Jump to content

FINAL 2024 CFB polls/rankings - Texas #3/ #4 /#3 (CFP/AP/Coaches)


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

Are you fucking kidding me? You think Syracuse and Bama are interchangeable? Texas would chokeslam Syracuse. Bama has the potential to beat Texas in a game, Syracuse doesnt. The SEC is way better than the ACC and that isnt bias, it is just fact. 

 

Also, Miami is a 4 loss team on Bama's schedule.

Dude. They got absolutely smoked by a bad OU team. At a time where they knew they couldnt lose. Do you watch games or just blindly think Bama is some good team?

Edited by Pam Cummings
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
6 minutes ago, B00M said:

 


Put OU in the ACC this year. You really think they go 6-6 and lose to powerhouses like *checks notes* Duke and SMU? 


 

.....yes? Did you watch OU this year? They are an objectively bad football team.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, satyanash said:

So in other words, Alabama is just 3-2 against teams below .500 while Miami is 6-0. Warde Manuel is a complete idiot.

 

It's a committee. They have to come to a consensus on what the tiebreaker should be and this is what they decided on. 

So he's not an idiot - he's just relaying the message that this was what they ultimately decided was the tiebreaker. 

12 hours ago, Skipper said:

For everyone bitching about Bama, who in the fuck should be ranked ahead of them?  I'm sorry - they are MUCH more deserving than fucking Miami.  It was pretty straight forward from my perspective. 

The real test is what they do if Clemson beats SMU.

Huck mentioned this but Bama is ahead of all of Miami, Ole Miss, and USCe in the vast majority of computer rankings: https://masseyratings.com/ranks?s=cf

You can certainly find a few that do not - for example, game control is one of their metrics and Ole Miss is ahead of Alabama in that: https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi/_/view/resume/sort/resume.gamecontrolrank/dir/asc

I think SMU gets left out if they lose. They have the same problems that Miami does - not enough quality wins. 

12 hours ago, dcar00 said:

ND's SOS sucks and their loss is to a MAC team who is 7-5 at Home and their biggest win is aggy.   we would have 2 losses to the SEC champ.  by every available metric other than loss column we should be #5 but Notre Dame will get it because...reasons and get a walk to the semis

ND should be lower with that NIU loss but they are still a 1 loss team AND the computers love them. Also #3 in game control. 

14 hours ago, Js1 said:

 the only teams that can jump Bama in the final rankings are Clemson or ASU. 

 

I could have sworn that he walked this back a bit afterwards. Saying that "the games this weekend will have an impact on the teams that are not playing." Reese flipped his shit when that happened.

Keep in mind that Georgia is kind of the key to all of this - their win over us and their losses to Bama and Ole Miss is doing a LOT of heavy lifting IMHO.

I think there's a chance if we beat UGA that the perception of all of the SEC teams involved will change. 

 

Edited by The Dog
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

.....yes? Did you watch OU this year? They are an objectively bad football team.

I mean, the OU team that lost to LSU by 2 TD, lost to fucking paper tiger Mizzou, almost lost to Auburn, scored 3 points against Texas, 26 point loss to SoCar, and almost lost to Houston? 

Most likely would have lost to SMU, Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Syracuse, Miami.  

The Bama game is a total outlier.  It says nothing about OU and everything about Bama either overlooking OU or just not preparing well for them. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
16 minutes ago, B00M said:

 


Put OU in the ACC this year. You really think they go 6-6 and lose to powerhouses like *checks notes* Duke and SMU? 


 

Yes?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
50 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Miami lost to Geogia Tech(objectively good team, should have beaten Georgia) by 5 and a good Syracuse team by 3. Both road games. The only reason the ACC isn't seen as a better conference is due to SEC bias and preseason rankings. Seriously, Mizzou fucking sucks. It's not some great win. Yet they were ranked all year and get pumped as a "ranked win" by the SEC teams.

 

Meanwhile Alabama lost more games than Miami and wasn't even competitive against a bad OU team. Alabama isn't that good.

