2024 College Football Thread: Ohio State advances to play unbeaten hypothetical SEC team (4 Viewers)

[MAC_32]

Tennessee lost 2 games. They're in. The others lost 3. They're out. Want to be a part of the dance? Lose less games and quitcher bitchin'

 

[culdeus]

Tennessee lost 2 games. They're in. The others lost 3. They're out. Want to be a part of the dance? Lose less games and quitcher bitchin'

You can't also say play 9 game in conference and not have 12 teams without three losses. Someone has to lose the games and bottom feeder sec teams do tend to have one big upset a year.

Play 8 S2 conference games and have 3 losses. Yeah. Out.

 

[Jayded]

Between Indiana last night and likely SMU today, the SEC teeth gnashing is worse than what we saw from FSU last year. At least FSU was undefeated, but the arguments are about 3 loss teams.

I think the committee sent a message that SOS & numbers of wins both matter. What those upset seem to desire is to only look at wins (Bama beating Georgia, South Carolina beating Clemson/Texas A&M), ignore who losses were to, and debate which of the teams would win H2H. I’m not sure we outright want the committee guessing about H2H when teams at that rung of consideration showed inconsistency (Bama could beat Georgia, but also could lose to Vandy…which one would they be vs SMU/Indiana?)

What I do like about what they did is punish both sides. The SEC gets the benefit of its history and SOS in seeing Georgia be the highest non-undefeated team and Texas being the highest at-large. If you play a difficult schedule, you still almost made it in with 3 losses as a respect to SOS. If you play a weaker schedule like Indiana or SMU, you better not lose any or more than 1. I think they did that very thing and it was the most equitable thing they could do.

Eh.

The teeth gnashing is because they have never settled the question: are these standings or are they the teams we think are the best teams?

If it's the teams we think are best after using our eyes and metrics and things like NFL talent etc, it's silly that Indiana was there over South Carolina, or Alabama. Wins and Losses inform that but obviously a team can lose to a worse opponent and you still think they're better. (E.g., Vanderbilt).

If it's standings, it's ridiculous to think any of the left out SEC teams should go in over Indiana or SMU. Win the games.

The reason there's consternation is because they want to have it both ways.

Agreed-ish. I’m saying they did settle it by saying it’s a combination of both. SOS factors in likely H2H but discrepancies of W/L has to matter as well.

“Best team” being a combination of the two is the right way to reward most deserving + schedule difficulty IMO. I kinda wish they’d just outright say that so teams know weak schedule = better win a whole lot and strong schedule = some leniency but not complete benefit of the doubt.

 

[Jayded]

Last bit on Notre Dame from last night before the games start today:

Jeremiyah Love was not 100% per Freeman. His knee is still not quite there but he was also sick as a dog and those two factors are why we saw less of him than expected. Hopefully he heals before Georgia because we know we need him to have a shot.

Rylie Mills also likely could have come back in, but they chose to be cautious. Also big news for ND because he and Cross are critical to ND’s run defense and any shot we have.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Rich Eisen had thoughts. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DD0-Tw_xupx/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

 

[General Malaise]

It's not like we automatically get great football games. The BCS produced some real stinkers, right Notre Dame? So did the CFP Championship. I think Georgia just scored again on TCU.

We shouldn't let perfection be the enemy of progress.

 

[Snoopy]

Penn State with numbers on the sides of their helmets? Ruining their signature plain white look.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Between Indiana last night and likely SMU today, the SEC teeth gnashing is worse than what we saw from FSU last year. At least FSU was undefeated, but the arguments are about 3 loss teams.

I think the committee sent a message that SOS & numbers of wins both matter. What those upset seem to desire is to only look at wins (Bama beating Georgia, South Carolina beating Clemson/Texas A&M), ignore who losses were to, and debate which of the teams would win H2H. I’m not sure we outright want the committee guessing about H2H when teams at that rung of consideration showed inconsistency (Bama could beat Georgia, but also could lose to Vandy…which one would they be vs SMU/Indiana?)

What I do like about what they did is punish both sides. The SEC gets the benefit of its history and SOS in seeing Georgia be the highest non-undefeated team and Texas being the highest at-large. If you play a difficult schedule, you still almost made it in with 3 losses as a respect to SOS. If you play a weaker schedule like Indiana or SMU, you better not lose any or more than 1. I think they did that very thing and it was the most equitable thing they could do.

Eh.

The teeth gnashing is because they have never settled the question: are these standings or are they the teams we think are the best teams?

If it's the teams we think are best after using our eyes and metrics and things like NFL talent etc, it's silly that Indiana was there over South Carolina, or Alabama. Wins and Losses inform that but obviously a team can lose to a worse opponent and you still think they're better. (E.g., Vanderbilt).

If it's standings, it's ridiculous to think any of the left out SEC teams should go in over Indiana or SMU. Win the games.

The reason there's consternation is because they want to have it both ways.

Agreed-ish. I’m saying they did settle it by saying it’s a combination of both. SOS factors in likely H2H but discrepancies of W/L has to matter as well.

“Best team” being a combination of the two is the right way to reward most deserving + schedule difficulty IMO. I kinda wish they’d just outright say that so teams know weak schedule = better win a whole lot and strong schedule = some leniency but not complete benefit of the doubt.

What teams got rewarded for strength of schedule? Half the teams in the playoff didn't beat a ranked team. Only 1 one team with more losses that beat ranked teams got in, Clemson, and only because they won a P5 conference.

Heck, BYU was 10-2, beat a ranked team, had a stronger strength of schedule than SMU, a higher CFB power index ranking than SMU, even beat SMU head to head, and wasn't even talked about as a playoff team.

The real screwjob in all of this is this insane idea that conference championship games can help you if you win, but not hurt you if you lose. Like some kind of freebie game. It's never worked like that before and no one had a problem with it. Why people started down that crusade this year is beyond me. College football is not a standardized schedule like the NFL. Every conference handles things differently. Some have more conference games, some play a championship game, etc. The committee's job is to pick the teams based on the games they play, not standardize schedule by removing games but then count those exact same games for other teams. It's absurd. The committee will walk back that statement next year because it was so, so ridiculous.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Tennessee lost 2 games. They're in. The others lost 3. They're out. Want to be a part of the dance? Lose less games and quitcher bitchin'

And the Alabama team I watched play Oklahoma in late November didn't even look like a top 20 team.

I still don't know why the SEC doesn't just create a 16 team playoff with their own conference.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

For those of you that want to use game results to justify if a team belonged or not, here are the 30 scores in CFB playoff history. And remember all of these games were between top 4 teams. A lot of lopsided scores here

42-20
42-35
59-20
45-40
38-0
37-17
35-31
31-0
24-7
54-48
24-6
26-23
44-16
45-34
30-3
63-28
29-23
42-25
52-24
49-28
31-14
27-6
34-11
33-18
51-45
42-41
65-7
27-20
37-31
34-13

 

[General Malaise]

Penn State with numbers on the sides of their helmets? Ruining their signature plain white look.

They look sharp but surprised they're bucking tradition.

 

[beef]

SMU in all white. Stadium mostly all in white. Mustangs representing!

 

[General Malaise]

SMU with tempo. Nice.

 

[GregR]

For those of you that want to use game results to justify if a team belonged or not, here are the 30 scores in CFB playoff history. And remember all of these games were between top 4 teams. A lot of lopsided scores here

42-20
42-35
59-20
45-40
38-0
37-17
35-31
31-0
24-7
54-48
24-6
26-23
44-16
45-34
30-3
63-28
29-23
42-25
52-24
49-28
31-14
27-6
34-11
33-18
51-45
42-41
65-7
27-20
37-31
34-13

I was going to say, close games are almost the exception, not the rule.

 

[WDIK2]

Terrible throw or that was an easy score.

 

[GregR]

I take most of the complaints about this year's selection with a grain of salt. There is like, 1/10 as much room for complaint about them as there was last year's.

Who you play matters. Who you beat matters. Who you lose to matters. How you are playing by the end of the year, and when your losses happened, matters.

None of that is new, it's the exact same thing we've had with polls for all of our lives.

What was new was last year a team losing their QB causing their ranking to change at the end of the season. That was just unforgiveable in my opinion and completely without precedent.

The rest of this? Nothing's different than it's always been.

 

[General Malaise]

Oh wow.....that throw was worse than the missed TD. Crimeny.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Can't do that

 

[Insein]

Pick 6. Nice.

 

[SFBayDuck]

Is Indiana’s QB also SMU’s QB?

 

[Osaurus]

Dang. That looked like a super bad decision

 

[GregR]

It's never good when the opposing QB doesn't have a pass rusher within 5 yards of him.

 

[General Malaise]

Well, this performance by SMU should certainly quiet the SEC fan furor.

 

[Insein]

Don't get going for on 4th and 13. Yea your kicker can't make that FG but just punt it and try to pin them. That was the same result as a missed FG basically

 

[FreeBaGeL]

LOL at that spot.

 

[GregR]

I wonder if after this year, the NFL will stop putting big games on this Saturday.

 

[Jayded]

Between Indiana last night and likely SMU today, the SEC teeth gnashing is worse than what we saw from FSU last year. At least FSU was undefeated, but the arguments are about 3 loss teams.

I think the committee sent a message that SOS & numbers of wins both matter. What those upset seem to desire is to only look at wins (Bama beating Georgia, South Carolina beating Clemson/Texas A&M), ignore who losses were to, and debate which of the teams would win H2H. I’m not sure we outright want the committee guessing about H2H when teams at that rung of consideration showed inconsistency (Bama could beat Georgia, but also could lose to Vandy…which one would they be vs SMU/Indiana?)

What I do like about what they did is punish both sides. The SEC gets the benefit of its history and SOS in seeing Georgia be the highest non-undefeated team and Texas being the highest at-large. If you play a difficult schedule, you still almost made it in with 3 losses as a respect to SOS. If you play a weaker schedule like Indiana or SMU, you better not lose any or more than 1. I think they did that very thing and it was the most equitable thing they could do.

Eh.

The teeth gnashing is because they have never settled the question: are these standings or are they the teams we think are the best teams?

If it's the teams we think are best after using our eyes and metrics and things like NFL talent etc, it's silly that Indiana was there over South Carolina, or Alabama. Wins and Losses inform that but obviously a team can lose to a worse opponent and you still think they're better. (E.g., Vanderbilt).

If it's standings, it's ridiculous to think any of the left out SEC teams should go in over Indiana or SMU. Win the games.

The reason there's consternation is because they want to have it both ways.

Agreed-ish. I’m saying they did settle it by saying it’s a combination of both. SOS factors in likely H2H but discrepancies of W/L has to matter as well.

“Best team” being a combination of the two is the right way to reward most deserving + schedule difficulty IMO. I kinda wish they’d just outright say that so teams know weak schedule = better win a whole lot and strong schedule = some leniency but not complete benefit of the doubt.

What teams got rewarded for strength of schedule? Half the teams in the playoff didn't beat a ranked team. Only 1 one team with more losses that beat ranked teams got in, Clemson, and only because they won a P5 conference.

Heck, BYU was 10-2, beat a ranked team, had a stronger strength of schedule than SMU, a higher CFB power index ranking than SMU, even beat SMU head to head, and wasn't even talked about as a playoff team.

The real screwjob in all of this is this insane idea that conference championship games can help you if you win, but not hurt you if you lose. Like some kind of freebie game. It's never worked like that before and no one had a problem with it. Why people started down that crusade this year is beyond me. College football is not a standardized schedule like the NFL. Every conference handles things differently. Some have more conference games, some play a championship game, etc. The committee's job is to pick the teams based on the games they play, not standardize schedule by removing games but then count those exact same games for other teams. It's absurd. The committee will walk back that statement next year because it was so, so ridiculous.

What teams? Georgia, Texas, Alabama, and South Carolina.

Tell me with a straight face that a 3-loss ACC or Big XII team would even be considered for a top 12 slot. The only reason Bama and South Carolina were considered is SOS.

People have short memories on Texas too. Their SEC schedule has them avoiding everyone but Georgia, who beat them twice. Who is Texas’ biggest win? A&M or Michigan I guess? But they are in because they played an SEC schedule and only lost twice and yet no one is calling them and their favorable schedule out.

 

[General Malaise]

Good grief.

 

[Insein]

Wow what an awful pass. Incredible return though!

He is rattled.

 

[crushedspirit]

More horrible QB play, but I'm really not surprised.

 

[SFBayDuck]

This is some Beck/Millroe SEC-level horrible QB play.

 

[General Malaise]

Guess I'll watch the Chiefs

 

[FreeBaGeL]

What teams got rewarded for strength of schedule? Half the teams in the playoff didn't beat a ranked team. Only 1 one team with more losses that beat ranked teams got in, Clemson, and only because they won a P5 conference.

Heck, BYU was 10-2, beat a ranked team, had a stronger strength of schedule than SMU, a higher CFB power index ranking than SMU, even beat SMU head to head, and wasn't even talked about as a playoff team.

The real screwjob in all of this is this insane idea that conference championship games can help you if you win, but not hurt you if you lose. Like some kind of freebie game. It's never worked like that before and no one had a problem with it. Why people started down that crusade this year is beyond me. College football is not a standardized schedule like the NFL. Every conference handles things differently. Some have more conference games, some play a championship game, etc. The committee's job is to pick the teams based on the games they play, not standardize schedule by removing games but then count those exact same games for other teams. It's absurd. The committee will walk back that statement next year because it was so, so ridiculous.

What teams? Georgia, Texas, Alabama, and South Carolina.

Tell me with a straight face that a 3-loss ACC or Big XII team would even be considered for a top 12 slot. The only reason Bama and South Carolina were considered is SOS.

People have short memories on Texas too. Their SEC schedule has them avoiding everyone but Georgia, who beat them twice. Who is Texas’ biggest win? A&M or Michigan I guess? But they are in because they played an SEC schedule and only lost twice and yet no one is calling them and their favorable schedule out.

Uh...but neither of those teams got in, and got left out for teams with soft schedules, so what did that get them? Nothing.

And Texas is absolutely an example of a team that played a trash schedule and got rewarded for it. And it's absolutely been pointed out in here. I've argued about it twice in here myself, as others have as well.

Texas had an easy schedule, beat no ranked teams, lost their last game, and got the 5th seed in the playoff

South Carolina beat two ranked teams, ended the season on a 6 game win streak and by beating a playoff team in their last game, and got left out of the playoffs.

How is that rewarding teams for playing a harder schedule, and factoring in when the losses/wins happened? South Carolina played a harder overall schedule (4 ranked teams versus 2), beat two ranked teams to Texas' zero, and finished the season out more strongly, yet finished like 9 spots behind Texas because they had one more loss.

Play an easy schedule, get fewer losses is 100% the optimal path the CFP.

There are 8 teams playing in the playoff this weekend and those teams had a COMBINED 3 wins against ranked opponents this year.

The first 4 teams left out of the playoff beat 7 ranked teams combined.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Happy as a PSU fan, but Jennings has gifted us a 21- point swing

 

[need2know]

Smu does not belong in the playoff

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I sure hope tomorrow’s games are more entertaining than this one has been. Has felt over since the first quarter.

Holding out hope for some craziness in the 4th quarter, but not holding my breath. C’mon IU!

Both these teams are overrated as hell

Maybe you'll do better v Michigan

If they can't beat what Michigan is going to be throwing out there, they have big problems. All the dudes are headed to the draft.

 

[Insein]

Don't agree with going for it but that was a terrible spot again.

 

[Instinctive]

Smu does not belong in the playoff

Does that mean Penn States offense doesn't either?

 

[need2know]

What teams got rewarded for strength of schedule? Half the teams in the playoff didn't beat a ranked team. Only 1 one team with more losses that beat ranked teams got in, Clemson, and only because they won a P5 conference.

Heck, BYU was 10-2, beat a ranked team, had a stronger strength of schedule than SMU, a higher CFB power index ranking than SMU, even beat SMU head to head, and wasn't even talked about as a playoff team.

The real screwjob in all of this is this insane idea that conference championship games can help you if you win, but not hurt you if you lose. Like some kind of freebie game. It's never worked like that before and no one had a problem with it. Why people started down that crusade this year is beyond me. College football is not a standardized schedule like the NFL. Every conference handles things differently. Some have more conference games, some play a championship game, etc. The committee's job is to pick the teams based on the games they play, not standardize schedule by removing games but then count those exact same games for other teams. It's absurd. The committee will walk back that statement next year because it was so, so ridiculous.

What teams? Georgia, Texas, Alabama, and South Carolina.

Tell me with a straight face that a 3-loss ACC or Big XII team would even be considered for a top 12 slot. The only reason Bama and South Carolina were considered is SOS.

People have short memories on Texas too. Their SEC schedule has them avoiding everyone but Georgia, who beat them twice. Who is Texas’ biggest win? A&M or Michigan I guess? But they are in because they played an SEC schedule and only lost twice and yet no one is calling them and their favorable schedule out.

Uh...but neither of those teams got in, and got left out for teams with soft schedules, so what did that get them? Nothing.

And Texas is absolutely an example of a team that played a trash schedule and got rewarded for it. And it's absolutely been pointed out in here. I've argued about it twice in here myself, as others have as well.

Texas had an easy schedule, beat no ranked teams, lost their last game, and got the 5th seed in the playoff

South Carolina beat two ranked teams, ended the season on a 6 game win streak and by beating a playoff team in their last game, and got left out of the playoffs.

How is that rewarding teams for playing a harder schedule, and factoring in when the losses/wins happened? South Carolina played a harder overall schedule (4 ranked teams versus 2), beat two ranked teams to Texas' zero, and finished the season out more strongly, yet finished like 9 spots behind Texas because they had one more loss.

Play an easy schedule, get fewer losses is 100% the optimal path the CFP.

There are 8 teams playing in the playoff this weekend and those 8 teams had a COMBINED three wins against ranked opponents this year.

Bama had more ranked wins than all those posers

 

[Insein]

thought we were getting a 3rd pick 6

 

[whoknew]

SMU ... NO

 

[need2know]

Smu does not belong in the playoff

Does that mean Penn States offense doesn't either?

I dont think psu is a top 12 team either

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Smu does not belong in the playoff

Does that mean Penn States offense doesn't either?

He thinks 12 SEC teams should be in the playoffs

 

[fasteddie_21]

Man...SMUs QB has really **** the bed in both of their biggest games. If not for him, their team is playing well. But there's only so many times you can bail dude out, ya know?

 

[Insein]

Kaytron is a beast

 

[Moe.]

alright calm down and put a drive together to finish the half, I don't want to watch NFL all day

 

[Jayded]

Officials now just assuming Jennings is causing another turnover

 

[General Malaise]

Can the backup QB for SMU be any worse than this?

 

[Moe.]

Jennings is absolutely lost out there, he's bailing way too early

 

[fasteddie_21]

Refs = Not great