Why did 11 - 1 Alabama get picked over 12 - 1 Wisconsin?

AlaskaGuy · Dec 12, 2017

NolePride said:
Well, at least they could fill all their bowl slots. They gave up a bunch of them this year.

But as stated a few weeks ago...they went to the 9-game conf schedule to keep from having
to schedule another OOC game vs a P5 team from another league. They didn't want to
expose themselves to the committee, but needed to lift their s.o.s.

No sense having a 14 member conference if you're going to avoid playing your own conference members. That and the B1G plays more P5 teams on average vs the ACC & SEC who both play an 8 game conference schedule.

NolePride · Dec 12, 2017

AlaskaGuy said:
No sense having a 14 member conference if you're going to avoid playing your own conference members. That and the B1G plays more P5 teams on average vs the ACC & SEC who both play an 8 game conference schedule.

Is it doing them any good?

It doesn't seem to be helping them. The committee can see thru them being phonies with this.
The committee isn't all that interested in how they do against folks in their P5 leagues but
against P5 teams from other leagues.

The ACC scheduled 22 games vs teams from the other P5 leagues/ND. SEC 16. Big10 13.
Big12 10 and Pac12 10. The committee has zero problem with the ACC doing that.

AlaskaGuy · Dec 12, 2017

NolePride said:
Is it doing them any good?

It doesn't seem to be helping them. The committee can see thru them being phonies with this.
The committee isn't all that interested in how they do against folks in their P5 leagues but
against P5 teams from other leagues.

The ACC scheduled 22 games vs teams from the other P5 leagues/ND. SEC 16. Big10 13.
Big12 10 and Pac12 10. The committee has zero problem with the ACC doing that.

Yet the ACC still played less P5 teams on average than the B1G. The committee is no better than the BCS. It's a bunch of bs.

Shanemansj13 · Dec 12, 2017

Altra said:
Yeah - All good points.

TBH - I was just throwing a shit argument into a shit thread.

Don't be tempted to lick the tip just bc he is throating it

963BUSC · Dec 12, 2017

Sorry I stopped reading early on, I don't see how Wisconsin even got into the discussion. I understand the USC and OSU argument for being picked over Alabama. But I don't see anything a Wisconsin fan could even point to for getting in.

This year there were only 3 teams that deserve to be there, the fourth pick went to the eye test and they picked Bama.

kburjr · Dec 12, 2017

963BUSC said:
Sorry I stopped reading early on, I don't see how Wisconsin even got into the discussion. I understand the USC and OSU argument for being picked over Alabama. But I don't see anything a Wisconsin fan could even point to for getting in.

This year there were only 3 teams that deserve to be there, the fourth pick went to the eye test and they picked Bama.

I'm not arguing for Wisky over Alabama, but if your argument against Wisky is nothing more that SOS, then you haven't even looked at the team

WizardHawk · Dec 12, 2017

Irish7478 said:
Conference championships are evidently not important. Nor should they be.

Says a guy that roots for a team that isn't in a conference...

They are important and they do act as some amount of criteria greater than zero toward a teams ranking for the playoff standings. It simply isn't the end all only thing viewed.

Why is this concept so hard to understand?

963BUSC · Dec 12, 2017

kburjr said:
I'm not arguing for Wisky over Alabama, but if your argument against Wisky is nothing more that SOS, then you haven't even looked at the team

SC and OSU are conference champs. I can see an argument that you have to win your conference in order to play for the National Championship. Even Nick Saban said that. But if you are going to throw the conference championship out then yeah, the eye test and SOS play a factor. I'd put Alabama ahead of Wisconsin on the eye test and a little ahead on the Strength of Schedule.

Irish7478 · Dec 12, 2017

WizardHawk said:
Says a guy that roots for a team that isn't in a conference...

They are important and they do act as some amount of criteria greater than zero toward a teams ranking for the playoff standings. It simply isn't the end all only thing viewed.

Why is this concept so hard to understand?

Because the last two playoffs had teams that didn’t even make it to their conference championship games. Clearly it isn’t that important. Nor should it be.

kburjr · Dec 12, 2017

The only way to fix the SOS problem of playing cupcakes is to require all P5 schools to play nothing but other P5s. To hell with the G5s

kburjr · Dec 12, 2017

@Great Dayne Get in here and set these guys straight

TrustMeIamRight · Dec 12, 2017

NolePride said:
Oh yeah...they're a better program alright. As long as you don't count championships and wins and
losses.

His overall doesn't mean that much in the broad scope of things. He went to two programs that were
rock bottom and made them into winners in a very short period of time. His third program was a
losing proposition but he got them back to a bowl in year one.

Now he's coming to a program with the 3rd most elite talent in the country. He's gonna be just
fine for us.

If that’s what you need to tell yourself to not accept reality, I have no issue with that. You’d think the program with the 3rd most elite talent, wouldn’t get left at the altar to go to another CFB school and then replace that guy with South Florida’s coach. A coach who has been to exactly 1 bowl game (they lost) and has a losing record as a HC.

Maybe FSU didn’t want to go the Tennessee route — so instead of shooting for the stars, they just hired the guy who wouldn’t say no.

Cobrabit · Dec 12, 2017

4down20 said:
Any system that says USC deserved to be in the playoffs over Alabama this year is flawed. You keep claiming the current system is flawed, but you have 0 evidence to actually support it.

Meanwhile, we can use example after example of actual bad selections using the "conference champion" method.
Conference champion is only a big deal to that conference. Why should it mean anything on a national level?

And why not? They didn't play you, nor anyone on your schedule. You may think that you would've beat every team on their schedule, but there is no factual evidence to prove that. It all comes down to your opinion.

The evidence has already been presented in that there is only one undefeated FBS team and yet they aren't a part of the playoff. I could see if they were one of 5 undefeated teams, then you break it down based on SOS, but there is no evidence (as you put it) that would factually prove that any of the 4 playoff teams would've went undefeated with UCF's schedule. Do I think that would've been the case? Yes, but that is my opinion and not based on fact.

What are the objective metrics required to get into the playoffs? None have been presented, and thus, it is fundamentally flawed based on human bias.

Again, just because you don't see a problem with the status quo, it doesn't mean there isn't an underlying flaw. I personally don't care which team is vying for the 4th spot this year, as VT was well outside of any consideration. Without any objective metrics to base the playoffs on, then it will always be flawed. There is no denying that, no matter how hard you try.

4down20 · Dec 12, 2017

Cobrabit said:
And why not? They didn't play you, nor anyone on your schedule. You may think that you would've beat every team on their schedule, but there is no factual evidence to prove that. It all comes down to your opinion.

The evidence has already been presented in that there is only one undefeated FBS team and yet they aren't a part of the playoff. I could see if they were one of 5 undefeated teams, then you break it down based on SOS, but there is no evidence (as you put it) that would factually prove that any of the 4 playoff teams would've went undefeated with UCF's schedule. Do I think that would've been the case? Yes, but that is my opinion and not based on fact.

What are the objective metrics required to get into the playoffs? None have been presented, and thus, it is fundamentally flawed based on human bias.

Again, just because you don't see a problem with the status quo, it doesn't mean there isn't an underlying flaw. I personally don't care which team is vying for the 4th spot this year, as VT was well outside of any consideration. Without any objective metrics to base the playoffs on, then it will always be flawed. There is no denying that, no matter how hard you try.

Once again you go back to the fallacy that opinion = wrong.

Chewbaccer · Dec 12, 2017

Because Alabama is a better team. Pretty simple IMO.

Cobrabit · Dec 12, 2017

4down20 said:
Once again you go back to the fallacy that opinion = wrong.

And you keep harping on that expert opinion is right, but never wrong. I'm sure you can see your own fallacy in that logic, as there are countless examples where 'experts' have been wrong.

Again, can you give me ANY objective metric that would undoubtedly lead to a playoff spot? You can not and THAT is the flaw I've been presenting.

Obviously, I'm not going to change your opinion, so I'll just leave it alone and walk away. You'll be happy with Bama making it in this year due to opinion, but would complain heavily if the situation was reversed and goes against your opinion in a future year.

As for now, good luck in the playoffs.

AlaskaGuy · Dec 12, 2017

Chewbaccer said:
Because Alabama is a better team. Pretty simple IMO.

Bama couldn't even win their division let alone their conference. It's like Ohio St. last year all over again.

Chewbaccer · Dec 12, 2017

AlaskaGuy said:
Bama couldn't even win their division let alone their conference. It's like Ohio St. last year all over again.

As far as I'm concerned, the committee's job is to put the 4 best teams in the playoffs. If 2 of those teams are from the same conference or same division, so be it.

4down20 · Dec 12, 2017

Cobrabit said:
And you keep harping on that expert opinion is right, but never wrong. I'm sure you can see your own fallacy in that logic, as there are countless examples where 'experts' have been wrong.

Name them. You will be the first.

Again, can you give me ANY objective metric that would undoubtedly lead to a playoff spot? You can not and THAT is the flaw I've been presenting.

It's not difficult formula to figure out how to make it to the playoffs. Play a good schedule and win your games.

Obviously, I'm not going to change your opinion, so I'll just leave it alone and walk away. You'll be happy with Bama making it in this year due to opinion, but would complain heavily if the situation was reversed and goes against your opinion in a future year.

Now you go so far as to assume you know my position. Even worse, you claim that my position is based on bias. You can go fuck yourself for that.

Yet, what you don't seem to understand is that the system you propose actually HELPS Alabama. If the system you propose were active, Alabama would have made the playoffs every year since 2008, with only a slight possibility of being left out in 2010.

But sure, if I don't agree with you, then my opinion my be based on bias. Piss off.

kburjr · Dec 12, 2017

Chewbaccer said:
As far as I'm concerned, the committee's job is to put the 4 best teams in the playoffs. If 2 of those teams are from the same conference or same division, so be it.

Sounds good until you realize that 3 of those 4 teams will lose their last game and slip in the rankings

Why did 11 - 1 Alabama get picked over 12 - 1 Wisconsin?

Throbbing Member

Well-Known Member

Throbbing Member

Finger Poppin Dat Pussy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Release the Kraken - Fuck the Canucks

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Resident Polymath

Quit checking me out.

Illustrious Potentate

Resident Polymath

Throbbing Member

Illustrious Potentate

Quit checking me out.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads