Big ten verse Everyone else...?

[InOmaha]

4 hours ago, huskerfan333157 said:

I have no problem with what the committee did this year but it shows we need to expand the playoffs to 8 teams.  The 5 p5 champions and the next best 3.  Take out one ooc for each team and the main bowls will get a playoff game: peach, fiesta, rose, orange, sugar, cotton.

 

Also, you can't throw out a team who lost one game 

 

Team a: lost to unranked team by 35 points, got beat badly by a top 4.

 

Team B: lost to top 7 team in a close game which prevented them from being in the CCG.

 

Team A: 2 losses team B 2 losses.  Worst loss: team A.

 

Let's go a step further: Team B loses a close game in CCG.  Team B's 2 losses are better than team A's. 

 

The only reason people don't want team B in it is because it's Alabama.  You take the names out of it and everyone will agree that Team B has a better resume 

 

 

And if you were to take the names off of it, Wisconsin would have gotten in instead of Alabama.  They won their Division, played in a CC game, lost to a top 10 team in the last game by 6 on the road, and won 1 more game. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by InOmaha

[huskerfan333157]

1 hour ago, InOmaha said:

 

 

And if you were to take the names off of it, Wisconsin would have gotten in instead of Alabama.  They won their Division, played in a CC game, lost to a top 10 team in the last game by 6 on the road, and won 1 more game. 

Both had one loss and loses to a top 10 team.  Alabama had more wins against ranked opponents.  Alabama would still be in.  Amazing that Alabama whipped the #1 team yet "teambig10" fans are saying they shouldn't have been in there.  I don't know what's worse, teamb1g10 or teamSEC.

[swmohusker]

8 minutes ago, huskerfan333157 said:

Both had one loss and loses to a top 10 team.  Alabama had more wins against ranked opponents.  Alabama would still be in.  Amazing that Alabama whipped the #1 team yet "teambig10" fans are saying they shouldn't have been in there.  I don't know what's worse, teamb1g10 or teamSEC.

My problem with Alabama is they lost to a team decisively (AUB), and that team went on to lose the conference title game decisively.  At least when OSU made it without a trip to the Conf Title game they lost on a sp teams play to PSU and they went on to win a conference title.  Bama is the 3rd best team in their conference and second best in the division. 

[MichiganDad3]

3 hours ago, Enhance said:

 

You render the regular season irrelevant with this argument. The CFP has shown several times now that they believe the body of work is relevant, not just the hardware.

 

 

The regular season is still relevant.  The regular season determines the winner of your half of the conference. The CCG is really the first playoff game.

[MichiganDad3]

4 hours ago, HuskerNBigD said:

 

+1. If team B was Nebraska, just think about the justifications being made to allow them in.

No way. I never thought Nebraska belonged in the MNC game in 2001. No conference championship, no MNC.

[jsneb83]

The problem I have with Bama being in it is last year, Saban was clamoring that Ohio St shouldn't have gotten in because they didn't win their conference/division, and then was pleading his case for them this year even though they did the same thing.

[Enhance]

22 minutes ago, MichiganDad3 said:

The regular season is still relevant.  The regular season determines the winner of your half of the conference. The CCG is really the first playoff game.

The way I'm reading what you said (and the way someone else interpreted it) is that CFP seeding should be heavily (if not entirely) dependent on whether or not you're a conference/divisional champion. Most collegiate and professional sports in this country have opportunities for non-divisional/conference champions to make the playoffs. This is particularly true in college where just about every major sport has a selection committee for determining who gets in and what seed they're given. We seem to be ignoring this truth in other sports but calling it into question with football. The only difference is that volleyball, baseball and basketball give automatic bids to conference winners. I think we'll eventually get there but it's going to be several years from now.

[huskerfan333157]

39 minutes ago, swmohusker said:

My problem with Alabama is they lost to a team decisively (AUB), and that team went on to lose the conference title game decisively.  At least when OSU made it without a trip to the Conf Title game they lost on a sp teams play to PSU and they went on to win a conference title.  Bama is the 3rd best team in their conference and second best in the division. 

Didn't Alabama kill Clemson?  What if Alabama beats Georgia? So if Alabama beats uga then uga is still better? Interesting logic.

[InOmaha]

54 minutes ago, huskerfan333157 said:

Both had one loss and loses to a top 10 team.  Alabama had more wins against ranked opponents.  Alabama would still be in.  Amazing that Alabama whipped the #1 team yet "teambig10" fans are saying they shouldn't have been in there.  I don't know what's worse, teamb1g10 or teamSEC.

 

The only category Alabama was better in was strength of schedule.  They sit at 6 and Wisconsin at 13.  So that must be your personal differentiator.  Not much different then someone else pointing out they are the 3rd best team in their conference and second in their division going into the selection based on head to head matchups.

[ColoradoHusk]

I listened to a Joel Klatt from FOX interview today.  He had some interesting things to say about the CFP.

 

First, it was the SEC commissioner (at the time) who pushed for the "4 best teams" criteria for the selection.  He did this because he wanted the possibility of multiple SEC schools to make the playoff.

 

Second, Joel Klatt has an idea that I actually agree with.  Klatt says it should be the four best conference champions.  I had been against the "conference champion" criteria, but being a conference champion proves the team on the field.  Also, by taking only the top 4 conference champions, it would leave out an "outlier" champ who sneaks into the conference championship game with a poor record and pulls off a big upset.  The likelihood of that happening twice in one year isn't very high.

 

Klatt also said that he doesn't want to expand the playoff beyond 4, because if all the P5 conference champions made the playoff, it would make the non-conference games completely meaningless.  They would basically be exhibition games.

[InOmaha]

14 minutes ago, jsneb83 said:

The problem I have with Bama being in it is last year, Saban was clamoring that Ohio St shouldn't have gotten in because they didn't win their conference/division, and then was pleading his case for them this year even though they did the same thing.

 

Not only that but he went on a tour of sports shows to plead his case before the selection was made.  No reason to listen to Saban beg as part of a conference championship pregame show.

[desertshox]

3 minutes ago, InOmaha said:

 

Not only that but he went on a tour of sports shows to plead his case before the selection was made.  No reason to listen to Saban beg as part of a conference championship pregame show.

 

did any of the sports shows ask him why he changed his tone from last year to this year?

[swmohusker]

4 minutes ago, huskerfan333157 said:

Didn't Alabama kill Clemson?  What if Alabama beats Georgia? So if Alabama beats uga then uga is still better? Interesting logic.

Bama didn't kill Clemson.  Talking about teams belonging in the playoff with bama.  If they win it then obviously they are better team.  But to not be a divisional champ, then your division loses the conference title game is a hard sell to say you are a top 4 team.  Looking at the sec in bowl games points to the conference being very average numbers 4-14.  Also, Mercer and 8 conf games, That should cost you right there.   Conf championship games should be taken away.  They do nothing but hurt a conference unless you are the sec.  IF Wiscy just sits at home like bama they are in

[Sker fer life]

1 hour ago, MichiganDad3 said:

No way. I never thought Nebraska belonged in the MNC game in 2001. No conference championship, no MNC.

Agree on this.

[huskerfan333157]

1 hour ago, swmohusker said:

Bama didn't kill Clemson.  Talking about teams belonging in the playoff with bama.  If they win it then obviously they are better team.  But to not be a divisional champ, then your division loses the conference title game is a hard sell to say you are a top 4 team.  Looking at the sec in bowl games points to the conference being very average numbers 4-14.  Also, Mercer and 8 conf games, That should cost you right there.   Conf championship games should be taken away.  They do nothing but hurt a conference unless you are the sec.  IF Wiscy just sits at home like bama they are in

So even though bama controlled Clemson the whole game they still didn't belong?  So if bama beats uga they still didn't belong and aren't a top 4?  If you're unbiased and watched football outside the big ten then you know Alabama belonged.  I do agree the playoffs need to be expanded to 8 teams: p5 champs and another 3 but don't take it out and be biased against Alabama because the format sucks.  Pretty sure Alabama's win over Clemson showed they belonged.