Path to the CFP?

[InKellyWeTrust]

So why don’t we just have the top 4 recruiting classes from the year before just be the top 4 teams since they have the most talent and the best coaches and most likely gonna have the the best style points.

There is a reason the games are played is because anything can happen on a Saturday and the results of the games should matter.

Why should bama get the benefit of the doubt because they have the most talent, the best coach, eye test in most cases. So we should award them because they have been the best team for the past 10 years? That’s bullshit if that’s what we are doing cause like I said might as well just have bama and Georgia and Ohio st in the playoff automatically at the beginning of the year.

Games matter. Results matter. Losing 2 games especially one against an unranked team at the time matters.

Add Clemson - done

 

[Bishop2b5]

Then what is the point of playing the season? I don’t care if Bama loses in triple overtime. It is your second loss and you had a chance to beat Georgia and you didn’t. You don’t get a do over. What’s next, if Bama had 3 close losses but you would still bet on them over another team then Bama gets in over them? That’s just stupid.

That's how you determine who the best teams are. You watch HOW those teams play and how they execute. Of course you play the games and the results count. It's just that not all L's or W's are equal. An unranked team beating another unranked team doesn't impress me nearly as much as a top 5 team losing a very close game to another top 5 team. If you think the winning unranked team just proved it was better than the losing top 5 team, I don't know what to tell you. Nobody thinks the games shouldn't be played or that the results don't matter. It's just that you have to look deeper and realize that all 10-0 teams aren't the same. All 9-1 teams aren't the same. All losses aren't the same. Look at how teams play. Do you think Vegas, Herbstreit, the committee members, etc. only look at W/L??? It's a factor, maybe the most important one, but not the ONLY factor in judging how strong a team is. If all you can see is that this team has a slightly better record than this other team (without regard to how that record was earned and against whom), then you're missing most of what's going on. This is why some of you are constantly baffled and angered by the committee's rankings. You're too focused on the end result and not all the factors that produced that result. It's like the old joke about the couple who show up late to a baseball game in the 8th inning and when they see that the score is still 0-0, the wife says, "See, we didn't miss anything."

 

[InKellyWeTrust]

That's how you determine who the best teams are. You watch HOW those teams play and how they execute. Of course you play the games and the results count. It's just that not all L's or W's are equal. An unranked team beating another unranked team doesn't impress me nearly as much as a top 5 team losing a very close game to another top 5 team. If you think the winning unranked team just proved it was better than the losing top 5 team, I don't know what to tell you. Nobody thinks the games shouldn't be played or that the results don't matter. It's just that you have to look deeper and realize that all 10-0 teams aren't the same. All 9-1 teams aren't the same. All losses aren't the same. Look at how teams play. Do you think Vegas, Herbstreit, the committee members, etc. only look at W/L??? It's a factor, maybe the most important one, but not the ONLY factor in judging how strong a team is. If all you can see is that this team has a slightly better record than this other team (without regard to how that record was earned and against whom), then you're missing most of what's going on. This is why some of you are constantly baffled and angered by the committee's rankings. You're too focused on the end result and not all the factors that produced that result. It's like the old joke about the couple who show up late to a baseball game in the 8th inning and when they see that the score is still 0-0, the wife says, "See, we didn't miss anything."

Tldr: eye test

 

[Bishop2b5]

I, respectfully, reject bishop's entire premise. Literally no sport (amateur or pro) seeds/ranks teams for playoffs based on perceived talent and "who would beat whom." They all do it on some version of "results on the field." Any alternative to that which prioritizes subjectivity above all is open to manipulation, corruption, and inequity.

I'm not advocating for putting teams in the playoff on talent alone, nor totally subjective reasons. For about the 10th time, my point is that W/L results are important and matter, but they aren't the ONLY factors the pollsters, committee, or other experts look at. They are part of the equation (an important part), but not all of the equation.

