It's not irrelevant. It's whether or not you're consistent. Penn State should have been in over Washington. Bama should be in over TCU. Consistent
The only ranking suspense: is Ohio State above TCU in the Playoff four?
- Thread starter Jerry
- Start date
Then we should just pick them at the start of the season. Why does Bama even need to play? They are 3-5-1 against the spread this year and lost at favorites so maybe they aren't the best team and don't need to be in even if they would be favored vs everyone other than UGA. This debate is worthless because we don't even need 4 teams this year. UM vs UGA would do it and the BCS could get that right.
Unless I’ve missed it and then committee has come out and said they were wrong with taking teams with fewer losses over teams with more losses/but better resumes - something they’ve never done - then no we’re not saying the same thing. The committee’s past actions do not justify putting Bama in this year because it is at odds with all the past years and the committee has never said it is changing criteria or was wrong in the past.
So if the committee states we've learned from past decisions our approach should have been different that wouldn't work for you?
I just don't believe anyone thinks TCU is better and this is only about the best teams
I want to have consistent and as objective criteria as possible. Quite frankly I’d rather have a completely objective criteria and determined in advance of the season like RPI determine the teams even if it heavily flawed. At least it would be fair.
Has the committee said that? I don’t recall them ever saying anything like that but feel free to provide a link.
If they prior to this season said something like they’ve made a mistake in overweighing number of losses then cool.
Of course they can’t come out now and say some crap like that because then it just comes back to being inconsistent and changing criteria just to get the teams in they want. They need to announce any explicit change in selection criteria in advance before any specific teams are affected so we know it’s objective and not post facto justification.
Ohio St did actually look and probably smell like #2 at home against their #4 Michigan like a week ago.Here are the Sagarin Ratings. Seems pretty right to me.
You missed the word if
And yes they can say it now. It's obvious you know Bama should be in but are mad about the past. You want Bama out because we were left out not because it's right.
Because RPI isn’t how the CFP is determined. I’m not even sure what you are asking? If that was the stated criteria then so be it but it absolutely is not so it’s irrelevant to the discussion.
Those rankings dont make sense at all. Michigan steam rolled Ohio state. Texas ahead of TCU is laughable. Tennessee and Bama have same record but Tennessee beat them. Utah has three losses including losing to a non ranked team. Why even play the games just put Bama and Georgia on finals every year.Here are the Sagarin Ratings. Seems pretty right to me.
No. I’m not mad about the past at all. I just want consistency, otherwise it’s favoritism. Have rules, then stick to them. Better flawed and consistent rules than Willy milky justification after the fact.
And personally if they aren’t taking TCU they should put in Tennessee not Bama. Head to head should definitely matter.
The committee has always put in teams with fewer losses in over other P5 teams with more losses.
Bama should be in because Saben said they would be favored on a neutral field against the other teams. You know, like they were favored in the two losses that had. Win those games and you can be in. Is what it is. You argue there should be consistency. Well consistency would be to not have a two loss Alabama in according to how they have done the rankings for a few years now. I get you get off on always having to think you are the smartest guy in the arguments but just like others give an opinion your is also only an opinion.
I'm hoping we get SEC/SEC & B10/B10. Those are the only conferences that matter. Pretending otherwise is absurd
Both of Bama's losses were on road which is a factor. There's tons of people smarter than me. They just refuse to let go of the bias and emotion. Like people thought we were going to lose to Michigan State in the 4th quarter. That's emotion ignoring reality
And those are still losses. The committee will put in TCU if they stay consistent with how they have been the last few years. Win the game Nick and you can play
I don't know why we're pretending there's this example in the past. When did we ever have a 12-1 Big XII team that lost the title game being compared to a 10-2 SEC team that lost both games on the final play against ranked teams on the road?
Further to my point about who isn’t considered in this conversation.
In every sport, ties are broken by a certain set of criteria, in order of importance.
There is one that is universally accepted as king. Head 2 Head. Tennessee and Alabama have the same record and actually played. Tennessee won. If Alabama is considered as a 2 loss team then Tenessee is it. Not Alabama. There is no need to go to the next sets of criteria.
Tennessee got waxed by South Carolina? So what. Head to head rules. The most concrete objective measure rules.
Unless there is a committee deciding to use eye test and “who would be favored”. Lol.
TCU is in. No two loss team need apply. All of them, including us, had our chances to have only one or zero losses. We weren’t better and Alabama isn’t better. And they are certainly not better than Tennesse, so says a game this year.
You keep saying criteria and you are misinterpreting things. The only criteria listed is performance on the field.
The 4 criteria listed afterwards are specified to be used to decide among teams that are comparable.
It is the committee’s choice to determine what is deemed comparable. I can understand why that may upset some, but you can’t say they aren’t following their criteria.
It is irrelevant, as that pertained to 2 different teams with an entirely different ranking landscape, and with the objective criteria being different that year between them. It is not remotely close and has no relevance toward comparing Bama and TCU objectively this year.
Besides, they put 1 loss Washington in you clown, which goes against your argument.
The point was that decision was wrong as was this one.
You can't complain about the first one and support this one
Who said I complained or anyone else did? You're creating a straw man argument which, again, is irrelevant to objectively comparing Bama and TCU. Do you argue like this at work?
It's not just about 1 game
Did you agree with the decision to leave Penn State out?
The irony is the committee has actually been remarkably consistent over the years. They take the four Power 5 teams with the fewer losses. In cases where they need a tie breaker, teams that win their conference championship go over ones that did not (preference going to ones who won a CCG over ones who were determined only by the regular season). Beyond that they would go to more subjective criteria like best win/worse loss/schedule strength.
A group of five team needs to have won their conference and have at least 2 losses fewer than P5 options.
Now I’m not saying these criteria have been good or “right” but to give credit to the committee they’ve been very consistent.
Again, it is irrelevant and an entirely different argument. Most people I knew who were PSU fans were upset that OSU was in when PSU beat them and won conference. The Washington issue OBJECTIVELY was that PSU lost to Pitt, a P5 school in a non conf early season game. Washington's non conf schedule I believe contained FCS schools. So the issue was rewarding a team who cannot be objectively better based on a comparison of non conf games when they played the Duluth Boys Choir when we played Pitt.
Washington had 1 loss and won conference, hard to argue against them regardless of the above-referenced issues.
Again, though, you have gone far afield, as this is an entirely different discussion which has nothing to do with objectively comparing Bama and TCU this year.
What exactly are you arguing about ? You have completely changed the argument and are arguing about a straw man. You aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.
For the 17th time, you continue to report your own personal belief that Alabama is "better" than TCU. You cite to no objective evidence to support this baseless contention. Your rational debate has led you to arguing about the 2016 PSU team and the strength of Pitt. Like on what planet are you?
I lik he planet where rational people would all say that they expect Alabama to beat TCU (the definition of better).
Who care which team is “stronger”? Even if they paid lip service to that, the committee has never actually used that as an overriding criteria over fewer losses or winning a conference.
Similar threads
