Best Team or Best Season more important?

Skeeterpop said:

With all the current talk of the college football playoff rankings and what could happen this year with multiple 1 loss and some 2 loss teams in potential contention there are a lot of questions.

I keep asking myself, what is more important? Get the best teams in the playoff or get the teams with the best season. Wins and Losses can confuse things. But late in the season, should head to head not be more important than your season record?

For Example: If the barn takes down UGA Saturday and it was evident from the play on the field the are also the better team. Shouldnt the barn be ranked in front of UGA, regardless of having an additional loss? If UGA fell to 6 and barn rose to 7 in the playoff poll, what are we saying? The dawgs are still better regardless of the head to head and the eye test says differently. That honestly makes no sense. So then it means we are rewarding an inferior team for their whole season and not their actual level of superiority.

Would love to get thoughts on the subject. Do you want the best teams and feel head to head trumps most everything late in the season or do you want the teams most deserving even if not the best teams?

Click to expand...

Head to head should be the most important factor if teams are considered equal, such as a 12-1 UGA should get in a playoff before an 11-1 Notre Dame becaue UGA beat them head to head. However, I don't think you can ignore the rest of a team's season just because they have a good win. Auburn has lost twice. Just because they might beat UGA tomorrow doesn't suddenly make them the top team. A team's season long consistency and record certainly matter. I was really glad that Iowa beat OSU because so many of the talking heads were saying that OSU should be in ahead of Oklahoma if it came down to those two because OSU had improved. Well, maybe they improved because of who they were playing, but even if they had improved it doesn't make up for a head to head loss. That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. A team's full season should be taken into consideration, and I don't think they should consider injuries like some think. We judge teams, not individuals. We have had injuries, and we are the team we are. If we are good enough to get in with our backups, so be it. If not, that is part of the game. I say judge the whole season and use on field results such as head to head as often as possible.

Skeeterpop said:

So is everyone in agreement that teams with 1 loss should be ranked by who they lost to being the number 1 criteria assuming they were already considered to be a top team.

Click to expand...

Only if there is a direct loss - no transitive stuff. Alabama beats GA, so is ranked ahead of GA. GA beat ND, so is ranked ahead of ND. That is the top 3 if it plays out like that. Everyone else is fighting for #4.

But if Alabama loses to GA, all bets are off. I have no idea where you land.

At the end of the day, it's going to work itself out. And there's still a bunch of football left to be played.
Right now, I can't remember so much that can change in the matter of one weekend. And it's not just this weekend, it's the next, and the next.
There are so many current and upcoming games still left to play that have an impact on the playoff situation.
To me, it's the greatest football season I've ever watched, because in week nine or ten, whichever it is, nobody really knows NOTHING! It will be decided on the field.
NOW, the possible scenarios are ridiculous. In three weeks, I don't see it being as such.
Really don't.

Skeeterpop said:

This is what I struggle with. Why can a head to head not be the end all be all? If you beat me, you are better. Period! Until I beat you again.

Click to expand...

Please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say about the importance of head to head meetings, but if we take things to extreme for a moment let's say Auburn does beat UGA. Well, LSU beat Auburn. Does that make LSU also better than UGA? Troy beat LSU. Does that put Troy in the conversation? I think we all agree that LSU and Troy should not be ranked ahead of UGA and Auburn even though head to head meetings might suggest otherwise. The whole season must be looked at and not just head to head.

Skeeterpop said:

This I can agree with. A 4-7 team beats a 12-0 team. I would still want to see how the eye test looks and what the contributing factors were. But you cant rank a 4-7 team ahead.

But a team with a 1-2 loss differential while playing different opponents should be ranked ahead of a team they beat on the field and looked like the better team.

Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly. Upsets happen and it has nothing to do with who is the best team or who has the best season. Heck, because Troy upset LSU, shouldn't they be ranked ahead of LSU? C'mon now. UPSETS HAPPEN.

As Skeeterpop says, a three 6-3 team beating a 7-2 team has some merit, but not if it is in the UPSET category, and I mean the jaw dropping category, like Iowa stomping Ohio State. If Iowa and Ohio State played a home and home for ten weeks, what do we think the score be?

Skeeterpop said:

With all the current talk of the college football playoff rankings and what could happen this year with multiple 1 loss and some 2 loss teams in potential contention there are a lot of questions.

I keep asking myself, what is more important? Get the best teams in the playoff or get the teams with the best season. Wins and Losses can confuse things. But late in the season, should head to head not be more important than your season record?

