NCAAF 2021-2022 Season

[cubby]

You have Vanderbilt losing to Stanford as the Pac 12 win... that's Vanderbilt, who lost to Florida and Georgia by a combined score of 104-0. Vanderbilt tells you nothing about the strength of the SEC. Then you have Colorado losing close to Texas A&M in a game where TAMU's starting qb was injured after two passes and his backup played like Turd Ferguson. I don't really see anything of value in lookin at those games period... in general I wouldn't see any value in playing the transitive property game in college football, but even less so in this instance.

If I were to try to glean some info from it, here's what I would say;

Colorado played TAMU close because TAMU had bad qb play with a backup pressed into duty. TAMU shut Colorado down because they have a great defense, but they had no offense without a good qb.

TAMU's win over Bama was a fluke. Their QB had an unusually good day (highest passer rating of his career by far) and they were still outgained by Bama by 130 yards, which they overcame with a big kickoff return and winning the turnover battle. And their great defense slowed Bama down (just like they did to Colorado).

TAMU is the quintessential mid tier SEC team right now... they've got a lot of talent on their roster but they need a qb to get to the next level. They're the type of team that could lose to or beat anybody, and if they get the right qb, watch out you've got a title contender. They don't have that qb right now though.

With respect, everything you're saying above is just excusing events using subjective reasoning (bad game, backup qp, etc). People point to past games as proof of SEC dominance - wins overall in CFP matchups, head-to-head, etc. Either head-to-head matches count, or they don't. If they do, then my walk through regarding this season is spot on. The SEC, aside from Georgia, is 2-1 against Pac-12 this year, again based on head-to-head matchups.

Colorado played TAMU close, but keep in mind Colorado is the Pac-12's "Vanderbilt". Let me ask you this, because I didn't pay attention to TAMU's qb issues, but did that same backup play against UNM the next week? UCLA beat LSU as well.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you to a certain extent that there are always details t consider when it comes to games - and your point about TAMU's qb is a good one. But we can all make those arguments - how many times have we excused a loss or a close game with "well, that didn't count, [insert team name] played like shit"?

And at the end of the day, those analysis almost don't matter. Because we can't get enough data points in Conf vs Conf games to tally up a reasonable conclusion. I mean, even in our discussion here, there are just 3 games to review in the whole season. And I think 3 SEC vs Pac-12 games is actually a lot relative to other years.

[Coniferous]

With respect, everything you're saying above is just excusing events using subjective reasoning (bad game, backup qp, etc). People point to past games as proof of SEC dominance - wins overall in CFP matchups, head-to-head, etc. Either head-to-head matches count, or they don't. If they do, then my walk through regarding this season is spot on. The SEC, aside from Georgia, is 2-1 against Pac-12 this year, again based on head-to-head matchups.

Colorado played TAMU close, but keep in mind Colorado is the Pac-12's "Vanderbilt". Let me ask you this, because I didn't pay attention to TAMU's qb issues, but did that same backup play against UNM the next week? UCLA beat LSU as well.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you to a certain extent that there are always details t consider when it comes to games - and your point about TAMU's qb is a good one. But we can all make those arguments - how many times have we excused a loss or a close game with "well, that didn't count, [insert team name] played like shit"?

And at the end of the day, those analysis almost don't matter. Because we can't get enough data points in Conf vs Conf games to tally up a reasonable conclusion. I mean, even in our discussion here, there are just 3 games to review in the whole season. And I think 3 SEC vs Pac-12 games is actually a lot relative to other years.

Head to head matchups don't matter. There aren't enough of them, and the best teams in the SEC often don't schedule any meaningful non-conference games. CFP games matter, because the stakes are high and that's where the best teams play each other. The PAC-12 vs. SEC head to head record has been fairly close for years, and the SEC has totally dominated the CFP while the PAC 12 has barely even made it, and I think has only won 1 game. So my expectation for this year is that the same pattern will continue; SEC will dominate the CFP, PAC 12 best case sends Oregon, but Oregon will likely be a substantial underdog.

I was trying to explain why the results we've seen so far this year don't actually matter.

[plz delete account]

Depends on the conference, some are weaker than others, like the AAC. Half the SEC is better than Cincinnati. The playoff is supposed to be about the best teams period, not one of each conference (unless they're the best), because it adds flavor.

You keep saying that, and then when given the best four you keep saying "Nah the committee would never do that because it'd result in a football game that's not entertaining!"

You also forget one of the ORIGINAL promises from the CFP was if a G5 went undefeated that they'd get a bid. Which never happened because the goalposts kept getting moved. They're out on the moon now lol

- - - Updated - - -

I was trying to explain why the results we've seen so far this year don't actually matter.

