|
Post by ajbuckeye on Oct 22, 2019 16:09:40 GMT
The problem is that the committee will not view tOSU or OU as substantially better if BAMA OU and tOSU all have one loss. Take a look at the mratings compolsite. It will show the average of all of the polls which 90% are computer based with a few opinion polls.
The top 10 are
Ohio State LSU Clemson Alabama PSU OU Auburn Oregon Florida Wisconsin
The opinion polls ranked the B1G roughly 2 positions lower compared to the opinions. The SEC teams are ranked over 1 spot higher on average. When the CFP comes you can pretty much bank on the top spots to mirror what the opinion polls have.
The committee has always gone by the eye test, schedule and I do,believe the voice of the analyst do matter. Id argue this year 3 of the 4 metrics favor in this case Ohio State.....and I think they'd favor Oklahoma too. When Alabama got picked over Ohio State two years ago THEY SHOULD have due to the horrible loss at Iowa. This year there are to many good teams that could all legitimately win a title to give a team that didnt even win its own division a chance at a 4 team playoff. Not to mention im not sure Alabama would beat Ohio State or Oklahoma head to head.....and I think the committee would pick the Sooners or Buckeyes over a one loss tide....or LSU for that matter The problem with the eye test is that the committee can always chose what game to focus the eye test on. In 2018 the eye test was 100% focused on the bad losss to Iowa as opposed to the completely dominating performance during the last game of the season against Michigan that had the top defense in the country at the time. During Oklahomas last 4 regular season games they gave up at least 40 in every game and were not able to put a 4 loss Texas team away until the final minute. Do you focus the eyes on a game in late October or do you look at what they have done lately. I don't trust them because they pick whatever piece of information they want and just go with it.
2014 it was all about the conference championship. The Bad loss meant nothing. Plus that year it did help to have Buckeyes on your helmet as opposed to a frog or a bear.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Oct 22, 2019 23:15:16 GMT
I have never known anyone more into polls. into them positively or negatively ? They say you love what you hate.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Oct 22, 2019 23:24:45 GMT
Worst case scenario for ANY team that had one loss: Bama loses a close game to LSU, without Tua. Then, goes on to win the SEC. Afterwards, Tua comes back and Bama rolls over everyone else. Bama would get voted in over ANY other 1-loss team, probably even conference Champs. Oh boy. Ever since Tiger posted that list of 4/5 star recruits by team, I've thought Wisconsin was not in the same class as OSU, Bama or Clemson. They were playing over their skis. I don't know, but.. I'd guess they've had a couple of key injuries, and their lack of depth hurt them. Tiger, you're being nice: Florida was GIFTED That game over South Carolina by some of the weakest penalties you'll ever see... as weak at the PF call that help Bama immensely. Texas cannot stop anyone... period. They made Punta Williams look like Gayle Sayers. We reek.... But, we won. Not a chance an Alabama with 1 close loss, even without Tus gets in over Ohio State, or Oklahoma this year, especially without winning their division. Alabama got a mulligan two years ago because Ohio State lost to Iowa 55-24 and that was the basis were determining the existentially better argument. If there is doubt, as there would be this year as to whether Alabama would beat Ohio State or Oklahoma.....the committee would choose the conference champion. Not to mention the SEC as a whole was much better two years ago......the SEC is strong at the top, but the middle and bottom are mediocre to bad football teams I think you might be seriously underestimating the committee....:-) Alabama with 1 loss without Tua is exactly why the committee would put them in...the argument against this would be the Tennessee game last Saturday night, where the worst team in P5, escpecially with Guarantano at QB, was neck and neck with Bama through most of 3 quarters.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Oct 23, 2019 0:26:05 GMT
There is no way this year that ANY undefeated P5 Conference Champ does not get selected. My comments referred only to a 1-loss conference champ. I think the committee values LOSSES more than Conference titles... NO two loss team will make it when 1-loss P5 teams are available. When a bunch of teams have 1-loss, I think they start "looking at all factors".... then, who knows?
We'll see how it all goes... nothing but speculation at this point.
