This is freaking hilarious. Bama isn't sitting out the playoffs because they played too tough an OOC schedule, they're sitting out because they couldn't beat bad teams in their own conference. I've got an idea, maybe they can just play Mercer 12 times next year, that way they might be able to improve to 10-2!
You didn’t listen to anything they said. You can take Alabama out of it and the system is still flawed. SMU should have never been ranked as high as they were. There are like 7 teams behind them with better resumes
Interesting that SMU didn't beat any Top25 teams, but DO have wins against #26 and #28. Weird place to put that cutoff unless you're trying to make a specific kind of point
“If we ranked teams past 25, my team would look better” is one of the weakest new arguments to come out of all the growing pains of the 12 team playoff.
@@darnellarford2439His point was there’s really very little difference in quality between a team ranked say, 24th and a team ranked 26th. 25 was arbitrarily chosen as the number of teams that get ranked.
That’s why the solution is a 135 team playoff with the best fcs team getting a top 10 auto bid. We wont play regular season games anymore, instead we will determine seeding by how you looked in the spring game. Additionally peacock and TNT will exclusively stream the games.
i like this. and it could be a 12-round playoff starting on Labor Day, where you have like 10 "pods" (5 "power" pods, i guess you could call them, and a group of 5 "other pods") to separate so many teams a bit, and the top 2 teams from each pod at the end of the 12-round playoff will play in a pod championship. and since there's way too many teams to all play each other and know who is actually good and who is a 12-0 tomato can, we can have local sports reporters just vote on who the winner of the playoff is...or maybe make a computer do it??
The "we're not SEC/Alabama homers" masks have come off. Would this rant be called for if it was any team other than Alabama who got left out? So, if Alabama got in over SMU, would anyone be ranting about Ole Miss, Illinois, or South Carolina being left out? Would you all be as upset? Im not saying there aren't some valid points, I'm saying I suspect all this crying wouldnt happen if you change Alabamas logo to just about any other team. The discussion (or lack thereof) would be totally different. Alabama didnt get in because Oklahoma embarrassed them and handed them a 3rd loss. That's kind of the end of the story, is it not? I think I agree, Alabama is likely better than SMU, maybe Clemson too but you cant lose the games they lost, in the way they lost, and be mad for being left out. Its like a fighter who has the ability to knock their opponent out cold but instead f*cks around the whole fight then gets mad because the judges didnt give them the win- just because "everyone knows" theyre likely the better fighter. Nah, take care of business or live with the results. Stop crying and making excuses.
Wofford UMass UTEP Georgia St Mercer at Home in November. It’s too much to ask of these overworked teams, just too much, you must understood. Poor Alabama, came off that game against Mercer and just had nothing, not even a touchdown for Oklahoma--please tel me you understand. Please cut these games out of the SEC schedule-they play so many tough games again UK, Oklahoma, Vanderbilt, Mississippi St (look how tough is their SOS) Arkansas Missouri Florida Auburn. These programs have won before just. It this year and as Alabama has proven can be very very difficult!!! Maybe the SEC should only play SEC teams and then declare its best team National Champion, which two loss team would that be this year? Georgia, Tennessee, Texas maybe South Carolina, Alabama if the best team in the country could possibly have three-losses-since they’re such good losses.
The macro picture of this is that eventually the SEC and B1G will take their ball and go home and create the Super League. Given the stat cited here that 70% of the viewership is from 18 teams, the fact that those teams that monopolize the revenue generation do not get even a logical or consistent distribution from it just means they're going to go through a few changes before ultimately deciding they're better off on their own. This should be abundantly clear to anyone remotely paying attention.
Lol y’all are so dramatic. The closet thing we have to an objective playoff and this is the reaction. Might as well just go back to BCS since nobody wants a playoff.
Nick Saban was talking about putting the top 40 teams in a league and they only would play each other. That would actually leave out some SEC and some Big 10 teams out of the league. If they end up doing that, I think they should definitely do relegation and promotion model. The top 5 teams not in the league get promoted and the bottom 5 teams get relegated.
If Georgia's QB is injured and misses the playoffs due to a Conference Championship, that is going to create a lot of pressure to drop Conference Championships. Especially after Penn State lost their Conference Championship and then gets the world's easiest bracket. Texas loses their Conference Championship and gets the second easiest bracket.
I think that is THE reason SMU is in - the committee can under no circumstances start pointing the ship away from conference championship games, because they are money-making machines for all the conferences. The host cities take most if not all the costs and all of the member schools benefit from the television dollars. Protecting that income was the primary factor in the committee keeping SMU.
All of the problems come down to one thing: the automatic byes. The 9th and 11th best teams in the playoff get the # 3 and 4 seeds, that makes the whole bracket hopelessly misaligned with the actual strength of the teams. Get rid of those stupid auto-byes and Penn State would be facing Notre Dame (probably) in the 2nd round while Oregon played Indiana or SMU.
It has been obvious for a few years that scheduling a tougher non-conference foe is idiotic. As soon as Penn State was kept out of the 2016 Playoff for losing to Pitt early in the season and WINNING THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE, I could see the smart ADs avoiding anything with a pulse. As for this year, YES, the auto-bid seeding is DUMB. I’ll take this year’s seeding for Penn State as a final Karmic payback! 😂
You talk about how illogical it is to have Ohio State behind Penn State because they beat them head to head. What do you think the committee should have done when OSU lost to Michigan at home? Not drop them at all so they stay above PSU? Drop OSU but also drop PSU so they can stay behind them? Maybe drop OSU for one week but them have them leapfrog PSU in the final rankings even though OSU didn’t even play that week and PSU had to play the #1 team in the country? I agree that OSU is probably better than PSU even right now after that loss, but your actions have to have consequences and that loss has to hurt OSU somehow. Josh said “…don’ t play in a conference championship game if you can help it…” about one minute after complaining that Penn State has an easier path and is ranked above Ohio State because PSU played in a conference championship game.
But you are making his point by ignoring that OSU beat two top 5 teams, while PSU beat no one near that level. OSU didn't get rewarded for having those wins relative to PSU. Now those weren't OOC games, but it makes his point that the risk of playing top ranked teams is not worth the reward. The small or nonexistent penalty you get for playing no one good and winning is worth it when you don't get rewarded that much by having wins over a top team on the resume.
@@jonwalter6317 the committee has set the clear standard that quality of wins means nothing. It’s not just Alabama, it’s all over the rankings. If the committee wanted to value quality wins, quality losses and OOC schedule, South Carolina is their dream team
You're looking at it from a viewpoint that poll inertia should be a thing. It shouldn't. Resumes should be evaluated on a week to week basis. If OSU loses to a bad Michigan team, then they aren't as good as we thought BUT they did beat Penn St so they also are not as good. The loss to Michigan hurts both OSU & PSU. If this logic of looking at resumes is applied correctly across the board, Alabama isn't even a Top 12 team.
@ who are the two top 5 teams OSU beat? Is it Penn State and Indiana because I thought those teams shouldn’t be ranked as high because they “beat no one near that level”. I’m also don’t think there’s much room to feel sorry for OSU. They lost an extremely close game to Oregon and weren’t punished for playing a good team because the first CFP ranking had them at 2 behind Oregon and I agree with that fully. Then, when they lost to a bad Michigan team at home as 21 point favorites, they only dropped 4 spots to 6 so at no point were they treated unfairly. All of this is theoretical though and the question I asked is a real-world situation that actually happened. If you’re dissatisfied with how Ohio State and Penn State finished in relative ranking, what would you have done differently? I laid out the options that the committee had and they amount to either devaluing the close head to head result (which they chose to do) or devaluing Ohio States close but really ugly home loss to a bad team. I’ll also add that how they lost matters as much as who they lost too. I believe that if Ohio State lost in identical fashion as the Oregon-Penn State game, it wouldn’t have hurt them as much because at least they would have shown out and looked competent instead of only putting up 10.
@ I make my own rankings each week. If you ask what I would have done, I can tell you already. 7. Tennessee 8. OSU 9. Penn State This would have given Tennessee a home game and rematch of OSU PSU in the first round unfortunately
The issue with SMU was having them ranked above Bama going into Championship Week. You can disagree with that ranking, but the fact is if you then drop SMU behind Bama because they lost in the ACC Championship, you are immediately opening the door to having teams refuse to play in championship games.
Great analysis. Like you guys have been saying for a long time, this system was never going to make sense, but this result is something else. The path for Penn State compared to Oregon after Oregon just beat them is hilarious.
The 'were not SEC homers' mask finally fully comes off. Josh throwing his toys out of the pram. I don't want to hear anything about Alabama's 'tough schedule', they played Mercer for god sake and got blown out by Oklahoma. You want to get into the playoff? Don't lose games and especially don't lose games big when you were supposed to win big.
@@TomBeard-og6sq We'll give you some extra time to figure what a team has more control over: winning their games or determining how difficult their schedule will be in 5 years.
One of my favorite channels for college football. I need a few more of these rants. I need y’all to rant about the following: 1. Conference realignment destroyed the 12 team playoff format. Your channel made this clear but I don’t think people realized how much they needed to update the CFP format after conference realignment 2. Please do a rant about standardized scheduling. The transfer portal and NIL has made a drastic impact on the depth of teams for the foreseeable future but scheduling has not caught up to this new reality. All P4 conferences vying for playoff spots need to play a schedule format that includes 8 conference games, 2 P4 non conference games 1 G5 and on FCS. The format will help committees going forward to measure conference strength when they do SOS comparisons. You guys have talked about these things in the past and yall may need to revisit these topics for your new fans….
I am agreeing with about 80% of what you guys are saying. 1) The SEC is the best conference in college football, coming from a BIG Ten fan. If you disagree welcome to your first week of being a fan we’re glad to have you. 2) I would have put Alabama in over SMU to be clear. However I don’t believe you should punish teams for a conference championship loss. The committee really screwed themselves last week by putting SMU, Penn st, and Texas higher than they should have while claiming they weren’t going to punish championship losses. They needed to rank them with the opportunity to earn a higher rank. SMU losing put them in an easily avoidable no win situation. I completely agree with you here. 3) Here’s where I start to disagree with guys. I do think the committee is rewarding big wins more than they are punishing bad losses, This is a chaos year, which has been awesome for viewing purposes, but a nightmare for ranking purposes. I agree that the committee took a safe, political approach, and again, I would’ve had Alabama over SMU. But there are no right answers this year. Yes, you could say Ohio State should be ranked over Penn State because of the head-to-head, but how do you reconcile the Michigan loss? How do you rank Notre Dame with a win over Texas A&M and a loss to Northern Illinois? I’ve tried to give a top 10 every week and at this point, I don’t know how to rank 3 through 17. I think the committee is giving credit for big wins, do you think Alabama would be ranked in the same spot if they had lost to Georgia, but beat Vanderbilt? Because I think they would be behind Ole Miss at that point. OSU with a win to Michigan and a loss to Penn st would probably be behind Tennessee. I’m typically on the SOS side of the arguments, but this is the first year where I get the “we really don’t know how good half these teams are so we’ll reward a clean record.” Argument. 4) Yeah the auto byes are stupid. Anyone down for an 8 team hate draft playoff next year? Head coaches 1-4 get to host a home game against the 5-8 seed of their choice? It’ll never happen but I can dream.