I disagree about your claim that no sport, amateur or pro, seeds or ranks teams for playoffs on who they think would beat whom. Pro sports have limited teams so there's enough cross division/league play that a formula works fine. Not so in some college sports. FBS football primarily uses the judgement of experts to rank teams on the basis of who they think is the better team and who would beat whom on a neutral field in the polls and by the committee. What do you think the NCAA BB tournament does? Seeding there is very subjective and based on a lot more than just W/L records. There's a lot of subjective analysis of who they think is better when they seed teams.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Tldr: eye test

Not to be rude, but that's code for, "You're right and I have no logical rebuttal."

 

[InKellyWeTrust]

Not to be rude, but that's code for, "You're right and I have no logical rebuttal."

No, I don't disagree with you. I think bama will be in with a close loss to Georgia but this whole charade boils down to subjective reasoning. It's basically Vegas odds - who do I think would win if these two teams played each other. No other sport has a championship decided by such subjectivity. It's a broken system.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Not to be rude, but that's code for, "You're right and I have no logical rebuttal."

Both can be right and wrong, as I think is the case here.

Honestly, I think Bama is really good and if they beat UGA, they deserve to be in. But if they don't, I would personally exclude them unless all hell breaks loose.

Let's say for a moment that OSU loses to Michigan by 3 points. If it comes down to 10-2 OSU versus 10-2 Alabama, I would probably say OSU. Top 3 wins for OSU would likely trump top 3 wins for Bama.

The point here is that 10-2 Alabama this year is likely to have just one win versus a team that finishes in the final top 20 CFP rankings in Ole Miss. I will grant you that in most years, the Alabama resume is usually quite strong. I am not sure this year is it though. Florida is a train wreck, Auburn lost to PSU, Arkansas got propped up initially because everyone thought Texas was good (oops) and A&M has some head scratching games.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Both can be right and wrong, as I think is the case here.

Honestly, I think Bama is really good and if they beat UGA, they deserve to be in. But if they don't, I would personally exclude them unless all hell breaks loose.

Let's say for a moment that OSU loses to Michigan by 3 points. If it comes down to 10-2 OSU versus 10-2 Alabama, I would probably say OSU. Top 3 wins for OSU would likely trump top 3 wins for Bama.

The point here is that 10-2 Alabama this year is likely to have just one win versus a team that finishes in the final top 20 CFP rankings in Ole Miss. I will grant you that in most years, the Alabama resume is usually quite strong. I am not sure this year is it though. Florida is a train wreck, Auburn lost to PSU, Arkansas got propped up initially because everyone thought Texas was good (oops) and A&M has some head scratching games.

This is pretty much where I'm at on my guys too, which is why I said Bama's place in all this and my being a Bama fan isn't why I have the opinions I do on rankings. I honestly don't know what Bama is this season. We're definitely not as good as last year. I don't think we're a great team, but I don't think anyone is this year other than MAYBE Georgia... and I don't think we know enough about Georgia yet. Just about everyone's been a bit all over the map, so it's hard to judge yet. It's been an odd year so far.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

"Winless" just sounds so daunting. Smart has faced Saban three times and lost them all.

I want to see this UGA defense play this Alabama offense and if it turns out to be 0-4, fine, but this isn't like a decades long bowl game losing streak or an outlier considering Saban hadn't lost to a former assistant EVER until last month.

Ok……UGA is winless against Saban in their last six games including multiple SEC champs and the playoffs

 

[Irish#1]

I, respectfully, reject bishop's entire premise. Literally no sport (amateur or pro) seeds/ranks teams for playoffs based on perceived talent and "who would beat whom." They all do it on some version of "results on the field." Any alternative to that which prioritizes subjectivity above all is open to manipulation, corruption, and inequity.

I don't think anyone disrespects his opinion, but as many have said, Bama would be a 2 loss team if they lose the CC game. Maybe they are playing better than they did against A&M, but so are other teams at this point in the season. Two losses is two losses regardless of how close the game is and losses has to be the #1 data point.

 

[phork]

That's how you determine who the best teams are. You watch HOW those teams play and how they execute. Of course you play the games and the results count. It's just that not all L's or W's are equal. An unranked team beating another unranked team doesn't impress me nearly as much as a top 5 team losing a very close game to another top 5 team. If you think the winning unranked team just proved it was better than the losing top 5 team, I don't know what to tell you. Nobody thinks the games shouldn't be played or that the results don't matter. It's just that you have to look deeper and realize that all 10-0 teams aren't the same. All 9-1 teams aren't the same. All losses aren't the same. Look at how teams play. Do you think Vegas, Herbstreit, the committee members, etc. only look at W/L??? It's a factor, maybe the most important one, but not the ONLY factor in judging how strong a team is. If all you can see is that this team has a slightly better record than this other team (without regard to how that record was earned and against whom), then you're missing most of what's going on. This is why some of you are constantly baffled and angered by the committee's rankings. You're too focused on the end result and not all the factors that produced that result. It's like the old joke about the couple who show up late to a baseball game in the 8th inning and when they see that the score is still 0-0, the wife says, "See, we didn't miss anything."

You lost to a 3 L TexasA&M team. And hung on to beat juggernauts Florida and LSU. So... (And you also play a 1AA team)

 

[NDdomer2]

See the difference to me on the what will be two loss teams missing playoffs being better than a 1 loss team in the playoffs doesn't mean you deserve it IF the regular season means something.

We're lead to believe every game matters along the way. Now if you tell us that's not the case and all we absolutely want is the most physically impressive football teams and players in the playoffs then sure we can discount records, use the regular season for our eye test and pick the 4 that would be most entertaining. Just need clarity on what were using as the basis for entry.

If it's regular season wins and losses matter and you lose to a 3 loss team and to your conference champion, you dont make the cut unless just absolutely chaos occurs in all power 5 conf play.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

You lost to a 3 L TexasA&M team. And hung on to beat juggernauts Florida and LSU. So... (And you also play a 1AA team)

Goddamn! Lmao

 

[Wild Bill]

That's how you determine who the best teams are. You watch HOW those teams play and how they execute. Of course you play the games and the results count. It's just that not all L's or W's are equal. An unranked team beating another unranked team doesn't impress me nearly as much as a top 5 team losing a very close game to another top 5 team. If you think the winning unranked team just proved it was better than the losing top 5 team, I don't know what to tell you. Nobody thinks the games shouldn't be played or that the results don't matter. It's just that you have to look deeper and realize that all 10-0 teams aren't the same. All 9-1 teams aren't the same. All losses aren't the same. Look at how teams play. Do you think Vegas, Herbstreit, the committee members, etc. only look at W/L??? It's a factor, maybe the most important one, but not the ONLY factor in judging how strong a team is. If all you can see is that this team has a slightly better record than this other team (without regard to how that record was earned and against whom), then you're missing most of what's going on. This is why some of you are constantly baffled and angered by the committee's rankings. You're too focused on the end result and not all the factors that produced that result. It's like the old joke about the couple who show up late to a baseball game in the 8th inning and when they see that the score is still 0-0, the wife says, "See, we didn't miss anything."

Nobody, including the committee, is watching all of these games so this isn't even a subjective eye test. It's more fair to call it perception, and our perception is influenced more by recent history and what we're told by the good folks on tv, and less to do with the performance. People on this forum are simply way more knowledgeable about rosters than 99% of fans, so we have a better idea of who is the most talented and that effects our perception as well.

Bama always wins. TV says two loss bama is top 4. Bama has most talent. Bama top 4!

Nevermind they struggled against a couple shit teams and lost twice bc they lost to Georgia and Georgia is best. I know this bc I saw them snap the ball 13 times this year and I saw David Pollock on TV and he assured me they're the best.
​​​​​​


​​​​​​

 

[Some Irish Bloke]

Then it should have already happened. Either you think Bama is genuinely the 2nd best team in the country right now and would likely beat any team ranked below them, or you don't. Put them below all teams you think would likely beat them right now on a neutral field. If you wouldn't bet against them playing Cincy, UM, OK, MSU, OSU, OR, etc., then you think they're genuinely the 2nd best team.

