OSU or Alabama in playoffs?
- Thread starter Summy1
- Start date
I think bama is better. I wish it was osu since I want what’s best for the b10.
However, I think osu would get pummeled again by Clemson.
And I think the committee thinks bama is better too, as evidenced by having bama 3 spots higher in the last rankings. I don’t think a b10 title is enough to cover up two best downs this year.
I’m tired of Alabama and its pud scheduling once again allowing them into the mix, but OSU getting hammered by a mediocre Iowa team is inexcusable. The beat down they took on their home field against OK also hurts— when they’ve lost they look REALLY bad.
This is a lose-lose decision for the committee
This is a lose-lose decision for the committee
UCF
Undefeated
Won their conference
I don’t even care if they aren’t the fourth best team.
If you don’t win your conference or have lost 2 games you’ve already disqualified yourself from the conversation.
Undefeated
Won their conference
I don’t even care if they aren’t the fourth best team.
If you don’t win your conference or have lost 2 games you’ve already disqualified yourself from the conversation.
It's an interesting debate. That sounds nice, but that encourages cupcake schedules. Teams from mid-major conferences usually don't play the schedules the P5 schools play. Although, according to ESPN UCF is 21, and the first team not from a P5 conference (not including ND). Sagarin is the gold standard, and he has UCF 16th.
Theoretically, you do want the 4 best teams. Otherwise, what is the tournament for? Remember, that's what the profiteers sold us when pushing a CFB playoff system! It wasn't sold on the best records, or the conference champions, but the argument we want the 4 best teams 'fighting it out' for a national title.
The profiteers will ultimately get what they want: more $$$$$. And, if there's one thing that's a sure bet: it won't include UCF, regardless how much they "deserve" it.
The BCS playoff system is a joke. Always has been, and as long as the NCAA and Network TV is in control of the purse strings, always will be.
The point of creating a championship game was to settle the champion on the field (and make more money)
The point of expanding it beyond two teams was that occasionally there was a third or fourth team with just as good of a resume as the top two teams (and to make more money)
I don’t really care who is #4 if their resume is clearly inferior. Constant arguing about who deserves #4 just opens the next door of expansion, which I am against, as the expanding playoff is already wrecking the bowl system. The more expansion the more it is motivated by money and only money.
You can argue UCF isn’t the best team, but you can’t prove it based on wins and losses. Give them a chance. And if they are not up to the challenge, then it gives the #1 seed a potentially easier path to the championship game, which they have earned. I really don’t mind tossing the fourth spot out as a wildcard for an undefeated G5 team if there is no obvious fourth P5 choice. Otherwise those G5 teams have no shot at making it, and instead you are rewarding a team like Ohio State for sleepwalking through games in the regular season.
Last edited:
OSU played a tougher schedule and won their conference. Winning a conference could be viewed as a qualifier to be in the playoff. Arguments both ways.
Neither, they both faltered early or late in the season! Perfect year to let UCF be the 4th Team and then that question would be put to rest! Hypocrisy of selection will use the guise of selecting which team played best last, reality of the choice is which team brings more fans to the game and allows TV commercial increases and increased ratings...wish the Selection Committee would just say it like it is in selecting Alabama or OSU. We get enough lying from Washington DC and it would be refreshing to hear the Committee just say the obvious!
What’s Tennessee have to do with anything?
They said they were taking conference championships teams first.
The problem with letting Ohio State in now is you render these big regular season matchups essentially meaningless. Oklahoma v. Ohio St. was one of the biggest games of the year, and Oklahoma dominated them on the road. We don’t need a rematch.
Keep this up or expand the playoff and the regular season will lose interest just like in basketball.
Keep this up or expand the playoff and the regular season will lose interest just like in basketball.
Problem is, there will always, always, ALWAYS be fans clamoring, lobbying for that 5th team . . . or 9th team for a field of 8. That can of worms was opened years ago with expansion to 4.
yes, expansion is motivated by money. Just like going from 2 teams to 4 teams. It's the $$$$$.
UCF had a HORRIBLE schedule, and went 12-0. I find it difficult to make an argument for having a team, which played the 83rd toughest schedule out of 129 teams, vying for a national championship.
Was it a great season for UCF? No doubt!
Does it mean they "deserve" to play with the top 3 teams? Uh, logically, I can't get there. Emotionally, I can. This isn't (or shouldn't be) an emotional decision. They're not one of the top 4 teams. Not even top 10. Top 20? Probably. But, you don't take a top 20 team and select them into the final 4 for the national championship based solely on the argument of, "give them a chance".
Hells bells, ND State went 11-1, is ranked #41 nationally. They're FCS, but still top 50 of ALL teams (FBS and FCS). If they go 12-0 and play 1,2 or 3 FBS teams, do they get in? No, and it's not just because they're in another division. It's because they shouldn't be in because they're not as good.
My position is unconventional, but entirely logical.
It is all moot now, and I realize UCF never had a chance, but let me take another pass at this just to explain my logic..