On point #3 PSU vs OSU: "Yes, you could say Ohio State should be ranked over Penn State because of the head-to-head, but how do you reconcile the Michigan loss?" No doubt, but you left out that OSU has two top 5 wins, while PSU's best win was 20/21 Illinois. Make your decision with all of the relevant info.
@@jonwalter6317 also disregarding that South Carolina has 2 more top 25 wins, beat the ACC champ in their stadium and only lost to top 15 teams and an 8-4 LSU in an extremely controversial game. If the committee wanted to value wins and OOC schedule, South Carolina was THE best way to incentivize it
@@jonwalter6317 I absolutely see what you’re saying. To clarify I’m not trying to omit relevant information, I just didn’t want to make a long comment longer. I think the best way to rank teams is to swap schedules and see how they would have faired, and that’s really difficult with OSU PSU because I think OSU is 12-0 with PSU’s schedule and PSU is 11-1 with an Oregon loss with OSU’s schedule. I don’t think there’s a good way to rank these teams and that’s just 2 teams in a big mess of teams that would all be favored within 7 points of each other. The point being I really don’t think anyone should be speaking in absolute terms when there’s this many question marks. I would rank PSU above OSU but I’ll be the first to admit it’s not fair regardless of who I pick here.
@@jacksonklark6119 Which would be fine if all schedules were created equal, but they aren't. The committee saying Arizona State is the 12th best team in the country yet affording them the benefit of a top 4 team just doesn't make sense in any context.
EXACTLY - the ACC and Big10 have five teams EACH with less talent on the 247 talent composite than Vandy. Let that sink in - *TEN* sub-Vandys between the two. Media punching bag Vandy would be a middle of the pack squad in either conference, probably going bowling. The Big10 and ACC at large admissions were actually rewarded for their weak conferences by the committee. That makes any program from the meatgrinder that is the SEC *crazy* if they continue to add more difficulty to their schedules.
10:38 WE'RE NOT COMPETING FOR RATINGS!! We are are trying to give players an opportunity to play for a CHAMPIONSHIP. Worst point I have ever heard about this.
Love this channel. Discovered it this year and it has been one of my favorites. It is nice to see non bias/statistical conversation about college football. My prediction is the same in that it is going to be a ton of blowouts and as usual the Big Ten and SEC are going to dominate these smaller conferences.
I so wish that I could just be in a room with y’all and talk about this. Grew up a die hard UGA fan, now a sophomore at FSU, so I’ve got bias on both sides of the argument. Love the content and love the rants.
Automatic bids are not the problem. If you win your conference you should get in the playoff. 4 should be the max I agree on that. It’s the automatic first round byes that are the problem. This goes with the fact we need to re seed teams after the first round. Also if we could get all teams in the power 4 conferences to play a similar round robin SOS this would be a much better format. I told people yesterday if they were to put Alabama in over SMU I would understand their reasoning. People that just don’t know football always wanted to bring up the fact that bama lost 2 bad games. Who you play matters and SMU didn’t play anyone. Not a bama or SMU fan. I’m a Georgia fan . But people kept making the argument “you can’t punish SMU for playing in a conference championship game” and I don’t disagree with that which wasn’t the argument against SMU most people were making. It was the lack of quality wins. But then those same people kept telling me “then if you drop SMU out then you better drop Texas too because they lost a conference championship” and that logic is stupid for the simple reason Texas is a top 5 team still. SMU is a borderline top 12 team. You aren’t dropping Texas out losing to Georgia in the sec championship game. But ultimately I like you guys made this not about bama vs SMU the real argument was what about the teams behind SMU that have better resumes. I agree Full disclosure. I was never a fan of expanding the playoff I’m with you guys on that. The regular season was the most important in sports when we had 4 teams. And if we expanded I argue 8 is a much better number than 12. 12 is too much and devalues the regular season.
Four teams in who do not have a single win over an opponent ranked at the end of the season makes the *immediate* dilution of OOC scheduling inevitable.
@Dawg-Bone it's not though. Clemson, for example, would've had a better seed if they had just not scheduled UGA. Committee only cares about record as it's not really getting the best teams in this year.
@@Dawg-Bone please tell me which conference did better with OOC scheduling. Georgia beat GT and Clemson, Tennessee scheduled what was expected to be a good NC State, Texas crushed Michigan, Alabama destroyed a Wisconsin that nearly beat Penn State and Oregon. The B1G playoff teams went a COMBINED 1-0 against the P4 (PSU over WVU). The ACC teams both lost their OOC games. Arizona State barely beat Miss State.
@@nicholaskling2425 Point being, the non confefence wasn’t the issue for the SEC. Alabama shouldn’t have laid eggs against Vanderbilt and Oklahoma. Ole Miss shouldn’t have laid eggs to Kentucky, LSU, and Florida. South Carolina was robbed of at least one win and maybe two. Point being. You wanna get in the playoffs? Play winning football every single week.
It’s so funny to me that people are so tunnel visioned by Greg Byrne’s tweet to realize that scheduling tough OOC games directly impacted the teams that made it in too. Whoever chooses the committee members needs to clean house and put FOOTBALL people in the room, not just yes men who don’t know what they’re doing
The B1G playoff teams went a combined 1-0 against the P4 (PSU over WVU). The ACC lost their OOC games. The playoff committee made a clear statement that easy schedules are good and OOC means nothing
It's frustrating that people making this argument aren't looking beyond what happened this year. Just because it didn't happen this time to your team of choice doesn't mean the powers that be aren't planning for future years where it could happen again. Good schedules mean nothing. Winning out against whoever and not losing are what matters most. Or if you do lose, it needs to be in a conference title game (doesn't matter if you win or not, just get there). Unfortunately this means that more and more teams will schedule weaker competition, devaluing the regular season even further. I don't like the way things are headed.
It's clear that the CFPC did not count Conference Champ games as a loss, only as an extra win. So SMU would still have an 11-1 record vs 11-2. While the winners get a +1 to their win counts and I like that.
Alabama didn’t play any tough OOC games. Don’t lose to two 6-6 teams. I don’t think Oklahoma or Vandy would do any better in the ACC. You guys should take callers or guests who hold opposing views
I think people are missing the point. This is about general scheduling logic in the future based on the committee showing more preference in record than in SoS. So if the committee is overvaluing Ws and Ls over SoS, then teams will stop trying to boost their SoS in the out of conference.
@@drewc771 The team left out didn’t schedule strong OOC games. Alabamas loses are way worse and looked way worse than SMU. Getting smacked down by a horrible Oklahoma team is disqualifying.
@@drewc771 Alabamas OOC schedule wasn’t exactly tough. They played Wisconsin, a bottom half B10 team and SMU played a 10-2 BYU team. So you can spew whatever you want, but that’s not the reason they got left out. It’s not even because they had 3 losses. It’s because 2 out of 3 of your losses were BAD
@@timgray4974 Again, i think you're missing the point. The argument about why teams are discouraged from scheduling OOC really isn't about Alabama this year. I think people are combining 2 different arguments, which are actually separate.
Great show! What about doing the format of college. Hockey with the pairwise? The numbers speak for themselves and conference automatic qualifiers go to the bottom of the field if they are in weak conference.
The easier games are made harder by being loaded with much more difficult scheduling. Also, Oklahoma and Vandy played Bama after a bye week to add to that.
Are we Going to see the SEC and BIG 10 go to a conference schedule that will be semi-fixed ? Or will they schedule based on results from the previous year ?
Rant was on point. You guys actually brought up a lot of the points that Joel talked about in his most recent episode, and I can’t disagree at all. The committee squeezed themselves into a big hole, and took the “politically correct path” without taking any of the data into account. This is gonna change sooner than later. This was a great video. Keep it up, guys!
You guys are wasting your breath. Let the games play out and see how these teams perform. I am a Tennessee fan and SEC homer, but am interested to see how these teams stack up against each other on the field. The point of having 12 teams is to give these other conferences some inclusion and see if our automatic assumption that the Big 10 and SEC are better than everyone. Let's see it decided on the field. I actually think SMU will beat Penn State on the road. I wouldn't be suprised if Indianna beats Notre Dame also.
Love the righteous fury, and I agree, it's kind of nuts that the AP got it more right than the dang committee filled with people whose job it is allegedly to get this all right.
As a Miami fan I wasn’t broken up about not making the playoff. I knew this team’s flaws last off season…no secondary. I’d rather go play in of the biggest bowl games and win it to close the season out on a positive not. That’s why better than drawing a bad matchup in Columbus, OH where those WR run wide open all day long and we’re in a spot where Cam Ward has to try to outscore Ohio St. them if we lose by 14+ everyone says we didn’t deserve to make it and our off season starts negatively. This playoff is big enough now where just missing it may out you in a better soot than sneaking in and losing game 1. I said 2 months ago we couldn’t win the playoff…we were a year ahead of schedule…I appreciate our success this year and I’m happy with this season. I wish we didn’t draw the only team with 2-1000 yard WRs in Iowa State…however I appreciate our players going all in at least for now.
I don’t think it would surprise anyone to find out that the ACC was the most represented conference on the playoff committee and the SEC had a single rep
I listened to this discussion with an open mind. Points are very valid. Unfortunately, if this is a national competition, where every D1 team/conference have an opportunity to play for a championship, exceptions must be made. Obviously, the SEC is the most competitive conference. However, there are 136 programs in Division 1 and everyone will not play everyone. If only the sec and big 10 were ranked, which currently would be 25% of the division 1, then it wouldn't really be a national playoffs. Point being, if the argument is only the best football is played in the sec and or big 10/ acc, then they should have their own playoffs and not include other programs. But then you'll have to deal with the politics of other schools winning a separate division 1 playoffs and having claims to the best team in the country, which is was the issue post BCS/Playoffs. So if there is no separate playoffs for "group of 5" teams, then exceptions will be made for exclusivity. So these arguments and debates are merritless because of the inclusion of those that don't play and sec/big 10/big 12/ acc schedule. The audacity to tell a team like Army, who has had a special year for Army, conference champ, but not get the Boise nod is nuts. Those young men played their hearts out and we as a nation say... yeh, nah, you not good enough, smh. Again, maybe the sec should only play it's conference and be done with it and let everyone else compete for a national title. It only seems to be the sec talking heads trying to make this a regional argument. But if you want a true national tourney, exceptions must be made and everyone is not gonna like it, but it's the cost for the parameters being set. That's why conference championship teams are held to higher regard in spite of others resume. They're trying not to make this a region dominated tourney, which will turn off viewers that don't have invested interest in southern teams.
