2024 CFB polls/rankings - Texas #3/ #2 /#2 (CFP/AP/Coaches)

[satyanash 14782]

54 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Agreed, plus you're saying that the winner should get a benefit but the loser should suffer no consequence. That's silly and is exactly why I think I've only heard conference commissioners and their media lackeys make this argument.

If you penalize a CCG loser in favour of a team that didn't make its CCG, you are directly rewarding a team for playing poorly enough to not make its CCG. That's far sillier. It's exactly what happened in 2007 when Kansas jumped ahead of Missouri for the Orange Bowl at-large spot, and it was seen as ridiculously unfair at the time.

By that logic, if SMU loses then BYU should be the one to jump Alabama. BYU went 10-2 and dodged their CCG just like 9-3 Alabama and 10-2 Tennessee by finishing third in the Big 12. They also have a head-to-head win over SMU. And if not BYU, then it should be Miami, who also dodged their CCG by finishing third in the ACC. There are too many arguments for other teams to get that final at-large spot.

Edited 5 hours ago by satyanash

[Hermanator 7296]

This system is difficult because of the extremely unbalanced quality level of the conferences. SEC is top to bottom the best, Big 10 has some great top talent but a ton of garbage from the middle down, and the others are basically g5 level. Very difficult to judge a 1 loss SMU equally with teams that played SEC schedules. Clemson just got beaten by a mid tier SEC team, and I'll be surprised if SMU beats Clemson. 

[MrX 745]

Here’s how I see it, based on an assumption they won’t penalize a CCG loser from one of the P4 conferences by knocking them out of the field  

In no matter what:  Texas, Georgia, Oregon, Penn State, ND, Indiana, Ohio State (lol this system sucks), Tenn, SMU, Big 12 winner, MWC winner. 
 

That leaves a spot. Clemson gets it if they win. If not, I could see Miami getting it just so they don’t have to deal with the SEC 3-loss issue. I don’t think BYU will be above Miami when the rankings come out tonight, and they can’t help their case. 
 

I could also see the committee picking SCar on the hot hand theory if they decide they need another SEC team. 
 

 

[BurntOrange&White 40459]

4 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

This system is difficult because of the extremely unbalanced quality level of the conferences. SEC is top to bottom the best, Big 10 has some great top talent but a ton of garbage from the middle down, and the others are basically g5 level. Very difficult to judge a 1 loss SMU equally with teams that played SEC schedules. Clemson just got beaten by a mid tier SEC team, and I'll be surprised if SMU beats Clemson. 

That is why byes should never be a thing in college football.

[The Dog 44189]

19 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I understand that the computers like Clemson enough to have them matching SMU, but I view that as evidence of bias. I don't know how they're biased, but I've lived long enough to know that designers weave their biases into their creations. Some sort of weighting to recent history in prior seasons or some shit wouldn't be surprising.

I bring that up only because I think having Clemson as a pick'em against SMU is fucking dumb. Clemson doesn't have the dudes that they've had in the past. SCar looked substantially bigger than Clemson on both fronts. On the SMU end, they are very fast and not lacking for size compared to Clemson. They also have an electric QB that will give the same Clemson defense that shit itself against Sellers fits. 

I don't think it's bias but rather how much they weigh strength of schedule (in this case).

Clemson's out of conference SOS is significantly tougher than SMU's having played both Georgia and South Carolina. Clemson is getting a pretty big boost in their models due to those games IMHO.

 

Edited 5 hours ago by The Dog

[dcar00 14609]

16 minutes ago, MrX said:

Here’s how I see it, based on an assumption they won’t penalize a CCG loser from one of the P4 conferences by knocking them out of the field  

In no matter what:  Texas, Georgia, Oregon, Penn State, ND, Indiana, Ohio State (lol this system sucks), Tenn, SMU, Big 12 winner, MWC winner. 
 

That leaves a spot. Clemson gets it if they win. If not, I could see Miami getting it just so they don’t have to deal with the SEC 3-loss issue. I don’t think BYU will be above Miami when the rankings come out tonight, and they can’t help their case. 
 

