Clemson plays Alabama in the Sugar Bowl and it is Oklahoma vs Georgia in the Rose Bowl.
#CFBPlayoff Selection Day: 1️⃣ Clemson2️⃣ Oklahoma 3️⃣ Georgia 4️⃣ Alabama 5️⃣ Ohio State6️⃣ Wisconsin pic.twitter.com/ycbv6NmUWa— College Football Playoff (@CFBPlayoff) December 3, 2017
Also, ACC got the Citrus Bowl bid.
Wisconsin-Miami Orange Bowl opens up Citrus Bowl for #ACC. #Hokies could well be headed to Camping World Bowl in Orlando.— David Teel (@DavidTeelatDP) December 3, 2017
What playoff game are y'all looking forward to more?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I want Clemson to take apart Alabama.
Same.
#GoACC
(for real, not /s)
As much as I hate to see Ohio St out over Alabama, I think they would have been dismantled by Clemson again.
So...apparently neither conference championships nor strength of schedule is a factor.
Nope. It's supposed to be the 4 best teams and I think they got that right. There's no way that OSU is better than Bama.
OSU has two wins vs. top 10 opponents. Alabama's best win is vs. #17 LSU. There's no actual on-field proof of Alabama's superiority.
OSU has two losses.
So the key takeaway is to schedule all cheesecake non-conference matchups? Alabama hasn't faced any opponent this year other than Auburn who straight knocked them down.
To be fair, FSU wasn't a cheesecake in terms of scheduling.
Also, why did the Queen get negged for waiving goodbye to Ohio State? This isn't Eleven Warriors.
Touche good point. But one can argue that FSU may have not even been as good without losing Francois.
Ohio state got blown the fuck out by Iowa. When was the last time Bama lost by 31
1998
And I was there. Ahhhhhhh!
MUSIC CITY BOWL BABY
Last year, when they played Clemson in the playoffs......
Oh wait......that was Ohio State again.
Tough to get beat by 31 when you play teams like mercer, fresno state, Colorado state, etc....
That's not the takeaway at all. Ohio State got in last year by scheduling aggressively in non-conference play. This year Bama got lucky as hell that the rest of the field wasn't very impressive either.
Alabama's biggest leg up on OSU is being able to take care of business against teams they should beat. Looks like the committee weighs consistency more heavily than a big loss to go with your big wins. Although by this logic Wisconsin should have spent most of the past few weeks in the top 4 just for being undefeated.
Which is sad because this just encourages the idea for schools to schedule easy non-conference matchups. One of the best things about opening weeks of college football are the tasty neutral site games or home/away splits of tough out of conference opponents.
I'd rather they take away 1 regular season game and expand the playoffs to 8 teams. Factor in strength of schedule and strength of victory/losses.
See Iowa over OSU. Gotta win the "easy ones, or at least not get trucked by 31!
There's really no proof those top 10 teams are worthy of their ranking either. You know what the best win Penn State and Wisconsin both have? Northwestern
Ask yourself, would you rather play Bama or OSU if you're looking for an easier win.
Well Bama opens as a 2 point favorite, so that's some sort of credence to their selection.
OSU lost by 31 this year. That matters.
We knew that when OSU got in last year. OSU and Alabama also had similar SOS.
Those are both major factors and the rankings bear that out. There are other factors as well. The main one being, all those other teams weren't very good either.
If there were no CFP, but the bowls still had the same deals, then the Sugar Bowl matchup would be the Orange Bowl, while the Rose Bowl teams would be in the Sugar.
From a strictly "fan of college football" perspective, I'm not terribly interested in Clemson vs. Bama again, though I think Clemson should be able to handle them. But Oklahoma vs. Georgia in the Rose Bowl is a freakin awesome matchup. Both teams are going to see a side of the ball that is worlds better than any they have faced this season (Oklahoma's offense vs Georgia's defense)
And Georgia's strong run game vs Oklahoma's defense. Very intriguing.
TCU's defense was pretty good.
The reason I was against strictly a committee in the first place is because they'd vote just like the AP and Coaches would, so it defeats the purpose.
The playoff field would be exactly the same whether you pulled it from AP, Coaches or Committee...
Has anyone posted what the computers are saying?
I don't think I've seen a single computer ranking since the CFP formed.
These were the 6 BCS computers. Rankings in order.
Massey:
Clemson, Georgia, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Alabama, Penn State, Auburn, Notre Dame, UCF
Anderson & Hester:
Clemson, Georgia, UCF, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Alabama, USC, Penn State, Notre Dame
Sagarin:
Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Wisconsin, Auburn, Washington, Notre Dame
Peter Wolfe:
UCF, Georgia, Clemson, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Alabama, USC, Wisconsin, Auburn, Penn State
Colley Matrix:
Clemson, Georgia, UCF, Wisconsin, Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, USC, Notre Dame, Miami
Billingsly:
Georgia, Clemson, Oklahoma, Alabama, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Auburn, UCF, USC, Miami
Average using the old BCS method (throw out lowest and highest):
Clemson 1.5
Georgia: 2.75
Oklahoma: 4.25
Ohio State:5
Wisconsin: 5.5
Alabama: 5.25
UCF: 6
And of course now is when I find a twitter account dedicated to this sort of question.
For anybody upset with the pick at #4, remember this: we have human beings on the committee so judgment calls can be made. I hated it last year when Ohio St. Jumped Penn St. but, I want the committee to leave that room believing they have picked the 4 best teams. If we want more structure and definition, bring back the computers....but we will not always be happy with their result either.
Biggest winner today, execs at Sugar Bowl...show me the money!!!
Conference championships don't matter...so why have them? /s
The day he is no longer in these commercials I will be very, very sad.
ICE COLD ......
DR. PEPPA HERE!
So can we start scheduling Mercer?
The CFP is a joke in its current form. Miss. St. and Fresno state were ranked last week to provide a narrative for Alabama in case Wisconsin lost, which they did. Alabama's SOS is pathetic and Auburn's a 3 loss team all said and done.
Bring back the BCS with an 8 team playoff system. Boom.
As much as I was hoping for selfish reasons that Alabama would be out, I think they got it right: the four best teams in college football are in the playoffs and that's the way it should be. No qualms from EPW.
Can we just do this like every other sport in the world? Win your conference, get into the playoff. Fill out the bracket with some at larges.
Saban stated today and has stated in the past, he wants more P5 competition, but other schools will not face them. Along with all P5 schools should only play P5 schools (Please this would be great, and I have some thoughts on this). Maybe i'm giving them the benefit of the doubt but that seems realistic, he doesn't have the power of scheduling. I get this weird feeling that if Saban could force it he would play only P5 competition, he just strikes me in that way.
I understand both arguments among scheduling. P5 teams playing G5/FCS teams do "water down" their schedules, but the paydays for those other schools are critical to their budgets. Mercer played Alabama and Auburn this year, and received a total payout of around $1 million dollars which is a huge budget of their program's $18.7M budget.
Yeah, but Alabama can do better than 1 P5 neutral site, 2 home G5s, and a FCS game -- which is exactly what they've done for the last six years.
At least Auburn scheduled a home-and-home with Clemson.
I get that, and that is where I'm torn. I like the idea of P5 vs P5 just because the match up possibilities would be interesting be it old traditional rivalries or a sort of rotating divisional conference standings based match ups (this is confusing, but something my roommate and I did when were we debating the playoff a year ago). However you are right teams like mercer live for these moments and more importantly the school's budget need these games. It is a shame we will probably never move to a P5 vs P5 era, but I get why those little programs need these games.
I don't understand everyone's need to be the champion of the small schools and defend their budget. We have no obligation to hand them money. We need to do what's best for us.
Maybe if they were willing to play a home & home he'd get some takers.
In his defense, he did a home and home with Duke not that long ago.
In 2006 and 2010, a series that was obviously scheduled before Saban's tenure, as his first season was 2007.
Honest question, how much of that is on Bama? Everyone wants to joke and make it on college gameday saying we want bama til Bo Scarbrough and a dozen other top NFL talent shows up and runs your team out of the building. Also Bama is going to always be the A side in their contests so im sure that has to do with contracts and scheduling to a degree.
Notre Dame is outside the top 12. They'll probably get the citrus bowl
I wonder if anyone has noticed that this is LSU's 2nd straight Citrus Bowl appearance.
Buckeye fans announce:
"The state of Alabama was reported to have been in the Penn State shower!"
Didn't mean to offend. It was a joke
Can't be too disappointed in this. The top three are the ones I would have had.
Number four?
Thank goodness Wisconsin lost so they weren't in the discussion - they regularly, every single year, schedule a cupcake out of conference schedule to pump up their win total. It certainly isn't their fault that they play in the worst division in college football, but they shouldn't be considered at all until they test themselves outside the Big Ten.