For Example: If the barn takes down UGA Saturday and it was evident from the play on the field the are also the better team. Shouldnt the barn be ranked in front of UGA, regardless of having an additional loss? If UGA fell to 6 and barn rose to 7 in the playoff poll, what are we saying? The dawgs are still better regardless of the head to head and the eye test says differently. That honestly makes no sense. So then it means we are rewarding an inferior team for their whole season and not their actual level of superiority.

Would love to get thoughts on the subject. Do you want the best teams and feel head to head trumps most everything late in the season or do you want the teams most deserving even if not the best teams?

Click to expand...

College football, unlike virtually any other big-time sport, has relied upon PRECEDENT to help determine these type things. (Whether it should or not is irrelevant - it has). I think the criteria the committee has is actually very good, but at the same time it's too elastic for my blood. Each point has both a strength AND a weakness.

Let's take two prominent examples that have been used lately.

1) 2011 Alabama-LSU regular season

One of the big beefs in 2011 from the Okie St folks was "well, that's already been decided who is better." But ANYONE who saw that game knows full well that LSU played about as well as they could, Alabama made a few mistakes and got some terrible breaks, and the game literally came down to a field goal kicker. So yes, LSU won the head to head but anyone who watched that game with open eyes knows full well Alabama was better. I heard this from numerous non-Tide fans who don't even like us.

2) 2016 Penn St-Ohio St

This came up last year more related to your question. Penn St partisans touted their head to head win over Ohio St and their conference title and that somehow was supposed to get rid of their TWO losses.


I only saw the fourth quarter (I was at the ATM-Bama game), which was when Penn St scored 17 points. But just go look closer at that game.

Ohio State had over 400 yards to PSU's 276; the Lions only had 13 first downs. Ohio St had the ball for 37 minutes. In fact, if you go look at the stats sheet, the Buckeyes beat Penn St in every single statistical category except one - penalties. They had more yards passing, rushing, fewer turnovers, longer possession time.....literally everything EXCEPT penalties.

Yet Penn State won by 3, the margin generally considered home field advantage. At home no less.


If Penn St would have beaten Ohio St 35-0, that would have been a totally different thing in my view.

And then remember one CRUCIAL thing.........Penn State had an off week before that game while Ohio State was in a slugfest do or die ON THE ROAD at Wisconsin. That has to be considered, too. Does anyone here REALLY believe that Penn St wins this game at a neutral site if they both have tough games the week before? This was almost the same as the 2010 SCAR-Bama game as far as circumstances helping dictate outcome.



I think where your question compels me to say "wait and see" is if Auburn wins out they will have to beat UGA TWICE in less than a month. If Auburn did that AND beat us........I don't see how you can keep them out of the playoff to be honest with you.

Skeeterpop said:

You couldn't keep them out. And honestly, how could you keep Bama out in this scenario with the lack of undefeated teams still out there?

Click to expand...

You absolutely could and should keep Auburn out. If Bama doesn’t get any respect for beating LSU by 2 TDs, then Auburn definitely doesn’t get any for LOSING to LSU. (Yes, people have actually said that Bama beating LSU isn’t impressive but they say Auburn losing a close one to LSU helps their cause.)

2 losses should be very difficult to overcome, if you want to make the playoffs. People want to bring up LSU in 2007 but we forget they lost both of those games in OT. Not to mention there was some crazy stuff that happened the entire year. Auburn shouldn’t make the playoffs unless something truly unprecedented occurs.

Since I often assume folks know what I'm talking about and don't, let me clarify just a bit.


I think that if Auburn, UGA, and Alabama all wound up with 2 losses (given the current scenario), AUBURN would be the team selected.

However....

a) if Auburn won the SEC by beating UGA twice and Alabama but WE ONLY HAD ONE LOSS, Alabama would go

In other words, a win over MSU tonight basically means Auburn is dead no matter what they do (barring the biggest upset in college history if Mercer beat us)

b) very simply, we START with RECORD and work from there.

Record >>>>>> head to head
Head to head >>>> SoS
Record>>><<< SoS DEPENDING on how close it is (e.g. in 2007, a 2-loss LSU was better than unbeaten Hawaii)

colbysullivan said:

You absolutely could and should keep Auburn out. If Bama doesn’t get any respect for beating LSU by 2 TDs, then Auburn definitely doesn’t get any for LOSING to LSU. (Yes, people have actually said that Bama beating LSU isn’t impressive but they say Auburn losing a close one to LSU helps their cause.)

Click to expand...

Yes there have, and that's among the most stupid analyses I've ever heard.

If we were weighing Alabama/Auburn RIGHT NOW....


1) Alabama has zero losses, Auburn two.

2) Auburn's loss was to a team Alabama thumped by double digits

In my view, you really don't need to go any further but....

