Jump to content

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

TKthunder2

By TKthunder2
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

tbone_

tbone_ 14297

Posted
Posted
Yes, the CCG games need to go away, If conference leaders have identical records, make them co-champions or whatever, and the highest ranked team to get the autobid. It’s not a great game now given the expanded playoff, just lets players get injured w/o adavancing interest, except to networks and advertisers.

This. Meaningless now.

Other than when we beat Georgia to win the fucking SECSECSECSEC.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

The Dog
The Dog
Bill Lumbergh
Bill Lumbergh

I'd rather stay behind Georgia until they come to Austin.  Same way I felt about being behind SC in 05.  I'd rather have something to prove than something to defend.

closetojumping
closetojumping

You say a lot of stupid shit and you do it at a rapid, voluminous rate. You’re like a shit howitzer, just fucking blasting the board with constant bullshit. 

Posted Images

statsman

statsman 5522

Posted
Posted

Here are the Sagarin rating final regular season numbers:

http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm
 
Sagarin does a sophisticated least squares algorithm that has a goal of assigning a rating to teams that helps explain game outcomes, and therefore can predict potential game outcomes. Sagarin differentials correlate positively with Vegas point spreads and even outcomes. 
 
Texas is #2. We are half a point behind #1 NotreDame, meaning we would be half point dogs on a neutral field. That’s great for Texas, but to me, the interesting thing is the distribution at the top end of the scales. Looking at these for several years, usually the top teams have Sagarin ratings in the mid to high 90s. This year, the top teams are around 90. 
 
Does this mean there is more parity? I think so. I would attribute that to the portal, in that teams aren’t forced to go through seasons with flawed position groups, as they were before. 
 
also of note- five of the top 10 are SEC teams. Three are B1G. SMU is the lone ACC team in the top 10. 
 
The first B12 team comes in at 17. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 33608

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, statsman said:

Here are the Sagarin rating final regular season numbers:

http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm
 
Sagarin does a sophisticated least squares algorithm that has a goal of assigning a rating to teams that helps explain game outcomes, and therefore can predict potential game outcomes. Sagarin differentials correlate positively with Vegas point spreads and even outcomes. 
 
Texas is #2. We are half a point behind #1 NotreDame, meaning we would be half point dogs on a neutral field. That’s great for Texas, but to me, the interesting thing is the distribution at the top end of the scales. Looking at these for several years, usually the top teams have Sagarin ratings in the mid to high 90s. This year, the top teams are around 90. 
 
Does this mean there is more parity? I think so. I would attribute that to the portal, in that teams aren’t forced to go through seasons with flawed position groups, as they were before. 
 
also of note- five of the top 10 are SEC teams. Three are B1G. SMU is the lone ACC team in the top 10. 
 
The first B12 team comes in at 17. 

He also has the Big 12 as the 2nd best conference, which you conveniently omitted.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 38440

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, El Squared said:

Yes, the CCG games need to go away, If conference leaders have identical records, make them co-champions or whatever, and the highest ranked team to get the autobid. It’s not a great game now given the expanded playoff, just lets players get injured w/o adavancing interest, except to networks and advertisers.

 

7 hours ago, dcar00 said:

Seeds 1-4 are artificially generated via conf champ bye.  the only way to fix it is rank 1-12.

 

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.

 

Edited by TexArcher
  • Hook 'Em 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
statsman

statsman 5522

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

He also has the Big 12 as the 2nd best conference, which you conveniently omitted.

I never pay much attention to those- conferences don’t play games, but teams do. Looking at it, I see there is a greater difference between the first and second conference than there is between the second and fourth. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The_Great_Hornsby

The_Great_Hornsby 3352

Posted
Posted
56 minutes 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 best solution to all of this is to require that everyone play an out of conference opponent in their final week of the regular season and that means the entire conference slate has been played prior to the final week. Then you have the conference championship games among the teams that qualified while everyone plays one of their out of conference opponents. The teams that had their games cancelled can play each other so they get a full schedule.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14623

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour 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.

 

yes because of what the 5 seed gets.  especially in the 2nd round.  the 4 seed is not the 4th highest ranked team and may be the 11th highest ranked team because they won the mountain west.  would you rather be the 5 seed playing Boise at home and then ASU at neutral site to get to the semis or say Alabama or Ohio State at a neutral site.

