SEC championship and playoffs

[Orange defense]

So, you have two teams that will be undefeated going into the SEC championship game, and the one that loses doesn’t get in, then that is just wrong. You can’t knock a team out, because they lost the championship game being ranked in the top 4. If it happens, then this system is screwed up from the top.

 

[Orange defense]

If they are still undefeated?

 

[joevol33]

FWIW, I think auburn upsets one of those two

 

[GAVol]

The thing UGA has going for them is they have probably the best OOC win this year.

 

[GAVol]

FWIW, I think auburn upsets one of those two

@Auburn is definitely going to be a tough one for UGA.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

The CFP committee will consider those two teams against all the other 0- and 1-loss teams in the Power 5. If they believe those two teams (we're talking about Bama and UGa, right?) are two of the best four in the country, then sure: they'll both be in the playoff even if one just beat the other in Atlanta.

One loss won't keep the team out. Particularly one loss to a fellow top-ranked team. Especially if the game is very closely matched.

Now, if one of them beats the socks off the other, embarrasses them, "exposes them" as not in the same league...then sure, I could see the Committee (or you or me) deciding they're not among the top 4 teams in the country.

It all depends on how it plays out, right?

As it should.

 

[Orange defense]

FWIW, I think auburn upsets one of those two

If they don’t, then we are going to have one heck of a game in December.

 

[Orange defense]

The thing UGA has going for them is they have probably the best OOC win this year.

So far they do. A one ☝️ point win, and they have that.

 

[Orange defense]

@Auburn is definitely going to be a tough one for UGA.

UGA’s defense and offense may be to much for Auburn, but who knows?

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

So, you have two teams that will be undefeated going into the SEC championship game, and the one that loses doesn’t get in, then that is just wrong. You can’t knock a team out, because they lost the championship game being ranked in the top 4. If it happens, then this system is screwed up from the top.

Completely disagree. The thing that people don't seem to want to acknowledge is the conference championship games are themselves a playoff. Win and you're in. If you let them both in you're basically saying the seccg is meaningless. Why even bother playing It?

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Completely disagree. The thing that people don't seem to want to acknowledge is the conference championship games are themselves a playoff. Win and you're in. If you let them both in you're basically saying the seccg is meaningless. Why even bother playing It?

I don't agree with that, MBRO.

I think that it IS possible that sometimes two of the best teams in the country are in the same conference. And when they are, they should both be in the CFP, even if one just narrowly beat the other for the SEC crown.

Just let the best 4 teams play, wherever they come from.

 

[VOLNPA]

Completely disagree. The thing that people don't seem to want to acknowledge is the conference championship games are themselves a playoff. Win and you're in. If you let them both in you're basically saying the seccg is meaningless. Why even bother playing It?

Money

 

[bamawriter]

Completely disagree. The thing that people don't seem to want to acknowledge is the conference championship games are themselves a playoff. Win and you're in. If you let them both in you're basically saying the seccg is meaningless. Why even bother playing It?

Ohio State got into the playoff last year without playing in the Big 10 title game.

You can't make a conference title a requirement when you have 5 conferences and only 4 playoff berths.

 

[joevol33]

@Auburn is definitely going to be a tough one for UGA.

I think so too.

 

[joevol33]

If they don’t, then we are going to have one heck of a game in December.

That’s true.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

I don't agree with that, MBRO.

I think that it IS possible that sometimes two of the best teams in the country are in the same conference. And when they are, they should both be in the CFP, even if one just narrowly beat the other for the SEC crown.

Just let the best 4 teams play, wherever they come from.

It goes back to my whole argument about the "playoff" in the first place. It's supposed to be the most deserving teams, and that may not always be the best teams. College football is the only sport that uses "best" as the gauge instead of deserving. And best is decided by the opinions of a small group of people.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Money

Bingo!

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Ohio State got into the playoff last year without playing in the Big 10 title game.

You can't make a conference title a requirement when you have 5 conferences and only 4 playoff berths.

That's true and it's why I don't really care for the system in place. To call what they have a playoff is a stretch IMO. It's basically the BCS with 4 teams instead of 2. It may be better than the old system, but not by much.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

It goes back to my whole argument about the "playoff" in the first place. It's supposed to be the most deserving teams, and that may not always be the best teams. College football is the only sport that uses "best" as the gauge instead of deserving. And best is decided by the opinions of a small group of people.

That's true and it's why I don't really care for the system in place. To call what they have a playoff is a stretch IMO. It's basically the BCS with 4 teams instead of 2. It may be better than the old system, but not by much.

I think I understand, MBRO. You're looking for structure: structure that extends past the four teams and three games of the CFB, structure that links into the regular season...or at least the conference CGs. Make it a compelling storyline, and start the story earlier, like in December, when the conference CGs are being played.

As you said, though, that structure's not there. By intent. When they designed the CFP, they explicitly did not want any structural link to conference championship games. They did not want those to be play-in games (in other words, an extension of the playoffs). Of course, what happens in the conference games matters to the CFP Committee, they take it all into account when they're picking the 4 playoff teams. But they are not structurally bound by the conference CG results.

Instead, they want the four best teams in the country to meet to see which one will win on the field. To decide a true national champion by going just deep enough to be sure they get all the realistic candidates. The BCS proved that 2 isn't always enough (remember undefeated Auburn, left out that one year?). So they expanded to 4.

And I do think 4 teams is deep enough to be sure the real "best team" wasn't left out. As long as they pick the best four going in, unfettered by any other constraints. Just pick the best 4, and determine the national champ from them.

*shrug* So I think I understand what you're saying, I just believe what we have now is doing exactly what we asked it to do.

 

[LSU-SIU]

If you can't win your conference, you are not the best team in your conference or nation.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

If you can't win your conference, you are not the best team in your conference or nation.

Not true. Because football team quality is "fuzzy math."

On any given day, any team can beat any other team. App State can beat Michigan, even though they're not generally speaking the better team. Wyoming can beat Tennessee, even though they're not the better team. Ferris State can give Alabama a real run for their money, even though they're far from the better team.

Sure, they're the better teams on the field THAT DAY. But if they play each other 100 times in a row, 98 times out of 100, the other team will win. In general, the other team is the better team.

So yeah. Football is fuzzy.

Every single team performs each week somewhere in an "ability band," a range of performance potentials that reaches above and below their center-line, how good they "really are." In other words, every team has good days and bad days, and the result of any single game may not be an accurate long-term reflection of the relative abilities of the two teams who played.

So you're only half-right. If you can't win your conference championship game, you are not the best team in your conference. Agreed.

But you may still be the best team in the nation a couple of weeks later. Truly the best team in the nation, in spite of losing that CCG.

Football is fuzzy.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Not true. Because football team quality is "fuzzy math."

No, its an excuse, if you can't get into your conference championship or lose your conference championship - you are not the best team in your conference. You had the opportunity and failed.

This isn't rankings, rankings are fuzzy - when you lose on the field that's it. I'm not understanding this fuzzy thing, if you lose on the field there isn't fuzzy about it - you lost. Now whether the committee wants to take the conference champion is a different story but winning and losing on the field is everything.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

No, its an excuse, if you can't get into your conference championship or lose your conference championship - you are not the best team in your conference. You had the opportunity and failed.

This isn't rating, ratings are fuzzy - when you lose on the field that's it.

See, now you're sticking to what's real, and I agree. If you can't get to the conference championship game, or lose that game, you're not the best team in your conference.

Agreed.

Because that's how we structured it. We decide the conference's best by holding a CG. Win it to be the champ. Simple and straight-forward.

But no one who designed any of those conference CGs intended them to decide what team is the best in the nation. Ever.

We have the CFP for that.

And the CFP design explicitly recognizes that it is possible Georgia could beat Bama 26-24 with a desperation field goal in the final seconds of the SEC CG after trailing the Tide the whole game.

So Georgia beat Bama. But deep down, where your logic works, you know that those two teams were so closely matched that either of them could've won that game. Bama actually looked like the slightly better team throughout the game, and led for 58 minutes of it. In terms of "who's best," Georgia gets the SEC crown, as they rightfully should, they earned it; but the national championship is still wide open.

And both those teams deserve consideration.

You gonna leave out a 1-loss Bama team, after that brilliant SEC CG, and include instead a 1-loss Washington team that played very few games of consequence all year, and lost one of those? You're saying Bama's close loss to #1 Georgia is more damning than Washington's loss earlier in the season to 7-5 Arizona State? Or that Bama is less deserving than a 1-loss Ohio State team that didn't even play in a conference CG?

You're going to punish a brilliant team for playing a conference CG and almost winning it? Leave them out for a 1-loss Notre Dame that doesn't even belong to a conference, doesn't take that risk?

No. Conference championship games are not play-in games, nor should they be.

Pick the best 4 in the country, and let them play it out for the national title. Even if some of them have one loss (in a CG or elsewhere).

 

[volfannbama]

So, you have two teams that will be undefeated going into the SEC championship game, and the one that loses doesn’t get in, then that is just wrong. You can’t knock a team out, because they lost the championship game being ranked in the top 4. If it happens, then this system is screwed up from the top.

To ways to look at it

1. If whoever loses wanted in, they shouldnt have lost.

2. I think the reason UGA was number 1 is so if they lost to Alabama in the SECCG, the could move Alabama to 1 and UGA to 3.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

I think I understand, MBRO. You're looking for structure: structure that extends past the four teams and three games of the CFB, structure that links into the regular season...or at least the conference CGs. Make it a compelling storyline, and start the story earlier, like in December, when the conference CGs are being played.

As you said, though, that structure's not there. By intent. When they designed the CFP, they explicitly did not want any structural link to conference championship games. They did not want those to be play-in games (in other words, an extension of the playoffs). Of course, what happens in the conference games matters to the CFP Committee, they take it all into account when they're picking the 4 playoff teams. But they are not structurally bound by the conference CG results.

Instead, they want the four best teams in the country to meet to see which one will win on the field. To decide a true national champion by going just deep enough to be sure they get all the realistic candidates. The BCS proved that 2 isn't always enough (remember undefeated Auburn, left out that one year?). So they expanded to 4.

And I do think 4 teams is deep enough to be sure the real "best team" wasn't left out. As long as they pick the best four going in, unfettered by any other constraints. Just pick the best 4, and determine the national champ from them.

*shrug* So I think I understand what you're saying, I just believe what we have now is doing exactly what we asked it to do.

I don't disagree with any of that. I do think it serves the purpose it was intended to do. I do think that in the first year you could make a legitimate argument for Baylor (not necessarily saying they were one of the best 4, just that you could make an argument for them). In cases like that I think the committee will always side with the team that is the bigger brand.

Ultimately I'd like to see opinion taken out of the equation altogether, but like bamawriter has said that's impossible in the current structure. I totally agree that it's better than what we had before.