I'm a bit surprised that USCw wasn't in the top six. With out of conference games against Texas and ND, as well as two wins against Stanford and losses only to WSU (who was hot hot hot at the time) and ND, I would have thought a 2-loss USCw would have been more attractive than Wisconsin and maybe even Ohio State.
Having said all that, I wish Clemson would play against someone else in the semi so they would only play Alabama again if those two were really truly the two best teams in the field.
This. I would have been a lot happier with a Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, USC playoff
Are you ready for some Ohio State logic? They are shouting on their boards that the reason they were left out was because they scheduled Oklahoma. If they had played and won against a "regular" P5 school the Iowa loss would be overlooked.
This, after it was the Oklahoma game that got them into the playoffs last year. This, after Wiscy wasn't considered because of it.
Conveniently ignoring that they could have solved that problem by winning the game. If you aren't undefeated at the end of the season and you get left out of the playoff, you don't have a scheduling problem, you have a losing football games problem.
Or losing by 7.
Or even 14.
Maybe even 21.
Don't know why they need an hour to get the NY6 bowls set after the rankings are announced. Really, my only question is where they put Auburn and Penn State.
Sugar: #1 Clemson (ACC champ) vs. #4 Alabama (SEC at-large)
--this should have been the Orange Bowl, contractually.
Rose: #2 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ) vs. #3 Georgia (SEC champ)
--this should have been the Sugar Bowl, contractually.
Orange: #10 Miami (ACC replacement) vs. #6 Wisconsin (Big Ten #2)
Peach: #12 UCF (G5 champ) vs. #7 Auburn/#9 Penn State
Cotton: #11 Washington vs. #7 Auburn/#9 Penn State
--Both Peach and Cotton Bowls are in the SEC footprint, and Auburn would fit well in both. Penn State would probably travel better to Atlanta.
Fiesta: #5 Ohio State (Big Ten champ) vs. #8 USC (Pac-12 champ)
--this should have been the Rose Bowl, contractually.
Interesting twist:
I just liked that two programs which repeatedly get the benefit of the doubt were reduced to playing musical chairs for just one slot.
A win-win for the non-aristocracy.
Are you sure it wasn't actually a lose-lose?
So I have no idea where to post this. But I had to tell you all.
I'm watching Arkansas vs. Mississippi State play intercollegiate cornhole. ESPNU. Guys, they're wearing bowling shirts.
Well, they did change ESPNU for that one day over the summer. Maybe some programming slipped through
I watched a disgusting amount of CornHole on that day.
The reason there is a committee is to add a qualitative analysis to the quantitative numbers. There needs to be a human analysis of which team is just better because no team's season is exactly the same. In this case they made the right decision. Bama may have lost but they are a way better team than OSU, by far.
The "eye test" is there to screw the teams who aren't perennial power houses. I don't like it. It's too biased towards perceptions and will continue to benefit teams with reputation even if they don't deserve it. Bring back the cyborgs and data analytics.
I am actually a big fan of the eye test. A lot can be learned about a team when you know what you're looking for. For me, Alabama was wildly and consistently impressive until the Auburn game. Even against Miss State (with a completely depleted linebacking corps) they still were able to overcome a very specific and ingenious gameplan to knock them off on the road. Mullen shortened the game and limited Bama's possessions by running an insane amount of clock throughout the game (sound familiar anyone? A certain annoying coach has been using this strategy for years in the ACC to knock off better teams), Fitzgerald made enough 3rd down conversions to pull the plan off, and they still were able to muscle back into the game and make stops when they needed them and make the game winning plays on offense themselves.
Now that said, the cyborgs and data analytics also put Bama in at 4, as someone posted the BCS rankings for this season somewhere in this thread. So even if you hate the eye test, the computers agreed with the choice as well.
disagree. But welcome to you making the argument, which non-perennial powerhouse has been screwed over?
UCF says hi.....
ranked 12th and needed double overtime to beat Memphis. Not even close
You mean the ranked Memphis team? Yea that probably shouldn't count....
well they play Auburn in the bowl, so if they win you have a case. (which I would love to see) Until then their schedule and who they beat are not comparable to Bama's or OSU's, for that matter.
the only non-P5 team so far to have a legit gripe about not playing for championship was Boise St.
BUMP
fenix420, you sir, were right on the money and I am a dumbass.
That why the BCS used an average of computers and human polls. The problem was that they needed a poll more reliable than the Harris friend-of-a-friend-of-a-guy-who-knew-a-guy-on-a-football-team-once poll.
It's like Colin Cowherd said one time, the computers can be there to smooth over the bias that humans might have, but then the humans are there to account for certain intangibles that could affect a team's season (like injury).
Yeah I agree with this
I am looking forward to both games. Clemson-Bama III should be pretty intense emotionally if not downright mean. OU-UGA should just be fun football to watch.
Regarding the selection, I am surprised no one is talking about the fact that OSU already lost to OU this season. Clearly rematches don't always go the same way as the first game (right Georgia?!). But I think it is relevant when you are trying to decide between OSU and Bama. If Auburn had won the SEC you would have to put them in despite the potential Clemson rematch. But if Auburn had been in I would have been way less excited about Bama being the 4th team.
Mostly, I still want an 8 team playoff!!! I know it is unlikely, but it would have been PERFECT this year.
With an 8 game playoff, it would be the same dopey discussion - just USC or Penn State - but even more meaningless.
In the end, the vast majority of fans won't remember or care 2 years later who got left out.
As for an 8 game playoff, I suspect the powers-that-be expect there will be a defacto 8 playoff in the not so distant future - with the conf championships of the 4 remaining P5 conferences being essentially the quarterfinals.
Besides...when and where would you play the games of an 8 team, 3 week playoff that won't result in 1) lots of empty seats, 2) directly competing against the NFL, 3) eating into in-conference basket home attendance, and/or 4) yet another dopey argument about so and so team getting homefield advantage?
I would put the first round of the 8 man playoff in the home stadium of the higher ranked team. That would reward fans of that team and generally fill the seats for the first round. That game could be held before Christmas. The second and third rounds would be in the traditional bowls.
This right here. Give everyone a week off and play the first round 2 weeks after the conference championships. Then keep the Final 4 in the same place. The losers of the opening round could still play each other in a bowl game at a neutral site.
It could look something like this...
Auto-bids go to P5 champs and best G5 team. 2 At-large spots are selected.
This year it would have looked something like:
#1 Clemson hosting #8 UCF (Friday Dec 15 @ 8PM)
#4 Alabama hosting #5 Ohio State (Saturday Dec 16 @ 8:30PM)
Winners to Sugar Bowl
#2 Oklahoma hosting #7 USC (Saturday Dec 16 @ 4PM)
#3 Georgia hosting #6 Wisconsin (Saturday Dec 16 @ noon)
Winners to Rose Bowl
4 losers get placed into 2 NY6 bowls
2 other NY6 bowls select at-large teams
I will be honest, in a year where #'s 1-3 are clear cut, I almost wanted to see the committee put UCF in that fourth spot. They were undefeated and won their conference. Put them is as a fourth seed and let them play Clemson.
Bama getting in is an indicator that the whole damn thing is rigged.
Bama has the same number of wins, less than OSU against top 25 competition. There is no in-game indications that they're better. Maybe next year the committee should just announce they they automatically get a spot and everyone else is fighting for the other 3.
What do you mean no in game indications that they are better? Alabama looked absolutely dominant pretty much all year except on the road against a hot Auburn team with a healthy Kerryon Johnson. Ohio State got trashed twice this season, once by a pretty mediocre Iowa team by 31. If you think there weren't any in-game indicators you weren't watching either team this season.
Team A: Won conference, won division, two top ten wins, three top 15 wins, total O: 6, total D: 8
Team B: Lost conference, lost division, zero top ten wins, zero top 15 wins, total O: 20, total D: 2
But I'm sure Team B "looked" better.
Dude you can only play the teams on your schedule, and Alabama looked great against all but 2 of them and they only lost one.
These resumes have been all kinds of messed up this year. Clemson's gotten so much credit for beating a bunch of teams while they were missing all their important players and nobody brings it up at all, but everyone is so quick to shit on Alabama because (and nobody in their right mind guessed this) FSU would go 6-6 without Francois. Plus that LSU win is solid and Miss St with Fitzgerald is a good team as well. In all their games against teams that weren't great but still talented (Tennessee, A&M) they looked very strong. And they took care of business against the bad teams. Every other team shit the bed against and subpar opponent except Georgia.
So why isn't UCF in? After all, they didn't pick their schedule and never lost!
Alright, we don't even really have to go there do we? do we? Are we comparing UCF's schedule to Alabama's? Because you know that they aren't even close. This narrative got shot down even on CFB subreddit, and that place might have more hivemind obsession over UCF than anywhere else on the internet.