The NCAA tournament ranks 1-64 and then goes from there. 

I understand the drama part.  if say aggy won they get in but they should be the 11th or 12th seed. if the conf champs were aggy, ASU, Boise, Oregon, Clemson, that's great they all get in, but  3 of those should not be seeds 2,3,4.

 

 

Edited by dcar00
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22784

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour 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.

 

Yeah, I'm fine with the current structure.  The byes for conference champions angle might be the only thing keeping any eyes outside the SEC/BIG which is good for the sport.  If you REALLY want to make conference championships meaningless, take away that bye week reward.

There were years where I was absolutely convinced the Big 12 was stronger than the SEC as a whole, but pollsters did not agree.  This ensures that those champions will have a fair shot to prove themselves.

Also, I've seen a lot of whining about the 5-seed path and how it's not fair.  More often than not, the 5 seed will be a top 2-3 team in the country.  Some years, it will be a team that was #1 and lost in the conference championship game.  A decent draw of seeds, but having to play one extra game, seems like a fair result.

Edited by Chuckie Finster
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LTtxfan

LTtxfan 49423

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 10/28/2024 at 5:55 PM, LTtxfan said:

Not a fan of teams playing 3 times unless the 3rd time is in the CFP Championship... I won't be surprised to see conference championship games being eliminated soon.

⬆⬆⬆⬆ 

Go ahead and set up a 16 team playoff

 

Edited by LTtxfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
closetojumping

closetojumping 63409

Posted
Posted
10 minutes 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.

The conversation should be about 6/11. The 12 seed goes to UNLV or the Big 12 winner.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13448

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Red Five said:

How does this work? The 5/12 game is played on the day/time of the 5 seed's choosing? 

Pretty sure it is played at the day and time of the TV networks choosing. It is a home game of the 5th seed though.

Anyway even if the 12 seed is a G5 school or the Big 12 winner it seems rather ridiculous to just assume this is an automatic 50-0 easy game for the 5th seed. Let's at least see the playoff happen a few times first.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
field

field 238

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Red Five said:

How does this work? The 5/12 game is played on the day/time of the 5 seed's choosing? 

The teams do not get to choose the day/time they play.  While the CFP hasn't said one way or the other, my guess is that the first play-in game on 12/20 will be the one that plays into the Fiesta Bowl because that game will be played on 12/31, the day before the other three quarterfinal games on 1/1.  The Fiesta Bowl will get the Big 12 or G5 champ, which means it will likely get the 4 seed.  So it makes sense that the 5/12 game will be played on 12/20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
field

field 238

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

He's referring to the quarters and semis where I think the highest seed picks location (top seed picks first and so on) but TV picks day and time. 

Teams do not get to pick the quarterfinal locations.  Those are dictated by historic bowl relationships and rankings (read: SEC - Sugar, Big 10 - Rose, ACC - Peach, Big 12/G5 - Fiesta).  The CFP says that the first seed will receive "preferential placement" for the semifinal games.  

 

CFP Selection FAQ's

 

Spoiler
  • The 12 participating teams will be the five conference champions ranked highest by the CFP selection committee, plus the next seven highest-ranked teams.
  • The ranking of the teams will continue to be done by a selection committee.
  • The four highest-ranked conference champions will be seeded one through four and will receive a first-round bye. The fifth conference champion will be seeded where it was ranked or at No. 12 if it is outside the top 12 rankings. Non-conference champions ranked in the top four will be seeded beginning at No. 5. Because of this, the seeding, 1 through 12, could look different than the final rankings.
  • The eight teams seeded No. 5-12 will play in a first round with the higher seeds hosting the lower seeds either on campus or at other sites designated by the higher-seeded institution (No. 12 at No. 5, No. 11 at No. 6, No. 10 at No. 7 and No. 9 at No. 8.).
  • The selection committee will assign the four highest-ranked conference champions to Playoff Quarterfinals hosted by bowls. This will be done in consideration of historic bowl relationships, then in consideration of rankings. For example, if the Sugar Bowl hosts a Playoff Quarterfinal and the SEC champion is ranked No. 1 and the Big 12 champion is ranked No. 3, the SEC champion would be assigned to the Sugar Bowl and the Big 12 champion would be assigned elsewhere.
  • With the four highest-ranked conference champions assigned to bowls, their four Playoff Quarterfinal opponents will be dictated by the bracket (i.e., No. 1 vs. No. 8/9 winner, No. 4 vs. No. 5/12 winner, No. 2 vs. 7/10 winner; No. 3 vs. 6/11 winner.)
  • The College Football Playoff bracket will follow the selection committee’s rankings, with no modifications made to avoid rematches between teams that may have played during the regular season or are from the same conference.
  • The bracket will remain in effect throughout the playoff (i.e., no re-seeding).
  • The highest seed will receive preferential placement for the Playoff Semifinal bowl assignment.
  • All 11 games will be under the CFP umbrella with the administrative policies determined by the CFP.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
General Specific

