The Debate on Alabama/Ohio State

[CLW]

Turned on for the first time in I don't know how long to watch "regular" ESPN programming. They put a panel of 3 people who have no known expertise in college football and 2 SEC homers (Finebaum and Booger) to "debate" who the committee should put in as the #4 team. They all acted like it was not even close and would get in over

Honestly, its the closest and most interesting debate ever on a college sports tourny field. To me its a coin toss.

On one hand, I think would defeat in a mythical play-in game in a close contest. Last I checked Vegas agrees and would have Alabama as a 3 point favorite.

On the other hand, if the teams are that close they must be deemed "comparable" and therefore the committee is REQUIRED to weigh heavily conference championships (also head-to-head and common opponents which are inapplicable here).

As a fan I don't want to see the Buckeyes again after the flag plant game and would thus prefer Alabama to make it

As a person that wants 8 teams (5 conference championships, 1 team from Group of 5, 2 at-large by computers/Vegas) does Alabama not making it make that closer to reality or does 2 SEC teams thus leaving 2 Power 5 Conferences out (the Big 10 and Pac 12) make it more likely to happen? Honestly I think either way this season pushes us closer to the field expanding.

IF I were a Committee Member I would vote for to go in over Alabama as the 4 seed.

[SmoothPancakes]

I'm not sure which way this is going to go. While the Iowa loss is bad, I almost feel like it's leaning Ohio State's way due to the Big Ten title, the division title, the 11 wins and wins over Wisconsin, Penn State and Michigan State, all currently in the top 16.

The case for Alabama is they only have one loss and have been on top of the polls all seasons and would probably win a head to head with Ohio State, but didn't win their conference or division, and their best wins are against LSU and Mississippi State.

So I have no idea. In my gut, I have a feeling it'll be Ohio State, but it truly could go either way and Alabama and Ohio State both have entirely valid claims for why it should be them.

The biggest thing in my mind, was Kirby Hocutt saying their viewed Ohio State and Alabama with little separation as of Tuesday, so does Ohio State's win in the Big Ten Championship game (even though it was close and wasn't sealed until the final minutes) give them that edge?

Either way, I think the fires of playoff expansion will be stoked today. We're basically still have the exact same debates as we were in the CBS era, just now instead of debating who will end up 2nd and 3rd, we're debating who will end up 4th and 5th.

Although even if the playoff were to be expanded after all this this season, that debate will never end. It'll just become debating who will end up 8th and 9th or 16th and 17th.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[CLW]

I'll throw this out there too (not that I think it will happen) but what if its on the outside looking in with say at #3 and at #4. For some reason it keeps creeping up in my head that the committee might try something dumb like that as isn't as "powerful" as the other two brands.

[SmoothPancakes]

I'll throw this out there too (not that I think it will happen) but what if its on the outside looking in with say at #3 and at #4. For some reason it keeps creeping up in my head that the committee might try something dumb like that as isn't as "powerful" as the other two brands.

You know, you make a point. Everyone is automatically assuming that Georgia beating Auburn last night guaranteed them at least the #3 spot. We already saw last year a championship-less Ohio State get in over Big Ten champ Penn State. They could indeed do the same this year, taking the championship-less Alabama over SEC champ Georgia. And honestly, I would consider Alabama to have the better resume than Georgia.

The thing that helps Georgia the most is that Auburn was in the top 3. So even though Georgia was behind Alabama going into this weekend, beating a top 3 team should be enough to boost them over Alabama.

So while Georgia should be a lock, your theory is definitely not outside reality. The only two absolutely unquestionably secure locks are Clemson and Oklahoma.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[steelerfan]

I have a tough time with the concept of putting a 2-loss team in while leaving out undefeated and 1-loss teams. I know UCF is completely unrealistic but I don't think Ohio State should get in (I thought it was crap that Auburn was in last week) and I hate Alabama more than I hate ram.

[SmoothPancakes]

I have a tough time with the concept of putting a 2-loss team in while leaving out undefeated and 1-loss teams. I know UCF is completely unrealistic but I don't think Ohio State should get in (I thought it was crap that Auburn was in last week) and I hate Alabama more than I hate ram.

That's been my stance for years, all the way back to the Utah and Boise State BCS years. It should be undefeated teams, then 1 loss teams then 2 loss teams for consideration. Christ, until the last week or two, you had an undefeated Wisconsin even that couldn't even crack the top 5, on top of an undefeated UCF.

