Playoff Committee Member Barry Alvarez talks about his criteria

[Red_Alert]

There are 5 power conference champs bud.....if Texas was 9-3, they'd most likely get left out. Seriously man, you need help

No. They are automatically in the pool of conference champs as you've steadfast wanted to make the rule. If there is another P-5 with 3 losses yet pulled an upset in it's CCG then the committee would have to chose between those two 3 loss teams for the 4th slot.

Typical Texas trash.

 

[rmilia1]

In all of the BCS era, how many times did that happen? Excluding those seasons where ineligible teams were actually the best...

Honestly people ask this question ALL THE TIME thinking that they know the answer but they really have no clue. Would it surprise you to hear that only 3 years in the entire BCS era did winners of the 5 Power leagues have at LEAST 4 teanms with 1 loss or less?? Almost every single year there are at least 2 ( sometime 3 or 4 ) conference champions that have had at least 2 regular season losses. In 2012 you had Wisconsin and KSU with 2+ losses, in 2011 you had Clemson, Wisconsin and Oregon with 2+ losses, in 2010you had VT and Oklahoma with 2 losses, in 09 you had GT and Oregon with 2 losses, in 07 you had VT, LSU, USC and Oklahoma with 2+ losses, in 06 you had Wake, OKlahoma and USC with 2+ losses, in 05 you had VT and UGA with 2 losses, in 04 you had VT and Michigan with 2 losses, in 03 you FSU, KSU and Michigan with 2+ losses, in 02 you had FSU, Oklahoma and Washington State with 2+ losses etc etc and on and on. It literally happens almsot every year. That is why you cant have ONLY conference champions BUT its also why conference champions with 1 loss should NEVER be passed over for a 1 loss team that cant win its own division. Its god damn hard to win your league and it should be given its proper respect.

 

[starbigd]

No. They are automatically in the pool of conference champs as you've steadfast wanted to make the rule. If there is another P-5 with 3 losses yet pulled an upset in it's CCG then the committee would have to chose between those two 3 loss teams for the 4th slot.

Typical Texas trash.

You definitely need professional help.

YES they'd be in the pool.....but if another conference has a 3 loss champ, HOW is that Texas' fault? Why do you ASSUME Texas would get the nod over another? Texas isn't in the SEC pal.....they aren't getting an automatic in.

 

[Red_Alert]

You definitely need professional help.

YES they'd be in the pool.....but if another conference has a 3 loss champ, HOW is that Texas' fault? Why do you ASSUME Texas would get the nod over another? Texas isn't in the SEC pal.....they aren't getting an automatic in.

There's no way I'd take a 9-3 Texas over an 11-1 or 12-1 Oregon that didn't win the PAC, but I can see why you Texas trash would want to game the system to your advantage.

 

[Ironbreaker]

Honestly people ask this question ALL THE TIME thinking that they know the answer but they really have no clue. Would it surprise you to hear that only 3 years in the entire BCS era did winners of the 5 Power leagues have at LEAST 4 teanms with 1 loss or less?? Almost every single year there are at least 2 ( sometime 3 or 4 ) conference champions that have had at least 2 regular season losses. In 2012 you had Wisconsin and KSU with 2+ losses, in 2011 you had Clemson, Wisconsin and Oregon with 2+ losses, in 2010you had VT and Oklahoma with 2 losses, in 09 you had GT and Oregon with 2 losses, in 07 you had VT, LSU, USC and Oklahoma with 2+ losses, in 06 you had Wake, OKlahoma and USC with 2+ losses, in 05 you had VT and UGA with 2 losses, in 04 you had VT and Michigan with 2 losses, in 03 you FSU, KSU and Michigan with 2+ losses, in 02 you had FSU, Oklahoma and Washington State with 2+ losses etc etc and on and on. It literally happens almsot every year. That is why you cant have ONLY conference champions BUT its also why conference champions with 1 loss should NEVER be passed over for a 1 loss team that cant win its own division. Its god damn hard to win your league and it should be given its proper respect.

Actually I asked because I didnt know. Hence the question mark.

To the bold, yes, but you said 3 and 4 losses, not 2.

there will be years when 9-3 or 8-4 type teams win conferences

 

[craigk217]

This is going to be a potential mess every year until the playoff format increases its field from just four eligible teams ... when you are dealing with FIVE Power Conferences ... it's just simple math. Until the playoff pool expands, this bullshit and legitimate arguing will continue. It sucks, but it's the current reality with all of the attention of the P5 and CCGs.

 

[rmilia1]

Actually I asked because I didnt know. Hence the question mark.

To the bold, yes, but you said 3 and 4 losses, not 2.

Sure but in many of those year teams had 3/4/5 losses. I just did 2+ because it was easier. There were 5 years ( to answer your question ) where at least 2 teams won Power 5 league titles with 3 or more losses in the BCS era. Not a majority but certainly a significant minority.

 

[starbigd]

There's no way I'd take a 9-3 Texas over an 11-1 or 12-1 Oregon that didn't win the PAC, but I can see why you Texas trash would want to game the system to your advantage.

Yep, I'm gaming the system......since I want conference champs to be the FIRST criteria. I mean, this only benefits Texas, not any other power 5 team, clearly.....

