Big ten verse Everyone else...?

[jsneb83]

8 minutes ago, huskerfan333157 said:

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.

There were like 6-7 teams that belonged in the conversation, and any of those teams could beat any of those other teams on any given day. So Bama beating Clemson doesn't prove one way or the other that they did or didn't belong any more than any of the other teams.

[HuskerNBigD]

2 hours 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.

 

This is the biggest issue I have with the whole ordeal. It isn't that I don't think that Bama shouldn't be in, it is that Saban is a hypocrite. Granted, any coach in his shoes would be but if he were to come out and say, hey look I am fighting for my team to be in and I said some things last year that now make me have egg on my face, I'd respect him for it. Either way, I think Bama beats Georgia.

1 hour ago, ColoradoHusk said:

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.

 

Must've been listening to a certain Dallas radio station.

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, HuskerNBigD said:

Must've been listening to a certain Dallas radio station.

Joel Klatt....Joel Klatt, Joel Klatt.....Joel Klatt

[MichiganDad3]

5 hours ago, Enhance said:

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.

And the reason collegiate and professional sports in this country have opportunities for non-divisional/conference champions to make the playoffs is $$$. Extra games to generate extra money. I have no problem with non-conference champions being in the playoffs if there are more than 4 teams in the playoffs. When the MLB had a smaller playoff, only pennant winners were in.

[Enhance]

8 hours ago, MichiganDad3 said:

And the reason collegiate and professional sports in this country have opportunities for non-divisional/conference champions to make the playoffs is $$$. Extra games to generate extra money. I have no problem with non-conference champions being in the playoffs if there are more than 4 teams in the playoffs. When the MLB had a smaller playoff, only pennant winners were in.

Then I'm confused - what are we debating? 

 

Back to one of your original points, I don't have an issue with Alabama being in this year's CFP. The caveat to this is that it makes sense based on the current rules of the system and the narrative generated by the CFP. It's imperfect, biased and at times contradictory, but that's going to be an inherent problem when you leave these things up to a committee.

 

I (personally) believe Alabama is one of the four best teams in the country. There's a fair amount of subjectivity associated with this as well as with the CFP's choices. I know for a fact part of their rationale is "well, it's 'Bama." And the guys on USC brought up a good point yesterday - 'Bama very well could be the first two loss program to get into the CFP in the future simply because of their recent historic résumé. That's an issue IMO.

[swmohusker]

14 hours ago, huskerfan333157 said:

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.

Whoa pal!! Pulling out the I watch so much football card.  I watch plenty of football, yes I even stay up and watch PAC 12 games....  The argument isnt just about Bama belonging, but you could easily argue other teams that belonged as well.  I think you could make a case for 4 or 5 teams that could have earned that 4 spot.  

 

The thing I hate about the committee is the stupid "eye test" they use to evaluate teams.  Bama won the eye test and so they are clearly 4.  Well, a few weeks ago Auburn passed the eye test and if they absolutely belonged as a 2 loss SEC champ.  Also, one of the hottest teams in football was USC and many pundits talked about how they looked like a top 4 team with all of the athletes they had and how well they have been playing and maybe they belong.  Auburn gets physically beat by a G5 team and USC got owned up front by OSU.  Bama's resume was not the usual SEC West resume that they have always gotten credit for, but they look like they could be a top 4 team so lets give them their shot.  Did Bama belong??  probably.  Is their other teams that could have beat Clemson and be paying in the title game..... Probably.  We will never know 

[InOmaha]

Heck Syracuse beat Clemson this year.  It's not as big of an accomplishment as people are making it out to be. 

[Nebfanatic]

2 hours ago, swmohusker said:

Whoa pal!! Pulling out the I watch so much football card.  I watch plenty of football, yes I even stay up and watch PAC 12 games....  The argument isnt just about Bama belonging, but you could easily argue other teams that belonged as well.  I think you could make a case for 4 or 5 teams that could have earned that 4 spot.  

 

The thing I hate about the committee is the stupid "eye test" they use to evaluate teams.  Bama won the eye test and so they are clearly 4.  Well, a few weeks ago Auburn passed the eye test and if they absolutely belonged as a 2 loss SEC champ.  Also, one of the hottest teams in football was USC and many pundits talked about how they looked like a top 4 team with all of the athletes they had and how well they have been playing and maybe they belong.  Auburn gets physically beat by a G5 team and USC got owned up front by OSU.  Bama's resume was not the usual SEC West resume that they have always gotten credit for, but they look like they could be a top 4 team so lets give them their shot.  Did Bama belong??  probably.  Is their other teams that could have beat Clemson and be paying in the title game..... Probably.  We will never know 

No one thought USC belonged after getting curb stomped by ND

[swmohusker]

2 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

No one thought USC belonged after getting curb stomped by ND

Not really.  OSU was still talked about after getting curb stomped by Iowa.  

[Nebfanatic]

Just now, swmohusker said:

Not really.  OSU was still talked about after getting curb stomped by Iowa.  

Maybe getting talked about but both teams lost their shot with those losses.

[Notre Dame Joe]

On 1/4/2018 at 2:26 PM, 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.

 

Bama was 0-1 against the top 10...  Their good wins were Mississippi State, LSU, and Fresno State.  Those are all 4 loss teams (now) who may be  ranked but if so they are fringe top 25.  So I don't know what body of work means.  The meaning seems to change with the season,  a  conference championship one year, a lot of quality wins the next, and finally dominating a very weak schedule.  

 

Edited January 6, 2018 by Notre Dame Joe

[Ric Flair]

The whole point of the playoff is to eliminate subjectivity and bias and settle it on the field. So far all it’s done is to move the subjectivity and bias to decisions about who gets a ticket to the dance. I think the system has to include any undefeated team and should be restricted to conference champions. That’s a decent first step, but the only real cure is to expand it to eight teams. 

[huskerfan333157]

2 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

Bama was 0-1 against the top 10...  Their good wins were Mississippi State, LSU, and Fresno State.  Those are all 4 loss teams (now) who may be  ranked but if so they are fringe top 25.  So I don't know what body of work means.  The meaning seems to change with the season,  a  conference championship one year, a lot of quality wins the next, and finally dominating a very weak schedule.  

 

Wisconsin had a weaker schedule, ucf had a weak schedule, USC got beat a few times.  Who should have been in instead of them? Alabama took care of their weaker opponents and osu did not (Iowa).

[Notre Dame Joe]

6 hours ago, huskerfan333157 said:

Wisconsin had a weaker schedule, ucf had a weak schedule, USC got beat a few times.  Who should have been in instead of them? Alabama took care of their weaker opponents and osu did not (Iowa).

 

Well I mean it's basically asking What quality of team do you value highest?   Someone above mentioned "the 4 best teams" to create seasons where the SEC gets two.  I think the actual criteria is the 4th best team.  So far slots 1-3 have been pretty straight forward as to who has the best resume. But #4 is controversial so the committee reverts to raw power rankings  and picks who Vegas would say is strongerst.  OF course that is Bama, and would be equally as powerful if they beat 12 Sunbelt teams.

 

My criterion is Which good team tried the hardest and did the most?  That is clearly Southern Cal, they had a 9 game conference schedule and used 2 free slots on ND and UT, and also won their conference vs a rematch.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Notre Dame Joe