The biggest crock of shit is the complete lack of respect the Group for 5 teams get. It doesn't matter how many times a Boise State, Northern Illinois, Utah (before they joined the Pac-12), UCF, Houston or Western Michigan (only lost to Wisconsin by 8 last year) do, they still get marginalized and ignored and declared overrated by the fans and bowls. Even in 2009, when you had Boise State and TCU crash the BCS whle still in the WAC and MWC, what do they do? They stick them in the same goddamn bowl game against each other.

I have no idea what it's going to take for the Group of 5 teams to get any respect in the polls, bowls and playoff, because clearly beating P6 teams in the major BCS/CFP bowl games hasn't earned them any respect.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[SmoothPancakes]

And the decision is made.

Your 2017 College Football Playoff teams are:

#1 Clemson
#2 Oklahoma
#3 Georgia
#4 Alabama

#5 Ohio State
#6 Wisconsin

That leaves Ohio State, USC and UCF on the outside looking in.

For the second year in a row, a team that failed to win their conference, and even failed to win their own division, gets into the playoff over a Power 5 conference champion.

[CLW]

I'm a little surprised - the committee's rules are apparently a joke and the system is setup so the committee can make up the "rules" on the fly and even change them from week to week. There is no way you can say with a straight face that 3 point spread by Vegas makes 2 teams not "comparable". Basically its just a completely subjective crap shoot at the whims of committee members most of whom don't know the difference between a 1st down and a touchdown.

Honestly, I think it came down to "politics". ran into literally the only other brand in college football with more power than they have in . Had say had the exact same resume as the Tide and The Buckeyes make it into the playoffs.

[steelerfan]

I'm a little surprised - the committee's rules are apparently a joke and the system is setup so the committee can make up the "rules" on the fly and even change them from week to week. There is no way you can say with a straight face that 3 point spread by Vegas makes 2 teams not "comparable". Basically its just a completely subjective crap shoot at the whims of committee members most of whom don't know the difference between a 1st down and a touchdown.

Honestly, I think it came down to "politics". ran into literally the only other brand in college football with more power than they have in . Had say had the exact same resume as the Tide and The Buckeyes make it into the playoffs.

A Vegas line is not a useful tool for comparing teams. The line's job is to get equal money wagered on both sides so that the house wins no matter what (see vigorish).

You wanted Alabama, I'm not sure what your beef is.

I'm not sure why you think the CFP committee doesn't know a first down from a touchdown. Do you know who they are?

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.co...committee.aspx

If the Irish were in the playoffs I wouldn't want Alabama in because I know there's no way in hell ND could beat them. I suspect you're mad for the same reason.

That said, from the start I've wanted 16 in the playoffs.

[Rudy]

Tough choice. I think Bama gets in based on reputation. Same with SEC over B1G. Close call. That loss to Iowa was bad. But Bama isn’t as good this year. Herbie made a good point that they aren’t trending in the right direction and injuries have really hurt the defence. That said, I would be more scared to play Bama than OSU in the playoffs. And that is also reputation based. Hard to argue for Bama when just looking at this year.

[cdj]

Figured Alabama would get in despite no marquee win all season. Ohio State's loss at Iowa was insurmountable IMO. Personally, I'd rather see UCF in, but as steeler said, that's not realistic. It doesn't help when ESPN & FOX both immediately went to the tOSU v Bama debate last night instead of also considering 2-loss conference champ USC (better losses than tOSU), UCF, etc. They set the tone for the national debate and for what the committee had to hear when watching the games yesterday.

I don't care who wins it all so long as it isn't Alabama. No problem with their fans, but tired of them winning so much and the media hype surrounding them. I respect and admire their consistency, but the media has helped to make them unlikable.

[steelerfan]

Personally, I'll be rooting for Georgia. If they can't win it I hope Clemson does. My third choice would be Mobilehoma.

[SmoothPancakes]

I think the thing that stands out to me, it truly seems like the committee is making things up as they go along.

Last week, teams 5-8 had very little separation according to Kirby Hocutt. So based on that statement, Ohio State and Alabama were virtually on an even playing field for consideration.

Then yesterday, now Kirby Hocutt is saying that Alabama all along has been the superior looking team.

So what changed? After saying teams 5-8 had very little separation, Ohio State goes out and wins the Big Ten Championship (and despite the close score at the end, they were still clearly the better team than Wisconsin from the start. Only second half OSU mistakes kept it from becoming another blowout.) and now the next day suddenly Alabama is the superior team over everyone else in 5-8.

