This is comical....yeah no SEC bias

[4down20]

Of course we're gonna disagree.

But, the people that count… changed how they're conducting business. So… they definitely disagreed with placing Bama into the BCS game.

Yeah, but it was the people who were against the playoffs for their own greedy reasons that changed their minds. It is what the SEC has wanted all along. The only other conference that voted in favor of the playoffs with the SEC was the ACC.

It was not due to people complaining. People have been complaining long before 2011(such as the SEC).

We have no idea if the playoff committee supports your argument. We have not reached the end of the season. I know they will put the 4 best teams in the playoffs. I have no problem if those 4 consist of 2 SEC teams… or 2 teams from any other conference that are found deserving.

They demonstrated yesterday that they will put in the 4 best teams, not conference champions.

Among one of the selection committees hard points of consideration… they will favor conference champions.

From the college football playoff website…

College Football Playoff

So… the first statement made regarding selection criteria rankings is conference championships won. Looks like 2011 made a huge impact…

It's a factor, the order of the list isn't a list of importance. What other people are saying that want is for it to be the only factor. Big difference.

The majority of time the conference champions are the best teams. Just look at the BCS, almost always conference champions.

 

[mad2mc]

Doesn't make sense to me that the SEC would want a playoff system since 2007. Florida won it, I believe in 2006 and a SEC team has been in it every year since. All my SEC friends were perfectly content with the way the system was because the SEC product was so strong. ESPN, who dominates college football coverage, always talked up the SEC. Was it the voters or was it talking heads who assisted in the rematch. They definitely had the Southeast portion of America interested in this game.

 

[4down20]

Doesn't make sense to me that the SEC would want a playoff system since 2007. Florida won it, I believe in 2006 and a SEC team has been in it every year since. All my SEC friends were perfectly content with the way the system was because the SEC product was so strong. ESPN, who dominates college football coverage, always talked up the SEC. Was it the voters or was it talking heads who assisted in the rematch. They definitely had the Southeast portion of America interested in this game.

ESPN talks up the top teams whoever they are. I can remember when you couldn't stop from hearing about USC, you couldn't stop hearing about Oklahoma, you couldn't stop from hearing about Texas, Ohio St, Michigan, etc.

And yes, the SEC has been in it - but that's not going to last forever that they are in the top2. It's amazing to me how people only look at this topic from what benefits them the most directly right now, and not what is best for the future. Pretty lame IMO.

 

[Anotherwvufan]

ESPN talks up the top teams whoever they are. I can remember when you couldn't stop from hearing about USC, you couldn't stop hearing about Oklahoma, you couldn't stop from hearing about Texas, Ohio St, Michigan, etc. and now we can't stop hearing about Bama. That's ok dynasties come and go.

And yes, the SEC has been in it - but that's not going to last forever that they are in the top2. It's amazing to me how people only look at this topic from what benefits them the most directly right now, and not what is best for the future. Pretty lame IMO.

Pretty lame: what benefits you the most...a , mulligan so you can go to the final four without even playing for your conference championship.

 

[bbwvfan]

They demonstrated yesterday that they will put in the 4 best teams, not conference champions.

It's a factor, the order of the list isn't a list of importance. What other people are saying that want is for it to be the only factor. Big difference.

The majority of time the conference champions are the best teams. Just look at the BCS, almost always conference champions.

You need to stop referring to yesterday's rankings... as they mean absolutely nothing. We can revisit this at the end of the year. You will know where to find me.

All we have to this point is a snapshot of the season thru 9 weeks. Not one conference has determined its champion yet.

After Nov 8th, I am pretty confident the rankings will look much different. I am pretty confident the final rankings will look quite different from those in 2 weeks.

 

[4down20]

You need to stop referring to yesterday's rankings... as they mean absolutely nothing. We can revisit this at the end of the year. You will know where to find me.

All we have to this point is a snapshot of the season thru 9 weeks. Not one conference has determined its champion yet.

After Nov 8th, I am pretty confident the rankings will look much different. I am pretty confident the final rankings will look quite different from those in 2 weeks.

I agree they mean nothing. Except they go to show that they aren't going to care that much about conference rankings otherwise they would have had the highest ranked conference leaders in the top4.

But yes, they will certainly change, I agree.

 

[4down20]

Pretty lame: what benefits you the most...a , mulligan so you can go to the final four without even playing for your conference championship.

