So who gets the last playoff spot

[Clayton]

If Bama wanted in, they shouldn't have gotten curb stomped by a bad Oklahoma team.

3 losses in general is just a hard sell.

I do agree that maybe there isnt a ton of incentive to schedule tough teams if you're in a major conference but that also means you have to kick butt in your conference.

 

[redseat]

I do question what the point of the ranking system is and playing quality opponents is though

 

[foster4prez]

3 losses in general is just a hard sell.

I do agree that maybe there isnt a ton of incentive to schedule tough teams if you're in a major conference but that also means you have to kick butt in your conference.

The irony of this complaint is that if Bama had scheduled tough OOC and won those games, they most likely would have jumped SMU.

 

[foster4prez]

I do question what the point of the ranking system is and playing quality opponents is though

Why was 9-3 Bama ranked over 10-2 Miami?

 

[redseat]

Why was 9-3 Bama ranked over 10-2 Miami?

Opponents strength of schedule maybe? Not sure..

 

[Clayton]

The irony of this complaint is that if Bama had scheduled tough OOC and won those games, they most likely would have jumped SMU.

Im glad it didnt work out that way because they still had 3 losses.

 

[foster4prez]

Opponents strength of schedule maybe? Not sure..

So I think you answered your own question...

I do question what the point of the ranking system is and playing quality opponents is though

 

[redseat]

So I think you answered your own question...

I meant... Ranking system during the regular season...

How could an Alabama (I get 3 losses) ranked #12 overall but didn't get into play-offs is what I meant.

They played a much tougher schedule and opponents compared to SMU, Clemson etc (Obviously Clemson got in by winning Conference)

 

[foster4prez]

I meant... Ranking system during the regular season...

How could an Alabama (I get 3 losses) ranked #12 overall but didn't get into play-offs is what I meant.

They played a much tougher schedule and opponents compared to SMU, Clemson etc (Obviously Clemson got in by winning Conference)

Clemson got the autobid.

SMU didn't lose to two 6-6 teams.

The committee made a clear effort to show that losses in CCGs didn't really impact your seeding since you were playing an extra game.

 

[redseat]

Clemson got the autobid.

SMU didn't lose to two 6-6 teams.

The committee made a clear effort to show that losses in CCGs didn't really impact your seeding since you were playing an extra game.

Oh don't get me wrong I didn't think Bama deserved to be in at all..

But they finished the regular season ranked 12th SMU was what?

 

[Nat Mann]

Why was 9-3 Bama ranked over 10-2 Miami?

Because there's more to it than just counting number of wins.

Here's Miami's 2024 schedule and results:

Florida	W41-17
Florida A&M	W56-9
Ball State	W62-0
South Florida	W50-15
Virginia Tech	W38-34
California	W39-38
Louisville	W52-45
Florida State	W36-14
Duke	W53-31
Georgia Tech	L28-23
Wake Forest	W42-14
Syracuse	L42-38

Note that there is not a single ranked team in their entire schedule.

Now here's Alabama's:

Western Kentucky	W63-0
South Florida	W42-16
Wisconsin	W42-10
2 Georgia	W41-34
Vanderbilt	L40-35
South Carolina	W27-25
11 Tennessee	L24-17
21 Missouri	W34-0
15 LSU	W42-13
Mercer	W52-7
Oklahoma	L24-3
Auburn	W28-14

Note that there are FOUR - count'em - FOUR opponents who were ranked when played, including the #2 team in the country at the time, Georgia, (who Alabama beat). Alabama came out of running a gantlet of Georgia, South Carolina, Tennesse, Missouri and LSU with a record of 4-1. Anyone want to seriously argue that Miami would have done as well?

Strength of schedule matters.

 

[tc1]

Note that there is not a single ranked team in their entire schedule.

It is, unfortunately, not very useful to use "rankings" in that context. Practically the entire SEC began the season ranked, and then they proceeded to stay there because they beat each other, giving the appearance of playing "tough games".

The entire SEC had two OOC wins of note, and both came against Clemson. Meanwhile, SEC teams lost to: Cal ( Southern and regular ), Toledo, Louisville, Notre Dame, Miami, Oklahoma State, and Georgia State (!). The evidence to support all of those inter-SEC games being "tough" is thin on the ground, and difficult to find. Yes, Alabama drilled Wisconsin 42-10 -- but so did Iowa. For another example, Missouri spent most of the season ranked, and their best win was by 6 over Boston College, at home, in a game their coach described as "Not pretty" -- they had no business with a number adjacent.

And "ranked when played" is even less meaningful -- cf Florida State.

