The BIG in Bowls

[brophog]

3 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

 

 

Why give any deciding committee ammunition too argue against a BIG team playing in a most meaningful game through bad SoS or losses?

 

The PAC is a disaster, the ACC is a one team conference, and the Big 12 has been seen as weak since this current 5 conference structure took hold. None of those three are seen as strong.

 

That leaves the SEC, which is strong by geography, but does more to mitigate opponent strength than any other conference and it gets ignored by the committee. They play more non-conference games, more FCS opponents, rarely (in some cases never) play road games, and when they do play someone outside the conference it’s a neutral site within the SEC footprint. 

 

It’s a huge part of the problem in this sport because they intentionally make it hard to compare schools.  The SEC and PAC never play each other, and in the rare case it happens it is in SEC territory. Kentucky literally never plays west of the central time zone. Florida hasn’t played a non-conference opponent outside the state of Florida since 1991. The mere idea of a home and home, like the other conferences routinely play, is seen as unfair to the SEC.

 

With the system so lopsided in the SEC’s favor, it’s not about making your schedule tough, it’s about going undefeated. The ACC has not been strong in the CFP era, but Clemson gets in. They have less margin than an SEC school, but so does everyone. If Ohio St could stop losing by 30 to unranked teams, they’d get in, too.

[ColoradoHusk]

5 minutes ago, brophog said:

 

The PAC is a disaster, the ACC is a one team conference, and the Big 12 has been seen as weak since this current 5 conference structure took hold. None of those three are seen as strong.

 

That leaves the SEC, which is strong by geography, but does more to mitigate opponent strength than any other conference and it gets ignored by the committee. They play more non-conference games, more FCS opponents, rarely (in some cases never) play road games, and when they do play someone outside the conference it’s a neutral site within the SEC footprint. 

 

It’s a huge part of the problem in this sport because they intentionally make it hard to compare schools.  The SEC and PAC never play each other, and in the rare case it happens it is in SEC territory. Kentucky literally never plays west of the central time zone. Florida hasn’t played a non-conference opponent outside the state of Florida since 1991. The mere idea of a home and home, like the other conferences routinely play, is seen as unfair to the SEC.

 

With the system so lopsided in the SEC’s favor, it’s not about making your schedule tough, it’s about going undefeated. The ACC has not been strong in the CFP era, but Clemson gets in. They have less margin than an SEC school, but so does everyone. If Ohio St could stop losing by 30 to unranked teams, they’d get in, too.

The CFP committee has clearly shown an SEC bias and they don’t care about the scheduling that the SEC does.  Year after year, the highest 2 loss, 3 loss, and 4 loss teams in the CFP rankings are SEC teams. That is done to boost and defend the ranking of SEC teams at the top of the poll. Losses within the SEC are also forgiven because of the perception that the SEC is so strong. 

[Landlord]

48 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

The CFP committee has clearly shown an SEC bias and they don’t care about the scheduling that the SEC does.  Year after year, the highest 2 loss, 3 loss, and 4 loss teams in the CFP rankings are SEC teams. That is done to boost and defend the ranking of SEC teams at the top of the poll. Losses within the SEC are also forgiven because of the perception that the SEC is so strong. 

 

 

Maybe the SEC is so strong.

[ColoradoHusk]

7 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Maybe the SEC is so strong.

More like Bama is so strong and everyone else is riding their coat tails. 

[Nebhawk]

SEC bias is real and alive.  There is no argument for or against any one conference this year.  Notre Dame was undefeated with a moderately good schedule.  Don't care if Georgia thinks they deserved a shot, they had one, and lost against Alabama.  Don't care about the Buckeyes either, they shouldn't have gotten blown away by a very mediocre Boilers team that couldn't even sniff a mid range SEC team.  The fun and gun style isn't going to beat a good solid SEC team or teams right now.  This includes us.    As long as Saban is at Bama, they arel ikely to make the party each and every season.  Don't like this playoff(payoff) anymore than I liked the BCS format.  In fact, I think I read that if we had kept the old BCS format, we would have had the same teams in the finals regardless.

