CFN Article - What if Bama and UGA both go 12-0?

selmaborntidefan said:

Let's see.....Penn State BEAT Ohio State head to head (that's one) and they won the B1G (that's two)......Ohio State SOS (6 vs 34) favors the Buckeyes SUBSTANTIALLY.......comparative outcomes


Rutgers - Ohio State by 58, Penn State by 39
Indiana - Ohio State by 21, PSU by 14
Michigan - Ohio State by 3, Penn State LOST by 39
Wisky - both teams beat by 7
Mich St - Ohio State by 1, PSU by 33

Ohio State 5-0, PSU 4-1


It seems to me the conference title game ONLY holds "significant weight" with the committee if it involves two teams with the same record.......

Click to expand...

That's been the point during this entire conversation. Most of the teams being considered for the last spot are all comparable i.e. 1 loss teams. So, by default, being a conference champion carries significant weight.

This is the easiest way to look at it. These two teams are vying for the last spot. Who gets in?

12-1 UGA SEC Champion
11-1 Alabama

12-1 UGA gets in every time because they're conference champions. Flip the teams and Alabama would get in. Conference championships matter..

81usaf92 said:

I still think to have two or more teams from one conference in the 4 team playoff there have to be either very weak 2 loss teams or a bunch of 3 loss champs. While tosu didn’t win their conference there was still 4 different conferences represented.

Click to expand...

Not sure what this statement has to do with the post you quoted. I agree that it'll be very difficult to get 2 teams from 1 conference in the playoff. As you say there would need to be multiple 2 loss conference champions for that to happen. Not out of the realm of possibility but unlikely..

CoolBreeze said:

I can dig what you are saying and I certainly am no luver of the lil bro team down south. BUT, from what I have seen on the field this year and the knowledge of home games in West Georgia I can tell you stats and record books are out. We will get all we want from them and, double digit favorites or not, our B game loses the contest.

Click to expand...

This board hashes this cliche out every single year and every single year if people actually LOOK at the data there has only been one TRUE upset in the entire history of the Iron Bowl, the 1984 game where 4-6 Alabama with the worst offense in the SEC beat an Auburn team that started the year at number one and was going to a second straight Sugar Bowl with a win.


Even the losses perceived as upsets - 1972, 1982, 2001, 2002, and 2013 - weren't "really" upsets in that there was no substantial difference in the teams (in 1972, for example, Auburn finished the year at 10-1, ranked #5, and won the Gator Bowl back when there were only 11 bowl games......it's pretty difficult to sell the idea that losing to a top five team is an upset, even if it did shock folks in the way it happened.....which is not really any different than 2013).

If Auburn enters the Iron Bowl as only a two-loss team (meaning they beat UGA) then a win by them at home even against an unbeaten Alabama team would hardly be an upset. I don't expect this to happen (ATM is pretty good so I can see Auburn with as few as 2 and as many as 5 losses).

But the comment about our B game is probably correct - if we don't show up to play at JHS, Auburn is likely good enough to beat us. I think some people forget the comment Rodney Orr made many years ago that I'll basically paraphrase - Auburn beating us gets them recognition and respect, for Alabama it's just another game on the schedule that you need to win to win bigger things. It makes Auburn's year if they beat us - we're more scared to lose than we are happy to win it.

81usaf92 said:

I still think to have two or more teams from one conference in the 4 team playoff there have to be either very weak 2 loss teams or a bunch of 3 loss champs. While tosu didn’t win their conference there was still 4 different conferences represented.

Click to expand...

And the perception was that Ohio St was one of the four best teams in the country.

Haven't read all the pages...but what if a 2 loss UGA wins the SEC over what becomes a 1 loss UA?

For what it's worth -- Joey Galloway and Kirk Herbstreit both said that they see no scenario -- out side of losing 2 games -- that UA is not in the playoffs.

They were singing CNS' praises last night...best recruiting video I have seen. We ought to show it to every recruit who walks through the door.

Look at the remaining schedule for the teams listed in the AP top 20. It's not out of question that teams beat up on each other and cause chaos for the committee.

Still too early for fans to worry about a rematch in the playoff, though.

CrimsonForce said:

That's been the point during this entire conversation. Most of the teams being considered for the last spot are all comparable i.e. 1 loss teams. So, by default, being a conference champion carries significant weight.

This is the easiest way to look at it. These two teams are vying for the last spot. Who gets in?

12-1 UGA SEC Champion
11-1 Alabama

12-1 UGA gets in every time because they're conference champions. Flip the teams and Alabama would get in. Conference championships matter..

Click to expand...

The flaw in this argument, however, is the two teams DON'T have the same record.

12-1 is not the same as 11-1.

And if you don't believe me, go ask 1989 or 1993 Notre Dame about it.

Let's be clear - I'm not saying the conference championship is completely irrelevant, it's part of the selection process. But we already have ample proof that it's merely a tiebreaker of similar teams.

And along with 81's comments let's be honest - it's completely arbitrary. How the hell did Ohio State get in over TCU in 2014 with the selection criteria used?

Wanna know the REAL answer? Because they're Ohio State.....if they were Indiana or Purdue then TCU goes.


Let me don my krazy hat here (the poster, not my mental condition).....

I think what folks are missing is that it DOES NOT REALLY MATTER who gets the fourth spot. Seriously. The whole anti-BCS argument (and ftr, I merely wanted a four-team BCS and krazy a two-team but we agree on most of the stuff) was borne of the absurd notion that somehow teams that could win national championships were being passed over. But as krazy was fond of saying, the argument was NEVER over who the FOURTH team would be, it was over the THIRD team, the team left out.

2000 - OU vs FSU (Miami left out....for some reason everyone ignored Washington, who beat Miami)
2001 - Miami vs Nebraska (Oregon or perhaps Colorado left out - but unique due to the 9/11 thing that caused this)
2003 - LSU vs OU (USC left out so the AP rebelled)
2004 - OU vs USC (Auburn left out, nobody REALLY believed Utah was the best team)
2006 - UF vs Ohio St (Michigan left out, but they had played Ohio St)
2008 - UF vs OU (Texas left out)
2010 - Auburn vs Oregon (TCU left out)
2011 - Alabama vs LSU (Okie St left out)

So the evidence supports krazy's idea (not to be confused with a crazy idea) that the whole beef was about the THIRD team. In fact, this was also true of the poll era with the exceptions of 1977 and 1983......the bigger complain being teams never meeting..

1985 - OU vs Penn St (Miami left out, who beat OU in Norman)
1987 - OU vs Miami (Syracuse left out)


So this whole enterprise is about who the THIRD team is and always has been about that third team, the team dealt the injustice (alleged).


Arguing over the fourth team is - quite frankly - ridiculous. How many times in cfb history has the regular season ended with FOUR unbeaten teams? Off the top of my head, it happened in 2004 and 2009.


The thing is this......while we love our team here, I seriously doubt we'll get much mileage this year out of a loss in the SECCG. This is not the SEC of 2006-2012, it's a conference full of mediocrity, inconsistency, and what appear to be two really good teams, one in each division.

This year thus far has been one of the most unimpressive in terms of on the field performance I've ever seen. In fact, this is somewhat similar to the type of year that gave us BYU as national champions in 1984. On October 16, 1984, there were still NINE unbeaten teams (this number is inflated, however, because OU and Texas tied - nowadays one of them would have a loss).

Want a good chuckle? Look at the unbeatens that year at this time: Washington, OU, Texas, Boston College, SMU, BYU, LSU, South Carolina, Kentucky.

In short, the argument over team four tends to be misguided. Ohio St may have been the fourth team in 2014, but they validated their selection. Even teams that don't.....there's no justification in the idea that a passed over team would have done better.

Padreruf said:

Haven't read all the pages...but what if a 2 loss UGA wins the SEC over what becomes a 1 loss UA?

For what it's worth -- Joey Galloway and Kirk Herbstreit both said that they see no scenario -- out side of losing 2 games -- that UA is not in the playoffs.

They were singing CNS' praises last night...best recruiting video I have seen. We ought to show it to every recruit who walks through the door.

Click to expand...

I think a one-loss Alabama would go over a two-loss UGA - based on the Ohio St precedent from last year.

It might depend where everyone ends up the year. The ATM win looks better than we thought it would. LSU has improved. Auburn is decent, and FSU still has time to get it together.

selmaborntidefan said:

The flaw in this argument, however, is the two teams DON'T have the same record.

12-1 is not the same as 11-1.

And if you don't believe me, go ask 1989 or 1993 Notre Dame about it.

Let's be clear - I'm not saying the conference championship is completely irrelevant, it's part of the selection process. But we already have ample proof that it's merely a tiebreaker of similar teams.

And along with 81's comments let's be honest - it's completely arbitrary. How the hell did Ohio State get in over TCU in 2014 with the selection criteria used?

Wanna know the REAL answer? Because they're Ohio State.....if they were Indiana or Purdue then TCU goes.


Let me don my krazy hat here (the poster, not my mental condition).....

I think what folks are missing is that it DOES NOT REALLY MATTER who gets the fourth spot. Seriously. The whole anti-BCS argument (and ftr, I merely wanted a four-team BCS and krazy a two-team but we agree on most of the stuff) was borne of the absurd notion that somehow teams that could win national championships were being passed over. But as krazy was fond of saying, the argument was NEVER over who the FOURTH team would be, it was over the THIRD team, the team left out.

2000 - OU vs FSU (Miami left out....for some reason everyone ignored Washington, who beat Miami)
2001 - Miami vs Nebraska (Oregon or perhaps Colorado left out - but unique due to the 9/11 thing that caused this)
2003 - LSU vs OU (USC left out so the AP rebelled)
2004 - OU vs USC (Auburn left out, nobody REALLY believed Utah was the best team)
2006 - UF vs Ohio St (Michigan left out, but they had played Ohio St)
2008 - UF vs OU (Texas left out)
2010 - Auburn vs Oregon (TCU left out)
2011 - Alabama vs LSU (Okie St left out)

So the evidence supports krazy's idea (not to be confused with a crazy idea) that the whole beef was about the THIRD team. In fact, this was also true of the poll era with the exceptions of 1977 and 1983......the bigger complain being teams never meeting..

1985 - OU vs Penn St (Miami left out, who beat OU in Norman)
1987 - OU vs Miami (Syracuse left out)


So this whole enterprise is about who the THIRD team is and always has been about that third team, the team dealt the injustice (alleged).


Arguing over the fourth team is - quite frankly - ridiculous. How many times in cfb history has the regular season ended with FOUR unbeaten teams? Off the top of my head, it happened in 2004 and 2009.


The thing is this......while we love our team here, I seriously doubt we'll get much mileage this year out of a loss in the SECCG. This is not the SEC of 2006-2012, it's a conference full of mediocrity, inconsistency, and what appear to be two really good teams, one in each division.

This year thus far has been one of the most unimpressive in terms of on the field performance I've ever seen. In fact, this is somewhat similar to the type of year that gave us BYU as national champions in 1984. On October 16, 1984, there were still NINE unbeaten teams (this number is inflated, however, because OU and Texas tied - nowadays one of them would have a loss).

Want a good chuckle? Look at the unbeatens that year at this time: Washington, OU, Texas, Boston College, SMU, BYU, LSU, South Carolina, Kentucky.

In short, the argument over team four tends to be misguided. Ohio St may have been the fourth team in 2014, but they validated their selection. Even teams that don't.....there's no justification in the idea that a passed over team would have done better.

Click to expand...

In order of the bold above:

First, 12-1 is "comparable" to 11-1 in the eyes of the committee. They said as such last year.

Second, this isn't 1989. Really illogical to bring up that time period when a completely different system is being used now.

Third, pretty simple how TCU got left out. They didn't have a conference championship game.

I completely agree that if Alabama loses to UGA in the SECCG then we're probably out of the playoffs unless the other conference championship winners have multiple losses.