 

[foster4prez]

Because there's more to it than just counting number of wins.

Here's Miami's 2024 schedule and results:

Florida	W41-17
Florida A&M	W56-9
Ball State	W62-0
South Florida	W50-15
Virginia Tech	W38-34
California	W39-38
Louisville	W52-45
Florida State	W36-14
Duke	W53-31
Georgia Tech	L28-23
Wake Forest	W42-14
Syracuse	L42-38

Note that there is not a single ranked team in their entire schedule.

Now here's Alabama's:

Western Kentucky	W63-0
South Florida	W42-16
Wisconsin	W42-10
2 Georgia	W41-34
Vanderbilt	L40-35
South Carolina	W27-25
11 Tennessee	L24-17
21 Missouri	W34-0
15 LSU	W42-13
Mercer	W52-7
Oklahoma	L24-3
Auburn	W28-14

Note that there are FOUR - count'em - FOUR opponents who were ranked when played, including the #2 team in the country at the time, Georgia, (who Alabama beat). Alabama came out of running a gantlet of Georgia, South Carolina, Tennesse, Missouri and LSU with a record of 4-1. Anyone want to seriously argue that Miami would have done as well?

Strength of schedule matters.

Syracuse is ranked. LSU is not. Georgia Tech took Georgia to like 14 overtimes.

Want to try again?

But yes - SOS matters. That's why a 9-3 team is ranked over a 10-2 team. But winning also matters. Which is why an 11-1 team is ranked over a 9-3 team.

The whole point is that Bama's whining of "well I guess we shouldn't play anyone hard anymore" is complete bullshit. AND their "hard games" were in conference which the fucking signed up for.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[dtgold88]

Syracuse is ranked. LSU is not. Georgia Tech took Georgia to like 14 overtimes.

Want to try again?

But yes - SOS matters. That's why a 9-3 team is ranked over a 10-2 team. But winning also matters. Which is why an 11-1 team is ranked over a 9-3 team.

The whole point is that Bama's whining of "well I guess we shouldn't play anyone hard anymore" is complete bullshit. AND their "hard games" were in conference which the fucking signed up for.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yep...want easy games? Move to the Sun Belt.

 

[Nat Mann]

Syracuse is ranked. LSU is not. Georgia Tech took Georgia to like 14 overtimes.

Syracuse became ranked by beating Miami. That loss hardly boosts Miami's claim. Georgia is the number 2 team in the country, SEC champion and has a playoff bye. Alabama beat them. Alabama's schedule includes two playoff teams, Miami's none. That's why they are ranked ahead of Miami.

Try and look at a realistic big picture instead of cherry picking irrelevant complaints.

 

[tc1]

Syracuse became ranked by beating Miami. That loss hardly boosts Miami's claim. Georgia is the number 2 team in the country, SEC champion and has a playoff bye. Alabama beat them. Alabama's schedule includes two playoff teams, Miami's none. That's why they are ranked ahead of Miami.

Try and look at a realistic big picture instead of cherry picking irrelevant complaints.

Another perspective on the "realistic big picture" is that Alabama played Georgia very slightly better than Georgia Tech did, and their only other win of much note was a squeaker against a South Carolina team who just barely escaped with a narrow win against Old Dominion, and whose overall resume is underwhelming, containing only a couple wins against mid-pack SEC teams, and a narrow win over Clemson.

The "big picture" as you call it, looks like one can throw Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, Syracuse, Ole Miss, and a few other teams in a pile, and there's little difference between them. They can play with anyone occasionally, and they can also get blown out by, say, Oklahoma.

 

[Gator]

It is, unfortunately, not very useful to use "rankings" in that context. Practically the entire SEC began the season ranked, and then they proceeded to stay there because they beat each other, giving the appearance of playing "tough games".

The entire SEC had two OOC wins of note, and both came against Clemson. Meanwhile, SEC teams lost to: Cal ( Southern and regular ), Toledo, Louisville, Notre Dame, Miami, Oklahoma State, and Georgia State (!). The evidence to support all of those inter-SEC games being "tough" is thin on the ground, and difficult to find. Yes, Alabama drilled Wisconsin 42-10 -- but so did Iowa. For another example, Missouri spent most of the season ranked, and their best win was by 6 over Boston College, at home, in a game their coach described as "Not pretty" -- they had no business with a number adjacent.

And "ranked when played" is even less meaningful -- cf Florida State.

Yep...want easy games? Move to the Sun Belt.

Or the Big ten!

