Iowa State, then?I did. Anyone but Alabama.
And so does USC. Lots of teams do. Alabama did NOT get in because of their win resume, nor winning a conference championship. They got in by only losing once.Iowa State, then?
They have more big wins than Bama.
What?No SEC team should get in till they play someone out of conference. It's a f joke! Let alone 2 SEC teams getting in every other year the whole system needs scrapped! They play no one SEC is a joke.
They got in because their name is Alabama. I already said I agree with you that they shouldn't have gotten in. You won't actually answer the question only because you know that no matter what you answer, it shows that you're being a huge hypocrite and how terrible your whole argument in this thread has been.And so does USC. Lots of teams do. Alabama did NOT get in because of their win resume, nor winning a conference championship. They got in by only losing once.
You forgot "Other Relevant Factors". That's in there too.You and others keep saying this, but it's simply not true.
From: http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/documents/2017/10/20//CFP_Selection_Committee_Protocol.pdf?id=23
This is the narrative that they publish.... but their actions ignore it.
Here is the criteria I'm using:They got in because their name is Alabama. I already said I agree with you that they shouldn't have gotten in. You won't actually answer the question only because you know that no matter what you answer, it shows that you're being a huge hypocrite.
By selecting Alabama who didn't win a championship and had fewer big wins than two teams that did win championships (OSU and USC), the committee just did exactly what they were created to avoid doing.Under the current construct, polls (although well-intended) have not expressed these values; particularly at the margins where teams that have won head-to-head competition and championships are sometimes ranked behind non-champions and teams that have lost in head-to-head competition. Nuanced mathematical formulas ignore some teams who "deserve" to be selected.
I copied and pasted it. There is no bullet point of "Other relevant factors" that I left off.You forgot "Other Relevant Factors". That's in there too.
Auburn play f in Mercer Georgia southern, Louisiana Monroe,. Georgia played app state and Samford and son along with their cupcake schedule really freaking rough! LolWhat?
Auburn and Georgia played Clemson and ND out of conference. Bama scheduled FSU who obviously flopped but was supposed to be a playoff quality team.
This is bizarre. You're sitting here arguing that Alabama should not be in with a bunch of people that agree that Alabama should not be in. Meanwhile you went on a 3 page rant about how teams should be rewarded for scheduling strong OOC games and should be rewarded for big wins while trying to avoid saying what we all know, that given the chance to pick 4 teams you would leave out the team that scheduled the toughest OOC game and had the most big wins.Here is the criteria I'm using:
Using that criteria, numerous teams are more deserving of getting in than Alabama.
- Championships won
- Strength of schedule
- Head to head competition (if it occurred)
- Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)
In fact, the committee's protocol says this:
By selecting Alabama who didn't win a championship and had fewer big wins than two teams that did win championships (OSU and USC), the committee just did exactly what they were created to avoid doing.
THAT is hypocrisy.
Clemson played Kent St and the Citadel...Auburn play f in Mercer Georgia southern, Louisiana Monroe,. Georgia played app state and Samford and son along with their cupcake schedule really freaking rough! Lol
I would have no problem if Auburn was selected. Selecting Auburn would be consistent with the committees criteria. So would selecting USC. So would selecting OSU. Selecting Alabama is not.This is bizarre. You're sitting here arguing that Alabama should not be in with a bunch of people that agree that Alabama should not be in. Meanwhile you went on a 3 page rant about how teams should be rewarded for scheduling strong OOC games and should be rewarded for big wins while trying to avoid saying what we all know, that given the chance to pick 4 teams you would leave out the team that scheduled the toughest OOC game and had the most big wins.
You can consider all of those things and still think Bama is the right pick.You and others keep saying this, but it's simply not true.
From: http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/documents/2017/10/20//CFP_Selection_Committee_Protocol.pdf?id=23
This is the narrative that they publish.... but their actions ignore it.
It's the "other stuff" that got Alabama in.You can consider all of those things and still think Bama is the right pick.
1. Championships won - Ohio State won the Big Ten, who's doesn't look be particularly strong this year. Alabama finished second in the SEC west with he same record as Auburn, who they lost to. Probably toughest division in football. You could argue that one really isn't that much more impressive than the other. Definitely not some overwhelming thing for OSU.
2. SOS - I haven't checked but I'm sure OSU's rates much better. If the two teams swapped schedules I think Bama finishes with a before record in both scenarios. OSU's is better (mostly because of the extra conference games and their big ooc team ended up being good) Not overwhelming for OSU
H2H and competitive outcomes pretty much irrelevant.
