-
Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.
2015 Buckeyes Football
- Thread starter AZ_
- Start date
col63onel
Brad Daugherty Fan Club
- Joined
- May 3, 2008
- Messages
- 20,139
- Reaction score
- 26,544
- Points
- 235
When it makes you (potentially) not the best team in your division, yes.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 4,398
- Reaction score
- 18,541
- Points
- 123
Clemson - in ACC title game
Bama - in SEC title game
Oklahoma - won Big 12
Iowa and Mich St - In Big Ten title game
Stanford - in Pac 12 title game
UNC - in ACC title game
They all have a better case than OSU to be in the final four. Any team that doesn't make conference championship or win the title should not be in final four.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2008
- Messages
- 15,903
- Reaction score
- 28,572
- Points
- 135
I agree with that. I'm just saying I think we have the "best loss" of all te one loss teams.
It is proving to be the one game we couldn't afford to lose though.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 6,240
- Reaction score
- 5,160
- Points
- 113
Why? I thought the idea was to get the 4 best teams into the playoff, hence why we went to a human committee to choice it. The knock on the buckeyes is it was a tough close loss, but we looked bad, no where near a top 4 team, and it was in the second to last week of the year. Had it been in week 5, I think we could make a better case, if we were coming off winning 3-4 games blowout fashion.
Rich
Saucin'
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 45,714
- Reaction score
- 70,126
- Points
- 148
I don't buy this. Winning a conference title, sure. But just getting there? Just because Iowa plays in the easy side of the conference or because UNC hasn't played anyone worth a damn in their half of the conference (the worst division in the Power Five) doesn't mean they should get extra points for "getting there." Now, you manage to beat the best team from the other side of the conference, ok. But they gotta win and if they don't, there is no good reason to put them ahead of Ohio State. If Iowa gets smoked by MIchigan State, they should be considered ahead of Ohio State just for getting to the title game? I don't buy it.
EDIT: And North Carolina shouldn't get in unless they really pound Clemson. You can't schedule two FCS teams and lose to a 3 win team out of conference and then proceed to have the easiest of easy conference schedules and get in based on one single win. Their resume up to this point is too weak. If Stanford clobbers USC, or Iowa and Michigan State play a classic, those teams should go before UNC.
Last edited:
Steve_424
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 10,586
- Reaction score
- 13,228
- Points
- 123
Eventually they'll move to an eight team playoff and everything will be much better. Give auto-bids to the Power 5 conference champions, 1 auto-bid to the Group of 5 (highest ranked by CFB Playoff committee), and 2 at-larges (selected by committee) This year would look something like this going into championship week:
1-Clemson (ACC)
8-Houston (AAC)
3-Oklahoma (Big 12)
6-Michigan State (Big 10)
4-Iowa (Big 10)
5-Stanford (Pac 12)
2-Alabama (SEC)
7-Ohio State (Big 10)
Of course, Notre Dame might slip ahead of OSU, Michigan State, or Iowa depending on the Big 10 title game, but you get the point. I know some might argue Houston's inclusion, but I feel an inclusive playoff would have to include at least one team outside of the Power 5.
Surely the debate would then move to arguing who should get the 2 at-large bids, but Power 5 teams would know without a doubt that by winning their conference, they'd be controlling their own destiny.
1-Clemson (ACC)
8-Houston (AAC)
3-Oklahoma (Big 12)
6-Michigan State (Big 10)
4-Iowa (Big 10)
5-Stanford (Pac 12)
2-Alabama (SEC)
7-Ohio State (Big 10)
Of course, Notre Dame might slip ahead of OSU, Michigan State, or Iowa depending on the Big 10 title game, but you get the point. I know some might argue Houston's inclusion, but I feel an inclusive playoff would have to include at least one team outside of the Power 5.
Surely the debate would then move to arguing who should get the 2 at-large bids, but Power 5 teams would know without a doubt that by winning their conference, they'd be controlling their own destiny.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 4,398
- Reaction score
- 18,541
- Points
- 123
The college football playoff website says on there that they place an emphasis on winning conference championships, SOS and head to head when comparing teams with similar records.
If you go off the first thing listed, winning conf titles, OSU doesn't meet that. Plain and simple. You can argue SOS all day for every team as to whether it's good or not. Then head to head, you can say if MSU loses to Iowa, that they still deserve it more cause they beat UM and OSU. If OSU lost earlier in the year, you can make the case but losing this late, sorry.
If you go off the first thing listed, winning conf titles, OSU doesn't meet that. Plain and simple. You can argue SOS all day for every team as to whether it's good or not. Then head to head, you can say if MSU loses to Iowa, that they still deserve it more cause they beat UM and OSU. If OSU lost earlier in the year, you can make the case but losing this late, sorry.
Rich
Saucin'
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 45,714
- Reaction score
- 70,126
- Points
- 148
Right. And nowhere does it mention anything about "getting to the conference title game." So I'd like to hear an argument how UNC is currently more deserving.
Steve_424
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 10,586
- Reaction score
- 13,228
- Points
- 123
Auto-bids remove much of the subjectivity in the current process. We are talking less about SOS and more about which team proved to be the best in their conference. I am actually of the belief that you shouldn't win the National Title if you can't win your conference, so this idea bends a tad in that respect to include two at-larges.
Rich
Saucin'
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 45,714
- Reaction score
- 70,126
- Points
- 148
When there were more conferences and the conferences were smaller, I agreed with this.
Now, because of how large the conferences are, I no longer do. When two teams can be in the same conference and play vastly different schedules within that conference, I don't think you can just broadly claim this.
Frankly, think about how silly it is that Alabama is considered a lock as opposed to say Ohio State, or the loser of the Big 10 title game. Alabama has zero wins over a current top 25 team. But, because their division was pretty mediocre and the team they lost to not elite, that loss didn't hurt them as far as making it to their title game. It seems rather odd that a team can essentially be rewarded for playing in a worse division in a worse conference and losing to a worse team than someone else contending for a playoff spot, doesn't it? If Ole Miss had simply won their games, Alabama doesn't make the conference title game. Ole Miss losing those games is something completely out of Alabama's hands and not something that they should be rewarded for.
Steve_424
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 10,586
- Reaction score
- 13,228
- Points
- 123
For what it's worth, Sagarin has Alabama 5th in SOS, well ahead of each Big 10 team.
To your point, I'd argue that teams benefiting from playing in weaker conferences tends to balance out over time. Ask last year's National Champions about that. With that said, I will always believe if you win a Power 5 conference championship that you're a pretty damn good team, so I have no problem there. With that said, under my scenario Bama and the Big Ten champion would be locks and either OSU or the MSU/Iowa loser would have a great chance of getting in.
Last edited: