bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Well then only 2-4 teams played a schedule worthy of the playoffs this year.

---

The schedule you play doesn't matter as much as how you do against that schedule.

Playoff-worthy teams don't lose to multiple mediocre or worse teams -- or in the case of South Carolina, lose every meaningful game they played in conference play.

---

My point is that 2/3 of the teams in this playoff would have three or more losses if they played South Carolina's schedule.

---

Objection: Speculation.

The SEC and its backers are much better at discussing hypothetical football games than they are at analyzing those that were actually played.

---

Speculation based on years of data as well as metrics from this year… to ignore all of that is more like wishful thinking.

I think you and I agree that the SEC is not full of championship caliber teams this year. Where we disagree is that it has more really good … and even playoff caliber teams than anyone else… with that type of schedule, it makes total sense that it's league members would have an extra loss during the course of the season. All of the top six SEC teams took care of business against P4 OOC competition.

---

This year's SEC wasn't nearly good enough to play the murderer's row card, especially with the 16-team league and eight-game format watering down most of the schedules.

There were like three teams in the league that played schedules worthy of special consideration this year, and two of those -- Florida and Alabama -- disqualified themselves with their performances.

---

An average Alabama team, by their standards, is still a 14 1/2 point favorite over Michigan on a neutral field. Ohio State was a 21 point favorite over Michigan at home. Based on the collective wisdom of the gambling sports world, there's not much separation between any of the teams in the playoffs as you might think. Just making the playoffs this year was gonna give a team a legitimate chance. That's one of the reasons I i'm so against home-field advantage in a college playoff game.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Well then only 2-4 teams played a schedule worthy of the playoffs this year.

---

The schedule you play doesn't matter as much as how you do against that schedule.

Playoff-worthy teams don't lose to multiple mediocre or worse teams -- or in the case of South Carolina, lose every meaningful game they played in conference play.

---

My point is that 2/3 of the teams in this playoff would have three or more losses if they played South Carolina's schedule.

---

Objection: Speculation.

The SEC and its backers are much better at discussing hypothetical football games than they are at analyzing those that were actually played.

---

Speculation based on years of data as well as metrics from this year… to ignore all of that is more like wishful thinking.

I think you and I agree that the SEC is not full of championship caliber teams this year. Where we disagree is that it has more really good … and even playoff caliber teams than anyone else… with that type of schedule, it makes total sense that it's league members would have an extra loss during the course of the season. All of the top six SEC teams took care of business against P4 OOC competition.

---

This year's SEC wasn't nearly good enough to play the murderer's row card, especially with the 16-team league and eight-game format watering down most of the schedules.

There were like three teams in the league that played schedules worthy of special consideration this year, and two of those -- Florida and Alabama -- disqualified themselves with their performances.

---

An average Alabama team, by their standards, is still a 14 1/2 point favorite over Michigan on a neutral field. Ohio State was a 21 point favorite over Michigan at home. Based on the collective wisdom of the gambling sports world, there's not much separation between any of the teams in the playoffs as you might think. Just making the playoffs this year was gonna give a team a legitimate chance. That's one of the reasons I i'm so against home-field advantage in a college playoff game.

---

Let's just agree to disagree. No team that got beat by three touchdowns by this Oklahoma team deserves to be in the playoff or is a threat do anything once there IMO.

Alabama didn't put more than three good weeks of football together all season. That's not a great football team by any measure. They'll likely beat Michigan. Who cares? So did four Big Ten teams, including a 6-6 Washington squad and the Indiana team everyone has spent the past three weeks telling me isn't actually good.

There will be “in-depth discussions” about not guaranteeing conference champs the top 4 @CFBPlayoff seeds in 2025, sources said. Top 5 conference champs still would get in playoff but rankings would determine seeds, sources said. This would require unanimous approval by all stake…

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) December 30, 2024

bear2be2 said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

ImwithBU said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

ImwithBU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

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.

---

The problem is that SEC schedules are really unequal. SC had to play Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, Missouri, and A&M. Texas played Georgia and A&M and a bunch of lesser teams. Of course it makes sense for SC to have an extra conference loss than TX.

Then SC beat Clemson on the road for good measure (whom SMU lost to shortly afterward on a neutral field). SC's schedule was ridiculously more difficult than SMU's. That much harder schedule against numerous ranked teams produced 1 more loss, so based purely on a slightly better record against demonstrably lesser competition, SMU got in.

It boggles my mind that people think the SEC simply gets the benefit of the doubt for no reason other than money. The SEC has more good programs than any other conference, and teams drawing the hardest conference schedules are at a playoff disadvantage when using the best record as the prime factor in the methodology as this committee did.

---

Do they really. This is the problem. Their teams start off highly ranked every year and then they get the benefit of the doubt when they get beat in the bowl games. Maybe, just maybe they are like every other conference with a couple of dominate teams a few surprise teams and few terrible teams that beat the better teams some years. Vanderbilt beat Bama. Im pretty sure Kansas has beaten Texas a few times as well

---

The SEC was not the SEC this year. The results have been making that clear all season. It was just another league in 2024.

There are years where that conference is head and shoulders above the rest. This wasn't even close to one of those. Expectations (and commentary) need to be adjusted accordingly.

---

Naw. They are pretty much what they have been. The bowl record last year was 5-4 (just like the Big 12 and Pac 12). Big 10 went 6-4 (which is accounted for by winning the big game). Again they are like any other conference, one or 2 dominant teams and the rest can be beaten on any Saturday.
Bowl record the year before 7-5 (2 wins by Georgia), remove that and the record is pretty much the same.
Year before that 6-8. Narrative is always the same

---

LSU, Georgia, A&M, UT, Ole Miss and Tennessee would all be at the top of the big 12. Quit being silly.

---

They are all undefeated in hypothetical matchups. It's just on the field where they fall short.

---

We just watched a season where potentially no SEC team will finish with fewer than three losses, and we're still having to listen to how good all these teams are. It's absurd.

The SEC wasn't good this year. Anyone trying to fluff that league after the season it just had doesn't know ball.

---

the sec was the best conference. Get your head out of the sand.

---

If that's the case, why did its third-place team just get its **** pushed in by the Big Ten's third-place team? And why did a team that was one win away from the SEC championship game get beat by a thoroughly mediocre USC team -- that also happened to beat LSU early in the season?

Outside of its wins over Clemson, which was the tallest midget in a bad ACC, the SEC has done nothing out of conference to prove it's the best league this year. All of its perceived strength came from wins over teams we assume are good because they've been good in the past. And all of those teams have warts this year they didn't when they were winning titles -- as evidenced by the fact that no team had fewer than two losses this year and most lost three-plus games.

---

. Now you are just trying to argue. lol. You don't think the sec is the top conference? Gtfo clown.

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

ImwithBU said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

ImwithBU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

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.

---

The problem is that SEC schedules are really unequal. SC had to play Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, Missouri, and A&M. Texas played Georgia and A&M and a bunch of lesser teams. Of course it makes sense for SC to have an extra conference loss than TX.

Then SC beat Clemson on the road for good measure (whom SMU lost to shortly afterward on a neutral field). SC's schedule was ridiculously more difficult than SMU's. That much harder schedule against numerous ranked teams produced 1 more loss, so based purely on a slightly better record against demonstrably lesser competition, SMU got in.

It boggles my mind that people think the SEC simply gets the benefit of the doubt for no reason other than money. The SEC has more good programs than any other conference, and teams drawing the hardest conference schedules are at a playoff disadvantage when using the best record as the prime factor in the methodology as this committee did.

---

Do they really. This is the problem. Their teams start off highly ranked every year and then they get the benefit of the doubt when they get beat in the bowl games. Maybe, just maybe they are like every other conference with a couple of dominate teams a few surprise teams and few terrible teams that beat the better teams some years. Vanderbilt beat Bama. Im pretty sure Kansas has beaten Texas a few times as well

---

The SEC was not the SEC this year. The results have been making that clear all season. It was just another league in 2024.

There are years where that conference is head and shoulders above the rest. This wasn't even close to one of those. Expectations (and commentary) need to be adjusted accordingly.

---

Naw. They are pretty much what they have been. The bowl record last year was 5-4 (just like the Big 12 and Pac 12). Big 10 went 6-4 (which is accounted for by winning the big game). Again they are like any other conference, one or 2 dominant teams and the rest can be beaten on any Saturday.
Bowl record the year before 7-5 (2 wins by Georgia), remove that and the record is pretty much the same.
Year before that 6-8. Narrative is always the same

---

LSU, Georgia, A&M, UT, Ole Miss and Tennessee would all be at the top of the big 12. Quit being silly.

---

They are all undefeated in hypothetical matchups. It's just on the field where they fall short.

---

We just watched a season where potentially no SEC team will finish with fewer than three losses, and we're still having to listen to how good all these teams are. It's absurd.

The SEC wasn't good this year. Anyone trying to fluff that league after the season it just had doesn't know ball.

---

the sec was the best conference. Get your head out of the sand.

---

If that's the case, why did its third-place team just get its **** pushed in by the Big Ten's third-place team? And why did a team that was one win away from the SEC championship game get beat by a thoroughly mediocre USC team -- that also happened to beat LSU early in the season?

Outside of its wins over Clemson, which was the tallest midget in a bad ACC, the SEC has done nothing out of conference to prove it's the best league this year. All of its perceived strength came from wins over teams we assume are good because they've been good in the past. And all of those teams have warts this year they didn't when they were winning titles -- as evidenced by the fact that no team had fewer than two losses this year and most lost three-plus games.

---

. Now you are just trying to argue. lol. You don't think the sec is the top conference? Gtfo clown.

---

BYU deserved a shot more than IU after IU lost big to OSU. They were not competitive.