It’s hard to overlook Army playing Notre Dame and getting clean dominated. But it goes back to our point that the logic for SMU wasn’t applied to Army and it makes no sense outside the conference championship thing (as Joel Klatt said)
Spot on as always. Would Bama, Ole Miss and USCe have been undefeated vs SMU and Az St schedules? ACC champ is oh fer the SEC but the conference gets almost as many teams in??? The only good thing is now the little conferences will see what it really tastes to win
Ive never seen Josh this fired up. That shows you how much bs this was. This system needs to be blown up immediately. They also destroyed the incentive to play tough OOC games. Get ready for Bama-Mercer every week
1. As you said the committee decided beforehand that losing your conference championship wouldn't hurt you. 2. I don't mind auto bids (the conference champions), but it should be seeded by the season. I will do the BIG Ten, 4 teams got in. Oregon was 2-0 vs those 4 teams, Penn State was 0-2, Ohio State was 2-1 and Indiana was 0-1. The committee was silly here, as losing the conference championship was more important than the regular season. And Penn State got in because their SOS was harder than Indiana's, but the committee would have been screwed if Indiana would have lost the championship game, as they were already behind Penn State and Ohio State in the rankings. For Alabama, I think the 2nd loss to an unranked team did them in. As if Alabama would have beaten Oklahoma, they would have been in the conference championship against Texas and then I think Georgia would have gotten in, but Tennessee would have been out, or in over SMU.
I think top 8 based on Rank + reseeding would be the best format. 12 teams is where you really start digging through the slog. This year the 8 being based on the AP would be good.
Not a bama fan. Everyone hates on them for playing Mercer. Yet no one is looking at ND for playing FOUR G5 teams. That's also ignoring how stupidly easy the rest of their schedule turned out to be. They had 3 other teams that 2 or fewer wins and a bunch of 500ish teams. ND basically did nothing all year and got a home playoff game. Just go independent and make your own garbage schedule.
@@JustN0pe3 Indiana’s OOC schedule was FIU, Western Illinois and Charlotte. Ohio State’s was Akron, Western Michigan and Marshall. Alabama played a Wisconsin team that lead at the half against Penn State and Oregon. People criticizing the SEC OOC really needs to look at the rest of the field
@@nicholaskling2425Alabama only has 8 conference games. Playing Wisconsin (who might I add is terrible at offense and not amazing at defense) got them on par with IU and OSU
@@nicholaskling2425I know who Bama played. Stop being so sensitive. Also, know that the B1G has some pretty soft scheduling. My point is everyone ignores how bad ND schedule is. Nobody is addressing it.
They should use the CFP rankings to determine conference title games. Miami would have played SMU had they did that this year. No one would scream if Miami beat SMU and got in because they were barely out. With 78 team conferences you only play less than half of the teams in your conference…that makes conference record pointless
The one thing that I think we have to recognize is ultimately the good of the sport takes priority over having the best teams in. College football, HAS NEVER BEEN SOLEY ABOUT HAVING THE BEST TEAMS COMPETE. Its cultural representation for the people in this country and if they aren't represented, they will check out of the sport entirely. It's Crucial to keep teams like SMU and Boise in rather than having it as a SEC Big 10 invitational. I laude the committee for having the stones to standup for the little guy and for the Good of the sport.
@@jacoblefler4506 your argument is that we shouldnt care who the best teams are. If that is your stance, why did an Army team with a better record and a conference championship get left out for SMU?
@@jacoblefler4506 what has SMU done to deserve a place over Army? Instead of just saying “bad faith” actually use your head. Army is 11-1, so they have a better record. Army won their conference championship game, so they have hardware. Army only lost to #5 Notre Dame, so they have a better loss. If your argument is that the playoff is about “deserving” instead of “best”, what has SMU done to deserve a spot over Army?
Don't lose to bad teams. Idk why this is so hard to understand. You absolutely should he punished for not scoring a single TD against the worst OU team in decades.
SEC should go to 6 conf games and make sure none of the big names play each other every year, filling in those other 2 slots with G5 teams so they can have breaks between big games, and keep 1 or 2 good P4 teams OOC just to show that they are better. The conference losses were what screwed over the SEC, so they should counter by reducing them. No more UGA v Bama during the regular season. No more UGA v Texas. No more UGA v UT. No more Bama v Texas. No Texas v UT. Base the schedule on playing the bottom teams of the previous year + 1 or 2 rivals.
If SOS is that important. Then Mississippi State should be in consideration. Selecting SMU protects the tradition of the conference championship game. UGA had the #1 SOS and still only lost 2 games. I promise you, tough OOC games are not in jeopardy.
Alabama’s problem wasn’t due to losing to teams outside their conference . Their problem was losing to teams within their conference. Their solutions are clear; (1) cry about not getting into the playoffs due to their hard conference schedule and (2) become independent like ND and play 12 cupcakes every year guaranteeing a yearly playoff spot because clearly they can’t compete within the SEC anymore.
I agree a lot of what yall are saying, but my question is how do we value SOS while not devaluing conference champ games? I think the argument is fair that SMU shouldn’t have been in the Top 10 pre-ACC CG, but if UGA lost then they would be punished for making the SEC CG because Alabama lost, which they can’t control. Great vid!
The real reason people are crying is because Bama didn't make the playoffs. Sure the SEC schedule is tough and Bama would have an argument if their 3 losses were to Texas, UGA and Tenn. However, Bama lost to Tenn, Vandy and Oklahoma with the Oklahoma loss being especially egregious (24-3 in week 11). Same with OSU.... If their 2 losses where to Oregon and PSU or Indiana this argument would make sense. Their second loss was to Michigan. If you're an upper tier team then win the winnable games in your conference and make it to the conference championship game. Then you too can enjoy the protection from the committee.
There’s absolutely zero excuse for Alabama to loose to Vanderbilt I’m sorry. Georgia State beat Vanderbilt and had a double digit lead most of the game. The talent and resources and that Alabama has over Vanderbilt is absurd. Vanderbilt can’t even really recruit because of how difficult it is to get players accepted into the danm school. As an Oklahoma fan this was the weakest Oklahoma team I’ve ever seen. They were missing their top 4 receivers and fired their offensive coordinator and they beat Alabama by 21 points why does the SEC get all these excuses? People are tried it.
I highly disagree, SMU lost a close OOC game against a good opponent, BYU, while Bama's best performance was a drubbing of 5-7 Wisconsin. The committee is doing what we all asked them to do, reward tough scheduling, even if it results in close losses, over easy scheduling. There's also the 2016 PSU/OSU issue to look at, where the committee told us that 11-1 was SOO much better than 11-2 that they didn't need to consider head to head. With that knowledge, 11-2 is easily seen as drastically better than 9-3, especially if you consider the "don't punish teams for losing a CCG" angle, which makes SMU look more like the 11-1 that they went into that game at.
But 2016 OSU had a 10-2 Oklahoma W on their resume and significantly better outcomes on a week to week basis than this SMU team. They had back to back 62-3 games.
Disingenuous arguments are disingenuous. Ignoring the 4 wins over top 25 teams in favor of the random mediocre team bama dominated is crazy work. Without looking I guarantee that bamas domination of Missouri is a better win than anything on SMUs or indianas schedule.
Saban said it best. They screwed up ranking SMU above Bama BEFORE the ACC game. That stopped them from being able to drop SMU below Bama after losing to #17 Clemson. Enough BS entitlement participation nonsense.
No they didn’t. They lost to 2 6-6 teams. And got blown out by one of them. No one cares if they had 3 losses to actual good teams, but you’re not getting any special treatment for losing to a 6-6 team that lost to Georgia st, and getting blown out 24-3 to a 6-6 Oklahoma team
@ yes and they lost to a 6-6 team that lost to 3-9 Georgia st, and also lost to a 6-6 team by 21 points, and didn’t score a TD. What’s hard for you to understand about that ?
Blaming the committee doesn't make much sense here when the format is the issue. They weren't the ones that decided that, they just rank the teams. Remove the auto bids for the conference championship and guess what, Alabama is in the playoff. The committee literally ranked them in the top 12. Anyway, this current format is only around for what, 2 years? I think we all fully expect changes to the format again in 2026.
The SEC, Big10, and ACC wanted conference champions to be above other teams... they got what they wanted, they just didn't think the SEC and ACC would have such down years. You reap what you sow 🤷♂️ Slot the top 12 for playoff, regardless of conference
I knew that this committee was FOS when they dropped Georgia 9 spots and out of the playoffs when they lost our second game, despite having beaten the (then) #1 team on the road and was one of only 2 teams in the rankings to earn a win on the road against a top 10 team (other being Ohio St). Then they beat a top 10 team at home and only moved up 2 spots. As of Saturday, Georgia was behind Notre Dame, a 1 loss team who had no top 10 wins and lost to NIU at home, and Penn St, a 1 loss team that has no good wins. It was a crock. I give Bama credit for playing OOC Wisconsin. It is a traditional Big 10 power. And Texas playing Michigan. It's not their fault that those teams suck this year. Every SEC has to play at least one P4 OOC game (Oregon, Ohio St and Indiana played none). Georgia and LSU played 2. Florida played 3. They got precisely ZERO consideration for doing so.
Ohio State usually plays at least one good non conference team each year. Texas, Georgia and Alabama are on their upcoming schedule. You cant eat meat for every meal but all cupcakes make you fat and slow.
I agree with you guys on seeding But how can we say you gotta earn your way in and SMU had two opportunities to win the games on the field. Alabama had two losses to 6-6 teams that they had the opportunity to win and didn’t. Did losing three games earn them a spot? I understand the conference strengths are different, but hell the Oklahoma game wasn’t even competitive. I may be wrong about this but I think I remember if Tennessee UGA and Bama were 10-2 after tie breakers Bama was in the championship. If they got in they would have been in regardless. The committee has always cared about losses and wins later in the season which is dumb. But just don’t lose to .500 teams your Bama most talented roster in the country.
All too true. The top four teams in the AP poll should I get the first round bids and then do whatever mine are manipulating you have to do for Conference champions after that
I am the furthest thing from a Bama fan, but if my Buckeyes got screwed like Bama et al. I would be pissed. They need to have a major league and a minor league playoff for the lesser teams. I would watch that format more than I will watch meaningless bowl games.
Congratulations. College basketball is officially better and more logical, regarding structure, than college football. This is the stupidest season I’ve seen. Basically gifting James Franklin a spot to the 3rd round.
