Is there a scenario where we still back into the playoffs?

[Bama9001]

That was an informal quote, not part of the criteria and the actual quote was “they wouldn’t unduly punish a team for losing…”. That leaves some wiggle, though IMO, they don’t need it.” What did they do to UGA last year? Lost a 3 point SECCG game, though Bama almost dominated the game. A 3 point game to a team on an 11 game win streak. They dropped out of the playoff, replaced by 2 other one loss teams, one of whom had not played as tough of a schedule.

The bottom line, and I could be wrong, is that the ACC is not going to get 2 bids, especially preventing the SEC from getting its 4th bid. Also, they don’t want to put a team who has not beaten a ranked team all year over a team who has beaten, not just 3 ranked teams, but #s 5, 13, 19 just because they have one fewer loss. The SOS, their first criteria would be meaningless.

All schedules are not equal. The SEC had 7 teams 9-3 or better, 2 8-4 teams. One reason Alabama lost to 2 lesser bowl teams was that they were coming off of big wins the previous week over then #1 UGA and then at ranked LSU. The other team had an off week to better prepare and were at home. SEC teams face this all of the time. The only team that had it worse in the SEC was UGA. What Sankey did to them was criminal. Alabama, Texas and OM all on the road and UT at home. If UGA gets boat-raced by Texas, they better not drop them out, and they won’t.

I don’t think they will drop Alabama out - nor should they no matter how SMU/Clemson goes.

Didn't all three teams we lost to have an off week prior to our game? Also, all on the road.

 

[BamaInBham]

One thing I often forget is that they have teams with one more loss ahead all throughout their rankings, not just in Alabama’s case. There are at least 10 different teams, almost half of the field, behind teams that have one more loss than they do. In a few cases two more losses. Check it out: CFP Rankings

There is simply no hindrance to dropping the loser of SMU/Clemson out of the playoff, even if it is SMU. Play somebody.

 

[BamaInBham]

Didn't all three teams we lost to have an off week prior to our game? Also, all on the road.

You are right that they were all on the road but UT played UF the week before and should have lost but Napier had a really bad game and UT won at home in OT.

 

[BamaBoySince89]

Keep it at 12, give the G5 their own playoffs and this can be settled. Name brand/storyline/fanbases that spend money and travel will always get the consideration. The rest fall where they may

 

[KrAzY3]

He's usually not a brain dead idiot, but this is honestly the stupidest video of his I have ever seen. He says a few dumb things (Ole Miss is the one that belongs in over Alabama?) but the dumbest was his saying SMU with a loss still belongs in.

Let's take a look at SMU who is 0-1 against top 25 teams. That one team is #18 BYU. If they lost to #17 Clemson, going 0-2 against the top 25 they still belong in according to Pate.

But, but bad losses from Alabama. How do we know BYU or Clemson is actually better than Oklahoma? I mean seriously, neither team has beaten anyone decent. Let's check Sagarin:
#22 Clemson
#28 Oklahoma
#29 BYU

Hmm... the problem with people like Pate is they can't seem to grasp the implications of SoS and don't seem to understand it actually matters who you play, not only that you play in a conference championship game, or that you win games. Ole Miss played a softer schedule, they still lost to Kentucky and Florida. You can't lose 3 games with a SoS of 46 and belong in but if you don't understand SoS you'll never get it and clearly Pate does not understand SoS...

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Not intending as a wet blanket, nor should what I'm saying be taken as a criticism of anyone here.

Me? Not worried about it.

We make it, we make it - and hope to pull it off again.
We don't, well, it IS our fault regardless.

We are the ones who left it in the hands of human beings more so than we needed.
YES, we can argue wins and losses and all that stuff, all true.

But this is also why I've spent the last 13 years (after years as a playoff advocate) arguing AGAINST this level of expansion.

=========================

People whined in 1964 after the season - so they included the bowls, first temporarily (1965 only) then permanently.

They whined over who won national championships in 1977-78-82-83-84-87-89-90-91-94-97, so we went to a #1 vs #2 BCS national championship.

They whined because someone didn't like the matchup in 2000-01-03-04-06-07-08-10-11, so we went to a four-team playoff.

The only years in which there wasn't screaming for the CFP were 2015 and 2018, and let's be honest, Ohio State (2015) and UGA (2018) were better than teams selected even in those years.

We've expanded this damn thing to include everyone - and people ARE STILL WHINING!!!

At least BYU went undefeated in 1984.
This new setup means the very same "Boise State went undefeated" pretenders from 2009 can go with "but they only lost one game and Team X lost three!"

 

[DawgAlum2054]

That was an informal quote, not part of the criteria and the actual quote was “they wouldn’t unduly punish a team for losing…”. That leaves some wiggle, though IMO, they don’t need it.” What did they do to UGA last year? Lost a 3 point SECCG game, though Bama almost dominated the game. A 3 point game to a team on an 11 game win streak. They dropped out of the playoff, replaced by 2 other one loss teams, one of whom had not played as tough of a schedule.

