JeremiahJT said:

---

So Indiana losing by 10 in South Bend to 11-1 Notre Dame is proof that Alabama should have made the playoffs.

Also, Alabama losing by 21 in Norman to 6-6 Oklahoma is also proof that Alabama belonged in the playoffs?

Your logic is weird. So all-knowing SEC fan, what would the score have been if Alabama would have been there?

When Clemson blew out Alabama for the 2018 championship, did that mean Alabama did not belong? If so, who did?

---

I think South Carolina should have made the playoffs instead of SMU. They beat Clemson on the road the week before SMU list to them at a neutral site. If the committee was truly going for the best team, they should have given more consideration to the schedules and the quality of wins rather than the one loss discrepancy. SC had an extra loss, but their losses were to better teams than SMU even played.

Neither did SMU

If they would not have blown that game in Tuscaloosa they probably would have.

JeremiahJT said:

---

If they would not have blown that game in Tuscaloosa they probably would have.

---

No doubt. That is what kept them one spot behind Alabama even though it had happened a few weeks earlier in the season and on the road. They got penalized more for losing on the road against Alabama than SMU did for losing at a neutral site against Clemson.

I find it funny that of all the first round losers, Indiana had the closest score.

JeremiahJT said:

---

I find it funny that of all the first round losers, Indiana had the closest score.

---

And Tennessee from the almighty SEC is doing the best it can right now to avoid being the biggest blowout.

Chuckroast said:

---

JeremiahJT said:

---

So Indiana losing by 10 in South Bend to 11-1 Notre Dame is proof that Alabama should have made the playoffs.

Also, Alabama losing by 21 in Norman to 6-6 Oklahoma is also proof that Alabama belonged in the playoffs?

Your logic is weird. So all-knowing SEC fan, what would the score have been if Alabama would have been there?

When Clemson blew out Alabama for the 2018 championship, did that mean Alabama did not belong? If so, who did?

---

I think South Carolina should have made the playoffs instead of SMU. They beat Clemson on the road the week before SMU list to them at a neutral site. If the committee was truly going for the best team, they should have given more consideration to the schedules and the quality of wins rather than the one loss discrepancy. SC had an extra loss, but their losses were to better teams than SMU even played.

---

All this arguing over teams who all would have very likely lost to Penn State today. I think we'll come to find the 12 seed in football is akin to a 14/15 seed in March Madness. May win one every once in a while, but likely has zero chance to win it all.

GoldenBear007 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

JeremiahJT said:

---

So Indiana losing by 10 in South Bend to 11-1 Notre Dame is proof that Alabama should have made the playoffs.

Also, Alabama losing by 21 in Norman to 6-6 Oklahoma is also proof that Alabama belonged in the playoffs?

Your logic is weird. So all-knowing SEC fan, what would the score have been if Alabama would have been there?

When Clemson blew out Alabama for the 2018 championship, did that mean Alabama did not belong? If so, who did?

---

I think South Carolina should have made the playoffs instead of SMU. They beat Clemson on the road the week before SMU list to them at a neutral site. If the committee was truly going for the best team, they should have given more consideration to the schedules and the quality of wins rather than the one loss discrepancy. SC had an extra loss, but their losses were to better teams than SMU even played.

---

All this arguing over teams who all would have very likely lost to Penn State today. I think we'll come to find the 12 seed in football is akin to a 14/15 seed in March Madness. May win one every once in a while, but likely has zero chance to win it all.

---

Due in large part to having to play a road game in a hostile environment in the first round though.

GoldenBear007 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

JeremiahJT said:

---

So Indiana losing by 10 in South Bend to 11-1 Notre Dame is proof that Alabama should have made the playoffs.

Also, Alabama losing by 21 in Norman to 6-6 Oklahoma is also proof that Alabama belonged in the playoffs?

Your logic is weird. So all-knowing SEC fan, what would the score have been if Alabama would have been there?

When Clemson blew out Alabama for the 2018 championship, did that mean Alabama did not belong? If so, who did?

---

I think South Carolina should have made the playoffs instead of SMU. They beat Clemson on the road the week before SMU list to them at a neutral site. If the committee was truly going for the best team, they should have given more consideration to the schedules and the quality of wins rather than the one loss discrepancy. SC had an extra loss, but their losses were to better teams than SMU even played.

---

All this arguing over teams who all would have very likely lost to Penn State today. I think we'll come to find the 12 seed in football is akin to a 14/15 seed in March Madness. May win one every once in a while, but likely has zero chance to win it all.

---

But they have access, the same chance to go in that run. That is what playoffs and tourneys are about. Keep it as is, next year SEC conference play will be better. Teams will start building differently and spending differently. You better be able to play at night in the cold on the road. These throw 50 times offenses may not do so well in South Bend in December.

bear2be2 said:

---

My basic CFP formula for power conference teams would be ...

12-0 -- automatically in regardless of schedule
11-1 -- automatically in regardless of schedule
10-2 -- automatically in with a strong schedule; out with a poor schedule
9-3 -- only in if there aren't enough teams above and you better have played a top-15 schedule nationally

---

Something like this should be the guidelines for the committee, regardless of conference affiliation. I would add winning a conference championship game to the mix. Sorry ND. A champion should be given some consideration above non champions. It's one more win against a consequential opponent.

Under such a system, the seeding would almost be automatic. There would be need for different metrics every week, as the committee often does (notoriously in 2014). Yes, there will always be teams unhappy with their position but usually the reply is, win more games. That's the car for Bama in 2024. The committee could not say that to Florida State last year: they won them all.

The 12 team playoff is still flawed but at least the undefeated teams should get in. Any system in which selections & seeding are made by criteria not related to performance on the field will be flawed.

Bama's only impressive win is over Georgia. But it's offset by losses to Vandy & OU. If there is such a thing as a "good" loss, then Tennessee fits. But that does not mean as much. Their wins against other 9-3 or worse teams and don't mean as much. Wisconsin isn't even bowl eligible.

While it is true that a team plays its schedule, Bama won 9 games against mostly mediocre opponents. That is not as impressive as a team winning more games against mostly mediocre opponents. If they were truly playoff caliber, they would have beaten Vandy & OU. With such a record there would be no doubt.

Bama should be held to the same standard as everyone else. The same is true for every other blue blood. Ironically. This would still result in many of them getting in each year. There is no serious debate about the inclusion of OSU, for example. They earned their spot. Same with Texas.

JeremiahJT said:

---

Indiana is a lot better than Georgia Tech and Georgia Tech took Georgia to eight overtimes on Georgia's home field. So yes, I think Indiana could beat Georgia in Bloomington.

---

Rivalry games are completely different than all others. They probably produce more anomalies than any other type of game, except maybe bowl games.

BylrFan said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Ohio State gets Tennessee then Oregon

Penn State gets SMU then Boise State

— Mr. Ohio (@MrOH1O) December 8, 2024

OUCH

---

Penn State and James Franklin will find.a way to lose to SMU... Guy is horrid against ranked teams.

---

This aged well

SIC EM 94 said:

---

Indiana beats Notre Dame…book it!

---

This aged well!

FLBear5630 said:

---

LTBear19 said:

---

With all this talk about whether SMU or Miami deserve to be in over Alabama, the real conversation should revolve around Indiana's credentials.

They have beaten ZERO ranked teams.

And when they did play against a ranked opponent (Ohio State) they were absolutely drilled (38-15).

Their best win was against a 7-5 Michigan team (which they barely beat at home, mind you - 20-15). In fact, that is their only victory against a team with a winning record.

Even Boise State can claim a better resume than the Hoosiers.

Here is a breakdown of their schedule (and opponent records):

FIU (4-8)
Western Illinois (4-8)
UCLA (5-7)
Charlotte (5-7)
Maryland (4-8)
Northwestern (4-8)
Nebraska (6-6)
Washington (6-6)
Michigan State (5-7)
Michigan (7-5)
OSU (10-2)
Purdue (1-11)

Look, I understand that you can only play the teams in front of you, and had they at least battled OSU down to the wire, I could possibly overlook this 'weak sauce' schedule.

But if we're comparing resumes, I'd absolutely put SMU, Miami, and probably even a 3-loss Bama Team in over the Hoosiers.

---

B10 got 5 in of 12. That is BS. SEC's argument is with B10, not ACC.
Oregon
Texas
OSU
All belong. You can make an argument for PSU. Ind? No way, if any slot should go to SEC it is IN.

I can go B10 and SEC 4 each to get a playoff. But part of the fun of the playoff is to give the have nots a Cinderella shot. More blue bloods, with 3 losses? Who wants to see that?
For those that are saying Cinderella can't win, Vandy beat Bama

---

No conference should get more than one auto-selection, and that should be winner of ccg. I can see an argument of two if that's applied equally to all P4 conferences but even that is probably only legitimate with 16 teams.

