"After five years of mostly obvious College Football Playoff choices, there’s (some) hope"

Orin Swift

Active member
Quick search I couldn't find past top 10.
1. LSU 0.9897
2. Ohio State 0.9622
3. Clemson 0.9139
4. Alabama 0.7980
5. Oregon 0.7776
6. Georgia 0.7656
7. Minnesota 0.7474
8. Penn State 0.6853
9. Baylor 0.6646
10. Oklahoma 0.6401
 

zeeman

Well-known member
Every single computer model has tOSU first, LSU second, Clemson third. Many of them have Penn St. four
 

falguin

Well-known member
I really would like to see Clemson and Bama knocked out all together. Clemson has no one to play in the ACC. If they were in the AAC, they would have a tougher road to travel. I hate the SEC because they have been protecting Bama for years. How could Bama not play Florida for fourteen years? When was the last time Alabama played Georgia in the regular season? 2008? The SEC and ACC only play eight conference games. That means they can avoid tough crossover games, but to not having played either Georgia or Florida in the regular season for over a decade tells me that someone is controlling the schedules and keeping those schools from meeting. I don't know how LSU played Florida, Auburn had to play Georgia and Florida from the east and Bama avoided both of those two teams for years. In the BIG 10, the crossover games are tough. TOSU can't avoid Wisconsin or Iowa for fourteen years. It's ridiculous that everyone automatically puts Bama in because if they had to play a tougher conference schedule, they would probably lose a game or two a year.
 

ronnie mund

Well-known member
I really would like to see Clemson and Bama knocked out all together. Clemson has no one to play in the ACC. If they were in the AAC, they would have a tougher road to travel. I hate the SEC because they have been protecting Bama for years. How could Bama not play Florida for fourteen years? When was the last time Alabama played Georgia in the regular season? 2008? The SEC and ACC only play eight conference games. That means they can avoid tough crossover games, but to not having played either Georgia or Florida in the regular season for over a decade tells me that someone is controlling the schedules and keeping those schools from meeting. I don't know how LSU played Florida, Auburn had to play Georgia and Florida from the east and Bama avoided both of those two teams for years. In the BIG 10, the crossover games are tough. TOSU can't avoid Wisconsin or Iowa for fourteen years. It's ridiculous that everyone automatically puts Bama in because if they had to play a tougher conference schedule, they would probably lose a game or two a year.
Nevermind that 90% of this post is highly inaccurate (Alabama has played Florida and Georgia multiple times in the regular season since 2008), are you really mad that the SEC is smart and schedules the way they do? It has clearly benefited them over the years.
 

Orin Swift

Active member
I don't know how LSU played Florida, Auburn had to play Georgia and Florida from the east
You do know that LSU-FL has been played every single year since 1971? It's a protected rivalry game similar to Indiana-Purdue. You do know that Auburn-Georgia has been played nearly every year since 1894? They also have a protected rivalry game. Auburn played FL for the first time since 2011 this year.

It's ridiculous that everyone automatically puts Bama in because if they had to play a tougher conference schedule, they would probably lose a game or two a year.
Since 2009 Alabama is 10-0 against FL and Georgia. Alabama also averages 1 loss per year since 2009.
 

Gh0st

Well-known member
I really would like to see Clemson and Bama knocked out all together. Clemson has no one to play in the ACC. If they were in the AAC, they would have a tougher road to travel. I hate the SEC because they have been protecting Bama for years. How could Bama not play Florida for fourteen years? When was the last time Alabama played Georgia in the regular season? 2008? The SEC and ACC only play eight conference games. That means they can avoid tough crossover games, but to not having played either Georgia or Florida in the regular season for over a decade tells me that someone is controlling the schedules and keeping those schools from meeting. I don't know how LSU played Florida, Auburn had to play Georgia and Florida from the east and Bama avoided both of those two teams for years. In the BIG 10, the crossover games are tough. TOSU can't avoid Wisconsin or Iowa for fourteen years. It's ridiculous that everyone automatically puts Bama in because if they had to play a tougher conference schedule, they would probably lose a game or two a year.
"Playing nobody" doesn't always work out for the reasons that are being discussed about Bama right now. They lose one game and can't control their own ride back into the discussion.
 

Arrogate

Well-known member
Every single computer model has tOSU first, LSU second, Clemson third. Many of them have Penn St. four
Probably looking at different ones but most i have seen have Penn St around 8. I have seen a few have Clemson 2nd and LSU 3rd. Most i have seen have Bama 4th.

Personally would prefer to see Oregon or OU in the 4th spot just to switch it up. Bama had their shot.
 

Arrogate

Well-known member
You do know that LSU-FL has been played every single year since 1971? It's a protected rivalry game similar to Indiana-Purdue. You do know that Auburn-Georgia has been played nearly every year since 1894? They also have a protected rivalry game. Auburn played FL for the first time since 2011 this year.



Since 2009 Alabama is 10-0 against FL and Georgia. Alabama also averages 1 loss per year since 2009.
That post was epically bad
 

zeeman

Well-known member
Probably looking at different ones but most i have seen have Penn St around 8. I have seen a few have Clemson 2nd and LSU 3rd. Most i have seen have Bama 4th.

Personally would prefer to see Oregon or OU in the 4th spot just to switch it up. Bama had their shot.
If PSU were to beat the Bucks and win the BIG title would both be in? Something like LSU, Clemson, PSU and Ohio St? The Buckeyes would have a better resume than any of the other one loss teams
 

Arrogate

Well-known member
Well remove Oregon from the playoff. Watch Oregon go and beat Utah and totally screw the PAC 12 playoff hopes.
 