You don't know if that is going to benefit Alabama at all right now. It's just as likely to be the exact opposite. Alabama has 3 national championships in the past 6 years, and 2 of those they were the conference champion.

At this point you are merely assuming things based on your emotional attachment to a concept because you are worried your conference champion will get left out.

 

[bbwvfan]

I agree they mean nothing. Except they go to show that they aren't going to care that much about conference rankings otherwise they would have had the highest ranked conference leaders in the top4.

But yes, they will certainly change, I agree.

There is no way you can draw that conclusion. Most conference schedules are back loaded. SEC teams will knock each other off, and the standings in conference play mean very little at this time.

Clearly, the committee values good wins. Bama of 2011 would have fallen behind Okie St of 2011 due to this metric. Bama had one good win... Okie St had 3.

I am confident the committee will favor a conference champion over a school with a similar record minus a championship. It has been one constant expressed by members of the committee since this playoff came to fruition.

 

[4down20]

There is no way you can draw that conclusion. Most conference schedules are back loaded. SEC teams will knock each other off, and the standings in conference play mean very little at this time.

Clearly, the committee values good wins. Bama of 2011 would have fallen behind Okie St of 2011 due to this metric. Bama had one good win... Okie St had 3.

I am confident the committee will favor a conference champion over a school with a similar record minus a championship. It has been one constant expressed by members of the committee since this playoff came to fruition.

It's easy to draw that conclusion considering that is what the very first ranking did, and the entire purpose for the rankings being released like this was to get people familiar with the way it worked so the final results wouldn't come as a shock.

I agree SEC teams will knock each other off. It will start this weekend because Auburn and Ole Miss will play, so 1 of them will obviously drop out of the playoff picture.

Disagree however about the importance of conference champion and all that. If we have a repeat of the 2011 scenario somehow, the playoffs will most definitely have 2 SEC teams in it. And that's not just "SEC", that would be any conference in a similar state/scenario.

 

[mad2mc]

ESPN talks up the top teams whoever they are. I can remember when you couldn't stop from hearing about USC, you couldn't stop hearing about Oklahoma, you couldn't stop from hearing about Texas, Ohio St, Michigan, etc.

And yes, the SEC has been in it - but that's not going to last forever that they are in the top2. It's amazing to me how people only look at this topic from what benefits them the most directly right now, and not what is best for the future. Pretty lame IMO.

At one point, ESPN did promote all the top teams. Today, they promote the SEC. I don't quite see how referring to ESPN benefits WVU or me in this discussion. I lived in Chattanooga from 2007 - late 2012 and I never heard about the SEC wanting to have a playoff system and I was tied into big 'Bama, Auburn, LSU, and Tenneessee supporters. Many of them were riding that wave of dominance that the SEC was creating with their multiple appearances in the MNC. No reason for them to want a playoff system.

I think you are missing what posters are saying. Another got under your skin with his mulligan statement. To me, many SEC fans feel it's there God-given right to be in the final 4 and if it comes down to a 2 loss SEC team versus a 1 loss (insert any other Power 5 conference other than the SEC), then the SEC team automatically goes. It would be the same if it were a 1 loss SEC team versus a 1 loss other P-5 conference. You referred to it as the quality of the loss. Another is correct, back then we didn't have the P-5 criteria. LSU-Bama played because how close the regular season game was, not because Bama won the SEC.

Not sure how your views benefit football for the future. Why not expand to include 8 teams? Why have just a Power 5? If you win your conference, you're in. So a 9-4 Duke gets in because they did what they were supposed to do, when the Conference Championship. All you guys who wanted to expand to 16 teams so you could have these championships pay the price for adding the extra game (money driven for the conference). If you're going to have a true champion, eliminate the P-5 designation and add the conference champions to the mix. If you're going to use the regular poll and this new poll, then SOS should be a factor in determining who gets an invite between 2 "bubble" teams.

Your rebuttals have not sold me, let alone others, that 'Bama deserved the rematch over OkSt. I will reserve judgement on the 'new' system until further into the season. If they mirror the polls, I say disband the group because nothing has changed.

 

[4down20]

At one point, ESPN did promote all the top teams. Today, they promote the SEC. I don't quite see how referring to ESPN benefits WVU or me in this discussion. I lived in Chattanooga from 2007 - late 2012 and I never heard about the SEC wanting to have a playoff system and I was tied into big 'Bama, Auburn, LSU, and Tenneessee supporters. Many of them were riding that wave of dominance that the SEC was creating with their multiple appearances in the MNC. No reason for them to want a playoff system.