This has long been a "thing" for me. If you're the #2 team and you lose a close game to #1, why should you drop at all? Are you not still the 2nd best team? Forget Bama, Georgia, or any other specific teams. If two teams are genuinely the two best in the country and they play each other, one of them HAS to lose. If it's a close game, they're STILL the two best teams, regardless of which loses.

A similar thing is ranking a team ahead of another when almost everyone believes the lower ranked team is better and will beat the higher ranked team. If you have team A ranked #1 and team B ranked #2, yet team B is favored by the experts, Vegas, and just about everybody on the planet except team A's fans, why is team A ranked #1??? If you have 1 playing 2 and 2 is favored, your ranking system is flawed. You're ranking teams using the wrong criteria.

Let me make it clear. My position here is NOT because of Bama's involvement. This has been my opinion for decades, regardless of teams involved. I 10,000% believe teams should be ranked based on who would likely beat whom at this point in the season on a neutral field. Resume, W/L record, SOS, MOV, style points, roster talent, coaching talent, eye test, performance, stats, and all the rest are data points in the equation to determine that, with none of them being the one and only thing that counts. Look at all those things (and more) and then decide who you'd bet the house on if you had to bet. This whole "But Team X 'deserves' to be ranked ahead of Team Y" is BS. Which one would you bet the house on? That's who gets ranked ahead of the other.

You lost to A&M. You lose again, you don't get a third shot. Parity is a part of football on any given Saturday and you lost in October. That's it. You don't get three cracks at it. Period.

And pundits get the rankings wrong all the time. I do believe that Cincy, OU, Oregon, OSU, ND etc. could and would beat A&M, who beat Bama, so they deserve to be rewarded for it per your line of thinking. Or should we just abolish the CFP Committee, the BCS rankings, etc. and just have Vegas determine the top 25?

 

[tussin]

I don't think anyone disrespects his opinion, but as many have said, Bama would be a 2 loss team if they lose the CC game. Maybe they are playing better than they did against A&M, but so are other teams at this point in the season. Two losses is two losses regardless of how close the game is and losses has to be the #1 data point.

I disrespect his terrible opinion.

 

[Some Irish Bloke]

I disrespect his terrible opinion.

In general, really enjoy Bishop's posts and his non-homer takes on ND....

But "because Vegas says so" might be up there with some of the worst takes I've seen lol.

 

[phork]

In general, really enjoy Bishop's posts and his non-homer takes on ND....

But "because Vegas says so" might be up there with some of the worst takes I've seen lol.

Barta from the CFP literally said, "forget the game, Michigan is a better team on paper than MSU".

 

[NDGOLDEN]

Barta from the CFP literally said, "forget the game, Michigan is a better team on paper than MSU".

They do have the same record tho. Bama having 2 losses against a 1 lose ND is not the same thing. Sure maybe on paper bama is better than ND but on paper bama is better than everyone and maybe even Georgia. So should bama just be ranked 1 forever cause most years they are the best team on paper?

They will have 2 loses. It’s also this committee which they clearly do whatever they want so I wouldn’t be surprised if they put a 2 lose bama in.

 

[NorthDakota]

Barta from the CFP literally said, "forget the game, Michigan is a better team on paper than MSU".

Barta was a backup qb on a d2 team. Don't trust this man

 

[phork]

They do have the same record tho. Bama having 2 losses against a 1 lose ND is not the same thing. Sure maybe on paper bama is better than ND but on paper bama is better than everyone and maybe even Georgia. So should bama just be ranked 1 forever cause most years they are the best team on paper?

They will have 2 loses. It’s also this committee which they clearly do whatever they want so I wouldn’t be surprised if they put a 2 lose bama in.

I was quoting Some Irish Bloke who said the Vegas thing was the worst take hes ever heard. I merely stated the "forget the game" Michigan is better on paper.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I disrespect his terrible opinion.