I could also see the committee picking SCar on the hot hand theory if they decide they need another SEC team. 
 

 

I get what you are saying on SCAR but I really hope the hot hand thing doesn't come into play in football.  not enough games to really know about a "hot hand" like basketball or baseball.

[MrX 745]

Just now, dcar00 said:

I get what you are saying on SCAR but I really hope the hot hand thing doesn't come into play in football.  not enough games to really know about a "hot hand" like basketball or baseball.

I agree but it’s probably a mandatory consideration when you’re trying to tiebreak 3 teams that all have 3 losses.  You can poke holes in each team’s résumé all day long. They have 3 losses!

[Crockett 498]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

OK, so you claim Alabama is less deserving than BYU, because it has one more loss, and one of the two 6-6 teams that beat it, did so solidly. 
 
OK, Army has one less loss than BYU. Army lost to a CFP team, on the road, while BYU’s worst loss was at home to a 5-7 Kansas team. 
 
Do you agree Army has a better argument than BYU for an at large?

[statsman 5514]

16 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Ok, now that we have established that you can’t just go off the number of losses, that context matters, tell me why BYU should be in the CFP instead of Alabama. Do you think BYU is better, that they would beat Alabama? 
 
What would be the argument for BYU getting in ahead of the B12 CG loser?

[sidis 9846]

21 minutes ago, Crockett said:

byu should have cemented its spot in there the minute alabama got its ass blasted by shitass ou.

but then they went and lost to kansas at home (a week after they should have lost to utah). that killed any argument they had in my mind.

[Js1 85765]

1 minute ago, sidis said:

byu should have cemented its spot in there the minute alabama got its ass blasted by shitass ou.

but then they went and lost to kansas at home (a week after they should have lost to utah). that killed any argument they had in my mind.

BYU's argument would be that they beat the ACC champ (if SMU wins), lost a close one to the Big 12 champ (if ASU) and lost a close game to a hot Kansas at home.  Meanwhile, Bama got assblasted by a shitty OU and lost to both Tenn and Vandy. 

10-2 > 9-3

Of course, if Georgia wins on Saturday, Bama has a win over the SEC champ, a top-15 SoCar team and top 25 (somehow) Mizzou. 

[sidis 9846]

8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

BYU's argument would be that they beat the ACC champ (if SMU wins), lost a close one to the Big 12 champ (if ASU) and lost a close game to a hot Kansas at home.  Meanwhile, Bama got assblasted by a shitty OU and lost to both Tenn and Vandy. 

10-2 > 9-3

Of course, if Georgia wins on Saturday, Bama has a win over the SEC champ, a top-15 SoCar team and top 25 (somehow) Mizzou. 

i have to say, i have obviously enjoyed this season a great deal as a passionate texas fan. giving up one total offensive touchdown to the combination of ou, arkansas, and agros (none at home) is fun. going to michigan and beating that ass is fun. choosing not to run up on the score on go gata. ohio state losing two games, clemson sucking, usc sucking.

but the one thing that has pissed me off to an extremely irrational point all season is watching missouri stay ranked all year. they have to be the biggest fucking fraud in the history of college football and for some reason, it annoys the ever loving shit out of me that they are getting credit for beating (ranked for quality):

vandy (by 3 in overtime at home)

ou (by 7 at home)

arkansas (by 7 at home)

auburn (by 4)

miss state

boston college (by 6 at home)

umass

buffalo

murray state

they played four road games - and the only one they won was basement miss state. they got fucking raped by the agros, bama, and lost at south carolina by an average of 23 points. fuck off missouri...you have no business sniffing any respect.

[Js1 85765]

I mean, is Mizzou continuously staying ranked to prop up Bama?

[Crockett 498]

24 minutes ago, statsman said:

Ok, now that we have established that you can’t just go off the number of losses, that context matters, tell me why BYU should be in the CFP instead of Alabama. Do you think BYU is better, that they would beat Alabama? 
 
