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

[mse326]

31 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

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.

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.

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.

You apparently missed the entire point I made. It's not about this matters this time and not next. There is inherent subjectivity in what they are trying to do. WHO ARE THE BEST 4 TEAMS. Truth is that resumes are borderline meaningless. You are looking for a consistent criteria but that is contradictory to what they are trying to do. No amount of resume can prove how good or bad a team is. They aren't being inconsistent as long as they always put in the 4 teams they feel are best. Any resume gibberish they try to use to rationalize it is besides the point. It will never look consistent because there is a major and indeed based on the stated goal supreme decision that is subjective and not bound but objective resume builders.

[MWil23]

1 minute ago, mse326 said:

You apparently missed the entire point I made. It's not about this matters this time and not next. There is inherent subjectivity in what they are trying to do. WHO ARE THE BEST 4 TEAMS.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was agreeing with you. I was adding that the committee is only hurting what they're trying to do by adding stipulations to their analysis, which is what I have a problem with. See the above reasons.

1 minute ago, mse326 said:

Truth is that resumes are borderline meaningless.

Then they should say as much instead of dancing around for weeks in order to shamelessly make money off of hour long programs on ESPN and parading around due to contractual obligations. But then again this is the NCAA we're talking about.

1 minute ago, mse326 said:

You are looking for a consistent criteria but that is contradictory to what they are trying to do. No amount of resume can prove how good or bad a team is. They aren't being inconsistent as long as they always put in the 4 teams they feel are best.

And yet they talk and are interviewed about things like "criteria", "resumes", "head to head", and "strength of schedule".

1 minute ago, mse326 said:

Any resume gibberish they try to use to rationalize it is besides the point. It will never look consistent because there is a major and indeed based on the stated goal supreme decision that is subjective and not bound but objective resume builders.

Which they will use selectively based upon WHEN these teams look great subjectively in their eyes (end of the season) and not the entire season as a whole. What part of the season matters? Does the entire season? Is it just the end? Do quality losses matter or just bad losses? Would OSU have been better off thumping Mercer instead of losing to OU? Would it be irrelevant due to getting absolutely embarrassed by Iowa? Is it a combination of all of them?

That's all I'm saying.

[CWood21]

3 hours ago, JTagg7754 said:

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.

I just don't see how rankings can fluctuate so much based on one game.  I mean, it's clear that the committee clearly is soft for Alabama, which likely inflates Auburn's win over Alabama but Oklahoma is one of the top 2 teams in the nation.  They're essentially ignoring the Auburn loss at this point, which would have to be the case if the committee came down to Ohio State and Alabama.

[M.10.E]

Committee is trash this year. Ranking Fresno State to boost Bama's resume is LOLworthy. 

Their "criteria" changes week to week.

[BobbyPhil1781]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

I just don't see how rankings can fluctuate so much based on one game.  I mean, it's clear that the committee clearly is soft for Alabama, which likely inflates Auburn's win over Alabama but Oklahoma is one of the top 2 teams in the nation.  They're essentially ignoring the Auburn loss at this point, which would have to be the case if the committee came down to Ohio State and Alabama.

The committee absolutely loves Bama. That's for certain. I think if Auburn's losses were later in the year, they'd be singing a different tune. The fact that they came so early and this team has totally turned it around has to be why they've ranked them where they are. Personally, I think they're the best team in the country right now but they will have another tough test this weekend. We're going to find out more about that very soon.

[PAW]

Oklahoma this year isn't much different from Oklahoma two years ago (which was also a popular pick to win it all). Their defense isn't championship caliber and their offense won't put up 40 vs championship caliber defenses. 

[Nozizaki]

Idk if this is the right topic to post this in, but I'm in complete agreement with Joel Klatt that the playoff ranking right now are a joke. I think it's ridiculous that Oklahoma isn't the number 1 team, that Alabama could get in with such a weak resume and without winning their conference and (slight homer) that UCF isn't in the top 10.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, PAW said:

Oklahoma this year isn't much different from Oklahoma two years ago (which was also a popular pick to win it all). Their defense isn't championship caliber and their offense won't put up 40 vs championship caliber defenses. 

http://www.espn.com/ncf/recap/_/id/340020333

Oklahoma has scored at least 30 points in ALL of their games except their win over against Texas when they scored 29 points.  And they're 4th in terms of PPG.  Against a great Ohio State defense this year, the Sooners scored 31 points.  Last year, the Sooners scored 35 points against Auburn's defense.  But yeah, they can't put up 40 points.

And I'm not going to argue that the Sooners D is good, but they're much improved.  Ever since the first quarter of the Tech game, their defense had been good with the exception of the Oklahoma State game.  They held TCU almost 15 points under their season average in terms of PPG.  I'm not gonna argue that they're good, but they've improved.