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

ImwithBU said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

ImwithBU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

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.

---

The problem is that SEC schedules are really unequal. SC had to play Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, Missouri, and A&M. Texas played Georgia and A&M and a bunch of lesser teams. Of course it makes sense for SC to have an extra conference loss than TX.

Then SC beat Clemson on the road for good measure (whom SMU lost to shortly afterward on a neutral field). SC's schedule was ridiculously more difficult than SMU's. That much harder schedule against numerous ranked teams produced 1 more loss, so based purely on a slightly better record against demonstrably lesser competition, SMU got in.

It boggles my mind that people think the SEC simply gets the benefit of the doubt for no reason other than money. The SEC has more good programs than any other conference, and teams drawing the hardest conference schedules are at a playoff disadvantage when using the best record as the prime factor in the methodology as this committee did.

---

Do they really. This is the problem. Their teams start off highly ranked every year and then they get the benefit of the doubt when they get beat in the bowl games. Maybe, just maybe they are like every other conference with a couple of dominate teams a few surprise teams and few terrible teams that beat the better teams some years. Vanderbilt beat Bama. Im pretty sure Kansas has beaten Texas a few times as well

---

The SEC was not the SEC this year. The results have been making that clear all season. It was just another league in 2024.

There are years where that conference is head and shoulders above the rest. This wasn't even close to one of those. Expectations (and commentary) need to be adjusted accordingly.

---

Naw. They are pretty much what they have been. The bowl record last year was 5-4 (just like the Big 12 and Pac 12). Big 10 went 6-4 (which is accounted for by winning the big game). Again they are like any other conference, one or 2 dominant teams and the rest can be beaten on any Saturday.
Bowl record the year before 7-5 (2 wins by Georgia), remove that and the record is pretty much the same.
Year before that 6-8. Narrative is always the same

---

LSU, Georgia, A&M, UT, Ole Miss and Tennessee would all be at the top of the big 12. Quit being silly.

---

They are all undefeated in hypothetical matchups. It's just on the field where they fall short.

---

We just watched a season where potentially no SEC team will finish with fewer than three losses, and we're still having to listen to how good all these teams are. It's absurd.

The SEC wasn't good this year. Anyone trying to fluff that league after the season it just had doesn't know ball.

---

the sec was the best conference. Get your head out of the sand.

---

If that's the case, why did its third-place team just get its **** pushed in by the Big Ten's third-place team? And why did a team that was one win away from the SEC championship game get beat by a thoroughly mediocre USC team -- that also happened to beat LSU early in the season?

Outside of its wins over Clemson, which was the tallest midget in a bad ACC, the SEC has done nothing out of conference to prove it's the best league this year. All of its perceived strength came from wins over teams we assume are good because they've been good in the past. And all of those teams have warts this year they didn't when they were winning titles -- as evidenced by the fact that no team had fewer than two losses this year and most lost three-plus games.

---

. Now you are just trying to argue. lol. You don't think the sec is the top conference? Gtfo clown.

---

Most years, sure. The SEC was a shell of itself this year -- continuing a trend that started last year. When Alabama and LSU aren't elite, the SEC is just another conference because no one other than those two and Georgia consistently competes at that level.

People keep trying to put teams like Tennessee, Ole Miss, A&M and Missouri in that strata and get made to look stupid by those programs every year. I look forward to watching South Carolina join that list after experiencing their first good (not great) season since Spurrier was there.

Let's be honest, in an fair world, if Indiana is getting questioned for going 11-1 and losing the one good team it played, then Texas needed to get questioned for going 11-2 and losing to the one good team they played twice.

And that ain't happening,

GoodOleBaylorLine said:

---

Let's be honest, in an fair world, if Indiana is getting questioned for going 11-1 and losing the one good team it played, then Texas needed to get questioned for going 11-2 and losing to the one good team they played twice.

And that ain't happening,

---

Truth. There's definitely a double standard.

But I think it's generally silly to question any 11-1 power conference team's claim to a playoff spot. It's not easy to win 11 games in a regular season against any schedule.

Anybody know where LTBear19 is? I need his help figuring out how Alabama losing to Michigan, a team Indiana beat, means Alabama should have made the playoffs over Indiana.

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).

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

---

You were saying?

Repeat after me: The SEC wasn't that good this season.

I've been trying to tell you guys all year.

I'm still not backing off my original claim.

I would still take Bama over a pedestrian Indiana team in a playoff environment.

Notice - I didn't say Bama was going to win the whole thing, or even win their opening round matchup.

But I would much rather have seen Bama/ND than the garbage we witnessed.

LTBear19 said:

---

I'm still not backing off my original claim.

I would still take Bama over a pedestrian Indiana team in a playoff environment.

Notice - I didn't say Bama was going to win the whole thing, or even win their opening round matchup.

But I would much rather have seen Bama/ND than the garbage we witnessed.