What would be the argument for BYU getting in ahead of the B12 CG loser?

Don't be such a dipshit. I already explained my reasoning vs Alabama. My original argument was BYU getting in over SMU if SMU loses in the CCG and then you slide in with akshually... Now you are moving the goalposts again and asking about BYU getting in over the CG loser, an argument I haven't been making. If ASU loses the CG they should get in over BYU due to H2H. With Iowa State, there's an argument to be made for BYU.  

I don't think the SEC is all that (and I definitely don't think the Big 10 is all that, although Oregon looks exceptional) and I think BYU can compete against any SEC team (I don't think we'd beat Texas this year). Every SEC team is beatable. GT took Georgia to 8 OTs. We beat Arkansas last year (and we were a 5-7 team), we beat Tennessee in 2019, we beat MSU in 2016, we beat Ole Miss in 2011. We lost to Texas last year, but you know the record before that with Taysom Hill. We've had success against the SEC. 

[Crockett 498]

33 minutes ago, sidis said:

byu should have cemented its spot in there the minute alabama got its ass blasted by shitass ou.

but then they went and lost to kansas at home (a week after they should have lost to utah). that killed any argument they had in my mind.

You are not wrong. BYU should have handled it's business. What pisses me off is all the fart sniffing about the Big 10 and SEC getting 4 teams in over 1 team in the Big 12. 

[Js1 85765]

Just now, Crockett said:

You are not wrong. BYU should have handled it's business. What pisses me off is all the fart sniffing about the Big 10 and SEC getting 4 teams in over 1 team in the Big 12. 

“BYU should have handled its business”

Same with Bama and Ole Miss lol

[The_Great_Hornsby 3348]

1 hour ago, markstanco said:

You can take Oregon and Penn state out and add tOSU and Michigan last week and that statement would be the same. Yet here we are. 

Rivalry games are not the same. 

[LTtxfan 49406]

15 hours ago, WBT said:

Along with Miami, the Big 12 CG loser and BYU should be getting consideration to go ahead of the 3 loss SEC teams also.  I don't get the lack of respect of the committee for the Big 12 vis a vis the ACC and Boise.  The power rankings have the Big 12 as the 2nd best conference.

This is sarcasm right??? 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Big 12 is lucky to get 1 team into the CFP this year...

[89Horn 1622]

22 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Don't be such a dipshit. I already explained my reasoning vs Alabama. My original argument was BYU getting in over SMU if SMU loses in the CCG and then you slide in with akshually... Now you are moving the goalposts again and asking about BYU getting in over the CG loser, an argument I haven't been making. If ASU loses the CG they should get in over BYU due to H2H. With Iowa State, there's an argument to be made for BYU.  

I don't think the SEC is all that (and I definitely don't think the Big 10 is all that, although Oregon looks exceptional) and I think BYU can compete against any SEC team (I don't think we'd beat Texas this year). Every SEC team is beatable. GT took Georgia to 8 OTs. We beat Arkansas last year (and we were a 5-7 team), we beat Tennessee in 2019, we beat MSU in 2016, we beat Ole Miss in 2011. We lost to Texas last year, but you know the record before that with Taysom Hill. We've had success against the SEC. 

You had a plausible argument until you started talking about wins BYU had last year and going back 13 years ago.  None of that shit matters this year.  Talk about moving goal posts.  You just replaced them with a hockey goal.

Edited 4 hours ago by 89Horn

[BurntOrange&White 40459]

If we beat Georgia this Bama/S Carolina/Ole Miss argument is moot. 

 

 

[Hermanator 7296]

Any ranking that has the big 12 as the second best conference is shit. There's not one big 12 team beating any of OSU, Oregon, Penn St. Indiana would have won the big 12 most likely. 

It's a conference with a lot of decent g5 level teams. 

[Crockett 498]

4 minutes ago, 89Horn said:

You had a plausible argument until you started talking about wins BYU had last year and going back 13 years ago.  None of that shit matters this year.  Talk about moving goal posts.  You just replaced them with a hockey goal.

