I didn't think they played very well down the stretch, I thought all three of the teams they were tied with would have beaten them in the championship game.
***OFFICIAL CFP Rankings Show Watch Thread***
- Thread starter ISUCyclones2015
- Start date
I didn't think they played very well down the stretch, I thought all three of the teams they were tied with would have beaten them in the championship game.
SMU was 11-1 and BYU was 10-2. With similar resumes, SMU should have gotten in. That said, BYU did get jobbed in their ranking. I’m glad SMU got in because you shouldn’t be penalized for making and losing your conference title game (especially when you lose on a last second FG) when so many of the other at-large teams didn’t have to play that 13th game.
Maybe I’m in the minority, but I think the committee got it right this year on picking the most deserving 12 teams.
what are you talking about, everyone was talking betting lines, or more accurately would Alabama beat Florida St.
It's the only sample size we have.
Valid points but the committee highly valued quality of losses. It's why SMU got in over Alabama, it's why Penn State was ranked over Ohio State etc. Then again, it doesn't explain Notre Dame that had the worst loss of them all and zero quality wins but I digress.
SMU lost to two ranked teams with, yes, one of them being BYU while BYU has the Kansas stain on their resume. Plus SMU made the Championship game which is also something the committee highly valued so it was a 1 loss regular season SMU team vs. a 2 loss regular season BYU team.
I agree that BYU should have had a case but the committee really didn't value quality wins for some really odd reason.
IMO, I don't think they played any worse or better than we did down the stretch (Last 6 games).
The "Good Loss" line is lame IMO. The only time to whom one lost should even be relevant is if two teams are being compared and everything else is even. Then, if one team had a less harsh loss than another, it might be important. Basically, there is no such thing as a "Good Loss", and that should be stricken from the CFP talking points. There is no such thing as a "GOOD Loss." Losses suck and are bad.
As for Alabama, and I speak as one who had a stuffed elephant in his crib and went to my first Alabama game in 1971...Alabama was not snubbed and did not deserve to be in the CFP hunt as a 9-3 team period. Throw in those two bewildering losses @ Vandy and specifically @ Oklahoma, and they are lucky to be ranked in the Top 15.
S.M.U. deserved to be in over Alabama, and B.Y.U. deserved to be in the conversation TOO.
Let me add, I have no idea why the Alabama A.D. and others are whining about the OOC schedule. That had NOTHING to do with Alabama not making the field. They played and won @ Wisconsin (B1G) and beat two G5 Bowl Teams (South Florida - AAC and WKU - C-USA). Their OOC schedule was neither too hard not too soft. Just in the middle somewhere.
Potentially, I do think the A.D. might be speaking about the future where Alabama has two P4 OOC Games (one home and one away) scheduled each year from 2025-2034 which were scheduled out based on the thought that OOC SOS would be more important going forward with the expanded playoff. So, I THINK that is what they are whining about. Either way, the Alabama whining is undignified and unwarranted.
If the Crimson Tide beat Michigan and finish 10-3 overall, 5-3 in the SEC and 2-0 in the B1G this year, I can live with it.
Looking forward to next year's OOC games: Alabama plays @ Florida State (ACC) and Wisconsin (B1G) @ BDS. Hopefully, both of those teams are better next year than they were this year. Whether they are or not, they are more fun than the other rent-a-win games.
That's all folks.
Let's Go State!
Last edited:
I think saying the Big 12 was a tougher conference than the ACC is a stretch and I doubt the committee shared that opinion. I wouldn't say the ACC was tougher either, but I'd definitely have them at the same level.
SMU made it to a conference title game and prior to that had one regular season loss to BYU's two. I get the H2H argument but they played in the first week of September.
Adding games between conference teams is an absolutely awful idea.
Somewhat related, having the Big 12 teams play non-conference games against each other this year was idiotic. They needed to cancel those games.
See post 1,052. There was an article making that exact point. BYU had a better record than SMU.
E$PN headline:
“Connelly ranks all 52 CFP teams: Here’s why the three worst are from 2024”
Are readers really this dumb? Of course the three worst would be from the first year of expanded playoffs
“Connelly ranks all 52 CFP teams: Here’s why the three worst are from 2024”
Are readers really this dumb? Of course the three worst would be from the first year of expanded playoffs
That didn't help league's overall profile, for sure, or at least the perception of relative strength. But I assume outright cancellation of games was unrealistic, considering the realignment timeline + ticket revenue + trying to find alternate opponents.
It's doubly-dumb to do it BEFORE the first iteration of the 12-team format.
I don't mind the general concept of the analysis, but ... yeah.
So, if I were an Irish season ticket holder, I would sell my tickets to this game and plan ahead to go the Sugar Bowl while ticket prices are reasonable. Chances are the Irish advance - which makes it a smart more. Also, in the off chance that IU wins, you don't freeze your nuts off to see it in person, and you still get to go to the Sugar Bowl and have a fun time in New Orleans using your money from the ticket(s) sale to pay the way! That's the way to play this game.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
But the justification last year was that Florida State was a different team without their QB, and therefore unworthy of a shot at the title.
Why would it be different now?
(Sure, maybe the committee still would have had FSU in the top 12 last year, but their stated justification was “an undefeated conference champion without their QB shouldn’t get a chance to play for the championship.”)
Just listened to Locked on bama.
Their main points:
1. Bama didn’t get robbed they got snubbed. Huh?
2. There are no easy games in the sec.
3. Texas benefited from an easy Sec schedule.
4. They begged the Big 10 to fix this.
Their main points:
1. Bama didn’t get robbed they got snubbed. Huh?
2. There are no easy games in the sec.
3. Texas benefited from an easy Sec schedule.
4. They begged the Big 10 to fix this.
Last edited:
I think if they used this year's criteria on last year's CFP FSU is clearly in, likely with a first round bye as ACC conference champion. Probably in the Penn State or Notre Dame position with this year's CFP.
Four teams were not enough and we all understood that for years. My personal view is that 12 teams is probably too many if Alabama this year felt like they had a credible argument to be in, but to each their own. Whatever the number, someone will always be on the outside looking in.