They still do and will. Right now the SEC has multiple teams on top, that is how gets talked about. It's no secret that they are trying to get ratings, and the fans of teams who do the best are the ones who watch the most. And even people who aren't fans of the team want to know what's going on. That is why they always talk about top teams, and that's why they always will.

I guess everyone here magically missed how much the media and ESPN was all over Notre Dame a few years back. And then Oregon, and Texas, etc.

I think you are missing what posters are saying. Another got under your skin with his mulligan statement. To me, many SEC fans feel it's there God-given right to be in the final 4 and if it comes down to a 2 loss SEC team versus a 1 loss (insert any other Power 5 conference other than the SEC), then the SEC team automatically goes. It would be the same if it were a 1 loss SEC team versus a 1 loss other P-5 conference. You referred to it as the quality of the loss. Another is correct, back then we didn't have the P-5 criteria. LSU-Bama played because how close the regular season game was, not because Bama won the SEC.

What SEC fans feel doesn't mean a damn thing, just as what fans of other conferences feel don't mean a damn thing. That's just the reality. What you and I think do not matter. I've just been following things and I'm merely trying to explain things.

It's not quality of loss only, or quality of win only, it's a combination of factors. The SoS between OkSt and Alabama was extremely close. So called "quality" wins some people like to site was also very close, some people kind of falsely cut a line off magically at the top25 level. It's easy for quick debate and all, but there is more to it.

Since all other factors were near equal, the factor that wasn't equal was the quality of loss. So when quality of loss is mentioned is doesn't mean it's the only factor, it means it was the main factor that lead to the results we saw. The end result was extremely close, like a **** hair difference. If OkSt had went instead of Alabama, I wouldn't have cared much.

Not sure how your views benefit football for the future. Why not expand to include 8 teams? Why have just a Power 5? If you win your conference, you're in. So a 9-4 Duke gets in because they did what they were supposed to do, when the Conference Championship. All you guys who wanted to expand to 16 teams so you could have these championships pay the price for adding the extra game (money driven for the conference). If you're going to have a true champion, eliminate the P-5 designation and add the conference champions to the mix. If you're going to use the regular poll and this new poll, then SOS should be a factor in determining who gets an invite between 2 "bubble" teams.

8 teams don't belong because there aren't 8 teams that have legitimate claims on the national championship. 4 is more than is usually needed. The more teams that are added, the more and worse these kinds of debates are going to be. It'll be "SEC Bias because they got 4 teams in" and whatever. And ever 2 loss school out of the top12 will be claiming they have a claim on the 8th spot. When really, it should be about who has a claim on the 1st spot. All adding more games does is cause more trouble, just as the 4 team playoff has done.

Your rebuttals have not sold me, let alone others, that 'Bama deserved the rematch over OkSt. I will reserve judgement on the 'new' system until further into the season. If they mirror the polls, I say disband the group because nothing has changed.

I don't need to sell you on anything, and I really don't even care if you or anyone else thinks Alabama deserved it. The fact of the matter is - Alabama went, Alabama played, Alabama won, and that's final. I'm merely trying to explain why it happened the way it did. Your opinion has no meaning at all on the topic really, so I don't see why I need to sell you. You can either understand the reasons, or you can't - your choice. College football is going to move on if you think it's BS or not.

It's no skin off my back if you are pissed off about 2011. It's no skin off my back if you are pissed about the current system either. I owe nobody nothing, I just enjoy the debate and like to hopefully educate people who aren't aware of it all along the way. I can't force the horse to drink the water.

I post here instead of the main forums because I don't mind disagreements, but there aren't any stupid trolls here. Otherwise, I'd just point and say stupid things like you are butthurt, SEC, crystal ball baby, and so on.

 

[bbwvfan]

It's easy to draw that conclusion considering that is what the very first ranking did, and the entire purpose for the rankings being released like this was to get people familiar with the way it worked so the final results wouldn't come as a shock.

I agree SEC teams will knock each other off. It will start this weekend because Auburn and Ole Miss will play, so 1 of them will obviously drop out of the playoff picture.

