Which Team Or Teams Do Not Belong?

[81usaf92]

Who needs a strawman to point out the obvious fact that 2003 Oklahoma was on a whole other level than 2022 TCU.

Let's zoom out just a little bit. 2023 TCU was a 5-7 team. 2021 was a 5-7 team. This is not a great football program, this was not a loaded team, this was a team that got nuked from orbit by Georgia 65-13!

Let's compare them to Oklahoma.
2002: 12-1
2003: 12-2
2004: 12-1

So yeah, umm... a mountain of difference between those two programs. TCU isn't even a legit power conference team.

So you believe preseason rankings and last year results should influence this year’s playoff.

 

[KrAzY3]

So you believe preseason rankings and last year results should influence this year’s playoff.

No, but anyone who understand college football knows how talented that 2003 Oklahoma team was (they spent 14 weeks ranked #1). TCU was a team that got lucky (first year coach at Oklahoma, Sark struggling in his second year), and snuck into the playoffs and then got obliterated when they met a legit team whose success wasn't predicated on stealing signals.

I honestly can't believe you think 2022 TCU compares to 2003 Oklahoma because those Oklahoma teams were one of the most dominant of the era. TCU was a team that had one good season and then got demolished when their luck ran out.

 

[81usaf92]

No, but anyone who understand college football knows how talented that 2003 Oklahoma team was. TCU was a team that got lucky, and snuck into the playoffs and then got obliterated when they met a legit team that wasn't stealing signals.

So why not just give Ohio State, Texas, and Georgia the trophy and don’t bother playing the games because they are infinitely more talented than everyone in the country.

I honestly can't believe you think 2022 TCU compares to 2003 Oklahoma because those Oklahoma teams were one of the more dominant of the era. TCU was a team that had one good season and then got demolished when their luck ran out.

The reason you can’t understand is because you are so married to the idea that the BCS is the best system that you aren’t bothering to read or apply appropriate logic to the argument you are getting involved into.

1) I never said TCU was better than Oklahoma. You said that and created a straw man since that doesn’t factor in any way to the argument. You are trying to improve your point by applying an arbitrary argument never presented. It’s also an irrelevant one. It’s like saying that the 75 Steelers are the greatest team in history but anyone with a working football mind knows that the 2024 Browns would blow the heck out of them.

2) TCU and Oklahoma both coasted through a cake Big XII schedule and ironically both lost to KSU on a neutral site. The biggest difference is that Oklahoma got obliterated whereas TCU took it to overtime. So there is ZERO difference between the two in this regard

3) USC was a team that the human pollsters loved in 2003 and lost on the road in OT vs Cal (led by some bum named Aaron Rodgers). 90% of the country believed that USC and LSU were more deserving than Oklahoma but the BCS put Oklahoma in over USC. Kinda like how the committee put TCU in over Bama and Tennessee. Seems THE SAME

As for all this “past records” and “what happened after selection” they ultimately don’t and shouldn’t matter. I don’t know why you insist on bringing them up because they don’t help your argument at all.

 

[GrayTide]

The primary question in establishing an 8 or 12 team playoff, is it the purpose to include the best teams or most deserving teams. Big difference. I foolishly thought it was to be best 12 teams. I have favored an 8 team playoff since it was decided to get rid of the 4 team BCS format. The inclusion of conference champions is complete BS since everybody knows all conferences are not even close to being equal. There needs too be some limit on the number of teams from the Mountain West, Big XII, and the ACC and more allowance for the B1G and SEC. The selection of these teams should be based on strength of schedule, overall record, and highest ranking without regard to which teams are conference champions. Of course the CFP Committee would want to hold one spot for Notre Dame.

 

[KrAzY3]

1) I never said TCU was better than Oklahoma. You said that and created a straw man since that doesn’t factor in any way to the argument.

Because the only difference between 2003 Oklahoma and 2022 TCU is a helmet sticker.

I was just replying to what you said and I wasn't saying you said TCU was better, I'm just saying flat out Oklahoma was better...