---

That's the point of the playoffs as they are currently constructed; we get to see the best teams plus some participation trophy teams play. In practice, it means that some teams that make the CFP will have no shot at winning it (like Indiana or SMU), however, that's probably the fairest way to do things even if it means that teams with 1 too many losses are excluded even if they could have potentially had a betting shot of winning the title (i.e. right side of blue chip ratio).

bear2be2 said:

---

Repeat after me: The SEC wasn't that good this season.

I've been trying to tell you guys all year.

---

lol. LSU. A mediocre sec team, just dominated us.

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Repeat after me: The SEC wasn't that good this season.

I've been trying to tell you guys all year.

---

lol. LSU. A mediocre sec team, just dominated us.

---

A) They beat us. They didn't dominate us. We outgained them by almost 100 yards. We just made too many mistakes.
B) They weren't mediocre. They went 5-3 in SEC play -- just like Alabama, South Carolina and Ole Miss (two of which they beat).
C) What a team does against our good, not great, team isn't a referendum on an entire league.

LSU was a good team. They weren't a great team. If we play a clean game, today's game would have been a shootout between two really good offenses. And that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the SEC was way, way down this year by its own standards.

bear2be2 said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Repeat after me: The SEC wasn't that good this season.

I've been trying to tell you guys all year.

---

lol. LSU. A mediocre sec team, just dominated us.

---

A) They beat us. They didn't dominate us. We outgained them by almost 100 yards. We just made too many mistakes.
B) They weren't mediocre. They went 5-3 in SEC play -- just like Alabama, South Carolina and Ole Miss (two of which they beat).
C) What a team does against our good, not great, team isn't a referendum on an entire league.

LSU was a good team. They weren't a great team. If we play a clean game, today's game would have been a shootout between two really good offenses. And that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the SEC was way, way down this year by its own standards.

---

lots of excuses. They kicked our ass. Sad you bury your head.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

LTBear19 said:

---

I'm still not backing off my original claim.

I would still take Bama over a pedestrian Indiana team in a playoff environment.

Notice - I didn't say Bama was going to win the whole thing, or even win their opening round matchup.

But I would much rather have seen Bama/ND than the garbage we witnessed.

---

That's the point of the playoffs as they are currently constructed; we get to see the best teams plus some participation trophy teams play. In practice, it means that some teams that make the CFP will have no shot at winning it (like Indiana or SMU), however, that's probably the fairest way to do things even if it means that teams with 1 too many losses are excluded even if they could have potentially had a betting shot of winning the title (i.e. right side of blue chip ratio).

---

This is it in a nutshell. The final 2 playoff spots were between Indiana, SMU, and a 3 loss SEC team. I don't think anyone is arguing that those final 2 teams had much of a chance to win the whole thing.

Unfortunately, P4 conferences have gotten so big that a lucky draw can give you the inside track for a playoff spot over better conference teams. The Big 10 has 4 really good teams, but half of the league (9 teams) is average at best. Thus, one or two teams from the Big 10 are guaranteed at large spots every year. Indiana's schedule was a joke, but you can't penalize them for getting a weak draw.

I had a bigger problem with SMU because the ACC was really bad and had no dominant teams. The message this committee basically sent is that all P4 conferences will be treated equally regardless of relative strength and regardless of whether you schedule any challenging OOC games. Based on these criteria. every P4 team should schedule only OOC directional schools and pad their records as much as possible.

Chuckroast said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

LTBear19 said:

---

I'm still not backing off my original claim.

I would still take Bama over a pedestrian Indiana team in a playoff environment.

Notice - I didn't say Bama was going to win the whole thing, or even win their opening round matchup.

But I would much rather have seen Bama/ND than the garbage we witnessed.

---

That's the point of the playoffs as they are currently constructed; we get to see the best teams plus some participation trophy teams play. In practice, it means that some teams that make the CFP will have no shot at winning it (like Indiana or SMU), however, that's probably the fairest way to do things even if it means that teams with 1 too many losses are excluded even if they could have potentially had a betting shot of winning the title (i.e. right side of blue chip ratio).

---

This is it in a nutshell. The final 2 playoff spots were between Indiana, SMU, and a 3 loss SEC team. I don't think anyone is arguing that those final 2 teams had much of a chance to win the whole thing.

Unfortunately, P4 conferences have gotten so big that a lucky draw can give you the inside track for a playoff spot over better conference teams. The Big 10 has 4 really good teams, but half of the league (9 teams) is average at best. Thus, one or two teams from the Big 10 are guaranteed at large spots every year. Indiana's schedule was a joke, but you can't penalize them for getting a weak draw.

I had a bigger problem with SMU because the ACC was really bad and had no dominant teams. The message this committee basically sent is that all P4 conferences will be treated equally regardless of relative strength and regardless of whether you schedule any challenging OOC games. Based on these criteria. every P4 team should schedule only OOC directional schools and pad their records as much as possible.

---

You play who is on the schedule. This trying to determine who is better is BS. So e years the schedule is your friend, others it is a cold ***** mother.