You're certainly entitled to, but like it or not, my opinion - that rankings are about who would likely beat whom based on each team's ENTIRE body of work instead of one or two factors - is exactly the same as the playoff committee's. You don't have to like my opinion. You don't have to like that that's how the committee does it. You don't have to like that that's how Herbstreit and most of the knowledgeable analysts look at it when telling you who they think will win a game. You don't have to like any of it, but like it or not, that's how it works.

 

[Irish#1]

You're certainly entitled to, but like it or not, my opinion - that rankings are about who would likely beat whom based on each team's ENTIRE body of work instead of one or two factors - is exactly the same as the playoff committee's. You don't have to like my opinion. You don't have to like that that's how the committee does it. You don't have to like that that's how Herbstreit and most of the knowledgeable analysts look at it when telling you who they think will win a game. You don't have to like any of it, but like it or not, that's how it works.

 

[TorontoGold]

If Bama loses two games there has to be no shot they make it in, one loss can be a "fluke", but another one right before the playoff against the current #1 seed? The conference championship game is an extra data point, but please don't pay attention to it, if Bama loses because the 247 composite rankings and AP preseason polls said they're good.

 

[phork]

Call me a snob or a fan of one of only 3 teams to never play a an FCS team but that data should count as well. SEC is not good this year. Its Georgia, Alabama is down the list and then everyone else in a garbage heap. God help Texas if they don't get their shit together before coming over. They'll turn into Arkansas 2.0.

To reiterate. Alabama lost to a 3L team. Close calls against garbage teams and played an FCS team. Eye test == Fail.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Call me a snob or a fan of one of only 3 teams to never play a an FCS team but that data should count as well. SEC is not good this year. Its Georgia, Alabama is down the list and then everyone else in a garbage heap. God help Texas if they don't get their shit together before coming over. They'll turn into Arkansas 2.0.

To reiterate. Alabama lost to a 3L team. Close calls against garbage teams and played an FCS team. Eye test == Fail.

I don't disagree with you. My argument this entire time has not really been about Bama and whether they should get in or not. It's been that W/L is not the only criteria in ranking. It's an important one, obviously, but not the only one. Ranking teams is (and should be) based on who would beat whom, and W/L is a data point in that equation.

 

[JurDocDuLac]

Ranking teams is (and should be) based on who would beat whom, and W/L is a data point in that equation.

Bishop is a poser. No way an SEC grad gets that one right.

 

[BeatSC]

No two loss teams get in. You can take that to the bank.
the way I see it if Bama loses to GA they had their chance and do. It deserve not does anyone want to see a game 2 between them. GA needs to be on to the next challenger.

espn showed our metrics against Bama but in a blind way and we came out ahead. The eye test is in work and so is the usual SEC bias.

when I started this thread I didn’t know it would really heat up like this but I’m glad and everyone else one here should be as well.

F the NY6 bowl BS while we still have a chance to make the CFP.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I don't disagree with you. My argument this entire time has not really been about Bama and whether they should get in or not. It's been that W/L is not the only criteria in ranking. It's an important one, obviously, but not the only one. Ranking teams is (and should be) based on who would beat whom, and W/L is a data point in that equation.

Except, Michigan is ranked ahead of MSU, even though MSU beat them.

Do you really think that Wake Forest would beat the likes of Oklahoma, Ole Miss, Texas A&M, etc? I don't.

If Clemson beats Wake Forest this weekend should they jump into the Top 20?

The problem with the approach you describe is that you quickly can get into the whole transitive property crap when teams can't line up and play each other. It doesn't make any sense. For example, ND should be ranked higher than Michigan because ND beat Purdue, who beat MSU, who beat Michigan. ND should be ahead of Bama because (get ready for this)...ND beat Navy, who beat UCF, who beat Memphis, who beat Miss. State, who beat Texas A&M (phew).