3) Auburn SoS is currently 39, Alabama 56 (Sagarin)

The SoS does NOT make up the difference in TWO losses. Now, if Alabama had a 105 SoS one loss and Auburn had a number two SoS AND beat us head to head......that would be substantially different.

colbysullivan said:

2 losses should be very difficult to overcome, if you want to make the playoffs.

Click to expand...

Totally agree.

colbysullivan said:

People want to bring up LSU in 2007 but we forget they lost both of those games in OT.

Click to expand...

That's the Les Miles argument, and it's as stupid now as it was then. Does that mean the loss somehow doesn't count?

colbysullivan said:

Not to mention there was some crazy stuff that happened the entire year.

Click to expand...

You're correct. Let's look at it real quick so folks have a primer rather than just citing an event they don't even know what happened.


Here were the BCS rankings right after LSU lost to Arkansas:

1) Mizzou (11-1)
2) WVA (10-1)
3) Ohio St (11-1)
4) UGA (10-2)
5) Kansas (11-1)
6) Va Tech (10-2)
7) LSU (10-2)
8) USC (9-2)
9) OU (10-2)
10) Florida (9-3)
11) Hawaii (11-0)

What happened the next week?
#1 Missouri lost to two-loss Oklahoma.
#2 WVA lost to 28-point underdog Pitt.


Ohio St, who everyone thought was dead when they lost to Illinois in the snow, was the nation's only P5 one-loss team that won a conference title.

So this left the BCS voters to choose from: LSU, UGA, Kansas, VT, USC, Oklahoma

LSU had beaten Va Tech, 48-7, so that eliminated the Hokies.
UGA had 2 losses as an SEC team and no title, so that ruled them out vs LSU.
USC had lost a game where they were 41-point favorites

Kansas had only played one decent team and had lost

It came down to LSU vs Oklahoma for who gets to play Ohio St. LSU had played a tougher schedule and had two losses in TRIPLE overtime to 8-win teams; OU had a loss to a 6-7 Colorado and a decent Texas Tech.


It couldn't have been anyone EXCEPT LSU given the circumstances - Kansas' SoS was WAY too low to be acceptable.

colbysullivan said:

Auburn shouldn’t make the playoffs unless something truly unprecedented occurs.

Click to expand...

Totally agreed. A win by us over MSU and I honestly think they're dead no matter what.

Best season or best resume should always win out. Because if you think about it, at the end of the season, the best resume ultimately wins every time.

Our 2010 team is the easiest comparison to me. When that team played well, they could beat any team in the country by 20 points, including AU and Oregon who played for the title. However, they didn't always play consistently week to week or even half to half or even quarter to quarter. When that team played well, the "eye test" told most that they were the best. However, when you are that inconsistent and lose two or three games, which they did, the scoreboard test is a more fair measure of a team when playing head to head.

That team had more injuries than this one, though not at the same position. 4 starting OL we’re injured at different times. BJ’s absence at guard was a big issue because his Fr replacement was abused by Fairly. Also, Ingram, Richardson, Upshaw, Dareus, Julio and others missed time.

BamaInBham said:

That team had more injuries than this one, though not at the same position. 4 starting OL we’re injured at different times. BJ’s absence at guard was a big issue because his Fr replacement was abused by Fairly. Also, Ingram, Richardson, Upshaw, Dareus, Julio and others missed time.

Click to expand...

True, but that is also part of the game. I really dislike when they start talking about the committee taking injuries into account. Why? Football is a team game. If you lose one guy and lose, it doesn't matter to me. That 2010 team may have been able to win a national championship if they were in a playoff with three other teams; however, they wouldn't have deserved a chance due to the three losses, injuries or not. At least, that is how I see it.

Skeeterpop said:

With all the current talk of the college football playoff rankings and what could happen this year with multiple 1 loss and some 2 loss teams in potential contention there are a lot of questions.

I keep asking myself, what is more important? Get the best teams in the playoff or get the teams with the best season. Wins and Losses can confuse things. But late in the season, should head to head not be more important than your season record?

For Example: If the barn takes down UGA Saturday and it was evident from the play on the field the are also the better team. Shouldnt the barn be ranked in front of UGA, regardless of having an additional loss? If UGA fell to 6 and barn rose to 7 in the playoff poll, what are we saying? The dawgs are still better regardless of the head to head and the eye test says differently. That honestly makes no sense. So then it means we are rewarding an inferior team for their whole season and not their actual level of superiority.

Would love to get thoughts on the subject. Do you want the best teams and feel head to head trumps most everything late in the season or do you want the teams most deserving even if not the best teams?

Click to expand...

yes



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk