|
|
Post by buckeyekid on Nov 26, 2017 8:05:42 GMT -5
Assuming OK beats TCU,,,and Auburn beats Ga,,,,,and Clemson beats Miami,,,, and OSU beats Wisc,,,,,which to be honest all 4 games are far from certain,,---The question will be does the SEC deserve two teams in the playoff. My personal guess on who the Top 4 will ultimately be?
1--Oklahoma
2--Clemson
3--Auburn or GA toss up.
4--Ohio State
|
|
|
|
Post by Rambo McClain on Nov 26, 2017 9:53:12 GMT -5
Alabama’s Resume
9 games vs Power 5 opponents
Non-Conference
W 41-10 (9-3) Fresno State - 0 Power 5 wins
W 41-23 (7-5) Colorado State – 1 Power 5 win
W 56-0 (5-6) Mercer – FCS school – 0 Power 5 wins
W 24-7 (5-6) Florida State – 4 Power 5 wins
Conference
L 14-26 (10-2) Auburn – 7 Power 5 wins
W 24-10 (9-3) LSU – 7 Power 5 wins
W 31-24 (8-4) Mississippi State – 4 Power 5 wins
W 27-19 (7-5) Texas A&M – 4 Power 5 wins
W 66-3 (6-6) Ole Miss – 3 Power 5 wins
W 59-0 (5-7) Vanderbilt – 2 Power 5 wins
W 45-7 (4-8) Tennessee – 1 Power 5 win
W 41-9 (4-8) Arkansas – 1 Power 5 win
Ohio State’s Resume – Assuming a win over Wisconsin in BIG Championship Game – and Oklahoma win over TCU
11 games vs Power 5 opponents
Non-Conference
L 16-31 (12-1) Oklahoma – 10 Power 5 wins
W 38-7 (8-3) Army – 1 Power 5 win
W 54-21 (5-7) UNLV – 0 Power 5 wins
Conference
W ??-?? (12-1) Wisconsin – 9 Power 5 wins
W 39-38 (10-2) Penn State – 8 Power 5 wins
W 48-3 (9-3) Michigan State – 7 Power 5 wins
W 31-20 (8-4) Michigan – 6 Power 5 wins
L 24-55 (7-5) Iowa – 5 Power 5 wins
W 49-21 (5-7) Indiana – 3 Power 5 wins
W 56-14 (4-8) Nebraska – 3 Power 5 wins
W 62-14 (4-8) Maryland – 3 Power 5 wins
W 56-0 (4-8) Rutgers – 3 Power 5 wins
W 52-14 (2-10) Illinois – 0 Power 5 wins
The SEC is good at padding their win totals by only playing 8 Conference games and instead of playing a 9th Conference game and taking a chance of losing. They instead all schedule a FCS school to add a win. The Committee loves that extra win. Should the Big Ten cut back to 6 games and schedule 3 FCS schools to really pad the win totals? I bet the Committee would love the Big Ten with all those extra wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by cbus on Nov 26, 2017 10:21:14 GMT -5
If Ohio St makes the playoffs it may be OSU(4) v Oklahoma(1) and Clemson(2) v Auburn(3). Two rematches of regular season games. I don't think the Committee wants that. I also don't think the Committee wants Clemson v OSU (a rematch of last year's game). I think Alabama gets in unless OSU beats Wisconsin by at least 2 touchdowns. I see the Buckeyes are 6.5 point favorites.
|
|
|
|
Post by galion on Nov 26, 2017 13:23:47 GMT -5
I don't think Bama gets in if Auburn wins. They won't send 2 schools from the same division. If Georgia wins they have a better shot. Bama doesn't have that road victory against a top 10 Oklahoma on its resume like OSU did last season. On the other hand OSU literally got its *** handed to them twice this season. I personally wouldn't let them in even if they beat an overrated Wisconsin team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rambo McClain on Nov 28, 2017 8:41:01 GMT -5
The Committee makes things up as they go. Different criteria for each team they rank. If the Committee wants Ohio State in they will cite Top 10 wins over Penn State and Wisconsin (if OSU beats them) vs 0 Top 10 wins vs Bama If the Committee wants Bama in they will say Bama had 1 loss and Ohio State had 2. The 1 less loss outweighs the weak schedule Bama played. ESPN FPI| rank | SEC | rank | Big Ten | | 1 | Alabama | 2 | Ohio State | | 5 | Auburn | 3 | Penn State | | 6 | Georgia | 8 | Wisconsin | | 16 | LSU | 23 | Michigan | | 19 | Miss State | 24 | Iowa | | 35 | Missouri | 26 | Northwestern | | 37 | South Carolina | 36 | Michigan State |
^^^ Not much difference between the SEC and Big Ten in the neutral FPI. And we are talking about putting 2 SEC teams in and 0 Big Ten? Why? Is eSECpn trying to sway the Committee to get their Conference of choice in? Wisconsin will be Ohio State's 3rd Top 10 opponent. LSU is Alabama's best win - LSU lost to Troy Miss St is Alabama's 2nd best win - Miss State has only beat 4 Power 5 schools Alabama's schedule was very weak. The SEC as a whole schedules a very weak schedule |
|
|
|
Post by DrTorch on Nov 28, 2017 16:22:42 GMT -5
i think the Committee will look for an opportunity to penalize teams for not playing quality OOC schedules
Bama is in trouble, especially if Wiscy beats OSU.
I think Georgia, Oklahoma, Clemson will get in. Wiscy in over Bama if they win. If OSU wins, it's anyone's guess them or Bama. I think if Auburn beats Georgia that helps Bama. If Buyckeyes HOUSE Wiscy, and Georgia beats Auburn, what does Bama have? The one constant we have heard from the committee is "Who have you beaten?" That's what got OSU in last year was we had the win @ OKL, the Big-12 Champ, and Penn State had a bad loss to UM.
Personally I don't think OSU is getting in, that loss to Iowa can't just be swept under the rug. If we stomp Wiscy tho, and Georgia beats Auburn, we have a good chance I think.
Then maybe we can watch Barrett play Clemson again. Buy won't that be fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Whittaker on Nov 28, 2017 22:54:49 GMT -5
Personally I don't think OSU is getting in, that loss to Iowa can't just be swept under the rug. If we stomp Wiscy tho, and Georgia beats Auburn, we have a good chance I think. This is the way I see it too. If we smash Wisconsin we have to be seen as the best team in the B10 by far, which gives us a decent chance. If Georgia beats Auburn you can make the argument that Bama is only the 3rd best team in the SEC. |
|
|
|
Post by Rambo McClain on Nov 29, 2017 9:18:38 GMT -5
Uneven scheduling really needs to be fixed if this playoff is going to be run this way.
Media/Committee loves 8-4 Mississippi State
Media/Committee dislikes 7-5 Iowa and said Iowa is horrible since they lost to 6-6 Purdue.
Lets compare 6-6 Purdue and 8-4 Miss St (media darling and great win by Alabama)
6-6 Purdue
- played 11 Power Five schools
- beat 5 Power Five schools
non-Conference consisted of 8-4 Louisville, 8-4 Ohio and 7-5 Missouri
- (2-1) non-conf record - only 1 was a non-Power Five
8-4 Miss St
- played 8 Power Five schools
- beat 4 Power Five schools
non-Conference consisted of 6-5 Charleston Southern, 6-6 La Tech, 4-9 BYU, and 4-7 Massachusetts
- (4-0) non-conf record - all 4 were non-Power Five
Lets even out the schedules for those two teams
- Purdue trades out their 7 point loss to (8-4) Louisville for a 28 point win over Charleston Southern
----- Purdue is now 7-5
- Purdue had a crossover game with Michigan that they lost
----- trade out that extra Conference game (Big Ten plays 9, SEC only plays 8)
----- trade the Michigan game for a game with Massachusetts and another win for Purdue
------ Purdue is now 8-4
The media/Committee will probably tell you 7-5 Missouri is better than 6-6 Purdue.
Just remember Purdue played Missouri this year and whooped that SEC team 35-3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rambo McClain on Nov 29, 2017 9:19:06 GMT -5
The following is rather interesting.
The Big Ten, Big XII and Pac 12 all play 9 Conference games, so 1 non-Conference game vs a Power Five school gives them 10 total
The SEC and ACC only play 8 Conference games, so they need to pick up 2 non-Conference games vs Power Five schools to give them 10 total
Most ACC teams choose to play 2 Power Five schools in non-conference which makes their schedule similar to Big Ten, Big XII and the Pac 12
The odd ball is the SEC where basically every school chooses to only play 1 non-Conference game vs a Power Five school.
Non-Conference record vs Power Five schools
SEC:
4-3 when SEC had better record
1-0 when SEC and had same record
2-5 when SEC had worse record
Big Ten:
3-1 when Big Ten had better record
1-1 when Big Ten had the same record
3-4 when Big Ten had a worse record
ACC:
8-2 when ACC had better record
0-1 when ACC had the same record
1-10 when ACC had a worse record
Big XII:
3-2 when Big XII had better record
0-1 when Big XII had the same record
1-4 when Big XII had a worse record
Pac 12
4-2 when Pac 12 had better record
1-0 when Pac 12 had the same record
2-1 when Pac 12 had a worse record
^^^ Scheduling needs to be more evened out. The ACC even though they play less Conference games than Big Ten, Big XII and Pac 12 at least try to schedule 2 power Five schools to make them balanced with those leagues. The SEC chooses to play the least Power Five games, and has the nerve to schedule FCS schools in the middle of November. When will the Committee start to hold this against the SEC? The SEC going head to head vs other Power Five conferences is NOT superior. The numbers prove that.