IowaBear said:

---

I don't remember anyone saying Indiana could handle GA. It's been clear since the OSu game that Indiana was a fraud.
That said I seriously doubt Bama fares much better in South Bend last night. Bama is pretty one-dimensional on offense. ND would have shut them down rather easily imo.
I think you'll see similar results in today's games. I doubt that SMU keeps it close at Penn St. And Clemson will have to play out of their minds to beat Texas.
Firm believer that Tenn is also likely a paper tiger and will get handled in Columbus.

---

OSU v Tennessee prediction validated

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Dinging Indiana in CFP is fair.

But only if you also ding every SEC team. Beyond any doubt the SEC games the system.
Only 8 conference games. Imbalanced schedules so they avoid the best teams playing one another to the utmost. November buy games to minimize weird "team is beat down" upsets.

The P4 need to require a minimum of 11 games against other P4 teams and the same number of conference games for every conference. And put some parameters on achieving balanced schedules.

All of that said, the Big Ten is in danger of getting totally exposed this CFP.
Limiting each conference to three teams needs another look.

---

I may be old school, but IMO it has to be earned during the season. You have to win your Conference, if you want to tie it to Divisions? I am good. But I want to see it tied to something earned, not a star chamber deeming who gets in or who doesn't.

I agree, B10 is about to get exposed. I think SMU gives PSU all they can handle and would not be surprised for the upset.

SMU is the school that scares me in this area, they have the money, institutional knowledge and political win to be on the SEC scale. The rest of us, not so sure. From what I can see UT and SMU are the ones with the resources to win in this era.

---

SMU didn't look so good after all. Maybe it was the fact that Penn State had home field advantage. I think they were the better team.

GoldenBear007 said:

---

JeremiahJT said:

---

I find it funny that of all the first round losers, Indiana had the closest score.

---

And Tennessee from the almighty SEC is doing the best it can right now to avoid being the biggest blowout.

---

Failing miserably

historian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LTBear19 said:

---

With all this talk about whether SMU or Miami deserve to be in over Alabama, the real conversation should revolve around Indiana's credentials.

They have beaten ZERO ranked teams.

And when they did play against a ranked opponent (Ohio State) they were absolutely drilled (38-15).

Their best win was against a 7-5 Michigan team (which they barely beat at home, mind you - 20-15). In fact, that is their only victory against a team with a winning record.

Even Boise State can claim a better resume than the Hoosiers.

Here is a breakdown of their schedule (and opponent records):

FIU (4-8)
Western Illinois (4-8)
UCLA (5-7)
Charlotte (5-7)
Maryland (4-8)
Northwestern (4-8)
Nebraska (6-6)
Washington (6-6)
Michigan State (5-7)
Michigan (7-5)
OSU (10-2)
Purdue (1-11)

Look, I understand that you can only play the teams in front of you, and had they at least battled OSU down to the wire, I could possibly overlook this 'weak sauce' schedule.

But if we're comparing resumes, I'd absolutely put SMU, Miami, and probably even a 3-loss Bama Team in over the Hoosiers.

---

B10 got 5 in of 12. That is BS. SEC's argument is with B10, not ACC.
Oregon
Texas
OSU
All belong. You can make an argument for PSU. Ind? No way, if any slot should go to SEC it is IN.

I can go B10 and SEC 4 each to get a playoff. But part of the fun of the playoff is to give the have nots a Cinderella shot. More blue bloods, with 3 losses? Who wants to see that?
For those that are saying Cinderella can't win, Vandy beat Bama

---

No conference should get more than one auto-selection, and that should be winner of ccg. I can see an argument of two if that's applied equally to all P4 conferences but even that is probably only legitimate with 16 teams.

---

Agree. I would say the 1 autobid is the correct choice. Bottomline, at least for me, is there should be a path for access. Bama wants outcome too. The outcome being they are always in...

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LTBear19 said:

---

With all this talk about whether SMU or Miami deserve to be in over Alabama, the real conversation should revolve around Indiana's credentials.

They have beaten ZERO ranked teams.

And when they did play against a ranked opponent (Ohio State) they were absolutely drilled (38-15).

Their best win was against a 7-5 Michigan team (which they barely beat at home, mind you - 20-15). In fact, that is their only victory against a team with a winning record.

Even Boise State can claim a better resume than the Hoosiers.