This is the simplest way to do it. Just rank the 12 best teams regardless of conference championship games. PSU getting the #5 for backing their way in to the BIGCG without playing anyone, but OSU in the regular season is ridiculous. Their best win is Minnesota. Congrats!
To be fair, college basketball has been doing this for decades now. It took them a bit to get it right, too. Early tournaments only had conference champs, and would completely leave out some of the best teams from even making it.
I don't necessarily view the committee's decision this week as political, I think they're trying to maintain consistency with their previous weeks' rankings while not over-punishing the extra game that is the conference championship (though if you call that political, I'll accept it, but disagree). If we reverted to last week's rankings and just awarded conference championships on record, Bama is still out, so I don't think arguing about the committee's decision this week, given that it involved an extra game that Bama didn't play, makes much sense. The issue to focus on isn't this week's decision, it was last week's, and the weeks before that (which makes one wonder why it's such a big deal now). SMU went ahead of Bama in week 14. If you have an issue with SMU being in the playoffs rather than Bama, that's when you should have had an issue with it. The committee's decision to not punish a conference runner up is the best decision they could make this week given their flawed (assumed for the sake of argument, though I generally agree) decisions in the weeks before. Focusing on it now just serves to undermine the conference championship games and honestly comes across a little whiny, even if the arguments you're making would have been sound for the week 14 rankings, which I generally think they would have been. And I know you're not just talking about SMU-Bama, but it's an easy one for me to focus on for my response. I'm sure it's a similar situation with your other comparisons. I think if we want to go for strength of record for ranking, we'll need more objectivity and transparency. It's too easy to cry foul when more complicated metrics like that are compared behind doors, out of the light of public scrutiny. Make it a formula like the BCS format, and make the formula publicly available so people can run the metrics for themselves and see that the results are accurate. Do that and it will incentivize tougher OOC games, but I don't think a strength-of-record ranking is possible with the committee making the rankings.
@nicholaskling2425 not at all. They didn't do that though. They had already decided a few weeks ago that SMU was ahead of Bama, they didn't repeat that decision this week because it had already been made. This week the committee was making a different decision, which was consistent with their previous decisions. They'd already ranked SMU ahead of Bama, this week they were just determining how much SMU should be punished for playing an extra game that they lost. Someone who didn't complain last week but complains now obviously doesn't care that SMU was ranked ahead of Bama, they don't care about the ordering of the teams or what the committee prioritizes in ranking, because that has been consistent (within these weeks I'm referring to at least. Across years, they're anything but), they just care that Bama was left out. The final week isn't the time to make corrections that should have been made in earlier weeks. That's what I like about the Nerds and their model, they know the rankings and expectations of the first few weeks are garbage and should be discarded as soon as they're shown to be bad. But that kind of correction needs to be sorted out early, you can't just change your mind last minute when you've already signaled what you intend to do. That's what they did with FSU last year, and it was a massive mistake. If they were gonna punish FSU for losing Travis, the time to do that was the week of the injury or the week after, when they saw how bad the offense was without him. If my memory is correct, they saw the injury, saw the next week how bad FSU was against Florida without him, and incorrectly (based on their later justification) left FSU in the top 4. That was a mistake, and thankfully they didn't repeat that this year. Now, when it may have benefitted your team, you may want the committee to be inconsistent, to make drastic last minute corrections or changes, but an inconsistent, unreliable committee is not what we want, and in the past that kind of action is what has upset fans the most. We want predictability. We want to know what the committee values, and what teams need to do to get in. We don't want the committee to say a team is good to go, then pull out the rug from underneath them at the last second. This wasn't the case with Bama this year. You knew you were a long shot to get in, and it didn't work out. I've experienced it in years past, even in the BCS era, as have fans of many other teams. Bama fans aren't used to it, they're used to a privilege that they didn't get this year. If anything, *that* is a change of behavior by the committee across years, but if it was any other team in this position, the behavior was as expected. If you read my full comment above, you might notice that I don't want the committee, I want a publicly available computer model that takes into consideration the strength of record, kinda like BCS, but one which you can run yourself on your own computer and see the same results, and those feed into a playoff bracket. What I don't want is a committee of nearly invisible people in a back room making inconsistent, seemingly arbitrary decisions out of the public eye. But if there's gonna be a committee, they need to be consistent.
As a Buckeye fan who cares very much about her team, I can't feel very sorry for our "program." I say program because I just can't resolve how so many things went wrong (on so many levels) involving the MI game. Time to step up OSU. Take care of business. I do think that Oregon got a bum deal though. At least they have a "bye."
I hope Alabama doesn't drop the home and home games with Ohio State. I was excited about the playoffs because it would make games like this easer to schedule.
Your arguments are just looking at the overall SOS. You don’t really address the 13 vs 12 game schedules. Penn state was ranked above osu before conference chips. Whether you agree with that or not, you can’t drop Texas or Penn state below teams who were idle or else you are saying it’s better to get 3rd than 2nd in a conference. The real conversation should be 3 loss bama vs 1 loss smu, or 1 loss Penn state and Texas vs 1 loss Notre dame. With the current structure once it’s set before the conference championship games I think it HAS to stay set. Love what you guys do, but I think you’re off on this analysis when saying “same number of losses” for a 13 game schedules vs a 12 game
The bracket made it harder for Oregon than Penn State…hours after Oregon beat Penn State. B1G is gonna be pissed and SEC will cry because B1G got 4 in and they only got 3 in. The 2 big boys are pissed they’ll force changes the day after the title game is finished.
Ahhh, no the issue is the SEC teams everyone is crying about didnt win against very average ass SEC teams. Not because of their OOC schedule...You guys are fine, the SEC is usually way better but this year it obviously was much more in line with the Big ten. Alabama didnt get left out for any reason but that ass whipping Oklahoma laid on them...
How can you say A&M was a good win for Notre Dame, but not a good win for Texas? Texas also played the better version of A&M with Reed at QB. Alabama’s losses are unforgivable. They got blown out 24-3 to OU, who in turn got blown out by Texas 34-3. Make it make sense
They complain about people seeing them as sec homers and then proceeded to get down on their knees and suck off bad sec teams for 43 mins and say how unfair it is that anyone else on the bubble could get in over these bad sec teams.
Cutting quality wins off at 25 is just so stupid with the parity in today's game. The gap from the 25th best team to say the 40th-45th best team is marginal at best. Teams like Texas get penalized because they beat A&M when they were ranked 20th and they dropped out of the top 25 because Texas BEAT them. And comparing Texas and SMU when Texas' SOS was 20th and SMU's was 57th. Bama lost to 2 6-6 teams. They belong nowhere near this year's playoff. You can't get embarrassed by a putrid OU team for your 3rd loss and expect to make it in.
Alabama lost to 2 very bad teams and looked inept doing it. The games have to mean something. If you only care about recruiting rankings and Vegas lines watch the draft.
Miami has a better SOS than 5-6 of the playoff teams. The only thing worse than the committees bracket and reasoning is Warde Manuel’s idiotic word salad which contradicts his own points just minutes after making them.
This is freaking hilarious. Bama isn't sitting out the playoffs because they played too tough an OOC schedule, they're sitting out because they couldn't beat bad teams in their own conference.
I've got an idea, maybe they can just play Mercer 12 times next year, that way they might be able to improve to 10-2!
MORE IMPORTANTLY, they DIDN"T SHOW UP AGAINST TRASH Okie. I mean they were destroyed in that game. TOTALLY dominated.
You didn’t listen to anything they said. You can take Alabama out of it and the system is still flawed. SMU should have never been ranked as high as they were. There are like 7 teams behind them with better resumes
It's not about this year. It's about future years. Alabama for instance plays 2 OOC Power 4 games every year starting next year.
Interesting that SMU didn't beat any Top25 teams, but DO have wins against #26 and #28. Weird place to put that cutoff unless you're trying to make a specific kind of point
And both of those were road wins. Those were both good wins IMO.
Don't worry, the point will be made soon enough for you to see. Also, if you want to go there then Bama has another top win making it 4.
“If we ranked teams past 25, my team would look better” is one of the weakest new arguments to come out of all the growing pains of the 12 team playoff.
Did their three losses improve too?
@@darnellarford2439His point was there’s really very little difference in quality between a team ranked say, 24th and a team ranked 26th. 25 was arbitrarily chosen as the number of teams that get ranked.
That’s why the solution is a 135 team playoff with the best fcs team getting a top 10 auto bid. We wont play regular season games anymore, instead we will determine seeding by how you looked in the spring game. Additionally peacock and TNT will exclusively stream the games.
i like this. and it could be a 12-round playoff starting on Labor Day, where you have like 10 "pods" (5 "power" pods, i guess you could call them, and a group of 5 "other pods") to separate so many teams a bit, and the top 2 teams from each pod at the end of the 12-round playoff will play in a pod championship. and since there's way too many teams to all play each other and know who is actually good and who is a 12-0 tomato can, we can have local sports reporters just vote on who the winner of the playoff is...or maybe make a computer do it??
Lol love it
@@jeff-manns
Hilarious! 😂
The "we're not SEC/Alabama homers" masks have come off. Would this rant be called for if it was any team other than Alabama who got left out? So, if Alabama got in over SMU, would anyone be ranting about Ole Miss, Illinois, or South Carolina being left out? Would you all be as upset? Im not saying there aren't some valid points, I'm saying I suspect all this crying wouldnt happen if you change Alabamas logo to just about any other team. The discussion (or lack thereof) would be totally different. Alabama didnt get in because Oklahoma embarrassed them and handed them a 3rd loss. That's kind of the end of the story, is it not?
I think I agree, Alabama is likely better than SMU, maybe Clemson too but you cant lose the games they lost, in the way they lost, and be mad for being left out. Its like a fighter who has the ability to knock their opponent out cold but instead f*cks around the whole fight then gets mad because the judges didnt give them the win- just because "everyone knows" theyre likely the better fighter. Nah, take care of business or live with the results. Stop crying and making excuses.
Wofford UMass UTEP Georgia St Mercer at Home in November. It’s too much to ask of these overworked teams, just too much, you must understood. Poor Alabama, came off that game against Mercer and just had nothing, not even a touchdown for Oklahoma--please tel me you understand. Please cut these games out of the SEC schedule-they play so many tough games again UK, Oklahoma, Vanderbilt, Mississippi St (look how tough is their SOS) Arkansas Missouri Florida Auburn. These programs have won before just. It this year and as Alabama has proven can be very very difficult!!! Maybe the SEC should only play SEC teams and then declare its best team National Champion, which two loss team would that be this year? Georgia, Tennessee, Texas maybe South Carolina, Alabama if the best team in the country could possibly have three-losses-since they’re such good losses.
The macro picture of this is that eventually the SEC and B1G will take their ball and go home and create the Super League. Given the stat cited here that 70% of the viewership is from 18 teams, the fact that those teams that monopolize the revenue generation do not get even a logical or consistent distribution from it just means they're going to go through a few changes before ultimately deciding they're better off on their own. This should be abundantly clear to anyone remotely paying attention.
That is exactly what Sankey should have said publically.
Lol y’all are so dramatic. The closet thing we have to an objective playoff and this is the reaction. Might as well just go back to BCS since nobody wants a playoff.
Nick Saban was talking about putting the top 40 teams in a league and they only would play each other. That would actually leave out some SEC and some Big 10 teams out of the league. If they end up doing that, I think they should definitely do relegation and promotion model. The top 5 teams not in the league get promoted and the bottom 5 teams get relegated.
If Georgia's QB is injured and misses the playoffs due to a Conference Championship, that is going to create a lot of pressure to drop Conference Championships. Especially after Penn State lost their Conference Championship and then gets the world's easiest bracket. Texas loses their Conference Championship and gets the second easiest bracket.
I think that is THE reason SMU is in - the committee can under no circumstances start pointing the ship away from conference championship games, because they are money-making machines for all the conferences. The host cities take most if not all the costs and all of the member schools benefit from the television dollars.
Protecting that income was the primary factor in the committee keeping SMU.
@@CinHotlanta it could also be that the ACC was the most represented conference on the committee and the SEC only got a single rep
That will never happen. There’s too much money involved and the conferences will fight tooth and nail to keep them
Meh Beck isn’t really all that good and their backup played solid football for the most part. If they’re both down yeah, could become an issue.
All of the problems come down to one thing: the automatic byes. The 9th and 11th best teams in the playoff get the # 3 and 4 seeds, that makes the whole bracket hopelessly misaligned with the actual strength of the teams. Get rid of those stupid auto-byes and Penn State would be facing Notre Dame (probably) in the 2nd round while Oregon played Indiana or SMU.
It has been obvious for a few years that scheduling a tougher non-conference foe is idiotic. As soon as Penn State was kept out of the 2016 Playoff for losing to Pitt early in the season and WINNING THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE, I could see the smart ADs avoiding anything with a pulse. As for this year, YES, the auto-bid seeding is DUMB. I’ll take this year’s seeding for Penn State as a final Karmic payback! 😂
Absolutely 💯 % they screwed us 2016 so F them and everyone crying.
I hate fans who do not hate cupcake games. F that crap.
Dawg fan here. I don't want Bama out because I'm tired of them. I want them out because I'm scared of them. Gimme SMU!
Pretty much saying the quiet part out loud lol
The Dawgs should be scared of a lot of the teams in this playoff.
Good point!
You talk about how illogical it is to have Ohio State behind Penn State because they beat them head to head. What do you think the committee should have done when OSU lost to Michigan at home? Not drop them at all so they stay above PSU? Drop OSU but also drop PSU so they can stay behind them? Maybe drop OSU for one week but them have them leapfrog PSU in the final rankings even though OSU didn’t even play that week and PSU had to play the #1 team in the country? I agree that OSU is probably better than PSU even right now after that loss, but your actions have to have consequences and that loss has to hurt OSU somehow.
Josh said “…don’ t play in a conference championship game if you can help it…” about one minute after complaining that Penn State has an easier path and is ranked above Ohio State because PSU played in a conference championship game.
But you are making his point by ignoring that OSU beat two top 5 teams, while PSU beat no one near that level. OSU didn't get rewarded for having those wins relative to PSU. Now those weren't OOC games, but it makes his point that the risk of playing top ranked teams is not worth the reward. The small or nonexistent penalty you get for playing no one good and winning is worth it when you don't get rewarded that much by having wins over a top team on the resume.
@@jonwalter6317 the committee has set the clear standard that quality of wins means nothing. It’s not just Alabama, it’s all over the rankings. If the committee wanted to value quality wins, quality losses and OOC schedule, South Carolina is their dream team
You're looking at it from a viewpoint that poll inertia should be a thing. It shouldn't. Resumes should be evaluated on a week to week basis. If OSU loses to a bad Michigan team, then they aren't as good as we thought BUT they did beat Penn St so they also are not as good. The loss to Michigan hurts both OSU & PSU. If this logic of looking at resumes is applied correctly across the board, Alabama isn't even a Top 12 team.
@ who are the two top 5 teams OSU beat? Is it Penn State and Indiana because I thought those teams shouldn’t be ranked as high because they “beat no one near that level”. I’m also don’t think there’s much room to feel sorry for OSU. They lost an extremely close game to Oregon and weren’t punished for playing a good team because the first CFP ranking had them at 2 behind Oregon and I agree with that fully. Then, when they lost to a bad Michigan team at home as 21 point favorites, they only dropped 4 spots to 6 so at no point were they treated unfairly. All of this is theoretical though and the question I asked is a real-world situation that actually happened. If you’re dissatisfied with how Ohio State and Penn State finished in relative ranking, what would you have done differently? I laid out the options that the committee had and they amount to either devaluing the close head to head result (which they chose to do) or devaluing Ohio States close but really ugly home loss to a bad team. I’ll also add that how they lost matters as much as who they lost too. I believe that if Ohio State lost in identical fashion as the Oregon-Penn State game, it wouldn’t have hurt them as much because at least they would have shown out and looked competent instead of only putting up 10.
@ I make my own rankings each week. If you ask what I would have done, I can tell you already.
7. Tennessee
8. OSU
9. Penn State
This would have given Tennessee a home game and rematch of OSU PSU in the first round unfortunately
The issue with SMU was having them ranked above Bama going into Championship Week. You can disagree with that ranking, but the fact is if you then drop SMU behind Bama because they lost in the ACC Championship, you are immediately opening the door to having teams refuse to play in championship games.
Great analysis. Like you guys have been saying for a long time, this system was never going to make sense, but this result is something else. The path for Penn State compared to Oregon after Oregon just beat them is hilarious.
The 'were not SEC homers' mask finally fully comes off. Josh throwing his toys out of the pram. I don't want to hear anything about Alabama's 'tough schedule', they played Mercer for god sake and got blown out by Oklahoma. You want to get into the playoff? Don't lose games and especially don't lose games big when you were supposed to win big.
Don't play shit schedules and expect to get in
@@TomBeard-og6sq We'll give you some extra time to figure what a team has more control over: winning their games or determining how difficult their schedule will be in 5 years.
One of my favorite channels for college football. I need a few more of these rants. I need y’all to rant about the following:
1. Conference realignment destroyed the 12 team playoff format. Your channel made this clear but I don’t think people realized how much they needed to update the CFP format after conference realignment
2. Please do a rant about standardized scheduling. The transfer portal and NIL has made a drastic impact on the depth of teams for the foreseeable future but scheduling has not caught up to this new reality. All P4 conferences vying for playoff spots need to play a schedule format that includes 8 conference games, 2 P4 non conference games 1 G5 and on FCS.
The format will help committees going forward to measure conference strength when they do SOS comparisons.
You guys have talked about these things in the past and yall may need to revisit these topics for your new fans….
I am agreeing with about 80% of what you guys are saying.
1) The SEC is the best conference in college football, coming from a BIG Ten fan. If you disagree welcome to your first week of being a fan we’re glad to have you.
2) I would have put Alabama in over SMU to be clear. However I don’t believe you should punish teams for a conference championship loss. The committee really screwed themselves last week by putting SMU, Penn st, and Texas higher than they should have while claiming they weren’t going to punish championship losses. They needed to rank them with the opportunity to earn a higher rank. SMU losing put them in an easily avoidable no win situation. I completely agree with you here.
3) Here’s where I start to disagree with guys. I do think the committee is rewarding big wins more than they are punishing bad losses,
This is a chaos year, which has been awesome for viewing purposes, but a nightmare for ranking purposes. I agree that the committee took a safe, political approach, and again, I would’ve had Alabama over SMU. But there are no right answers this year. Yes, you could say Ohio State should be ranked over Penn State because of the head-to-head, but how do you reconcile the Michigan loss? How do you rank Notre Dame with a win over Texas A&M and a loss to Northern Illinois? I’ve tried to give a top 10 every week and at this point, I don’t know how to rank 3 through 17. I think the committee is giving credit for big wins, do you think Alabama would be ranked in the same spot if they had lost to Georgia, but beat Vanderbilt? Because I think they would be behind Ole Miss at that point. OSU with a win to Michigan and a loss to Penn st would probably be behind Tennessee. I’m typically on the SOS side of the arguments, but this is the first year where I get the “we really don’t know how good half these teams are so we’ll reward a clean record.” Argument.
4) Yeah the auto byes are stupid. Anyone down for an 8 team hate draft playoff next year? Head coaches 1-4 get to host a home game against the 5-8 seed of their choice? It’ll never happen but I can dream.
On point #3 PSU vs OSU: "Yes, you could say Ohio State should be ranked over Penn State because of the head-to-head, but how do you reconcile the Michigan loss?" No doubt, but you left out that OSU has two top 5 wins, while PSU's best win was 20/21 Illinois. Make your decision with all of the relevant info.
@@jonwalter6317 also disregarding that South Carolina has 2 more top 25 wins, beat the ACC champ in their stadium and only lost to top 15 teams and an 8-4 LSU in an extremely controversial game. If the committee wanted to value wins and OOC schedule, South Carolina was THE best way to incentivize it
Best comment I've seen so far at the moment.
@@jonwalter6317 I absolutely see what you’re saying. To clarify I’m not trying to omit relevant information, I just didn’t want to make a long comment longer. I think the best way to rank teams is to swap schedules and see how they would have faired, and that’s really difficult with OSU PSU because I think OSU is 12-0 with PSU’s schedule and PSU is 11-1 with an Oregon loss with OSU’s schedule. I don’t think there’s a good way to rank these teams and that’s just 2 teams in a big mess of teams that would all be favored within 7 points of each other.
The point being I really don’t think anyone should be speaking in absolute terms when there’s this many question marks. I would rank PSU above OSU but I’ll be the first to admit it’s not fair regardless of who I pick here.
@@MrCow-ir4gw PSU would be 10-2 with OSU’s schedule. They would still play and lose to OSU
Glad you brought up the seeding issue. Arizona State being ranked 12th and getting a bye is insane.
Conference champs get a bye since they play an extra game.
@@jacksonklark6119 Which would be fine if all schedules were created equal, but they aren't. The committee saying Arizona State is the 12th best team in the country yet affording them the benefit of a top 4 team just doesn't make sense in any context.
so texas and penn state should have a bye instead? lol
@@Mates0nDeck Ohio State has a really good argument. They have the same number of losses with better wins including 2 wins over playoff teams.
@@davida730 they aren't even 12th best, just 12th seed
It wasn't the out of conference games that cost Bama. They played Wisconsin.
It was losing to Vanderbilt and OU.
