Could someone please explain how Tennessee got into the playoffs?
I tried to watch it, but just too painful for the college football fan.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Could someone please explain how Tennessee got into the playoffs?
I tried to watch it, but just too painful for the college football fan.

---

Because they were 10-2 and ranked third in the SEC, which got three teams in. Who would you have replaced them with?

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Could someone please explain how Tennessee got into the playoffs?
I tried to watch it, but just too painful for the college football fan.

---

Because they were 10-2 and ranked third in the SEC, which got three teams in. Who would you have replaced them with?

---

I think these team specific topics are just troll jobs.

I'm still waiting for people who complain about the teams that got in with their 12 team playoff field.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Could someone please explain how Tennessee got into the playoffs?
I tried to watch it, but just too painful for the college football fan.

---

Because they were 10-2 and ranked third in the SEC, which got three teams in. Who would you have replaced them with?

---

I think these team specific topics are just troll jobs.

---

I appreciate a good copy pasta troll job, especially when the original content is worthy of being mocked.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Could someone please explain how Tennessee got into the playoffs?
I tried to watch it, but just too painful for the college football fan.

---

Because they were 10-2 and ranked third in the SEC, which got three teams in. Who would you have replaced them with?

---

I think these team specific topics are just troll jobs.

---

If they keep this format, I suspect the home teams will win for years to come, and every year, people will question why the four visiting teams were ever in the playoffs.

---

That may be true, but college football isn't college basketball when it comes to relative parties between better teams - so it shouldn't be approached in a similar manner. To be clear, there are not enough cross conference games between leagues to get a good idea of how relatively strong football teams are - which leads to the use of advanced stats to fill in gaps - and that, coupled with the impact of the blue chip ratio phenomenon and the limited amount of teams that have even won an AP title in the last 40 years, means that slight tweaks to the system would be unlikely to have any meaningful impact on the final outcome.

Using SMU as an example, they had no meaningful shot at winning the national title. The same is true for Indiana, Boise State, etc. It's fine because we have all agreed to give out participation trophies.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Could someone please explain how Tennessee got into the playoffs?
I tried to watch it, but just too painful for the college football fan.

---

Because they were 10-2 and ranked third in the SEC, which got three teams in. Who would you have replaced them with?

---

I think these team specific topics are just troll jobs.

---

If they keep this format, I suspect the home teams will win for years to come, and every year, people will question why the four visiting teams were ever in the playoffs.

---

They'll keep this format long enough to change up the committee criteria and justify keeping out the non blue bloods and then they'll change it back to all neutral site games.

Sometimes it is difficult to grasp that Georgia, Texas, Ohio State, Oregon as a group are way ahead of the pack just below them. The second tier would hammer the rest of us.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Could someone please explain how Tennessee got into the playoffs?
I tried to watch it, but just too painful for the college football fan.

---

Because they were 10-2 and ranked third in the SEC, which got three teams in. Who would you have replaced them with?

---

I think these team specific topics are just troll jobs.

---

100%. Just LOL at secsecsec outrage and then Tenn got rolled worst of all.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Could someone please explain how Tennessee got into the playoffs?
I tried to watch it, but just too painful for the college football fan.

---

Because they were 10-2 and ranked third in the SEC, which got three teams in. Who would you have replaced them with?

---

I think these team specific topics are just troll jobs.

---

100%. Just LOL at secsecsec outrage and then Tenn got rolled worst of all.

---

I mean…Ohio State would obliterate 99% of teams. There is a difference between the top tier and the 2nd tier.

Quote of the year

drahthaar said:

---

Sometimes it is difficult to grasp that Georgia, Texas, Ohio State, Oregon as a group are way ahead of the pack just below them. The second tier would hammer the rest of us.

---

Did you just include Texas in that group? Hilarious. Clemson, who is barely a top 20 team, just went into Austin and could've won that game.

Tennessee would go 7-5 in the SEC

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Tennessee would go 7-5 in the SEC

---

I hope this is a joke, Tennessee is in the SEC.

boxster said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Sometimes it is difficult to grasp that Georgia, Texas, Ohio State, Oregon as a group are way ahead of the pack just below them. The second tier would hammer the rest of us.

---

Did you just include Texas in that group? Hilarious. Clemson, who is barely a top 20 team, just went into Austin and could've won that game.

---

Yes Texas is in that group.

We can play the transitive game all day.

Ohio St just allowed a middling Michigan team to beat them at home.

Georgia just went to 18 overtimes to put away Georgia Tech.

Sarcasm is hard

boxster said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Sometimes it is difficult to grasp that Georgia, Texas, Ohio State, Oregon as a group are way ahead of the pack just below them. The second tier would hammer the rest of us.

---

Did you just include Texas in that group? Hilarious. Clemson, who is barely a top 20 team, just went into Austin and could've won that game.

