Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia and Alabama picked for College Playoff

[The Gipper]

 agree that it's eyeball test. Bama was regarded as the best team in the country by most pundits for most of the season. I don't think Ohio State was ever once considered the same throughout the entire season.

Furthermore, Alabama would be favored easily against Ohio State, and Michigan State, and Penn State, and Wisconsin. Yeah, Ohio State fans want to pimp beating Wisconsin yesterday as some kind of trump card. You think Alabama wouldn't have done the same? 

Florida state was regarded as the #3 team in the country week one.  They weren't. Alabama was regarded as the #1 team in the country, they weren't.  So....what some team WAS regarded at some point in time during the season is irrelevant. The question is:  what were they on the day of the selection. 

And...the fact is Ohio State WAS considerd to be about the #1 team in the country at some point.  After that first week they were ranked #2. So...like I said, previous rankings don't mean shite.

And the only "pimping" that came with the OSU defeat of Wisconsin is this simple fact:   they played and won their conference championship...and Alabama wasn't even considered really to be in the top 2 in their conference.

Now...again, to be fair, Ohio St. got this same advantage last year.

I think the bottom line is this:   Alabama took advantage of a weak schedule to come out with only 1 loss.   They had the advantage of not playing the previous day. They got the 4th position by default because the committee:  A. determined that they still did not want a 2 loss team in their playoff and B.  didn't want to put a team in that had just lost the previous day (Wisconsin).  With these determining factors they concluded that Alabama was the best team to put in.

I mean, so be it. 

Like I said above though....the other conferences need to put pressure on the SEC to up their game by mandating the 9 conf. games that everyone else does....not the 8 games they play now.

[The Gipper]

11 hours ago, wargograw said:

What would have been inconsistent is putting Ohio State in based on the exact antithesis of the arguments that put Ohio State in last year. How on earth did consistency not favor Bama this year?

I agree that it's eyeball test. Bama was regarded as the best team in the country by most pundits for most of the season. I don't think Ohio State was ever once considered the same throughout the entire season.

Furthermore, Alabama would be favored easily against Ohio State, and Michigan State, and Penn State, and Wisconsin. Yeah, Ohio State fans want to pimp beating Wisconsin yesterday as some kind of trump card. You think Alabama wouldn't have done the same? 

4-7 Florida?

You realize had the committee gone with OSU everyone around the country would say it has bias for Ohio State? 

Bama's favored....

FSU was a top 4 win for Bama. And when did Ohio State travel out of the north for a game this year? 

"It was not even a question who should have been in." Just make sure you ignore all our arguments from last year. Okie dokie.

Ohio State's loss to Iowa essentially eliminated them.  We understand that.   

And actually it may be that other teams had better arguments for inclusion than either of them. 

In fact, in a "blind test" that was given by ESPN....showing ONLY certain teams credentials...not their names...the vast majority of people said that  of 4 teams, Team C should have been the team to make the playoffs.

That team was USC...not Alabama or OSU, or Wisconsin, which were the other 4 teams shown.

[Canton Dawg]

I wonder if old Nick still feels this way. . . 

 

[The Gipper]

10 hours ago, mjp28 said:

11-2 going into OSU vs USC, should be a good game.....ironically possibly the future BROWNS QB preview in that game in Texas.

The B1G had to be perfect or a one loss OSU to get one in the final four. SEC bias? Maybe depending on how you look at it. The BUCKEYES lost their guaranteed shot in Iowa.

THE BUCKEYES should be good in 2018 but now the seemingly endless bowl games many not filled a 16 team playoff would remedy some of that. 

Again, the SEC "bias"  may not be a bias so much as it is a fact that the SEC plays fewer conference games.....and schedules more cupcakes r than any other conference....ergo in fact avoiding losing another game.  Here is a breakdown of their non-conf. schedule  this year, 2017:

Power 5 Conferences Record

ACC 5–4

Big Ten 0–2

Big 12 1–1

Pac-12 0–2

Power 5 Total 6–9

BYU & Notre Dame:  3-0 

Other FBS ConferencesRecord

American 1–0

C-USA 7–0

Independents (Excluding BYU & Notre Dame) 2–0

MAC 1–0

Mountain West 2–0

Sun Belt 10–1

Other FBS Total 23–1

FCS OpponentsRecord Football Championship Subdivision 13–0

Total Non-Conference Record 45–10

Notes:  Against the other P5 conferences, not including BYU and Notre Dame, they were 6-9......but 3-0 vs. BYU/ND.

They played 13 games this year vs. FCS foes.    In comparison....the Big Ten played -0- games against FCS  (This is an outright embarassment)

For the SEC to gain MY personal respect they need to do the following:

A. Schedule 9 conference games....like all the other P5 conferences do.    That would reduce their non-conf. games from 55 to 41 games.    A reduction of 14.  

No longer schedule FCS foes.   Of the 14 non conf. games...just eliminating the games vs. FCS and making those games vs. SEC foes, that would basically account for it.  All P5 teams have their non P5 games.  But none of the other schedule the FCS cupcakes like the SEC does.

[Babernakle]

Plain and simple the committee changes there rules and makes excuses to put whom ever they want in sec bias alieve and well this has Espn's doing all over it and if people want to bitch about osu's loss to Iowa then the clear next team was USC and they should have been in over bama and people want to say eye test than the clear team was osu who is the only team THE ONLY TEAM to be ranked in the top ten on d and o the buckeyes season swung on there qb giving the ball away 

[LogicIsForSquares]

12 minutes ago, Babernakle said:

Plain and simple the committee changes there rules and makes excuses to put whom ever they want in sec bias alieve and well this has Espn's doing all over it and if people want to bitch about osu's loss to Iowa then the clear next team was USC and they should have been in over bama and people want to say eye test than the clear team was osu who is the only team THE ONLY TEAM to be ranked in the top ten on d and o the buckeyes season swung on there qb giving the ball away 

USC got drummed by a 3 loss Notre Dame. You can't have a one sided throttling by more than 30 points on your record and expect to make it into the playoff. That goes for OSU and USC.

[Babernakle]

Bama played nobody this year like every year they only play 8 conference games like Clemson and play an fcs school they lost the one tuff game and got dominated by auburn and auburn got boat races by Georgia bama does not belong schedule better and leave the south and play home and home then they have a argument 

[Babernakle]

On top of that bama couldn't get blown out the teams they played are all heavy run and they have played no elite qbs this year so no chance to get blow out bama is an illusion and the sec will get exposed as well as the acc and the committee will look like a bag of dicks as usual 

[LogicIsForSquares]

2 minutes ago, Babernakle said:

Bama played nobody this year like every year they only play 8 conference games like Clemson and play an fcs school they lost the one tuff game and got dominated by auburn and auburn got boat races by Georgia bama does not belong schedule better and leave the south and play home and home then they have a argument 

Bama was the next worthy team. USC and OSU had terrible losses on their records. Given those two teams didn't deserve to get into the playoff, who do you think got overlooked?

[LogicIsForSquares]

Just now, Babernakle said:

On top of that bama couldn't get blown out the teams they played are all heavy run and they have played no elite qbs this year so no chance to get blow out bama is an illusion and the sec will get exposed as well as the acc and the committee will look like a bag of dicks as usual 

Ah so this is a Big 10 whine fest. 

Clemson did some exposing last year but it had nothing to do with the ACC.....

[Canton Dawg]

3 hours ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

Ah so this is a Big 10 whine fest. 

Clemson did some exposing last year but it had nothing to do with the ACC.....

I think Clemson is going to expose everyone this year...including Nick Saban and company.

[The Gipper]

3 hours ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

Bama was the next worthy team. USC and OSU had terrible losses on their records. Given those two teams didn't deserve to get into the playoff, who do you think got overlooked?

A game against an FCS team should be looked as a loss.  In my opinion.

[The Gipper]

3 hours ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

Ah so this is a Big 10 whine fest. 

Clemson did some exposing last year but it had nothing to do with the ACC.....

It goes in cycles.  I seem to recall the Big 10 doing some exposing at times as well.

[The Gipper]

Here is another point:

The ACC is just about as bad at scheduling FCS opponents.   Their teams had 11 of them on their schedules this year.

The likes of Citadel, Furman, Presbyterian, Murray St. Central Connecticut, Delaware, Jacksonville St. Youngstown St. (Pitt), William and Mary, North Carolina Central, Old Dominion.

[The Gipper]

The Big 12 still had several games vs. FCS schools like:  Jackson St.  Delaware St.  Cental Arkansas, Northern Iowa, Eastern Washington, SE Missouri Sts.....and Baylor played Liberty and LOST.

7 games

[The Gipper]

The Pac 12 is still playing FCS:

Montana, Montana St. Southern Utah, Weber St. Portland St, Northern Arizona, North Dakota, Northern Colorado

8 games.

[The Gipper]

The Big Ten played exactly TWO (2) games vs. FCS schools:

Rutgers played Morgan St.

Maryland played Towson St.

These are the two most recent additions to the Big Ten and they carried over their schedules from their prior conferences. 

So, bottom line on this in terms of the P5 conferences playing FCS schools:

SEC still scheduled 13

ACC had 11

Pac 12 had 8

Big 12 had 7

Big Ten had 2.

[LogicIsForSquares]

34 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

It goes in cycles.  I seem to recall the Big 10 doing some exposing at times as well.

No doubt. I hope OSU gets in next year and does some damage.

[wargograw]

On 12/3/2017 at 11:37 PM, tiamat63 said:

You can't say "4-7" Florida then call FSU a top 4 win for Bama.

Fair enough although those are completely different teams. They just played each other and proved that, too.

16 hours ago, Babernakle said:

Fsu was a preseason ranking there rank was based on last year and bias.  I watched almost all of a bama's games this year they are not what they said they are.  The sec bias came up again.  How it is possible to not play and move up.  And further evidence of the bias is when osu lost to ou compare how many spots osu dropped as compared to bama's loss.  Auburn dominated bama in the same fashion ou did to Osu. You can point to the Iowa loss all you want but the conference championship whips that out now compare the records not even close osu got robbed.  Like I said I like bama hope they beat Clemson but osu should have been in there is no excuse for in and once again the committee shows us there a joke and the playoff has to go to 8 teams to take the human bias out of 5 of the picks.  

I'm quite positive you did not watch almost all of bama's games, or you saw them win 4 conference games by 30+? 

Stop whining about SEC bias. Everyone could easily argue there's Ohio State bias had they been chosen. Committee was going to look biased either way. Get over it. Don't lose by 30. 

14 hours ago, The Gipper said:

It may be as simple as this:    There has never been a 2 loss team in these playoffs in the now 4 or so years they have been running, and the committee didn't want to go that way this time.

Then you have to ask yourself:  who then only had 1 loss?   Well...there was UCF...only undefeated team...but they were not going to pick them.

And there was Wisconsin.  Only loss to Ohio St.  On resume alone, Wisconsin may actually have had the better credentials. There loss was to OSU, Bama to Auburn.....OSU ended up ranked higher than Auburn.    Both had what I ...and everyone else, considered weak schedules.  Both OSU and USC had much stronger strength of schedules...but both had two losses. 

So...between Alabama and Wisc. it came down to only possibly a few things:   A.  Wisconsin just lost the previous day...where Bama had the good sense to lose a week earlier   B. They went by reputation alone  or  C. it came down to the "eye" test....they just thought Bama was a better team. 

The last one is what they professed....but honestly....I think that the last one was influenced by A and B.  They thought Bama looked better because in the past Bama has been better,  and they forgot how Bama was overwhelmingly manhandled by Auburn.  While Wisc. lost to OSU...I wouldn't call it an overwhelming manhandling.  Wisc. just could not keep up with OSU's quick strike ability.  So...to me...it all boils down to B:  they chose Bama out of reputation alone.

Wisconsin blows. Every team in the top 10 would beat them.

13 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Ohio State, Penn St. Wisconsin, Michigan St.  Michigan, Northwestern, Iowa.......collectively were better than the SECs top half:  

And, record wise you are wrong.  Ohio State, PSU and Wisconsin were a combined 33-5.   Bama, Auburn and GA had the same 33-5 record.   But note:  the SEC teams only played 8 conference games...where the Big Ten played 9.  Ergo...the SEC doubles up on cupcakes.  While the Big Ten played a few "lesser lights"..they only had the chance really to play 1 team like that.  The SEC schedules at least 2.  And nowhere on any Big Ten schedule will you see them playing FCS schools, like Mercer or the Citadel, or Louisiana-Monroe.

By getting 2 teams into the playoffs, this committee is actually rewarding the SEC for their weak butt scheduling.  The Big Ten, Pac 10, ACC, Big 12 all play a 9 game  conference schedule....the SEC only plays 8 conference games.

If I were the Commissioners of the other conferences....I would make a demand that the SEC play the same number of conference games as the rest of them do......and that any game agains an FCS opponent should count as a half loss.

Nobody cares that Big 10 teams played an extra game against Purdue instead of some G5 team. Come up with something better.

11 hours ago, Babernakle said:

Plain and simple the committee changes there rules and makes excuses to put whom ever they want in sec bias alieve and well this has Espn's doing all over it and if people want to bitch about osu's loss to Iowa then the clear next team was USC and they should have been in over bama and people want to say eye test than the clear team was osu who is the only team THE ONLY TEAM to be ranked in the top ten on d and o the buckeyes season swung on there qb giving the ball away 

They would have changed "there rules" that they established last year in order to put Ohio State in this year....

10 hours ago, Babernakle said:

Bama played nobody this year like every year they only play 8 conference games like Clemson and play an fcs school they lost the one tuff game and got dominated by auburn and auburn got boat races by Georgia bama does not belong schedule better and leave the south and play home and home then they have a argument 

OHIO STATE DID NOT LEAVE THE NORTH EITHER

Your arguments are so bad.

10 hours ago, Babernakle said:

On top of that bama couldn't get blown out the teams they played are all heavy run and they have played no elite qbs this year so no chance to get blow out bama is an illusion and the sec will get exposed as well as the acc and the committee will look like a bag of dicks as usual 

Yeah, everyone knows the Iowa Hawkeyes are a super prolific offense. Are you serious right now?

[tiamat63]

37 minutes ago, wargograw said:

Fair enough although those are completely different teams. They just played each other and proved that, too.

A bad team beat another bad team by 2 scores.   Shmuck me, I'm impressed.  

[The Gipper]

9 hours ago, wargograw said:

Fair enough although those are completely different teams. They just played each other and proved that, too.

I'm quite positive you did not watch almost all of bama's games, or you saw them win 4 conference games by 30+? 

Stop whining about SEC bias. Everyone could easily argue there's Ohio State bias had they been chosen. Committee was going to look biased either way. Get over it. Don't lose by 30. 

Wisconsin blows. Every team in the top 10 would beat them.

You don't know that unless and until they play.  Wisc. has a stout offensive line, defensive line and running game. They play Miami in the Orange Bowl....so we shall see.

Nobody cares that Big 10 teams played an extra game against Purdue instead of some G5 team. Come up with something better.

Lets put it this way:   playing fewer in conference games allowed Georgia and Alabama to duck each other.  Instead...they each decided to play FCS teams.  Even if Alabama had to play Kentucky rather than Mercer...that would have been better.

They would have changed "there rules" that they established last year in order to put Ohio State in this year....

Maybe the only valid point you make....the same rules that were applied last year to OSU applied this year to Alabama.  I would not argue with that...not sure why anyone else would.

Like I said....I still think that the Committee did NOT want to establish a precedent by putting a 2 loss team into the Field of Four.  I don't think it would have mattered if OSU had lost by 30 points or 3 points to Iowa.

OHIO STATE DID NOT LEAVE THE NORTH EITHER

They have plenty of times in the past. They went to Oklahoma this year. They regularly have gone to the west coast to play Pac 12 teams.  Show us any time in the past 20 years that Alabama has ever gone out of the south to play anyone that was not a bowl game.

Your arguments are so bad.

Yeah, everyone knows the Iowa Hawkeyes are a super prolific offense. Are you serious right now?

 

[Babernakle]

13 hours ago, wargograw said:

I'm quite positive you did not watch almost all of bama's games, or you saw them win 4 conference games by 30+? 

Stop whining about SEC bias. Everyone could easily argue there's Ohio State bias had they been chosen. Committee was going to look biased either way. Get over it. Don't lose by 30. 

Obviously you didnt watch the games.  The sec was a dumpster fire of dog Sheet this year.  They have three ok teams.  Georgia is ok they run the ball well not a threat to pass,. Auburn and bama are the same not to mention bama is massively depleted on defense.  I think the committee put who the wanted in and it stems from the big ten leaving to go to fox but the pac12 got hosed too.  Yeah they both lost by 30 but there both conference champ in better conferences.  So the should have taken the conference titles and the 30 point loses and made them a wash then compared the three team.  It's not even close bama would be last.  Then holcut come out and say they made the decision on the assumption bama might get healthy.  cowpoop.  This was a set up and they made there mind up before the championship games.  

[mjp28]

And the debate rages on maybe an 8 team playoff next year will help solve these debates an16 team playoff will practically eliminate them.......well except the 16 versus 17 controversy 

........a D-1A long running pet peeve of mine. Hopefully they will catch up with the D-1AA, D-II, D-III, high school, etc.

[LogicIsForSquares]

7 hours ago, Babernakle said:

Obviously you didnt watch the games.  The sec was a dumpster fire of dog Sheet this year.  They have three ok teams.  Georgia is ok they run the ball well not a threat to pass,. Auburn and bama are the same not to mention bama is massively depleted on defense.  I think the committee put who the wanted in and it stems from the big ten leaving to go to fox but the pac12 got hosed too.  Yeah they both lost by 30 but there both conference champ in better conferences.  So the should have taken the conference titles and the 30 point loses and made them a wash then compared the three team.  It's not even close bama would be last.  Then holcut come out and say they made the decision on the assumption bama might get healthy.  cowpoop.  This was a set up and they made there mind up before the championship games.  

I think they had their minds made up when OSU got worked by a 7-5 team by 30 points. 

OSU had to destroy Wisconsin to make the committee forget that Iowa loss. They didn’t. I know you are homering out but at least attempt to be objective.

[mjp28]

11 hours ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

I think they had their minds made up when OSU got worked by a 7-5 team by 30 points. 

OSU had to destroy Wisconsin to make the committee forget that Iowa loss. They didn’t. I know you are homering out but at least attempt to be objective.

Plus OSU sealed the deal beating WISC, all one loss teams in the final four.....easy out for the selection committee. 

Rank	Logo	Team	Record
1		Clemson University	12-1
2		University of Oklahoma	12-1
3		University of Georgia	12-1
4		University of Alabama	11-1
5		Ohi8o State University	11-2
6		University of Wisconsin	12-1

 

 

 

[mjp28]

The final USA TODAY Sports college football re-rank of the regular season mirrors the College Football Playoff poll in leading with Clemson, Oklahoma and Georgia. Then we get into a debate.

The Playoff selection committee placed Alabama ahead of Ohio State in rounding out its four-team field of national semifinalists. Meanwhile, the re-rank leaps Ohio State ahead of the Crimson Tide following the Buckeyes’ win against once-unbeaten Wisconsin to win the Big Ten Conference.