EXACTLY - the ACC and Big10 have five teams EACH with less talent on the 247 talent composite than Vandy. Let that sink in - *TEN* sub-Vandys between the two. Media punching bag Vandy would be a middle of the pack squad in either conference, probably going bowling.
The Big10 and ACC at large admissions were actually rewarded for their weak conferences by the committee. That makes any program from the meatgrinder that is the SEC *crazy* if they continue to add more difficulty to their schedules.
Please watch the video first. I can tell you haven't watched the video
Tell me you don’t watch the video without saying “I didn’t watch the video”
True. They say you didn’t watch the video but they are crying about SMU getting in over Bama. 🤣😂
@@CollegeFootballNerds you can’t talk sense to a senseless person
The autobid thing will be tough to overcome...too much $$$ in conference championships. Agree with arrangement. Rank teams where they fall.
16 teams, no byes. Solves a lot of issues.
Hey Josh, what would you're playoff in this format look like?
Top 6 teams, period. Determine via the bcs system.
6:52 yeah. they also lost THREE GAMES and lost to OKLAHOMA by TWENTY-ONE.
8:13 what? is that too much to ask?
10:38 WE'RE NOT COMPETING FOR RATINGS!! We are are trying to give players an opportunity to play for a CHAMPIONSHIP. Worst point I have ever heard about this.
13:49 Just as you are doing for the SEC. Of course they are going to argue for themselves. With this logic, the 1984 BYU team is a joke.
Love this channel. Discovered it this year and it has been one of my favorites. It is nice to see non bias/statistical conversation about college football. My prediction is the same in that it is going to be a ton of blowouts and as usual the Big Ten and SEC are going to dominate these smaller conferences.
I so wish that I could just be in a room with y’all and talk about this. Grew up a die hard UGA fan, now a sophomore at FSU, so I’ve got bias on both sides of the argument. Love the content and love the rants.
Automatic bids are not the problem. If you win your conference you should get in the playoff. 4 should be the max I agree on that. It’s the automatic first round byes that are the problem. This goes with the fact we need to re seed teams after the first round. Also if we could get all teams in the power 4 conferences to play a similar round robin SOS this would be a much better format. I told people yesterday if they were to put Alabama in over SMU I would understand their reasoning. People that just don’t know football always wanted to bring up the fact that bama lost 2 bad games. Who you play matters and SMU didn’t play anyone. Not a bama or SMU fan. I’m a Georgia fan . But people kept making the argument “you can’t punish SMU for playing in a conference championship game” and I don’t disagree with that which wasn’t the argument against SMU most people were making. It was the lack of quality wins. But then those same people kept telling me “then if you drop SMU out then you better drop Texas too because they lost a conference championship” and that logic is stupid for the simple reason Texas is a top 5 team still. SMU is a borderline top 12 team. You aren’t dropping Texas out losing to Georgia in the sec championship game. But ultimately I like you guys made this not about bama vs SMU the real argument was what about the teams behind SMU that have better resumes. I agree
Full disclosure. I was never a fan of expanding the playoff I’m with you guys on that. The regular season was the most important in sports when we had 4 teams. And if we expanded I argue 8 is a much better number than 12. 12 is too much and devalues the regular season.
People will see y’all’s point when it’s NOT BAMA , great show RTR
True.
You guys are 100% accurate. I’m a big ten fan but this is a ridiculous situation.
Did you guys have a problem with Georgia dropping out of the top four last season after losing by three points to Alabama?
Great points. Will this change anytime in the near future? Can it change?
Still politicin' after the decision has been made is just coping 😢
Four teams in who do not have a single win over an opponent ranked at the end of the season makes the *immediate* dilution of OOC scheduling inevitable.
Which is baloney considering how easy some of the higher ranked SEC teams had it in the non-conference.
The lesson even back in the 4 team playoff was never, ever play a good team if you don't have to.
@Dawg-Bone it's not though. Clemson, for example, would've had a better seed if they had just not scheduled UGA. Committee only cares about record as it's not really getting the best teams in this year.
@@Dawg-Bone please tell me which conference did better with OOC scheduling. Georgia beat GT and Clemson, Tennessee scheduled what was expected to be a good NC State, Texas crushed Michigan, Alabama destroyed a Wisconsin that nearly beat Penn State and Oregon.
The B1G playoff teams went a COMBINED 1-0 against the P4 (PSU over WVU). The ACC teams both lost their OOC games. Arizona State barely beat Miss State.
@@nicholaskling2425 Point being, the non confefence wasn’t the issue for the SEC. Alabama shouldn’t have laid eggs against Vanderbilt and Oklahoma. Ole Miss shouldn’t have laid eggs to Kentucky, LSU, and Florida. South Carolina was robbed of at least one win and maybe two. Point being. You wanna get in the playoffs? Play winning football every single week.
It’s so funny to me that people are so tunnel visioned by Greg Byrne’s tweet to realize that scheduling tough OOC games directly impacted the teams that made it in too. Whoever chooses the committee members needs to clean house and put FOOTBALL people in the room, not just yes men who don’t know what they’re doing
The B1G playoff teams went a combined 1-0 against the P4 (PSU over WVU). The ACC lost their OOC games.
The playoff committee made a clear statement that easy schedules are good and OOC means nothing
@ it’s a shame. We should get to see these top teams play each other before the playoff and now we likely won’t so you don’t get punished for it
It's frustrating that people making this argument aren't looking beyond what happened this year. Just because it didn't happen this time to your team of choice doesn't mean the powers that be aren't planning for future years where it could happen again.
Good schedules mean nothing. Winning out against whoever and not losing are what matters most. Or if you do lose, it needs to be in a conference title game (doesn't matter if you win or not, just get there). Unfortunately this means that more and more teams will schedule weaker competition, devaluing the regular season even further.
I don't like the way things are headed.
The committee is made up PRIMARILY of former coaches and players (7 of 12). Learn the facts before we comment
@@nicholaskling2425I think the committee said don’t lose to Oklahoma, Kentucky, or vanderbilt
It's clear that the CFPC did not count Conference Champ games as a loss, only as an extra win. So SMU would still have an 11-1 record vs 11-2. While the winners get a +1 to their win counts and I like that.
Even though I’m a true buckeye, I truly appreciate what you guys put down for insight on this one🤙🏾🤙🏾🤙🏾🤙🏾🤙🏾
Alabama didn’t play any tough OOC games. Don’t lose to two 6-6 teams. I don’t think Oklahoma or Vandy would do any better in the ACC. You guys should take callers or guests who hold opposing views
They think they’re somehow better because they are SEC teams. But he never wants to bring up that Vanderbilt lost to 3-9 Georgia st out of conference
I think people are missing the point. This is about general scheduling logic in the future based on the committee showing more preference in record than in SoS. So if the committee is overvaluing Ws and Ls over SoS, then teams will stop trying to boost their SoS in the out of conference.
@@drewc771 The team left out didn’t schedule strong OOC games. Alabamas loses are way worse and looked way worse than SMU. Getting smacked down by a horrible Oklahoma team is disqualifying.
@@drewc771 Alabamas OOC schedule wasn’t exactly tough. They played Wisconsin, a bottom half B10 team and SMU played a 10-2 BYU team. So you can spew whatever you want, but that’s not the reason they got left out. It’s not even because they had 3 losses. It’s because 2 out of 3 of your losses were BAD
@@timgray4974 Again, i think you're missing the point. The argument about why teams are discouraged from scheduling OOC really isn't about Alabama this year. I think people are combining 2 different arguments, which are actually separate.
Great show! What about doing the format of college. Hockey with the pairwise? The numbers speak for themselves and conference automatic qualifiers go to the bottom of the field if they are in weak conference.
I’m here for angry Josh!!! Hulk out Josh!!
Dude, ALABAMA LOST TO VANDERFUCKINGBUILT AND OKLAFUCKINGHOMA. Unbelievable takes on this show 🤦
The easier games are made harder by being loaded with much more difficult scheduling. Also, Oklahoma and Vandy played Bama after a bye week to add to that.
Did you even listen to their points? It's not just about bama. The SEVEN teams ranked behind them have a better resume and argument to be in over SMU.
As always amazing job. No one thinks through this sport more thoroughly and clearly.
Are we
Going to see the SEC and BIG 10 go to a conference schedule that will be semi-fixed ? Or will they schedule based on results from the previous year ?
Rant was on point. You guys actually brought up a lot of the points that Joel talked about in his most recent episode, and I can’t disagree at all. The committee squeezed themselves into a big hole, and took the “politically correct path” without taking any of the data into account. This is gonna change sooner than later. This was a great video. Keep it up, guys!
You guys are wasting your breath. Let the games play out and see how these teams perform. I am a Tennessee fan and SEC homer, but am interested to see how these teams stack up against each other on the field. The point of having 12 teams is to give these other conferences some inclusion and see if our automatic assumption that the Big 10 and SEC are better than everyone. Let's see it decided on the field. I actually think SMU will beat Penn State on the road. I wouldn't be suprised if Indianna beats Notre Dame also.
Love the righteous fury, and I agree, it's kind of nuts that the AP got it more right than the dang committee filled with people whose job it is allegedly to get this all right.
As a Miami fan I wasn’t broken up about not making the playoff. I knew this team’s flaws last off season…no secondary. I’d rather go play in of the biggest bowl games and win it to close the season out on a positive not. That’s why better than drawing a bad matchup in Columbus, OH where those WR run wide open all day long and we’re in a spot where Cam Ward has to try to outscore Ohio St. them if we lose by 14+ everyone says we didn’t deserve to make it and our off season starts negatively. This playoff is big enough now where just missing it may out you in a better soot than sneaking in and losing game 1. I said 2 months ago we couldn’t win the playoff…we were a year ahead of schedule…I appreciate our success this year and I’m happy with this season. I wish we didn’t draw the only team with 2-1000 yard WRs in Iowa State…however I appreciate our players going all in at least for now.
I think it was wise to frame this as not SMU vs Alabama, but SMU against the other teams below them.
Really enjoyed the video, Go Bucks!
Thanks for (actually) watching. It’s clear from comments a ton of people responded without bothering to hear the argument.
As a bama fan, Excellent analysis!.