General Specific 3377

Posted
Posted
 
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.
 

CCG’s are about the $ most years. Take this year for B10 and SEC for example, Oregon won all their games in conference, Texas finished with one loss. A case could be made that these two teams are their conference champions.

The CCG puts Oregon and Texas in jeopardy, and for what, fans, $, recruiting (no visits are allowed). The two heavyweights in each conference get to play one more game risking injury and a loss. All for what, since both the winner and loser are getting in this year. Sounds meaningless to most if you can already call Oregon and Texas champions.

Meanwhile, Tennessee, and Ohio State get a bye while the CCG happens? Sure, they may play a higher seeded opponent the first week.

Texas will play Georgia with a decent chance of playing them a third time if it all works out. When should Georgia be eliminated? How many chances do they get?

Either reduce the playoff format to 8 with CCG’s that mean something (elimination if you lose), or expand to 16 and get ride of them.

It’s better today than the polls picking 1 & 2. It’s better than the BCS. Hell, it’s better than the 4 team playoff, but it still sucks!
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ztejas

ztejas 43752

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, General Specific said:


CCG’s are about the $ most years. Take this year for B10 and SEC for example, Oregon won all their games in conference, Texas finished with one loss. A case could be made that these two teams are their conference champions.

The CCG puts Oregon and Texas in jeopardy, and for what, fans, $, recruiting (no visits are allowed). The two heavyweights in each conference get to play one more game risking injury and a loss. All for what, since both the winner and loser are getting in this year. Sounds meaningless to most if you can already call Oregon and Texas champions.

Meanwhile, Tennessee, and Ohio State get a bye while the CCG happens? Sure, they may play a higher seeded opponent the first week.

Texas will play Georgia with a decent chance of playing them a third time if it all works out. When should Georgia be eliminated? How many chances do they get?

Either reduce the playoff format to 8 with CCG’s that mean something (elimination if you lose), or expand to 16 and get ride of them.

It’s better today than the polls picking 1 & 2. It’s better than the BCS. Hell, it’s better than the 4 team playoff, but it still sucks!

Agreed. It's a stupid fucking system that is already being exposed in its first year. 

Hopefully we can dial it in better in the coming years.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fud

Fud 9578

Posted
Posted

The 7 vs 10 matchup will almost certainly be an SEC vs Big 10 game, and they probably won't put Texas and Georgia on the same side of the bracket, so I don't think a two-seed Texas will see Georgia as the seven seed. I think we'd see something like Penn State (7) vs Bama (10), or Tennessee (7) vs Indiana (10) to avoid the third matchup before the title game

If SMU sneaks in as an at-large, they'll be the 11 seed and we'll miss them 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21919

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think SMU is in even with a loss and even over Alabama. They said that teams would not be punished for participating in CCGs so if they are in before the game they should be in afterward regardless of outcome. SMU would be in if the seeding was today. The Big XII runner-up isn't in as of right now so only the champ gets in this year. If they let Bama in over a runner-up SMU who should be viewed as a one loss team vs a three loss Bama the committee will do to CCGs what they said they would not, and even though its the ACC, it would not be good for the system. But I really think SMU wiill win and will be the only ACC team in so Bama will get a spot.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21919

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Pretty sure it is played at the day and time of the TV networks choosing. It is a home game of the 5th seed though.

