Time to stir up controversy: Alabama loses to Georgia

[crimsontater]

So you agree with me that we should be at 8 rather than 4? That's my overall point.

actually, i'm only agreeing that those teams should be in the conversation. no, i do not want an 8 team playoff. because then the 9th, 10th and 11th place teams cries and whines about being left out. and folks will get their lil fat panties in a wad and pitch fits until they go to a 12 team playoff with byes and so on and so forth until every freakin D1 school is invited to the dang playoff. then people will start whining and crying about the big boys at the top getting to play all the munchkins at the bottom.....geez......it's a never ending crap fest

 

[Cafe_Puro]

Losing never looks better than winning man. Never

that is the debated part.. Its not winning vs losing. Its comparing loss vs loss. A one loss bama vs 1 loss mich/osu.. If bama's loss came in the conf title it looks better than a loss during the season. Specially with NW being so weak SOS wise.

 

[rmilia1]

that is the debated part.. Its not winning vs losing. Its comparing loss vs loss. A one loss bama vs 1 loss mich/osu.. If bama's loss came in the conf title it looks better than a loss during the season. Specially with NW being so weak SOS wise.

Michigan would still have the better loss though

 

[Cafe_Puro]

Michigan would still have the better loss though

No they wouldnt. The committee looks at rank when they played. Number 14 mich lost to number 12 ND.. Bama (if they lost) would be to #5 Uga. Mich loss OOC.. Bama lost in conf in the championship. Debatable.. True however losing in conf vs OOC..something the SEC has ovet B10. Noting NW again. No OOC wins but winning B10 west. And lost to mich by 3....

 

[rmilia1]

No they wouldnt. The committee looks at rank when they played. Number 14 mich lost to number 12 ND.. Bama (if they lost) would be to #5 Uga. Mich loss OOC.. Bama lost in conf in the championship. Debatable.. True however losing in conf vs OOC..something the SEC has ovet B10. Noting NW again. No OOC wins but winning B10 west. And lost to mich by 3....

Lol. No they don't . And that's ridiculous to even think

 

[TheRobotDevil]

that is the debated part.. Its not winning vs losing. Its comparing loss vs loss. A one loss bama vs 1 loss mich/osu.. If bama's loss came in the conf title it looks better than a loss during the season. Specially with NW being so weak SOS wise.

No they wouldnt. The committee looks at rank when they played. Number 14 mich lost to number 12 ND.. Bama (if they lost) would be to #5 Uga. Mich loss OOC.. Bama lost in conf in the championship. Debatable.. True however losing in conf vs OOC..something the SEC has ovet B10. Noting NW again. No OOC wins but winning B10 west. And lost to mich by 3....

Lol. No they don't . And that's ridiculous to even think

Kind of funny when some people put so much emphasis on a loss. or compare losses vs losses. Between conferences that play an entirely different amount of OOC games. Rankings are nothing more than the opinion of the AP,Coaches who hold bias and a committee with no criteria. In the end its just opinion they're pretty much useless aside for being used as a tool to "debate" an "opinion.Other han that they hold no true bearing.

To claim the SEC has a stronger OOC than a conference that plays a 9 game conference schedule is asinine. First off an 8 loss conference schedule is removing a guaranteed conference loss. You really cant even compare losses. Its the difference between playing a conference game against Iowa etc...Where any team can win on any given day. And replacing it with a Mercer to pad a win.

Michigan has the stronger actual SOS. And would have the CC Even tho i threw up in my mouth a little typing that.
If Clemson runs the table
ND runs the table
Michigan Runs the Table
UGA runs the table

Thats the 4 that are in under the current opinion system imo

There's more debate for a 1 loss CC Oklahoma or 1 loss CC Wazzu in this scenario

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

i do not want an 8 team playoff. because then the 9th, 10th and 11th place teams cries and whines about being left out.

With all due respect, I think it's a bad argument.

ANY playoff format, with a highly subjective system, is going to be controversial and some people will be complaining for being on the other side of the bias/opinion. Pretty much everybody here wants to ignore that reality and the elephant in the room.

The reason your argument is bad, is because after 8 teams, the argument for championship worth becomes less meaningful. After 8, you get into the 2-3 loss territory. You get into the "didn't win their conference" territory. Pick any season, and you will see what I mean.

Keeping it within the top 8 means, the conversation looks at teams with between 10-13 wins, 0-2 losses, high SOS numbers, and won their conference. In other words, being #5 is better than being #9.

Just picking 4 is just silly. Every team plays a different set of opponents and SOS levels. Just picking 4 ignores that reality.

 

[belcherboy]

I LOVE Michigan, but I think Bama gets the #4 spot if their only loss is a close game to UGA.

I think Bama wins by double digits against UGA, but I think it will be decently close till the end. So I don’t suspect Michigan, if they win out, has anything to worry about except a rough game against Bama in the playoffs. Bama is so darn good.

 

[outofyourmind]

Can Tua even move around with that fucked up knee??

 

[7Samurai13]

Can Tua even move around with that fucked up knee??

Didn’t you hear, 4d20 reported that the brutal hit caused Tua’s heart to stop and his leg needed to be amputated.

 

[hatcher3333]

insert UCF

 

[belcherboy]

insert UCF

I see UCF has games against Stanford and Pitt next year. That should help their complaints for respect. Hopefully they don’t get rained out.

 

[crimsontater]

wny football dude, thats kool you can disagree all you want.

if you want to know the real reason we wont have an 8 team playoff any time soon, look no further than the bowl games. the current 4 team setup has screwed up the bowl games already. do you really think the bowls will let it go any further? not me.

jmo, but i hate using any of the bowl games for the playoffs. the cfp should be an entity unto themselves. maybe i'm wrong, maybe not. but thats how i see it

 

[Cafe_Puro]

[QUOTE="TheRobotDevil, post:

To claim the SEC has a stronger OOC than a conference that plays a 9 game conference schedule is asinine. First off an 8 loss conference schedule is removing a guaranteed conference loss. You really cant even compare losses. Its the difference between playing a conference game against Iowa etc...Where any team can win on any given day. And replacing it with a Mercer to pad a win.
[/QUOTE] To claim? This isnt an opinion.. This is a statistical fact. Even still this whole thing is a what if.. Well what if Mich doesnt win out? What if mich wins but ND loses? What if Nw beats mich or OSU? What if every one loses but bama. It is slightly entertaining.. But

The safe bet is BAMA..


On lastly. How is it pading when a team like bama who played mercer.. Still wins it all? Wouldnt you think the mercer game is a moot point?

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

wny football dude, thats kool you can disagree all you want.

if you want to know the real reason we wont have an 8 team playoff any time soon, look no further than the bowl games. the current 4 team setup has screwed up the bowl games already. do you really think the bowls will let it go any further? not me.

jmo, but i hate using any of the bowl games for the playoffs. the cfp should be an entity unto themselves. maybe i'm wrong, maybe not. but thats how i see it

I know exactly why we don't have an 8-team playoff: the system is a slave to the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, and so forth. They -- the bowls -- do not want to lose their value.

But none of this is a rebuttal to my comments about how being #5 is different than being #9. You essentially argued being #5 and #9 are the same.

 

[7Samurai13]

I know exactly why we don't have an 8-team playoff: the system is a slave to the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, and so forth. They -- the bowls -- do not want to lose their value.

But none of this is a rebuttal to my comments about how being #5 is different than being #9. You essentially argued being #5 and #9 are the same.

Well it would be the same once we go to 8. #9 will argue that they deserve to be in the playoffs and there will be even more blurred lines than between 4 and 5 now. Just look at NCAA football where # 69 is whining they should be in the tournament.

 

[4down20]

Didn’t you hear, 4d20 reported that the brutal hit caused Tua’s heart to stop and his leg needed to be amputated.

^when you bend over someone so badly they can't stop thinking about you.

Btw, he could still beat Michigan St in that state.

 

[7Samurai13]

^when you bend over someone so badly they can't stop thinking about you.

Btw, he could still beat Michigan St in that state.

^ Or when you make TheAuthority look like a fair and impartial fan.

 

[4down20]

^ Or when you make TheAuthority look like a fair and impartial fan.

Yeah, that's why you need to exaggerate and change what was said.

Let's see here:

Needs to exaggerate what was said - check
Focuses only on me when every other Alabama fan and member of the team thought the same thing - check
Brings it up days later in a completely different thread - check
Brought it up when nobody was even talking about it - check
Brought it up when I wasn't even involved in the thread - check

Yeah, sorry - I'm pretty sure you're just a butthurt bitch.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Well it would be the same once we go to 8. #9 will argue that they deserve to be in the playoffs and there will be even more blurred lines than between 4 and 5 now. Just look at NCAA football where # 69 is whining they should be in the tournament.

Let me first off say -- I hate to repeat myself or beat the same points over and over again -- playoff expansion means NOTHING if the system doesn't add some objectivity to an overtly subjective system. The prime reason for the "whining" is the lack of clear-cut criteria.

If we were to properly expand, there would have to some sort of rules regarding conference champions. For example, you could say top 6 conference champions ranked in the top 12 gets into the playoff. This means in 2017, Clemson (12-1), Oklahoma (12-1), Georgia (12-1), Ohio State (11-2), USC (11-2), and UCF (12-0) would be in. The debate then would be about the two wildcards. Alabama (11-1) and Wisconsin (12-1) would be in. Who might have an argument? Penn State? They lost twice, had 10 wins, and failed to qualify for the CC game. Miami? Went 10-2. Auburn? Lost three times.

You do understand that there's a difference between Ohio State, Wisconsin saying "why not us?" and Penn State saying you "shafted us". Penn State achieved LESS than Wisky or Ohio State, and that's pretty evident.

I just think it's more logical to include most or all the power conference champions and then pick a couple of wildcards with 1-loss and a strong SOS on their back.

And it would be awful if 12-1 Michigan gets left out over 12-1 Alabama. Both should merit National Championship consideration.