Is there a scenario where we still back into the playoffs?

[colbysullivan]

Forcing inclusion in sports doesn't yield good decision making.

Here’s the thing though. You could absolutely make the argument that a 3-loss team getting in is exactly what the 12 team playoff was designed to do.

 

[mlh]

There is reason to cut the SEC schedule back to 6 games. Stop eating your own. Eat the enemy.

Exactly. That would make for a boring season but would put half of the SEC in the playoffs each year.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

I actually saw someone post that SOS only matters if records are the same. And I’m afraid that’s a common belief. Ugh.

I think it's a case by case basis.

10-2 Bama with somewhat close road losses to Vandy and Top 8 Tenn would match up very well against most other 10-2 teams and even a few 11-2 or 11-1 teams.

But that 3rd loss is so bad it carries large negative weight when comparing 9-3 to 10-2 or better with no ugly losses.

I still think they choose Bama but if they wanted to pick SMU they could explain it as a razor close CG loss by SMU who is still 11-2 vs a 9-3 Bama with 3 losses and (2) losses to .500 teams and one by 3 TD's

This whole thing is about money though and people are greedy.

Bama will bring more money and ratings than SMU and that's the real bottom line.

 

[Cruloc]

Here’s the thing though. You could absolutely make the argument that a 3-loss team getting in is exactly what the 12 team playoff was designed to do.

A 12 team playoff was created to include teams that have no business being in the playoff.

Hence, SMU, who has lost to the only power 4 ranked teams they've played.

Hence, Boise State, who lost to the only power 4 ranked team they played.

Hence, Arizona State, who plays in a conference that's well below the SEC

Hence, Indiana, who played one ranked team and got beat by 3 TDs.

Or even Penn State, who lost to the 2 ranked teams it played.

 

[colbysullivan]

I think it's a case by case basis.

10-2 Bama with somewhat close road losses to Vandy and Top 8 Tenn would match up very well against most other 10-2 teams and even a few 11-2 or 11-1 teams.

But that 3rd loss is so bad it carries large negative weight when comparing 9-3 to 10-2 or better with no ugly losses.

I still think they choose Bama but if they wanted to pick SMU they could explain it as a razor close CG loss by SMU who is still 11-2 vs a 9-3 Bama with 3 losses and (2) losses to .500 teams and one by 3 TD's

This whole thing is about money though and people are greedy.

Bama will bring more money and ratings than SMU and that's the real bottom line.

The last sentence is the answer. And again, all the committee has to say is “SMU lost to both of the ranked teams they played. Bama is 3-1 with a win over the SEC champion.”

It’s almost like all of college football has forgotten we even beat UGA to begin with.

 

[colbysullivan]

A 12 team playoff was created to include teams that have no business being in the playoff.

Hence, SMU, who has lost to the only power 4 ranked teams they've played.

Hence, Boise State, who lost to the only power 4 ranked team they played.

Hence, Arizona State, who plays in a conference that's well below the SEC

Hence, Indiana, who played one ranked team and got beat by 3 TDs.

Or even Penn State, who lost to the 2 ranked teams it played.

That’s exactly what I said

 

[CrimsonNagus]

If SMU is a playoff team then so is Army but you don’t hear anyone arguing that Army should be included. Why is that? You shouldn’t be automatically rewarded for making but losing the CG of a weak conference.

 

[Evil Crimson Dragon]

Exactly. That would make for a boring season but would put half of the SEC in the playoffs each year.

Imagine the butthurt from the rest of college football

 

[Evil Crimson Dragon]

The last sentence is the answer. And again, all the committee has to say is “SMU lost to both of the ranked teams they played. Bama is 3-1 with a win over the SEC champion.”

It’s almost like all of college football has forgotten we even beat UGA to begin with.

Even UGA has forgotten that...........their excuse is "that was in September when we werent up to full speed yet"

 

[toliver2]

I think it's a case by case basis.

10-2 Bama with somewhat close road losses to Vandy and Top 8 Tenn would match up very well against most other 10-2 teams and even a few 11-2 or 11-1 teams.

But that 3rd loss is so bad it carries large negative weight when comparing 9-3 to 10-2 or better with no ugly losses.

I still think they choose Bama but if they wanted to pick SMU they could explain it as a razor close CG loss by SMU who is still 11-2 vs a 9-3 Bama with 3 losses and (2) losses to .500 teams and one by 3 TD's

This whole thing is about money though and people are greedy.

Bama will bring more money and ratings than SMU and that's the real bottom line.

I agree, but army has a better record, a conference championship and a better loss than smu. Why aren't they in the mix?

 

[toliver2]

Imagine the butthurt from the rest of college football

I'm all for it. If they want to penalize you for playing a tough schedule, then the sec should totally manipulate the system and get 6-7 teams in every year

 

[Nothingfaced]

It might not seem like it now, but a potential 10-3 finish with a Citrus bowl trophy would be an excellent first year for CKD.

A loss in the playoffs means the first 4-loss Alabama team since 2007, IIRC.

 

[Bpilktree]

If SMU is a playoff team then so is Army but you don’t hear anyone arguing that Army should be included. Why is that? You shouldn’t be automatically rewarded for making but losing the CG of a weak conference.

Army had their playoff game vs Notre Dame and got absolutely destroyed so we know exactly what would happen if they played in the playoffs. If they lose a close one score game there is much more talk about them. They still wouldn’t get in but they would be in discussion more.

 

[Evil Crimson Dragon]

I'm all for it. If they want to penalize you for playing a tough schedule, then the sec should totally manipulate the system and get 6-7 teams in every year

Then they would move the goal posts and say we hadn't played anyone

 

[KrAzY3]

Army had their playoff game vs Notre Dame and got absolutely destroyed so we know exactly what would happen if they played in the playoffs. If they lose a close one score game there is much more talk about them. They still wouldn’t get in but they would be in discussion more.

SMU had their playoff games against BYU and Clemson and lost both games.

If you play so few important games that we can single them out like that, team A shouldn't have to win to be relevant while team B can lose both and it still means nothing.

 

[Coach D]

It might not seem like it now, but a potential 10-3 finish with a Citrus bowl trophy would be an excellent first year for CKD.

A loss in the playoffs means the first 4-loss Alabama team since 2007, IIRC.

Really? playoffs are always better than a bowl which you could still also lose.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Even UGA has forgotten that...........their excuse is "that was in September when we werent up to full speed yet"

yeah, that was so September 28th. There has been like 3 iPhone updates since then.

 

[toliver2]

The last sentence is the answer. And again, all the committee has to say is “SMU lost to both of the ranked teams they played. Bama is 3-1 with a win over the SEC champion.”

It’s almost like all of college football has forgotten we even beat UGA to begin with.

I kept telling everyone i know, pull for uga to beat tex. Them winning the sec gives us the best win in football with ole miss. I think if georgia had lost we'd have been out but i just can't see the logic since we beat the eventual sec champ and media darling uga.

 

[B1GTide]

Really? playoffs are always better than a bowl which you could still also lose.

With this Alabama team, a Citrus Bowl win is far from guaranteed. I doubt they would prepare at all. Unless some changes are made.

 

[ReturnToGlory]

It would be funny if the SEC went down to 6 or 7 games. ABC/ESPN is the beneficiary of all the great matchups and you have their dumb employees arguing for SMU over Bama. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

I'm just curious why SMU never showed up in the weekly Saturday tripleheaders on ABC, guys.