Anyway even if the 12 seed is a G5 school or the Big 12 winner it seems rather ridiculous to just assume this is an automatic 50-0 easy game for the 5th seed. Let's at least see the playoff happen a few times first.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fud

Fud 9578

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I think SMU is in even with a loss and even over Alabama. They said that teams would not be punished for participating in CCGs so if they are in before the game they should be in afterward regardless of outcome. SMU would be in if the seeding was today. The Big XII runner-up isn't in as of right now so only the champ gets in this year. If they let Bama in over a runner-up SMU who should be viewed as a one loss team vs a three loss Bama the committee will do to CCGs what they said they would not, and even though its the ACC, it would not be good for the system. But I really think SMU wiill win and will be the only ACC team in so Bama will get a spot.

This is all still up in the air. We'll see on Tuesday. Most likely they'll sort it to keep their options open for another week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13448

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Well for starters, Alabama has 3 losses. They also got smoked by Oklahoma, a 6-6 team, and only scored 3 points. BYU beat the likely ACC champ on the road and its two losses are by a combined 9 points. 

So what Alabama got blown out by shitty teams? They are called 'Alabama' so they are in.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14623

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Well for starters, Alabama has 3 losses. They also got smoked by Oklahoma, a 6-6 team, and only scored 3 points. BYU beat the likely ACC champ on the road and its two losses are by a combined 9 points. 

They beat Georgia which is the litmus test for college football...apparently.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WBT

WBT 20766

Posted
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, General Specific said:

CCG’s are about the $ most years. Take this year for B10 and SEC for example, Oregon won all their games in conference, Texas finished with one loss. A case could be made that these two teams are their conference champions.

That's how it worked for those 2 conferences this year but the CCG will be needed more as the conferences have gotten too big AND dropped divisions.  Eventually a conference is going to have 3 teams go undefeated in conference and 1 will be left out of the CG due to strength of schedule.

Edited by WBT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WBT

WBT 20766

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, 'stache said:

They said that teams would not be punished for participating in CCGs so if they are in before the game they should be in afterward regardless of outcome.

Has anyone on the committee said this or has this been media speculation?  I don't watch the tuesday espn show.

There already too few games to rank the teams.  It seems silly to ignore the CGs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 38440

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, LTtxfan said:

⬆⬆⬆⬆ 

Go ahead and set up a 16 team playoff

 

This is a dangerous road.  If we go to 16, eventually somebody will want to make it 32, then aggy is making the playoffs about 1/3 of the time, which makes a farce of the whole thing.

 

 

 

Snicker.  Chortle.  Wheeeeeeeeeeeee!!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 33608

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, WBT said:

Has anyone on the committee said this or has this been media speculation?  I don't watch the tuesday espn show.

There already too few games to rank the teams.  It seems silly to ignore the CGs.

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. 

Yes losing a CCG against a highly ranked opponent shouldn't hurt you very much but that's the same with any matchup of top teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
statsman

statsman 5522

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Well for starters, Alabama has 3 losses. They also got smoked by Oklahoma, a 6-6 team, and only scored 3 points. BYU beat the likely ACC champ on the road and its two losses are by a combined 9 points. 

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?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burt Macklin

Burt Macklin 19132

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

think SMU is in even with a loss and even over Alabama. They said that teams would not be punished for participating in CCGs so if they are in before the game they should be in afterward regardless of outcome.

The committee has said a lot of things and their hit rate on following through isn’t great. I don’t buy that teams wont be punished for losing. Especially if SMU loses. Their SOS is around 75th depending on the metric you use and their best win currently is an 8-4 Louisville. The only team currently in the top 25 they’ve played all year is BYU and they lost. If they also lose to Clemson and have no top 25 wins all year, the committee is absolutely going to punish them. 
 

And that’s probably the right move. SMU doesn’t deserve to be in the playoff if they don’t beat Clemson this week. Their schedule has been easier than every other CFP contender and their ELS (expected number of losses for a team 2 standard deviations above the mean) is .6 (84th in the country), so they’re actually underperforming the record  a playoff-quality team should have with their schedule currently. 