 

Which is why we should want Alabama in

Easier win, more clout from beating them.

they will probably win the first round and face either us or another of the top 4

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

.....yes? Did you watch OU this year? They are an objectively bad football team.

And one of these schedules is objectively MUCH harder than the other. An objectively bad team going 6-6 against that schedule is going, at worst, 8-4 against the other. 

 

IMG_2574.jpeg

IMG_2575.jpeg

Posted

Never forget this iconic Gene Smith quote from 2021:

During a press conference at the Woody Hayes Athletic Center on Wednesday, Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said he would not favor hosting a CFP game at the Shoe in bad weather. Instead, Smith would recommend playing the game at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, believing it would be better for the Buckeyes to play the game in a “clean environment.”

“I don't want a hard surface for the players,” Smith said. “And I know the fans would love to have it in the Shoe and maybe it’s snowing or we’re playing whoever, but that surface is a whole new ballgame. And I would prefer to have the indoor elements and have a clean field. If it was this year, I would want (Ohio State quarterback C.J. Stroud) to have good weather. It’s just that simple.”

Enjoy your December game at The Shoe - I hope it's a blizzard. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

Clemson wins and the committee takes the easy way out and keeps SMU in the field, eliminating the three loss SEC teams altogether. It would also dilute the field in our favor. 
 

Lol jk Bama is getting in. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Pam Cummings said:

Miami lost to Geogia Tech(objectively good team, should have beaten Georgia) by 5 and a good Syracuse team by 3. Both road games. The only reason the ACC isn't seen as a better conference is due to SEC bias and preseason rankings. Seriously, Mizzou fucking sucks. It's not some great win. Yet they were ranked all year and get pumped as a "ranked win" by the SEC teams.

 

Meanwhile Alabama lost more games than Miami and wasn't even competitive against a bad OU team. Alabama isn't that good.

I don't believe that Bama is a great team. They don't have to be to be considered the 11th best team in the country. I think it is funny to try and pump up any teams on the bubble as if they are definitely better than any of the other teams on the bubble. The committee should just say we are going to put 6 teams in a hat and choose that way so it is fair.

Posted
55 minutes ago, satyanash said:

Iowa State's athletic director and SMU's athletic director are currently having a slapfight on Twitter:

 

I wonder if the SMU ad will feel the same if they lose and Bama is on over them. The committee should consider SMU a one loss team regardless since Bama gets to sit at home after letting Jackson Arnold drag his mediocre nuts across their faces. But like I said before they bring the ratings and the committee should just be honest about it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

Florida State was warmed over dog shit and got correctly left out. Their QB that was their entire team broke his leg. Committee leaving out a healthy FSU team wouldve been a different story. 

You're right, but the issue is one of perception. An objective observer can see that without their QB, FSU was not one of the 4 best teams in the country and the committee has been very clear that their goal is to select the 4 best teams (not the most deserving). But college football fans are famousy incapable of being objective, and at its basic level the whole ranking system is a dog-and-pony show. You have to maintain credibility in order to keep your audience - look at what happened to boxing when people figured out how rigged the whole sport is. If you don't manage fan's perspectives then you risk them moving on to some other sport. They have to at least believe that their team is getting a fair shake.

Putting Bama in over FSU was the right call when picking the "best" teams, but it undeniably damaged how fans view the committee and the fairness of the post-season. That's a bad thing, and being "right" won't change anything. 

7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Never forget this iconic Gene Smith quote from 2021:

During a press conference at the Woody Hayes Athletic Center on Wednesday, Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said he would not favor hosting a CFP game at the Shoe in bad weather. Instead, Smith would recommend playing the game at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, believing it would be better for the Buckeyes to play the game in a “clean environment.”

“I don't want a hard surface for the players,” Smith said. “And I know the fans would love to have it in the Shoe and maybe it’s snowing or we’re playing whoever, but that surface is a whole new ballgame. And I would prefer to have the indoor elements and have a clean field. If it was this year, I would want (Ohio State quarterback C.J. Stroud) to have good weather. It’s just that simple.”

Enjoy your December game at The Shoe - I hope it's a blizzard. 

This is the difference between someone who understands the sport and dumbass fans who buy into bullshit mythologies. Playing on cold ground in snow fucking sucks. Getting tackled and tackling on that surface is miserable and can lead to injuries. It also favors the less talented team, especially when the team likes to throw the ball. There's no "advantage" for a school like OSU in playing in the snow, you just limit your offense and increase your risk of injury. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, po elvis said:

I don't believe that Bama is a great team. They don't have to be to be considered the 11th best team in the country. I think it is funny to try and pump up any teams on the bubble as if they are definitely better than any of the other teams on the bubble. The committee should just say we are going to put 6 teams in a hat and choose that way so it is fair.

Fuck it, that makes as much sense as anything.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Park Gothic said:

This is the difference between someone who understands the sport and dumbass fans who buy into bullshit mythologies. Playing on cold ground in snow fucking sucks. Getting tackled and tackling on that surface is miserable and can lead to injuries. It also favors the less talented team, especially when the team likes to throw the ball. There's no "advantage" for a school like OSU in playing in the snow, you just limit your offense and increase your risk of injury. 

Then don't lose to 6-5 Michigan at home as a 20 point favorite

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Pam Cummings said:

Dude. They got absolutely smoked by a bad OU team. At a time where they knew they couldnt lose. Do you watch games or just blindly think Bama is some good team?

I think Bama has extreme variation in the quality of their play. They can beat anyone and lose to anyone. Not great qualities. However, they are being compared to other teams with deep flaws also. I really dont give a fuck who the 11th place team is though, and you shouldnt care that much either. ACC and Big 12 are shit tier conferences and they will both be eliminated by the semifinals. 

Posted
22 minutes ago, MrX said:

Clemson wins and the committee takes the easy way out and keeps SMU in the field, eliminating the three loss SEC teams altogether.

That was Finebaum's take on Sunday. He's hedged a bit since then, but remember the committee will always default to "easy."

Posted (edited)

Klatt had a good point about SMU if they lose this weekend, they will have lost to the only 2 good teams they played which is hard to argue against.

Edited by kevwun
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Then don't lose to 6-5 Michigan at home as a 20 point favorite

 

can you imagine the howling if we had lost to Florida, beat aggy, and were 10-2 and in without playing a conf champ game?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
16 hours ago, satyanash said:

Alabama jumps up to #11, ahead of Miami at #12. Sickening.

Of course Ole Miss stays at #13, and ESPN explains it away as them having a "bad Florida loss". But zero mention of Alabama’s losses, instead they handwave it away with "oh, everyone in this cluster has some bad losses, but look at Alabama’s wins!!1!"

Your constant fixation on number of losses without accounting for strength of schedule is getting very tiresome.

Miami has played one team in the top 20 of F+ all year: 8-4 Louisville in a back and forth shootout. Bama played 4 teams in the top 20 and went 3-1.

Miami only played 3 teams in the top 40 all year. Bama played 7. 

Miami got an absolute cakewalk of a schedule and still dropped two games. There's no legitimate basis for claiming they absolutely deserved a playoff spot. 

15 hours ago, satyanash said:

Looks like we have our answer.

 

 

19 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Klatt had a good point about SMU if they lose this weekend, they will have lost to the only 2 good teams they played which is hard to argue against.

Exactly. I don't get why people act like SMU will be robbed if they lose to Clemson and are out. You can mess around with the cutoffs, but SMU has only played one team in the top 20 and they lost to them. Clemson will be their second. If they go 0-2 against top 20 teams (neither of which are in the top 15), there's no reason why they should get to be in the CFP. On the flip side, Clemson is 0-3 against top 20 teams, so if SMU is even one of the 20 best teams in the country, they should be able to handle Clemson and guarantee their spot in the CFP.

People need to stop fixating so much on number of losses when there's such huge schedule disparity. The ACC is an absolute fucking joke of a conference. Their bad teams are horrible, and the ACC's top 3 teams (SMU, Miami, Clemson) didn't play each other.  Duke is 46th in F+ and they went 1-3 against teams in the top 50. They are 9-3 because they go to play 8 teams outside of the top 50 in CFB. That's not a power conference schedule and shouldn't be treated as such. 

