The Polls (AP, Coaches, & CFP, etc.)

[Roundabout]

In theory losing the extra league game gives the league 7 extra home game gates.... and I'm guessing 5-6 more wins atleast... which leads to inflated rankings for the league which makes our loses "better" because we lose to higher ranked teams.....

Get rid of the extra league game, Alabama gets rid of there game against the school of the blind... and expand the playoffs to what every other division of college football has... If Divison III non footballl factories can play more then 2 rounds of playoffs... the pampered well funded football programs can too. From what I can tell 20-32 teams are playing in the playoffs.... have it all computerized how you get in.... no suprises... and nobody even close to claiming to be the best in the country gets left out.

 

[Buck I in Mich]

I get that. But can you see how the B1G earning a 31-0 loss, preceded by a 38-0 loss, preceded by a "No Participation" trophy in the CFP the last three years might shape perception?

If the 'high end' of the conference sets the perception with some voters, then you have a conference perception hole to dig out of with some voters. Now, that only the high end of the conference would be considered seems to me to be short sighted and unfair, to be honest. Stupid way to judge conference competence. But I honestly think its 'a thing' off your radar that might play a part in the deliberations. Always being the cream of the B1G might make it harder to see, as you rightfully expect to be judged on just your own body of work.

Seems the only other measure against the other conferences would be bowl games. Does 7-1 ring any bells?

 

[jwinslow]

I guess I don't see it as lavish praise. I see it as folks thinking UGA was very damn close to the best team in college football, but needing to be kept out of the CFP, thank God.

Herbie and ESPN says hi. Herbie wanted to move them up Saturday night.

Jumping you by one is meaningless, IMO, because once the committee put OU in, it was contract visits to Rose and Sugar for both of you, regardless.

My beef is with the absurd and extensive narratives by Disney. As for the committee keeping OU ahead of OSU, it would be nice if they would man up and tell the truth instead of such laughable lies to paint it as credible.

Just say OSU had too many warts and they liked OU 18 or Bammer 17 better.

And championing Georgia??? How many times do I have to say that I would have picked tOSU over UGA. Conference Champion matters, one versus two loss matters.

And I am looking for my "Hook 'Em" shirt. In Florida Orange, not that bastard burnt monstrosity of a color.

I didn't think so

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

As for the committee keeping them ahead of OSU, it would be nice if they would man up and tell the truth instead of such laughable lies to paint it as credible.

In fairness, I did not watch the selection show. But, a buddy of mine texted me that the Committee Chair had this to say....

There wasn't much separation between 4 and 6, so we took the 1 loss conference Champion ahead of the 2 loss non conference champion to justify taking OU... Sure.. OK.. I guess that makes sense... But... doesn't that exact same analysis apply to OSU v. Georgia? Didn't you just tell me that the only real difference between 4 and 6 was which team held a conference title?

It's a slap in the face of the B1G and a total sham.

EDIT: and to be clear, I don't have a real problem with OU in over OSU. I mean, I disagree and could argue OSU over OU, but at least the committee's internal logic is consistent. My issue is with Georgia being 5 over OSU... or OU had OSU and OU been switched.

 

[Mike80]

In fairness, I did not watch the selection show. But, a buddy of mine texted me that the Committee Chair had this to say....

There wasn't much separation between 4 and 6, so we took the 1 loss conference Champion ahead of the 2 loss non conference champion to justify taking OU... Sure.. OK.. I guess that makes sense... But... doesn't that exact same analysis apply to OSU v. Georgia? Didn't you just tell me that the only real difference between 4 and 6 was which team held a conference title?

It's a slap in the face of the B1G and a total sham.

EDIT: and to be clear, I don't have a real problem with OU in over OSU. I mean, I disagree and could argue OSU over OU, but at least the committee's internal logic is consistent. My issue is with Georgia being 5 over OSU... or OU had OSU and OU been switched.

Asking for consistency in a subjective and totally in the dark process is asking for frustration.

I'm not saying Ohio State should have done this or that they should have been in the playoffs, but I wonder what would happen if a team felt screwed by the system to the point where they decline the bowl bid entirely.

Unfortunately it's clear the CFP committee is willing to overlook warts on SEC teams but won't overlook warts on any other conference unless it has too. That means teams from the PAC-12 and B1G need to go undefeated to have a chance. While I do think the B1G will take the high road and keep the 9 game conference schedule as well as the OOC scheduling guidelines, it would be nice just to stick it to the system and play it by the rules they've set forth - "Chickenshit Saturdays", not playing north of Kentucky and only then before mid-October, etc etc.

 

[Mike80]

If any of the 4 CFP teams had a 29 point loss to a 6-6 team I have no doubt there would be 100% agreement on this board that they don't belong.

Last year we had two losses by a total of 46 points - of course we didn't get a bid.

The year before we missed the B1G title game and got a bid anyway. Was it rigged then?

Let's not act like BWI here.