I don’t think it would surprise anyone to find out that the ACC was the most represented conference on the playoff committee and the SEC had a single rep
Well they could have put Miami ahead of Bama but they didn’t
@ and that amounted to the intersection of Jack and Shit
Florida state
I listened to this discussion with an open mind. Points are very valid. Unfortunately, if this is a national competition, where every D1 team/conference have an opportunity to play for a championship, exceptions must be made. Obviously, the SEC is the most competitive conference. However, there are 136 programs in Division 1 and everyone will not play everyone. If only the sec and big 10 were ranked, which currently would be 25% of the division 1, then it wouldn't really be a national playoffs. Point being, if the argument is only the best football is played in the sec and or big 10/ acc, then they should have their own playoffs and not include other programs. But then you'll have to deal with the politics of other schools winning a separate division 1 playoffs and having claims to the best team in the country, which is was the issue post BCS/Playoffs. So if there is no separate playoffs for "group of 5" teams, then exceptions will be made for exclusivity. So these arguments and debates are merritless because of the inclusion of those that don't play and sec/big 10/big 12/ acc schedule. The audacity to tell a team like Army, who has had a special year for Army, conference champ, but not get the Boise nod is nuts. Those young men played their hearts out and we as a nation say... yeh, nah, you not good enough, smh. Again, maybe the sec should only play it's conference and be done with it and let everyone else compete for a national title. It only seems to be the sec talking heads trying to make this a regional argument. But if you want a true national tourney, exceptions must be made and everyone is not gonna like it, but it's the cost for the parameters being set. That's why conference championship teams are held to higher regard in spite of others resume. They're trying not to make this a region dominated tourney, which will turn off viewers that don't have invested interest in southern teams.
It’s hard to overlook Army playing Notre Dame and getting clean dominated. But it goes back to our point that the logic for SMU wasn’t applied to Army and it makes no sense outside the conference championship thing (as Joel Klatt said)
The new conference structures are stupid. The autobids and auto byes are stupid.
It’s all so stupid.
Cope
agreed. It's hard to choose which one is more painful
@@mikemike7688 Nope
Y’all down bad lmao
@@CC-bm3wb Troll.
Spot on as always.
Would Bama, Ole Miss and USCe have been undefeated vs SMU and Az St schedules?
ACC champ is oh fer the SEC but the conference gets almost as many teams in???
The only good thing is now the little conferences will see what it really tastes to win
Had to come back one more time. I loved the rant!
Love this channel. Finally a voice for college football incels
Ive never seen Josh this fired up. That shows you how much bs this was. This system needs to be blown up immediately. They also destroyed the incentive to play tough OOC games. Get ready for Bama-Mercer every week
1. As you said the committee decided beforehand that losing your conference championship wouldn't hurt you. 2. I don't mind auto bids (the conference champions), but it should be seeded by the season. I will do the BIG Ten, 4 teams got in. Oregon was 2-0 vs those 4 teams, Penn State was 0-2, Ohio State was 2-1 and Indiana was 0-1. The committee was silly here, as losing the conference championship was more important than the regular season. And Penn State got in because their SOS was harder than Indiana's, but the committee would have been screwed if Indiana would have lost the championship game, as they were already behind Penn State and Ohio State in the rankings. For Alabama, I think the 2nd loss to an unranked team did them in. As if Alabama would have beaten Oklahoma, they would have been in the conference championship against Texas and then I think Georgia would have gotten in, but Tennessee would have been out, or in over SMU.
I think top 8 based on Rank + reseeding would be the best format.
12 teams is where you really start digging through the slog. This year the 8 being based on the AP would be good.
They lost their conference games.
This crying is so overblown. Win your games.
But... but the media entity we're in bed with says we're the best ever! One win in the SEC is worth 10 wins in any other confrence! /s
Hot SEC takes!!!
Not a bama fan. Everyone hates on them for playing Mercer. Yet no one is looking at ND for playing FOUR G5 teams. That's also ignoring how stupidly easy the rest of their schedule turned out to be. They had 3 other teams that 2 or fewer wins and a bunch of 500ish teams. ND basically did nothing all year and got a home playoff game. Just go independent and make your own garbage schedule.
@@JustN0pe3 Indiana’s OOC schedule was FIU, Western Illinois and Charlotte. Ohio State’s was Akron, Western Michigan and Marshall. Alabama played a Wisconsin team that lead at the half against Penn State and Oregon. People criticizing the SEC OOC really needs to look at the rest of the field
@@nicholaskling2425Alabama only has 8 conference games. Playing Wisconsin (who might I add is terrible at offense and not amazing at defense) got them on par with IU and OSU
@@MyNamesNotOlaph I can promise you that Alabama would kill to play a 9 game schedule against Big 10 competition.
@ I can promise you Deboer is not saban.
@@nicholaskling2425I know who Bama played. Stop being so sensitive.
Also, know that the B1G has some pretty soft scheduling.
My point is everyone ignores how bad ND schedule is. Nobody is addressing it.
I'm furious! This should have been 12 SEC teams! I would still be furious because more than 12 SEC teams deserve to be in!
They should use the CFP rankings to determine conference title games. Miami would have played SMU had they did that this year. No one would scream if Miami beat SMU and got in because they were barely out. With 78 team conferences you only play less than half of the teams in your conference…that makes conference record pointless
The one thing that I think we have to recognize is ultimately the good of the sport takes priority over having the best teams in. College football, HAS NEVER BEEN SOLEY ABOUT HAVING THE BEST TEAMS COMPETE. Its cultural representation for the people in this country and if they aren't represented, they will check out of the sport entirely. It's Crucial to keep teams like SMU and Boise in rather than having it as a SEC Big 10 invitational. I laude the committee for having the stones to standup for the little guy and for the Good of the sport.
@@jacoblefler4506 so where is Army’s spot? If we don’t give a shit about quality then why is Army not in?
@@nicholaskling2425 This isn't a good faith comment, you always have to react within reason.
@@jacoblefler4506 your argument is that we shouldnt care who the best teams are. If that is your stance, why did an Army team with a better record and a conference championship get left out for SMU?
@@nicholaskling2425 You still live within the structure of the Playoff, this isn't a good faith Comment.
@@jacoblefler4506 what has SMU done to deserve a place over Army? Instead of just saying “bad faith” actually use your head. Army is 11-1, so they have a better record. Army won their conference championship game, so they have hardware. Army only lost to #5 Notre Dame, so they have a better loss. If your argument is that the playoff is about “deserving” instead of “best”, what has SMU done to deserve a spot over Army?
Don't lose to bad teams. Idk why this is so hard to understand. You absolutely should he punished for not scoring a single TD against the worst OU team in decades.
This is now the college football participation playoff
SEC should go to 6 conf games and make sure none of the big names play each other every year, filling in those other 2 slots with G5 teams so they can have breaks between big games, and keep 1 or 2 good P4 teams OOC just to show that they are better. The conference losses were what screwed over the SEC, so they should counter by reducing them. No more UGA v Bama during the regular season. No more UGA v Texas. No more UGA v UT. No more Bama v Texas. No Texas v UT. Base the schedule on playing the bottom teams of the previous year + 1 or 2 rivals.
What was the name of that video of who ruined college football?
Who Killed College Football? - a podcast series by Steven Godfrey and Ryan Nanni
www.wkcfb.com/
If SOS is that important. Then Mississippi State should be in consideration. Selecting SMU protects the tradition of the conference championship game. UGA had the #1 SOS and still only lost 2 games. I promise you, tough OOC games are not in jeopardy.
Alabama’s problem wasn’t due to losing to teams outside their conference . Their problem was losing to teams within their conference. Their solutions are clear; (1) cry about not getting into the playoffs due to their hard conference schedule and (2) become independent like ND and play 12 cupcakes every year guaranteeing a yearly playoff spot because clearly they can’t compete within the SEC anymore.
Miami should be in ahead of Indiana and a conversation should be had about ND. We can have the same argument for Bama, SC, Ole Miss, whoever else.
I agree a lot of what yall are saying, but my question is how do we value SOS while not devaluing conference champ games? I think the argument is fair that SMU shouldn’t have been in the Top 10 pre-ACC CG, but if UGA lost then they would be punished for making the SEC CG because Alabama lost, which they can’t control. Great vid!
The real reason people are crying is because Bama didn't make the playoffs. Sure the SEC schedule is tough and Bama would have an argument if their 3 losses were to Texas, UGA and Tenn. However, Bama lost to Tenn, Vandy and Oklahoma with the Oklahoma loss being especially egregious (24-3 in week 11). Same with OSU.... If their 2 losses where to Oregon and PSU or Indiana this argument would make sense. Their second loss was to Michigan. If you're an upper tier team then win the winnable games in your conference and make it to the conference championship game. Then you too can enjoy the protection from the committee.
There’s absolutely zero excuse for Alabama to loose to Vanderbilt I’m sorry. Georgia State beat Vanderbilt and had a double digit lead most of the game. The talent and resources and that Alabama has over Vanderbilt is absurd. Vanderbilt can’t even really recruit because of how difficult it is to get players accepted into the danm school. As an Oklahoma fan this was the weakest Oklahoma team I’ve ever seen. They were missing their top 4 receivers and fired their offensive coordinator and they beat Alabama by 21 points why does the SEC get all these excuses? People are tried it.
You're discounting a lot of factors
I highly disagree, SMU lost a close OOC game against a good opponent, BYU, while Bama's best performance was a drubbing of 5-7 Wisconsin. The committee is doing what we all asked them to do, reward tough scheduling, even if it results in close losses, over easy scheduling. There's also the 2016 PSU/OSU issue to look at, where the committee told us that 11-1 was SOO much better than 11-2 that they didn't need to consider head to head. With that knowledge, 11-2 is easily seen as drastically better than 9-3, especially if you consider the "don't punish teams for losing a CCG" angle, which makes SMU look more like the 11-1 that they went into that game at.
But 2016 OSU had a 10-2 Oklahoma W on their resume and significantly better outcomes on a week to week basis than this SMU team. They had back to back 62-3 games.
Disingenuous arguments are disingenuous. Ignoring the 4 wins over top 25 teams in favor of the random mediocre team bama dominated is crazy work. Without looking I guarantee that bamas domination of Missouri is a better win than anything on SMUs or indianas schedule.
Saban said it best. They screwed up ranking SMU above Bama BEFORE the ACC game. That stopped them from being able to drop SMU below Bama after losing to #17 Clemson. Enough BS entitlement participation nonsense.
No they didn’t. They lost to 2 6-6 teams. And got blown out by one of them. No one cares if they had 3 losses to actual good teams, but you’re not getting any special treatment for losing to a 6-6 team that lost to Georgia st, and getting blown out 24-3 to a 6-6 Oklahoma team
@@dmdubb3129 - Bama beat as many over .500+ teams as SMU in addition to beating 3 top 20 teams while SMU beat 0. What is so hard to understand?
@ yes and they lost to a 6-6 team that lost to 3-9 Georgia st, and also lost to a 6-6 team by 21 points, and didn’t score a TD. What’s hard for you to understand about that ?
@dmdubb3129 - what's so hard for you to understand that SOS and SOR matter? Bama beat as many .500+ teams as SMU did and 3 more teams in the top 20.
Blaming the committee doesn't make much sense here when the format is the issue. They weren't the ones that decided that, they just rank the teams. Remove the auto bids for the conference championship and guess what, Alabama is in the playoff. The committee literally ranked them in the top 12. Anyway, this current format is only around for what, 2 years? I think we all fully expect changes to the format again in 2026.