Gh0st

Well-known member
Well remove Oregon from the playoff. Watch Oregon go and beat Utah and totally screw the PAC 12 playoff hopes.
I think the committe is a little scared of putting Utah in. It shouldnt be this way, but Oregon is the better brand. I think the Pac 12 is out as of now.
 

Arrogate

Well-known member
I think the committe is a little scared of putting Utah in. It shouldnt be this way, but Oregon is the better brand. I think the Pac 12 is out as of now.
As you know, it is a business decision as to who gets that 4th spot. If OU wins out they are likely in. If Baylor/Utah wins out they are probably left at the altar.

Just wish there was expansion to end this nonsense.
 

Omar

Well-known member
Bama is not a playoff team without Tua. Their Defense is way down from past Champion levels. I think Auburn beats them.

I think OSU, LSU, and Clemson are basically locks. OSU is in if they beat Michigan or win the B10. Clemson is in if they win the ACC.

The real question is if both Utah and UGA win out, who gets in? My belief is UGA should get the nod bc they’ll have the more impressive win.

If LSU wins out, then I think Utah gets in over OK/Baylor. The only way OK/Baylor get in is:

LSU wins SEC
Utah loses in the PAC 12 title game

That said, I’m not sure OK beat OK St.
 

Omar

Well-known member
OSU and LSU are now locks regardless of the outcome of their Conference Title games. I’m 99% certain Clemson is in with a loss as well. There’s only 4 teams left for the final spot: UGA, Utah, OK/Baylor. UGA is in with a win, but if they lose, I think the OK/Baylor winner gets the nod by having more high quality wins.
 

Red14

Active member
After all the hand wringing and such the last month, the play on the field generally works things out, and this year is no different. Barring any huge upsets, Ohio State and Clemson are in. I do think LSU/ Georgia could be a heck of a game, and a Georgia win may put both in the playoffs.

The main question you have to ask yourself going into the playoffs, is that are you looking for the 4 perceived BEST teams? Or should it be based on what teams have done this season? And why this is vital is because of a team like Utah. If Utah beats Oregon in the Pac-12 final, they have one loss and could very well make it. But does anyone outside of Utah feel this is one of the 4 best teams? How many losses would Utah have if they were in the SEC? 3, 4 or more?
 

eastside_purple

Well-known member
After all the hand wringing and such the last month, the play on the field generally works things out, and this year is no different. Barring any huge upsets, Ohio State and Clemson are in. I do think LSU/ Georgia could be a heck of a game, and a Georgia win may put both in the playoffs.

The main question you have to ask yourself going into the playoffs, is that are you looking for the 4 perceived BEST teams? Or should it be based on what teams have done this season? And why this is vital is because of a team like Utah. If Utah beats Oregon in the Pac-12 final, they have one loss and could very well make it. But does anyone outside of Utah feel this is one of the 4 best teams? How many losses would Utah have if they were in the SEC? 3, 4 or more?
The point is Utah should have a chance. Which is why expansion and a really tournament is the only fair way to do it.
 

Red14

Active member
So it’s worse to lose to a 4 loss traditional powerhouse football program than it is to lose to an 8 loss never was? Got it.
What's more powerful, bad losses or good wins? These are all the subjective things the committee must figure out. It's certainly not fullproof. There is always going to be controversy. Even with 8 or 16. 4 teams gives us 2 months of week by week drama and teams cut themselves every single week.
 

eastside_purple

Well-known member
What's more powerful, bad losses or good wins? These are all the subjective things the committee must figure out. It's certainly not fullproof. There is always going to be controversy. Even with 8 or 16. 4 teams gives us 2 months of week by week drama and teams cut themselves every single week.
You brought up USC as a bad loss. I guess it’s move the goal post time?
 

eastside_purple

Well-known member
What's more powerful, bad losses or good wins? These are all the subjective things the committee must figure out. It's certainly not fullproof. There is always going to be controversy. Even with 8 or 16. 4 teams gives us 2 months of week by week drama and teams cut themselves every single week.
Same thing would happen at 8 or 16, and you wouldn’t leave out a team with a legit title shot.
 

Gh0st

Well-known member
So it’s worse to lose to a 4 loss traditional powerhouse football program than it is to lose to an 8 loss never was? Got it.
He literally does this with every non-SEC school. He treats all SEC games as top tier wins or losses and then subjectively says that "if they were in the SEC, they'd have x number of losses".
 

Omar

Well-known member
If Utah doesn't lose to USC, and they win the Pac 12, they are in. USC is not a good loss.
What hurts them is their best win is currently Washington. A win over Oregon should help a lot, not sure it’s enough to overcome the winner of OK/Baylor.

The USC loss looks a lot better than South Car or KState
 

Red14

Active member
He literally does this with every non-SEC school. He treats all SEC games as top tier wins or losses and then subjectively says that "if they were in the SEC, they'd have x number of losses".
Um...kinda because it's true...look, you have to have some kind of measuring stick. You can't measure the big ten / pac-12 / ACC teams because there A. isn't enough good teams in those conferences, and B. because there are too many teams in the conferences, the good teams don't even play each other all the time.
 

zeeman

Well-known member
Um...kinda because it's true...look, you have to have some kind of measuring stick. You can't measure the big ten / pac-12 / ACC teams because there A. isn't enough good teams in those conferences, and B. because there are too many teams in the conferences, the good teams don't even play each other all the time.
More ranked teams in the Big 10 than SEC
 
.
Top