It's not acting like BWI to point out the serious conflicts of interest between the CFP, ESPN, SECSECSEC and ACC.

It's not acting like BWI to point out the trends in the weekly and allegedly unbiased rankings every week (by the way, the SECSECSEC has the highest ranked 0, 2, 3 and 4 loss teams a week after having the highest ranked 0, 1, 3 and 4 loss teams).

It's not acting like BWI to point out how the CFP committee uses different criteria in their verbal explanations from year to year to justify how they continually rank teams that are fully within range of the conflict of interest higher than everyone else.

It's not acting like BWI to point out the hypocrisy in how the various conferences are treated throughout the year by certain media outlets that also have big time TV contracts with the CFP, SECSECSEC, ACC and Texas and happen to be based in Connecticut.

 

[Best Buckeye]

From what I see of the Selection committee they do a superb job. They get to make decisions based on solid, cast in stone tenets which they can modify in their own minds to fit their desires in any given year. Thus basing decisions one year based on games won can be redirected to "but they are still better than" the next.
Simple.

 

[kujirakira]

Yeah... Saturdays used to be glorious here... as many as 4 TVs running at the same time, noon to midnight.... now? I watch Ohio State and that's about it. I mean, I guess I've watched a handful of non OSU games this year... but.. nothing near like I used to do.

Ditto. Used to be an all-day watchfest... now, why bother? You know win or lose half the SEC will be ranked (unjustifiably) and the bs arguments based on games 10 years ago.

If undefeated is an auto for ND, UCF got hosed twice... and they rank Georgia over us? Burn it to the ground.

Not even sure ill watch Rose live this year. Ill be on vacation overseas and it's always a pain to find bowl games... may just wait to download it at home.

Beat Michigan and CCG. Dont really care about the ESPN Tournament or the meaningless exhibition games.

 

[kujirakira]

If any of the 4 CFP teams had a 29 point loss to a 6-6 team I have no doubt there would be 100% agreement on this board that they don't belong.

Last year we had two losses by a total of 46 points - of course we didn't get a bid.

The year before we missed the B1G title game and got a bid anyway. Was it rigged then?

Let's not act like BWI here.

Georgia at 5 is right out.
And makes the point that Wisconsin should have went last year.
If undefeated is a sure thing for a nonP5 independent, why isnt 2 years running for a G5 school?

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

I just don’t know how anyone watching this Buckeye team for the whole season can think they are a playoff team.

In spite of some real flaws, this team is playing in the Rose Bowl. Seems right to me.

 

[Jagdaddy]

I just don’t know how anyone watching this Buckeye team for the whole season can think they are a playoff team.

In spite of some real flaws, this team is playing in the Rose Bowl. Seems right to me.

I would agree with this, but don't forget that we pay close attention to the Buckeyes and are fully aware of their deficiencies in a way that we're not with other teams. As horrific as the OSU defense has been, OU's defense makes it look elite. And the OSU offense, despite the so-so running game, is 2d in the national in total offense and 7th in scoring offense. Also, excluding one horrid quarter, they did scrap and find a way to win. Unlike some others, I actually don't question their heart (their brains are a whole 'nother story).

Anyway, my point is while I don't think they don't have the consistency or football IQ (especially on defense) to be objectively elite, if there is such a thing, grading on the curve of college football generally I think that they're essentially equivalent to OU. And two-loss Georgia being ranked ahead of them is ridiculous.

 

[BigWoof31]

and they rank Georgia over us? Burn it to the ground.

Serious, non-trolling question. Does it really matter?
Do you want to swap with us and play in NoLa and send us to California?

Isn't your gripe more with Oklahoma than Georgia?

 

[jwinslow]

Serious, non-trolling question. Does it really matter?
Do you want to swap with us and play in NoLa and send us to California?

Isn't your gripe more with Oklahoma than Georgia?

The precedent matters, not the ranking.

Had ND not benched Winbush, UGA could have lost and stayed in the playoffs. Unless of course the rankings are crap and they're just making them up with no consistency whatsoever, and your team would have dropped to 6 in my hypothetical.

The only consistency is SEC!!1!!!1

 

[Hstead]

The precedent matters, not the ranking.

Had ND not benched Winbush, UGA could have lost and stayed in the playoffs. Unless of course the rankings are crap and they're just making them up with no consistency whatsoever, and your team would have dropped to 6 in my hypothetical.

The only consistency is SEC!!1!!!1

Not to mention the fact that Bama and Uga played a schedule that most cheer squads could have handled.

 

[Mike80]

Serious, non-trolling question. Does it really matter?
Do you want to swap with us and play in NoLa and send us to California?

Isn't your gripe more with Oklahoma than Georgia?

No. The gripe is with UGA getting preferential treatment exactly in the same way Ohio State didn't last year even has a conference champion.

The difference isn't the number. The difference is it's very clear being in the SEC is worth several positions in this entirely subjective process. So much for deciding it on the field.