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

I mean, the OU team that lost to LSU by 2 TD, lost to fucking paper tiger Mizzou, almost lost to Auburn, scored 3 points against Texas, 26 point loss to SoCar, and almost lost to Houston? 

Most likely would have lost to SMU, Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Syracuse, Miami.  

The Bama game is a total outlier.  It says nothing about OU and everything about Bama either overlooking OU or just not preparing well for them. 

This is a great example of people not understanding how bad the ACC is. Oklahoma is 31st in F+. They would be favored on a neutral field against all of Duke (46th), Georgia Tech(42nd), and Syracuse (50th). Oklahoma would not have had to play all 3 of SMU, Clemson, and Miami, and they would probably be 9-3 instead of Duke. 

 

It really shouldn't be this hard to understand that you can't just compare records straight up, especially when you're talking about ACC teams versus the SEC. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
12 hours ago, F250 said:

This graphic doesn't make sense. I don't see The world class fighting texas aggy listed.

the graphic is illegal on the grounds of eSiPn conspiracy to outshine aggy

also missing are the brethren who have told us repeatedly they are a national brand

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

Alabama has no business in the playoffs. I hate the rankings and am just glad that our team did what they needed to do and didn't leave it up to a bunch of weird ever-changing standards.

the easter egg in all of the analysis was dinich declaring the eye test more important this year

that's the bat signal

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Your constant fixation on number of losses without accounting for strength of schedule is getting very tiresome.

Miami has played one team in the top 20 of F+ all year: 8-4 Louisville in a back and forth shootout. Bama played 4 teams in the top 20 and went 3-1.

Miami only played 3 teams in the top 40 all year. Bama played 7. 

Miami got an absolute cakewalk of a schedule and still dropped two games. There's no legitimate basis for claiming they absolutely deserved a playoff spot. 

 

Exactly. I don't get why people act like SMU will be robbed if they lose to Clemson and are out. You can mess around with the cutoffs, but SMU has only played one team in the top 20 and they lost to them. Clemson will be their second. If they go 0-2 against top 20 teams (neither of which are in the top 15), there's no reason why they should get to be in the CFP. On the flip side, Clemson is 0-3 against top 20 teams, so if SMU is even one of the 20 best teams in the country, they should be able to handle Clemson and guarantee their spot in the CFP.

People need to stop fixating so much on number of losses when there's such huge schedule disparity. The ACC is an absolute fucking joke of a conference. Their bad teams are horrible, and the ACC's top 3 teams (SMU, Miami, Clemson) didn't play each other.  Duke is 46th in F+ and they went 1-3 against teams in the top 50. They are 9-3 because they go to play 8 teams outside of the top 50 in CFB. That's not a power conference schedule and shouldn't be treated as such. 

This is a great example of people not understanding how bad the ACC is. Oklahoma is 31st in F+. They would be favored on a neutral field against all of Duke (46th), Georgia Tech(42nd), and Syracuse (50th). Oklahoma would not have had to play all 3 of SMU, Clemson, and Miami, and they would probably be 9-3 instead of Duke. 

 

It really shouldn't be this hard to understand that you can't just compare records straight up, especially when you're talking about ACC teams versus the SEC. 


Yeah but, like, are we really expected to support our arguments? 

Edited by B00M
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, satyanash said:

image.png.1a12190902de72560cb9d90d2a560a90.png

byu are getting screwed worse than anyone else but per the viewership graphics the playoff has room for at most 2 teams not in the Top 18 / 50% category ("brands that matter")

this year smu and boise/unlv most probably take those 2 slots

it's absurd that an 11-2 rig12 champion could be left out, and the brethren are behind the rig12 ccg winner

gump should be behind all of them

Alabama coach Kalen DeBoer joined the College GameDay podcast after the rankings were announced this week, and he shared his reaction.

