I completely agree. Alabama are cowards.
FTR…my Bruins play at Oklahoma next year in game 2. Can’t wait to see our new Chip Kelly offense against that defense.
Dammit, Wisconsin! You had one job…,
Utter Bullshit. Alabama is in, at #4.
Why even bother? The third-best team in the SEC in over Conference Champions.
A Joke. And not a funny one. And ESPN has a panel of empty suits retelling it and trying to justify it from 9 am to 1 pm.
The committee has Auburn at #7 ahead of USC at #8. The bias is obvious.
Bullshit. Bama scheduled Florida State as the first game of the season, and when they agreed to the game, Florida State was expected to be good. At kickoff, it was #1 vs #3. Hyped as the biggest opening day game ever. Can’t blame Bama for Florida State’s collapse.
Alabama scheduled (and won) games over a #3-ranked Florida State team (which then went on to a mediocre season), as well as two Mountain West teams which had winning records (one of which (Fresno State) played for its conference championship yesterday).
Ohio State had the one challenging game at home against Oklahoma and got stomped, then managed to blow out powerhouses :dubious: Army and UNLV.
So it’s hard to see OSU virtuously playing a tough non-conference schedule while Alabama set up games with cupcakes.
It’ll be fun here in the Columbus area for awhile, hearing the screeching and griping by OSU fans about how they wuz robbed. 
Exactly this. What the selection committee just showed all of college football is “don’t schedule tough OOC opponents”. If OSU had beat up on someone like Bowling Green, still had that bad loss to Iowa, and were sitting at 12-1 and conference champs, is there anyone who can say with a straight face they wouldn’t be in the playoff?
Hell go 1 better. Why play 9 conference opponents? Do 8 like the SEC and play someone like Mercer. OSU didn’t even need to play Iowa.
That Mercer game shouldn’t even count as a win. Alabama should be 10-1.
But since Alabama got rewarded for that awesome victory, college football fans can look forward to more of those epic clashes.
Let’s ignore OSU for a second, defend Alabama over Georgia.
It isn’t so much as who Alabama schedules, although playing Mercer is incredibly cowardly. It also helps them that their cross-division games against Vandy and Tennessee went a combined 1-15 in conference play. It’s more that they get credit for winning SEC games against teams that schedule patsies. Hey, look at us! We beat 8-4 Mississippi State! But look at MsSU’s brave scheduling of Charleston Southern, Louisiana Tech, and Massachusetts. They beat LSU, who played Chattanooga, a 3-9 BYU, and Troy (and even lost to Troy). The SEC is notorious for scheduling weak OOC games, with some rare exceptions. And the committee, who has committed itself to annually kissing Nick Satan’s scaly ass, rewards them handsomely for it.
Florida State finished 6-6. The pollsters were terribly wrong in that #3 ranking. So, the resume includings OOC wins over two Mountain West teams, a .500 team, and Mercer. Cupcakes. The lesson is clear, as the previous poster said, OSU should have played Kent State instead of Oklahoma. If they had done that, they would be in the playoff.
I meant Auburn
Auburn has 3 losses to Alabama’s 1.
I agree, the system perversely penalizes winning. (In certain situations)
My thoughts:
1 - Alabama gets credit for scheduling FSU, but, just like every other team that has this type of thing happen (team was good when scheduled years earlier), you can’t use that game very much to evaluate the team. The end result is that Alabama only played one good team and lost.
2 - OSU lost bad to a mediocre team, plus they lost to a good team - either one of those as a lone loss would have been overlooked, but both in combination is too much.
3 - Wisconsin played same strength of schedule as Alabama and lost one reasonably close game to a top 10 team. Pretty comparable.
4 - The specific dynamics of getting into Conf Champ game can be a little arbitrary also, so I wouldn’t weigh that too much if trying to evaluate “best teams”. Team A can have 2 or 3 losses but because they beat team B, and all losses were either OOC or out of division, then team A is in even though team B might have beaten top teams, etc.
5 - Despite any debates like this, current system is miles ahead of BCS. If you take care of business then you are in, period. All of this debate is about teams that did not take care of business (Alabama, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Auburn).
6 - Alternate system:
Instead of trying to get the four “best teams” in the playoffs based on human judgement, I think a better system is to set some criteria and put the teams in that meet the criteria regardless of the beauty pageant. This would probably require an 8 team playoff and obvious criteria for 5 teams is “win conference”.
This type of system, which would eliminate rankings for first 5 teams, would free up teams to schedule good OOC games that the fans want to see and would bring in TV revenue.
Last season, they had to dig into the 5-7 teams to fill all of the bowl games.
This year, Western Michigan, Buffalo, and UTSA all finish with 6 wins, and none of them get into bowls.
I think it should be a three step process:
(1) Eliminate the worst P5 conference champion and seed them 1-4
(2) Is there one or more non-P5 conference champion better than the teams in? If so, replace and reseed
(3) Is there some extraordinary circumstance where a non champion clearly and indisputably deserves to be in over a champion? If so, replace and reseed
People maintaining that there should be an 8 team playoff misses that the P5 conference championships effectively act as a 10 team playoff. The only problem is that the committee doesn’t treat it that way.
So I will assume that you were just as fired up last year when OSU was given the nod when they didn’t even play in their conference championship?
Everyone talking about teams that don’t win their conference or division can’t be considered for the CFP are forgetting two things:
-
The CFP committee’s mandate is to pick who they think are the four best teams
-
On any given Saturday the better team does not always win.
There are good examples of #2 every season, does anyone really think Troy is a better team than LSU? Or which team is better, Auburn or UGA? they each won a game against the other, but what if they played 10 times? Who knows!
Point being, the Committee clearly looks at the overall body of work and places a high value how the teams actually look on the field and not just W-L record or winning divisions or SoS or whatever other metric you might use to argue for or against a particular team.
The committee is at least consistent in putting Alabama in this year under circumstances substantially similar to last year’s Ohio St. or Penn St. situation. And Ohio St. lost badly to Iowa, so they really have no reason to complain; that loss shows they have the ability to be a poor team. And they lost twice, NOT including the conference championship, which means that, conference championship games aside, they weren’t one of the top four teams in the nation, by their record.
So the question is: does beating Wisconsin demonstrate they are better than Alabama, which only lost one game all year, a relatively close contest with their in-state rival?
Me, I’m satisfied with the fact that there are no two-loss teams in the playoffs. Seems to me a decent result. We will, of course, wait to see how UCF handles their bowl game against Auburn. If UCF blows out Auburn, then they can complain about being left out as an undefeated team. But their schedule to date doesn’t justify being automatically included.
This is just great. We should do this for other championships.
If we think the second best team in the NFC is better than the best team in the AFC, then the two NFC teams should play in the Super Bowl.
If we think that two NL teams are better than the AL pennant winner, then the two NL teams should play in the World Series.
What a bunch of shit.