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Repeat after me: The SEC wasn't that good this season.

I've been trying to tell you guys all year.

---

lol. LSU. A mediocre sec team, just dominated us.

---

A) They beat us. They didn't dominate us. We outgained them by almost 100 yards. We just made too many mistakes.
B) They weren't mediocre. They went 5-3 in SEC play -- just like Alabama, South Carolina and Ole Miss (two of which they beat).
C) What a team does against our good, not great, team isn't a referendum on an entire league.

LSU was a good team. They weren't a great team. If we play a clean game, today's game would have been a shootout between two really good offenses. And that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the SEC was way, way down this year by its own standards.

---

lots of excuses. They kicked our ass. Sad you bury your head.

---

Just say you don't know ball -- or didn't watch the game. It's one or the other. They beat us and deserve credit for that. But we played ourselves out of that game in a lot of ways.

Chuckroast said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

LTBear19 said:

---

I'm still not backing off my original claim.

I would still take Bama over a pedestrian Indiana team in a playoff environment.

Notice - I didn't say Bama was going to win the whole thing, or even win their opening round matchup.

But I would much rather have seen Bama/ND than the garbage we witnessed.

---

That's the point of the playoffs as they are currently constructed; we get to see the best teams plus some participation trophy teams play. In practice, it means that some teams that make the CFP will have no shot at winning it (like Indiana or SMU), however, that's probably the fairest way to do things even if it means that teams with 1 too many losses are excluded even if they could have potentially had a betting shot of winning the title (i.e. right side of blue chip ratio).

---

This is it in a nutshell. The final 2 playoff spots were between Indiana, SMU, and a 3 loss SEC team. I don't think anyone is arguing that those final 2 teams had much of a chance to win the whole thing.

Unfortunately, P4 conferences have gotten so big that a lucky draw can give you the inside track for a playoff spot over better conference teams. The Big 10 has 4 really good teams, but half of the league (9 teams) is average at best. Thus, one or two teams from the Big 10 are guaranteed at large spots every year. Indiana's schedule was a joke, but you can't penalize them for getting a weak draw.

I had a bigger problem with SMU because the ACC was really bad and had no dominant teams. The message this committee basically sent is that all P4 conferences will be treated equally regardless of relative strength and regardless of whether you schedule any challenging OOC games. Based on these criteria. every P4 team should schedule only OOC directional schools and pad their records as much as possible.

---

They weren't treated the same. A tough schedule bought you an extra regular-season loss. What it didn't do is buy you two extra losses. And it shouldn't.

Three losses should be disqualifying in most cases. There's never been a great team in college football history that lost three games in a season. You get two losses. A third means you either lost to some really questionable teams (Alabama and Ole Miss) or lost every big game you played (South Carolina). That's not worthy of a playoff spot.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

LTBear19 said:

---

I'm still not backing off my original claim.

I would still take Bama over a pedestrian Indiana team in a playoff environment.

Notice - I didn't say Bama was going to win the whole thing, or even win their opening round matchup.

But I would much rather have seen Bama/ND than the garbage we witnessed.

---

That's the point of the playoffs as they are currently constructed; we get to see the best teams plus some participation trophy teams play. In practice, it means that some teams that make the CFP will have no shot at winning it (like Indiana or SMU), however, that's probably the fairest way to do things even if it means that teams with 1 too many losses are excluded even if they could have potentially had a betting shot of winning the title (i.e. right side of blue chip ratio).

---

This is it in a nutshell. The final 2 playoff spots were between Indiana, SMU, and a 3 loss SEC team. I don't think anyone is arguing that those final 2 teams had much of a chance to win the whole thing.

Unfortunately, P4 conferences have gotten so big that a lucky draw can give you the inside track for a playoff spot over better conference teams. The Big 10 has 4 really good teams, but half of the league (9 teams) is average at best. Thus, one or two teams from the Big 10 are guaranteed at large spots every year. Indiana's schedule was a joke, but you can't penalize them for getting a weak draw.

I had a bigger problem with SMU because the ACC was really bad and had no dominant teams. The message this committee basically sent is that all P4 conferences will be treated equally regardless of relative strength and regardless of whether you schedule any challenging OOC games. Based on these criteria. every P4 team should schedule only OOC directional schools and pad their records as much as possible.

---

You play who is on the schedule. This trying to determine who is better is BS. So e years the schedule is your friend, others it is a cold ***** mother.

---

Yeah, but good luck if you're hoping to see meaningful out of conference P4 games a few years from now. There's absolutely no incentive to risk the extra loss.

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

LTBear19 said:

---

I'm still not backing off my original claim.

I would still take Bama over a pedestrian Indiana team in a playoff environment.

Notice - I didn't say Bama was going to win the whole thing, or even win their opening round matchup.

But I would much rather have seen Bama/ND than the garbage we witnessed.