“You don’t know,” DeBoer said. “It’s a hard decision I understand the committee has to make. I totally get it. Trying to balance everything. There are so many good teams in the country, not just the top but throughout. You don’t know how it’s going to come out. Certainly pleased and understand, I guess selfishly, from our end, where we feel we belong. Feeling that we’re one of those teams that should be in the playoff. A little biased of course, but also, stepping back and have some perspective with our kind of season that we’ve had, the teams we play, the wins we had in particular. I just really feel like we belong there and have that type of team that can go the distance given this type of opportunity.”

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

byu are getting screwed worse than anyone else but per the viewership graphics the playoff has room for at most 2 teams not in the Top 18 / 50% category ("brands that matter")

this year smu and boise/unlv most probably take those 2 slots

it's absurd that an 11-2 rig12 champion could be left out, and the brethren are behind the rig12 ccg winner

gump should be behind all of them

Alabama coach Kalen DeBoer joined the College GameDay podcast after the rankings were announced this week, and he shared his reaction.

“You don’t know,” DeBoer said. “It’s a hard decision I understand the committee has to make. I totally get it. Trying to balance everything. There are so many good teams in the country, not just the top but throughout. You don’t know how it’s going to come out. Certainly pleased and understand, I guess selfishly, from our end, where we feel we belong. Feeling that we’re one of those teams that should be in the playoff. A little biased of course, but also, stepping back and have some perspective with our kind of season that we’ve had, the teams we play, the wins we had in particular. I just really feel like we belong there and have that type of team that can go the distance given this type of opportunity.”

Losing to Kansas really gets treated like two losses though

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

also missing are the brethren who have told us repeatedly they are a national brand

Stop making stuff up. We have a national fan base. Any game anywhere in the country we show up in large numbers. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Stop making stuff up. We have a national fan base. Any game anywhere in the country we show up in large numbers. 

That is weird. All the way down to 18 with just 2 losses eh. Not even a chance at it.

Posted
21 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Stop making stuff up. We have a national fan base. Any game anywhere in the country we show up in large numbers. 

2% of the united states are lds

for comparison, 20% are catholiic

90% of byu fans are in the corridor (az-ut-id)

let's come back to this in the offseason when we need topics to argue

  • Like 1
Posted

There was a P5 when the 12 team CFP was approved, with four conference champions byes. It was always known that one of the SEC (Ha!), B1G (Ha!), PAC (eyes roll), ACC and B12 wouldn’t get a bye. Everyone assumed that, without UT and OU, it would usually be the B12, and occasionally the ACC champ that would not get a bye. 

Posted

Conference championship games are so dumb in this setup. 1-loss teams with similarly weak schedules like Indiana and ND are locked in but SMU is at risk because they made their CCG?

And I presume Texas could drop below ND with a CCG loss? 

It makes no sense. If you think Bama is better than SMU, put them there now but don't punish teams for having an extra game.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, kevwun said:

Klatt had a good point about SMU if they lose this weekend, they will have lost to the only 2 good teams they played which is hard to argue against.

 

Which is why the idea of SMU just not playing in starting to take off (but they are going to play). Some podcasters are bringing up ND and how they don’t have to play this weekend and they are in

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

Which is why the idea of SMU just not playing in starting to take off (but they are going to play). Some podcasters are bringing up ND and how they don’t have to play this weekend and they are in

 

But when Kiffin said it, everyone called him a bitch

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

But when Kiffin said it, everyone called him a bitch

 

I said “he actually makes a great point” but I was talking to myself in my car on the way to work.

 

 

  • Haha 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Tex-19 said:

Lane was right about CCGs.

He is not right about Ole Miss deserving to get in with 3 losses.

i agree with that. 

Posted
28 minutes ago, Tex-19 said:

Conference championship games are so dumb in this setup. 1-loss teams with similarly weak schedules like Indiana and ND are locked in but SMU is at risk because they made their CCG?

And I presume Texas could drop below ND with a CCG loss? 

It makes no sense. If you think Bama is better than SMU, put them there now but don't punish teams for having an extra game.

If SMU could have bought there way into the SEC or B1G they would have.  They couldn't so there you are.  