---

Look at all the teams in cfb. They just aren't all that good so Texas is in the "group." Yes they were scrubs up until last year but they're finally decent. Elite relative to strong years.. not even close, but among the top teams this year.. probably.

Ga at top form is clearly better as they've proven multiple times now, but Tex can hang. I think top end Ohio St (rarely show it) is also better than Tex. Oregon obviously but still don't completely trust them. Might add Notre (stricly this year) just on the outside of that group and could beat Tex or Ohio St on a good day.

Now "way ahead".. I don't believe that part. I think 10 of the right teams could beat all but Oregon. Tex and Ohio St can be beat by the right matchup. Ga can be beat when they play familiar opponents.

boxster said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Sometimes it is difficult to grasp that Georgia, Texas, Ohio State, Oregon as a group are way ahead of the pack just below them. The second tier would hammer the rest of us.

---

Did you just include Texas in that group? Hilarious. Clemson, who is barely a top 20 team, just went into Austin and could've won that game.

---

I don't want Texas to win, but they have an excellent chance with that defense. And I have a feeling Sark is going to pull a Tua in an upcoming game and put Arch in over Quinn.

If there are only 4 or 5 elite teams and no one else has a chance, then why is there so much *****ing about the #11 and 12 spots?

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

boxster said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Sometimes it is difficult to grasp that Georgia, Texas, Ohio State, Oregon as a group are way ahead of the pack just below them. The second tier would hammer the rest of us.

---

Did you just include Texas in that group? Hilarious. Clemson, who is barely a top 20 team, just went into Austin and could've won that game.

---

I don't want Texas to win, but they have an excellent chance with that defense. And I have a feeling Sark is going to pull a Tua in an upcoming game and put Arch in over Quinn.

---

And then lose. That would be peak Sark overthinking it right there.

My guy is over time it will become clear:
1. Home field advantage for northern teams in December is very significant
2. Football does not generate upsets like basketball
3. The talent gap in FBS is much greater than in FCS

Based on one year of data, expanding to 16 teams seems pointless.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

My guy is over time it will become clear:
1. Home field advantage for northern teams in December is very significant
2. Football does not generate upsets like basketball
3. The talent gap in FBS is much greater than in FCS

Based on one year of data, expanding to 16 teams seems pointless.

---

Expanding the CFP would have potentially been a game changer if the transfer portal and NIL not been implemented beforehand. With those changes in place, the pathway for non-elite teams to move up is quite limited because well resourced teams can amass all of the talent by using non-elite teams as developmental clubs.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

My guy is over time it will become clear:
1. Home field advantage for northern teams in December is very significant
2. Football does not generate upsets like basketball
3. The talent gap in FBS is much greater than in FCS

Based on one year of data, expanding to 16 teams seems pointless.

---

Expanding the CFP would have potentially been a game changer if the transfer portal and NIL not been implemented beforehand..

---

Good point

If only the expanded playoff had existed in 2010 you have to wonder how much different college football would be today

I suspect USC would not be in the same conference as Rutgers

Good question. They played the gauntlet of UTEP, Kent State and Chattanooga for non-conference and did not play Ole Miss, Texas, A&M, South Carolina, Missouri, and LSU in the SEC. Only true quality win was Alabama, but Vanderbilt beat Alabama too.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Could someone please explain how Tennessee got into the playoffs?
I tried to watch it, but just too painful for the college football fan.

---

It has little to do with deserving and everything to do with riding Georgia's and Alabama's coattails into the invitationals.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Could someone please explain how Tennessee got into the playoffs?
I tried to watch it, but just too painful for the college football fan.

---

Because they were 10-2 and ranked third in the SEC, which got three teams in. Who would you have replaced them with?

---

I think these team specific topics are just troll jobs.

---

If they keep this format, I suspect the home teams will win for years to come, and every year, people will question why the four visiting teams were ever in the playoffs.

---

That may be true, but college football isn't college basketball when it comes to relative parties between better teams - so it shouldn't be approached in a similar manner. To be clear, there are not enough cross conference games between leagues to get a good idea of how relatively strong football teams are - which leads to the use of advanced stats to fill in gaps - and that, coupled with the impact of the blue chip ratio phenomenon and the limited amount of teams that have even won an AP title in the last 40 years, means that slight tweaks to the system would be unlikely to have any meaningful impact on the final outcome.

Using SMU as an example, they had no meaningful shot at winning the national title. The same is true for Indiana, Boise State, etc. It's fine because we have all agreed to give out participation trophies.

---

The same was true of Tennessee, too. But no one ever mentions them in that conversation.

That was a team with one good win, and it was only considered good because everyone just assumed that Alabama was actually really good.

But Ohio State would likely have done the same thing to this Alabama team.

If we're going to talk about teams that have no legitimate chance at winning a national title, that conversation needs to extend to the SEC, which was way, way down this year.

