As a college football fan I'm tired of watching the SEC receive favorable treatment for not apparent reason
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Final Playoff Rankings Thread
- Thread starter Jens1893
- Start date
First everyone complained that the Big XII got screwed because they didn't have a championship game. Now a team that wins it's championship game doesn't make it...again. Oh, and by the way, expanding the playoffs will only make things worse as more and more teams with 2 losses make it in. Before you know it, it will be the NFL with teams going 8-4/7-5 making it and going on a tear at the end of the season and wining the NC. F!
How does that justify them getting in?
I'd rather watch Georgia v Clemson/Oklahoma/USC. I really think USC would beat just about everyone ranking 4th or lower.
This is either solid sarcasm or one of the stupidest things I've seen recently. Either way, congratulations.
They are better than osu.
So wait, you're upset that conference champs aren't in, but you don't want more 2-loss teams. Which is worse? Because I'm sure you are aware that the two P5 champs that didn't make it both have 2 losses.
I'm saying i hate the playoffs (earlier post). I don't want 2 loss teams in. But if we're going with this arbitrary bull****, they aren't doing it well. I want teams to play their balls off every year. Then the best 2 play - period. And I want Alabama sitting there going "wait, we were good all year. we only lost our last game to our biggest rival. that's not fair." **** you Alabama.
s
SOR and FPI remain the best predictors of “best” after four cycles of CFP, not conference championships. They chose the four best, as their charter dictates.
Last edited:
You have absolutely no way to prove that.
Either can you. Committee agrees with me
Last edited:
jkppkjjkp
Well-Known Member
I'm not convinced that Bama's resume is better than Wisconsin's.
Wisconsin on the left, Bama on the right
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
Now sorted by opponent ranking
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
Line by line, there are very small or negligible differences in the qualities of their schedules. Bama did draw worse scenarios in playing their 1st, 3rd, and 5th strongest opponent on the road, and their 4th toughest at a neutral site; comparably Wisconsin played their toughest opponent at a neutral site, but only their 5th, 8th and 9th toughest opponents on the road. Those differences sort of wash out in a few ways, in those 3rd best opponents Wisconsin was at home, but won by 24 compared to Bama winning by 7 on the road to a similarly ranked opponent.
I don't think putting Wisconsin in at #4 would have been the right decision, but I think this is a useful way to illustrate the fact that Bama's resume is just as much about their uniforms as it is about their on-field results.
Wisconsin on the left, Bama on the right
| Opponent | Margin | FPI | Sagarin | Opponent | Margin | FPI | Sagarin |
| Utah St. | 49 | 85 | 84 | n-Florida St. | 17 | 20 | 30 |
| FAU | 17 | 61 | 57 | Fresno St. | 31 | 60 | 56 |
| @BYU | 34 | 96 | 113 | Colorado St. | 18 | 72 | 77 |
| N'western | 9 | 26 | 19 | @Vanderbilt | 59 | 77 | 83 |
| @Nebraska | 21 | 74 | 74 | Ole Miss | 63 | 55 | 59 |
| Purdue | 12 | 50 | 35 | @Texas A&M | 8 | 44 | 45 |
| Maryland | 25 | 84 | 80 | Arkansas | 32 | 70 | 75 |
| @Illinois | 14 | 107 | 126 | Tennessee | 38 | 75 | 92 |
| @Indiana | 28 | 49 | 52 | LSU | 14 | 17 | 18 |
| Iowa | 24 | 24 | 22 | @Mississippi St | 7 | 19 | 20 |
| Michigan | 14 | 23 | 21 | Mercer | 56 | UR | 149 |
| @Minnesota | 31 | 66 | 61 | @Auburn | -12 | 6 | 8 |
| n-Ohio State | -6 | 2 | 4 |
Now sorted by opponent ranking
| Wisconsin | Alabama | ||||||
| Opponent | Margin | FPI | Sagarin | Opponent | Margin | FPI | Sagarin |
| n-Ohio State | -6 | 2 | 4 | @Auburn | -12 | 6 | 8 |
| Michigan | 14 | 23 | 21 | LSU | 14 | 17 | 18 |
| Iowa | 24 | 24 | 22 | @Mississippi St | 7 | 19 | 20 |
| N'western | 9 | 26 | 19 | n-Florida St. | 17 | 20 | 30 |
| @Indiana | 28 | 49 | 52 | @Texas A&M | 8 | 44 | 45 |
| Purdue | 12 | 50 | 35 | Ole Miss | 63 | 55 | 59 |
| FAU | 17 | 61 | 57 | Fresno St. | 31 | 60 | 56 |
| @Minnesota | 31 | 66 | 61 | Arkansas | 32 | 70 | 75 |
| @Nebraska | 21 | 74 | 74 | Colorado St. | 18 | 72 | 77 |
| Maryland | 25 | 84 | 80 | Tennessee | 38 | 75 | 92 |
| Utah St. | 49 | 85 | 84 | @Vanderbilt | 59 | 77 | 83 |
| @BYU | 34 | 96 | 113 | Mercer | 56 | UR | 149 |
| @Illinois | 14 | 107 | 126 |
Line by line, there are very small or negligible differences in the qualities of their schedules. Bama did draw worse scenarios in playing their 1st, 3rd, and 5th strongest opponent on the road, and their 4th toughest at a neutral site; comparably Wisconsin played their toughest opponent at a neutral site, but only their 5th, 8th and 9th toughest opponents on the road. Those differences sort of wash out in a few ways, in those 3rd best opponents Wisconsin was at home, but won by 24 compared to Bama winning by 7 on the road to a similarly ranked opponent.