They won't be punishing SMU for the extra game, they will be punishing them for not being SEC and not being a blue blood.  Blue bloods, SEC, Big Ten, get a mulligan. If the committee thought they could get away with it they'd have SMU below Bama right now.  but they can't because there is a difference of 2 and not 1 in the loss column.

Their game is obvious.  If they would do something like drop Indiana in favor of SCAR then I might believe they are actually looking a full resumes of teams but they don't. They look at loss column, conf affiliation, historical status/eyeballs that come with that, and then eye test, which is used to confirm all their biases.

Posted
9 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

Their game is obvious.  If they would do something like drop Indiana in favor of SCAR then I might believe they are actually looking a full resumes of teams but they don't. They look at loss column, conf affiliation, historical status/eyeballs that come with that, and then eye test, which is used to confirm all their biases.

Matt Hayes: Time to end the Indiana charade and move beyond the College Football Playoff novelty act

Quote

Let me take you to a cold Connecticut suburb, and the vision of a man nestled in front of a roaring fire with a hot cup of joe. Now imagine Burke Magnus, ESPN's president of content, watching in horror as the cable giant's hottest property was kneecapped by the College Football Playoff selection committee chairman. The biggest weekend of the college football season, followed a day later by the grand reveal of the new 12-team CFP, all minimized with one statement about championship week.

One wildly improper statement. "Those who are not playing (during championship week), we will not adjust those teams," said Warde Manuel, Michigan's athletic director and the CFP selection committee chairman. "They don't have another data point, obviously." No, not obviously. Not at all. If Georgia beats Texas in the SEC championship game – far and away the best conference in college football – that isn't another data point for Ole Miss? The same Ole Miss stranded on the bubble as the No.13 team in the poll?

The same Ole Miss that would then have an 18-point win over the champion of the best conference in college football? That's not a data point? The same Ole Miss that would then have a win over the No. 2 team, and a 24-point win at the No. 14 team (South Carolina). And three one-possession losses, two on prayer fourth-down throws from Kentucky and LSU. As opposed to a resume of 11 wins vs. a schedule of every team with at least five losses.

This can't be what we've come to with the new 12-team CFP.

  • Indiana coach Curt Cignetti's CFP pitch: we're good, really, we are!
  • Ole Miss coach Lane Kiffin's CFP pitch: The team that won the SEC? We beat them by 18.

I don't want to be the guy that has to keep saying this, but what in the world is Indiana doing in the CFP? Because if you take Manuel at his word – and I'm still not convinced he didn't inadvertently misspeak under the pressure of live television (it's easy to do) – there is no movement in the poll outside of the teams playing this weekend.

That means Indiana, which has no wins vs. the playoff committee's top 25 and one loss of 23 points at Ohio State, is in the tournament. If we're going to start awarding CFP bids to teams with one loss, why not hand one to Army? The Black Knights are beating teams by an average of 17 points per game, and their only blemish is a blowout loss to No. 4 Notre Dame.

This, of course, is ridiculous to the committee because Army plays in the American Athletic, and has an considerably easier path than Indiana. Which is just like Indiana and its easier path than Ole Miss. These are 12 precious spots, a ticket to the big show that should be earned, not allowed because of some random ideal that less losses is more important that big wins. What exactly are we promoting here by sending Indiana to the CFP?

That those who are fortunate to receive a randomly easier schedule than others, get a significant break on the road to the CFP? That's utterly preposterous. I don't blame Indiana, I blame the selection committee. If those 13 members choosing the 12-team playoff can't look at each other and admit the relative ease of schedule for Indiana is the factor in its school-record 11 wins, we've got much bigger problems with this system.

Indiana is a nice story, just like it was in 2020. That season, the Hoosiers were screwed out of a spot in the Big Ten championship game when the conference changed the return to play rules to get Ohio State into the marquee game. Ohio State won the Big Ten, upset Clemson in the playoff semifinals, and lost to Alabama in the national championship game. Indiana lost to 5-5 Ole Miss in the Outback Bowl.

We're not really doing this, are we? We're not really rewarding a team for simply winning games against overmatched competition Instead of rewarding a team that won games against elite competition. This can't be what we've come to with the 12-team CFP.

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...