I tried to tell everyone that early in the season. You could tell watching the games that there weren't actually that many good teams in that league this year. But the denial was too strong from the usual suspects.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

My guy is over time it will become clear:
1. Home field advantage for northern teams in December is very significant
2. Football does not generate upsets like basketball
3. The talent gap in FBS is much greater than in FCS

Based on one year of data, expanding to 16 teams seems pointless.

---

Upsets will be fewer and farther between, but we had a semifinal upset in each of the final two years or the four-team playoff.

In this age of greater parity, there will be some. They just likely won't come very often at all in the opening round with the favorites playing at home.

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Could someone please explain how Tennessee got into the playoffs?
I tried to watch it, but just too painful for the college football fan.

---

Because they were 10-2 and ranked third in the SEC, which got three teams in. Who would you have replaced them with?

---

I think these team specific topics are just troll jobs.

---

If they keep this format, I suspect the home teams will win for years to come, and every year, people will question why the four visiting teams were ever in the playoffs.

---

That may be true, but college football isn't college basketball when it comes to relative parties between better teams - so it shouldn't be approached in a similar manner. To be clear, there are not enough cross conference games between leagues to get a good idea of how relatively strong football teams are - which leads to the use of advanced stats to fill in gaps - and that, coupled with the impact of the blue chip ratio phenomenon and the limited amount of teams that have even won an AP title in the last 40 years, means that slight tweaks to the system would be unlikely to have any meaningful impact on the final outcome.

Using SMU as an example, they had no meaningful shot at winning the national title. The same is true for Indiana, Boise State, etc. It's fine because we have all agreed to give out participation trophies.

---

The same was true of Tennessee, too. But no one ever mentions them in that conversation.

That was a team with one good win, and it was only considered good because everyone just assumed that Alabama was actually really good.

But Ohio State would likely have done the same thing to this Alabama team.

If we're going to talk about teams that have no legitimate chance at winning a national title, that conversation needs to extend to the SEC, which was way, way down this year.

I tried to tell everyone that early in the season. You could tell watching the games that there weren't actually that many good teams in that league this year. But the denial was too strong from the usual suspects.

---

The challenge is that Tennessee, despite not being on the top tier, is still on the right side of the blue chip ratio. To that end, it at least had the talent to be competitive even though it's on the field product wasn't that great. That is necessary to win a title, but it's not sufficient.

In contrast to Tennessee, SMU, Indiana, Boise State, Arizona State, etc. don't even have the talent to be in the conversation to win a title.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Could someone please explain how Tennessee got into the playoffs?
I tried to watch it, but just too painful for the college football fan.

---

Because they were 10-2 and ranked third in the SEC, which got three teams in. Who would you have replaced them with?

---

I think these team specific topics are just troll jobs.

---

If they keep this format, I suspect the home teams will win for years to come, and every year, people will question why the four visiting teams were ever in the playoffs.

---

That may be true, but college football isn't college basketball when it comes to relative parties between better teams - so it shouldn't be approached in a similar manner. To be clear, there are not enough cross conference games between leagues to get a good idea of how relatively strong football teams are - which leads to the use of advanced stats to fill in gaps - and that, coupled with the impact of the blue chip ratio phenomenon and the limited amount of teams that have even won an AP title in the last 40 years, means that slight tweaks to the system would be unlikely to have any meaningful impact on the final outcome.

Using SMU as an example, they had no meaningful shot at winning the national title. The same is true for Indiana, Boise State, etc. It's fine because we have all agreed to give out participation trophies.

---

The same was true of Tennessee, too. But no one ever mentions them in that conversation.

That was a team with one good win, and it was only considered good because everyone just assumed that Alabama was actually really good.

But Ohio State would likely have done the same thing to this Alabama team.

If we're going to talk about teams that have no legitimate chance at winning a national title, that conversation needs to extend to the SEC, which was way, way down this year.

I tried to tell everyone that early in the season. You could tell watching the games that there weren't actually that many good teams in that league this year. But the denial was too strong from the usual suspects.

---

The challenge is that Tennessee, despite not being on the top tier, is still on the right side of the blue chip ratio. To that end, it at least had the talent to be competitive even though it's on the field product wasn't that great. That is necessary to win a title, but it's not sufficient.

In contrast to Tennessee, SMU, Indiana, Boise State, Arizona State, etc. don't even have the talent to be in the conversation to win a title.

---

And yet, Tennessee was dominated the worst of all of them.

At least the Indiana and SMU defenses held up relatively well in their losses. Tennessee was outclassed in every phase. You could tell after two possessions that was a complete mismatch.

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Could someone please explain how Tennessee got into the playoffs?
I tried to watch it, but just too painful for the college football fan.

---

Because they were 10-2 and ranked third in the SEC, which got three teams in. Who would you have replaced them with?