[PAW]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

http://www.espn.com/ncf/recap/_/id/340020333

Oklahoma has scored at least 30 points in ALL of their games except their win over against Texas when they scored 29 points.  And they're 4th in terms of PPG.  Against a great Ohio State defense this year, the Sooners scored 31 points.  Last year, the Sooners scored 35 points against Auburn's defense.  But yeah, they can't put up 40 points.

And I'm not going to argue that the Sooners D is good, but they're much improved.  Ever since the first quarter of the Tech game, their defense had been good with the exception of the Oklahoma State game.  They held TCU almost 15 points under their season average in terms of PPG.  I'm not gonna argue that they're good, but they've improved.

You linked a game from 4 years ago, what relevance does that have?  Ohio State's secondary sucks-their defense isn't great.  And they play in the Big 12, of course they'll have a good PPG.  I said they won't score 40 against the defenses they'll see in the playoffs, not they they can't put it up most weeks during the season. 

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, PAW said:

You linked a game from 4 years ago, what relevance does that have?  Ohio State's secondary sucks-their defense isn't great.  And they play in the Big 12, of course they'll have a good PPG.  I said they won't score 40 against the defenses they'll see in the playoffs, not they they can't put it up most weeks during the season. 

I'm merely pointing out the fact that I was told there was no way the Sooners would post 40+ points on Alabama, and that there was no way that Oklahoma would put 30+ on Auburn last year.  It's an opinion that's backed up with absolutely nothing but bias.  Do you not remember the hype leading up to the Ohio State game?  All we heard was how Ohio State's D was going to shut down Baker Mayfield and the offense.  That didn't happen.  Despite having a secondary that "sucks", they still were the 20th best defense in terms of PPG.  So it must not have been to much of a liability?  Alabama or Auburn don't face offenses like Oklahoma's.  Something has to give.

[PAW]

Just now, CWood21 said:

I'm merely pointing out the fact that I was told there was no way the Sooners would post 40+ points on Alabama, and that there was no way that Oklahoma would put 30+ on Auburn last year.  It's an opinion that's backed up with absolutely nothing but bias.  Do you not remember the hype leading up to the Ohio State game?  All we heard was how Ohio State's D was going to shut down Baker Mayfield and the offense.  That didn't happen.  Despite having a secondary that "sucks", they still were the 20th best defense in terms of PPG.  So it must not have been to much of a liability?  Alabama or Auburn don't face offenses like Oklahoma's.  Something has to give.

They weren't playing Alabama or Auburn in a playoff game.  Ohio State defense was supposed to be good.  It has disappointed.  I am sure most Ohio State fans on here will tell you how disappointed they are with the secondary.  Just because that was the talking point in an early season game doesn't mean it was going to be true.  Ohio State's defense isn't anything special.  PPG stats are also pointless when you have conferences.  Offensive numbers in the Big 12 will be inflated due to terrible defense.  Defensive numbers in the B1G will be skewed due to the fact the offenses are poor.  I use my eyes. 

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, PAW said:

They weren't playing Alabama or Auburn in a playoff game.  Ohio State defense was supposed to be good.  It has disappointed.  I am sure most Ohio State fans on here will tell you how disappointed they are with the secondary.  Just because that was the talking point in an early season game doesn't mean it was going to be true.  Ohio State's defense isn't anything special.  PPG stats are also pointless when you have conferences.  Offensive numbers in the Big 12 will be inflated due to terrible defense.  Defensive numbers in the B1G will be skewed due to the fact the offenses are poor.  I use my eyes. 

All I've seen so far is a bunch of qualifiers meant to support your argument.  First, those games against Auburn and Alabama aren't valid because they're not playoff games?  Give me a break.  Then Ohio State's defense was supposed to be good as if being ranked 20th isn't good?  Given the sheer number of departures they had in that secondary, being ranked 20th is pretty damn good.  If being ranked 20th is "disappointing", what would you classify Oklahoma whose ranked 57th?  Poor.  Again, all I'm seeing is a bunch of goal post movement.  And I'm assuming the same eyes that lets you arbitrarily decide what matters and what doesn't?  Literally, the only thing that you can use to support your point about Oklahoma not being able to put 30+ points on an SEC defense is based on an SEC bias.