But to get back to the difference between the two teams, that actually did exist, the computers could tell the difference. That's how the BCS worked. It took two teams that someone might not be able to differentiate between at first glance, and it crunched a whole lot of data and then made a logical conclusion. That's why they put Alabama ahead of SMU this year because that's the logical conclusion.

That's why for instance the BCS put Oklahoma at #1 and by the way moved TCU down a spot relative to the committee's idiotic rankings and placed them at #4. There was a difference and the computers could tell that difference.

Also, let's revisit those standings:
Oklahoma 12-1
LSU 12-1
USC 11-1

These were three very talented teams, three very successful coaches, three very good seasons, but one of them played an easier schedule. Computers judged accordingly.

 

[Isaiah 63:1]

Indiana, Boise st, smu will NEVER have the talent level to win a national championship in cfb

SMU has made it crystal clear that they will spend whatever is necessary to get the players and coaches that will (1) get them playoff berths, and then (2) win championships. This year they met goal 1. Next they’ll step up their spending to get better talent and advance toward goal 2, and each year will repeat as necessary until either they meet goal 2, or the rules change to prevent continued SMUification of college football, or they run out of money…

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The whole premise of the playoffs is based upon that all teams are deserving like the NFL. However, at least NFL is small enough to compare the competitors by records. They play enough of each other that the team records, although not perfect, is sufficient to qualify for the playoffs. College has too many teams and the talent pool gets diluted from the top teams down. There are too many teams eligible in college. I have no idea what would be a good number of teams, but it's not bigger than 40 for this playoff model, especially if you're ignoring SOS.

There is also substantial parity in the NFL that will never exist in CFB.

The 2007 Patriots that went undefeated played the worst team in the NFL that year (the 1-15 Dolphins) twice. They won both games by 21 points. The second-worst team they played was the Jets, and they beat them first by 24 in the opener and then by only ten AT HOME in December. The third-worst team that the Patriots played, the 5-11 Ravens, LED THE PATRIOTS until the final minute, and beat them in every way possible save for 13 penalties for 100 yards.

Sagarin has Ohio State at #1 right now.

How badly would Ohio State beat...in the same rankings.....
- the worst FBS team (FIU)?
- the second worst FBS team (ULM)?
- the fifth worst FBS team (Purdue)?

Well, we know the answer to the last one, 45-0.

And FIU did lose by 24 points to Indiana, so we can make some conclusions.
And ULM lost by 48 to Texas and by 34 to (wait for it) Auburn.

Yes, this is a small sample size, I get it. But this point could be made over and over: the distance between the best and worst team in the NFL is 2-3 possessions (maybe less) while the distance between the best and worst teams in CFB appears to be at least 4-5 TDs.

Of course, the REAL issue is that the distance even between the Top Six teams in CFB and the bottom five teams in the Top 25 is USUALLY severe, too.

21-25 Sagarin
21 Clemson
22 Iowa
23 Baylor
24 Missouri
25 Kansas State

Note: using Sagarin ratings:
Clemson lost to #6 UGA by 31, #13 SCAR by 3, and beat #18 SMU by 3
Iowa lost to #1 Ohio State by 28 and to #27 Iowa State by 1
Baylor lost to #29 BYU by 6, #27 Iowa State by 22
Mizzou lost to #19 aTm by 31, to #7 Alabama by 34, to #13 SCAR by 4
K State lost to #29 BYU by 39, #11 Arizona St by 10, and #27 Iowa St by 8

The 21-25 teams played 13 games against the Top 27....and went 0-13. I didn't include yesterday, or it's 0-14.

Of course, there's.....maybe.....an obvious flaw, which is that I'm using ratings AFTER the game is played, but I'm simply making the point that the college gap is demonstrably bigger than the NFL gap is, probably by a factor of 4 or more. (I also don't quite understand K-State being rated ahead of BYU, given the Cougars have a higher SoS, better Top 30 record, and a 29-point shellacking of K-State).

This doesn't mean that Oklahoma cannot beat Alabama in a single game...but it's probably no accident that Vandy had an off week while Alabama was playing Georgia in a slugfest, and Oklahoma had an off-week while Alabama had to risk injury (but not defeat) against Mercer.