Edited by Burt Macklin
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HookEm

HookEm 2472

Posted
Posted

I think the committee is going to want to put 4 SEC teams into the tourney.  Selecting Bama would result in the most backlash, especially after last year.  They have two good alternatives in Ole Miss and South Carolina. My guess is that if SMU loses, one of them will get in over Bama.  I want it to be South Carolina just to see the meltdown by Ole Miss and Bama, who both beat the cocks.

  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 44215

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Fud said:

The 7 vs 10 matchup will almost certainly be an SEC vs Big 10 game, and they probably won't put Texas and Georgia on the same side of the bracket, so I don't think a two-seed Texas will see Georgia as the seven seed. I think we'd see something like Penn State (7) vs Bama (10), or Tennessee (7) vs Indiana (10) to avoid the third matchup before the title game

If SMU sneaks in as an at-large, they'll be the 11 seed and we'll miss them 

This - I don't believe the committee when they say they don't care about rematches. There's no way UGA and Texas are facing each other any earlier than the semis. They'll rank the teams accordingly to avoid that.

59 minutes ago, ztejas said:

The more I think about it the more I think that SMU dog walks Clemson and a lot of this discussion is silly. 

Neither team has any really good wins other than SMU's win at Louisville (who beat Clemson). Both Sagarin and Massey have this game as a toss-up. I think that's due to Clemson's games against USCe and UGA (even though they were losses).

A lot of the national coverage is assuming a Clemson win over SMU with SMU getting the last at large. Bama getting in is completely dependent on SMU winning and the committee ignoring the other 2 loss teams.

35 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Well for starters, Alabama has 3 losses. They also got smoked by Oklahoma, a 6-6 team, and only scored 3 points. BYU beat the likely ACC champ on the road and its two losses are by a combined 9 points. 

The only 3 loss team that is getting in would be Georgia if they lose next week. Their schedule was brutal and have a boatload of quality wins. 

23 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

They beat Georgia which is the litmus test for college football...apparently.

Georgia has been doing all of the heavy lifting for Bama and Ole Miss - largely due to their win in Austin.

Something we need to consider is what happened last year - the #1 team losing its conference championship game changed things dramatically. Alabama beating Georgia knocked out TWO teams from the top four last year. 

Here were the week 13 rankings:

1. UGA

2. Michigan

3. Washington

4. FSU

5. Oregon

6. Ohio State

7. Texas

8. Alabama

And then week 14 with Bama beating UGA:

1. Michigan

2. Washington

3. Texas

4. Alabama

5. FSU

6. UGA

7. Ohio State

8. Oregon

Both Massey and Sagarin consider Oregon and Penn State a toss-up. What if PSU beats the Ducks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 44215

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, HookEm said:

I think the committee is going to want to put 4 SEC teams into the tourney.  Selecting Bama would result in the most backlash, especially after last year.  They have two good alternatives in Ole Miss and South Carolina. My guess is that if SMU loses, one of them will get in over Bama.  I want it to be South Carolina just to see the meltdown by Ole Miss and Bama, who both beat the cocks.

The problem with South Carolina is that they lost to both Bama and Ole Miss. 

The problem with both Bama and Ole Miss is each has a terrible loss (Bama to OU and Ole Miss to Kentucky). 

That's why Finebaum thinks all three get left out - there's no point in debating the three when there are other 2-loss teams available to consider.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Js1

Js1 85828

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

This 12 team playoff is fucking stupid. Should be 6 max with 2 byes. The rest is just filler for TV ratings. 

People who advocate for fewer teams and games are so weird to me. 

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 14
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
closetojumping

closetojumping 63409

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, The Dog said:

This - I don't believe the committee when they say they don't care about rematches. There's no way UGA and Texas are facing each other any earlier than the semis. They'll rank the teams accordingly to avoid that.

Neither team has any really good wins other than SMU's win at Louisville (who beat Clemson). Both Sagarin and Massey have this game as a toss-up. I think that's due to Clemson's games against USCe and UGA (even though they were losses).

A lot of the national coverage is assuming a Clemson win over SMU with SMU getting the last at large. Bama getting in is completely dependent on SMU winning and the committee ignoring the other 2 loss teams.

 

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. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...