Ok, but why? What evidence exists to say they were?
Was it the wins against Alcorn State, Kentucky, Ball State, and 5-7 Auburn, or was it the same quality loss to 3-9 Georgia State?
OR was it simply because they beat Alabama?
My theory on why the Big 12 isn't getting respect from the playoff committee
- Thread starter Newell
- Start date
Was it the wins against Alcorn State, Kentucky, Ball State, and 5-7 Auburn, or was it the same quality loss to 3-9 Georgia State?
OR was it simply because they beat Alabama?
It's a circle and all made up lol none of it matters. OU is a good loss because it's (Oklahoma and all their 4/5 stars) and because OU beat Alabama, that makes OU good!
Not what I’m saying. That is 100% a bad loss. The problem is the teams behind bama, specifically Big12 also have a really bad loss so it kinda cancels that argument out.
But what if you have two bad losses? Because OU and Vandy combined to beat 4 bowl eligible teams and two of those were named Alabama.
A lot of this can be summed up somewhat succinctly:
There aren't 12 playoff caliber teams out there. There probably never will be. Most years the teams ranked 6ish-15ish will be close enough together that it's going to be a subjective selection process for media/fans to argue over. This is what people wanted.
There aren't 12 playoff caliber teams out there. There probably never will be. Most years the teams ranked 6ish-15ish will be close enough together that it's going to be a subjective selection process for media/fans to argue over. This is what people wanted.
That gets back to my original point, because it’s OU with its recent success that isn’t considered a bad loss. It’s stupid recency bias but it’s the same reason OSU didn’t fall far losing at home to an unranked Michigan while being a 22 point favorite.
Unfortunately the Big12 losses for the ccg (Texas tech and Kansas, Baylor and Cinci) are just as bad if not worse in most eyes then vandy and OU. And without the premier win for either team that why they are ranked behind bama.
I’m not a fan of the 12 team for this very reason
This is 100% correct, but when the subjective selection process is based on perceived biases and criteria that is entirely arbitrary, then you have a very flawed system.
Yup. That’s why the 4 team or an 8 team was perfect. Most years teams like OSU and Bama will just waltz into the playoff due to having very few teams on the schedule who can go toe to toe with them.
Let’s say bama loses to Georgia but beats vandy. They are honestly probably ranked higher then they are no with no great wins just due to preseason rankings and how many teams get in
None of those losses are worse than Vandy.
I mean.... obviously. THAT'S where the game is rigged, not in the committee.
That was the problem when OUT left, and yeah it’s stupid but that’s the logic. The Big12 needs a couple teams to string together consistent good years and hopefully get a playoff win in there. TCU getting the win and falling off entirely didn’t help. You need some consistency which is going to be tricky with the recruiting
Either ESPN owns the criteria that the committee must use, or the committee is the one who created said criteria. Either way, it's all inherently skewed one way.
The entirety of Grobes success was spent at WF. He is 100% an ACC guy.
The entirety of Riley’s success was at Oregon State. If his bias exists it’s going to be pro G5 / anti-SEC/Big 10. Going to guess he isn’t super pro-Nebraska.
So let me get this straight.. The SEC gets 4 teams in and those 4 get to prove themselves worthy. The Big 10 gets 4 teams in and those 4 get to prove themselves worthy.
1 Big 12 team that gets the worst seed and they better win or else everyone will say "SEE THEY SHOULDN'T EVEN GET A SPOT!"
**** that lol. It's a complete joke.
It's why I'm losing interest in college football. There's an elaborate, money generating song and dance just to get up where we always wind up. All you've accomplished is watering down the regular season.
I used to really love watching college football. This year, I'll be I've watched less than 10 hours total of non-Iowa State or Iowa games. It's just hard to care. The teams they want in will get in, and there's realistically about 5 teams that have any meaningful chance to win it all. And it will be that way next year, and the year after that.
Give me basketball where you can have some parity.
Even the criteria completely unaffiliated with ESPN, the CFP, or the committee agrees the Big XII doesn't have a team worthy of a top 12 rating.
As ****** as it sounds, our conference has been successfully watered down to the point they don't have to be biased to write us off. That's what I mean when I say it's rigged before it ever gets to the committee. They don't have to use skewed criteria or analytics because the real-world results support us being ranked about where we are.
BSU being as high as they are is another thing entirely, but I genuinely believe the committee shot themselves in the foot by ranking them 12th in the initial CFP rankings in week 10. I suspect they regret that decision, but they've hamstrung themselves with it.