Disagree however about the importance of conference champion and all that. If we have a repeat of the 2011 scenario somehow, the playoffs will most definitely have 2 SEC teams in it. And that's not just "SEC", that would be any conference in a similar state/scenario.

How can you draw a conclusion… when there hasn't been a conclusion? That is absurd…

As I have repeatedly said, it is but a snapshot…

 

[bbwvfan]

It's not quality of loss only, or quality of win only, it's a combination of factors. The SoS between OkSt and Alabama was extremely close. So called "quality" wins some people like to site was also very close, some people kind of falsely cut a line off magically at the top25 level. It's easy for quick debate and all, but there is more to it.

Since all other factors were near equal, the factor that wasn't equal was the quality of loss. So when quality of loss is mentioned is doesn't mean it's the only factor, it means it was the main factor that lead to the results we saw. The end result was extremely close, like a **** hair difference. If OkSt had went instead of Alabama, I wouldn't have cared much.

While you mention the SOS between Bama and Okie St was close… you fail to admit that Okie St's schedule was tougher. Use any metric you want…. they played zero FCS teams…. they played less teams with losing records… they played more top 25 teams and won more against top 25 teams.

You are educating no one here. Don't be like some of the other arrogant Bama fans. It won't play well here.

I don't think any of us are still pissed about something from 3 years ago. Simply explaining to you why the system was changed.

And, it will go to 8 teams in the very near future.

Just as we all witnessed last year when two SEC teams both lost in the BCS…. the eye test… the voters… the computers… get it wrong. It needs to be settled on the field.

In 2006, everyone was convinced the two best teams all season were UofM and tOSU. Both teams got spanked in the BCS. We have no way to know how one conference measures up to another as we don't have much inter conference play throughout the season.

 

[Anotherwvufan]

You don't know if that is going to benefit Alabama at all right now. It's just as likely to be the exact opposite. Alabama has 3 national championships in the past 6 years, and 2 of those they were the conference champion.

At this point you are merely assuming things based on your emotional attachment to a concept because you are worried your conference champion will get left out.

I am only assuming things that are evident in the polls. And BTW, I do not expect WVU to get into the playoffs when they win the conference with 2 Losses, but it will sure give you the argument that your beloved Bama should go with 2 losses because they beat WVU. Unfortunately for us, we scheduled a very tough game to start the season and lost. We would much better off today had we scheduled OOC games like Miss St. or some other SEC team.

One of your championships was a rematch. If not for your mulligan, you should have never been there.

 

[DBAR4WVU]

Dead horse, meet riding crop (maybe baseball bat is more like it).
Beat away....

 

[Anotherwvufan]

Rolling Stone on the Dead Horse.

The Worldwide Cheerleader: ESPN and the College Football Playoff | Rolling Stone

 

[4down20]

How can you draw a conclusion… when there hasn't been a conclusion? That is absurd…

As I have repeatedly said, it is but a snapshot…

Because the entire reason they are releasing early polls is to show people the logic behind the choosing.



Makes sense to me.

 

[4down20]

While you mention the SOS between Bama and Okie St was close… you fail to admit that Okie St's schedule was tougher. Use any metric you want…. they played zero FCS teams…. they played less teams with losing records… they played more top 25 teams and won more against top 25 teams.

It was barely tougher, as in not tough enough to make a big difference. "top25" while being easy to reach for is often used wrong because a team not ranked could be 26th, or 30th etc, and it's not like some big gap between ranked and not ranked.

You are educating no one here. Don't be like some of the other arrogant Bama fans. It won't play well here.

:rollseyes: Good day.

 

[4down20]

I am only assuming things that are evident in the polls. And BTW, I do not expect WVU to get into the playoffs when they win the conference with 2 Losses, but it will sure give you the argument that your beloved Bama should go with 2 losses because they beat WVU. Unfortunately for us, we scheduled a very tough game to start the season and lost. We would much better off today had we scheduled OOC games like Miss St. or some other SEC team.

So, Alabama didn't schedule a tough game to start the season?

One of your championships was a rematch. If not for your mulligan, you should have never been there.

The 2 best teams went. Just like if WVU ends up in the playoffs and so does Alabama, rematch isn't going to matter - it's going to be the 4 best teams.

 

[bbwvfan]

Because the entire reason they are releasing early polls is to show people the logic behind the choosing.



Makes sense to me.

You are claiming the committee is showing the public they won't value conference champions with the release of this week's rankings?

That makes perfect sense…