There is definitely still a solid case for OSU and perhaps others at 4. It's fun to talk about that stuff. You're getting too caught up in the other stuff.
They have changed it in the last 2 months. How odd. At the time of this link, it was in the criteria.I copied and pasted it. There is no bullet point of "Other relevant factors" that I left off.
Nobody cares what you would "have a problem with". We asked you to pick 4.I would have no problem if Auburn was selected. Selecting Auburn would be consistent with the committees criteria. So would selecting USC. So would selecting OSU. Selecting Alabama is not.
HFS!!!They have changed it in the last 2 months. How odd. At the time of this link, it was in the criteria.
http://heavy.com/sports/2017/10/college-football-cfb-playoff-rankings-predictions/
LOL Auburn played Clemson and overall played four games against playoff teams. Georgia played ND and GT out of conference (App. State pretty good for a G5 team too).Auburn play f in Mercer Georgia southern, Louisiana Monroe,. Georgia played app state and Samford and son along with their cupcake schedule really freaking rough! Lol
Selecting Auburn is consistent with the committee's criteria because of this:Nobody cares what you would "have a problem with". We asked you to pick 4.
So you pick Auburn as #4 and leave OSU out.
OMG OMG Politician Spock doesn't care about conference championships!!! He's saying that conference championships are irrelevant. He thinks teams should just skip their conference championship game and stay home that week. He's being totally inconsistent with what he said matters!!
- Strength of schedule
So you agree with me, but you just want me to accept it and move on.Stop telling us about Alabama. You're like Trump with Hillary, you can't get through a sentence without saying it. We all agree. There's a reason Alabama got in and not Wisconsin. It's not because they both had 1 loss, it's because their name is Alabama. They screwed that one up. No one is arguing that. But that doesn't make any of the other arguments you've made in this thread any less silly, like the notion that conference titles are totally irrelevant, nor the notion that difficult games are totally irrelevant, the notion that the committee is "telling us" stuff with their selection, or any of the others.
Are you by chance a fan of Ohio State (Army, UNLV) or Penn State (Akron, Georgia State)?Auburn play f in Mercer Georgia southern, Louisiana Monroe,. Georgia played app state and Samford and son along with their cupcake schedule really freaking rough! Lol
I've said from the beginning that I think 8 is the sweet spot. With 8 though I think we definitely need to make a spot for these undefeated small conference teams. There is room for them at that point.This should be five conference champions: Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, Ohio State, and USC. Then three at-large teams: Alabama, Wisconsin, and Auburn according to the rankings. Put UCF in for Wisconsin/Auburn if you want this isn't a G5 post.
1. Clemson vs 8. Southern Calif.
4. Alabama vs 5 Ohio State
3 Georgia vs 6 Wisconsin
2 Oklahoma vs 7 Auburn
Who doesn't want to see these games? Everyone (in P5 conferences) has a chance to play their way in. The whining would just be about seeding but Penn State, Miami, Washington, TCU, and Notre Dame have zero argument to get in over these teams.
Clemson-Alabama is a great game on paper. But Alabama doesn't belong in a 4 team playoff this year based on committee criteria. Many of us said this wasn't a real playoff until conference champions are all included.I've said from the beginning that I think 8 is the sweet spot. With 8 though I think we definitely need to make a spot for these undefeated small conference teams. There is room for them at that point.
My only concern with going to 8 (other than whatever lame ### auto-bid scenario ND would get at that point) is that people still won't be satisfied and we'll end up going bigger, which I would hate. As much as people like to say yeah we'd be arguing about the 8th and 9th place teams but at that point if you didn't get in it's your own fault, I remember when people were saying the same about the 4th/5th best team. I also remember people laying out exactly these kind of "what if" matchups for "if we had a 4 team playoff look at the games we would get".
Did you watch that game last night? Wisconsin doesn't deserve to be in the mix for an 8-team playoff.They suck.Clemson-Alabama is a great game on paper. But Alabama doesn't belong in a 4 team playoff this year based on committee criteria. Many of us said this wasn't a real playoff until conference champions are all included.
Again, I don't care about the G5. Though if you included them we would be having a pretty good Wisconsin over Auburn debate today where Auburn clearly has a better resume, IMO, but Wisconsin gets in over them.
2016: #15 Middle Tennessee 90, #2 Michigan State 81Mediocre Stanford could have won the other night and made the playoff by the conference champ criteria. That's stupid.![]()
I already said we just need the entire FBS in a double elimination tournament. Season long. It works.64 team playoff. Whatever it takes to get mercer in imo.
No it's not. They were 12 last week and had they won they would have been in the top 10 today most likely. But they would have played their way in instead of having a bunch of dorks in a hotel decides who the prettiest girls are.Mediocre Stanford could have won the other night and made the playoff by the conference champ criteria. That's stupid.![]()
I think NCAA football is by far the best regular season sport. Adding more and more playoff teams would devalue the regular season. I’ll admit that if I had a choice between 4 and 8, I’d probably rather it be 8 as I don’t think 4 is enough. Any more than 8 is overkill IMO.What is the argument for "too many" college football teams making the playoffs? Upsets? Too many games? If too many games I would rather see Alabama play USC, OKlahoma, Ohio State, Clemson, or another D1 team than Mercer at the end of the season. Can't be because of too much time needed since they have a ####### month off until they play again. The money that 8 teams would generate has to be huge. Seeing every Okie spend their fortunes on 2 or 3 playoff games would be sweet.
8 vs 1 on December 9th
7 vs 2
6 vs 3
5 vs 2 Maybe this game can turn into the 11th seed in the NCAA tourney?
I just love CFB and watching the best teams play extra games against each other is the cherry on top.
Malzahn has agreed to a deal that will keep him at Auburn after overtures from Arkansas. The numbers are not yet clear, but the deal will stretch at least five years and could include a raise to as much as $7 million, the source said.
Some of the "too many games" people have also said that bowl games with 6-6 teams are a good thing because "what's wrong with more football?"What is the argument for "too many" college football teams making the playoffs? Upsets? Too many games? If too many games I would rather see Alabama play USC, OKlahoma, Ohio State, Clemson, or another D1 team than Mercer at the end of the season. Can't be because of too much time needed since they have a ####### month off until they play again. The money that 8 teams would generate has to be huge. Seeing every Okie spend their fortunes on 2 or 3 playoff games would be sweet.
8 vs 1 on December 9th
7 vs 2
6 vs 3
5 vs 2 Maybe this game can turn into the 11th seed in the NCAA tourney?
I just love CFB and watching the best teams play extra games against each other is the cherry on top.
that I easily forget and really don't give a #### about. This is really odd, even for you. They're ranked 6th now.The Commish said:Well, it was a pretty rhetorical question. I didn't expect an answer. But to be clear, you believe it's a significant accomplishment because of where the committee had them ranked? If there were no rankings, can you see the reality of what Wisconsin really is?
I choose to not believe this.Malzahn has agreed to a deal that will keep him at Auburn after overtures from Arkansas. The numbers are not yet clear, but the deal will stretch at least five years and could include a raise to as much as $7 million, the source said.
Coaches using these lesser programs to up their salaries is Brilliant! DILLY DILLY
Partially playing devil's advocate here, because I do like the idea of an 8 team playoff. But as for the reasons I wouldn't want it any larger than that...What is the argument for "too many" college football teams making the playoffs? Upsets? Too many games? If too many games I would rather see Alabama play USC, OKlahoma, Ohio State, Clemson, or another D1 team than Mercer at the end of the season. Can't be because of too much time needed since they have a ####### month off until they play again. The money that 8 teams would generate has to be huge. Seeing every Okie spend their fortunes on 2 or 3 playoff games would be sweet.
8 vs 1 on December 9th
7 vs 2
6 vs 3
5 vs 2 Maybe this game can turn into the 11th seed in the NCAA tourney?
I just love CFB and watching the best teams play extra games against each other is the cherry on top.
The argument against it is the players still aren't getting paid.What is the argument for "too many" college football teams making the playoffs? Upsets? Too many games? If too many games I would rather see Alabama play USC, OKlahoma, Ohio State, Clemson, or another D1 team than Mercer at the end of the season. Can't be because of too much time needed since they have a ####### month off until they play again. The money that 8 teams would generate has to be huge. Seeing every Okie spend their fortunes on 2 or 3 playoff games would be sweet.
8 vs 1 on December 9th
7 vs 2
6 vs 3
5 vs 2 Maybe this game can turn into the 11th seed in the NCAA tourney?
I just love CFB and watching the best teams play extra games against each other is the cherry on top.
Malzahn has agreed to a deal that will keep him at Auburn after overtures from Arkansas. The numbers are not yet clear, but the deal will stretch at least five years and could include a raise to as much as $7 million, the source said.
Coaches using these lesser programs to up their salaries is Brilliant! DILLY DILLY
nothing wrong with it imo. Why not get more money from your employer when another employer expresses interest?There is a plane tracking thread there. Saying a U of A plane spent time in Tampa. I'd love it if Jamies Winston became our new coach.I'll wait until hogville chimes in
Bunch of inbred hillbillies, what’s not to hate?What do they hate about Georgia?