Here is a breakdown of their schedule (and opponent records):

FIU (4-8)
Western Illinois (4-8)
UCLA (5-7)
Charlotte (5-7)
Maryland (4-8)
Northwestern (4-8)
Nebraska (6-6)
Washington (6-6)
Michigan State (5-7)
Michigan (7-5)
OSU (10-2)
Purdue (1-11)

Look, I understand that you can only play the teams in front of you, and had they at least battled OSU down to the wire, I could possibly overlook this 'weak sauce' schedule.

But if we're comparing resumes, I'd absolutely put SMU, Miami, and probably even a 3-loss Bama Team in over the Hoosiers.

---

B10 got 5 in of 12. That is BS. SEC's argument is with B10, not ACC.
Oregon
Texas
OSU
All belong. You can make an argument for PSU. Ind? No way, if any slot should go to SEC it is IN.

I can go B10 and SEC 4 each to get a playoff. But part of the fun of the playoff is to give the have nots a Cinderella shot. More blue bloods, with 3 losses? Who wants to see that?
For those that are saying Cinderella can't win, Vandy beat Bama

---

No conference should get more than one auto-selection, and that should be winner of ccg. I can see an argument of two if that's applied equally to all P4 conferences but even that is probably only legitimate with 16 teams.

---

Agree. I would say the 1 autobid is the correct choice. Bottomline, at least for me, is there should be a path for access. Bama wants outcome too. The outcome being they are always in...

---

Agreed.
Crocodile tears for Bama. Boohoo! You want in every year? Win enough games every year.

historian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LTBear19 said:

---

With all this talk about whether SMU or Miami deserve to be in over Alabama, the real conversation should revolve around Indiana's credentials.

They have beaten ZERO ranked teams.

And when they did play against a ranked opponent (Ohio State) they were absolutely drilled (38-15).

Their best win was against a 7-5 Michigan team (which they barely beat at home, mind you - 20-15). In fact, that is their only victory against a team with a winning record.

Even Boise State can claim a better resume than the Hoosiers.

Here is a breakdown of their schedule (and opponent records):

FIU (4-8)
Western Illinois (4-8)
UCLA (5-7)
Charlotte (5-7)
Maryland (4-8)
Northwestern (4-8)
Nebraska (6-6)
Washington (6-6)
Michigan State (5-7)
Michigan (7-5)
OSU (10-2)
Purdue (1-11)

Look, I understand that you can only play the teams in front of you, and had they at least battled OSU down to the wire, I could possibly overlook this 'weak sauce' schedule.

But if we're comparing resumes, I'd absolutely put SMU, Miami, and probably even a 3-loss Bama Team in over the Hoosiers.

---

B10 got 5 in of 12. That is BS. SEC's argument is with B10, not ACC.
Oregon
Texas
OSU
All belong. You can make an argument for PSU. Ind? No way, if any slot should go to SEC it is IN.

I can go B10 and SEC 4 each to get a playoff. But part of the fun of the playoff is to give the have nots a Cinderella shot. More blue bloods, with 3 losses? Who wants to see that?
For those that are saying Cinderella can't win, Vandy beat Bama

---

No conference should get more than one auto-selection, and that should be winner of ccg. I can see an argument of two if that's applied equally to all P4 conferences but even that is probably only legitimate with 16 teams.

---

Agree. I would say the 1 autobid is the correct choice. Bottomline, at least for me, is there should be a path for access. Bama wants outcome too. The outcome being they are always in...

---

Agreed.
Crocodile tears for Bama. Boohoo! You want in every year? Win enough games every year.

---

I love the autobid to give everyone a shot, getting there is up to them.

That has been my point all along: getting into the playoffs and advancing should be based only on what happens on the field. No team should get any kind of preferential treatment for any reason. Alabama's successes in the past are irrelevant to the 2024 season.

historian said:

---

That has been my point all along: getting into the playoffs and advancing should be based only on what happens on the field. No team should get any kind of preferential treatment for any reason. Alabama's successes in the past are irrelevant to the 2024 season.

---

Georgia had four wins against teams in the playoffs, and Alabama beat Georgia. It was a really good win. No doubt they had bad losses too. I still think South Carolina had a better argument than Alabama. Sure they lost to Alabama, but it was a nailbiter in Tuscaloosa. It's not a stretch to think that South Carolina would have won that game in Columbia.

There is no question that Georgia is properly ranked #2. And SC probably does have a better argument than Bama but they lost too many games and some wins that looked good at the time don't look so good now. Bama had 1-2 good wins but they also 2 terrible losses. Ole Miss beat Georgia but also had too many losses, including against teams that are not so good after all. The committee properly left those three out and properly put in the better SEC teams.