College Football 2023

[Unocal]

5 hours ago, Germanshepherd said:

I get why people think the committee will bend over backwards to put Bama/SEC in over more deserving teams but that’s just never been the case. 
 

Two times an SEC team has made it without winning its conference. 
 

One was 2017, where Alabama was the only one-loss option, every other P5 champion/good team had two losses. 
 

If you’re a UCF homer who thinks they should have made it instead, in that case mad respect welcome to the club, but its an unpopular cause the committee never takes seriously. 

 

I believe what really ended up being a pivot point for 2017 was Penn State losing to Ohio State. If PSU holds on and wins, they have 1 loss (by 3 at Sparty) and would face undefeated Wisconsin. That would have boxed out Bama.

 

What happened instead was 2 loss OSU wins Big 10. If the B1G was guaranteed undefeated or 1 loss, they don't.

 

When Ohio State beat Wisconsin, that made the committee's job easier.

[Unocal]

2 hours ago, See Red said:

For what it's worth, BetMGM has Alabama as the second best odds to win the NC right now.

 

 

 

Games should matter more than odds.

[Unocal]

if you don't let in a 13-0 conference champion, then what's the point of the power 5?

[Unocal]

being in the SEC is not criteria for making the playoff.

 

1 loss SEC champions making the playoffs is a privilege, not a right

 

[Cujo]

Let's be honest here. If record, stats, wins are the exact same as Alabama's, but the name on the front of the jersey was "Missouri" or "Kentucky", this wouldn't even be a discussion.

[Unocal]

Just now, Cujo said:

Let's be honest here. If record, stats, wins are the exact same as Alabama's, but the name on the front of the jersey was "Missouri" or "Kentucky", this wouldn't even be a discussion.

 

This.

[See Red]

52 minutes ago, Unocal said:

if you don't let in a 13-0 conference champion, then what's the point of the power 5?

The point of the Power 5 is that it’s five conferences that have autonomy with regards to certain rules as it relates to the well-being of student athletes. It does not mean and has never meant that the five conferences are equals or seen as equals as it relates to how good their football teams are or how difficult they are to win. 
 

I shared the Vegas odds because I think they’re relevant to how Vegas may see the selection committee’s decision playing out.

[MJWalker45]

7 hours ago, See Red said:

 

I mean in regards to Alabama-FSU.  Texas is in, no doubt, in my opinion.

 

This comes down to if Alabama should be punished for scheduling and losing to the #3 team while FSU didn't play a comparable opponent.  There's not really a good answer there's no precedent to either getting left out.  And the one that makes the most sense on paper (FSU) means putting in the team that would be a heavy underdog between the two.  The key here is that the one win FSU can hang their hat on (LSU), Alabama can match.  Without that, there's no conversation, imo.  I'm indifferent.  To me it's the difference between watching FSU get throttled in a playoff game vs having to listen to FSU fans complain about how they were screwed before their team sits out a bowl game and they got throttled by, like, Georgia.

FSU scheduled and beat the potential Heisman trophy winner on a neutral field. That has to count just as much as the Alabama loss to Texas.

[McCall]

I was on board with "If FSU wins out, they should be in"...

 

But that game last night was just boring as hell. I can't, myself, see them deserve to get in. And it's the ACC, the weakest of the Power 5.

 

My personal belief would be:

1. Michigan

2. Washington

3. Texas

4. Alabama

 

But it'll probably be:

1. Michigan

2. Washington

3. Texas

4. Florida State (Don't care if they're undefeated, the other teams are clearly better.)

[oldschoolvikings]

It should be;

 

Michigan

Washington

Texas

Alabama

 

I have no idea if it will be, tho.  
 

Florida State is no better than the ninth or tenth best team.  IDGAF about conference championships.  

[MJWalker45]

26 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

It should be;

 

Michigan

Washington

Texas

Alabama

 

I have no idea if it will be, tho.  
 

Florida State is no better than the ninth or tenth best team.  IDGAF about conference championships.  

The committee has said they value championships. It has to acknowledge this one even if the game was horrible to watch. The backup should be back by December 31, so that will be taken into consideration as well. 

[McCall]

Really, can you argue that FSU going undefeated in a weaker conference is better than Texas and/or Alabama winning their championships in their stronger conferences with only 1 loss? We're not talking an undefeated vs a 2-loss. It's only 1. And that's small enough to weigh the strength of the overall and individual opponents. 

 

The Power 5 Champions:

ACC: Florida State 13-0

Big 10: Michigan 13-0

Big 12: Texas 12-1

PAC-12: Washington 13-0

SEC: Alabama 12-1

 

I don't think a one game discrepancy is enough to overrule quality of the teams and their schedules.

[McCall]

3 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

The committee has said they value championships. It has to acknowledge this one even if the game was horrible to watch. The backup should be back by December 31, so that will be taken into consideration as well. 

Texas and Alabama won their championships in stronger conferences. Alabama went undefeated in conference play, their only loss coming to non-conference Texas. Florida State beat LSU at the beginning of the season. But since then has played a weaker schedule and have a back-up or 3rd string QB. Barely beat Louisville and looked bad doing it. Same thing against Florida.

