Best Team or Best Season more important?

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?

UntouchableCrew said:

Head to head isn't everything. The better team doesn't always win and one game is just one game.

Click to expand...

I said in my example. The barn was visually the better team and won the game. Should they not the be ranked ahead of a lessor team? If not, why do we play the games on the field if we are going to subjectively just pick and chose who we want to play in the playoffs?

Maybe NFL had it right. When your division or wild card get in the playoffs or sit at home.

B1GTide said:

Best teams, to a point. If one of the best teams loses too often for any reason, they need to watch from home.

Click to expand...

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.

TNBama said:

I think both are important, but need to be balanced. Just because a team ends the season playing better than anyone else does not mean they deserve to be in the championship. Would you really prefer a team that had 3-4 losses to start the season but kicked it in afterwards and started kicking butt to the point they were clearly better than anyone else? You must both end the season strong, while having a body of work that is deserving of being in contention.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. I just like the discussion and hearing others thoughts.

We have to obviously weigh a teams season. You reward based on season not 1-2 individual games. My OP was to determine head to head importance over a 1-2 loss differential between teams. I feel like most can accept a team with one more loss can be better and more deserving than a team with 1 less los. But can they be more deserving than a team with 2 or 3 more losses is my question? Where is the line drawn?

RT27 said:

My personal opinion is every game counts. The best team is not the one who plays great one day and not the next. I will use this as an example, how in the world could auburn be considered better thanUGA even if they beat them. Aubs struggled with Mercer, good and great teams show consistency. Look at Alabama, they show up every game and play well. Yes we have struggled but not to the point that a mercer gets close. Many may agree or disagree, but over 12 games the best teams are the ones who handle their business every week. great teams beat good teams and do not let little teams hang around. Great teams get up every saturday and play their best, no matter the opponent. Teams who go up and down are not great teams, they are good teams sometimes. Great teams like Bama lose starters, sometimes a lot of them and play on. Good teams lose starters and drop, like FSU. You cannot be called great when even the QB being hurt killsthe season. Great teams have depth, great teams over come adversity. Great teams win National Titles. Sorry but we all play 12 games, so why discount any game? If so which games get discounted? If you are better then you should win more games.

Click to expand...

A team can be better for several reasons later in the season. Just as you suggested. Injuries and new players getting on the field, better progress improving through the year. So yes a team can be better than another as seasons end regardless of their earlier season struggles.

With that said I do feel you have to reward both a good season and superior play at the end of the season. Its a mix of the two in my opinion. If AU beats UGA twice and loses to Bama. Then UGA will have 2 losses if they lose to Bama in championship game and AU will have 3 losses. But it will be obvious AU is better than UGA even with one more loss and more struggle wins.

BamaInBham said:

This is a pivotal consideration for the CFPC. IMO, one of the reasons there is perceived inconsistency on the part of the committee is because they are subconsciously weighing these two considerations. There is no clear answer, though I think they say it is "the best teams". But that is extremely difficult to determine apart from a resume. Everyone knows that one game is not definitive, so head to head only has some value. Last year OSU/PSU shows that. It still seems that losses are the most important factor, followed by "good" wins, conf titles, then head to head. I can understand and accept that.

IMO, the committee has done a very good job. I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories, even though I know they could be true. But I've seen little to support the cynical view. Subconscious bias with the associated over-compensation - certainly. How can you avoid that ?

They have been kind to Bama from the beginning. If anything too generous. They have not suffered from Bama-fatigue as some Bama fans charge.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. So are we happier with a subjective ranking as we have now or would you rather a division champ format like NFL? With subjectiveness sometimes the Gods are good to you and sometime they are not.

BamaInBham said:

That can't happen. If AU loses to Bama they will not play UGA twice.

If AU beats UGA once and loses to Bama and UGA loses to Bama, that does not mean that AU is better than UGA. Especially it is a close game at JH. Even if UGA just has an off day and AU is on fire and wins somewhat comfortably, does not mean that AU is better. You just have to look at the entire picture. Even then it is subjective. Which is why the committee will always have complaints. In the end, it is always subjective. Were the 13-6 Giants better than 18-1 NE ? Of course not, but they won the game. I much prefer the smaller playoff pool because you are more likely to get the most deserving champion. I believe that 4 teams is as close as we can get to the perfect number. It rewards a great regular season and makes the ultimate winner prove their mettle twice on the big stage. There are no jokes like the NYG or 86 win St Louis Cardinals. I was always a big baseball fan from my youth. I don't even pay much attention to the regular or post season any more because a decent team can get hot with the bat or favorable matchups or a hot pitcher and win it all over a great team.

Click to expand...

Duh!!! How did I miss that impossiblity? LOL

Thank God its Friday, need a reset.

Oh I think about the NFL all the time. We all all know the SuperBowl Winner is not always the best Team. They just won the biggest game through a playoff. Which is part of the whole best season best team debate. This whole head to head drives me nuts. Teams that win on the field, especially late in the season should get a lot more credit than complete body of work when it comes to ranking those two teams.

This is only my personal opinion.

UntouchableCrew said:

Iowa mopped the floor with Ohio State. Anyone who has watched both teams all year would still agree that Ohio State is the better overall team. One game is just one game.

If Mississippi State beats Alabama this weekend decisively should they be ranked higher? Of course not.

Click to expand...

So basically why play the games They dont mean anything. We will just watch and subjectivly select the teams we like as the best. Regardless of what happens on the field head to head.

In boxing when you are the last to beat the best you are the champ. Regardless if you beat them as #2 or #20. I personally would be interested to see what this would look like in football.