 

Ohio State safety Damon Webb celebrates after making a fourth quarter interception against Wisconsin.  

THOMAS J. RUSSO, USA TODAY SPORTS

In total, the re-rank considered two factors in Ohio State’s corner while still considering the team’s ugly loss to Iowa in November. For one, the Buckeyes can tout a major-conference championship while Alabama finished second in its own division. Secondly, the Buckeyes’ two best wins – Wisconsin and Penn State – are better than the Tide’s most impressive win, against LSU.

 

 

[wargograw]

On 12/5/2017 at 12:59 AM, tiamat63 said:

A bad team beat another bad team by 2 scores.   Shmuck me, I'm impressed.  

One was a national championship contender that played 89% of its games without the player without whom they suck (and relevant to this discussion, Bama got the elite 11%), and still scratched out 6-6, while the other is terrible. 

[wargograw]

 

On 12/5/2017 at 9:37 AM, The Gipper said:

You don't know that unless and until they play.  Wisc. has a stout offensive line, defensive line and running game. They play Miami in the Orange Bowl....so we shall see.

Part of the committee's job is to speculate on these things.

On 12/5/2017 at 9:37 AM, The Gipper said:

Lets put it this way:   playing fewer in conference games allowed Georgia and Alabama to duck each other.  Instead...they each decided to play FCS teams.  Even if Alabama had to play Kentucky rather than Mercer...that would have been better.

Slightly better, sure. Still completely irrelevant to this discussion. 

 

On 12/5/2017 at 9:37 AM, The Gipper said:

They have plenty of times in the past. They went to Oklahoma this year. They regularly have gone to the west coast to play Pac 12 teams.  Show us any time in the past 20 years that Alabama has ever gone out of the south to play anyone that was not a bowl game.

The past has zero bearing on this year, and they did not go to Oklahoma  or anywhere else outside of Big 10 country this year.

[wargograw]

On 12/5/2017 at 1:53 PM, Babernakle said:

Obviously you didnt watch the games.  The sec was a dumpster fire of dog Sheet this year.  They have three ok teams.  Georgia is ok they run the ball well not a threat to pass,. Auburn and bama are the same not to mention bama is massively depleted on defense.  I think the committee put who the wanted in and it stems from the big ten leaving to go to fox but the pac12 got hosed too.  Yeah they both lost by 30 but there both conference champ in better conferences.  So the should have taken the conference titles and the 30 point loses and made them a wash then compared the three team.  It's not even close bama would be last.  Then holcut come out and say they made the decision on the assumption bama might get healthy.  cowpoop.  This was a set up and they made there mind up before the championship games.  

No, I definitely did watch the games. I'd put my college football couch time up against absolutely anyone's this season. If by "three ok teams" you mean three in the top 10, yeah, the SEC has that. And LSU. And Mississippi State. So in a pretty bad year, it still has 5 teams which I would submit would have a solid shot at beating any Big 10 team this year. 

Bama's injured defenders are all back in time for the bowl, I believe. And you said that later in your post. Try to have some consistency.

Ohio State has a bigger national brand than Alabama. If you're going to pull out the cooky conspiracy theories, where exactly does that fit in? 

If you call the conference titles and 30 point losses a wash (which is pretty stupid), then Alabama is 11-1 and Ohio State is 10-1. Hmm. Still seems pretty simple. 

[The Gipper]

Lets put it this way:   playing fewer in conference games allowed Georgia and Alabama to duck each other.  Instead...they each decided to play FCS teams.  Even if Alabama had to play Kentucky rather than Mercer...that would have been better.

Slightly better, sure. Still completely irrelevant to this discussion. 

Strength of Schedule is absolutely relevant to this subject.   If you say that it is irrelevant, then you are saying there is no difference between playing an SEC team and an FCS team.  I know the SEC is weak right now....but that weak?