Championship Day Thread

JoeCakeEater said:
That was probably best case scenario for the ACC. A very competitive game, that Clemson wins. Now it’s impossible to keep SMU out without the committee looking like a bunch of two-faced clowns. ACC will get 2 teams.
Click to expand...
I agree. But I am expecting to hear about the SEC’s head to head record vs the ACC this season as justification for Alabama being ahead of SMU.
 
As others have said, you cannot punish SMU, who was rated higher, for losing in a championship game on a 56 yard last play FG. Not even the Committee who wants Bama in can do that.
 
Dirty Jacket said:
Clemson just beat the #8 team. ASU beat the #16 team. Clemson should be ranked ahead of ASU and get a bye.
SMU belongs in the top 12. Bama should be out. That won’t happen. If smu is in, Miami is out. It also won’t surprise me to see smu left out.
Click to expand...
Bama is ahead of Miami and they already said that teams not in conference championships can't change order, right? I don't think there's any way Miami can be in now.

I realize that is also what you're saying, just pointing out I think the committee already explicitly stated it's the case.
 
andrew said:
Bama is ahead of Miami and they already said that teams not in conference championships can't change order, right? I don't think there's any way Miami can be in now.

I realize that is also what you're saying, just pointing out I think the committee already explicitly stated it's the case.
Click to expand...
Who TF is "they"? Commentators?
 
After watching the Clemson/SMU 1/2 half recording would like the Falcons to draft the TE from Clemson. He's an excellent blocker and has a pretty solid career TD receptions. He's also physical and a solid blocker. He could be picked up in a lower round. Also, the LB Stutsman from Oklahoma. Pitts has underwhelmed as a1st rd pick. Time to move on from him.
 
JJacket said:
Why is the committee making definitive decisions on who is making the playoffs before all the game have been played?
Click to expand...
Well they're only talking about teams who have already played all of their games. Basically saying that if both team X and team Y have already played all of their games, they won't swap them as a result of a game played by team Z.

If you're asking why they would reveal how they think about the ranking process publicly, the answer is because people want to hear about it and ultimately this is all about entertaiment (and money).

If you're saying that they should consider swapping teams X and Y despite neither of them playing and are asking why they don't want to do that, I guess you'll have to take it up with them. Which of course you can't, so you'll just have to live with it.
 
andrew said:
Bama is ahead of Miami and they already said that teams not in conference championships can't change order, right? I don't think there's any way Miami can be in now.

I realize that is also what you're saying, just pointing out I think the committee already explicitly stated it's the case.
Click to expand...
Yes, we agree, even though based on reasonable objective measures it never made sense for Miami to positioned behind bama. This was intentional to lead to today where they can point to their arbitrary criteria to leave them out.
At this point , I can see it coming. But Texas’ ass should be on a plane to somewhere freezing cold in round one. They should not be positioned to host a home game after losing twice to a mediocre ass mid team. But OBVIOUSLY they won’t and Indiana will get shafted and have to fly to Texas. Or Boise will fly to Texas or something.
 
First, I don't think the CFPC's job is easy as they'll have critics no matter what.

The Chair should NOT have said anything about teams staying in order. The standard to date, and I don't see why it would have just by virtue of going from 4 to 12, is/was everything starts over every week and teams' respective bodies of work are re-examined. He seemed to say there would be no new data points for a team like Alabama who was idle this week. But, that's actually not true IMO. UGAg winning or losing *is* another data point that should be factored into their ranking. Bama's best win was over UGAg. UGAg won last night, beating Texas for second time this season. To me, that should help them. Had UGA lost, that should hurt them. I'm not making an argument for Bama to stay in. I am trying to illustrate why I think the Chair / CFPC is wrong to state any pre-determined "rules". I get the entertainment piece of it, but that's for the talking heads and should not be coming from the CFPC.

They have also said they "value" CCGs with the corollary that a team should not be punished for playing in the game. If that's the case, then SMU should stay in IMO. They should not be penalized for that loss enough to drop them out since they *do* have the extra datapoint putting their necks out. But, this all gets back to "who is best" vs. "who is most deserving" (and as others have mentioned, potentially calls into question the future of the CCGs).

SMU deserves it IMO, but I believe Bama will stay in. The CFPC will explain it away based upon SOS, signature wins (see Bama over UGA above), ignore the losses, yada yada. Bama vs. ND brings way more $$$$ than SMU against anyone really. Tough for the Pony Express, but that's what I think will happen. I'll come back and happily eat crow if I am wrong.

Prepare thy anus.
 