---

That's the point of the playoffs as they are currently constructed; we get to see the best teams plus some participation trophy teams play. In practice, it means that some teams that make the CFP will have no shot at winning it (like Indiana or SMU), however, that's probably the fairest way to do things even if it means that teams with 1 too many losses are excluded even if they could have potentially had a betting shot of winning the title (i.e. right side of blue chip ratio).

---

This is it in a nutshell. The final 2 playoff spots were between Indiana, SMU, and a 3 loss SEC team. I don't think anyone is arguing that those final 2 teams had much of a chance to win the whole thing.

Unfortunately, P4 conferences have gotten so big that a lucky draw can give you the inside track for a playoff spot over better conference teams. The Big 10 has 4 really good teams, but half of the league (9 teams) is average at best. Thus, one or two teams from the Big 10 are guaranteed at large spots every year. Indiana's schedule was a joke, but you can't penalize them for getting a weak draw.

I had a bigger problem with SMU because the ACC was really bad and had no dominant teams. The message this committee basically sent is that all P4 conferences will be treated equally regardless of relative strength and regardless of whether you schedule any challenging OOC games. Based on these criteria. every P4 team should schedule only OOC directional schools and pad their records as much as possible.

---

They weren't treated the same. A tough schedule bought you an extra regular-season loss. What it didn't do is buy you two extra losses. And it shouldn't.

Three losses should be disqualifying in most cases. There's never been a great team in college football history that lost three games in a season. You get two losses. A third means you either lost to some really questionable teams (Alabama and Ole Miss) or lost every big game you played (South Carolina). That's not worthy of a playoff spot.

---

I think SMU's 2nd loss can be considered, even if it's in a championship game, when the ACC is demonstrably weak this year.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

LTBear19 said:

---

I'm still not backing off my original claim.

I would still take Bama over a pedestrian Indiana team in a playoff environment.

Notice - I didn't say Bama was going to win the whole thing, or even win their opening round matchup.

But I would much rather have seen Bama/ND than the garbage we witnessed.

---

That's the point of the playoffs as they are currently constructed; we get to see the best teams plus some participation trophy teams play. In practice, it means that some teams that make the CFP will have no shot at winning it (like Indiana or SMU), however, that's probably the fairest way to do things even if it means that teams with 1 too many losses are excluded even if they could have potentially had a betting shot of winning the title (i.e. right side of blue chip ratio).

---

This is it in a nutshell. The final 2 playoff spots were between Indiana, SMU, and a 3 loss SEC team. I don't think anyone is arguing that those final 2 teams had much of a chance to win the whole thing.

Unfortunately, P4 conferences have gotten so big that a lucky draw can give you the inside track for a playoff spot over better conference teams. The Big 10 has 4 really good teams, but half of the league (9 teams) is average at best. Thus, one or two teams from the Big 10 are guaranteed at large spots every year. Indiana's schedule was a joke, but you can't penalize them for getting a weak draw.

I had a bigger problem with SMU because the ACC was really bad and had no dominant teams. The message this committee basically sent is that all P4 conferences will be treated equally regardless of relative strength and regardless of whether you schedule any challenging OOC games. Based on these criteria. every P4 team should schedule only OOC directional schools and pad their records as much as possible.

---

They weren't treated the same. A tough schedule bought you an extra regular-season loss. What it didn't do is buy you two extra losses. And it shouldn't.

Three losses should be disqualifying in most cases. There's never been a great team in college football history that lost three games in a season. You get two losses. A third means you either lost to some really questionable teams (Alabama and Ole Miss) or lost every big game you played (South Carolina). That's not worthy of a playoff spot.

---

I think SMU's 2nd loss can be considered, even if it's in a championship game, when the ACC is demonstrably weak this year.

---

It could be, but that would have been judging them on a standard that no one else was judged on. Unless it's a blowout, you shouldn't punish teams for earning an extra game IMO. Especially to boost teams that lost two additional regular-season games.

bear2be2 said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Repeat after me: The SEC wasn't that good this season.

I've been trying to tell you guys all year.

---

lol. LSU. A mediocre sec team, just dominated us.

---

A) They beat us. They didn't dominate us. We outgained them by almost 100 yards. We just made too many mistakes.
B) They weren't mediocre. They went 5-3 in SEC play -- just like Alabama, South Carolina and Ole Miss (two of which they beat).
C) What a team does against our good, not great, team isn't a referendum on an entire league.

LSU was a good team. They weren't a great team. If we play a clean game, today's game would have been a shootout between two really good offenses. And that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the SEC was way, way down this year by its own standards.

---

lots of excuses. They kicked our ass. Sad you bury your head.

---

Just say you don't know ball -- or didn't watch the game. It's one or the other. They beat us and deserve credit for that. But we played ourselves out of that game in a lot of ways.

---

we played ourselves out bc we aren't a good team….yet.

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

LTBear19 said:

---

I'm still not backing off my original claim.

I would still take Bama over a pedestrian Indiana team in a playoff environment.

Notice - I didn't say Bama was going to win the whole thing, or even win their opening round matchup.