The only reason Bama probably gets in is because of historical performance, because this year's performance hasn't been great. I wasn't moving goalposts, just making a point on the unfairness of the SEC getting 4 teams in as if SEC teams are so much better (they're not). 

[statsman 5514]

4 minutes ago, Crockett said:

The only reason Bama probably gets in is because of historical performance, because this year's performance hasn't been great. I wasn't moving goalposts, just making a point on the unfairness of the SEC getting 4 teams in as if SEC teams are so much better (they're not). 

Alabama would be a ten point favorite over BYU in a neutral site game. They would be a TD favorite over the highest rated B12 team, ISU

[HookEm 2470]

I don't think Indiana has that much better of a resume than Iowa State and it isn't even a consideration to keep them out. Using Massey rankings for easy of use:

ISU 

• Wins: #24 K-State, #28 Iowa, #30 Baylor, #47 WV, #54 Utah, #57 Cinci
• Losses:  #34 Tech by 1, at #49 Kansas by 9
• SoS: #48

Indiana

• Wins:  #16 Michigan, #35 Washington, #41 UCLA, #45 Nebraska
• Losses: at #5 OSU by 23
• SoS: #61 

Nice OOC you have there Indiana.  #113 Charlotte, #126 Florida International, UR W. Illinois. For fucks sake.  At least ISU plays Iowa.  If you don't play a single Power 5 or highly respected other school like Notre Dame, Boise, then F you. You don't deserve to make it.

[Drew 2664]

6 hours ago, TexArcher said:

 

 

Strongly disagree with all of this.

The CCG's are for championships.  Co-champs have always been stupid and unsatisfying to both sets of fans.  Championships go on the wall, championship games are good for recruiting, and the games themselves are massively interesting to fans, including neutrals.

And giving the byes to 4 conference champions keeps some of the drama of the regular season.  3-loss aggy was still alive for a playoff spot because they had a chance to upset Texas and then win the CCG.  It keeps more teams alive longer, which makes more games late in the season matter, which is a good thing.

Seeds 1-4 are artificially generated?  By games on the field, as opposed to pollsters' ranking them 1-12 and bestowing byes based on the eye test?  Yeah, this is just wrong.

 

The still would be. Give the top 5 conference auto bids still.  Just not lock them in to the Top 4 spots.

 

There is NO reason the 8th ranked SMU(or lower Clemson) should get the 3 seed or 10th-12th ranked Boise/Big 12 champ gets the 4 seed over the other teams.

Give the Conference champs playoff births, but then seed based on the rankings.

You could even get away from the committee and use the god damn AP to slot them.

5 hours ago, Not a cat said:

If bama sneaks in at 12, it's going to completely screw up this theory that 5 is the sweet spot.  I know this isn't the traditional dominant Saban bama team, but I can list a number of teams I'd much rather play in the first round.

they wouldn't I suspect that IF Bama were to get in, they'd be ranked 11 or 12 this week AHEAD of any Big 12 team, meaning they'll slide up when Miami slides out most likely.

If Bama makes the playoffs they'll be at worst the 11 seed.

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

The AP has ASU at No. 12 and ISU at No. 16. I think the winner will jump Bama to No. 11 and get the 11 seed with Bama getting the 12 seed, assuming SMU wins the ACC CCG and is the only ACC team in the field.

Why would you think that?  I think the Big 12 winner is 12, unless UNLV beats Boise, then they're 12 and the Big 12 champ is 4(LOL)

38 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Any ranking that has the big 12 as the second best conference is shit. There's not one big 12 team beating any of OSU, Oregon, Penn St. Indiana would have won the big 12 most likely. 

It's a conference with a lot of decent g5 level teams. 

Ah, you're confusing the top of the conference with the strength of the conference.  The same shit we used to say about the SEC.  Bama ran it for a Decade plus, and every once in a while LSU or Georgia would prop it up too...but under those top 4/5 teams they weren't any better than the Big 12.