My point from the beginning of the thread is that being a conference champion carries significant weight with the committee. Some people disagree and that's fine but I think it's pretty clear that unless all other teams have multiple losses that winning your conference is basically a requirement to get into the playoff..

selmaborntidefan said:

This board hashes this cliche out every single year and every single year if people actually LOOK at the data there has only been one TRUE upset in the entire history of the Iron Bowl, the 1984 game where 4-6 Alabama with the worst offense in the SEC beat an Auburn team that started the year at number one and was going to a second straight Sugar Bowl with a win.


Even the losses perceived as upsets - 1972, 1982, 2001, 2002, and 2013 - weren't "really" upsets in that there was no substantial difference in the teams (in 1972, for example, Auburn finished the year at 10-1, ranked #5, and won the Gator Bowl back when there were only 11 bowl games......it's pretty difficult to sell the idea that losing to a top five team is an upset, even if it did shock folks in the way it happened.....which is not really any different than 2013).

If Auburn enters the Iron Bowl as only a two-loss team (meaning they beat UGA) then a win by them at home even against an unbeaten Alabama team would hardly be an upset. I don't expect this to happen (ATM is pretty good so I can see Auburn with as few as 2 and as many as 5 losses).

But the comment about our B game is probably correct - if we don't show up to play at JHS, Auburn is likely good enough to beat us. I think some people forget the comment Rodney Orr made many years ago that I'll basically paraphrase - Auburn beating us gets them recognition and respect, for Alabama it's just another game on the schedule that you need to win to win bigger things. It makes Auburn's year if they beat us - we're more scared to lose than we are happy to win it.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you said; and the point about AU's success in '72 is true. Nevertheless, the '72 game was a monumental upset. Bama was a 16 1/2 point favorite. I don't know what the spread was in '84, but doubt it was 16 1/2. I was at the '72 game and Bama fans were upset about the missed extra point after the TD to make it 16-0 because of the line. It never occurred to anyone that it would affect the outcome of the game. Bama's domination was so great that AU had ~80-90 yards of total O, aside from the 4th qtr 40 yard FG drive. I still believe Jordan kicked it to avoid being shut out. Neither Bama or AU fans even thought about AU mounting a comeback - AU could do nothing.

I'm not a betting man but if I was, I would put a lot more money on UGA losing a game than going undefeated. I'm still not convinced they are that much better than Auburn. Ok, maybe a little but that's about it.

GA_Tide said:

The conference championship game determines the conference champion. The end.

The committee's primary consideration is to get the best 4 teams in the playoff.

They are not related other than the championship game contributes to each teams' resume.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Perhaps I am not making myself clear. My issue is NOT that a team who didn't win their conference gets into the playoff. Flukes happen. See 2011. My issue is that a team who just lost their conference championship game to another team who is going to the playoffs should get into the playoff picture as well. I don't care if maybe they are one of the top 4 teams in the country. They just lost the play-in game the very last game of the season. They got knocked out by a better team at round zero. Boom. Eliminated. Game Over. There is no reason to include them except as some kind of runner-up reward.

RammerJammer14 said:

Perhaps I am not making myself clear. My issue is NOT that a team who didn't win their conference gets into the playoff. Flukes happen. See 2011. My issue is that a team who just lost their conference championship game to another team who is going to the playoffs should get into the playoff picture as well. I don't care if maybe they are one of the top 4 teams in the country. They just lost the play-in game the very last game of the season. They got knocked out by a better team at round zero. Boom. Eliminated. Game Over. There is no reason to include them except as some kind of runner-up reward.

Click to expand...

Do you take issue with that because the game just happened or because it happened at all? If you played a playoff team earlier in the season and lost are you eliminated from the playoffs?

I guess my issue is that it seems like this would penalize teams for playing tough games or in a tough conference and reward teams for playing a weaker schedule.

RammerJammer14 said:

They just lost the play-in game the very last game of the season. They got knocked out by a better team at round zero. Boom. Eliminated. Game Over. There is no reason to include them except as some kind of runner-up reward.

Click to expand...

They are not play-in games. They are just another game. They should carry no more weight than any other game. Use 2011 as an example. LSU had already beaten Alabama. But Alabama was one of the 2 best teams, so they got another shot. Too bad that LSU fans (and the rest of college football) cringed. The idea is to put the best teams in the playoff, not the best teams other than those who lost a conference championship game.

RollTide_HTTR said:

Do you take issue with that because the game just happened or because it happened at all? If you played a playoff team earlier in the season and lost are you eliminated from the playoffs?

I guess my issue is that it seems like this would penalize teams for playing tough games or in a tough conference and reward teams for playing a weaker schedule.

Click to expand...

Bingo. The Sooners beat OSU. So, even if OSU wins out and wins the B1G, they can't make the playoff because they have already lost to another team in the playoff? It just doesn't make sense.

BamaInBham said:

I agree with most of what you said; and the point about AU's success in '72 is true. Nevertheless, the '72 game was a monumental upset. Bama was a 16 1/2 point favorite. I don't know what the spread was in '84, but doubt it was 16 1/2. I was at the '72 game and Bama fans were upset about the missed extra point after the TD to make it 16-0 because of the line. It never occurred to anyone that it would affect the outcome of the game. Bama's domination was so great that AU had ~80-90 yards of total O, aside from the 4th qtr 40 yard FG drive. I still believe Jordan kicked it to avoid being shut out. Neither Bama or AU fans even thought about AU mounting a comeback - AU could do nothing.

Click to expand...

Also consider sports science was not where it is now in 1972. So betters and oddsmakers weren’t as knowledgeable as they are now. So lines were often huge for blue blood programs. From a betting standpoint and from how the game was lost yes it was an upset, but from a historical context no it wasn’t.

1984 is the only true upset since the series resumed. It is the only time a team that finished under .500 to win the iron bowl. It costed Auburn the Sugar bowl while them having arguably the best player in the country. The only other kinda upset was 2001.

Yeah there are times where the lesser team won. But outside the 1984 and 2001 games there are no games where the clear by a mile better teams lost.

B1GTide said:

This is why I prefer the CFP over the BCS. There is a very real chance that this plays out, and if it does both go to the CFP. Even ND probably would not upset this apple cart since they lost to GA.

Click to expand...

And this is exactly why I both prefer the BCS, and if there must be a playoff why I'd prefer the BCS formula (to insure no shenanigans).

In this scenario, I think two things become rather clear:
A: Even the loser deserves to remain in the top 4
B: There's no guarantee that happens

Having said that, what's the best case scenario here for the playoff? That they don't screw over the SEC and the losing team for losing to #1, and put them in the playoff so we get a rematch of the game we just saw? What benefit does that provide? The BCS would put the winner directly into the championship game, which is a far better outcome in my opinion. If Alabama and Georgia meet a 12-0, can anyone convince me that the winner really deserves to play in a semi-final game and not the final? 13-0 and beating the #1 or #2 team just isn't good enough eh?

Oh and since I'm sure it had already been mentioned, winning a conference is such a silly thing to build a championship resume around. What conference? Who did they play? What was the criteria? Obviously I'm not arguing with you, but the magical powers of winning a conference are vastly overrated. When comparing one loss teams picking conference champion as the magical super special amazing end all be all shows a lack of ability to look deeper into the resume.

B1GTide said:

They are not play-in games. They are just another game. They should carry no more weight than any other game. Use 2011 as an example. LSU had already beaten Alabama. But Alabama was one of the 2 best teams, so they got another shot. Too bad that LSU fans (and the rest of college football) cringed. The idea is to put the best teams in the playoff, not the best teams other than those who lost a conference championship game.

Click to expand...

But they do. Using 2011 as an example to prove your point is flawed logic because the playoff committee is a different system than the BCS..

CrimsonForce said:

But they do. Using 2011 as an example to prove your point is flawed logic because the playoff committee is a different system than the BCS..

Click to expand...

The point is the same - Alabama would be in the playoff in either system.

KrAzY3 said:

And this is exactly why I both prefer the BCS, and if there must be a playoff why I'd prefer the BCS formula (to insure no shenanigans).

Click to expand...

To be clear, I prefer the playoff to the BCS for one reason - the four team field. But I would much prefer that they use the BCS method of choosing teams to the committee.