But there were rematches in old bowl system and in BCS, so it's nothing new for college football post season. It happens in NCAA basketball tourney all the time.Our good man krazy3 was screaming this way back in 2011.
Increase the number of teams in a tournament and you automatically increase the possibility of a rematch.
One of these years, they're going to wind up with all four teams having played round robin in the same season and watch the ratings tank.
The injury thing should be considered, but it should not be given the weight it is being given with clemson, where the Syracuse loss is basically being treated as if it didn't occur. They lost to a bad team with a losing record that only has 1 good win, and that was over clemson. Syracuse lost to Middle Tennessee State. They are awful. It's the only really bad loss of the teams in consideration. Heck, LSU's loss to Troy was not as bad given Troy is 8-2 and took Boise State to the 4th qtr. I just don't get it.I agree about the injury thing being a "Slippery Slope".
Regarding Kirk putting OU at #1, you've got to remember that his paycheck isn't signed by "Objective Truth" - its signed by ESPiN. If Herbie puts Alabama at #1, nobody is talking about Herbie today, OR calling the Pawl Slimebomb show (an ESPiN property) to complain about Herbie, or watching any of the ESPiN CFB "Chat" shows to see if anyone else is upset about Herbie.
Herbie exists in a CFB environment that's largely Sick and "Darned" Tired of Alabama winning all the time. He's "preaching to the Choir", and I can guarantee you almost every CFB fan who's Not an Alabama fan was DELIGHTED to see ANY other team getting pushed for #1, just as they were all delighted to see UGa in the #1 spot previously.
Agree with this 100%. Even if BAMA were to lose to AU or UGA, that loss is a lot better than the Clemson loss to Syracuse, or OU Home loss to Iowa St playing a 3rd string QB.If Bama loses a close one to auburn and injuries play a key role, the committee will have some explaining to do if it keeps a 1-loss Bama team out and lets a 1-loss clemson team in given the vast difference between the quality of the losses.
There was ONE rematch in a championship game and people lost their damned minds over it.But there were rematches in old bowl system and in BCS, so it's nothing new for college football post season. It happens in NCAA basketball tourney all the time.
Bryant was barely able to stand in the game, so while he was knocked out with a concussion later, he was badly injured through the entire game. Imagine Jalen if he couldn't scramble at all because of an ankle injury. That's what they had in Bryant in that game - a QB who could not play his game.Quiet funny about Clemson when you really think about it. Bryant went down right before halftime. The score was 17-14. The final score was 27-24, so each team scored 10 points in the second half. Did his injury really matter that much then?
In the second half, Clemson gained 172 yards, which comes out to be 54% of its total for the game while Syracuse got 46% of its total yards (203) in the second half.
Seems pretty obvious Kelly Bryant's injury really made a difference.
But we would have bested Syracuse easily with Tua.Bryant was barely able to stand in the game, so while he was knocked out with a concussion later, he was badly injured through the entire game. Imagine Jalen if he couldn't scramble at all because of an ankle injury. That's what they had in Bryant in that game - a QB who could not play his game.
Not my point - I was replying to a post that suggested that Bryant was only injured for a half. He was not. He entered the game severely hobbled and then got knocked out of the game later due to a concussion. Just setting that straight. Not arguing that the injury should justify anything else.But we would have bested Syracuse easily with Tua.
Kent State | 125 | Florida State | 22 |
Auburn | 5 | Fresno St | 65 |
at Louisville | 27 | Colorado St | 70 |
BC | 41 | at Vandy | 79 |
at VT | 15 | Ole Miss | 57 |
Wake | 29 | at Texas A&M | 37 |
at Cuse | 44 | Arky | 72 |
Ga Tech | 23 | Tenn | 66 |
at NC State | 18 | LSU | 19 |
Fla St | 22 | at Miss St | 16 |
Agree with all the above - and that's just the thing with the "Double Secret Committee" - the rationale and justification for their picks change with every situation.The injury thing should be considered, but it should not be given the weight it is being given with clemson, where the Syracuse loss is basically being treated as if it didn't occur. They lost to a bad team with a losing record that only has 1 good win, and that was over clemson. Syracuse lost to Middle Tennessee State. They are awful. It's the only really bad loss of the teams in consideration. Heck, LSU's loss to Troy was not as bad given Troy is 8-2 and took Boise State to the 4th qtr. I just don't get it.
If Bama loses a close one to auburn and injuries play a key role, the committee will have some explaining to do if it keeps a 1-loss Bama team out and lets a 1-loss clemson team in given the vast difference between the quality of the losses.
What's a total coincidence ? You've been asked before, but nothing but silence, name one clear cut example of a final 4 ranking supporting a conspiracy ? Can you even name a weekly one this year ? They've actually been impressive this year.Agree with all the above - and that's just the thing with the "Double Secret Committee" - the rationale and justification for their picks change with every situation.
If it was Wake on an undefeated run and highy ranked, but they lost to Syracuse, you can bet they'd have TUMBLED in the rankings. Clemspon? a Media Favorite? Yea, not so much.
Make all the tin foil hat jokes y'all want, I really don't mind. Maybe its a Total "Coincidence" - but so far, every time there's been a doubt in the final selections - my theories have explained the eventual results perfectly. Just sayin'.....
One could easily argue that is incidental (and mind you I never wanted the playoff or the committee). You have to look at the alternatives, in which years was there a non-conference champion with as good a resume as one of the other playoff teams? I argued adamantly that Ohio State deserved to get in last year and the committee agreed. It should be noted that Ohio State was a three seed. So they didn't even squeak by, but the next best candidate was Penn State, and despite beating Ohio State and winning the conference, they had two losses.I am not implying that the committee was wrong or right -- just pointing out that 11 of the 12 Playoff teams were Conference Champions.
Just having fun. Hope you weren't offended.Make all the tin foil hat jokes y'all want, I really don't mind.
Jeezus, y'all are becoming more incoherent with each passing post.The "ace in the hole" seems to be Conference Champion, but not always -- just like the people who designed the committee wanted. They wanted the ability to override the polls and records, if need be.
Ohio State had one loss just like Clemson and Washington did.2016: Alabama, Clemson, Washington, OHIO STATE -- AT LARGE.
But why would you need a championship game when the conference already plays round robin?2015: Alabama, Clemson, Michigan St, OKLAHOMA -- Big 12 Champion by record (8-1) but no championship game.
2014: Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, Florida St
I am not implying that the committee was wrong or right -- just pointing out that 11 of the 12 Playoff teams were Conference Champions.
You are still operating with the old college football mindset. The AP, USA Today, coaches, ESPN polls DO NOT MATTER. They are just for talking heads, they mean NOTHING, so they really don’t even exist.Selma: Jeezus, y'all are becoming more incoherent with each passing post.
1) How in the hell can they "override the polls" when they ARE the poll? This makes no sense whatsoever. Here's a concept you need to accept - those pre-season polls and rankings prior to committee are ALL fiction. They're NOT real, they don't exist, and they don't matter. CFB can't come right out and SAY this, but they don't.
LOL. Who is incoherent? You are arguing that polls do not exist and are all fiction! LOL.
Selma: But why would you need a championship game when the conference already plays round robin?
LOL. I did not say the Big 10 needed a championship game, did I? No.
When I posted this I said, "Selma will find fault with this even though I did not offer any opinion. I only stated the teams and whether they were a conf. champ or not." I even noted at the end that I was not saying it was right or wrong. Selma, if you will let me know how I have offended you I will try to make it right with you.
Don't worry pal, if we take any more injuries on defense I'm putting on a tin foil hat for that!Make all the tin foil hat jokes y'all want, I really don't mind.
You are correct, I meant Big 12. I did not say Oklahoma needed a championship game, I only pointed out they did not have a CG. I don't know how Selma got that I wanted a Big 12 championship game. I did not say that, this is what I said.You are still operating with the old college football mindset. The AP, USA Today, coaches, ESPN polls DO NOT MATTER. They are just for talking heads, they mean NOTHING, so they really don’t even exist.
And Selma’s comment about the round robin schedule was referring to the Big 12, for crying out loud...