 

The Big 12 is a deep and competitive conference.  NO  their Top 4 teams wouldn't win all their games against the 4 best SEC/Big 10 teams.  But 5-12 would hang easily with the 5-12 for the other conferences.  And they don't have Miss St or Purdue in the Big 12.

Edited 3 hours ago by Drew

[Texas Wahoo 3499]

45 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Any ranking that has the big 12 as the second best conference is shit. There's not one big 12 team beating any of OSU, Oregon, Penn St. Indiana would have won the big 12 most likely. 

It's a conference with a lot of decent g5 level teams. 

Those four teams might be better than any team in the Big 12, but the rest of the Big Ten is shit, which is why none of them lost to any of the other Big Ten Teams except for tOSU on Saturday.  It's hard to tell how good any of those teams are, because except for tOSU, they all only played one good team (tOSU).  

[TexArcher 38423]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

I mean, is Mizzou continuously staying ranked to prop up Bama?

 

I mean, the first expanded playoff featuring SMU, Boise State, and Indiana but not Alabama, Michigan, or Clemson is what everyone wanted, right??

[89Horn 1622]

13 minutes ago, Crockett said:

The only reason Bama probably gets in is because of historical performance, because this year's performance hasn't been great. I wasn't moving goalposts, just making a point on the unfairness of the SEC getting 4 teams in as if SEC teams are so much better (they're not). 

BS.  That’s not what you said.  You prefaced with that the SEC is not all that and that BYU could compete against any SEC team.  You didn’t even mention Bama in your post.  You were touting why BYU is better than Bama over its history of past wins v. SEC teams.  That’s as irrelevant as the number of losses BYU has had against other non-SEC opponents in that same time period.  Let’s just say those other teams are, ahem, not of the same caliber as the SEC.  But, I agree that this year’s resume should be the measuring stick.

[Sawbonz 27783]

Is the goal to get  the 12 best teams or the 12 most successful in terms of negotiating their respective schedules?

[Hermanator 7296]

18 minutes ago, Drew said:

The still would be. Give the top 5 conference auto bids still.  Just not lock them in to the Top 4 spots.

 

There is NO reason the 8th ranked SMU(or lower Clemson) should get the 3 seed or 10th-12th ranked Boise/Big 12 champ gets the 4 seed over the other teams.

Give the Conference champs playoff births, but then seed based on the rankings.

You could even get away from the committee and use the god damn AP to slot them.

they wouldn't I suspect that IF Bama were to get in, they'd be ranked 11 or 12 this week AHEAD of any Big 12 team, meaning they'll slide up when Miami slides out most likely.

If Bama makes the playoffs they'll be at worst the 11 seed.

Why would you think that?  I think the Big 12 winner is 12, unless UNLV beats Boise, then they're 12 and the Big 12 champ is 4(LOL)

Ah, you're confusing the top of the conference with the strength of the conference.  The same shit we used to say about the SEC.  Bama ran it for a Decade plus, and every once in a while LSU or Georgia would prop it up too...but under those top 4/5 teams they weren't any better than the Big 12.

 

The Big 12 is a deep and competitive conference.  NO  their Top 4 teams wouldn't win all their games against the 4 best SEC/Big 10 teams.  But 5-12 would hang easily with the 5-12 for the other conferences.  And they don't have Miss St or Purdue in the Big 12.

South Carolina finished 6th in the SEC and would win the Big 12. The big 12 has a lot of teams close to each other so it's competitive, but those teams are all g5 level talent. 

Arizona St is playing for a big12 title this weekend and they barely beat Mississippi State by 7. At home. Their other non conference wins were over Texas St and Wyoming. The other title game team is ISU who beat Iowa by 1 pt. Iowa finished 5th in the Big 10 but only played 1 team that finished in the top 8 in the Big 10. They lost to Ohio St by 28. 

Hell we won a better version of the big 12 last year with one of the worst secondaries in the country. 

Florida might have won the big 12 this year. It's a bunch of low level teams that beat up on each other but no one else of any note. 

The playoffs will probably expose whoever gets in from the big 12, ACC, and Boise. At least we finally get to see if it happens on the field. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Hermanator

[Drew 2664]

Oh c'mon some of that aint true and you know...Florida winning the Big 12? With as awful as they were to start the year?  Yes they finished strong, but they wouldn't have.  SC might have, just depending on matchups, and are literally one of the hottest teams in football right now.

BTW I clearly said i wouldn't pick any Big 12 team to compete with the top of SEC/Big 10 just that as conferences, they're competitive is all.

[AeroHorn 781]

19 hours ago, Left Coast said:

Fuck it.

UT wins the SEC

Oregon wins the B1G

Arizona St wins the Big XII

SMU wins the ACC

 

Welcome to realignment bitches!

Advantage: PAC12

[Deej 77183]

ND needs to be ineligible for the playoffs until they join a conference. Fuck them. 

[Hermanator 7296]

My point is the only big 12 or ACC team that deserves to be in the playoff is the conference champions, and that's only because they get an auto bid. Those conferences are so bad their conference champion won't be a top 12 team if purely ranking the best teams. 

Absolutely Florida could have competed for a big 12 title. Colorado did and they got hammered by a shit Nebraska team that didn't even finish in the top half of the Big 10. And the Big 10 only goes 4 deep with teams that could be considered good when compared to the top half of the SEC. 

[sidis 9846]

12 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

South Carolina finished 6th in the SEC and would win the Big 12. The big 12 has a lot of teams close to each other so it's competitive, but those teams are all g5 level talent. 

Arizona St is playing for a big12 title this weekend and they barely beat Mississippi State by 7. At home. Their other non conference wins were over Texas St and Wyoming. The other title game team is ISU who beat Iowa by 1 pt. Iowa finished 5th in the Big 10 but only played 1 team that finished in the top 8 in the Big 10. They lost to Ohio St by 28. 

Hell we won a better version of the big 12 last year with one of the worst secondaries in the country. 

Florida might have won the big 12 this year. It's a bunch of low level teams that beat up on each other but no one else of any note. 

The playoffs will probably expose whoever gets in from the big 12, ACC, and Boise. At least we finally get to see if it happens on the field. 

can't do the transitive property stuff in cfb this year. cfb is too fucking whacky this year.

if so, oklahoma state did not win a single game in the big 12 this year (bonkers by the way), but they beat arkansas who beat tennessee who is 3rd in sec and beat bama who beat georgia who beat texas.

it's all a bit silly this year.

that said, there really is not a team in the big 12 this year that i would be particularly angsty about playing. november asu and september byu would be the two teams that would be the least comfortable going into the game but the rest of them would be an assbeating in my estimation and i would rather play those two teams right now than south carolina.

regardless, i would happily take games against indiana or penn state (at home) first and foremost above anyone.

[Hermanator 7296]

20 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

 

I mean, the first expanded playoff featuring SMU, Boise State, and Indiana but not Alabama, Michigan, or Clemson is what everyone wanted, right??

I'm fine with it, but neither Clemson or Michigan are legitimately in the 12 best teams in the country. 

If based on how good they can be when playing right Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Alabama are better teams than Boise, SMU, or Iowa State. Probably better than Indiana as well. They just played schedules that are so much more difficult than those 4 teams that are ranked ahead of them. The disparity in schedule difficulty is insane. The big 12 only played 3 non conference games, and as far as I know Iowa is the best non conference win in the conference. It's the little sisters of the poor beating up on each other then calling the ones that only ended up with 2 losses playoff worthy.  

[Hermanator 7296]

3 minutes ago, sidis said:

can't do the transitive property stuff in cfb this year. cfb is too fucking whacky this year.

if so, oklahoma state did not win a single game in the big 12 this year (bonkers by the way), but they beat arkansas who beat tennessee who is 3rd in sec and beat bama who beat georgia who beat texas.

it's all a bit silly this year.

that said, there really is not a team in the big 12 this year that i would be particularly angsty about playing. november asu and september byu would be the two teams that would be the least comfortable going into the game but the rest of them would be an assbeating in my estimation and i would rather play those two teams right now than south carolina.

regardless, i would happily take games against indiana or penn state (at home) first and foremost above anyone.

You can't look at a single game then translate it out like that, that's stupid, but you can look at the overall conference and see who did they play? Who did they beat? 

I'm not saying to keep them out of the playoffs. Put both SMU and Clemson and both ISU and ASU in if you want. Makes our road easier. But top to bottom there's far more talented teams that played far more difficult schedules that lost more games but would beat those teams. 

I'll be surprised if the playoffs don't expose every non SEC and Big 10 team in the playoff. I hope they seed it so those teams get Big 10 and SEC team matchups in the first 2 rounds and we can see for ourselves. 

[JBJ 3685]

3 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

How exactly does the bowl selection work for the second round?

There is no exactly.  The committee places them as they see fit with preference shown towards higher seed teams.

Kinda like the basketball tournament.

Edited 2 hours ago by JBJ

[BurntOrange&White 40459]

Just now, JBJ said:

There is no exactly.  The committee places them as they see fit with preference shown towards higher seed teams.

Is that preference geographically based? 

[immamac 43571]

CCG need to go away is all we learned this season. 

[JBJ 3685]

Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

Is that preference geographically based? 

I would bet a #1 B1G would be placed in the Rose Bowl, so not necessarily but mostly geographic is probably correct.

[statsman 5514]

3 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

You can't look at a single game then translate it out like that, that's stupid, but you can look at the overall conference and see who did they play? Who did they beat? 

I'm not saying to keep them out of the playoffs. Put both SMU and Clemson and both ISU and ASU in if you want. Makes our road easier. But top to bottom there's far more talented teams that played far more difficult schedules that lost more games but would beat those teams. 

I'll be surprised if the playoffs don't expose every non SEC and Big 10 team in the playoff. I hope they seed it so those teams get Big 10 and SEC team matchups in the first 2 rounds and we can see for ourselves. 

Disagree some what. 
In 2022, a TCU team that really wasn’t much better than Texas beat Michigan in the semifinal. They used Duggan as a runner, which opens a lot of stuff up in college football. It’s like a cheat code 
 
But, he had 16 carries against Michigan, and he wasn’t recovered the next week when they played Georgia. 
 
In the 12 team playoff, I think B12 teams and ACC teams can win some first round games. They call it a “puncher’s chance”. I don’t think you will see them do well the second round. Lack of size on the lines will hurt them. 

[Crockett 498]

59 minutes ago, statsman said:

Alabama would be a ten point favorite over BYU in a neutral site game. They would be a TD favorite over the highest rated B12 team, ISU

What was the spread before the Oklahoma game? 

[Hermanator 7296]

5 minutes ago, statsman said:

Disagree some what. 
In 2022, a TCU team that really wasn’t much better than Texas beat Michigan in the semifinal. They used Duggan as a runner, which opens a lot of stuff up in college football. It’s like a cheat code 
 
But, he had 16 carries against Michigan, and he wasn’t recovered the next week when they played Georgia. 
 
In the 12 team playoff, I think B12 teams and ACC teams can win some first round games. They call it a “puncher’s chance”. I don’t think you will see them do well the second round. Lack of size on the lines will hurt them. 

It'll be nice to see what happens. 

The counter to that is I think that TCU team was far better than any big 12 team this year. The last 2 years of conference realignment and portal/NIL have really decimated those big 12 and ACC teams from a talent standpoint. I think we'll see the gap got a lot wider in 2 years. 

There may be a single upset, but I'll be surprised if there's more than that. 

[statsman 5514]

3 minutes ago, Crockett said:

What was the spread before the Oklahoma game? 

What is your point? Yes, upsets can and do happen. What point are you making?

[hornmpa96 2632]

As I read this thread, I take some measure of satisfaction that the argument is focused on which team is the 11th or 12th best team in the country (instead of the 3rd or 5th).

Progress!!

[chainsaw 10015]

If Michigan wanted to make the playoff they shouldn't have lost 5 games.

If Clemson wants to make the playoff they need to beat SMU.

If Iowa State wants to make the playoff they need to beat Arizona State.

If Alabama wanted to make the playoff they shouldn't have lost to ousux.

I'll be honest, I don't know why Pedo State got into the CCG over Indiana, but whatever the reason is, Indiana doesn't control its own destiny. I would advocate for Indiana to sneak in over the B1G CCG loser, even if that loser is Oregon.

I would prioritize qualification in the following order of importance:

1. exactly 3 teams qualify from SEC (UGA, Tex, Tenn)
2. at most 3 teams qualify from B1G (Oregon, Pedo, IU)
3. exactly 1 team qualifies from Big12 (CCG winner)
4. exactly 1 team qualifies from ACC (CCG winner)
5. at most 1 Independent team qualifies if they have 10+ wins (ND)
6. outstanding G5s quaify if they have 10+ wins and only quality losses (Boise)

Based on this year's results, ten teams would qualify for the playoffs, leaving two discretionary slots.

My sense is that the committee is going to have the following priorities:

1. Ohio State (10-2)
2. SMU if it loses the ACC CCG (11-2)
3. Miami (10-2)
4. Arizona State if it loses the Big12 CCG (10-3)
5. Iowa State if it loses the Big 12 CCG (10-3)
6. Ole Miss (9-3)
7. SCar (9-3)

I would prefer that SMU and Arizona State got in, because I don't want to see B1G over-represented and I don't think Miami is any good.

Assuming those twelve teams qualify, I think they should be seeded:

1. Oregon (13-0) - B1G Champ
2. Texas (12-1) - SEC Champ
3. Boise (12-1) - MWC Champ
4. Clemson/Arizona State (11-2) - ACC/Big12 Champ
5. Pedo (11-2)
6. Georgia (10-3)
7. Notre Dame (11-1)
8. Clemson/Arizona State (11-2) - ACC/Big12 Champ
9. Indiana (11-1)
10. SMU (11-2)
11. Tennessee (10-2)
12. Ohio State (10-2)

[Hermanator 7296]

The committee has said the conference title game loss won't count against a team for the playoff. So the committee needs to decide this week which teams are in regardless and which teams need a title game win to be in. Then just adjust for upsets. 

They really need to keep record of this process then release it to the public after the playoffs are set. Be transparent with your reasoning. 

[Crockett 498]

52 minutes ago, 89Horn said:

BS.  That’s not what you said.  You prefaced with that the SEC is not all that and that BYU could compete against any SEC team.  You didn’t even mention Bama in your post.  You were touting why BYU is better than Bama over its history of past wins v. SEC teams.  That’s as irrelevant as the number of losses BYU has had against other non-SEC opponents in that same time period.  Let’s just say those other teams are, ahem, not of the same caliber as the SEC.  But, I agree that this year’s resume should be the measuring stick.

For clarity's sake, let me summarize my recent points:

• If SMU loses in the CCG, BYU deserves to be in the playoff over SMU.
• I was asked why BYU is more deserving of getting into the playoff over Bama, which I answered.
• I was making a secondary point about the SEC not being all that and does not deserve 4 playoff spots this year while the Big 12 deserves only 1. I included BYU's recent historical wins over SEC teams as a point that BYU can compete against SEC teams, generally-speaking, and by extension I think the top of the Big 12 can compete with most of the SEC (Texas seems to be on another level this year, tho). The SEC usually has 1-3 elite teams each year, but beyond that is mid to bad. 
• I do not think BYU is a better team or program historically over Bama. 

[Huckleberry 33567]

1 hour ago, Hermanator said:

Any ranking that has the big 12 as the second best conference is shit. There's not one big 12 team beating any of OSU, Oregon, Penn St. Indiana would have won the big 12 most likely. 

It's a conference with a lot of decent g5 level teams. 

Except the Big Ten has more than 4 teams.