The bottom line, and I could be wrong, is that the ACC is not going to get 2 bids, especially preventing the SEC from getting its 4th bid. Also, they don’t want to put a team who has not beaten a ranked team all year over a team who has beaten, not just 3 ranked teams, but #s 5, 13, 19 just because they have one fewer loss. The SOS, their first criteria would be meaningless.

All schedules are not equal. The SEC had 7 teams 9-3 or better, 2 8-4 teams. One reason Alabama lost to 2 lesser bowl teams was that they were coming off of big wins the previous week over then #1 UGA and then at ranked LSU. The other team had an off week to better prepare and were at home. SEC teams face this all of the time. The only team that had it worse in the SEC was UGA. What Sankey did to them was criminal. Alabama, Texas and OM all on the road and UT at home. If UGA gets boat-raced by Texas, they better not drop them out, and they won’t.

I don’t think they will drop Alabama out - nor should they no matter how SMU/Clemson goes.

again I don’t disagree, but it seems to me they care the least about strength of schedule. Who has Miami, Penn state, notre dame, Indiana, and others actually beaten?

 

[CajunCrimson]

again I don’t disagree, but it seems to me they care the least about strength of schedule. Who has Miami, Penn state, notre dame, Indiana, and others actually beaten?

One loss trumps SOS. After that SOS seems to matter more

 

[75thru79]

I’ve said the entire time it will be tv viewership and revenue based on many of these decisions. The committee will never admit that, but we know it

same reason they would love to squeak Miami in if they could

I don't know if I buy the argument that the committee specifically wants Miami in the playoff. I lived in Miami a number of years ago and they have a mostly non-existent fanbase. If you've ever watched one of their home games the stands are basically empty. It's the same way when I lived there. Miami is a pro sports town. No one cares about the Hurricanes except for a handful of people associated with the university.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Didn't all three teams we lost to have an off week prior to our game? Also, all on the road.

No.

Tennessee played Florida the week before us - and it went to overtime.

Oklahoma and Vandy had off weeks before playing us, though.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I don't know if I buy the argument that the committee specifically wants Miami in the playoff. I lived in Miami a number of years ago and they have a mostly non-existent fanbase. If you've ever watched one of their home games the stands are basically empty. It's the same way when I lived there. Miami is a pro sports town. No one cares about the Hurricanes except for a handful of people associated with the university.

When Miami lost the infamous Doug Flutie Hail Mary game 40 years ago, there were 30,000 fans in a stadium with over 75,000 seats.

Folks don't realize how wretched their attendance ALWAYS was, even when they were good - because they'd see a sold out Orange Bowl Stadium for the bowl game.

Of course, the immediate excuse is, "But that's not fair, it was the day after Thanksgiving."

Okay, look at a few more:
1985 Notre Dame 49,236 (for a Miami team contending for the national championship)
1986 Oklahoma - 4,000 empty seats for #1 Oklahoma vs #2 Miami
1986 Florida State - 62,834 for #1 Miami vs #20 FSU

YES, Miami did fill the stadium and beyond a few times, especially in games playing other powerhouses based in the state of Florida. But look at their average attendance for a season in years when those teams weren't on the schedule, and it was subpar for a team that contended for the national title almost every year 1983-1994.


Remember the 1993 Sugar Bowl, when about 7/8 of the attendees were wearing Crimson? That was presented as "Bama fans know how to get Sugar Bowl tickets," but we'd only been to the Sugar Bowl ONCE in the previous 12 years. Fact was, Miami didn't have a HOME fanbase, much less a TRAVELING fanbase.

 

[KrAzY3]

Not intending as a wet blanket, nor should what I'm saying be taken as a criticism of anyone here.

Me? Not worried about it.

We make it, we make it - and hope to pull it off again.
We don't, well, it IS our fault regardless.

We are the ones who left it in the hands of human beings more so than we needed.
YES, we can argue wins and losses and all that stuff, all true.

But this is also why I've spent the last 13 years (after years as a playoff advocate) arguing AGAINST this level of expansion.

You know better than anyone where I stand on this issue. If I had it my way, we'd still have the BCS and in that case Alabama's only clear path would have been to have won over Vanderbilt and Oklahoma, in which case the winner of the SECCG and Big 10 Championship game would meet for the title. I'm all for that...

But one reason I was so against a playoff was it inevitably lets in the riffraff. Since it's about inclusion, they inevitably let teams in that have no business being there. This is exacerbated by the fact that each round of a playoff makes winning it exponentially more difficult, even for a truly elite team.

So even if this hypothetical Alabama team did beat Vandy and Oklahoma and also Texas to earn their way into a 12 team playoff, now they have a whole other gauntlet to run and now they're actually at a disadvantage due to having such a grueling schedule up to that point.

In this case, it's all the more important that only deserving teams make it into the process. Undeserving teams make the process far less fair and can create much easier paths for certain teams. For instance, any team in the playoff is salivating at the idea of getting to play SMU or Arizona St. It's a gift that no team is deserving of.

This process of adding an undeserving team, and undeserving byes and home games and so on can entirely corrupt the process in my opinion. One of the lasting impressions of playoff stupidity remains when the 11-5 Saints had to travel 2,500 miles to play the 7-9 Seahawks. I even heard some pundit argue that game wasn't really a problem because after all Seattle won.

