Thread: 2024-2025 College Football Season

Originally Posted by Skinny

Nah, they got a lot of help from the committee.

For example, last weekend, South Carolina won at Clemson (who's in the ACCCG) a ranked team (#12), and moved up ONE spot in the CFP ranking.

Alabama beat Auburn, a team that finished 5-7, and was rewarded with a two-spot jump into the critical No. #11 position, the one that essentially would ensure a spot in the 12-team playoffs.

Another example, the committee says Alabamas best wins are against Georgia and South Carolina. Carolina at the time was, unranked, 3-2, and a 3TD underdog @ Bama... who won by, 2pts.

That's one of Alabama's best wins? Not really. But you see how the committee is twisting things to favor Alabama.

Just a couple examples of the committee's agenda to push, a mediocre at best, Alabama team into the playoffs.

They have one more loss against a much tougher schedule. And to some folks strength of schedule matters. 3-1 versus top 25 teams and 6-1 against teams over .500. Miami is 0-1 and 4-2 in those regards.

That is a solid case to get in.

Originally Posted by King87

They have one more loss against a much tougher schedule. And to some folks strength of schedule matters. 3-1 versus top 25 teams and 6-1 against teams over .500. Miami is 0-1 and 4-2 in those regards.

That is a solid case to get in.

SOS was what I was referring too. But the Playoff Committee doesn't always go by SOS, only when it justifies why they ranked someone over someone else. Example..

No. 2 Texas, with zero Top 25 wins, has been ranked above Georgia which has three of them, including at Texas.

No. 3 Penn State has one Top 25 win and is three spots above Ohio State which has two top-10 wins, including at Penn State.

Bottom of the rankings? No. 20 UNLV has zero Top 25 wins, two spots ahead of Syracuse which has two Top 25 wins — including at UNLV.

SOS shouldn't only work if it favors Alabama. Miami's SOS isn't that far behind Alabama's.

And, it's only tougher BECAUSE they lost 1 more game.

Two of Bamas losses were to two 6-6 teams. Miami's two losses, a 7-5 and a 9-3 team.

Originally Posted by Skinny

SOS was what I was referring too. But the Playoff Committee doesn't always go by SOS, only when it justifies why they ranked someone over someone else. Example..

No. 2 Texas, with zero Top 25 wins, has been ranked above Georgia which has three of them, including at Texas.

No. 3 Penn State has one Top 25 win and is three spots above Ohio State which has two top-10 wins, including at Penn State.

Bottom of the rankings? No. 20 UNLV has zero Top 25 wins, two spots ahead of Syracuse which has two Top 25 wins — including at UNLV.

SOS shouldn't only work if it favors Alabama. Miami's SOS isn't that far behind Alabama's.

And, it's only tougher BECAUSE they lost 1 more game.

Two of Bamas losses were to two 6-6 teams. Miami's two losses, a 7-5 and a 9-3 team.

The committee talks a holistic approach. No one should only go off of strength of schedule solely, but it definitely matters. Texas has been a great team all season. In fairness to Georgia, however, I believe they had a lot of wins against teams that were currently in the top 25. Not every scenario is the same. The last time we had a system that just punched the numbers into a system we had the BCS. Anyone pining for that?

Regarding Texas, they're favorites to be national championships. Does anyone dispute that? Because if not, then the ranking can/could be justified.

Penn State has been more consistent than OSU, who lost a crippling game to Michigan, who sucks. We know how sports work; you can lose to a team and be better than them. Especially in an era with teams that aren't nearly as stacked as before.

Who is losing sleep over Texas over Georgia (before now), or PS over OSU? No one. The rankings make sense there, even if you don't/do agree.

Why would anyone believe Miami is better than Alabama? It's not strength of schedule or better wins, it's not talent, or coaching.

People want something very obvious: that only the amount of wins matter, and no other context. It's why really, really, really dumb people were upset over FSU not making the playoffs last year and really, really, really, really smart people being okay with it.

And to kind of cement the much ado about nothing: no one other than Alabama haters disagrees with the ranking.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings

Also, I don't understand why you use SoS against Texas? They're second in the nation, behind only Oregon.

The same goes for Penn State: they're ranked 3rd in SoS.

https://www.sportsgrid.com/ncaaf/art...-top-25-team-3

Originally Posted by King87

Also, I don't understand why you use SoS against Texas? They're second in the nation, behind only Oregon.

The same goes for Penn State: they're ranked 3rd in SoS.

https://www.sportsgrid.com/ncaaf/art...-top-25-team-3

The committee uses a different SoS than what media sites do. If you compare each one they all have different rankings.

