A
anon_n4c0cp5zhdxn7
Guest
I think they are better off tweaking how the top 4 are selected rather than increasing the amount of teams.
Your playoff thoughts
- Thread starter joplin gamecock1
- Start date
We only got to #4 in 2013 after the bowl games. We didn't win our division, so there's no way we were going to be the second SEC team in a playoff with two losses.
OK, but you see where I'm going with it, right? It's probably more likely that we see a post-regular season where the Gamecocks are ranked 3-6 before we see them at 1 or 2. That's where you'd benefit (potentially) from a playoff system, obviously.
Bama is currently ranked 5th; they have one of the best coaches in history of the game and ton of 5 star talent; they are 11-1 and their only loss is, on the road, against the number 2 team in the country...and they might not make the playoff. So I don't think our chances of making it our very good under the current format. We need less teams or more teams. Each conference getting no more than one team in is a disaster for us.
I’ll believe that a conference gets 2 teams in when it happens. Your primary obstacle is Bama, but it’s been that way for nearly a decade, and for every other SEC team, too. Bama could get into the BCS title game without even winning their division. That is ridiculous by pretty much any standard, especially when it was a rematch with a team they already lost to on their home field.
The playoff may not be better for USC, per se...I don’t see it being any worse though, either. You still gotta win the SEC (unless you’re Bama).
P5 Champs, ND, and two selections. That's how it will go when ND wins 9 or more in a season.
Why is winning the championship without winning your division any more ridiculous than winning the championship after losing to a 4-8 team? The latter team just got lucky they were in a sorry division.
The current system would be good for the gamecocks if the gamecocks were good lol. Winning the SEC least would’ve given you guys the opportunity to at least make an argument for consideration but ummm....
of the top 4 now, who loses then? It will take that to remotely happen. I hate to say it is not automatic if Clempson loses they are out. That hurt to type that...
Don't know who will lose but the NCAA will make sure one of them loses. No way Alabama doesn't make it. Simple as that. I hope that they don't make it but I'm certain they will.
Fact check: FALSE
Clemson was good -- dare I say "very good" -- two years ago but wouldn't have even made the playoff because they couldn't beat Bama, if the Tigers were in the SEC.
Even if USC was 11-1 right now, we still wouldn't have won the "SEC least" because we would have lost, on the road, to the #6 team in the country.
Clemson is fortunate that they're playing Miami Saturday and not in a rematch with Auburn on a neutral field, wouldn't you agree?
You seem pretty hung up on Clemson's loss, so let's unpack it a little. First, a couple questions:
1. Is Syracuse a better team than Clemson?
2. Should Clemson be categorically eliminated from playoff contention due to losing to a team that ultimately ended up 4-8?
3. In the interest of picking the 4 strongest teams in the country, what 4 are better than Clemson, and why?
I didn't suggest Clemson wasn't one of the 4 strongest teams. You stated Bama wasn't deserving of winning a championship because they didn't win their division, regardless of whether they are one of the 4 best teams. Do you see the contradiction?
I was referring to the 2011 season (sorry, I said 2012 previously) in which only the top 2 teams get a shot at the national championship. Non-division-winning Bama would have and should have made a 4 team playoff. Non-division-winning Bama should NOT have gotten into a two-team title game over 1 loss Oklahoma State or 1 loss Stanford (not sure I'd make an argument for 1 loss Boise State or not, even though they were giant killers in those days with Peterson). They had their shot at LSU during the regular season, and lost. And lost at home, at that.
As for this year...what team do you match up with Wisconsin (assuming they win this weekend) in place of Clemson, if we were under the BCS system?
All I know is, nobody has yet to go 15-0 during this CFP era....a team is going to be expected to have a hick up during the season, that's why the eye ball and common sense test is part of what they look at as well. OSU lost to a 6 win VT team when they won it, Bama lost to Ole Miss, Clemson lost to Pitt and unless Wis runs the table...its going to be the same again and possibly have a 2 loss Champion this year. Quality wins over losses is heavily favored by the committee also. Bottomline is again, timing is everything when it comes to losses, the committee is going to pick who they think are the Top 4 teams RIGHT NOW at that very moment......not week 1,6,8 or 11.
I’m curious give me your top 6 looking at the whole year. Is it really different then what the committee has?
No its not dif much at all other than order. I'm saying they get it right more often than not. I'm one of the ones that doesn't really care about order as long as the top 4 teams are right. The final rankings will just be based on the matchups they want on each side and which will draw the most interest. Right now I would have it 1.OK 2. Clemson 3. AU 4. Wis 5. Bama. 6. GA. 2 and 3 are basically the same and if your the 4 you might as well just say your the 1 if you want too, cause I don't see a clear cut #1 no matter how it ends up.
I say six teams. P5 champs and one at large. In that scenario Bama would be the at large selection. In the present system Bama will get in IF OU and / or Wisky loses.
I think if they wanted to pick the teams playing at the highest level at the end of the season, at least one team like 2016 Penn State, 2016 USC, or 2015 Stanford would've gotten in. All 3 of those teams doomed themselves in September.
Did anybody actually believe 2015 Michigan State was one of the four best teams?
IMO the committee just looks at resume for the entire season, largely ignores margin of victory, and then makes minor adjustments for certain things.
Four is the right number. This thing thrives on the selection drama and tumult. One of these four is certainly the best team in America and probably two of the other three are the closest to them. The system is fine. Parenthetically, the regular season is elevated in importance. What if Ohio State had lost to Iowa by seven or less?
What would be a better system for us? Just because it’s resulting in our rival having success doesn’t make it worse. Had we had this system in the Spurrier days we may have been in the conversation.
The current system has worked out well for Clemson so far but I do think 8 takes care of the problem of OSU, USC, AL all having valid arguments for being in. Maybe even Wisconsin and UCF?
Leave the selection process the exact same and go to 8. If you take a look at the top 8 since CFP started I think it would have gotten every team that reasonable people believed should be included.
Again, I am very happy with the way it has worked , but like OSU and USC found out this year, it is a small difference between 4-8
No one deserves to have their problem solved. Play your way into the top four. I maintain that the at least the best three teams are in there, probably the top four teams are in there and certainly the top team is in there. No need to expand.
I think your position is solid. I may be biased , because I want an extra week of college playoff football. I am good as it is, or with 8.
Latest posts
-
It sickens me when I realize Muschamp ran our program so far into the ground it's going to take- Latest: Southern Fried Chicken
-
-
-
-