In my opinion there are three teams this season that have separated themselves from the rest of D1 by their resumes. All three have a legit argument to be #1 and have earned a chance to play off amongst themselves to break the tie. See, I view the playoff as a tie breaker due to how it came about as a means to break a tie between the polls when two or more teams finished undefeated. Not as a winner-take-all tournament of the four best teams.
Oklahoma, Georgia, and Clemson each won a P5 conference and lost only once. No other teams can make that claim. Therefore, there is a clear distinction that the #1 team based on the entire season should come from this group and no other team should be given a shot. Now, of course you can't have a three team playoff. I would be ok with it, but again we're talking money and lost revenue. So instead of a 3 team playoff, the next best thing IMO instead of giving the 4th spot to a team that has already had their chance and not earned it, to give the 4th spot to the best undefeated G5 team. Of course this team's SOS is not going to stack up against a team in a P5 conference, but they simply haven't lost. At some point that has to be considered. Most seasons there are enough one loss P5 conference champs that there won't be room for an undefeated G5. This years was a pretty good opportunity though with OSU and Bama wetting the bed.
If you gave UCF the 4th spot and they lost, then no harm. You simply gave the 1 seed an easier path to the championship, which they earned by being the 1 seed. However, if UCF beat the 1 seed and then the 2/3 seed, then you would have an undefeated champion that beat the next 2 best teams in the nation. Nobody would care about their SOS. But if Ohio State were to win and finish with 2 losses, then at the end what have they proven that others haven't except the chronological order of their 2 losses?
I just don't want to see CFB go down the path of other end of season tournament centric sports. IMO if you don't have some sort of claim to be #1 (one loss P5 champ or undefeated) you shouldn't have a spot in the playoff.
Last edited:
What I don't get is Alabama gets in over Auburn, who beat them head-to-head and won the division they shared.
Alabama played only 3 teams in the top-25 of the final rankings, losing their biggest game of the year. Their best win is home against an LSU team that lost to Troy at home.
OSU played 2, 6 and 9 and won 2 of those games. They also beat MSU and Michigan (probably ranked about 28). I know OSU lost BADLY to Iowa, but the committee is basically saying, don't lose 2 games. If it was a 1 loss OSU who won their conference, they would be in. So why should OSU schedule the OU game? But SOS matters allegedly, even though Alabama's is a joke.
Alabama played only 3 teams in the top-25 of the final rankings, losing their biggest game of the year. Their best win is home against an LSU team that lost to Troy at home.
OSU played 2, 6 and 9 and won 2 of those games. They also beat MSU and Michigan (probably ranked about 28). I know OSU lost BADLY to Iowa, but the committee is basically saying, don't lose 2 games. If it was a 1 loss OSU who won their conference, they would be in. So why should OSU schedule the OU game? But SOS matters allegedly, even though Alabama's is a joke.
In the last tens years Alabama has played only two games against P5 teams at non neutral site not including conference games
I hear what you're saying, but there's not much logic in arguing for UCF's successful record with one of the weakest schedules in the nation. None. Whether it's zero losses or 1.
as to the first part of your argument, that's the way it has always been. Prior to the NC game, one undefeated (or top) team, and a few others arguing their way in. Now, we have no undefeated teams from P5, and 5 with one loss. But you're okay with 3 of those in, no argument, no problem. But you want an undeafeted, non-P5 team and magically place them there, simply with the logic they're undefeated. In spite of your argument to the contrary, it is being considered and rejected out of hand. What's more, they haven't earned it by playing the rigorous schedule, like the 1- and 2- loss teams from the P5. Their case doesn't hold up.
What's more, if you do offer the 4th spot to UCF there is harm. To suggest otherwise is just lacking objectivity. Any of the top 6 (or so) teams could win that 4 team tournament. That's a fact. They all have enough talent to beat the others. UCF? Uh, no. Not a prayer. So, you want to take away 2-3 teams that could win it all, and put in UCF, with no prayer of winning a single game. Then, claiming, "eh . . . no harm."
UCF had a game cancelled with Georgia Tech due to the impending hurricane. Their rescheduled opponent? Austin Peay. Austin. Peay.
they played no ranked teams. None.
I already mentioned Sagarin's SOS at 83 of 129.
That's just embarrassing, for a team someone is arguing into the FINAL FOUR based on schedule and results. Ain't happening. No way. To make an argument otherwise is simply not based on good judgment.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Not really into arguing tit for tat on here. I’ll just stick to my position. I think there are only three teams with a claim to be #1 this year. But I don’t have as big of a problem with Bama being in as I would have OSU. They only had one loss, same as the others, and it was on the road, so they probably do deserve a second chance.
Last edited:
I guess so, but for clarity, from my point of view there's no "tit for tat". I was looking at this as an internet forum, and a place to have a reasonable exchange over a topic.
If we're going to say Alabama "deserves a second chance", why not the other 4 with 1 loss? this is illustrative of where, in my opinion, there's not much logic in arguing for a UCF.
I don’t think they do, but if you’ve got to have a fourth team, and it’s not going to be one of the unbeatens, then I am conceding Bama as the best choice based on overall resume.
I think Alabama is the stronger team.
However, they didn't even make it to their conference championship, and OSU won their respective conference championship. That's a high point on a resume which is difficult to overcome!
