2020-2021 NCAA Football: COVID edition

[Budong]

Big whoop, anybody can lose, why don't we concern ourselves with wins?

I was giving an example of how what he said could be correct. Are you offering a counter perspective? I'm not sure what exactly the purpose of your post is.

[cubby]

It legit doesnt matter who a team lost to, it matters who they beat and lost to. People need to quit looking at teams and saying they are the worse team, because they lost to a worse team. That same logic goes in reverse and you can claim a team is better for beating its tougher opponents and losing to a fluke. Why should you get in if you cant beat one of the few, maybe only good team, on your schedule.

So make the argument for the CFP using your idea.

[Budong]

Not really. The SEC has about the same number of teams with the same spread of rankings as the PAC12. So far the argument is that the SEC is better because it's better. The only head to head game between the two conferences is Oregon vs Auburn, which was close. Both conferences have high win teams and low win teams.

You seemed to have missed the part about how two of the four teams currently in playoff position are from the SEC. Objectively speaking based on the only rankings that matter, right now the SEC is stronger. There are no teams from the Pac12 in the top four. That could change in the future, but we're talking about what is reality now. Reality is real so 'Yes really'.

[cubby]

You seemed to have missed the part about how two of the four teams currently in playoff position are from the SEC. Objectively speaking based on the only rankings that matter, right now the SEC is stronger. There are no teams from the Pac12 in the top four. That could change in the future, but we're talking about what is reality now. Reality is real so 'Yes really'.

But why is Georgia's shitty loss better than Utah's? Nothing but feels on that ranking. And before today, Oregon's loss was better than Georgia's. But feels ruled the day. And Alabama's loss was better than both of them. But feels again.

It's all based on in-conference wins.

And it's no one's fault. There just aren't enough head-to-head wins to make objective decisions.

The only teams who should be in the CFP are the undefeateds. And they are. If they win out, that for spot is going to be insanely contentious. Worse if any of them lose.

[draynay]

"Quality of loss" is an absurd measurement when the point of the game is to win.

Alabama's best win, and only win against a ranked opponent, was against TAMU, meanwhile Georgia has beaten ND, Florida, Auburn, and for good measure TAMU. In what universe could Alabama be ranked ahead of Georgia?

[babalou1]

Utah could theoretically make it but I suspect the committee would prefer a Georgia or Bama, and possibly even OU.

- - - Updated - - -

Still, fuck da refs. That was short.

it was short but guess what... that was targetting

[cubby]

"Quality of loss" is an absurd measurement when the point of the game is to win.

Alabama's best win, and only win against a ranked opponent, was against TAMU, meanwhile Georgia has beaten ND, Florida, Auburn, and for good measure TAMU. In what universe could Alabama be ranked ahead of Georgia?

I disagree with your loss statement, to a certain degree. But best win(s) are much more important. There is no way Georgia should be ranked below Alabama. But Georgia's is about to lose to the same opponent Alabama did.

[Crissi]

I disagree with your loss statement, too a certain degree. But best win(s) are much more important. There is no way Georgia should be ranked below Alabama. But Georgia's is about to lose to the same opponent Alabama did.

Can we also propose that the SEC not be allowed to schedule cupcakes this late in the season? Stupid poll padding is what it is.

[Budong]

But why is Georgia's shitty loss better than Utah's? Nothing but feels on that ranking. And before today, Oregon's loss was better than Georgia's. But feels ruled the day. And Alabama's loss was better than both of them. But feels again.

It's all based on in-conference wins.

And it's no one's fault. There just aren't enough head-to-head wins to make objective decisions.

The only teams who should be in the CFP are the undefeateds. And they are. If they win out, that for spot is going to be insanely contentious. Worse if any of them lose.

Oh now see I actually agree that between the one loss teams there could be arguments made. My post was simply saying that people shouldn't disregard what that one poster was saying about the SEC being the strongest conference. There is a lot of data to support it.

As for the one loss teams, strength of schedule will factor. The data that the CFP committee uses is compiled by data nerds who use a lot of math to determine strength of schedule. Using that criteria on the one loss teams gets you this.

8. Georgia
10. Alabama
23. Utah
24. Oklahoma
31. Baylor

Interesting note. Clemson is ranked 37th.

Before some of you post your indignation about these rankings I am not saying I personally adhere to these when making up my own mind. It's what the committee uses and their opinions are the only ones that matter.

- - - Updated - - -

"Quality of loss" is an absurd measurement when the point of the game is to win.

Alabama's best win, and only win against a ranked opponent, was against TAMU, meanwhile Georgia has beaten ND, Florida, Auburn, and for good measure TAMU. In what universe could Alabama be ranked ahead of Georgia?

I don't agree that it's absurd but I do think it shouldn't be a huge deciding factor.

Let me be clear, I'm not voicing my personal views about how the teams should be ranked. I think wins are the most important. I am stating what the committee uses to determine the rankings. When faced with a bunch of 1 loss teams what do those people use to sort it out? Quality of loss is one of those things. It helps determine consistency. I personally think teams can just have bad days and losses should be the last data point used to determine how good a team actually is. My opinion doesn't factor in

I also don't believe Alabama should be ranked higher than Georgia. Again I'm only guessing how the committee will vote.

- - - Updated - - -

Can we also propose that the SEC not be allowed to schedule cupcakes this late in the season? Stupid poll padding is what it is.

I'll give you no late season cupcakes for the SEC if you give me a lifetime contract for Tom Herman

[Crissi]

I'll give you no late season cupcakes for the SEC if you give me a lifetime contract for Tom Herman

Nah. Giving stupid contracts to Head Coaches is an Aggie thing

[Farlomous]

there needs to be massive restructuring of the upper division of the league. not necessarily conference realignment but definitely a scheduling revamp where FCS (Division I-AA) schools can no longer be scheduled and a paring down of number of teams to 90 or below. 8 game playoff and cut down the bowls to maybe 10 - 15. and your desire for Tom Herman leads me to believe you are an Aggie fan.

[cubby]

there needs to be massive restructuring of the upper division of the league. not necessarily conference realignment but definitely a scheduling revamp where FCS (Division I-AA) schools can no longer be scheduled and a paring down of number of teams to 90 or below. 8 game playoff and cut down the bowls to maybe 10 - 15. and your desire for Tom Herman leads me to believe you are an Aggie fan.

Cutting bowl games means losing money. That won't happen. Period.

However, depending on how this CFP season plays out (and Oregon losing didn't fucking help at all) there might be a bigger call for an expanded playoff pool.

Question for you: if they expand it to 6/8 teams, how do they handle the bowl assignments, given the current rotation of two of six for the semifinals?

[Brubear]

You seemed to have missed the part about how two of the four teams currently in playoff position are from the SEC. Objectively speaking based on the only rankings that matter, right now the SEC is stronger. There are no teams from the Pac12 in the top four. That could change in the future, but we're talking about what is reality now. Reality is real so 'Yes really'.

Except the rankings aren't objective, they're subjective. That's the whole point of my question and why I questioned Mutos blanket claim (which they didn't back up, as I suspected).

Yes, the SEC has a bunch of teams highly ranked, but because of how little common games we have to compare against and a massive lack of scheduling parity (especially when the SEC is involved), it's pretty much impossible to make an objective argument for one team being stronger in the vast majority of cases.

[Farlomous]

Cutting bowl games means losing money. That won't happen. Period.

However, depending on how this CFP season plays out (and Oregon losing didn't fucking help at all) there might be a bigger call for an expanded playoff pool.

Question for you: if they expand it to 6/8 teams, how do they handle the bowl assignments, given the current rotation of two of six for the semifinals?

Here is how I would do it.

8 team playoff 5 conference champs vs 3 at-large first 4 games be at any of the Peach, Cotton, Sugar, Rose, Orange and Fiesta, semi-finals would be at which ever 2 weren't in the quarters. NT game would be as it at the highest bidding stadium thing.

I think to do this though, Conference Realignment needs to take place. And teams moved about based on geography. money would have to be guaranteed to be even across the board, but schools given the ability to expand how they make money outside of what ever deals there are. if they do realignment 5 conferences at 14 teams would give you 70 schools to schedule around. or 6 conferences with 12 teams would give you 72. but if we are going to keep all of these bowls, then 6 conferences with 14 teams a piece is going to be the best bet. align things geographically and if you want to go with divisions and a conference title game. 9 league games and 3 between conferences.

[Brubear]

Cutting bowl games means losing money. That won't happen. Period.

However, depending on how this CFP season plays out (and Oregon losing didn't fucking help at all) there might be a bigger call for an expanded playoff pool.

Question for you: if they expand it to 6/8 teams, how do they handle the bowl assignments, given the current rotation of two of six for the semifinals?

Rose bowl hosts the P12 and B10 champ if P12 team is ranked higher, or Peach bowl if the B10 is ranked higher (B10 doesn't really host one of the NY6 so that's the best one I can come up with) for their CFP game.

Sugar hosts SEC and B12 champ if SEC is ranked higher, and Cotton Bowl hosts them if B12 is ranked higher for their CFP game.

Orange Bowl hosts ACC champ and either G5 champ or top at-large bid (which ever is higher), or the Fiesta Bowl if ACC is ranked lower.

The last two plays between two bowl sites that are elevated to a NY8 slot. Keeps the traditional bowl tie-ins and provides some options for home-field advantage for being ranked higher.

You could then have the sites that didn't host a game in the first round host one in the 2nd, and then have the championship game move around to NFL stadiums like the Super Bowl does.

This is just off the top of my head, but it wouldn't take too much effort to accommodate the current bowl structure into an 8-team CFP. Alternatively, you just have the higher-ranked team host the lower ranked team for the first round, then the semi and finals round happen like they do currently.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is how I would do it.

8 team playoff 5 conference champs vs 3 at-large first 4 games be at any of the Peach, Cotton, Sugar, Rose, Orange and Fiesta, semi-finals would be at which ever 2 weren't in the quarters. NT game would be as it at the highest bidding stadium thing.

I think to do this though, Conference Realignment needs to take place. And teams moved about based on geography. money would have to be guaranteed to be even across the board, but schools given the ability to expand how they make money outside of what ever deals there are. if they do realignment 5 conferences at 14 teams would give you 70 schools to schedule around. or 6 conferences with 12 teams would give you 72. but if we are going to keep all of these bowls, then 6 conferences with 14 teams a piece is going to be the best bet. align things geographically and if you want to go with divisions and a conference title game. 9 league games and 3 between conferences.

My problem with this is that it effectively blocks almost half the teams in D1 from having a shot at the CFP if you realign the conferences in this way. If realignment happens, it needs to happen in a way that leaves room for all D1 teams to have a shot.

[Farlomous]

My problem with this is that it effectively blocks almost half the teams in D1 from having a shot at the CFP if you realign the conferences in this way. If realignment happens, it needs to happen in a way that leaves room for all D1 teams to have a shot.

probably, but I don't really know how many D1 teams we need, I would say at least 30 teams just became D1 in the past 20 years and other than say Boise or Appy State they haven't been super successful. and in all actuality there are one about 7 teams in any given year who do have any real shot of winning it all. there doesn't seem to be any really good solution that fits with everybody.

[Budong]

Except the rankings aren't objective, they're subjective. That's the whole point of my question and why I questioned Mutos blanket claim (which they didn't back up, as I suspected).

Yes, the SEC has a bunch of teams highly ranked, but because of how little common games we have to compare against and a massive lack of scheduling parity (especially when the SEC is involved), it's pretty much impossible to make an objective argument for one team being stronger in the vast majority of cases.

Which is why the committee uses strength of schedule, record against top 10, top 25, common opponent and quality of loss. It may or may not be accurate but it gives you objective data points to consider.

- - - Updated - - -

Nah. Giving stupid contracts to Head Coaches is an Aggie thing

True enough. Cult Aggies have the market cornered on dumb. And weird. And being overrated.

Serious (kinda) question here though. I know it's not always Texas that says this. It's often some dumb ass journalist that wants to look like a football prophet. I have to wonder, just how many times can Texas say "We're back" before it starts to look Aggie?

[plz delete account]

Well, the PAC12 is out of the CFP.

Utah says hello

[Crissi]

True enough. Cult Aggies have the market cornered on dumb. And weird. And being overrated.

Serious (kinda) question here though. I know it's not always Texas that says this. It's often some dumb ass journalist that wants to look like a football prophet. I have to wonder, just how many times can Texas say "We're back" before it starts to look Aggie?

Well I dont think you can really fault Sam for that for one. He was the QB of the team that just beat Georgia in the Sugar Bowl after having a mediocre decade. I dont think anyone saw this level of regression coming (although we expected regression due to all the defensive starters leaving).

I'm hoping that stops now. We're pretty clearly not back. Frankly, I think we'd need 3 years on consistent success before that's ever a valid thing to say again. But yeha, if Texas people keep saying it after this year, yeah we'd be that level of uh...culty. I personally rather treat it like Voldemort. Phrase that shall not be named.

I do however have the full confidence in CDC. He did amazing things at TCU and has started amazing things here.

[Logwyn]

My problem with this is that it effectively blocks almost half the teams in D1 from having a shot at the CFP if you realign the conferences in this way. If realignment happens, it needs to happen in a way that leaves room for all D1 teams to have a shot.

You have 130 teams in D1 in the FBS. Basically 10 conferences and those weird independents. Let's just be crazy and take the 10 conference champes and 6 the committee picks! Setup the rotation for bowls however you wish. Draw randomly who plays who.

That way you get a chance to get in by winning your conference. Then we can complain and bicker over the 6 that got in that should or shouldn't have?