That's utter nonsense. The Saints had already played and beaten Seattle 34-19. Seattle winning at home (with an enormous home field advantage) by one score on a long run by Lynch does not justify the stupidity of the process, it demonstrates why you can't have it happen in the first place. The Saints had the third best record in the NFC, they should have been playing a home game and the Seahawks should have been sitting at home.

Instead the Seahawks went on to play and lose to the 11-5 Bears, who lost to the 10-6 Packers, who beat the 12-4 Steelers (that the Saints had already beaten) in the Super Bowl. The entire process in my opinion was corrupted by letting an undeserving team in and giving them a home game. Might the Saints have still lost in the first round? Sure, but if it was at home against the Giants at least I could have said it was fair.

I just want this stupidity to be fair.

 

[crimsonaudio]

When Miami lost the infamous Doug Flutie Hail Mary game 40 years ago, there were 30,000 fans in a stadium with over 75,000 seats.

Folks don't realize how wretched their attendance ALWAYS was, even when they were good - because they'd see a sold out Orange Bowl Stadium for the bowl game.

Of course, the immediate excuse is, "But that's not fair, it was the day after Thanksgiving."

Okay, look at a few more:
1985 Notre Dame 49,236 (for a Miami team contending for the national championship)
1986 Oklahoma - 4,000 empty seats for #1 Oklahoma vs #2 Miami
1986 Florida State - 62,834 for #1 Miami vs #20 FSU

YES, Miami did fill the stadium and beyond a few times, especially in games playing other powerhouses based in the state of Florida. But look at their average attendance for a season in years when those teams weren't on the schedule, and it was subpar for a team that contended for the national title almost every year 1983-1994.


Remember the 1993 Sugar Bowl, when about 7/8 of the attendees were wearing Crimson? That was presented as "Bama fans know how to get Sugar Bowl tickets," but we'd only been to the Sugar Bowl ONCE in the previous 12 years. Fact was, Miami didn't have a HOME fanbase, much less a TRAVELING fanbase.

As an example - this is a GREAT year for Miami and they've had ONE home sellout - vs in-state rival FSU. My guess is half of the tix sold for that game were FSU fans, which has a MUCH larger fanbase than UM.

 

[Tidewater]

What I find curious, is that some, even on here, had said that it doesn't really matter who comes in number 12 because the number 12 team is never gonna win the championship. And yet here we are hoping to eke our way into number 12 in the playoffs.

 

[B1GTide]

What I find curious, is that some, even on here, had said that it doesn't really matter who comes in number 12 because the number 12 team is never gonna win the championship. And yet here we are hoping to eke our way into number 12 in the playoffs.

 

[KrAzY3]

What I find curious, is that some, even on here, had said that it doesn't really matter who comes in number 12 because the number 12 team is never gonna win the championship. And yet here we are hoping to eke our way into number 12 in the playoffs.

I was tempted to do a really long winded explanation, which I still might do, heh... but (setting aside the point in my previous post) part of the issue is we're not talking about the 12th best team in the playoff. We can all agree that the 12th best team doesn't have a shot.

We're talking about the 12th team in, which due to the stupidity of the process is something else entirely. As of right now, the four worst teams slated to get in would be Indiana, SMU, Arizona State, and Boise State, but they're not ranked 9-12.

 

[colbysullivan]

What I find curious, is that some, even on here, had said that it doesn't really matter who comes in number 12 because the number 12 team is never gonna win the championship. And yet here we are hoping to eke our way into number 12 in the playoffs.

I don’t think they will ever have Bama at the 12th seed in a 12 team playoff. The G5 representative will almost always be the 12th seed. The fact that it’s likely not gonna happen this year is a testament to how far “the other conferences” (not SEC or B1G) have fallen.

 

[colbysullivan]

While I am not to the point where I am saying “Destroy the whole program. We suck!” like @tusks_n_raider is (Yes, I’m being hyperbolic), I absolutely HATE the fact that a 3 loss team is being considered for the playoffs. Will I be super happy and root for Bama if we make it? Yes, dummy…

But my point is college football has always been about rewarding the truly ELITE teams. It has gone to more of a basketball model, and I cannot stand the automatic qualifiers. Ultimately I think we will make it in because “someone has to fill that spot, and it might as well be Bama.” I’m not happy about what the sport has turned into, but I will still cheer for Bama and proudly display my gear for #19.

 

[BamaFanInTally]

Kinda sad that we will be glued to TV showing Clemson vs SMU

Kind of like watching FSU vs Louisville in their championship game last year. Watching grass grow is more exciting.

 

[AWRTR]

I don’t think they will ever have Bama at the 12th seed in a 12 team playoff. The G5 representative will almost always be the 12th seed. The fact that it’s likely not gonna happen this year is a testament to how far “the other conferences” (not SEC or B1G) have fallen.

Those conferences have been raided by the SEC and BIG whatever number it is now. They have fallen apart because their marquee teams have left.