---

I think these team specific topics are just troll jobs.

---

If they keep this format, I suspect the home teams will win for years to come, and every year, people will question why the four visiting teams were ever in the playoffs.

---

That may be true, but college football isn't college basketball when it comes to relative parties between better teams - so it shouldn't be approached in a similar manner. To be clear, there are not enough cross conference games between leagues to get a good idea of how relatively strong football teams are - which leads to the use of advanced stats to fill in gaps - and that, coupled with the impact of the blue chip ratio phenomenon and the limited amount of teams that have even won an AP title in the last 40 years, means that slight tweaks to the system would be unlikely to have any meaningful impact on the final outcome.

Using SMU as an example, they had no meaningful shot at winning the national title. The same is true for Indiana, Boise State, etc. It's fine because we have all agreed to give out participation trophies.

---

The same was true of Tennessee, too. But no one ever mentions them in that conversation.

That was a team with one good win, and it was only considered good because everyone just assumed that Alabama was actually really good.

But Ohio State would likely have done the same thing to this Alabama team.

If we're going to talk about teams that have no legitimate chance at winning a national title, that conversation needs to extend to the SEC, which was way, way down this year.

I tried to tell everyone that early in the season. You could tell watching the games that there weren't actually that many good teams in that league this year. But the denial was too strong from the usual suspects.

---

The challenge is that Tennessee, despite not being on the top tier, is still on the right side of the blue chip ratio. To that end, it at least had the talent to be competitive even though it's on the field product wasn't that great. That is necessary to win a title, but it's not sufficient.

In contrast to Tennessee, SMU, Indiana, Boise State, Arizona State, etc. don't even have the talent to be in the conversation to win a title.

---

And yet, Tennessee was dominated the worst of all of them.

At least the Indiana and SMU defenses held up relatively well in their losses. Tennessee was outclassed in every phase. You could tell after two possessions that was a complete mismatch.

---

Well, no one thought any of them were going to win a title, so it probably doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Could someone please explain how Tennessee got into the playoffs?
I tried to watch it, but just too painful for the college football fan.

---

Because they were 10-2 and ranked third in the SEC, which got three teams in. Who would you have replaced them with?

---

I think these team specific topics are just troll jobs.

---

If they keep this format, I suspect the home teams will win for years to come, and every year, people will question why the four visiting teams were ever in the playoffs.

---

Yep.

Home field advantage was huge.

Now the real playoffs begin.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Could someone please explain how Tennessee got into the playoffs?
I tried to watch it, but just too painful for the college football fan.

---

Because they were 10-2 and ranked third in the SEC, which got three teams in. Who would you have replaced them with?

---

I think these team specific topics are just troll jobs.

---

If they keep this format, I suspect the home teams will win for years to come, and every year, people will question why the four visiting teams were ever in the playoffs.

---

That may be true, but college football isn't college basketball when it comes to relative parties between better teams - so it shouldn't be approached in a similar manner. To be clear, there are not enough cross conference games between leagues to get a good idea of how relatively strong football teams are - which leads to the use of advanced stats to fill in gaps - and that, coupled with the impact of the blue chip ratio phenomenon and the limited amount of teams that have even won an AP title in the last 40 years, means that slight tweaks to the system would be unlikely to have any meaningful impact on the final outcome.

Using SMU as an example, they had no meaningful shot at winning the national title. The same is true for Indiana, Boise State, etc. It's fine because we have all agreed to give out participation trophies.

---

The same was true of Tennessee, too. But no one ever mentions them in that conversation.

That was a team with one good win, and it was only considered good because everyone just assumed that Alabama was actually really good.

But Ohio State would likely have done the same thing to this Alabama team.

If we're going to talk about teams that have no legitimate chance at winning a national title, that conversation needs to extend to the SEC, which was way, way down this year.

I tried to tell everyone that early in the season. You could tell watching the games that there weren't actually that many good teams in that league this year. But the denial was too strong from the usual suspects.

---

The challenge is that Tennessee, despite not being on the top tier, is still on the right side of the blue chip ratio. To that end, it at least had the talent to be competitive even though it's on the field product wasn't that great. That is necessary to win a title, but it's not sufficient.

In contrast to Tennessee, SMU, Indiana, Boise State, Arizona State, etc. don't even have the talent to be in the conversation to win a title.

---

And yet, Tennessee was dominated the worst of all of them.

At least the Indiana and SMU defenses held up relatively well in their losses. Tennessee was outclassed in every phase. You could tell after two possessions that was a complete mismatch.

---

Well, no one thought any of them were going to win a title, so it probably doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.

---

The difference in the way those teams are talked about 100 percent matters in the grand scheme of things. The conflict of interests with a certain TV network and the influence it has in the access certain leagues and teams get is one of the biggest problem in college football at present.