 

[Red_Alert]

Yep, I'm gaming the system......since I want conference champs to be the FIRST criteria. I mean, this only benefits Texas, not any other power 5 team, clearly.....

You are seeking an automatic benefit over potentially better teams based solely on winning the Big 12 conference. Yes, that is gaming the system.

 

[Red_Alert]

Conference champs should be FIRST criteria only when said conference champs are undefeated. You then go to a pool of teams with losses.

If there are no undefeated teams, conference champs with only one loss should be FIRST criteria, and then go to the pool of remaining teams with losses if there are still slots available.

 

[The Authority]

You are seeking an automatic benefit over potentially better teams based solely on winning the Big 12 conference. Yes, that is gaming the system.

There will still be a conference left out so Big 12 winner isn't automatically in.

 

[The Authority]

What if the game is a cross division rematch of the regular season? Why would you punish the 12-0 team that won the first time.

Because they lost when it mattered.

They wouldn't go into the game not knowing what was on the line. ITs there fault they lost it.

You keep wanting to give people do overs and provide games where the outcome doesn't matter.

 

[Red_Alert]

There will still be a conference left out so Big 12 winner isn't automatically in.

If there is another conference with a 3 loss champ, then one of the 3 loss teams is automatically in. That other 3 loss team could have pulled an unlikely upset in their CCG.

That is why the Texas trash want conference champs to get automatic bids. They don't play a CCG.

 

[The Authority]

Okay, last comment and then I should probably do some work.

I'm not saying to make the CCGs meaningless. If you are deciding between 12-1 teams, then yes take the conference champ over the team that lost their CCG. what I'm saying is that a team that lost their CCG can still be the best team in the country. i've already said it, but I'll say it again, a 12-1 SEC west team that lost it's CCG is deserving of spot if every other team has 2 or more losses.

If they just lost, then they are obviously not the best team in the country.

The problem with giving them a pass is that it just made the SEC CG meaningless.

 

[rmilia1]

Because they lost when it mattered.

They wouldn't go into the game not knowing what was on the line. ITs there fault they lost it.

You keep wanting to give people do overs and provide games where the outcome doesn't matter.

The greatest thing about CFB is how much EVERY game matters. By taking ONLY conference champs you make the regular season less inportant because 2/3/4 loss teams can still make the playoff if they happen to be in a crappy division and play 1 great game. Winning your league should be the first criteria but not the ONLY criteria. A 12-1 confernce champ should always, 100% of the time go ahead of a 11-1 team that didnt win their league though. Hell I will tell you that is MSU goes 12-1 and wins their league and Oregon goes 11-1 and doesnt win their division I still take MSU even though they got beat by 20 by Oregon ( that is how much I think a league title should matter ) but we dont need 3+ loss teams in a 3 team playoff and we would get exactly that probably 1 out of every 3 years.

 

[starbigd]

You are seeking an automatic benefit over potentially better teams based solely on winning the Big 12 conference. Yes, that is gaming the system.

I am seeking teams that have PROVEN to be the best in their conference get first choice.

That is not gaming the system. That is taking the CHAMPIONS into consideration first.

 

[craigk217]

I cant see how a 2-3+ loss CC gets in over a one loss P5 team. This is where common sense, SOS, and the 'eye test' comes in, IMO.

I just hope it doesn't turn out to be a total cluster-bang with only having a four team playoff format as it stands now. Hopefully, we'll get clear cut CCs and records where there is minimal controversy. I know I'm probably in a pipe dream, but there is ALWAYS some team/conference that seems to get the shaft.

 

[Red_Alert]

Because they lost when it mattered.

They wouldn't go into the game not knowing what was on the line. ITs there fault they lost it.

You keep wanting to give people do overs and provide games where the outcome doesn't matter.

So Ohio St is 12-0 going into it's CCG and gets upset by 9-3 Iowa. Miami (9-3) losses to FSU in the regular season, yet pulls an upset in the ACC CCG rematch.

The first 3 play-off spots are taken by Big 12, SEC, and Pac undefeated or one loss conference champs , but those conferences have other in-conference one loss teams.

You want the 4th play-off spot to go to Iowa or Miami over one loss tOSU, FSU or another one loss team?

 

[oaknightshockey1]

Because they lost when it mattered.

They wouldn't go into the game not knowing what was on the line. ITs there fault they lost it.

You keep wanting to give people do overs and provide games where the outcome doesn't matter.

You're giving the team that lost the first time a do over...

 

[starbigd]

So Ohio St is 12-0 going into it's CCG and gets upset by 9-3 Iowa. Miami (9-3) losses to FSU in the regular season, yet pulls an upset in the ACC CCG rematch.

The first 3 play-off spots are taken by Big 12, SEC, and Pac undefeated or one loss conference champs , but those conferences have other in-conference one loss teams.

You want the 4th play-off spot to go to Iowa or Miami over one loss tOSU, FSU or another one loss team?

Call it an upset all you want......those teams won when the chips were on the table, no excuses.

When they HAD to win, they DID. I reward that. I don't give preference to teams that couldn't close the deal. If they were better, they'd have won the title......it really is that simple.

Easy solution for your scenario.......don't get upset in a title game. WIN your title game, you got nothing to fear.