But there are five P5 conferences so every year a conf champ won’t make it. Now if we had the fabled four 16 team super conferences then maybe....
for the conspiracy theorist in you.
the Committee said they all felt that Alabama was the 4th best team in college football this year. Yet I never some them reveal their actual formula or computer rankings to determine their final 4 or their rankings for any team. All I ever saw was their listing of rankings of teams, and never their tabulated result of how those rankings were determined.
Alabama may have been the 4th best team in the country. But I'd like a little more transparency as to how they determined that. it seems it's very similar to how they determined their basketball seedings. they obviously got the 4 teams they wanted, but I'm not sure the y got the four best teams according to their computer system. if they did, why not show their computer formula and ending results?
I also believe with the money involved, no conference should be allowed to have two teams in the final four for football. maybe a better financial resolution would be for the money to go into one giant pool and distributed equally to every NCAA team. that would take some pressure away from boosters influencing teams and cheating if every team, win or lose received an equal share.
the Committee said they all felt that Alabama was the 4th best team in college football this year. Yet I never some them reveal their actual formula or computer rankings to determine their final 4 or their rankings for any team. All I ever saw was their listing of rankings of teams, and never their tabulated result of how those rankings were determined.
Alabama may have been the 4th best team in the country. But I'd like a little more transparency as to how they determined that. it seems it's very similar to how they determined their basketball seedings. they obviously got the 4 teams they wanted, but I'm not sure the y got the four best teams according to their computer system. if they did, why not show their computer formula and ending results?
I also believe with the money involved, no conference should be allowed to have two teams in the final four for football. maybe a better financial resolution would be for the money to go into one giant pool and distributed equally to every NCAA team. that would take some pressure away from boosters influencing teams and cheating if every team, win or lose received an equal share.
I would not want to play UCF. They are fast as hell. The South Florida, UCF game was one of the most entertaining games I watched all season. Track meet.
True.
Against USF.
With USF's defense.
UCF scored a BUNCH of points in many games this year.
But, they weren't consistently going against top defenses.
ESPN got both of these wrong. That's about all they are good for nowadays.
Looks like Alabama, OSU, and UCF would all have been solid picks for the 4th playoff spot. The problem is this highlights the glass ceiling for non P5 teams. 13-0 UCF looks like they belong, did everything they could do, but never had a chance. Even as a fan of a P5 team I have a problem with that.
Unfortunately the response will be more calls for playoff expansion, but I believe the better solution would be to develop better guidelines for selection. Here is a selection hierarchy that could work. Work your way down until you fill 4 slots.
(1) Any undefeated P5 team
(2) Any one loss P5 conference champ
(3) Any Undefeated non P5
(4) Best one loss P5 non conference champ based on an aggregate metric
May have to make some disclaimers to #2 just in case one of the P5 conferences is truly awful one year (like a top 10 aggregate metric), and perhaps one on #3 (such as top 20 aggregate metric) but I think this would be more fair to have objective criteria and give undefeated teams a shot if there is not an obvious top 4 from the P5 champ ranks.
Unfortunately the response will be more calls for playoff expansion, but I believe the better solution would be to develop better guidelines for selection. Here is a selection hierarchy that could work. Work your way down until you fill 4 slots.
(1) Any undefeated P5 team
(2) Any one loss P5 conference champ
(3) Any Undefeated non P5
(4) Best one loss P5 non conference champ based on an aggregate metric
May have to make some disclaimers to #2 just in case one of the P5 conferences is truly awful one year (like a top 10 aggregate metric), and perhaps one on #3 (such as top 20 aggregate metric) but I think this would be more fair to have objective criteria and give undefeated teams a shot if there is not an obvious top 4 from the P5 champ ranks.
Last edited:
Can those lamewad Conference Title games with bad matchups most years. I am guessing 4 playoff games would make as much revenue as the 5 conference title games. Do the round of 8 on 1st Saturday in December with 4 losers getting bids to other bowls. Round of 4 on 3rd Saturday in December. Title game Monday after New Year's. Allow 2 weeks to prep for each round.
I like the conference title games. They kind of serve as a play-in game. And a second place team should never be chosen ahead of a conference champion no matter how good they are.
But I see no reason for all the prep time. The first round could have easily been played on the 2nd or 3rd Saturday with the championship game played on New Years Day. And if the field was expanded to 8 teams, be like March madness and have a round of play-offs each week of December with the Championship game still on New Years Day. Teams don't need 2-3 weeks of preparation. They also don't need all of those field trips and activities - too much temptation to shoplift - just ask Notre Dame and UCLA.
Unfortunately, the Networks would never agree to that.
But I see no reason for all the prep time. The first round could have easily been played on the 2nd or 3rd Saturday with the championship game played on New Years Day. And if the field was expanded to 8 teams, be like March madness and have a round of play-offs each week of December with the Championship game still on New Years Day. Teams don't need 2-3 weeks of preparation. They also don't need all of those field trips and activities - too much temptation to shoplift - just ask Notre Dame and UCLA.
Unfortunately, the Networks would never agree to that.
Similar threads
