NCAAF 2021-2022 Season

[muto]

Okay, a two loss team still shouldn't get to the playoffs in a four team system, which was my point.

If they have a better resume yeah they should.

[Captain Proton]

If they have a better resume yeah they should.

If you don't win your conference, you don't deserve to be in the playoffs.

[cubby]

Huh? Prior to BCS the bowls could do whatever they want. Some had conference tie-ins, but Fiesta Bowl could invite whoever they wanted, and Cotton, Sugar, and Orange could invite at least 1 at large. The only bowl with locked in participants was the Rose. There was no real national champion it was just polls.

That's my point. You asked this above:

When did we have a record based system? BCS? that had the stupid computer system and strength of schedule BS?

And I was answering you.

[Coniferous]

That's my point. You asked this above:

And I was answering you.

There are a lot of terms I might use to describe that system, but "record based" is not one of them. Notre Dame got invited to all sorts of bowls it didn't belong in because of its fanbase.

- - - Updated - - -

If you don't win your conference, you don't deserve to be in the playoffs.

Then there's limited reason to play in a tough conference.

[Captain Proton]

There are a lot of terms I might use to describe that system, but "record based" is not one of them. Notre Dame got invited to all sorts of bowls it didn't belong in because of its fanbase.

- - - Updated - - -



Then there's limited reason to play in a tough conference.

Well I say this with a 4 team playoff in mind. Perceived conference strength still will get you in over other conferences along with a higher rank so you get your game closer to home.

Just look at it now, 3 undefeated teams are behind multiple one loss teams. UTSA isn't even ranked. Conference strength absolutely matters. At least one P5 conference winner will be left out, possibly two.

[cubby]

There are a lot of terms I might use to describe that system, but "record based" is not one of them. Notre Dame got invited to all sorts of bowls it didn't belong in because of its fanbase.

The AP polls were based on records. Period. I'm not sure why we're arguing about this. Up until BCS, and subjectively including BCS, all national titles were decided by records only.

- - - Updated - - -

Well I say this with a 4 team playoff in mind. Perceived conference strength still will get you in over other conferences along with a higher rank so you get your game closer to home.

Just look at it now, 3 undefeated teams are behind multiple one loss teams. UTSA isn't even ranked. Conference strength absolutely matters. At least one P5 conference winner will be left out, possibly two.

It's why that 12 team CFP is such a good solution. They spent over a year revising it and it's about as perfect as you can get in such a multi-layered subjective enterprise.

[Coniferous]

The AP polls were based on records. Period. I'm not sure why we're arguing about this. Up until BCS, and subjectively including BCS, all national titles were decided by records only.

I’m not arguing. You’re just wrong. It’s a poll meaning it’s a subjective ranking based on whatever the voters feel like. If it were just record based you wouldn’t need to poll; you’d just organize teams by record.

This is just factually correct, there have been a few examples of undefeated teams actually finishing pretty low, like Rutgers in the 70s.

The ap poll was more subjective than the current system, which at least tries to give 4 teams a shot at the end. The ap poll was literally like the cfp committee just voting on the champion instead of having them play - again, that’s why it was called a poll.

[cubby]

I’m not arguing. You’re just wrong. It’s a poll meaning it’s a subjective ranking based on whatever the voters feel like. If it were just record based you wouldn’t need to poll; you’d just organize teams by record.

This is just factually correct, there have been a few examples of undefeated teams actually finishing pretty low, like Rutgers in the 70s.

The ap poll was more subjective than the current system, which at least tries to give 4 teams a shot at the end. The ap poll was literally like the cfp committee just voting on the champion instead of having them play - again, that’s why it was called a poll.

Oh, ok - my statement isn't factually wrong, but I definitely see what you're saying. And yeah, I'm saying something different. Thanks for the clarification.

You are asking for a purely record based system, or at least saying we never had one. I'm not sure how that would even work - if you'd be ranking them based solely on their records, then there would be ties, from different conferences - like this year, assuming win out, Georgia and Cincy would be tied, along with any other Div I unranked teams.

Am I on the right path here?

[Coniferous]

Oh, ok - my statement isn't factually wrong, but I definitely see what you're saying. And yeah, I'm saying something different. Thanks for the clarification.

You are asking for a purely record based system, or at least saying we never had one. I'm not sure how that would even work - if you'd be ranking them based solely on their records, then there would be ties, from different conferences - like this year, assuming win out, Georgia and Cincy would be tied, along with any other Div I unranked teams.

Am I on the right path here?

I’m confused… the implication I took from your original post was that the ap was somehow fairer than the current system. Am I wrong?

[cuafpr]

Yeah, we had a record based system for the entire history of college football until CFP came out. The BCS wasn't a tournament schedule, just 5 separate bowl games, based on record(ish). Prior to BCS it was just the polls, Coaches and the AP. We've had a record based system until the CFP was put in place.

the BCS had the stupid computer-based strength of schedule and no real system to it.. just bowl games inviting teams they wanted for the most part. The simplest way is just take conference champs, and let them duke it out. Give it a few years (maybe more) and I'd wager talent will start to spread beyond the top-tier schools and SEC bias. So what if a conference champ made into the playoffs with a 6 win season and then ran through the playoffs.. then they earned it (before stuff about multiple loss teams being the playoffs gets started)

- - - Updated - - -

If you don't win your conference, you don't deserve to be in the playoffs.

