Ding, ding, ding- we have a winner. That is precisely why they are going to shoe horn Alabama into the playoffs.
My theory on why the Big 12 isn't getting respect from the playoff committee
- Thread starter Newell
- Start date
Ding, ding, ding- we have a winner. That is precisely why they are going to shoe horn Alabama into the playoffs.
I get what you're saying, but there is no actual criteria. Lol that's the point. And they're not going to make anything concrete because you would not be able to make an executive decision of pulling a team for another if you had that because the committee could probably then be sued?
If the criteria was set, then teams would know what they need to do to get in. Because as it stands, if you're a name brand, you're essentially in unless you have a horrific season. If you're not a name brand, you better make your conference title and win.
Make objective criteria and the problem resolves itself. It will not happen though unfortunately.
That's fine, but there aren't any available criteria that favor us vs the top of the SEC or B1G. Literally none. My point is that even if it was 100% objectively selected by computers, we'd be in about the same spot and for sure a 1-bid conference unless the key metric is "wins vs a Big XII team."
That's my point. Sure, the committee is janky, and we all know that. They always have been. But it isn't their fault we're only getting 1 team in for as long as we have this format.
I don’t think objective criteria would change much this year except for Boise, as people keep pining for the BCS system that system still has the Big12 where they are behind bama it just has Boise out of the picture
Wouldn't be impossible for a Clemson type situation to emerge in the Big 12 with one program stepping up, establishing consistent dominance in the conference and registering consistent top-5/top-10 finishes. Wouldn't be easy, it would take winning big CFP matchups against blueblood programs, but IMO it is possible.
I don’t think anyone would argue for some mechanical process of ranking the “best” teams based strictly on their win/loss record.
However, the CFP ranking isn’t supposed to be strict “power rating” either.
Ostensibly the goal of the system is to reliably determine a field most likely to produce an unambiguously legitimate champion.
Ensuring the top 5 conference champions are there and the top 4 have favorable seeding is a pretty good start.
The idea behind that is a conference has much more reliable data to work with in ranking its teams than exists in comparing teams with maybe 1-2 common opponents at most.
That doesn’t change when you start looking at the non-champions.
If you’re going to make the case for the inclusion of the 3rd, 4th, or even 8th (8th!) place team in a conference over the champion or runner-up of another you should make a strong case.
I don’t think you can when comparing a Miami or ISU against an Alabama or Ole Miss.
When you look at the bad losses the SEC teams have and the limited data available to compare for common opponents I’d argue the results favor the higher placing Big 12 and ACC teams.
And if it isn’t conclusive the other way, then I’d ask what is more likely to undermine the legitimacy of the eventual champion?:
Not including the 4th place SEC team in the field or the only representative of the Big 12 playing on the road against the #5 team and its runner up staying home?
They don’t have comparable losses to Alabama.
While not impossible, a few things make this EXTREMELY unlikely:
1) During Clemson's rise to prominence the media cash discrepancy was nowhere near what it will be going forward. It will be very very difficult for even the best Big XII and ACC teams to prove they belong in the national title conversation.
2) Even though they were down during Clemson's rise/run, having teams with value to consistently beat like FSU and Miami does a lot for your brand perception. As it stands currently, we really don't have any programs that benefit from that perception.
3) By the time a team could establish dominance in the Big XII, the playoff format (and perhaps all of CFB) will be different from how it is today, and nearly every change will make it harder for non-P2 teams to establish themselves.
And those 4 teams had a combined record of 21-27.
I'm not saying Iowa isn't respectable. And we're certainly respectable, too. But there's levels to this ****. And we're on the cusp of playing with the big big boys.
I just hope we don't have our Iowa vs Stanford Rose Bowl moment.
Also Clemson got there with under the table payments like the SEC was doing. Now that NIL is both legal and has nothing to do with actual name image and likeness those money cannons at the big schools go brrrrrrrrrr
Yes they do. Unless you think there is a huge difference between Syracuse, Ga Tech, Oklahoma, and Vandy. They are all similar, decent but nothing great.
That's what happens when the rankings aren't metrics-based. All that matters is TV revenue.
Same problem applies to other models with more auto-bids. Doesn't matter if that 4th finishing team is metric-ranked 10th or 50th, they're getting in either way in that system. The further they are away from the top 12, the less equitable and germane to a competitive sport/tournament that it becomes.
I watched them play several good teams tough. They are going bowling. 6 wins. Close losses to top teams like Texas.
How did you think they looked when you watched them in conference play?
The “look at that good loss!” argument. The same one people are using to prop up Boise as better than the Big 12 champion. I thing good wins and strength of schedule should be more important than “good losses.”
Miami, like BYU also lost 2 of the last 3 which hurts their case.
Personally, I thought they looked very average more often than not, but it’s hard to debate subjectivity. I prefer to at least try to look at what they did or did not accomplish with what they had put in front of them. In my opinion, their one accomplishment was beating 3 loss Alabama, while also losing to 3 win Georgia State. Their next best win was 6-6 VaTech in OT.
Even their highs and lows equate to “average”.
The more I look at it the more I can see the committees logic regarding Bama. Instead of splitting hairs over “best and worst” losses - take the team with 3 Top 20 wins including a top 5 win. That makes sense.
What doesn’t make sense to me is Boise. They are overrated.
What doesn’t make sense to me is Boise. They are overrated.
I mostly agree with you, especially on Boise. My gripe is that they are still trying to squeeze Alabama in there. Even if Alabama is a lot better than they seem, those losses to Vandy and OU should kill any argument they have. There needs to be punishment for screwing the pooch twice. I really don't have a problem with anyone's ranking other than Bama and Boise.
Is the SEC really tougher this year? I mean, over the past decade it's for the most part been the toughest. But I've watched a lot of SEC games this season and come away not impressed. Texas comes in and wins the conference in their 1st season. That doesn't exactly show conference strength.
'Bama was exposed last year in the playoff and I guess we'll find out if the SEC is indeed the best conference in this year's 12 team version.