AugustaJacket said:
First, I don't think the CFPC's job is easy as they'll have critics no matter what.

The Chair should NOT have said anything about teams staying in order. The standard to date, and I don't see why it would have just by virtue of going from 4 to 12, is/was everything starts over every week and teams' respective bodies of work are re-examined. He seemed to say there would be no new data points for a team like Alabama who was idle this week. But, that's actually not true IMO. UGAg winning or losing *is* another data point that should be factored into their ranking. Bama's best win was over UGAg. UGAg won last night, beating Texas for second time this season. To me, that should help them. Had UGA lost, that should hurt them. I'm not making an argument for Bama to stay in. I am trying to illustrate why I think the Chair / CFPC is wrong to state any pre-determined "rules". I get the entertainment piece of it, but that's for the talking heads and should not be coming from the CFPC.

They have also said they "value" CCGs with the corollary that a team should not be punished for playing in the game. If that's the case, then SMU should stay in IMO. They should not be penalized for that loss enough to drop them out since they *do* have the extra datapoint putting their necks out. But, this all gets back to "who is best" vs. "who is most deserving" (and as others have mentioned, potentially calls into question the future of the CCGs).

SMU deserves it IMO, but I believe Bama will stay in. The CFPC will explain it away based upon SOS, signature wins (see Bama over UGA above), ignore the losses, yada yada. Bama vs. ND brings way more $$$$ than SMU against anyone really. Tough for the Pony Express, but that's what I think will happen. I'll come back and happily eat crow if I am wrong.

Prepare thy anus.
Click to expand...
There shouldn’t be humans who are inherently biased and stupid involved in these decisions. Conferences should agree on how to weigh the variables and the rankings should then be open source algorithm based.
 
AugustaJacket said:
He seemed to say there would be no new data points for a team like Alabama who was idle this week. But, that's actually not true IMO. UGAg winning or losing *is* another data point that should be factored into their ranking. Bama's best win was over UGAg. UGAg won last night, beating Texas for second time this season. To me, that should help them. Had UGA lost, that should hurt them.
Click to expand...

This is further complicated by the fact that the actual result of U[sic]GA v Texas says virtually nothing about Alabama. The two teams played evenly for 60 minutes. Does the fact that U[sic]GA made one or two more plays after regulation ended say so much about the relative quality of the two teams that it moves the needle on the quality of a third team? Definitely not in my opinion.

Now, normally in sports the answer to that is, "Who cares about the subjective quality of the teams, what matters is who won on the field!"

But when you start from a position of, "Who cares that Alabama didn't play? This is about who is the 'best' so they should be able to move up in the standings anyway" you've pretty much moved past that right off the bat.
 
andrew said:
This is further complicated by the fact that the actual result of U[sic]GA v Texas says virtually nothing about Alabama. The two teams played evenly for 60 minutes. Does the fact that U[sic]GA made one or two more plays after regulation ended say so much about the relative quality of the two teams that it moves the needle on the quality of a third team? Definitely not in my opinion.

Now, normally in sports the answer to that is, "Who cares about the subjective quality of the teams, what matters is who won on the field!"

But when you start from a position of, "Who cares that Alabama didn't play? This is about who is the 'best' so they should be able to move up in the standings anyway" you've pretty much moved past that right off the bat.
Click to expand...

Yes, last night's game was even until OT where the Dwags pulled it out, but UGAg did win to your second point. I don't think it should move the needle that much, but UGAg beating Texas (depending upon their new ranking) not once but twice and being the SECC does bolster Bama's resume.

I'm not making an argument about Bama specifically, and maybe they were a poor choice for an example. I'm just stating the Chair should have kept his mouth shut about teams moving up or down whether in CCGs or not and certainly not relative to one another. Moreover, for him to say last week, they have no more datapoints for teams that aren't playing is false. If other teams that have been on a team-in-question's schedule played this past Fri/Sat, then those teams' performance are, in fact, new datapoints.

Main point: they should judge the lot of them on their entire bodies of work and not make any pre-determinations going into the CCGs. Today's meeting and outcome should be based upon the current results to date (including the CCGs) and not any prior ranking. The Chair did reiterate these pre-determinations several times (or seemed to), and he should not have. All IMO...
 
GoldZ said:
They are way overrated. Look at their schedule...may be the weakest in sec. OL probably not as good as ours...see seccg.
Click to expand...

EJ Manuel on ACC Huddle essentially made the case for SMU by stating WTTE "you can't keep SMU out based upon their schedule and keep Texas in based upon same."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top