is almost all the semifinal games have been bad games, proving that we don't actually need a playoff system in the first place. It's usually pretty obvious each year who the 2 best/most deserving teams are, so why do we even have this system?

Did we know who the best 2 teams were in 2014?

TideEngineer08 · Jul 26, 2017

colbysullivan said:
What I find hilarious about this whole thing is almost all the semifinal games have been bad games, proving that we don't actually need a playoff system in the first place. It's usually pretty obvious each year who the 2 best/most deserving teams are, so why do we even have this system?

Because the BCS was too logical. This is offensive to emotional people, and we are mostly emotional people. It's human nature.

It was logical that Alabama be selected above Oklahoma State in 2011, but everyone was ticked off because OK State won the Big 12 and Alabama did not win its division. There are other examples in the BCS era. In 2001, Nebraska got in without winning its division. They finished 11-1 that season, including an 11-0 start, but the one loss was the last game against Colorado and that was a 62-36 thrashing. So Colorado won the division on the head-to-head tie breaker, beat Texas in the Big 12 championship, but they had 2 losses earlier in the year. Oregon was the other possibility, and probably should have gotten the nod over Nebraska, as they also had one loss. But their lone loss was to Stanford, and that was seen as a lesser quality loss than Nebraska's to Colorado. Again, logic was applied, and it spit out a logical answer, and it ticked off emotional humans.

TideEngineer08 · Jul 26, 2017

B1GTide said:
Did we know who the best 2 teams were in 2014?

I would have greatly preferred the BCS model giving me an Alabama vs. Oregon NC game.

Never Listen To Playoff Pundits Who Emphasize That Conference Title Thing

TideFans Legend

All-American

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

All-SEC

All-American

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

All-SEC

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

All-American

All-American

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!