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Oct 23, 2019 0:51:57 GMT
The committee has always gone by the eye test, schedule and I do,believe the voice of the analyst do matter. Id argue this year 3 of the 4 metrics favor in this case Ohio State.....and I think they'd favor Oklahoma too. When Alabama got picked over Ohio State two years ago THEY SHOULD have due to the horrible loss at Iowa. This year there are to many good teams that could all legitimately win a title to give a team that didnt even win its own division a chance at a 4 team playoff. Not to mention im not sure Alabama would beat Ohio State or Oklahoma head to head.....and I think the committee would pick the Sooners or Buckeyes over a one loss tide....or LSU for that matter The problem with the eye test is that the committee can always chose what game to focus the eye test on. In 2018 the eye test was 100% focused on the bad losss to Iowa as opposed to the completely dominating performance during the last game of the season against Michigan that had the top defense in the country at the time. During Oklahomas last 4 regular season games they gave up at least 40 in every game and were not able to put a 4 loss Texas team away until the final minute. Do you focus the eyes on a game in late October or do you look at what they have done lately. I don't trust them because they pick whatever piece of information they want and just go with it.
2014 it was all about the conference championship. The Bad loss meant nothing. Plus that year it did help to have Buckeyes on your helmet as opposed to a frog or a bear.
I wish there were clear concise logical rules for all tiebreakers...no eye test shite, not even resume stuff Rule1: 0 > 1 loss > 2 That is a simple enough basic understanding. So keep going after that... Rule 2: Conference championships trump non-champions.this rule is logical and explains itself Rule 3: wins and status being equal than: 3a. Compare SOS 3b. Compare records of teams that beat the teams in question 3c. Compare # of elite wins (elite wins defined as teams in the top 20)Example: Team A is Conference Champ 12-1. Team B is Conference Champ 12-1. Process them through Rule 3 3a. Team A has a stronger SOS 3b. Team A lost to a 4-8 team. Team B lost to a 10-2 team. Team B scores the point here 3c. Team A has 3 elite wins. Team B has 1 elite win. Team A scores the point here. Team A gets in over Team B because they score higher in two of the categories It is simple and completely transparent and understandable if a Team gets left out...well look at the rules. Win the tough games, play better opponents, etc. The committee is just incapable of transparency or explaining their logic. I'd rather go back to the BCS rankings over the crap we have now Teams finish the season and don't know where they stand. No one knows what they need to do. Everyone watches the stupid ESPN shows to see stuff about eye tests and game control. It is garbage
|
|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Oct 23, 2019 14:58:22 GMT
The problem with the eye test is that the committee can always chose what game to focus the eye test on. In 2018 the eye test was 100% focused on the bad losss to Iowa as opposed to the completely dominating performance during the last game of the season against Michigan that had the top defense in the country at the time. During Oklahomas last 4 regular season games they gave up at least 40 in every game and were not able to put a 4 loss Texas team away until the final minute. Do you focus the eyes on a game in late October or do you look at what they have done lately. I don't trust them because they pick whatever piece of information they want and just go with it.
2014 it was all about the conference championship. The Bad loss meant nothing. Plus that year it did help to have Buckeyes on your helmet as opposed to a frog or a bear.
I wish there were clear concise logical rules for all tiebreakers...no eye test shite, not even resume stuff Rule1: 0 > 1 loss > 2 That is a simple enough basic understanding. So keep going after that... Rule 2: Conference championships trump non-champions.this rule is logical and explains itself Rule 3: wins and status being equal than: 3a. Compare SOS 3b. Compare records of teams that beat the teams in question 3c. Compare # of elite wins (elite wins defined as teams in the top 20)Example: Team A is Conference Champ 12-1. Team B is Conference Champ 12-1. Process them through Rule 3 3a. Team A has a stronger SOS 3b. Team A lost to a 4-8 team. Team B lost to a 10-2 team. Team B scores the point here 3c. Team A has 3 elite wins. Team B has 1 elite win. Team A scores the point here. Team A gets in over Team B because they score higher in two of the categories It is simple and completely transparent and understandable if a Team gets left out...well look at the rules. Win the tough games, play better opponents, etc. The committee is just incapable of transparency or explaining their logic. I'd rather go back to the BCS rankings over the crap we have now Teams finish the season and don't know where they stand. No one knows what they need to do. Everyone watches the stupid ESPN shows to see stuff about eye tests and game control. It is garbage I could get behind something like this but I think you would need all conference to schedule in a similar way. If the SEC and ACC want to play 8 conference games then require them to play an additional P5 opponent every year.
|
|
|
Post by kentflash_05 on Oct 23, 2019 21:40:36 GMT
Well Damnet if I'm wrong and we get 1 loss Alabama in the playoff over a 1 loss OSU or Oklahoma we should just call the damn thing the Alabama invitational and accept that as long as they have one loss they will never play by the same rules. Seriously There are to many good teams this year.....and I would actually be in favor of the Big Ten commish saying expand to 8 or we're done. Two years ago 'Bammer had an argument but this year I don't see an argument a rational person could make in a four team playoff of them getting in. The only scenario I could see is if Ohio State, Oklahoma and Clemson are all undefeated and have one loss.... and it's a debate between them and a one loss Oregon team, and I wouldn't fault the Pac-12 if they threatened to pull out of the playoff at that point too. Either the committee needs to have a set criteria, or be more transparent with how the selection process works.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Oct 23, 2019 23:03:08 GMT
The committee's mission to put the "best" teams in the playoff. It says so on their website.