^ this (minus a wild card slot in a real system)

[Coniferous]

the BCS had the stupid computer-based strength of schedule and no real system to it.. just bowl games inviting teams they wanted for the most part. The simplest way is just take conference champs, and let them duke it out. Give it a few years (maybe more) and I'd wager talent will start to spread beyond the top-tier schools and SEC bias. So what if a conference champ made into the playoffs with a 6 win season and then ran through the playoffs.. then they earned it (before stuff about multiple loss teams being the playoffs gets started)

- - - Updated - - -



^ this (minus a wild card slot in a real system)

I disagree. If Alabama and Georgia play a close game in the SEC champ this year and are clearly the two best teams, I’d rather see both get in and play again over the 5th best team getting in. I want the championship game to actually be the best teams.

Otherwise with SEC dominance it might start seeming like the mayoral election in certain cities, where the real election is the democratic primary and the actual election an afterthought.

[cubby]

I’m confused… the implication I took from your original post was that the ap was somehow fairer than the current system. Am I wrong?

No, I didn't mean that at all. I think I misunderstood your original ask/statement, and took us off the proverbial rails from there. I like the CFP system now, and would like to see it expanded to 12 teams.

[muto]

If you don't win your conference, you don't deserve to be in the playoffs.

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.

[cubby]

I disagree. If Alabama and Georgia play a close game in the SEC champ this year and are clearly the two best teams, I’d rather see both get in and play again over the 5th best team getting in. I want the championship game to actually be the best teams.

Otherwise with SEC dominance it might start seeming like the mayoral election in certain cities, where the real election is the democratic primary and the actual election an afterthought.

If Alabama was undefeated and a close game with Georgia, I could see both teams making the cut. If Alabama loses their second game to Georgia, even if it's close, they should drop out of the top 4. Regardless of dominance, which isn't clear, a 2 loss team shouldn't make the cut with undefeateds being kept out.

- - - Updated - - -

If you don't win your conference, you don't deserve to be in the playoffs.

That's why the 12 team CFP plan is so good. All five P5 conf champs, one G5 conf champ (based on CFP rankings), then the other six are CFP rankings.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Also keep in mind this year, Texas A&M beat Alabama in a close game, but barely got by Colorado (Pac-12). Head to head comparisons don't put the SEC that far above the Pac-12, if at all. UCLA also beat LSU this year.

[Coniferous]

If Alabama was undefeated and a close game with Georgia, I could see both teams making the cut. If Alabama loses their second game to Georgia, even if it's close, they should drop out of the top 4. Regardless of dominance, which isn't clear, a 2 loss team shouldn't make the cut with undefeateds being kept out.

Also keep in mind this year, Texas A&M beat Alabama in a close game, but barely got by Colorado (Pac-12). Head to head comparisons don't put the SEC that far above the Pac-12, if at all. UCLA also beat LSU this year.

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.

[cubby]

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.

Historically, maybe - those numbers are a small fraction of the reality they represent. We all know how uncertain college football can be. But I won't argue against them here. The issue with any argument on historically dominant conferences is that there are so few games to compare against.

This year, however - those head-to-head matches between the SEC and the Pac-12 are telling. I would need to go back and check, but I think those two were the only head-to-head matches, and it was 50/50. And Texas A&M barely skirting by Colorado...that's a LOT right there.

[cuafpr]

I disagree. If Alabama and Georgia play a close game in the SEC champ this year and are clearly the two best teams, I’d rather see both get in and play again over the 5th best team getting in. I want the championship game to actually be the best teams.

Otherwise with SEC dominance it might start seeming like the mayoral election in certain cities, where the real election is the democratic primary and the actual election an afterthought.

if they are the two best teams why are they playing again? just crown one king and be done with it... or maybe one gets a wild card slot

[Coniferous]

if they are the two best teams why are they playing again? just crown one king and be done with it... or maybe one gets a wild card slot

Well I'd expect them to both win semifinal games against the 1 and 2 seeds.

[cuafpr]

Well I'd expect them to both win semifinal games against the 1 and 2 seeds.

I expected Bama to win against but they didn't

[Coniferous]

Historically, maybe - those numbers are a small fraction of the reality they represent. We all know how uncertain college football can be. But I won't argue against them here. The issue with any argument on historically dominant conferences is that there are so few games to compare against.

This year, however - those head-to-head matches between the SEC and the Pac-12 are telling. I would need to go back and check, but I think those two were the only head-to-head matches, and it was 50/50. And Texas A&M barely skirting by Colorado...that's a LOT right there.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

I expected Bama to win against but they didn't

Yes, that's why they play the games. I'm not saying I guarantee, but it seems like the likely scenario.