But I would much rather have seen Bama/ND than the garbage we witnessed.

---

That's the point of the playoffs as they are currently constructed; we get to see the best teams plus some participation trophy teams play. In practice, it means that some teams that make the CFP will have no shot at winning it (like Indiana or SMU), however, that's probably the fairest way to do things even if it means that teams with 1 too many losses are excluded even if they could have potentially had a betting shot of winning the title (i.e. right side of blue chip ratio).

---

This is it in a nutshell. The final 2 playoff spots were between Indiana, SMU, and a 3 loss SEC team. I don't think anyone is arguing that those final 2 teams had much of a chance to win the whole thing.

Unfortunately, P4 conferences have gotten so big that a lucky draw can give you the inside track for a playoff spot over better conference teams. The Big 10 has 4 really good teams, but half of the league (9 teams) is average at best. Thus, one or two teams from the Big 10 are guaranteed at large spots every year. Indiana's schedule was a joke, but you can't penalize them for getting a weak draw.

I had a bigger problem with SMU because the ACC was really bad and had no dominant teams. The message this committee basically sent is that all P4 conferences will be treated equally regardless of relative strength and regardless of whether you schedule any challenging OOC games. Based on these criteria. every P4 team should schedule only OOC directional schools and pad their records as much as possible.

---

They weren't treated the same. A tough schedule bought you an extra regular-season loss. What it didn't do is buy you two extra losses. And it shouldn't.

Three losses should be disqualifying in most cases. There's never been a great team in college football history that lost three games in a season. You get two losses. A third means you either lost to some really questionable teams (Alabama and Ole Miss) or lost every big game you played (South Carolina). That's not worthy of a playoff spot.

---

I think SMU's 2nd loss can be considered, even if it's in a championship game, when the ACC is demonstrably weak this year.

---

It could be, but that would have been judging them on a standard that no one else was judged on. Unless it's a blowout, you shouldn't punish teams for earning an extra game IMO. Especially to boost teams that lost two additional regular-season games.

---

The precedent has already been set in prior years where teams that lose the conference championship game are bypassed by teams that didn't even make the conference championship game. I understand the logic, but they were clearly more worried about establishing future precedent for a 12 team playoff than they were picking the 12 best teams.

What the committee did was defensible, but it definitely punishes any conference that is really strong from top to bottom more than it does conferences that are top heavy, and it's going to encourage softer scheduling since the focus appears to be on win/loss more than anything else.

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Repeat after me: The SEC wasn't that good this season.

I've been trying to tell you guys all year.

---

lol. LSU. A mediocre sec team, just dominated us.

---

A) They beat us. They didn't dominate us. We outgained them by almost 100 yards. We just made too many mistakes.
B) They weren't mediocre. They went 5-3 in SEC play -- just like Alabama, South Carolina and Ole Miss (two of which they beat).
C) What a team does against our good, not great, team isn't a referendum on an entire league.

LSU was a good team. They weren't a great team. If we play a clean game, today's game would have been a shootout between two really good offenses. And that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the SEC was way, way down this year by its own standards.

---

lots of excuses. They kicked our ass. Sad you bury your head.

---

Just say you don't know ball -- or didn't watch the game. It's one or the other. They beat us and deserve credit for that. But we played ourselves out of that game in a lot of ways.

---

we played ourselves out bc we aren't a good team….yet.

---

I think LSU was a better team. Our defense simply couldn't stop them. I don't think the LSU defense stopped Baylor very effectively either. We too often stopped ourselves. I'm not too disappointed by the loss because we didn't embarrass ourselves. We just need some help on defense.

I know we've picked up a couple of edge rushers, a linebacker, and a safety. Not sure what other defensive help we have coming in. I would love to see our defense transformed before next year. I think the offense will be good again.

bear2be2 said:

---

GoodOleBaylorLine said:

---

Let's be honest, in an fair world, if Indiana is getting questioned for going 11-1 and losing the one good team it played, then Texas needed to get questioned for going 11-2 and losing to the one good team they played twice.

And that ain't happening,

---

Truth. There's definitely a double standard.

But I think it's generally silly to question any 11-1 power conference team's claim to a playoff spot. It's not easy to win 11 games in a regular season against any schedule.

---

True and a P4 schedule is still tougher than a G5 or FCS schedule no matter how weak it might be.

JeremiahJT said:

---

Anybody know where LTBear19 is? I need his help figuring out how Alabama losing to Michigan, a team Indiana beat, means Alabama should have made the playoffs over Indiana.

---

The same argument could be made for OSU. The answer is that Bama also beat Georgia. However, Bama did not belong in the playoffs because they lost 3 games. In a 12 team playoff, it's difficult to imagine a 3 loss team getting into the cfp over a 1 or 2 loss team. With a 16 team playoff, Bama definitely would have been in but I'm not sure they would have earned it and they would have been seeded too high.

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Repeat after me: The SEC wasn't that good this season.

I've been trying to tell you guys all year.

---

lol. LSU. A mediocre sec team, just dominated us.

---

Baylor had a great run to close out the season but we were not great this year. Our wins in October and November were against the middle or bottom of the conference and we lost all games vs ranked opponents.

All valid points. Question: does anyone seriously think that 9-3 Bama had a chance to "win it all"? Arguably, they had less chance than SMU or Indiana. They had only one great win and lost to two teams near the bottom of their conference. My point is that having a chance should never be a criteria for getting into the playoffs because it's subjective guesswork. No one had any idea who has a chance to "win it all" except for a handful at the top and that's speculation too. Everyone thought Georgia had a chance but they proved everyone wrong. By the same token, ND has probably the worst loss of any of the 12 teams and yet they do have a shot at it.

This aspect of the playoffs resembles March Madness: there will be Cinderella's who upset the big boys because of parity across the sport. No one ever really knows who will win it all until it happens. Heck, in our natty year in MBB all the pundits were saying that Gonzaga was a shoe in. They had the record and were extremely talented. They looked like a championship team all season long. And they were dominated by "scrappy little Baylor". It was a beautiful thing, although perhaps less exciting to non-Baylor fans.

Football doesn't have nearly as much parity. This year's Cinderella was itself a blue blood. It's my hope that the trend towards parity will continue and that the playoffs will evolve into something more fun & exciting with 16 teams and true Cinderella's with big time upsets & the traditional blue bloods occasionally left out. Getting in will be based solely on a team's record on the field & the eventual champion will have to earn it on the field against increasingly tougher opponents. It needs to resemble March Madness as much as possible.

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Repeat after me: The SEC wasn't that good this season.

I've been trying to tell you guys all year.

---

lol. LSU. A mediocre sec team, just dominated us.

---

A) They beat us. They didn't dominate us. We outgained them by almost 100 yards. We just made too many mistakes.
B) They weren't mediocre. They went 5-3 in SEC play -- just like Alabama, South Carolina and Ole Miss (two of which they beat).
C) What a team does against our good, not great, team isn't a referendum on an entire league.

LSU was a good team. They weren't a great team. If we play a clean game, today's game would have been a shootout between two really good offenses. And that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the SEC was way, way down this year by its own standards.

---

lots of excuses. They kicked our ass. Sad you bury your head.

---

Just say you don't know ball -- or didn't watch the game. It's one or the other. They beat us and deserve credit for that. But we played ourselves out of that game in a lot of ways.

---

we played ourselves out bc we aren't a good team….yet.

---

We are good, not great. We can hope that we are in an upward trajectory and will contend next year. That should be our expectation, especially with our recent recruiting successes.

historian said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Repeat after me: The SEC wasn't that good this season.

I've been trying to tell you guys all year.

---

lol. LSU. A mediocre sec team, just dominated us.

---

A) They beat us. They didn't dominate us. We outgained them by almost 100 yards. We just made too many mistakes.
B) They weren't mediocre. They went 5-3 in SEC play -- just like Alabama, South Carolina and Ole Miss (two of which they beat).
C) What a team does against our good, not great, team isn't a referendum on an entire league.

LSU was a good team. They weren't a great team. If we play a clean game, today's game would have been a shootout between two really good offenses. And that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the SEC was way, way down this year by its own standards.

---

lots of excuses. They kicked our ass. Sad you bury your head.

---

Just say you don't know ball -- or didn't watch the game. It's one or the other. They beat us and deserve credit for that. But we played ourselves out of that game in a lot of ways.

---

we played ourselves out bc we aren't a good team….yet.

---

We are good, not great. We can hope that we are in an upward trajectory and will contend next year. That should be our expectation, especially with our recent recruiting successes.

---

The entire 2nd tier of the Big 12 was meh based on their entire seasons - Colorado, Kansas State, TCU, Baylor and Tech.

True. But the same could be said of the SEC, Big 10, & ACC. It's a down year for everyone.

historian said:

---

True. But the same could be said of the SEC, Big 10, & ACC. It's a down year for everyone.

---

This. The second tier of all conferences is meh. College football in general is meh right now below the top four or five teams, and even they are way down compared to their peers of past years. That's why we saw so much parity this season.

But Aberzombie just couldn't miss another opportunity to **** all over the Big 12. It's what he does.

bear2be2 said:

---

historian said:

---

True. But the same could be said of the SEC, Big 10, & ACC. It's a down year for everyone.

---

This. The second tier of all conferences is meh. College football in general is meh right now below the top four or five teams, and even they are way down compared to their peers of past years. That's why we saw so much parity this season.

But Aberzombie just couldn't miss another opportunity to **** all over the Big 12. It's what he does.

---

We saw all of that "parity" with the final four CFP teams, huh?

Separately, several posters here hide behind claims of parity and other inaccurate claims in order to avoid holding the Big 12 accountable. The conference can and should do better, and ragging on other conferences won't change that reality.