 

As far as the Big 12 being what they are, you can say that about all the P5 conferences.  Each conference has there bell cow, and each conference protects those teams.  This system is really no better than the old bowl systems.

[Landlord]

33 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

More like Bama is so strong and everyone else is riding their coat tails. 

 

 

The SEC being as strong or not strong as everyone else is just as much an unsubstantiated bias as one where the SEC is better than everyone. 

[Nebhawk]

SEC plays a different brand of football, and they are daring the rest  to match it.  They recruit bigger faster players.  They play a more rugged style.  Sure they spread it out, but they also pound you up the middle when they have to run some clock and wear you out.  Its kind of crazy if you think about things from the past.  OU, Nebraska, Florida St, Miami, Penn ST and Notre Dame were the biggs during the 80's and 90's.  This must have just boiled the SEC for many years.  Alabama was almost all they had, really right now its the same thing.  

 

The BCS system, and now this playoff thing are really the only thing that is keeping the SEC going right now.  Take away this stupid system, and I don't know what would be.  I guess one can imagine what might have been if TOM would have stayed around for a few more years.  WE might have been what Bama is right now.  

[RedDenver]

19 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

 

Meanwhile, Notre Dame continues to be embarrassed by Clemson and justify its double digit underdog status as well as its inability to win a huge game.  You're saying this game means nothing for future ND chances or its opponents' quality wins?

 

In a perfect world every Husker team has one loss, to Nebraska.  They win every other game by 100 further validating Husker dominance.  In more reality, '95 is the best you have not with three two-losses having round-robin'ed each other.

 

Why give any deciding committee ammunition too argue against a BIG team playing in a most meaningful game through bad SoS or losses?

I would hope ND's (or any team's) performance this season wouldn't matter next year or the years after.

 

And I'm in favor of an 8 team playoff with the P5 champ's and the top rated G5 get in, which only allows the committee ammunition for selecting the top G5 and 2 at-large and then setting the order of 1-8. That removes most of the power of the committee and/or other ranking methods.

[brophog]

26 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

That removes most of the power of the committee and/or other ranking methods.

 

The number one rule in single elimination formats - data in equals data out. College football generates horrible data.

[huKSer]

Holy cow - Ohio State player #59 

[Old Nebraska Guy]

I'm of the opinion that the bowl results are not that great of indicator of conference strength because most of the time conference records hover around 0.500.  Last year with the B1G winning all but one game and P-12 losing them all were excepts that let a lot of fans stick their chest out.  This year with a few games to go

at 4:30 1/1/2019 

 

ACC...4-4, one game to play

B-12...3-3, one game to play

B1G....4-4, one game to play

P-12....3-3, one game to play

SEC.....6-4, two games to play

 

I think this is more the normal than last year.

[Mavric]

 

 

[Nebhawk]

Since we don't see many teams with there best players competing in these mid range bowl games, how can you really say who is having a good bowl season or bad one?  So many key players electing to watch the game instead of playing in it.  Georgia should have stayed home so far as well.  Concerned about not making a playoff game, and Texas so far is taking it to them..........10-0 end of 1st quart.

[MichiganDad3]

1 hour ago, Nebhawk said:

Since we don't see many teams with there best players competing in these mid range bowl games, how can you really say who is having a good bowl season or bad one?  So many key players electing to watch the game instead of playing in it.  Georgia should have stayed home so far as well.  Concerned about not making a playoff game, and Texas so far is taking it to them..........10-0 end of 1st quart.

It is a shame that so many players sit out. Michigan had 5 players that sat out, and all 5 of them will most likely be drafted.

[ColoradoHusk]

13 minutes ago, MichiganDad3 said:

It is a shame that so many players sit out. Michigan had 5 players that sat out, and all 5 of them will most likely be drafted.

Why is it a shame that these players are sitting out? You just said that all of these guys would most likely get drafted. Why should they play in a meaningless bowl game when an injury could cost these guys a lot of money. These guys are entering their peak earning years, why even risk it.