 

[rmilia1]

I do question what the point of the ranking system is and playing quality opponents is though

I mean Bamas OOC was not that great either. Sure not their fault it was a down year for Wisconsin but they still scheduled 2 G5s and a FCS team

The entire " well we just won't play tough OOC games" is pretty stupid since the only SEC team with 3 losses who actually did play a really good team OOC AND had zero bad losses wasnt even the SEC team people were trying to put in the playoff

If you're trying to pump up OOC then you spigot been trying to put So Car into the playoff not Bama

 

[Gator]

Another perspective on the "realistic big picture" is that Alabama played Georgia very slightly better than Georgia Tech did, and their only other win of much note was a squeaker against a South Carolina team who just barely escaped with a narrow win against Old Dominion, and whose overall resume is underwhelming, containing only a couple wins against mid-pack SEC teams, and a narrow win over Clemson.

The "big picture" as you call it, looks like one can throw Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, Syracuse, Ole Miss, and a few other teams in a pile, and there's little difference between them. They can play with anyone occasionally, and they can also get blown out by, say, Oklahoma.

Now your just Bull Sh!tting. You find any SOS ranking system that shows ANY ACC playing a tougher schedule than South Carolina. Syracuse lost at home to 3-9 Stanford!!! Sagarin has 11 SEC (9 of which are going to Bowls) teams in the top 20 in SOS and one ACC team (2-10 FSU at #18). He has 5 SEC teams in the top 6 in SOS and Alabama at #11 (ahead of EVERY ACC team).

 

[tc1]

Now your just Bull Sh!tting. You find any SOS ranking system that shows ANY ACC playing a tougher schedule than South Carolina. Syracuse lost at home to 3-9 Stanford!!! Sagarin has 11 SEC (9 of which are going to Bowls) teams in the top 20 in SOS and one ACC team (2-10 FSU at #18). He has 5 SEC teams in the top 6 in SOS and Alabama at #11 (ahead of EVERY ACC team).

As previously noted, South Carolina just barely escaped at home against Old Dominion. At least Stanford is in a P4 conference. Vanderbilt lost to 3-9 Georgia... STATE.

Also, when arguing about respective strength of conferences, citing conference games like Syracuse v Stanford is meaningless, and provides no useful information.

As for those rankings, the whole point is that they are inflated by the false notion that all of these SEC teams are good, which stems from their preseason rankings. Missouri is the seminal example. They were ranked #11 preseason. They did absolutely nothing throughout the season to justify that ranking on any field of play, but they finished the season ranked about #20. In reality, Missouri was just about as good as Boston College who finished 4-4 in the ACC, and 7-5 overall -- which we know, because BC went west and narrowly lost to those Tigers on the road.

LSU is another example. They were #13 preseason and did nothing to support that on the actual grass fields where the games are played. They lost to Southern Cal, and snuck by Ole Miss at home, in overtime -- the same Ole Miss that, among other things, lost to the Florida team that got waxed by Miami and lost to the Kentucky team that got waxed by Louisville. If LSU had not started the season #13 -- effectively with a headstart on all those teams in the "other conferences", they would have never sniffed the Top 25, nor been considered a "tough game".

The SEC is not different from those other conferences. It has a couple excellent teams at the top. It has a couple terrible teams at the bottom. It has a bunch of mediocre ones in between. The principal difference is that most of the SEC teams are given a headstart in the preseason rankings, which makes it effectively a fait accompli that the SEC will finish the season with a bunch of ranked teams and look stronger than they were actually able to play, on the grass.

Pick an SEC team, and look at their season on the field -- ignoring their preseason rank. Would they have the same rank now if they had started without one? The answer is, almost always, "Hell no". Ole Miss started at #6. Their entire season is basically one very solid win over Georgia ( which is impressive ). That's balanced by their loss to Kentucky, and to two mediocre teams. That's similar to Syracuse's resume -- one big win, one bad conference loss, and a couple mediocre losses. Syracuse also went out and beat a very solid 10-3 UNLV club ( who gave Boise State all they wanted at home ) on the road. Since Syracuse didn't even get any preseason votes, though, they were unable to make up that ground, and concluded the season ranked about 10 spots behind Ole Miss. Critically, few if any of the Orange's opponents are credited with a "tough game" for having played them, but the Rebels' opponents typically are. This bias compounds and eventually yields the overratings that you just listed.

Would Texas be #3 now if they hadn't started at #4? Hell no. Their best win is over TA&M, their second best win is a squeaker over powerhouse Vanderbilt. They don't have a bad loss, but neither does Indiana, Arizona State, or Miami. ASU's two best wins are better than Texas' best. But Texas had a substantial headstart, which ASU could not make up.