Re: Week 11 College Football Playoff rankings. Alabama in familiar spot at number 1!
There could be a "conspiracy", but I've seen no evidence of it. It could be that the Committee has been fortunate that things have fallen their way to this point. But they've had a couple of tough choices: OSU in 14 & 16. IMO, in both years they made the right, or at least a plausible choice. And in 16 they did not follow the previous conventional wisdom that head-to-head and conf champ would trump all. They made the right choice in taking OSU over PSU.
Those claiming Bama bias, simply have not been paying attention the past 3+ years. It may change later this year but Bama has gotten every benefit of the doubt to this point. If anything, they have been biased in Bama's favor; probably because of CFPC coaches', especially Alvarez's, respect for Bama's style of football and til this year, tough schedule. Until the last couple of days, when I checked the other teams' schedules, I thought Bama had little chance as a one loss team. Since few others have beaten more than Bama's 2 ranked teams, some have only 1 or none, I don't believe Bama's resume is the albatross I once did. IMO, now they still need just a little help, but have a very good chance. Other than AU if they win out - will the Committee choose a 2 loss team, even a conf champion, over a one loss Bama ? Hopefully not, especially with the injuries, 3 of 4 who will return. Also, Bama's strength of record is surprisingly good. Just hope LSU and MSU continue to win and A&M beats OM this week - not necessary but it would grease the skids a bit. They may even get a little bit of credit for "early" FSU. The Committee seems to be impressed with stomping teams you should - Bama has done that.
It's impossible to "prove" that there is no conspiracy, but where is there any evidence that there is one ? Please give one clear cut example. IMO, the CFPC has done a good or great job. Look at what they've done this year to this point: had undefeated Wisc and Miami behind several one loss teams until they proved a little more; because they play little D, they currently have OU at 4, though many are clamoring for this "flashy" offensive team to be 1 or 2; UCF, who has played almost no one, has been left out in the cold; etc.Just my personal opinion on what the "Double Secret Committee" appears to be setting up in the latest poll - taking into account that a lot of upsets likely remain. But this is what I see coming, pending upsets, based on my personal opinion of How the whole committee ACTUALLY works, WHY we have a secret Committee in the first place, and what the REAL selection criteria really are, as opposed to the flowery nonsense published as their "Official" mandate.
And for those who may not have heard me discuss it; in my own personal and biased view, the REAL mandate or charter of the "Double Secret Committee" includes the following:
(1) First and Foremost to Maximize TV Revenues for the Six P_ayoff partners (the P-5 Conferences and ND),
(2) As much as possible in light of #1 above, to "Share the Wealth" by giving each partner a chance to place a team in the playoffs as often as can practically be achieved, without "showing your cards", so to speak, AND
(3) Above all else, and At All Costs, PREVENT any repeat of the "Horror" of 2011 when two SEC teams met in the Title game.
Some will disagree. I contend that the results of each of the Three years of P_ayoff selections bears out my theory.
In any event - my prediction as of this week:
First - the Top 4 "Money" slots, in no particular order (Seeding is decided by TV ratings more than by "Merit")
The SEC Champion IF it is 12-1 UGa or 13-0 Alabama
The ACC Champion IF is is 12-1 Clempson or 13-0 Miami
The B1G Champion IF it is 13-0 Wisc'
The B-12 Champion IF it is 12-1 OU.
No real "Drama" so far - that's just straight up how they are lined up, and if we have 4 from that list, there's your 2017/18 bracket. But its likely at least one or two spots might be vacated by Dec. 5 - (for example, if Wisc. loses in the BqG title game). So who comes next? THis is where it gets tricky, as the next NINE spots on the committee poll are occupied by 1 loss UGa and 8 Two loss teams - and there's plenty of time for the committee to change the order - move teams up OR DOWN even if they don't lose. But just going on what we know today - my predictions, IF we still need teams after running through the list above.
The Wild Card - UCF IF they run the table and finish 13-0. I don't see ANY "Group of 5" program even at 13-0 edging out any 12-1 P-5 partner. The Committee can easly put that off on "Strength of Schedule" or some other baloney excuse. But keeping a 13-0 team out and letting a TWO Loss P-5 team in COULD be a potential Anti-Trust problem for the whole P_ayoff scheme. So UCF is this year's "Wild Card". Personally, I see them dropping at least one game, but not before giving everyone at ESPiN a good Scare! LOL!!!
5. aubarn, IF they finish 11-2 and thus win the SEC Title. If aub is SEC champ, both UA and UGa are "out" - or at least further down the list than #5. And yes, I'm saying 11-2 aub gets in BEFORE 11-1 Alabama. The committee gave O$U a "Pass" last year for a mid-season loss to PSU, and the Committee got burned for it. They won't give us the same pass for a week 13 loss, even to the eventual SEC Champ.
6. Alabama if 11-1 AND if both UGa and aub are "out". This is a narrow window, and basically would mean UGa loses to UK or GaTech but wins the SECCG or aub loses to ULM, but then wins the SECC game. In that case, there are NO other "Major" teams with only one loss, and we leapfrog BOTH aub and UGa.
7. Notre Damned IF 11-2. Again, bear in mind we only get here IF we don't have 4 teams from the NINE options above. SO why might an 11-2 ND team leapfrog an Alabama team at 11-1 or 12-1? See Principle #2 above. ND is the ONLY P_ayoff Partner NOT to have appeared in the P_ayoffs so far. That will be enough, AND their losses will be "older" than ours if we lose here at the end.
And besides, its just Hypothetical, because we aren't going to lose to aub Or to UGa, right???
8. B1G Champ IF its 11-2 PSU or 11-2 O$U. The B1G has been in every P_ayoff _racket so far. Even though they are the #1 money conference, they are still going to be standing in line behind 11-2 ND for the reasons stated above.
9. PAC-12 Champ IF its 11-2 USCw or 11-2 Wash. St. Much less TV "Pull" from the PAC compared to the B1G.
Anyway, that's how I see it as of today. Thoughts?
There could be a "conspiracy", but I've seen no evidence of it. It could be that the Committee has been fortunate that things have fallen their way to this point. But they've had a couple of tough choices: OSU in 14 & 16. IMO, in both years they made the right, or at least a plausible choice. And in 16 they did not follow the previous conventional wisdom that head-to-head and conf champ would trump all. They made the right choice in taking OSU over PSU.
Those claiming Bama bias, simply have not been paying attention the past 3+ years. It may change later this year but Bama has gotten every benefit of the doubt to this point. If anything, they have been biased in Bama's favor; probably because of CFPC coaches', especially Alvarez's, respect for Bama's style of football and til this year, tough schedule. Until the last couple of days, when I checked the other teams' schedules, I thought Bama had little chance as a one loss team. Since few others have beaten more than Bama's 2 ranked teams, some have only 1 or none, I don't believe Bama's resume is the albatross I once did. IMO, now they still need just a little help, but have a very good chance. Other than AU if they win out - will the Committee choose a 2 loss team, even a conf champion, over a one loss Bama ? Hopefully not, especially with the injuries, 3 of 4 who will return. Also, Bama's strength of record is surprisingly good. Just hope LSU and MSU continue to win and A&M beats OM this week - not necessary but it would grease the skids a bit. They may even get a little bit of credit for "early" FSU. The Committee seems to be impressed with stomping teams you should - Bama has done that.
Last edited:
