Sorry if that was too jerkish, but your post indicated you're under the belief that was their ulterior motive.
CFN Article - What if Bama and UGA both go 12-0?
- Thread starter CajunCrimson
- Start date
Conference champions don't have to get in but being a conference champion when comparing "comparable" teams is a trump card. In 2012 nobody was saying that 7-5 Wisconsin, 10-2 FSU or 11-2 Kansas St should've been considered for the top 4. But if comparing a group of 1 loss teams the conference champions will always get in. You're a smart guy so it's puzzling that you think winning a conference championship game holds no more meaning than any other game. That's patently false..
Last edited:
I still think Georgia would have a real shot to get in over a 1 loss Pac 12 champ (depending on who it is). The problem for Georgia is that they need to both root for Notre Dame and hope they lose 1 more game. If ND wins out I find it really hard to believe a 1 loss Georgia gets in ahead of a 1 loss Notre Dame.
Part of the media's job is to hide their ulterior motive. I mean, the media landscape is dominated by ESPN, who basically owns the playoff. We can backtrack a bit and debate what their motives might be, but it takes a lot to do that. I do think though, that the inclination the media has, is to favor inclusion over meritocracy. I can't say what type of playoff the media wants, but they darn sure wanted a playoff, that much was clear.
You make a massive leap though. The first statement I completely agree with actually. Not from my personal opinion mind you, but that if the case of a tie-breaker, the committee is bound to choose the conference champ. The big gap emerges in what you seem to consider comparable.
There's no way on earth every one loss team is comparable. I can not, at all agree with that notion. When team A plays an SoS of 20 and team B plays an SoS of 60, there's no tie to be broken...
This is a valid part of the discussion. If that one loss team is Washington for example, absolutely. That's my point, Georgia plays a much tougher schedule, if both teams end up with one loss it's clear who deserves to get in.
Are we talking about who deserves it or who will actually get the spot? Not necessarily the same.
Sorry, this was a tangent discussion. And two people can look at the same thing and see something different. That's what is happening here. It has nothing to do with intelligence. Most of the folks posting here are very bright. We still have widely differing opinions. It makes the board all the more awesome.
This is the scenario I can see happening where the whole "conference championship trump card" thing might go out the window. If a one loss Washington team wins the Pac 12 by beating a 2 or 3 loss team while a previously undefeated Georgia losses a close one to undefeated Alabama? It's going to be reallllly hard to justify putting Washington in.
That is probably because everyone is going to decide this differently. As an example - PSU fans clearly think that PSU deserved to get in last year. They thought that they had achieved what the committee asked - won the most competitive P5 conference. But they were replaced by a team that they beat during the season. OSU fans felt that they deserved to get in because they played a tougher schedule and only lost the one game (to PSU) while PSU had lost 2 games.
Very subjective.
Variance in strength of schedule doesn't make 2 teams not comparable. Losses do. 2 losses vs 1 loss is considered not comparable according to the playoff committee from last year..
IMO, one loss PAC12 champion Washington would get in over 1 loss non SEC champ UGA. Every time..
Last edited:
That's a valid point, but so far the committee has actually favored SoS a bit more than the previous BCS system. This means some of the imagined tie breakers that might have otherwise favored conference champs might not come into play. This was perfectly illustrated last year when Washington was ranked below Ohio State. Both teams had one loss, one team was not a conference champion and did not even play in the conference championship game! Yet, the committee decided to rank them ahead of Washington, because Washington had a far lower SoS.
We can guess at what point a team is close enough to invoke the "tie-breaker" but we can with reasonable certainty say at what point the gap is certainly big enough not to, since we have a good example now.
Edit: We also found out that a 2 loss conference champ is not automatically included over a 1 loss non-conference champ. So a lot of meaningful data...
Of course, but an equal record does not make two teams comparable automatically...
That really flies in the face of what happened last year though. It is possible, but it would require the committee behaving in a deviant manner.
Last edited:
The PSU vs OSU debate from last year still give me a headache. I really think Penn State being blown out by Michigan played a role in that decision.
Because Ohio State, with one loss, as a non-conference champion was ranked ahead of one loss conference champion Washington!
That scenario is basically the same thing playing out again. Georgia has a very tough schedule, Washington has a very soft schedule... If they put Ohio State ahead of Washington then the next year Washington ahead of Georgia, that would be aberrant behavior.
Good point - the debate last year was not between PSU and OSU, it was between PSU and Washington. OSU, an non-conference champion, was ranked ahead of three P5 conference champions last year.
People forget that about Washington and Ohio State. They also seem to forget that Ohio State had a win over Oklahoma and how that impacted how they were viewed. There seems to be an assumption here that the playoff committee looked at PSU and OSU records and said "yup this one has 2 losses so they must be ranked lower."
That's a good point though I do think Ohio St's schedule last year is much tougher than UGA's this year. With the SEC being down, by the end of the year UGA will probably have beaten only 1 ranked team in the committee's final top 25 which would be Notre Dame. Of course that doesn't change the fact that Washington's schedule is pillow soft. I still think if it came down to it that PAC12 champion Washington or USCw would get in over 1 loss UGA. Would be an interesting debate for sure..
They lost the NC to LSU though.
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that in the very specific instance of two potential playoff teams playing each other in the first post-regular-season game before the playoff selection, if one loses to the other, I think that carries a lot of weight.
Say Team A is ranked #1, team B is #2, team C 3, team D 4:
Team A & C play each other for the conference title. Team A wins. Next game. Team A & C play in the semifinal game to see which team is better and more deserving of the NC? We just did that. It just doesn't make sense to me. IMO, the only reason you are including team C in the playoff is because you can't think of any other team to invite, but you already agreed to play two semifinal games so you have to invite them anyways even though you just found out that team A is the more deserving team. IDK. While I enjoy the more meaningful New Years bowls that the playoff creates, as in the playoff games, I don't think the playoff is really doing anything meaningful in deciding the best team. It is always the two clearly top teams and two teams thrown in there because the other two need opponents.
Working under the assumption one team goes 13-0 and the other goes 12-1, how do you seed UA and UGA in the playoff? Clemson jumped Ohio State last year after winning the ACC. The only team that I see that could be #1 other than UA and UGA would be Penn State.
If they're the only two remaining undefeated teams, do you seed them #1 and #4 after the SECCG? Or does the loser only drop to #3.
If they're the only two remaining undefeated teams, do you seed them #1 and #4 after the SECCG? Or does the loser only drop to #3.
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 6
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 24
-