Will 2 teams from the same conference make the playoffs ???

[wgbeethree]

So... just thought this needs to get pointed out. Alabama's signature win this year and Troy's signature win this year are against the same team.

[bootsy]

5 hours ago, BroncoSojia said:

Watching the ESPN playoff show, it's funny how they have Kirk Hirbstreit and Joey Galloway homering it up for Ohio State. 

Well if Booger Mc****face and Screech Davis weren't busy hating on Ohio St and mentioning the Iowa game 17,000 times they wouldn't have to homer so much. I'm proud of Joey and Kirk and Palmer doing that. Booger McFarland is an idiot. He even said if Wisconsin wins Bama should still get in. Please.

[NateDawg]

If Wisconsin loses, the 4th team in gets in by default. Alabama, OSU, USC...these teams don’t deserve title shots this year. If Wisconsin loses, one of them will get a shot and probably shouldn’t. Whomever gets left out can gripe about the 4th team not being deserving, but it’s hard to make an argument on one of these team’s behalf. 

[RandyMossIsBoss]

Miami barley beats Clemson, TCU beats Oklahoma, OSU barley beats Wisco... If this happens, we might see 4 teams from 2 conferences... 1. Auburn/UGA 2. Miami 3. Bammer 4. Clemson. Wouldn't put it past the committee.

[MWil23]

I'm tired of hearing the phrase "body of work" if the committee is going to be so inconsistent.

Auburn's "body of work" has them at two losses and yet ahead of several 1 loss teams, albeit 2 of them they beat head to head, which I don't have a gripe with. But, being ahead of Oklahoma, Miami, and Wisconsin IMO is inconsistent.

Now, if the committee wants to argue that this is a "week by week" eyeball test and Auburn right now is the #1/#2 team in the nation, I'm willing to listen to that argument.

All I'm saying is that the committee needs to be consistent and have clearly defined criteria.

OSU deserves to have that anchor around their necks for that horrific Iowa loss and a 2nd loss on their resume, even if it's to arguably the best team in the nation in OU.

Alabama deserves to have that anchor around their necks for a loss to a conference opponent, not even winning their own division, let alone their own conference. I said the SAME THING for OSU last year. 

Wisconsin at #4 is fair since they haven't played anyone yet.

OU at #3 is very confusing. They've beaten a lot of ranked teams, including OSU on the road by more than 2 TDs. They should be 1 or 2.

[BobbyPhil1781]

13 hours ago, CWood21 said:

The lack of respect Oklahoma is getting is laughable...yet it's good for them.

I don't think it's a lack of respect but the fact that there really isn't anything to talk about w/ them. I know the odds of them losing is very low and I think people assume the same so the point of discussing it isn't relevant. Most people are on the same page. Now if you're talking about where they are in the rankings then that's a different story. I can't see how you can't keep Clemson, who essentially should still be undefeated, and an Auburn team who just beat two numbers 1's and played lights out football against them, ranked ahead of them.

[BobbyPhil1781]

11 hours ago, NateDawg said:

I’m puzzled by OU as low as 3. Very strange to see Auburn jump them

Auburn just beat the ever living piss out of two number 1 teams in 3 weeks. IMO, and a lot of people are seemingly agreeing w/ me, they're playing the best football in the country and the toughest team there is. OU is good and they're whooping their schedule pretty good but let's not pretend those teams are on the same level as Georgia and Bama.

[PAW]

7 hours ago, NateDawg said:

If Wisconsin loses, the 4th team in gets in by default. Alabama, OSU, USC...these teams don’t deserve title shots this year. If Wisconsin loses, one of them will get a shot and probably shouldn’t. Whomever gets left out can gripe about the 4th team not being deserving, but it’s hard to make an argument on one of these team’s behalf. 

I agree which is why I don't want it going to 8 teams. An 8 team playoff would make this weekend basically meaningless for everyone but Ohio State. 4 is perfect. 

[MWil23]

29 minutes ago, PAW said:

I agree which is why I don't want it going to 8 teams. An 8 team playoff would make this weekend basically meaningless for everyone but Ohio State. 4 is perfect. 

I still think that 6 teams, 5 guaranteed, 1 from each Power 5 conference with 1 at large, and the #1 and #2 getting a "bye" would be the best personally. I've never felt like most years there has been much if any separation from teams 3-6, and sometimes 2-6.

[Iamcanadian]

2 hours ago, MWil23 said:

I'm tired of hearing the phrase "body of work" if the committee is going to be so inconsistent.

Auburn's "body of work" has them at two losses and yet ahead of several 1 loss teams, albeit 2 of them they beat head to head, which I don't have a gripe with. But, being ahead of Oklahoma, Miami, and Wisconsin IMO is inconsistent.

Now, if the committee wants to argue that this is a "week by week" eyeball test and Auburn right now is the #1/#2 team in the nation, I'm willing to listen to that argument.

All I'm saying is that the committee needs to be consistent and have clearly defined criteria.

OSU deserves to have that anchor around their necks for that horrific Iowa loss and a 2nd loss on their resume, even if it's to arguably the best team in the nation in OU.

Alabama deserves to have that anchor around their necks for a loss to a conference opponent, not even winning their own division, let alone their own conference. I said the SAME THING for OSU last year. 

Wisconsin at #4 is fair since they haven't played anyone yet.

OU at #3 is very confusing. They've beaten a lot of ranked teams, including OSU on the road by more than 2 TDs. They should be 1 or 2.

Well, Oklahoma is #2 behind Clemson in the AP and Coaches Poll, so they agree with you. Unfortunately, Alabama is a hugely overrated team who has really beaten nobody, so their loss to Auburn, should not raise Auburn above #4. It is the SEC bias in play even though it is the ACC/Ohio St. that has been dominating lately.

[mse326]

All this discussion essentially comes from competting and ultimately frequently contradicting positions.

Is it best resume or is it best 4 Teams.

The goal has always been stated as the best 4 teams. But the best 4 teams don't always have the best resume. Alabama I think shows that this year. I think if we are all honest there isn't 4 teams that we would give a better than 50% chance of winning against Alabama on a neutral field. They are almost certainly one of the best 4 teams in the nation. They clearly, however, don't have a top 4 resume. 

The problem is the committee while saying they want the best 4 teams reaon through it based on resume. They aren't synonymous and often not even good proxies. But of course the alternative of not using any objective measures is just as bad, probably worse. But ultimately they have stated their goal as to putting in teams based on subjectivity (who are the best) and trying to use objective means to find that which is incongruous.

We can complain all we want about them being inconsistent, but ultimately the stated goal being subjective there is no inconsistency really. The problem is we want to say inconsistent based on resumes, but that ignores that the goal and certainly stuff that is talked about is the subjective; he 'eye test" or whatever you want to call it. When we say inconsistent, all that really means is the subjective eye test in this instant was different and made up for whatever is objetcively lacking.

The worst thing the committee does is then actually try to rationalize it with objective factors when explaining instead of simply saying "We think this team is better." They came pretty close to doing that last year with OSU v PSU. They said they didn't really look at some of the tiebreakers because they felt OSU had separated itself from PSU over the season.

Fans will never be happy with them doing based on the subjective, but the objective will alway be inconsistent. And if they went full objective then just see the complaints about computer rankings in the old BCS. There really is no way to win.

[Pastor Dillon]

I really want to see

Clemson vs Wisconsin
Oklahoma vs Auburn 

[Pastor Dillon]

15 hours ago, PAW said:

With the rankings, Clemson might make it even with a loss.  I don't see us losing this week, but if Auburn and Ohio State win, we'd have a better resume than Ohio State and both 2 losses.

no way they get in over Miami with a loss to Miami and absolutely zero chance the powers that be put two teams from the same conference unless its the "mighty" SEC

[MWil23]

15 minutes ago, mse326 said:

All this discussion essentially comes from competting and ultimately frequently contradicting positions.

Is it best resume or is it best 4 Teams.

The goal has always been stated as the best 4 teams. But the best 4 teams don't always have the best resume. Alabama I think shows that this year. I think if we are all honest there isn't 4 teams that we would give a better than 50% chance of winning against Alabama on a neutral field. They are almost certainly one of the best 4 teams in the nation. They clearly, however, don't have a top 4 resume. 

The same could be said about 2015 Ohio State. With 1 loss and far and away the most talent in the nation (NFL wise), they would be in the same boat. However, their resume/opportunities didn't live up to that.

15 minutes ago, mse326 said:

The problem is the committee while saying they want the best 4 teams reaon through it based on resume. They aren't synonymous and often not even good proxies. But of course the alternative of not using any objective measures is just as bad, probably worse. But ultimately they have stated their goal as to putting in teams based on subjectivity (who are the best) and trying to use objective means to find that which is incongruous.

We can complain all we want about them being inconsistent, but ultimately the stated goal being subjective there is no inconsistency really. The problem is we want to say inconsistent based on resumes, but that ignores that the goal and certainly stuff that is talked about is the subjective; he 'eye test" or whatever you want to call it. When we say inconsistent, all that really means is the subjective eye test in this instant was different and made up for whatever is objetcively lacking.

The worst thing the committee does is then actually try to rationalize it with objective factors when explaining instead of simply saying "We think this team is better." They came pretty close to doing that last year with OSU v PSU. They said they didn't really look at some of the tiebreakers because they felt OSU had separated itself from PSU over the season.

I said it last year. The committee selecting OSU over PSU set a very bad precedent going forward. Ignoring head to head and conference championships is a very bad look, although having 1 loss vs. 2 can make sense sometimes. Just look at Nick Saban. He said last year that if you didn't win your own division/conference then you shouldn't be in, period, and I don't argue with him. What I argue with is the blatant inconsistency used by the old BCS system and the new committee set up, which is obviously better than it used to be. I guess this year by his logic they shouldn't be in and their 2011/2012 title over LSU shouldn't count either.

15 minutes ago, mse326 said:

Fans will never be happy with them doing based on the subjective, but the objective will alway be inconsistent. And if they went full objective then just see the complaints about computer rankings in the old BCS. There really is no way to win.

The hardest part is evaluating at what point conference titles matter, head to head matters, when you lose matters, etc. You can't have it each way. You can't say that 2 losses matter for a conference champion PSU with a head to head win over OSU last year and then have a 2 loss Auburn team who beats a 1 loss team head to head vs. Alabama is now the 2nd best team in the nation and Alabama is left out, just so people can confirm what they've always believed:

The rules don't and never will apply to teams in the SEC.

[Mastercheddaar]

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

I still think that 6 teams, 5 guaranteed, 1 from each Power 5 conference with 1 at large, and the #1 and #2 getting a "bye" would be the best personally. I've never felt like most years there has been much if any separation from teams 3-6, and sometimes 2-6.

Well trust me if the committee doesn't include Bama this year, we'll have the Bama "Nick Saban whined and cried all night" 6 team playoffs next season. 

That is all

Mastercheddaar