You *could* have a situation where a 1 loss team would be deemed still one of the "best 4" in the country and get selected over other undefeated teams, based on any number of mitigating factors.
Is it possible, yes. Is it probable, no.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Oct 23, 2019 23:05:12 GMT
I wish there were clear concise logical rules for all tiebreakers...no eye test shite, not even resume stuff Rule1: 0 > 1 loss > 2 That is a simple enough basic understanding. So keep going after that... Rule 2: Conference championships trump non-champions.this rule is logical and explains itself Rule 3: wins and status being equal than: 3a. Compare SOS 3b. Compare records of teams that beat the teams in question 3c. Compare # of elite wins (elite wins defined as teams in the top 20)Example: Team A is Conference Champ 12-1. Team B is Conference Champ 12-1. Process them through Rule 3 3a. Team A has a stronger SOS 3b. Team A lost to a 4-8 team. Team B lost to a 10-2 team. Team B scores the point here 3c. Team A has 3 elite wins. Team B has 1 elite win. Team A scores the point here. Team A gets in over Team B because they score higher in two of the categories It is simple and completely transparent and understandable if a Team gets left out...well look at the rules. Win the tough games, play better opponents, etc. The committee is just incapable of transparency or explaining their logic. I'd rather go back to the BCS rankings over the crap we have now Teams finish the season and don't know where they stand. No one knows what they need to do. Everyone watches the stupid ESPN shows to see stuff about eye tests and game control. It is garbage I could get behind something like this but I think you would need all conference to schedule in a similar way. If the SEC and ACC want to play 8 conference games then require them to play an additional P5 opponent every year. Why should the SEC and ACC change?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Oct 23, 2019 23:18:26 GMT
All OSU needs to do to be invited is not CRAP in their own nest like they've done in several of the past seasons.
They could even lose a close game to Wisky, then avenge it in the CCG and make it.. what they can't do is lose by 24 to some crappy team.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Oct 23, 2019 23:34:02 GMT
Well Damnet if I'm wrong and we get 1 loss Alabama in the playoff over a 1 loss OSU or Oklahoma we should just call the damn thing the Alabama invitational I can live with that.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Oct 23, 2019 23:39:35 GMT
All OSU needs to do to be invited is not CRAP in their own nest like they've done in several of the past seasons. They could even lose a close game to Wisky, then avenge it in the CCG and make it.. what they can't do is lose by 24 to some crappy team. Fine but we’re still blaming Alabama.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Oct 23, 2019 23:45:55 GMT
I could get behind something like this but I think you would need all conference to schedule in a similar way. If the SEC and ACC want to play 8 conference games then require them to play an additional P5 opponent every year. Why should the SEC and ACC change? Exactly, I heard the counter-argument for the 9 conference games - some ESPn radio guy said it only provides cover for the B1G to schedule crappy OOC games.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Oct 24, 2019 3:24:17 GMT
All OSU needs to do to be invited is not CRAP in their own nest like they've done in several of the past seasons. They could even lose a close game to Wisky, then avenge it in the CCG and make it.. what they can't do is lose by 24 to some crappy team. Fine but we’re still blaming Alabama. ?? Did Bama crap in the Buckeye’s bed?
|
|
|
Post by Kentflash_05 on Oct 24, 2019 10:45:20 GMT
All OSU needs to do to be invited is not CRAP in their own nest like they've done in several of the past seasons. They could even lose a close game to Wisky, then avenge it in the CCG and make it.. what they can't do is lose by 24 to some crappy team. Fine but we’re still blaming Alabama. Oh cry me a river. When USC was good with Pete Caroll there and if they were still good all the Alabama fans would be satibg the same thing I'm saying...HELL they were saying the same thing I'm saying. At that time USC gets the benefit of the doubt and that its not fair.....well now the shoe on its foot and they don't want to acknowledge it. I admitted Bama should have gotten the nod two years ago,but no one has benefited from not winning their division more than Alabama in the BCS or playoff era. Another non-divisional win and playoff inclusion wouldnt be fair to an LSU team that already beat them or any team left out of a 4 team playoff
|
|