[oldschoolvikings]

IMO (which, sure, means basically nothing) not only would Florida State lose to any of the other conference champions, they’d probably also lose to Oregon, and Ohio  State.  And Georgia would smash them.

 

 

If the committee puts FSU in they probably have to stop talking about how it’s about the best teams and not about “earning “ it.  

[BBTV]

I'm sure that everyone wants my opinion, as someone that's watched all of two halves of college football all year (and one of those halves was the 2nd of last night's Alabama/Georgia game).  Feel free to say "if you don't care, why do you care?"  The answer is that I'm just bored.

 

In this ridiculously-ridiculous system that should be ridiculed relentlessly, they should select the four teams that would have the least chance of being blown out by any of the others.  What you did in week 2 should have no bearing on that, if you've fixed your weaknesses and are truly the best team right now.

 

If the best playoff includes a 1 or 2 loss team over an undefeated conference champion that most feel would be blown out, then so be it.  This isn't a "real" playoff.  It's all made up anyway, with no rules as to selection. 

 

Next year is different, though everyone will be arguing about whether a team like Georgia should get one of the at-large bids over some undefeated team that eyeballs say wouldn't finish 6th in one of the 2 major leagues, which, if that system was in place today, of course they should.  

 

 

 

 

[McCall]

Here the teams that have a possibility of making the CFP (listed alphabetically). Based on strength of the team/schedule, who are the top 4?

 

Alabama 12-1, SEC

Florida State 13-0, ACC

Michigan 13-0, BIG TEN

Texas 12-1, BIG 12

Washington 13-0, PAC-12

 

ALL are conference champions, so this is not a case of an undefeated champion vs a 1-loss non-champion/non-making-conference-championship-game scenario. We're not debating Florida State vs Ohio State getting in. Undefeated champion vs 1-loss champion is very much within reason to simply take the four best teams by strength of team/schedule. No way Florida State is in the top 4 of conference champions on that list.

 

EDIT: If Alabama had lost to Auburn last week and then beat Georgia, as a 2-loss SEC Champion, I would then give the benefit of the doubt to undefeated Florida State.

 

[PrimalCookie]

I think FSU would get thrashed by Alabama and Georgia, and will likely be thrashed by whichever of Michigan or Washington they play.

 

BUT

 

What are we even doing here if we leave out an undefeated P5 champion? If we're valuing the results of imaginary games over real ones, why bother having a season at all? Just pick the "best 4" in July and get it over with. Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan. There you go. Who needs to play games?

 

I'm a Florida fan. I want FSU to miss out because it'd be hilarious if they did. But Vegas odds do not and should not decide the field, what you did over the course of the season decides it. We have three undefeated champions, and the two 12-1 champions played each other. This should be an incredibly easy decision that's only complicated because the one on the outside looking in is Alabama.

[infrared41]

7 hours ago, Cujo said:

Let's be honest here. If record, stats, wins are the exact same as Alabama's, but the name on the front of the jersey was "Missouri" or "Kentucky", this wouldn't even be a discussion.

 

That works both ways. If records, stats, and wins are the exact same as Florida State's, but the name on the front of the jersey was NC State or Syracuse, this wouldn't even be a discussion. Alabama would be in. The committee leaves "pedigree" out its criteria, but we all know it matters.

[burgundy]

Wins and losses have to matter. If all we're doing is deciding who are the "best" teams, and disregarding actual wins and losses, then why even play the playoff games? If all that matters is the voters' opinion of who is better, then we're right back to pre-BCS bullsh!t. If all that matters is who looks best, just choose a champion and be done with it.

 

 

[tBBP]

Alright, enough of this "ACC is the weaker conference" narrative horse.  Here are the numbers as of 25 November:

 

This season the ACC went 6-4 against the SEC, 4-3 against B1G, but 0-2 against the B12, for an overall out-of-conference (OOC) of 12-9. (Of note: the ACC has played the most OOC games of all the P5s, mainly thanks to Florida State.)

 

The "perceived to be mighty" SEC? (Though Georgia and Bama clearly are, no disputing that.) 4-6 vs the "weak" ACC, 1-2 vs the B12, 2-1 vs the Pac-12. They played no B1G teams. Their overall OOC record? 7-9.

 

Want more? Here's the B1G for you: 3-4 vs the "weakest" ACC, 2-1 vs the B12, 0-3 vs the Pac-12. Overall OOC? 5-8.

 

How about that Pac-12? 3-1 versus the B12, 3-0 vs B1G, 1-2 vs the SEC. Their final OOC record? 7-3.

 

Then there's the B12, the only P5 conference to play games against each of the other four P5s: 2-0 vs the ACC, 1-2 vs B1G,  1-3 vs the Pac-12 and 2-1 vs the SEC. Overall OOC? 6-6.

 

So y'all look at those numbers and determine for yourself who's the strongest and who's the weakest again, after it was all said and done between the lines.

 

If more people would dead the media narratives, see past the bias and look at things for themselves, they may be surprised at what they find. Maybe...the ACC is stronger than people give it credit for? Maybe...the SEC isn't as strong as the media machine-driven bias would have folks think?? Maybe, just maybe...the Pac-12 may have a chance???

 

Now I'll stand by to see who'll go to what lengths to tear into all this, BUT...as Isiah Thomas would say, "those are the facts".