This isn't about hating on Alabama, it's just the opposite. Alabama has earned everything they've won since they became a program. Teams like Alabama are great for the sport. No fan cares about beating a cupcake team. But beating Alabama or any arch rival is always special.

But, because the committee is using how many wins over top 25 teams Bama, at 9-3 has, to determine them jumping a 10-2 Miami team to get in the playoffs has the entire college football world shocked. Especially when they didn't use the same formula, ranking the teams throughout the entire season.

If both Bama and Miami were 9-3/10-2, then yes, you go to SoS and determine who's wins were better. But if winning more games doesn't mean anything, why have rankings at all? Why even play 12 games if they don't matter?

Originally Posted by Skinny

The committee uses a different SoS than what media sites do. If you compare each one they all have different rankings.

This isn't about hating on Alabama, it's just the opposite. Alabama has earned everything they've won since they became a program. Teams like Alabama are great for the sport. No fan cares about beating a cupcake team. But beating Alabama or any arch rival is always special.

But, because the committee is using how many wins over top 25 teams Bama, at 9-3 has, to determine them jumping a 10-2 Miami team to get in the playoffs has the entire college football world shocked. Especially when they didn't use the same formula, ranking the teams throughout the entire season.

If both Bama and Miami were 9-3/10-2, then yes, you go to SoS and determine who's wins were better. But if winning more games doesn't mean anything, why have rankings at all? Why even play 12 games if they don't matter?

I've seen like 4 different SoS measurements and Bama is ahead on all of them. I do think it's about hating on Alabama, nationally. Why? Because people are out here acting like they didn't have a legitimate argument. A legitimate argument is not the same thing as an ironclad case. I believe that Nolan Ryan is the greatest pitcher ever. I wouldn't say someone is hating on him if they named any number of other guys. Alabama had a legitimate argument over Miami, and if those two teams played no one in their right mind would have bet on Miami.

And in regards to having people shocked: Who was shocked other than the haters? Every poll had Bama ahead of them. Almost every pundit who isn't a 'Bama hater had Bama ahead of them. Better SoS, tougher opponents in general, and more top 25 wins. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Miami has zero top 25 wins, right?

If anything, I think the backlash against 'Bama, and the committee being so sensitive right now (the illogical whiners about FSU) last year led to the Tide being left out.

And in regards to the more won games: this is a sport with variance: only in college sports would we compare a team who has more wins against cupcakes comped to a team with better wins and one more loss. We don't do that in the NFL. We know every year there are teams who overachieve. We don't do that in baseball: the team with the most regular season wins rarely wins the WS. Same for hockey, etc. What you support leads to teams trying to duck competition. And that's bad.

Justice for 'Bama.

OREGON!

Been saying all season.

Originally Posted by King87

I've seen like 4 different SoS measurements and Bama is ahead on all of them. I do think it's about hating on Alabama, nationally. Why? Because people are out here acting like they didn't have a legitimate argument. A legitimate argument is not the same thing as an ironclad case. I believe that Nolan Ryan is the greatest pitcher ever. I wouldn't say someone is hating on him if they named any number of other guys. Alabama had a legitimate argument over Miami, and if those two teams played no one in their right mind would have bet on Miami.

And in regards to having people shocked: Who was shocked other than the haters? Every poll had Bama ahead of them. Almost every pundit who isn't a 'Bama hater had Bama ahead of them. Better SoS, tougher opponents in general, and more top 25 wins. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Miami has zero top 25 wins, right?

If anything, I think the backlash against 'Bama, and the committee being so sensitive right now (the illogical whiners about FSU) last year led to the Tide being left out.

And in regards to the more won games: this is a sport with variance: only in college sports would we compare a team who has more wins against cupcakes comped to a team with better wins and one more loss. We don't do that in the NFL. We know every year there are teams who overachieve. We don't do that in baseball: the team with the most regular season wins rarely wins the WS. Same for hockey, etc. What you support leads to teams trying to duck competition. And that's bad.

Justice for 'Bama.

Since it's all mute at this point, I'll close with my final argument lol.

If Bama and Miami played, the Hurricanes would absolutely have a chance. Two .500 teams in Vandy and OU have already shown that Bama isn't unbeatable by any stretch. South Carolina was unranked, 3-2, and a 3TD underdog and took Bama to overtime losing by, 2pts, @ Bama.To say one team can't beat another if they haven't played is completely subjective. Both Bama's losses were HUGE upsets.

Every team plays cupcakes. Alabama's non-conference schedule was one of the easiest in the country, playing two Group of Five schools, WKU and USF, one FCS school and one Power 4 team, the 5-7 Wisconsin Badgers who finished 12th in the Big Ten.