It makes no sense. Either the committee or Hocutt are apparently just pulling things out of their ass this year.

Of course they can't stop even contradicting themselves. First you had to win a conference championship to get in (Big 12 found that out the hard way at the start of the CFP), then last year, you didn't even need to win your own division, much less your own conference, to get into the playoff over a team that beat you, won your division and won your conference that same season. And now this year, you don't have to win your own division, much less your own conference, to get into the playoff over the conference champion from another major conference.

Granted records, number of losses and quality of opponents play into things, but other than the bad loss to Iowa, Ohio State has been a quality team all year, and I'd rate their wins over Penn State, Michigan State and Wisconsin (three teams in the top 16) over Alabama best wins of LSU and Mississippi State.

Ultimately I was expecting a coin toss between who would get in, so I'm not surprised by Alabama getting in, though because I'm not a SEC fan, I did want to see Alabama get shut out because simply fuck Bama.

I just hope Clemson has a good game plan, because if I have to watch that cock gobbler Saban hold up another trophy, I'm gonna be pissed.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[CLW]

I think the thing that stands out to me, it truly seems like the committee is making things up as they go along.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

The used the lack of "13th data point" against Big Xii teams before of course Alabama's 13th data point (if they even get to a SEC Championship game) is Mercer. But Bama with no 13th data point? No problem.

In reality the committee is just making shit up as it goes coming up with talking points/excuses and often changing them for no apparent/logical reasoning (other than to fit their conclusion/narrative).

[SmoothPancakes]

Ding. Ding. Ding.

The used the lack of "13th data point" against Big Xii teams before of course Alabama's 13th data point (if they even get to a SEC Championship game) is Mercer. But Bama with no 13th data point? No problem.

In reality the committee is just making shit up as it goes coming up with talking points/excuses and often changing them for no apparent/logical reasoning (other than to fit their conclusion/narrative).

Yep. Every single year of the CFP has seen the reasoning for why one team was picked over another completely change from the year before. First you had to win a conference title game, now you don't even have to win your division.

Last week teams 5-8 all had barely any separation, this week Alabama was clearly the better and superior team over the rest. Every season and every week the message changes and no one had any clue what the hell the committee wants.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[steelerfan]

Yep. Every single year of the CFP has seen the reasoning for why one team was picked over another completely change from the year before. First you had to win a conference title game, now you don't even have to win your division.

Last week teams 5-8 all had barely any separation, this week Alabama was clearly the better and superior team over the rest. Every season and every week the message changes and no one had any clue what the hell the committee wants.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

It's a portion of why I want 16 teams in it and have from day 1.

With just 4 the 5 team is always someone would could run the table and win it (tOSU this year).

If they went to 8, most years an argument could be made that if number 9 got hot and caught some breaks they could win it (PSU this year).

With 16, I don't think any rational person would believe 17 could run the table (LSU this year) and, as a bonus, it would assure the UCF types always get in.

[SmoothPancakes]

It's a portion of why I want 16 teams in it and have from day 1.

With just 4 the 5 team is always someone would could run the table and win it (tOSU this year).

If they went to 8, most years an argument could be made that if number 9 got hot and caught some breaks they could win it (PSU this year).

With 16, I don't think any rational person would believe 17 could run the table (LSU this year) and, as a bonus, it would assure the UCF types always get in.

I'd be fine with 16. The FCS pulls off a true playoff no problem, along with Division II, III, NAIA and literally every other level of collegiate football. If all of them can have true playoffs with no issue or hassle, I see no reason the FBS can't do a 16 team playoff.

And you can still have the normal, usual bowl games for everyone else.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[cdj]

Yep. Every single year of the CFP has seen the reasoning for why one team was picked over another completely change from the year before. First you had to win a conference title game, now you don't even have to win your division.

Last week teams 5-8 all had barely any separation, this week Alabama was clearly the better and superior team over the rest. Every season and every week the message changes and no one had any clue what the hell the committee wants.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Don't forget how important "game control" was in year one....have we heard it since?

[Rudy]

I like 4. Most teams outside the top 4 aren’t that good and it still puts pressure on you to win every game. I don’t like 8 and I hate 16. Unfairness or perceived unfairness is a good thing. Large playoff pools are a money grab and less interesting to me. Minority opinion but I would rather debate who the fourth team should be then let teams in and watch them get smoked because they don’t belong.