But ask yourself - among the Big Dawgs, how many REAL upsets happened in 2024? Not "did upsets happen" but how many affected the Top 8 teams? And when I upset, I don't mean "Georgia Tech beat the Florida State team that wound up 2-10," I mean legit upsets, MAMMOTH upsets, I mean Chaminade taking down Ralph Sampson's Virginia. I mean App State knocking off a ranked Michigan team.

AP TOP EIGHT
Oregon - unbeaten
Georgia - they lost to playoff contenders on the road
Notre Dame - okay, you've got me here with Northern Illinois
Texas - two reasonably narrow losses to UGA
Penn St - losses to maybe the two best teams in the B1G
Ohio State - losses to #1 Oregon on the road and a stunner to Michigan
Tennessee - loss to 6-6 Arkansas and to UGA
Boise St - loss to the only decent team they played

The same 8 teams top the coaches poll.

So out of the top 8 teams, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Tennessee, and Boise State had LOSSES that should take them out of the loop (if that's your gig), but I'd also have a hard time choosing Penn State over Ohio State, too.

The point?
We don't need anything beyond a four-team playoff.
Ever.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

SMU by far should not have been included. They are the glaring wart on the nose of the playoff.

IMO, Clemson and Indiana shouldn’t have been in either. Oh, Arizona State too.

...and Boise State.

 

[TideMan09]

I disagree with this. Two things can be true at once. Yes, Alabama benefited from the BCS system, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't a better system, at least in terms of how the national championship teams were determined. The problem with the CFP is the human element and lack of transparency/understanding that goes into the selection process. I'm not saying the committee members are idiots or have some sort of agenda, but the current system lends itself to these assertions. If you have a predetermined ranking system, then at least everyone understands what factors go into determining the field and they're static from year-to-year.

Exactly..No matter how it's calculated, the bottom line is simply win your games, I don't care how they calculate it just keep human bias out of it..

With all the Bama Hate that was going this year..

There was no way in hell Bama was getting a fair shot at making the playoffs & the rest of college football finally gave us the proverbial middle finger this year..

Give every team the equal formula & criteria of making the playoffs..

 

[The Ols]

Exactly..No matter how it's calculated, the bottom line is simply win your games, I don't care how they calculate it just keep human bias out of it..

With all the Bama Hate that was going this year..

There was no way in hell Bama was getting a fair shot at making the playoffs & the rest of college football finally gave us the proverbial middle finger this year..

Give every team the equal formula & criteria of making the playoffs..

I agree with everything with the exception that we (Bama) weren’t given a fair shot.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

Exactly..No matter how it's calculated, the bottom line is simply win your games, I don't care how they calculate it just keep human bias out of it..

With all the Bama Hate that was going this year..

There was no way in hell Bama was getting a fair shot at making the playoffs & the rest of college football finally gave us the proverbial middle finger this year..

Give every team the equal formula & criteria of making the playoffs..

The thing is though that the simulated BCS this year had Bama with a final ranking of 11th

But..

Clemson and ASU getting Auto Bids would still have pushed them to #13 and the 1st team out.

So once again the BCS would have given the same result.

imo Alabama would have 1000% been in at 10-2 or even 10-3 with a SECCG loss to Texas.

There was no conspiracy.

Bama got dragged by 3 TDs to a .500 OU team for their 3rd loss.

The committee lied about Bama still being in the race but that was the killshot.

Bama kept Bama out of the CFBP.

 

[TideMan09]

I agree with everything with the exception that we (Bama) weren’t given a fair shot.

There was a lottttttt of Bama Hate going on this year, more so than I ever remember, when humans are making the decisions..

Human bias is always present..

 

[TideMan09]

The thing is though that the simulated BCS this year had Bama with a final ranking of 11th

But..

Clemson and ASU getting Auto Bids would still have pushed them to #13 and the 1st team out.

So once again the BCS would have given the same result.

imo Alabama would have 1000% been in at 10-2 or even 10-3 with a SECCG loss to Texas.

There was no conspiracy.

Bama got dragged by 3 TDs to a .500 OU team for their 3rd loss.

The committee lied about Bama still being in the race but that was the killshot.

Bama kept Bama out of the CFBP.

No doubt & losing to Vandy is unforgivable as well in actuality..

 

[TideEngineer08]

...and Boise State.

They do have a history of punching way above their weight though.

And James Franklin has a history of wetting the bed. But Boise has no chance to win the whole thing.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

They do have a history of punching way above their weight though.

And James Franklin has a history of wetting the bed. But Boise has no chance to win the whole thing.

boise will beat ped state and then lose the next game by 3 scores.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I disagree with this. Two things can be true at once. Yes, Alabama benefited from the BCS system, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't a better system, at least in terms of how the national championship teams were determined.

I assure you I do not wish to pick an argument on this subject that has been beaten to death.


The BCS wasn't as bad as its detractors say, but very simply:
1) you can't lose your last game by 28 points when you're #1 and REMAIN #1 - that right there killed it (Nebraska did something similar two years earlier, but 9/11 caused that one)
2) at some point, head-to-head HAS to be the "first tiebreaker"

The problem with the CFP is the human element and lack of transparency/understanding that goes into the selection process.

And you can actually tell me how this worked with the BCS?????

I don't mean, "can you explain how the final ranking is determined," I mean, it was 2/3 human polls - and none of them had to explain their rankings, either. And forget about asking the computer to explain its 1/3.

I'm not saying the committee members are idiots or have some sort of agenda, but the current system lends itself to these assertions.

And how is this any different than the poll days?
How is this any different "well, we use six human polls for the BCS and drop the highest and lowest," but nobody can explain how they did the human rankings?

In 1979, Alabama was #1 in the preseason poll all the way until the final regular season poll. On THAT poll, Alabama dropped to 2nd behind Ohio State, which was a major problem because Alabama was stuck in the Sugar Bowl and Ohio State was playing unbeaten USC in the Rose. EIGHT voters had Alabama BELOW THIRD in the polls, a point that enraged Arkansas AD (and broadcaster) Frank Broyles to the point he said out loud, "Anybody who think Alabama isn't one of the 3 best teams in the country has no business ranking football teams."

But those voters were anonymous and nobody heard the logic for "we think four teams are better than Alabama" then, either.

If you have a predetermined ranking system, then at least everyone understands what factors go into determining the field and they're static from year-to-year.

We have never not had a predetermined ranking system.
Ever.

The problem is that after you get beyond "you have to win every game" (oops, sorry 2023 Florida State), NOBODY knows what they're supposed to do. And I think that's by design.

Imagine it's 2017 and Urban Meyer learns that even if Ohio State plows Wisconsin by 59 points, Alabama will get selected over Ohio State. But if he throws the game, the Big Ten gets a representative (Wisconsin) and money for the conference. In no way am I saying Meyer would do this, but.....

The only real flaw with the BCS was that it couldn't take care of "Team 3." If we had the BCS in 2019, Clemson would have been kept out of the title game despite being defending national champions and riding an unbeaten streak of 28 games.

And to any Tide fan who opts for, "Well, they should have played a tougher schedule," well, that's what the whole 1966 argument has always been about - a long unbeaten streak with defending (two-time in that case) champions, who played a soft touch schedule.

I thought LSU and Ohio State were the best teams in the country (in that order), but it would have been grossly unfair to Clemson, too.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I reiterate: they could have kept EVERYTHING they had with a very simple:
a) use the bowl games to determine final ranking
b) 1 plays 2 for the championship a week later
c) if 1 played 2 in the bowls, 1 plays 3.

That would have preserved NYD bowls, given us a true champion, and drawn blockbuster ratings.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I haven't followed the entire discussion here, but:

if you're going to argue "blowouts mean the selected team shouldn't have been there".....

BCS
2001 - Miami 37 Nebraska 14
2004 - USC 55 Oklahoma 19
2006 - Florida 42 Ohio State 14
2007 - LSU 38 Ohio State 24
2012 - Alabama 42 Notre Dame 14

Those are late round losses by 23, 36, 28, 14, and 28 points, which sounds about like yesterday and the lower ranked teams. Remember - Ohio State scored a TD in the final minute in 2007, they were never in the game after the start of the 2nd qtr.