I'm just saying your logic is not consistent and only plays to who you personally think "looks" better. And until you can define what "looks" like means, then you are essentially making college football a beauty pageant.
My logic has been very consistent in all our arguments about the playoff dating back to last year, I want the best teams in the playoff, regardless of whether they win their conference, and I'm not going to ignore losses to bad teams or blowout losses.
Yeah it will be difficult to define what "looks" like means as it is a mix of subjective and objective analysis. You can see which teams are playing with great technique in the trenches on both sides of the ball, which teams play sound in the secondary, which teams linebackers scrape effectively and maintain gap integrity and position themselves to make plays, and how teams perform when they need to convert third downs in important moments in the game. However the eye test is not some new concept I made up. Different people have different levels of expertise in what they are looking at when they are watching football.
Your arguments have been wildly inconsistent. You ignore strength of schedule when it benefits you and claim that losses matter only to ignore the losses that actually matter. EDITED
Okay first of all, I just said above the main things I have been arguing for. And I have been very consistent in how I view and talk about teams with bad losses and blowout losses. I have also been very consistent in that I don't think conference championships are a prereq criteria to get the best four teams into the playoff. If your biggest knock on me is that I am not always totally consistent on SOS, then I am fine with that because I have openly questioned the accuracy of some of these SOS rankings for many years, because they don't seem to accurately account for all the variables and injuries in the equation. I was particularly confounded by several teams SOS rankings this season, because I just didn't see it when I go through the schedule game by game.
Also, regardless of what football analysts I read, that shot seems a little pointless. Wouldn't you rather people like @smartfootball (or Chris B. Brown so as not to reduce him to reduce a writer to his twitter handle), who know what they are watching, make judgement calls on which teams "look" better than yourself? I know I would. I have lots of issues with the committee, but I'm really glad people on college football forums don't get to pick the teams for the playoff, it would be the "fighting injustice playoff" every year between whichever G5 team had the best storyline and 3 non blue-bloods because we gotta "fight the bias" (i.e. people just hate teams that are consistently good) every year.
Call me old school but I'd rather take any sort of "look" out of the equation and leave it to more definable metrics. And the smart football shot was just a joke about the nature of your comments defending your own perceived football knowledge, since you think its more than a joke I'll remove it.
Didn't Team A lose by 31 to a 7-5 team?
Losses don't count anymore unless they are to a good team, haven't you heard?
They looked dominant against who? A conference where every loss is a "good loss" and every win is a "quality win", regardless of how good every team is (minus Vandy)?
I'm sorry, the eye test should be used for tie breaking resumes (or in the case of UCF, correcting blatent omissions in comparing resumes). If the committee says they're committed to considering championships, they should put their money where their mouths are, because I'm just not seeing Alabama's body of work outside of the conference championship (that they didn't participate in) overriding OSU's resume.
You can't just be mad that a certain team got in unless you have an argument for some other team to get in.
We're choosing from
That's Ohio State, USC, Wisconsin, and Bama. All bad choices, but you have to go with one of them, sadly. I hate that Alabama got in, but it's not like it was some unbelievable snub. There are 3 obvious contenders and a bunch of also-rans. Bama happened to be the only one without a glaring weakness. Sometimes that's how it goes.
That's pretty much what I was saying about a certain claim regarding 2015 Michigan State.
I'm not too torn up about it since I think its pretty funny karma from last year, but Bama only got in on reputation. Their resume is weak compared to OSU, shrug.
If only Alabama had lost to a 7-5 team by 31, then their resume might have stood a chance against tOSU's.
Or winning against their only top 15 opponent. That might have helped them to even win their division.
Or played a team with a pulse. But I guess winning games doesn't really mean much these days. #playtolose
Played a team with a pulse? Do you think we would beat LSU? Do you think we would beat Miss St with a healthy Fitzgerald? Do you think we would beat FSU if they had Deandre Francois?
Maybe? But to insinuate "none of those teams have a pulse" is fucking ridiculous. If that's your criteria, we beat zero teams with a pulse this season, and lost to one that definitely didn't have a pulse.
LSU and Miss State benefit from the absurd boosts that SEC teams get in the rankings. They will just in and out of the rankings due to unjustified poll inertia. I mean LSU lost to troy...
And no, that schedule doesn't have a pulse compared to OSUs schedule. But like I said, maybe they should have just scheduled Mercer instead of Oklahoma, then they would be in the playoffs right now.
Then they would have missed the playoffs last year...
My favorite reactions over the weekend were the Ohio State fans who were whining about how this effectively devalued the Conference Championship.
The irony was delicious.
That being said, I don't disagree that I would rather the conference title games actually mean something. The best teams don't always win, and I'd much rather see Ohio State this year and Penn St last year get in by virtue of winning it on the field rather than being the prettiest girl at the ball, which is what ended up happening. This website would be apoplectic if we won the ACC over a Top 4 program when we ourselves were a Top 8 team only to get left out over someone who didn't play that weekend, and rightfully so.
This is pretty much exactly how I feel. In every other sport conference/division champions mean something. Wild cards should be picked after champions.
I really don't envy the committee because there are just so many variables to consider.
Think about this. Had OSU scheduled a G5 team, or hell, even an FCS team like Mercer, they would be in the playoffs right now. But instead they scheduled OU and lost. Even with the blowout loss to Iowa, I guarantee a 12-1 Big10 champ gets in over Bama this year.
And this is where I have issues with the theory that the CFP will lead to more "big game" OOC matchups. Seems like avoiding those helps if you win.
But this is exactly what would happen if you moved to the conference championship being a prereq for playoff entry in a 6 team field with all 5 champs, and the highest ranked of all the G5 champs. At that point, there is no real penalty for playing that kind of big game, and you'll see schools willing to schedule tough OOC to rake in the money before the 'real' season gets underway.
Agreed. Making the conference championships a tie-in means that no one will care about scheduling the big matchups. It's a tough situation and there really isn't an absolute answer without secondary issues.
That's why you don't just do the conference champions. Even an 8-team playoff would have two at-large bids. A 16-team playoff would have between 6 and 10 at-large bids depending on if you take all ten conference champions or just the highest ranked Group of Five champion. Also, seeding would be done based on ranking so playing a tougher schedule and succeeding means an easier path to the title in the playoff.
Oh gosh, 16 teams sounds like way too many. Even 8 sounds like a lot to me. I could see 6 as a viable option though, but I would think the consequences of a first round bye would be too beneficial to justify.
16 is nothing. I-AA runs 24, and that's with three of their thirteen conference champions abstaining from the tournament: the Ivy League, who has chosen not to play in post-season football since 1956 for academic reasons, and the MEAC and SWAC, whose champions both play in the Celebration Bowl (but other teams can still earn at-large bids).
That's 24 of 115 teams (123 counting the Ivy) with an 11 game regular-season schedule, thirteen conferences and no conference championship games. That includes eight first round byes.
I-A/FBS currently has 130 teams playing a 12- or 13-game schedule (permitted if you travel to Hawai'i to play a regular season game) + conference championships in all ten conferences starting next year.
DII plays a 14-team tournament with 170 teams, DIII plays a 32 team tournament for 249 teams.
IAA - 24/123 = 19.51%
IA - 16/130 would be 12.31%
DIII - 32/249 = 12.85%
DII - 14/170 = 8.24%
I wouldn't be opposed to just making it a super playoff with 16 teams and shorten the regular season back to 10 games without any FCS games. Then all 10 conference winners + an independent have an opportunity and Team Chaos can really shine late in the season. This makes the conference champion a tie in but still leaves spots for teams that are clearly better than most of the field with a conference championship loss to get in.
Given the last two years, I think the committee is saying:
Scheduling and *beating* tough OOC opponents is a good thing.
Is everybody forgetting our loss to 7-5 FSU in the first ever ACC Championship? That sent a bad FSU to the BCS bowl in our place despite our MUCH better resume. Some times the better team loses, it happens.
OSU benefited from their decision that overall record mattered more last year, and this year it cost them.
You have to win the games that matter.
So conference championships don't matter? or games against ranked opponents? OSU DID win the games that matter....Bama did not....
Just my $.02. You have this backwards. Bama took care of business, and the Iowa game did matter.
So we're all rooting for Shane and Georgia, right? Just a little street cred to throw around when he comes back home to be head coach in 2023! /s
Honestly forgot he was even there...
I feel like one thing is for sure, whoever the powers at be would be smart to keep the playoff at 4, and imo it is what is 1000% best for business.
This is correct. But you are opening a rabbit hole that is a few 1000 posts deep over the last few years.
Really it is the only answer and I'm prepared to die on this hill. In a weird way I like going down the rabbit hole between here, r/cfb, 11W, or wherever just seeing how crazy people go over the system makes me surprised that they don't have to call in the National Guard to protect the committee,