In lieu of this senseless crap, people just say "the eye test". But as others have correctly pointed out, nobody is watching every team, every game. It's a broken, subjective system that relies on preconceived notions of who is good and who isn't, based largely on the name of the jersey or the success of prior year(s).


EDIT: For the record, ND should be ranked #1 because ND beat FSU, who beat Miami, who beat Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh then beat Clemson by more than what UGA beat Clemson. Proof that ND >>>>UGA

 

[Bishop2b5]

Bishop is a poser. No way an SEC grad gets that one right.

Sorry for going off topic, but this reminds me of something.

I was very, very fortunate (as were hundreds of my HS classmates) to have an English teacher who was one of the best to ever live. She was a very odd black woman with an almost robotic, emotionless personality at times. I later realized she had all the symptoms of Asperger's and was just socially awkward and unaware. She was brilliant, but an odd duck. She was also an absolute terror in the classroom, but effective. Toughest teacher I ever had at any level of my education. Not many of her students would name her as their favorite teacher, but the vast majority would name her as their best one and the one they most appreciate.

She often spoke in third person and almost always referred to her students as classmates instead of by name. She would often say, "Classmates who stare out the window will be staring out the same window again next year!" You only showed up unprepared once in her class. After she got through with you, you'd never make that mistake again. You'd get to stand in front of the entire class while she just verbally savaged you and your dim prospects for a future where you didn't know the difference between a preposition and a dangling participle. I once watched her go off on a student who'd failed to do an assignment. She said, "If the classmate is unable to form a simple sentence and use correct grammar, how will the classmate communicate with others? Does he plan on simply screaming and grunting like a chimp?" LOL!

She'd sometimes march over to the wall and put her face 6" from it and begin lecturing it, "Wall! The teacher has been talking and talking to these classmates and they aren't listening. Are you listening and learning, wall? Do you understand? Wall, do you know what Faulkner was trying to say here? No? Well I guess you weren't listening either!" and on & on she'd go for a few minutes while you just wanted to die of embarrassment for not knowing the assigned material or not being prepared. I watched her lecture the wall dozens of times. My oldest daughter had her during her final year of teaching and said she was exactly the same.

Anyway, she was extraordinarily tough and didn't care if you were rich or poor, black or white, or anything else. You WOULD learn. There was no "or else" option. When I got to Bama my first year, freshman English was supposed to be brutal. I thought it barely qualified as a refresher course for Ms. W's sophomore English class. It was a joke. I literally thought it was like a HS remedial English class. I couldn't understand why everyone else was struggling. I never had a single English or Lit class in college that was half as hard or in-depth as what I'd done in my two yeas of Ms. W's classes. And the issue wasn't that Bama's English Dept. wasn't hard. A classmate who graduated from Harvard said the same thing: he never took an English or Lit class at Harvard that was even close to what we'd done as HS sophomores. Same from another classmate who went to West Point. A woman I went to HS with who is still a good friend got her MA in English and says the same thing. We were doing college and grad level work in HS in Ms. W's classes. By the time we finished college, we had a whole new appreciation of her as a teacher.

A few years ago, my home town created a teacher's hall of fame to honor the best teachers in the town's 150 year history. She was one of six members of the first class inducted. Almost 900 of her former students, myself included, belong to a Facebook fan page dedicated to her. Her niece is an old friend and member of our group, and she shows her aunt all the comments (and there are a lot), and her aunt finds the whole thing amusing and unnecessary, but is flattered. A few months ago on her 81st birthday, hundreds of her former students posted well wishes on her FB appreciation page. Her niece said she showed her all the comments and her aunt recalled every single one of the names and what years they were in her class. Somebody recently posted that every time they read the poorly written, can't spell, can't use proper grammar, no clue about punctuation garbage that most people post on FB, all he can think is "Lord, those poor, wretched, illiterate savages weren't fortunate enough to have had Ms. W." . After 45 years, I can still hear her voice in my head as clearly as if I'd spoken with her five minutes ago. Best teacher I ever had.