Sgt Brutus
Goober
noYou don't think they'd put a one loss Alabama in over undefeated Wake Forest?
noYou don't think they'd put a one loss Alabama in over undefeated Wake Forest?
If an unbeaten P5 gets left out ( even if it's just Wake ) that agreement would be burned within a month . Leagues are already outraged when their one loss champ gets left out . You pass over an unbeaten one and the playoffs would either expand or leagues would just withdraw from them imoThere is a signed 12-year agreement for a four-team playoff, and we are in the middle of the sixth year of that agreement. Nothing would change overnight. If it were to happen more than once, then they might meet and decide to adjust things going forward - but even then, it might just be expanding to a 6-team playoff starting in Year Nine.
If an unbeaten P5 gets left out ( even if it's just Wake ) that agreement would be burned within a month . Leagues are already outraged when their one loss champ gets left out . You pass over an unbeaten one and the playoffs would either expand or leagues would just withdraw from them imo
Well that's kind of the point . They've already opened Pandora's box when they invited non league champs but at least in those instances the teams that got passed over were 2 loss teams. I can't see any way the committee could remain viable as "neutral" if they passed over an ubbeaten P5 champ . The notion is almost preposterousI don't know if the leagues would withdraw, but this fan surely would. It's bad enough that teams have to get an invite instead of "earning" their way in by documented criteria.(Where's @4down20 to argue the point?)
If an unbeaten P5 gets left out ( even if it's just Wake ) that agreement would be burned within a month . Leagues are already outraged when their one loss champ gets left out . You pass over an unbeaten one and the playoffs would either expand or leagues would just withdraw from them imo
It took 10 years after Auburn getting left out to get to a playoff. Don't think WF would cause overnight change
You don't think they'd put a one loss Alabama in over undefeated Wake Forest?
If wake goes 13-0 they're in . There will never , ever , ever be an unbeaten P5 who is left out. Clemson should be out as their schedule sucks but if the P12 has a multi loss champ and you see some upsets in other league title games their name recognition gives them a punchers chance
Probably had something to do with the SEC being dogshit in 2004.
i do
So wake forest is sitting at 5-0. With 4 games they should win and will be favored in coming up. They’re wake forest, there is a high likelihood they blow it somewhere.
But if they are 9-0 going into the Clemson game. They beat Clemson.
clemson is a one loss team they are out right? Or do they stay ala Alabama not even making it to the acc title game.
There’s zero chance wake makes the CFP. Even winning the acc,right?
wake is 47 in espn power index. Espn FPI projects them right now to lose 4 games?
But they are 17th and 19th in the polls and can only keep climbing with wins and skyrocket beating Clemson.
I agree, I’m just bringing up the fact it’s not that insane.ESPN's FPI is about the worst "predictor" there is out there.
That being said, Wake will probably end up losing at least 1 of those 4 games. Theyve had some close games against some not so good teams, wouldnt shock me if they lost all 4 (or won since those 4 fall into the "not so good team" category)
I agree, I’m just bringing up the fact it’s not that insane.
In 2004 there were 4 ranked SEC teams in the top 16...that would be a banner year for the Pac-12.
that was the year Auburn got docked because they beat Tenn 2x causing their SOS to decrease or something stoopid like that.In 2004 there were 4 ranked SEC teams in the top 16...that would be a banner year for the Pac-12.
also by the way Pac 12 2016 had 4 in top 17 with 2 in the top 5 soIn 2004 there were 4 ranked SEC teams in the top 16...that would be a banner year for the Pac-12.
The criteria is documented.I don't know if the leagues would withdraw, but this fan surely would. It's bad enough that teams have to get an invite instead of "earning" their way in by documented criteria.(Where's @4down20 to argue the point?)