Hey @cubby I think I found a BYU fan. "results this year don't matter" is something BYU fans say every year when they either lose to us or don't go to a NY6.

[muto]

You keep saying that, and then when given the best four you keep saying "Nah the committee would never do that because it'd result in a football game that's not entertaining!"

You also forget one of the ORIGINAL promises from the CFP was if a G5 went undefeated that they'd get a bid. Which never happened because the goalposts kept getting moved. They're out on the moon now lol

- - - Updated - - -


Hey @cubby I think I found a BYU fan. "results this year don't matter" is something BYU fans say every year when they either lose to us or don't go to a NY6.

Yeah it wouldn’t be, because they’d get blown out of the water because they aren’t one of the four best teams.

[cubby]

Head to head matchups don't matter. There aren't enough of them, and the best teams in the SEC often don't schedule any meaningful non-conference games. CFP games matter, because the stakes are high and that's where the best teams play each other. The PAC-12 vs. SEC head to head record has been fairly close for years, and the SEC has totally dominated the CFP while the PAC 12 has barely even made it, and I think has only won 1 game. So my expectation for this year is that the same pattern will continue; SEC will dominate the CFP, PAC 12 best case sends Oregon, but Oregon will likely be a substantial underdog.

I was trying to explain why the results we've seen so far this year don't actually matter.

If same-year head-to-head games between conferences don't matter, then we're right back to the SEC getting more shots at the CFP than any other conference because of a systematic bias towards the SEC.

[Coniferous]

If same-year head-to-head games between conferences don't matter, then we're right back to the SEC getting more shots at the CFP than any other conference because of a systematic bias towards the SEC.

It’s not a systemic bias if it’s earned. The reality is prior year performance is a good predictor of future results, and the SEC’s year after year dominance in the CFP means they should continue to get more bids, even if they don’t play many non conference games to assert dominance within a year.

In fact, there’s an argument the SEC doesn’t get enough - a few Alabama teams that were probably in the top 4 didn’t get in. And the SEC teams that do get in have typically dominated - I think they’ve lost 1 semifinal ever, and then lost two finals to Clemson and that’s it. I’m not sure why you’d want to invite other teams when they’re likely worse.

This would end if the SEC ever shows it’s not deserving of its special status by losing some games, and maybe some other conference would start to dominate instead.

That said, I do think the dominance by a few programs is concerning - Bama, Clemson, and OSU (and Oklahoma to a lesser extent) have separated themselves from the pack over the past few years. Clemson falling back to the pack isn’t particularly good either if the new giant is Georgia. I wish we saw some pac 12 or non OSU big 10 teams making more noise, but they just haven’t been good enough.

[Captain Proton]

Depends on the conference, some are weaker than others, like the AAC. Half the SEC is better than Cincinnati. The playoff is supposed to be about the best teams period, not one of each conference (unless they're the best), because it adds flavor.

That's horse shit. If the playoffs were actually about the best teams period, we'd have an expanded playoff with result based merits to qualify. What we have is the only sport, not even all of football but JUST college, that has it's post-season participants decided by a freaking committee. The playoffs are about money. If we don't reward a team for winning, what's the point of even playing the game? What we have is a bunch of biased athletic directors and a freaking president of some utility company. Like, what a joke. Do you actually think these people watch enough games to really have an opinion? This isn't a full time job for them. They're trying to maximize profits for their conferences, period. This playoff has been a sham with their committee. At least the BCS had a lot more people voting, along with unbiased computer polls.

- - - Updated - - -

Sagarin ratings have SEC East top conference, SEC west #7, PAC north 6, and PAC west 9.

And the history does matter here. An interesting stat from 2006 to 2020, national champ winners are:

Alabama: 6
SEC excluding Alabama: 5
Entire rest of college football: 4

The last time two SEC teams made it, they both won in the first round and played one of the more entertaining championships in recent history (first two Clemson Bama games were better). And of those "rest of college football" champs, 3 of them were from the southeastern united states, the one outlier is Ohio State's 1 championship (Clemson (2) and Florida State are the other non-SEC champs).

So besides ratings, history points to the SEC being likely far and away the best conference (again) this year.

I don't really find that stat interesting. You chose a period that had half the BCS, that conveniently started with SEC's win streak and the rest are playoffs.


BCS Only
Alabama: 3
SEC: 6
ACC: 3
Big10: 1
Pac12: 2
Big12: 2

Playoffs:
Alabama 2
SEC 1
ACC 2
Big10 1
Pac12 0
Big12 0

In the playoff era, when more than two conferences could actually play for a national championship, the SEC actually lost ground in their dominance. They have one more national championship than the ACC.

- - - Updated - - -

You keep saying that, and then when given the best four you keep saying "Nah the committee would never do that because it'd result in a football game that's not entertaining!"