I don't think putting Wisconsin in at #4 would have been the right decision, but I think this is a useful way to illustrate the fact that Bama's resume is just as much about their uniforms as it is about their on-field results.
jkppkjjkp
Well-Known Member
OSU got worked twice. Alabama lost only once, on the road, in the most heated rivalry in sports. I have a hard time believing OSU advocates wouldn't argue for OSU over Bama if Bama got killed by OU at home, got killed at Mizzou/Kentucky, and OSU's only loss was to a top ten Michigan team on the road.
Schedules are made years in advance. CSU is usually a pretty decent G5 and FSU is almost always a top ten team. Pretty difficult to penalize Bama because FSU didn't turn out to be as good as it usually is.
Schedules are made years in advance. CSU is usually a pretty decent G5 and FSU is almost always a top ten team. Pretty difficult to penalize Bama because FSU didn't turn out to be as good as it usually is.
wyomingBUFF
Well-Known Member
Correct. They got it right. Alabama is the 4th best team. OSU and USC both lost 2 games, and both had at least one REALLY bad blowout loss. It’s pretty simple, actually.
I hate to say it but Bama would have won the Pac-12 or Big Ten this year.
New plan Larry Scott, beat SEC at it's own game.
6 Conference games. No championship game. Play a bunch of scrubs.
Anyone who says the committee rewards "aggressive" scheduling hasn't been paying attention.
If USC had scheduled Mercer instead of ND, they'd be in. If the Big10 didn't have a conference championship game, Wisconsin would be in. I could see arguments between Ohio State and USC, but Bama did nothing to deserve to be there. Who did they beat? When your best win is against a team that lost at home to Troy, you don't get in the playoffs.
Like in BBall, it shouldn't be about who you lost to, it should be about who you beat.
1. Bama beat #17 team at home and #23 team on the road. Trash.
2. OSU beat #6 Neutral site, #9 home and #16 home. Conference champ
3. USC beat #13 home and neutral, and played 12 P5 teams in 13 weeks. Conference champ
6 Conference games. No championship game. Play a bunch of scrubs.
Anyone who says the committee rewards "aggressive" scheduling hasn't been paying attention.
If USC had scheduled Mercer instead of ND, they'd be in. If the Big10 didn't have a conference championship game, Wisconsin would be in. I could see arguments between Ohio State and USC, but Bama did nothing to deserve to be there. Who did they beat? When your best win is against a team that lost at home to Troy, you don't get in the playoffs.
Like in BBall, it shouldn't be about who you lost to, it should be about who you beat.
1. Bama beat #17 team at home and #23 team on the road. Trash.
2. OSU beat #6 Neutral site, #9 home and #16 home. Conference champ
3. USC beat #13 home and neutral, and played 12 P5 teams in 13 weeks. Conference champ
USC only team with 10 wins against P5 teams, too.
You make key points. But wins are only part of the evaluation. The Committee looks at the while body of work, using advanced metrics correlated to “best”, their charter. You can’t cherrypick.
Who a team lost to should, and does matter.
If Alabama wants to be considered one of the top four teams they should have to prove it. Playing Fresno, Colorado State, and Mercer instead of real teams, and travelling for none of those takes away any credibility they have.
They played 3 what would be called quality teams in Auburn, LSU, and Miss State, and lost one of those. They did try to have a quality win but Florida State was bad but still their schedule is inexcusable.
And no we don't need to go to six or eight teams. We are having trouble finding four teams that we can argue were the best in college football this year and people want to add another 2-4 teams to the mix. No. One of the special things about college football is that the regular season matters. I don't want some 3 loss team getting hot/lucky at the end and winning the title.
Yesterday was the first round of the playoffs with the conference championships, those games should be the priority in getting into the playoff.
They played 3 what would be called quality teams in Auburn, LSU, and Miss State, and lost one of those. They did try to have a quality win but Florida State was bad but still their schedule is inexcusable.
And no we don't need to go to six or eight teams. We are having trouble finding four teams that we can argue were the best in college football this year and people want to add another 2-4 teams to the mix. No. One of the special things about college football is that the regular season matters. I don't want some 3 loss team getting hot/lucky at the end and winning the title.
Yesterday was the first round of the playoffs with the conference championships, those games should be the priority in getting into the playoff.
It was proven. FPI and SOR.
Not an SEC fan. Just telling the truth. I don’t care who is in as long as the charter is followed.
Bama was ahead of tOSU in every poll.
Why change this week?
Which game you going to this year?
If you want to be considered the best, prove it. Playing Mercer at home isn't proving it.