In regards to College football being compared to pro sports, it's no different. Does the team with the most wins make the playoffs? Yes. See KC, Detroit, and Buffalo. What do those teams all have in common? They've won more games than everybody else. Rather they win a championship or not is mute.

In closing brotha, if the argument for getting teams in the college playoffs are based off SoS, the SEC would win that contest 9 times out 10, arguably. The playoff committee is walking up a slippery slope if that's the can worms they want to open. Is Bama's SoS beater than SMUs? Miami's SoS is better than SMUs.

It's an unfair advantage for stronger conferences and when those SoSs start making wins not matter, the 'playoffs' will have defeated it's purpose. And that's picking the 12 BEST teams in college football... SoS be damned...

That's solid, but unpersuasive. Alabama's AD rightfully came out and said 'well, now we won't play as many good teams each year,' and given the results of the tournament bracket...that's the right response. There's a difference between having cupcakes on the schedule and having a cupcake schedule. Bama is not guilty of the latter.

Ali is better than Floyd because he didn't duck everyone/fight them before or after they, as a boxer, were at the height of their powers.

If Alabama and Miami played would it be a game? Sure. Anything can happen. But we know how fluky some of those wins were for Miami, we know they don't have as talented a roster, we know they beat up on lesser competition, etc. Bama would be the solid to heavy favorite.

In regards to the rebuttal to the NFL argument I made: I think you're just factually wrong. Not in that the teams with the most wins make the playoffs. The error is insofar as handicapping. The Vikings will have more wins than several teams in the AFC. They might end up with more wins than the Bills/Ravens. No one would take the Bills/Ravens as dogs or losers to the Vikings. The 15-1 Panthers graded out as a weak 13-3 team, a strong 12-4 team, and a bonkers 11-5 teams based on ELO and other nerdy metrics. But they had 15 wins. There are teams who due to variance win 4 games when they grade out as 2 wins teams, etc.

If it's just a blind resume then let's just call it that. But we know that's silly. And if the argument for SoS is that one conference would send more teams, then doesn't that mean that conference only gets what they're owed? Sports are a meritocracy. The other teams can schedule tougher opponents.

But today was a day the small fan bases won. They cried, they whined, they stomped their feet. And an Alabama team suffered for it. It was as political as it gets.

Also, real quick: if it's about picking the 12 best teams...strength of schedule is by definition one of the best ways to determine that.

They should consider a less subjective metric.

Originally Posted by aberdien

They should consider a less subjective metric.

They should let Skinny pick the teams because he'd at least be consistent.

Alabama's AD rightfully came out and said 'well, now we won't play as many good teams each year,'

Yippee! More Bama games against Mercer, Wofford, Suwanee, State School For Unwed Mothers, etc... At least play a cupcake that has >1% chance of winning. Sheesh!

But today was a day the small fan bases won. They cried, they whined, they stomped their feet. And an Alabama team suffered for it. It was as political as it gets.

No, not like leap-frogging an undefeated ACC team so that Bama could steal the last playoff spot. That wasn't political at all! How dare those "small fan bases" believe they should get a fair break from the committee.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

Yippee! More Bama games against Mercer, Wofford, Suwanee, State School For Unwed Mothers, etc... At least play a cupcake that has >1% chance of winning. Sheesh!



No, not like leap-frogging an undefeated ACC team so that Bama could steal the last playoff spot. That wasn't political at all! How dare those "small fan bases" believe they should get a fair break from the committee.

That first argument doesn't really work when Bama usually has a brutal schedule. But if you don't like that outcome, you should hate what the committee did.

In regards to a fair break: who cares if you're undefeated if you won't play anyone good? It's this magical roadblock: teams dodge elite competition and then want to be rewarded for it. The committee didn't put the 12 best teams in: they put the 12 teams that would allow them to not hearing a bunch of bitching from people who couldn't pass a logic class if their lives depended on it. I remember when the peasant teams at least had the cajones to play a real schedule back in the day. Why do that now? You can just act like you did something, get molested in the postseason, and then feel morally superior.

But hey, everyone hates Alabama so who cares if they get shafted? This world is filled with a bunch of soft losers anyway. What do I expect other than the gnashing of teeth, stomping of feet, wringing of hands, and tears dripping down faces being rewarded? It is now a race to the bottom: play no one, hope you don't lose a fluke game, and then demand you get in.

You ******* losers and your participation trophy mentality.

"Why does Rice play Texas?" /oldJFKquote

"Why does Alabama schedule cupcakes?"