You also forget one of the ORIGINAL promises from the CFP was if a G5 went undefeated that they'd get a bid. Which never happened because the goalposts kept getting moved. They're out on the moon now lol

- - - Updated - - -


Hey @cubby I think I found a BYU fan. "results this year don't matter" is something BYU fans say every year when they either lose to us or don't go to a NY6.

We've had our disagreements, but I 100% agree with your post here. Between that and his "knowing who will win", its kind of a joke, unless muto is actually some millionaire who made his money from sports gambling.

[Coniferous]

That's horse shit. If the playoffs were actually about the best teams period, we'd have an expanded playoff with result based merits to qualify. What we have is the only sport, not even all of football but JUST college, that has it's post-season participants decided by a freaking committee. The playoffs are about money. If we don't reward a team for winning, what's the point of even playing the game? What we have is a bunch of biased athletic directors and a freaking president of some utility company. Like, what a joke. Do you actually think these people watch enough games to really have an opinion? This isn't a full time job for them. They're trying to maximize profits for their conferences, period. This playoff has been a sham with their committee. At least the BCS had a lot more people voting, along with unbiased computer polls.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't really find that stat interesting. You chose a period that had half the BCS, that conveniently started with SEC's win streak and the rest are playoffs.


BCS Only
Alabama: 3
SEC: 6
ACC: 3
Big10: 1
Pac12: 2
Big12: 2

Playoffs:
Alabama 2
SEC 1
ACC 2
Big10 1
Pac12 0
Big12 0

In the playoff era, when more than two conferences could actually play for a national championship, the SEC actually lost ground in their dominance. They have one more national championship than the ACC.

Alabama has won 3 in the CFP era, so SEC has won 4 of 7, ACC has won 2, Big 10 1. And ACC doesn't look like any more are on the way, while SEC has the two best teams so far this year. While you're right that I did choose a convenient timeframe, I'm trying to illustrate my faith in the SEC's depth. Auburn made the championship the year before the CFP, Georgia made the national championship game, LSU won once, and no one would be that surprised if Florida went on a run one of these years. Hell, Ole Miss has had some moments, and Texas A&M too. You could remove Alabama from the equation and the SEC is still arguably the best conference of CFP era (big 10 would have an argument, but SEC would still have more NFL players than every other conference without Alabama's 50+ NFL players).

[Captain Proton]

Alabama has won 3 in the CFP era, so SEC has won 4 of 7, ACC has won 2, Big 10 1. And while you're right that I did choose a convenient timeframe, I'm trying to illustrate my faith in the SEC's depth. Auburn made the championship the year before the CFP, Georgia made the national championship game, LSU won once, and no one would be that surprised if Florida went on a run one of these years. Hell, Ole Miss has had some moments, and Texas A&M too. You could remove Alabama from the equation and the SEC is still arguably the best conference of CFP era (big 10 would have an argument).

Ah right, I think I missed the 2020 season. Without Alabama, the ACC has more wins than the SEC but you give the Big 10 the argument? Okay. Either way, their national championship dominance ended with the playoffs when more teams actually had a shot. Alabama is an anomaly, not the norm.

[Coniferous]

Ah right, I think I missed the 2020 season. Without Alabama, the ACC has more wins than the SEC but you give the Big 10 the argument? Okay. Either way, their national championship dominance ended with the playoffs when more teams actually had a shot. Alabama is an anomaly, not the norm.

ACC goes one team deep... there's not a single other ACC team that has even sniffed the CFP since Florida State in the first year. The Big 10 has had Michigan State make it, OSU win a championship, and teams like Penn State, Michigan, and Wisconsin who have been in the mix. So umm, yes, it's not even close between the two conferences.

[Captain Proton]

ACC goes one team deep... there's not a single other ACC team that has even sniffed the CFP since Florida State in the first year. The Big 10 has had Michigan State make it, OSU win a championship, and teams like Penn State, Michigan, and Wisconsin who have been in the mix. So umm, yes, it's not even close between the two conferences.

And an undefeated Wake Forest won't even have a chance even if they winout. Kind of highlights the issue.

[muto]

That's horse shit. If the playoffs were actually about the best teams period, we'd have an expanded playoff with result based merits to qualify. What we have is the only sport, not even all of football but JUST college, that has it's post-season participants decided by a freaking committee. The playoffs are about money. If we don't reward a team for winning, what's the point of even playing the game? What we have is a bunch of biased athletic directors and a freaking president of some utility company. Like, what a joke. Do you actually think these people watch enough games to really have an opinion? This isn't a full time job for them. They're trying to maximize profits for their conferences, period. This playoff has been a sham with their committee. At least the BCS had a lot more people voting, along with unbiased computer polls.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't really find that stat interesting. You chose a period that had half the BCS, that conveniently started with SEC's win streak and the rest are playoffs.


BCS Only
Alabama: 3
SEC: 6
ACC: 3
Big10: 1
Pac12: 2
Big12: 2

Playoffs:
Alabama 2
SEC 1
ACC 2
Big10 1
Pac12 0
Big12 0

In the playoff era, when more than two conferences could actually play for a national championship, the SEC actually lost ground in their dominance. They have one more national championship than the ACC.

- - - Updated - - -



We've had our disagreements, but I 100% agree with your post here. Between that and his "knowing who will win", its kind of a joke, unless muto is actually some millionaire who made his money from sports gambling.

I wouldn't bet on an Alabama vs Cincinnati game or an Ohio State vs. Cincinnati game, because if I bet on Alabama, and Ohio State there wouldn't be much of a pay out.

[Captain Proton]

I wouldn't bet on an Alabama vs Cincinnati game or an Ohio State vs. Cincinnati game, because if I bet on Alabama, and Ohio State there wouldn't be much of a pay out.

"I don't bet on something that I know is a sure thing" isn't as good of a response as you think it is.

[Coniferous]

And an undefeated Wake Forest won't even have a chance even if they winout. Kind of highlights the issue.

If they win out there's a good chance they get in. But, uhhh, they're an underdog against North Carolina on Saturday. They're also an underdog against Clemson in three weeks, and their game against NC State is a pick'em, and they're only a 68% favorite against BC. No one thinks they're any good, they've just had an easy schedule.

[muto]

"I don't bet on something that I know is a sure thing" isn't as good of a response as you think it is.

It wouldn't be worth throwing down 500$ to win 50$, because of the slimmest of chances that could Cincinnati could pull of a miracle.

- - - Updated - - -

If they win out there's a good chance they get in. But, uhhh, they're an underdog against North Carolina on Saturday. They're also an underdog against Clemson in three weeks, and their game against NC State is a pick'em, and they're only a 68% favorite against BC. No one thinks they're any good, they've just had an easy schedule.

Same with Michigan State, and Michigan, but they both have Ohio State, and Penn State left, so that will sort itself out.

[plz delete account]

@Captain Proton; would you trade OU being undefeated for cinci getting into the playoffs? No point I'm trying to make, just groggy question

- - - Updated - - -

also fun fact: Utah is favored to beat every team on it's remaining schedule. Even top 4 Oregon.

- - - Updated - - -

Sagarin ratings have SEC East top conference, SEC west #7, PAC north 6, and PAC west 9.

and here we establish that you do not know what you are talking about, you can't even properly name a power 5 conference division with your own volition. You didn't even google to check to see if what you were saying was inaccurate.

What the hell is a PAC west?

[Coniferous]

@Captain Proton; would you trade OU being undefeated for cinci getting into the playoffs? No point I'm trying to make, just groggy question

- - - Updated - - -

also fun fact: Utah is favored to beat every team on it's remaining schedule. Even top 4 Oregon.

- - - Updated - - -


and here we establish that you do not know what you are talking about, you can't even properly name a power 5 conference division with your own volition. You didn't even google to check to see if what you were saying was inaccurate.

What the hell is a PAC west?

Oh my god I said the wrong word! Burn me at the stake…

Do you seriously think that’s a valid argument?

[Crissi]

yeah sorry, updating the OP. guess whose been both busy AND sick?!

also, Pole Assassin and her monkey is clearly the news of the week.

[plz delete account]

yeah sorry, updating the OP. guess whose been both busy AND sick?!

also, Pole Assassin and her monkey is clearly the news of the week.

I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned before now.
@Brubear; what do you think?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh my god I said the wrong word! Burn me at the stake…

Do you seriously think that’s a valid argument?

I do, because it shows you have a "I know because I know mentality, which means we can lump you in with Muto, which means we don't have to take you seriously.

[Coniferous]

I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned before now.
@Brubear; what do you think?

- - - Updated - - -



I do, because it shows you have a "I know because I know mentality, which means we can lump you in with Muto, which means we don't have to take you seriously.

It’s fascinating because my argument is so vanilla. The sec has won more than half the cfp championships and currently has the top two rated teams, while also being the highest rated conference by numerical rating systems. Based on this, I’m making an argument that they are the best conference. You know, it’s like arguing that water is wet.

I’m also saying that three inter league games is not enough of a sample size, especially when you’re not talking about elite programs. Again, water is wet.

I know I’m expecting a lot by asking a random person on the internet to be reasonable, but please, try to be reasonable. Saying everything I wrote is suspect because I said west instead of north or whatever is not the statement of a reasonable person. Like, imagine having an in person conversation where someone resorted to such nonsense.