CFP
2014 - Oregon 59 FSU 20
2015 - Alabama 38 Michigan St 0
2016 - Clemson 31 Ohio State 0
2017 - Alabama 24 Clemson 6
2018 - Clemson 30 Notre Dame 3
2019 - LSU 63 Oklahoma 28
2020 - Alabama 52 Ohio State 24
2021 - Georgia 34 Michigan 11
2022 - Georgia 65 TCU 7

So we had mammoth blowouts in the BCS, mammoth blowouts in the CFP, and mammoth blowouts in the 12-team. (Why in God's name does it count as evidence against one or two but not all three?)

 

[RammerJammer14]

The thing is though that the simulated BCS this year had Bama with a final ranking of 11th

But..

Clemson and ASU getting Auto Bids would still have pushed them to #13 and the 1st team out.

So once again the BCS would have given the same result.

imo Alabama would have 1000% been in at 10-2 or even 10-3 with a SECCG loss to Texas.

There was no conspiracy.

Bama got dragged by 3 TDs to a .500 OU team for their 3rd loss.

The committee lied about Bama still being in the race but that was the killshot.

Bama kept Bama out of the CFBP.

Including both the winners and losers of the ACC title game- a pathetically weak conference this year- was the biggest contributor to the subpar matchups so far imo

 

[81usaf92]

I assure you I do not wish to pick an argument on this subject that has been beaten to death.


The BCS wasn't as bad as its detractors say, but very simply:
1) you can't lose your last game by 28 points when you're #1 and REMAIN #1 - that right there killed it (Nebraska did something similar two years earlier, but 9/11 caused that one)
2) at some point, head-to-head HAS to be the "first tiebreaker"




And you can actually tell me how this worked with the BCS?????

I don't mean, "can you explain how the final ranking is determined," I mean, it was 2/3 human polls - and none of them had to explain their rankings, either. And forget about asking the computer to explain its 1/3.



And how is this any different than the poll days?
How is this any different "well, we use six human polls for the BCS and drop the highest and lowest," but nobody can explain how they did the human rankings?

In 1979, Alabama was #1 in the preseason poll all the way until the final regular season poll. On THAT poll, Alabama dropped to 2nd behind Ohio State, which was a major problem because Alabama was stuck in the Sugar Bowl and Ohio State was playing unbeaten USC in the Rose. EIGHT voters had Alabama BELOW THIRD in the polls, a point that enraged Arkansas AD (and broadcaster) Frank Broyles to the point he said out loud, "Anybody who think Alabama isn't one of the 3 best teams in the country has no business ranking football teams."

But those voters were anonymous and nobody heard the logic for "we think four teams are better than Alabama" then, either.



We have never not had a predetermined ranking system.
Ever.

The problem is that after you get beyond "you have to win every game" (oops, sorry 2023 Florida State), NOBODY knows what they're supposed to do. And I think that's by design.

Imagine it's 2017 and Urban Meyer learns that even if Ohio State plows Wisconsin by 59 points, Alabama will get selected over Ohio State. But if he throws the game, the Big Ten gets a representative (Wisconsin) and money for the conference. In no way am I saying Meyer would do this, but.....

The only real flaw with the BCS was that it couldn't take care of "Team 3." If we had the BCS in 2019, Clemson would have been kept out of the title game despite being defending national champions and riding an unbeaten streak of 28 games.

And to any Tide fan who opts for, "Well, they should have played a tougher schedule," well, that's what the whole 1966 argument has always been about - a long unbeaten streak with defending (two-time in that case) champions, who played a soft touch schedule.

I thought LSU and Ohio State were the best teams in the country (in that order), but it would have been grossly unfair to Clemson, too.

I think the weird thing is that Alabama fans are using the exact same argument this year vs SMU that Oklahoma State used against us in 2011. And in both cases the human element ruled the same way… don’t lose to unranked teams and expect SOS save you.