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

RammerJammer14 · Oct 18, 2017

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.

I take issue not with them having potentially lost to that team earlier in the season. But that in the very last game they played, they lost to that team. Now, 2-3 weeks later, you would have those same two teams play again. For what? The game was just played. You are simply giving the losing team an immediate mulligan. It is a "play-in" game in the sense that here we have two potential candidates for a playoff slot. One beats the other. Why should the loser get a second shot. They literally just beat you.

I am willing to entertain a 1 loss team who, by virtue of some arbitrary tie-breaker rules and crazy circumstances, does not play in their conference championship game, therefore does not win the conference, and gets selected along with their conference champion to be in the playoff. I am fine with that. Take for example Texas and Oklahoma in 2008. Texas legitimately got screwed out of both their conference championship game and an NC slot due to the Big 12's absurd tiebreaker rules and the round-robin loses between Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech. If we had a playoff then I would have been all for having Texas and OU both in the playoff.

In contrast, I would not have supported a rematch between Alabama and Georgia in 2012 even though it was pretty obvious that UGA was a much better team than ND by the end of the season. Why should Bama have to play and defeat the same team back to back when nobody else does? Or take an alternate universe in which Bama and LSU were in different divisions and only played each other in the SECC game. Bama loses by a FG in overtime. It is a much harder sell to me that Bama gets a rematch with LSU after losing to them in the conference championship the very last game of the season.

CrimsonForce · Oct 18, 2017

B1GTide said:
The point is the same - Alabama would be in the playoff in either system.

Using the exception to the rule and applying that to all future thoughts is the definition of flawed logic. Let me know when a conference champion gets left out for a comparable team that did not win their conference. Hasn't happened yet and won't happen in the future under the playoff committee..

KrAzY3 · Oct 18, 2017

RammerJammer14 said:
You are simply giving the losing team an immediate mulligan..

I don't like the playoffs, and the mulligan aspect is a big part of it. But to be clear, we are talking about giving teams mulligans! For instance a lot of people are already conceding that if Clemson wins out they are in. But wait, didn't they already lose? We're talking about the potential for ND to jump a one loss Georgia, but wait didn't Georgia already beat them? The playoff is a mulligan, that's what it is. So the idea that proximity to the game should dictate when you get that mulligan is at best unfair.

So, if we are going to give out mulligans, they should go to the most deserving teams, period.

CrimsonForce · Oct 18, 2017

KrAzY3 said:
I don't like the playoffs, and the mulligan aspect is a big part of it. But to be clear, we are talking about giving teams mulligans! For instance a lot of people are already conceding that if Clemson wins out they are in. But wait, didn't they already lose? We're talking about the potential for ND to jump a one loss Georgia, but wait didn't Georgia already beat them? The playoff is a mulligan, that's what it is. So the idea that proximity to the game should dictate when you get that mulligan is at best unfair.

I agree about the mulligan aspect but it's only true because most of the other teams have lost a game. If there was another undefeated ACC team right now Clemson wouldn't really have a mulligan or it would be a lot more dicey at best. I know there's generally never more than a few undefeated teams at the end of the season so the mulligan is kind of assumed but it's not set in stone. If there's another undefeated team in your conference and you lose a game there's no guarantee that the 1 loss team will make it back to the top 4. Back in 2014 there were several 1 loss teams that got left out..

TideMan09 · Oct 18, 2017

I would highly recommend their Boy's not to bark at our Boy'Scouts as they take the field this time..

B1GTide · Oct 18, 2017

CrimsonForce said:
Using the exception to the rule and applying that to all future thoughts is the definition of flawed logic. Let me know when a conference champion gets left out for a comparable team that did not win their conference. Hasn't happened yet and won't happen in the future under the playoff committee..

In 2011, Alabama gets into the playoff. In 2012, GA gets into the playoff. I really don't care that this kind of thing has not happened in the last 3 years, but it will happen. That is a straight up fact.

B1GTide · Oct 18, 2017

KrAzY3 said:
I don't like the playoffs, and the mulligan aspect is a big part of it. But to be clear, we are talking about giving teams mulligans! For instance a lot of people are already conceding that if Clemson wins out they are in. But wait, didn't they already lose? We're talking about the potential for ND to jump a one loss Georgia, but wait didn't Georgia already beat them? The playoff is a mulligan, that's what it is. So the idea that proximity to the game should dictate when you get that mulligan is at best unfair.

So, if we are going to give out mulligans, they should go to the most deserving teams, period.

The BCS was a mulligan - see 2011 - heck, look at LSU in 2007. There is no perfect system, but this comes closer than anything that we have had to date.

CrimsonForce · Oct 18, 2017

B1GTide said:
In 2011, Alabama gets into the playoff. In 2012, GA gets into the playoff. I really don't care that this kind of thing has not happened in the last 3 years, but it will happen. That is a straight up fact.

Well, they did reenact 2012 and it was Florida who made it in the top 4 not UGA. The reason is pretty simple – there wasn’t another comparable 1 loss team who was a conference champion. Wisconsin won the B1G that year and were 7-5 overall, FSU was the ACC champion at 10-2 and Kansas State was the BIG12 champion at 11-2.

"The season we used for this mock selection was 2012, which had themes centered on conference champions, head-to-head matchups and strength of schedule. That season climaxed with Alabama beating Notre Dame in the BCS National Championship Game. Many in the room felt that with a comparison this close, it should come down to head-to-head, and Georgia beat Florida that season. I expressed that Florida had quality wins against LSU, Texas A&M, and ACC champion Florida State which should place Florida ahead of Georgia. I also noted that Florida committed six turnovers against Georgia yet lost by only eight points. When the discussions concluded, Florida was No. 4, Georgia was No. 5, and Oregon was No. 6."

Rank	School
1	Notre Dame
2	Alabama
3	Stanford
4	Florida
5	Georgia
6	Oregon
7	LSU
8	Texas A&M
9	South Carolina
10	Kansas State

https://theathletic.com/113415/2017...-the-college-football-playoff-mock-selection/

As I said, 2011 was the exception. Only other way this happens is like 2012 where all the conference championship winners have multiple losses. I've said that from the beginning. If all the teams they're deciding between have 1 loss the conference champions get selected. End of story..

DzynKingRTR · Oct 18, 2017

I think the only way this happens is if everyone else has 2 losses and the game is close. And if it does the playoff will expand to more teams.

RammerJammer14 · Oct 18, 2017

KrAzY3 said:
I don't like the playoffs, and the mulligan aspect is a big part of it. But to be clear, we are talking about giving teams mulligans! For instance a lot of people are already conceding that if Clemson wins out they are in. But wait, didn't they already lose? We're talking about the potential for ND to jump a one loss Georgia, but wait didn't Georgia already beat them? The playoff is a mulligan, that's what it is. So the idea that proximity to the game should dictate when you get that mulligan is at best unfair.

So, if we are going to give out mulligans, they should go to the most deserving teams, period.

A mulligan for Clemson in that sense is no more of a mulligan than it has been in the past before the playoff. And it is only a "mulligan" because every other potential contender either also ends up with one loss, or plays such a pathetic schedule that everyone knows their "undefeated" status is a paper tiger. With multiple 1-loss teams, the selection pool essentially gets reset due to attrition. Then you can compare resumes again.

Also, just as a side note, I can't think of a single team in the past that has played and lost its conference championship game, been given a second chance for the NC, and actually won anything. Can anyone think of such a team?

DzynKingRTR · Oct 18, 2017

RammerJammer14 said:
A mulligan for Clemson in that sense is no more of a mulligan than it has been in the past before the playoff. And it is only a "mulligan" because every other potential contender either also ends up with one loss, or plays such a pathetic schedule that everyone knows their "undefeated" status is a paper tiger. With multiple 1-loss teams, the selection pool essentially gets reset due to attrition. Then you can compare resumes again.

Also, just as a side note, I can't think of a single team in the past that has played and lost its conference championship game, been given a second chance for the NC, and actually won anything. Can anyone think of such a team?

Oklahoma 2003

KrAzY3 · Oct 18, 2017

CrimsonForce said:
I know there's generally never more than a few undefeated teams at the end of the season so the mulligan is kind of assumed but it's not set in stone. If there's another undefeated team in your conference and you lose a game there's no guarantee that the 1 loss team will make it back to the top 4.

I should probably clarify that I view undefeated and one loss teams, very, very differently. In theory, an undefeated team could beat anyone. No one beat them, so if you're an undefeated major conference team that won their championship game, I'm really not that into pushing them below a one loss team because of a minor difference in SoS or something. I do in some ways hold being undefeated as sacred.

But, once a team has lost, I think it completely changes the equation. You've now shown that you can be beat, you've now jeopardized your resume. You don't have a rock solid claim anymore. At that point I think much more analysis is required to compare one loss teams and I don't like the idea of over simplifying that. For instance I view an undefeated conference champion in completely different light than a one loss conference champion. That one loss conference champion showed they could be beat, so their "champion" title means a lot loss in my opinion.

B1GTide said:
The BCS was a mulligan - see 2011

The BCS sometimes was a mulligan, and I was on record as saying that it was unfair that LSU had to play another game after the regular season. They were clearly the most deserving team at that point, but the BCS and the playoff, once they are in place have an obligation to choose the top 2 or the top 4, and not warp the selection process. But I'd prefer less mulligans be handed out, not more...

RammerJammer14 said:
I can't think of a single team in the past that has played and lost its conference championship game, been given a second chance for the NC, and actually won anything.

That scenario itself was so rare as to not produce meaningful results. I can think of a team that didn't win their conference championship got their second chance and won a championship, isn't that good enough? Remember though, the playoff is not and should not attempt to be a predictor for their own results. Their job is just to choose the 4 most deserving, not the 4 that haven't lost recently or looked the best their past few games. Mulligans should not be time sensitive, they're all playing in the same season and what happens within that season should hold equal value regardless of when it occurs. Otherwise aren't they just picking the hot teams? Forget the first half of the season or what ever, just pick a team that won the last several games...

RTR91 · Oct 18, 2017

Here's a great example - 2008

Conference championships mattered to the mock committee, who ended up having Alabama ranked 6th.

B1GTide · Oct 18, 2017

CrimsonForce said:
Well, they did reenact 2012 and it was Florida who made it in the top 4 not UGA. The reason is pretty simple – there wasn’t another comparable 1 loss team who was a conference champion. Wisconsin won the B1G that year and were 7-5 overall, FSU was the ACC champion at 10-2 and Kansas State was the BIG12 champion at 11-2.

"The season we used for this mock selection was 2012, which had themes centered on conference champions, head-to-head matchups and strength of schedule. That season climaxed with Alabama beating Notre Dame in the BCS National Championship Game. Many in the room felt that with a comparison this close, it should come down to head-to-head, and Georgia beat Florida that season. I expressed that Florida had quality wins against LSU, Texas A&M, and ACC champion Florida State which should place Florida ahead of Georgia. I also noted that Florida committed six turnovers against Georgia yet lost by only eight points. When the discussions concluded, Florida was No. 4, Georgia was No. 5, and Oregon was No. 6."

Rank School
1 Notre Dame
2 Alabama
3 Stanford
4 Florida
5 Georgia
6 Oregon
7 LSU
8 Texas A&M
9 South Carolina
10 Kansas State

https://theathletic.com/113415/2017...-the-college-football-playoff-mock-selection/

As I said, 2011 was the exception. Only other way this happens is like 2012 where all the conference championship winners have multiple losses. I've said that from the beginning. If all the teams they're deciding between have 1 loss the conference champions get selected. End of story..

The media did this, not a committee composed like the actual playoff committee. So "they" didn't reenact this, a group of reporters did. The committee would very likely have put in GA. But either way, 2 SEC schools get in, one of which didn't even win its division, exactly like 2011.

B1GTide · Oct 18, 2017

RTR91 said:
Here's a great example - 2008

Conference championships mattered to the mock committee, who ended up having Alabama ranked 6th.

Conference champions will always matter more to the media. Remember, the media wants a 16 team playoff.

CrimsonForce · Oct 18, 2017

B1GTide said:
The media did this, not a committee composed like the actual playoff committee. So "they" didn't reenact this, a group of reporters did. The committee would very likely have put in GA. But either way, 2 SEC schools get in, one of which didn't even win its division, exactly like 2011.

Did you ignore the part of my post which contradicts your thought - all the other conference champions had multiple losses. 2011 was the exception. You can keep repeating the same thing and ignoring the part of my post which contradicts what you're saying but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. If the committee is deciding between a group of 1 loss teams the conference champions get in..

RTR91 · Oct 18, 2017

B1GTide said:
Conference champions will always matter more to the media. Remember, the media wants a 16 team playoff.

Yeah... They made that decision because they want a 16 team playoff.

B1GTide · Oct 18, 2017

RTR91 said:
Yeah... They made that decision because they want a 16 team playoff.

Well, since you decided to respond like a jerk - if conference champions have to get in, then the field has to be expanded. They have been pushing for this since before the first playoff bracket was filled in. They even want automatic qualifiers for G5 conferences. It is a simple and logical progression of thoughts, connected by them, not me.

KrAzY3 · Oct 18, 2017

RTR91 said:
Yeah... They made that decision because they want a 16 team playoff.

Come on though, we both know that the media's committee behaved nothing like the real committee. If this was the real committee reenacting it would mean a lot more, but it wasn't. It was a bunch of media people making stuff up, it's like Tidefans having a mock committee, that would mean what exactly?

It provides us with nothing of real value. And I'm kind of tired of people who don't seem to understand some basic stuff telling us what the committee will do. I mean I had to hear for years, for years, that the committee would take conference champs over non-conference champs. I was told that 2 loss Ole Miss was in over a 1 loss Alabama. I scoffed at it then, I said I disagreed, etc... but that persisted. Until you know, Ohio State was placed ahead of Penn State and who complained the most about that? The media, they ran their mouths about it, but the fact is it was always a stupid notion, but stupid never stopped the media. Some people are fine with constantly being wrong.

B1GTide · Oct 18, 2017

CrimsonForce said:
Did you ignore the part of my post which contradicts your thought - all the other conference champions had multiple losses. 2011 was the exception. You can keep repeating the same thing and ignoring the part of my post which contradicts what you're saying but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. If the committee is deciding between a group of 1 loss teams the conference champions get in..

I am not ignoring anything. You think that you are right for certain reasons. I believe that I am right for certain reasons. The reality is that every committee is different and there is no way to know how the next committee will vote.

This is a fun discussion as long as we treat one another with respect.

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

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Super Moderator

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Super Moderator

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!