[PAW]

Just now, CWood21 said:

All I've seen so far is a bunch of qualifiers meant to support your argument.  First, those games against Auburn and Alabama aren't valid because they're not playoff games?  Give me a break.  Then Ohio State's defense was supposed to be good as if being ranked 20th isn't good?  Given the sheer number of departures they had in that secondary, being ranked 20th is pretty damn good.  If being ranked 20th is "disappointing", what would you classify Oklahoma whose ranked 57th?  Poor.  Again, all I'm seeing is a bunch of goal post movement.  And I'm assuming the same eyes that lets you arbitrarily decide what matters and what doesn't?  Literally, the only thing that you can use to support your point about Oklahoma not being able to put 30+ points on an SEC defense is based on an SEC bias.

The SEC is well known for having let downs in meaningless, big bowl games.  Being ranked 20th on a metric that doesn't take into account opponents is irrelevant to me.  Any team with a good QB is going to put up points on Ohio State.  I don't think Oklahoma's defense is good (if your reading comprehension was a little better, you'd know that) nor do I understand why you're comparing their defense to Ohio State's defense-it has no relevance.  I also never mentioned anything about an SEC defense, nor do I have any reason to be bias towards the SEC...lol

[CWood21]

8 minutes ago, PAW said:

The SEC is well known for having let downs in meaningless, big bowl games.  Being ranked 20th on a metric that doesn't take into account opponents is irrelevant to me.  Any team with a good QB is going to put up points on Ohio State.  I don't think Oklahoma's defense is good (if your reading comprehension was a little better, you'd know that) nor do I understand why you're comparing their defense to Ohio State's defense-it has no relevance.  I also never mentioned anything about an SEC defense, nor do I have any reason to be bias towards the SEC...lol

In the two years that Lincoln Riley has called the offense and Baker Mayfield has been the starting QB, the Sooners have failed to score 30+ points in 3 out of 25 possible games.  They scored 23 points against Houston to open the 2016 season, they scored 24 points against Ohio State in 2016, and they scored 29 points against Texas this year.  Even in their "down" games offensively, they're still averaging over 25 PPG.  But you're right, "championship caliber defense" is going to do something that nobody has done yet.  Shut down the Oklahoma offense.  At this point, if Oklahoma hits that 25 point mark I'm feeling really, really comfortable with Oklahoma's ability to win.  Georgia/Auburn/Clemson (whoever) isn't going to score that many points.  If their defense can't slow down Oklahoma, it's over.  Baker Mayfield is the best QB in the nation, and arguably the best player in college football.  I'll take my chances with him.

So at this point, the only thing I've gotten out of you is some arbitrary argument that SEC has letdowns in "meaningless" games and that rankings don't actually matter.  This isn't a situation where a team is playing against MAC opponents.  You can talk about if my "reading comprehension was a little better", it's clear your argument doesn't really bear much weight.  You're picking and choosing which stats matter, and which ones don't arbitrarily to fit your argument.  There's been NOTHING in your argument that can be backed up.  It's a pure opinion, which you're entitled to but if you don't think someone's going to challenge your opinion then you're probably in the wrong place.

[PAW]

5 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

In the two years that Lincoln Riley has called the offense and Baker Mayfield has been the starting QB, the Sooners have failed to score 30+ points in 3 out of 25 possible games.  They scored 23 points against Houston to open the 2016 season, they scored 24 points against Ohio State in 2016, and they scored 29 points against Texas this year.  Even in their "down" games offensively, they're still averaging over 25 PPG.  But you're right, "championship caliber defense" is going to do something that nobody has done yet.  Shut down the Oklahoma offense.  At this point, if Oklahoma hits that 25 point mark I'm feeling really, really comfortable with Oklahoma's ability to win.  Georgia/Auburn/Clemson (whoever) isn't going to score that many points.  If their defense can't slow down Oklahoma, it's over.  Baker Mayfield is the best QB in the nation, and arguably the best player in college football.  I'll take my chances with him.

So at this point, the only thing I've gotten out of you is some arbitrary argument that SEC has letdowns in "meaningless" games and that rankings don't actually matter.  This isn't a situation where a team is playing against MAC opponents.  You can talk about if my "reading comprehension was a little better", it's clear your argument doesn't really bear much weight.  You're picking and choosing which stats matter, and which ones don't arbitrarily to fit your argument.  There's been NOTHING in your argument that can be backed up.  It's a pure opinion, which you're entitled to but if you don't think someone's going to challenge your opinion then you're probably in the wrong place.

Lol...I never said their offense is going to get shut down.  You are the one who jumped to that conclusion.  I said their defense isn't championship caliber, and all you want to talk about is their offense.  All I said is their offense won't put up 40 in playoff games and you act like it's a ridiculous statement and start throwing around 30 point games and what not.  Clemson and Auburn would run all over that defense and Oklahoma will have to put up a lot of points to win which I don't see them doing.  Scoring 25 on Clemson or Auburn would be an accomplishment, but I don't see it being enough to beat either one of them.