Avg number of games vs Power 5 schools per team by conference - bigger the # the tougher
10.1 Big XII
9.93 Big Ten
9.83 Pac 12
9.83 ACC
9.07 SEC
Avg number of games vs FCS schools per team by conference - smaller the # the tougher
0.21 Big Ten
0.67 Pac 12
0.70 Big XII
0.93 ACC
1.00 SEC
The SEC plays by far the least amount of Power Five schools and also plays the most FCS schools. Bama played Mercer as a warmup for Auburn in mid November. Shameful
And as pointed out above the SEC doesn't whoop on any other Power Five Conference, so why is the Committee giving the SEC bonus points for putting up better W-L records when their conference pads 1 win to each teams record by playing less Power Five games and a bunch of FCS schools?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rambo McClain on Nov 30, 2017 8:49:58 GMT -5
I have a tweak to the current playoff format that I think works. No added games, just some rule changes. It's basically a only Conference Champs rule, but with a tweak that makes rivalry games very important too.
- Everyone must play their rival the last week of the regular season (most already do, so not a big change)
The first round of the playoffs Regional Semis is that last regular season game vs your rival. Lose and you are out.
The 2nd round of the playoffs Regional Final is the Conference Championship games. Lose and you are out. Don't make it there and you need a LOT of help.
The Committee then chooses 4 teams out of the 5 Conference Champs that had the best season, PLUS won those 2 playoff games
The 3rd round of the playoffs National Semis is just like it is now
The final round of the playoff National Championship is just like it is now
A loser of their Conference Champ game or Rival Game can still get in, IF any of the other 4 Conference Champs lost their rival game. The Committee then gets to pick an at large.
Notre Dame will be told to join a Conference or watch the playoff.
2014 would have been the same 4 teams that actually made it
2015 would have been the same 4 teams that actually made it
2016 would have had either Oklahoma or Penn State in the 4 team playoff and not Ohio State
2017 would have Alabama already eliminated since they lost in the Regional Semis vs Auburn
^^^ In March Madness terms - Nice season Bama but you were a 1 seed that just got upset by the 4 seed in the Sweet 16. No do overs
Conference Championships would be VERY important again.
Rivalry wins would be VERY important. A 5-6 Auburn could ruin an 11-0 Alabama season whom already had their division wrapped up heading into the game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2017 8:55:52 GMT -5
What if you have more than one rival? Or you don’t have a main rival
Oklahoma has Texas & Oklahoma St
USC has UCLA and Notre Dame
Michigan St has Michigan but Michigan has Ohio St
Penn St has who?
Just some thoughts on your idea
|
|
|
|
Post by Rambo McClain on Nov 30, 2017 9:16:48 GMT -5
I thought about those but as long as teams are playing a school that is historically on par with them then I think it should be considered a rivalry game.
If the rule was just win the last regular season game then Alabama would play Mercer
If the rule was just win the last Power 5 game you play then Alabama would play Vanderbilt
Maybe have each school put in who their rival is and have the Committee verify that the rivalry is acceptable. Otherwise Nick Saban and Alabama will rig the system. Bye before LSU every year, FCS school before Auburn.
Penn St/Mich St - acceptable
Penn St/Indiana - unacceptable
Teams like Maryland might have a good year and get Rutgers as their rival game and move on to the Big Ten Champ game. But that would mean they battled through Penn St, Ohio St, Mich and Mich St to get to that Title game. They'd probably be deserving of a playoff spot if they could do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by cbus on Nov 30, 2017 9:46:18 GMT -5
Here is the Selection Committee Protocol:
1.The selection committee ranks the teams based on the members’ evaluation of the teams’ performance on the field, using conference championships
won, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, and comparison of results against common opponents to decide among teams that are comparable.
2.Rank the top 25 teams and assign the top four to semifinal sites.
Assign teams to New Year’s bowls.
Create competitive matchups.
Attempt to avoid rematches of regular-season games and repeat appearances in specific bowls.
Consider geography.
----------------
I think Ohio State (by beating Wisconsin) is comparable with Alabama. Watching each play, it's hard to pick the clearly better team. If they think Alabama is clearly better than end of discussion. If they go to a tiebreaker:
1. conference champ- Ohio State
2. strength of schedule- Ohio State (beat #3, #9, #19-lost to #2) Alabama (beat #17, lost to #4) Both teams scheduled a quality non-conference
game- OSU-Oklahoma and AL- Florida State. I think Ohio State has the edge.
3. head to head results- none
4. common opponents- none
5. OSU may get dinged since they already lost badly to Oklahoma this year and lost badly to Clemson last year. Alabama played a tight game with
Clemson last year and fairly tight with Auburn this year. -Advantage Alabama.
6.Create competitive matchups- They may go for a #1 Clemson vs #4 Alabama rather than risk an Ohio St. Clemson blowout. Oklahoma and Auburn seems
like a good game.-Advantage Alabama
7. Consider Geography-Ohio State wins this category since they probably want the Midwest involved to help TV ratings.
----------------
I think if the Buckeyes beat Wisconsin by 10 points they are in.
|
|
|
|
Post by buckeyekid on Nov 30, 2017 11:28:08 GMT -5
Based on what I've read and past selections,IF OSU beats Wisc and we are in because we are the Undisputed Big 10 Champ, and we will also have 4 Quality wins. Those two elements are how I am basing my guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by baldref on Dec 1, 2017 21:46:00 GMT -5
Even if osu wins, no way committee will put tgem in. It will be clemson, oklahoma, auburn and alabama. Osu will play usc in mini rose bowl matchup at fiesta bowl.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Dec 2, 2017 7:28:41 GMT -5
I have a tweak to the current playoff format that I think works. No added games, just some rule changes. It's basically a only Conference Champs rule, but with a tweak that makes rivalry games very important too. - Everyone must play their rival the last week of the regular season (most already do, so not a big change) The first round of the playoffs Regional Semis is that last regular season game vs your rival. Lose and you are out. The 2nd round of the playoffs Regional Final is the Conference Championship games. Lose and you are out. Don't make it there and you need a LOT of help. The Committee then chooses 4 teams out of the 5 Conference Champs that had the best season, PLUS won those 2 playoff games The 3rd round of the playoffs National Semis is just like it is now The final round of the playoff National Championship is just like it is now A loser of their Conference Champ game or Rival Game can still get in, IF any of the other 4 Conference Champs lost their rival game. The Committee then gets to pick an at large. Notre Dame will be told to join a Conference or watch the playoff. 2014 would have been the same 4 teams that actually made it 2015 would have been the same 4 teams that actually made it 2016 would have had either Oklahoma or Penn State in the 4 team playoff and not Ohio State 2017 would have Alabama already eliminated since they lost in the Regional Semis vs Auburn ^^^ In March Madness terms - Nice season Bama but you were a 1 seed that just got upset by the 4 seed in the Sweet 16. No do overs Conference Championships would be VERY important again. Rivalry wins would be VERY important. A 5-6 Auburn could ruin an 11-0 Alabama season whom already had their division wrapped up heading into the game. I have three words for you. EIGHT TEAM PLAYOFF. Power five champions get in. No one in one of those conferences could complain if they don't get in since they had a chance to play their way in on the field. Let the committee or computers (like the BCS) pick the "best" other three and do the seeding. Not perfect, there would still be argument over 8-9-10 but I think most would agree that anyone with a legit shot at #1 would be included. There are three weeks between now and bowl season to get from 8 to 4, then go forward in the bowls as they do now. No reason it couldn't be worked out. More $$$ for everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Dec 2, 2017 12:27:33 GMT -5
Here we go again.
The expansionists are the loud crowd on this.
If you expand and stretch the schedule burden on these student athletes, then it would be important to expand the
roster limits as well.
Injuries and player fatigue become a glaring element of expansion.
|
|
|
|
Post by galion on Dec 2, 2017 13:10:34 GMT -5
This isn't the NFL there are no roster limits, only scholarship limits. You can carry as many "walk ons" as you wish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2017 13:52:02 GMT -5
Heaven forbid they reduce the regular season by a game and force power five schools to drop Mercer to improve the playoff.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Dec 2, 2017 16:03:18 GMT -5
Heard the same anti expansion argument when they added the BCS Championship game. And again when they added two more teams. We're only talking about 8 teams out of over 100 schools. No roster expansion necessary. Just use the players you have already ( talking to you Urban ). No need to keep the starters in to gain style points to impress the committee, just win your games and conference.
If it's really a big concern, do like Dude says, drop one of your tomato cans during the season, or they could always decline the opportunity to play for a NC if their coaches and players are too tired.
|
|