People are being willfully ignorant about Greg Byrnes' comment
The SEC, Big10, and ACC wanted conference champions to be above other teams... they got what they wanted, they just didn't think the SEC and ACC would have such down years. You reap what you sow 🤷♂️
Slot the top 12 for playoff, regardless of conference
Must watch for any fan.....better than Moneyball!! Thanks Nerds! 🐘
You guys are right. Period.
Best analysis by far!!
I think thr big issue you guys hit on was how political the playoff committee is. Honestly, bring back the bcs formula and take the politics out.
I knew that this committee was FOS when they dropped Georgia 9 spots and out of the playoffs when they lost our second game, despite having beaten the (then) #1 team on the road and was one of only 2 teams in the rankings to earn a win on the road against a top 10 team (other being Ohio St). Then they beat a top 10 team at home and only moved up 2 spots. As of Saturday, Georgia was behind Notre Dame, a 1 loss team who had no top 10 wins and lost to NIU at home, and Penn St, a 1 loss team that has no good wins. It was a crock.
I give Bama credit for playing OOC Wisconsin. It is a traditional Big 10 power. And Texas playing Michigan. It's not their fault that those teams suck this year. Every SEC has to play at least one P4 OOC game (Oregon, Ohio St and Indiana played none). Georgia and LSU played 2. Florida played 3. They got precisely ZERO consideration for doing so.
Ohio State usually plays at least one good non conference team each year. Texas, Georgia and Alabama are on their upcoming schedule. You cant eat meat for every meal but all cupcakes make you fat and slow.
I agree with you guys on seeding
But how can we say you gotta earn your way in and SMU had two opportunities to win the games on the field. Alabama had two losses to 6-6 teams that they had the opportunity to win and didn’t. Did losing three games earn them a spot? I understand the conference strengths are different, but hell the Oklahoma game wasn’t even competitive.
I may be wrong about this but I think I remember if Tennessee UGA and Bama were 10-2 after tie breakers Bama was in the championship. If they got in they would have been in regardless.
The committee has always cared about losses and wins later in the season which is dumb. But just don’t lose to .500 teams your Bama most talented roster in the country.
All too true. The top four teams in the AP poll should I get the first round bids and then do whatever mine are manipulating you have to do for Conference champions after that
I am the furthest thing from a Bama fan, but if my Buckeyes got screwed like Bama et al. I would be pissed. They need to have a major league and a minor league playoff for the lesser teams. I would watch that format more than I will watch meaningless bowl games.
Congratulations. College basketball is officially better and more logical, regarding structure, than college football. This is the stupidest season I’ve seen. Basically gifting James Franklin a spot to the 3rd round.
This is the simplest way to do it. Just rank the 12 best teams regardless of conference championship games. PSU getting the #5 for backing their way in to the BIGCG without playing anyone, but OSU in the regular season is ridiculous. Their best win is Minnesota. Congrats!
To be fair, college basketball has been doing this for decades now. It took them a bit to get it right, too. Early tournaments only had conference champs, and would completely leave out some of the best teams from even making it.
I don't necessarily view the committee's decision this week as political, I think they're trying to maintain consistency with their previous weeks' rankings while not over-punishing the extra game that is the conference championship (though if you call that political, I'll accept it, but disagree). If we reverted to last week's rankings and just awarded conference championships on record, Bama is still out, so I don't think arguing about the committee's decision this week, given that it involved an extra game that Bama didn't play, makes much sense.
The issue to focus on isn't this week's decision, it was last week's, and the weeks before that (which makes one wonder why it's such a big deal now). SMU went ahead of Bama in week 14. If you have an issue with SMU being in the playoffs rather than Bama, that's when you should have had an issue with it. The committee's decision to not punish a conference runner up is the best decision they could make this week given their flawed (assumed for the sake of argument, though I generally agree) decisions in the weeks before. Focusing on it now just serves to undermine the conference championship games and honestly comes across a little whiny, even if the arguments you're making would have been sound for the week 14 rankings, which I generally think they would have been.
And I know you're not just talking about SMU-Bama, but it's an easy one for me to focus on for my response. I'm sure it's a similar situation with your other comparisons.
I think if we want to go for strength of record for ranking, we'll need more objectivity and transparency. It's too easy to cry foul when more complicated metrics like that are compared behind doors, out of the light of public scrutiny. Make it a formula like the BCS format, and make the formula publicly available so people can run the metrics for themselves and see that the results are accurate. Do that and it will incentivize tougher OOC games, but I don't think a strength-of-record ranking is possible with the committee making the rankings.
@@markz8665 so you’re saying that if the rankings are consistently stupid, that’s better?
@nicholaskling2425 not at all. They didn't do that though. They had already decided a few weeks ago that SMU was ahead of Bama, they didn't repeat that decision this week because it had already been made. This week the committee was making a different decision, which was consistent with their previous decisions. They'd already ranked SMU ahead of Bama, this week they were just determining how much SMU should be punished for playing an extra game that they lost. Someone who didn't complain last week but complains now obviously doesn't care that SMU was ranked ahead of Bama, they don't care about the ordering of the teams or what the committee prioritizes in ranking, because that has been consistent (within these weeks I'm referring to at least. Across years, they're anything but), they just care that Bama was left out.
The final week isn't the time to make corrections that should have been made in earlier weeks. That's what I like about the Nerds and their model, they know the rankings and expectations of the first few weeks are garbage and should be discarded as soon as they're shown to be bad. But that kind of correction needs to be sorted out early, you can't just change your mind last minute when you've already signaled what you intend to do. That's what they did with FSU last year, and it was a massive mistake.
If they were gonna punish FSU for losing Travis, the time to do that was the week of the injury or the week after, when they saw how bad the offense was without him. If my memory is correct, they saw the injury, saw the next week how bad FSU was against Florida without him, and incorrectly (based on their later justification) left FSU in the top 4. That was a mistake, and thankfully they didn't repeat that this year.
Now, when it may have benefitted your team, you may want the committee to be inconsistent, to make drastic last minute corrections or changes, but an inconsistent, unreliable committee is not what we want, and in the past that kind of action is what has upset fans the most. We want predictability. We want to know what the committee values, and what teams need to do to get in. We don't want the committee to say a team is good to go, then pull out the rug from underneath them at the last second. This wasn't the case with Bama this year. You knew you were a long shot to get in, and it didn't work out. I've experienced it in years past, even in the BCS era, as have fans of many other teams. Bama fans aren't used to it, they're used to a privilege that they didn't get this year. If anything, *that* is a change of behavior by the committee across years, but if it was any other team in this position, the behavior was as expected.
If you read my full comment above, you might notice that I don't want the committee, I want a publicly available computer model that takes into consideration the strength of record, kinda like BCS, but one which you can run yourself on your own computer and see the same results, and those feed into a playoff bracket. What I don't want is a committee of nearly invisible people in a back room making inconsistent, seemingly arbitrary decisions out of the public eye. But if there's gonna be a committee, they need to be consistent.
As a Buckeye fan who cares very much about her team, I can't feel very sorry for our "program." I say program because I just can't resolve how so many things went wrong (on so many levels) involving the MI game. Time to step up OSU. Take care of business.
I do think that Oregon got a bum deal though. At least they have a "bye."
Besides being the DEI Committee, it’s also the SWAG Committee.
I hope Alabama doesn't drop the home and home games with Ohio State.
I was excited about the playoffs because it would make games like this easer to schedule.
Your arguments are just looking at the overall SOS. You don’t really address the 13 vs 12 game schedules. Penn state was ranked above osu before conference chips. Whether you agree with that or not, you can’t drop Texas or Penn state below teams who were idle or else you are saying it’s better to get 3rd than 2nd in a conference. The real conversation should be 3 loss bama vs 1 loss smu, or 1 loss Penn state and Texas vs 1 loss Notre dame. With the current structure once it’s set before the conference championship games I think it HAS to stay set. Love what you guys do, but I think you’re off on this analysis when saying “same number of losses” for a 13 game schedules vs a 12 game
16 teams, no auto Top 4 seeds, conference title games determined by CFP Rankings, rank them 1-12 roll rhe balls out and let’s go.
The bracket made it harder for Oregon than Penn State…hours after Oregon beat Penn State. B1G is gonna be pissed and SEC will cry because B1G got 4 in and they only got 3 in. The 2 big boys are pissed they’ll force changes the day after the title game is finished.
Ahhh, no the issue is the SEC teams everyone is crying about didnt win against very average ass SEC teams. Not because of their OOC schedule...You guys are fine, the SEC is usually way better but this year it obviously was much more in line with the Big ten. Alabama didnt get left out for any reason but that ass whipping Oklahoma laid on them...
The sec is still miles better than the big 10 this year the bottom 10 or so of the big 10 is straight sewer water.
Oregan, ohio state very good to elite. Indiana probably good, penn st. Meh
Clemson should drop the SEC games. They are getting no credit for playing good teams.
Right because they can’t beat them
@@gelato3299 Bama needs to drop Vandy and Oklahoma.
@ man you still don’t get it watch the video and get that bama hate out your heart maybe you can learn something
How can you say A&M was a good win for Notre Dame, but not a good win for Texas? Texas also played the better version of A&M with Reed at QB. Alabama’s losses are unforgivable. They got blown out 24-3 to OU, who in turn got blown out by Texas 34-3. Make it make sense
Thank you...that is all.
9 mins in and I can’t imagine why ppl complain about your perceived SEC bias.
They complain about people seeing them as sec homers and then proceeded to get down on their knees and suck off bad sec teams for 43 mins and say how unfair it is that anyone else on the bubble could get in over these bad sec teams.
Cutting quality wins off at 25 is just so stupid with the parity in today's game. The gap from the 25th best team to say the 40th-45th best team is marginal at best. Teams like Texas get penalized because they beat A&M when they were ranked 20th and they dropped out of the top 25 because Texas BEAT them.
And comparing Texas and SMU when Texas' SOS was 20th and SMU's was 57th.
Bama lost to 2 6-6 teams. They belong nowhere near this year's playoff. You can't get embarrassed by a putrid OU team for your 3rd loss and expect to make it in.
The boys giving that real spill no napkins!
The Committee would not leave out 9-3 Alabama if Nick Saban is still the HC.
Alabama lost to 2 very bad teams and looked inept doing it. The games have to mean something. If you only care about recruiting rankings and Vegas lines watch the draft.
You completely missed on this. I bet you didn’t watch the video.
Miami has a better SOS than 5-6 of the playoff teams. The only thing worse than the committees bracket and reasoning is Warde Manuel’s idiotic word salad which contradicts his own points just minutes after making them.
You didn’t belong in by any stretch.