Conference Championship Discussion

[Master Live 013]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tovarich

In the end, the committee stated it's better to have 2 losses and a 60th ranked SOS than a 15th ranked one and a third loss. This year it so happened to work out that Alabama's 3 losses were conference games, but the point isn't specific to only this season. It's that losses are to be avoided because they'll be punished more than good wins will be rewarded. So, instead of playing Ohio State and Notre Dame and a bunch of these other big teams Alabama has scheduled down the road, those risks should be avoided, and Alabama should do whatever it can to reduce it's SOS, as it won't be rewarded. If Alabama had lost to Wisconsin but beaten Oklahoma, it's still 3 losses and still the same SOS and the committee would've done the same thing. In the years where Alabama gets an easier SEC schedule like say Texas did, the committee still says that it's better for them to just play an easier schedule whether it would have changed this specific season's playoff or not because like Liberty last year, SOS doesn't matter as much as avoiding losses does, so do whatever you can to avoid losses and lightening your OOC schedule does that.

Agree, only I would caution in counting on the Committee being consistent year to year. Maybe next year they are into strength of schedule or the year after that.

[illwill10]

He might not be available.

[georgiafan]

All of the attention will be on Beck, but the punter is a huge loss. He's the best in the country with almost no return yards when he punts.

[KSUowls]

Quote: Originally Posted by phenom1990

If one of Alabama losses was a big non conference game then their complaining would make sense. Instead their big non conf win was at Wisconsin, who lost their last 5 games. Their other win was against a 6-6 South Florida team that was actually in a 1 possession game with them until about the last 8 minutes of the game. If they just didn’t lose to Oklahoma or Vanderbilt, they would be in and that has nothing to do with the non conference. Hard to get worked up on the 13th team.

Like I said, people would look at Alabama funny for them being the ones to say this because applying the logic to 2024's results makes it any easy argument to debunk.

To give a hypothetical though, give Alabama the win over Vanderbilt and instead make their biggest OOC opponent Wisconsin. And give Wisconsin credit for being the perennial 10 win team that they were in 2019 when this game was scheduled. If 2 losses is better than 3 losses regardless of SoS then neither Alabama or Wisconsin have any cause to ever schedule that series since there is a higher chance of taking a L there when you could get Idaho instead. Teams will schedule in ways that bring them their highest probability of taking the fewest losses over the course of a season.

The one caveat to all of this is what someone said 2 posts prior. Relying on the committee to be consistent from year to year is a dangerous assumption. Precedent has been set though so it's something that teams will have to consider.

[jasontoddwhitt]

Consistency is why I feel like they should bring back the BCS to handle selections.

Coincidentally, Alabama would’ve gotten in over SMU due to Bama’s strength of schedule helping their computer ranking.

I don’t have an opinion on the matter. I can see the argument on both sides. I think what hurts is there is no arbitrary set of criteria to determine this stuff.

[MLcardinalfan]

All Alabama and Miami had to do was win one more game to be higher ranked. Alabama's 8 conference games were against four top 25 opponents. They lost two games against unranked conference opponents (Vanderbilt, and Oklahoma late in the season). Doesn't matter if Wisconsin was a better team 5 years ago when it was scheduled, what matters is that Alabama has been scheduling a late November FCS game since 2009. Unfortunately, Alabama and Miami are on the outside with the current playoff format. Winning those late season games against unranked conference opponents are important.

[KSUowls]

Quote: Originally Posted by MLcardinalfan

All Alabama and Miami had to do was win one more game to be higher ranked. Alabama's 8 conference games were against four top 25 opponents. They lost two games against unranked conference opponents (Vanderbilt, and Oklahoma late in the season). Doesn't matter if Wisconsin was a better team 5 years ago when it was scheduled, what matters is that Alabama has been scheduling a late November FCS game since 2009. Unfortunately, Alabama and Miami are on the outside with the current playoff format. Winning those late season games against unranked conference opponents are important.

My point wasn't that Wisconsin was good 5 years ago or that Alabama shouldn't have just gone out and beaten the teams that they should have. I was just replacing one of their losses with what would have been less of a guaranteed victory when it was scheduled. The hypothetical was to replace 2024 Wisconsin with 2019 Wisconsin, aka: a quality OOC opponent. Alabama had a lot less assurance 5 years ago that Wisconsin would be a 5 touchdown victory. Which at the time was great for the sport because you had a big OOC game scheduled, but neither of those teams would be incentivized to schedule that same game in todays climate (assuming Wisconsin was still good).

It's a scheduling thing for the future. The committee said beating the CFP's #2 team was worth less (for both Alabama and Ole Miss) than having 1 more loss than Tennessee, Texas, Penn State, Ohio State and SMU. So if number of losses matters more than the quality of your opponents then you're not going to do anything to increase your difficulty in suffering fewer losses. Which is just bad for the sport because it means more cupcake games on Saturdays.

Full Disclosure - If Alabama, Ole Miss or South Carolina had made it in then I would be pointing out a different problem with the results. I'm not defending any of those teams lack of entry. Just noting how flawed this new system is.

[Sportsforever]

As I look at the playoff seeding and hear all the conversation, I actually lean towards going smaller...I think 8 teams would best. Looking at this year, it would probably look like this:

1. Oregon (B1G)
2. Georgia (SEC)
3. Boise State (MWC)
4. Arizona State (Big XII)
5. Texas
6. Penn State
7. Notre Dame
8. Clemson (ACC)

I might swap out SMU for Penn State, but IMO each of these 8 teams would have earned it and the teams on the outside can only look at themselves for not being in.