Looking too far ahead (playoffs)

[msza 228]

1 minute ago, Linayus said:

I'd put us an even 50% right now. Especially with Bama's injuries in the middle defensively. If they can't figure out a solution there, we're going to have our way running the ball like we did against Georgia.

The IB is probably an even 50%, but add to that even a high probability of beating UGA again-- say, 70% -- we'd still be well under 50% to win both games in succession.

[steeleagle 2,945]

55 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

When you get called out for saying something blatantly ridiculous, do not double down with even more when you respond.  It does not paint a flattering picture for you.  When you say things like "The NCAA has always come up with..." in this context, it makes you look like you do not know what you are talking about.

The NCAA has absolutely nothing to do with the FBS postseason.  They have nothing to do with the College Football Playoff, the committee that selects the participants, the Bowl Championship Series that preceded it, or the bowl system that preceded the BCS.  The NCAA does not recognize a national champion for FBS.

TCU was left out because they did not play a conference championship game.  The other four representatives did, so they played an extra game against a quality opponent that TCU did not play.  They put their playoff ambitions on the line, and TCU had the week off.  Last year, Penn State got left out because they got drilled by Michigan and lost to Pittsburgh.  Ohio State lost once, to Penn State on the road, but they beat three top 10 teams AND blew out Oklahoma on the road.  Ohio State had a much better overall resume than Penn State did, AND they had one less loss.  Had Oklahoma beat Ohio State earlier in the season, they would have taken Ohio State's slot and B1G would have been left out.  After the conference championship games were done, they had these candidates to choose from for a fourth slot:  one loss Ohio State, two loss Oklahoma, and two loss Penn State.  Popularity had nothing to do with it.

Moreover, what is this popularity contest you are talking about?  Auburn is left behind when they do not have a good team.  So are Penn State, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, and anyone else.  Auburn has played in two BCS National Championship Games in this decade, and won one of them.  Auburn is currently being discussed as a two loss playoff team if they win out.  How in the world does that constitute being left behind in a popularity contest?  If you are trying to attribute popularity as something the playoff committee considers, then you have absolutely no evidence upon which to base that assertion.  Thus far, the playoff committee has gotten it right all three times.  They even showed you a lack of bias, just recently, when their first ranking this year defied the polls by ranking Georgia ahead of Alabama.

Totally agree. 

That old feeling was like that when we had other ways to rank. Not the new way so far...

This playoff committee has been pretty 'right on'.

Remember, since they started ranking this year Auburn has been and continues to be the highest ranking 2 loss team.

We are getting credit, that we wouldn't get in prior playoff committees which is allowing us to get into the Championship picture based on our schedule and who we are beating now. 

[Strychnine 1,802]

1 minute ago, AU64 said:

Anybody cutting us any slack because Pettway has been out almost all year?  or both losses being close and in two very difficult places to play....Maybe since we are the highest ranked 2 loss team.   .

The main thing is that losing a game near the end of the season is way more of a factor than in game 1 or2.   

Just keep winning....that's all it takes...... and the games in Clemson and Baton Rouge will just be vague memories. 

 

I think the lack of any blowout losses (with both on the road) definitely gives Auburn the advantage over any other two loss team at present, or that might emerge.  Ohio State got blown out in the second half at home, and they got thoroughly blown out by an unranked team on the road.  I think that ends up meaning a lot more than blowing out Michigan State at home.

[ReidMcLain 75]

At the end of the day an 8 team playoffs has been long needed. That way valid 1 loss teams and the PAC 12 would be involved for a more fair geographical match up. Basically in the current set up one of the big 5 conferences gets screwed every year.

[alexava 6,973]

If we spank bama's ass like we did Uga, bama is out too.

[Linayus 676]

13 minutes ago, msza said:

The IB is probably an even 50%, but add to that even a high probability of beating UGA again-- say, 70% -- we'd still be well under 50% to win both games in succession.

I would agree - but Auburn (for whatever reason) has this uncanny knack of having played the winner of the East division in the regular season when we've made the Championship game, with the exception of newcomer Mizzou in 2013. Results were good.

[AUld fAUx@ 2,584]

Thread title is well written.

[wareagle7298 126]

25 minutes ago, Linayus said:

I'd put us an even 50% right now. Especially with Bama's injuries in the middle defensively. If they can't figure out a solution there, we're going to have our way running the ball like we did against Georgia.

Mississippi State had almost 39 minutes of total possession against Bama.  If we have anything near that we would probably blow them out of the water.  But if anything it means that Bama had issues stopping Mississippi State consistently the way Bama usually does, even though they ultimately stopped them enough to win the game. If I am Auburn I give Kerryon no more than one quarter of playing time, if any, this weekend against La Monroe. I'm tired of playing Bama with half a deck.

[Strychnine 1,802]

4 minutes ago, steeleagle said:

Totally agree. 

That old feeling was like that when we had other ways to rank. Not the new way so far...

This playoff committee has been pretty 'right on'.

Remember, since they started ranking this year Auburn has been and continues to be the highest ranking 2 loss team.

We are getting credit, that we wouldn't get in prior playoff committees which is allowing us to get into the Championship picture based on our schedule and who we are beating now. 

 

I would say that during this century, at the least, Auburn has had as fair a shake as anyone in polls and postseason consideration.  Thus far, Auburn has ended football seasons with three legitimate national championship contenders.  Two of them played in the BCS National Championship Game, and one of them won it.  There are arguments for, and against, the 2004 team jumping an undefeated Oklahoma for the #2 spot, and both have merit.  Back then, it was certainly not common for top-ranked teams to lose a ranking without losing a game, especially considering USC and Oklahoma were both generally dominant throughout the season.  Ultimately, it was one of the things that led to the four team playoff that we have now.

Overall, I think Auburn gets the credit they deserve, when they deserve it.

[Strychnine 1,802]

9 minutes ago, Linayus said:

I would agree - but Auburn (for whatever reason) has this uncanny knack of having played the winner of the East division in the regular season when we've made the Championship game, with the exception of newcomer Mizzou in 2013. Results were good.

 

The West has not lost an SEC Championship Game since 2008, and we have no business breaking that trend.

[RHN1975 302]

21 minutes ago, ReidMcLain said:

At the end of the day an 8 team playoffs has been long needed. That way valid 1 loss teams and the PAC 12 would be involved for a more fair geographical match up. Basically in the current set up one of the big 5 conferences gets screwed every year.

I don't want to see them move to an 8 game playoff. The four team puts more emphasis on the full body of work. I believe a 1 loss bama has a better resume than an undefeated Wisconsin. There will always be some type of controversy even if they go to 16 teams. The conversation and thrill of the changing polls are part of the allure of college football over the NFL.

[ReidMcLain 75]

7 minutes ago, RHN1975 said:

I don't want to see them move to an 8 game playoff. The four team puts more emphasis on the full body of work. I believe a 1 loss bama has a better resume than an undefeated Wisconsin. There will always be some type of controversy even if they go to 16 teams. The conversation and thrill of the changing polls are part of the allure of college football over the NFL.

What if 5 teams from power 5 conferences go undefeated? Who do you leave out? The team with the weakest schedule? Is that really their fault? If you go undefeated in a power 5 conference you deserve to get in. 8 is a fine stopping point because the conference championships serve as the psuedo-round of 16. But you could make an arguement that 8 teams would basically ruin conference championships since in many cased they might still be in even if they lose their conference title game. So it's a slippery slope. Maybe 6 teams with 2 byes? 

[RHN1975 302]

Just now, ReidMcLain said:

What if 5 teams from power 5 conferences go undefeated? Who do you leave out? The team with the weakest schedule? Is that really their fault? If you go undefeated in a power 5 conference you deserve to get in. 8 is a fine stopping point because the conference championships serve as the psuedo-round of 16. But you could make an arguement that 8 teams would basically ruin conference championships since in many cased they might still be in even if they lose their conference title game. So it's a slippery slope. Maybe 6 teams with 2 byes? 

I disagree on the deserve to get in part. Look at UW's non-conference slate and compare it to others.  AU played Clemson, bama played FSU, UGA played ND, ND played USC (Even though they have the ACC tie in.), Oklahoma played OSU. You can't control your conference opponents but you can control who else you play. It is better for every fan to see these teams have to step out of conference and play a competitive game in order to earn the right to move on. The more teams do this the less likely we have 5 undefeated P5 champions. 

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, JDUBB4AU said:

This. I still believe in conference champions 

I don't.  A couple of years ago, a 7-5 Wisconsin team was playing for the Big 10 title.  Now if they had pulled of that upset, would they really have been one of the best 4 or 8 teams in America?  Not a chance in hell.

[AUBourne 425]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

The Rose Bowl is 100+ years old.  What did you expect?  It's like going to Wrigley Field.  Certainly not the nicest stadium in baseball, but you go for the history.

Seeing the Rose Bowl Stadium was one of the main reason I made the trip.  Been to many games at various college stadiums such as Washington, BYU, and appreciate the history.  The problem is that the Rose Bowl is a complete safety risk. Those one way tunnels that barely fit 2ppl across at a time are potentially a huge issue.  They are also inconvenient because if you must make a bathroom break you have to stand in a 20 minute line to get back through the tunnel.

[AUBourne 425]

3 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

When you get called out for saying something blatantly ridiculous, do not double down with even more when you respond.  It does not paint a flattering picture for you.  When you say things like "The NCAA has always come up with..." in this context, it makes you look like you do not know what you are talking about.

 

Not reading the rest of your post.  You come across like a cry baby and hostile because someone does not agree with you. Life must be hard for you.  I don't know why typing your either of your responses could not have been done without so much rudeness but I guess some people (like you obviously) are just like that.  Bet you are a real joy to be around.  Then again hiding behind a keyboard and talking down to people is probably about as brave as you get. 

[AUBourne 425]

2 hours ago, steeleagle said:

Totally agree. 

That old feeling was like that when we had other ways to rank. Not the new way so far...

This playoff committee has been pretty 'right on'.

Remember, since they started ranking this year Auburn has been and continues to be the highest ranking 2 loss team.

We are getting credit, that we wouldn't get in prior playoff committees which is allowing us to get into the Championship picture based on our schedule and who we are beating now. 

The committee gave out a list of specif criteria that they were going to judge teams by.  TCU beat OSU in almost every point. I used to have a picture of the graphic but no longer do.  It included SoS, results vs common opponents, etc.  They had to ignore their own criteria to get OSU in over TCU.

[Strychnine 1,802]

1 hour ago, RHN1975 said:

I don't want to see them move to an 8 game playoff. The four team puts more emphasis on the full body of work. I believe a 1 loss bama has a better resume than an undefeated Wisconsin. There will always be some type of controversy even if they go to 16 teams. The conversation and thrill of the changing polls are part of the allure of college football over the NFL.

 

I go back and forth on how I feel about an 8 or 16 team playoff.  The main reason I like it is that it gives room for some non-P5 teams to get a chance to play for it all, when a few of them have a team deserving of it.  I can understand excluding an undefeated UCF, if you only have four slots to fill.  That said, if you have 8 or more slots, then any undefeated non-P5 team deserves a chance to prove it.  The 2004 Utah Utes got hosed even worse than we did, because they never even had a chance.

[tbone1430 1,346]

If we win out we are in. I think its basically set up now to be:

Clemson/Miami

OU

Wisc

Auburn

If Wisconsin loses I think the Turds get a pass as much as it pains me to say. 

[ReidMcLain 75]

3 hours ago, RHN1975 said:

I disagree on the deserve to get in part. Look at UW's non-conference slate and compare it to others.  AU played Clemson, bama played FSU, UGA played ND, ND played USC (Even though they have the ACC tie in.), Oklahoma played OSU. You can't control your conference opponents but you can control who else you play. It is better for every fan to see these teams have to step out of conference and play a competitive game in order to earn the right to move on. The more teams do this the less likely we have 5 undefeated P5 champions. 

 

The pac 12 is unusual because they play 9 conference opponents and 3 out of conference teams usually bottom feeders. I mean USC played Texas and Notre Dame and got whipped by the Irish. Ideally I would want to see every team play 8 conference games and 4 out of conference games from each of the big 5 remaining conferences (so a Pac12 team would have to play SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12.) Of course this eliminates any possibility of a non Big 5 getting in, but was that happening anyways?

[AU64 10,122]

2 minutes ago, ReidMcLain said:

The pac 12 is unusual because they play 9 conference opponents and 3 out of conference teams usually bottom feeders. I mean USC played Texas and Notre Dame and got whipped by the Irish. Ideally I would want to see every team play 8 conference games and 4 out of conference games from each of the big 5 remaining conferences (so a Pac12 team would have to play SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12.) Of course this eliminates any possibility of a non Big 5 getting in, but was that happening anyways?

That could be tough to schedule but worse from my view is the wear and tear on the football players.   Even now with some breather games along the way, injuries pile up and teams that start strong have to be fortunate not to lose key players along the way......and it's useful, maybe necessary for all teams to have some games when they can give back-ups some time on the field.    

One other point....just because a school is in a power 5 conference does not make them competitive so anyone getting Purdue or Vandy or Kansas or some of the other usual bottom feeders would have an advantage anyway. 

I'm good with the system pretty much like it is. .....not looking for some national semi-professional league though it looks like that might be down the road. 

[ReidMcLain 75]

15 minutes ago, AU64 said:

That could be tough to schedule but worse from my view is the wear and tear on the football players.   Even now with some breather games along the way, injuries pile up and teams that start strong have to be fortunate not to lose key players along the way......and it's useful, maybe necessary for all teams to have some games when they can give back-ups some time on the field.    

One other point....just because a school is in a power 5 conference does not make them competitive so anyone getting Purdue or Vandy or Kansas or some of the other usual bottom feeders would have an advantage anyway. 

I'm good with the system pretty much like it is. .....not looking for some national semi-professional league though it looks like that might be down the road. 

I would rather have more BYE weeks to help cobat injuries as opposed to watching Auburn play East Wesleyean Polytechnic orphanage college, but college football is a business and that would be the loss of a lot of revenue. 

And RE: the pac 12. They may not be outstanding this year but they have a lof of name brands in the college football like Stanford, Oregon, USC, and recently Washington. If they had a 1 loss team (conference champion) even with a less than average out of conference resume I would say they absolutely deserve a shot at the playoffs

[Strychnine 1,802]

2 minutes ago, ReidMcLain said:

And RE: the pac 12. They may not be outstanding this year but they have a lof of name brands in the college football like Stanford, Oregon, USC, and recently Washington. If they had a 1 loss team (conference champion) even with a less than average out of conference resume I would say they absolutely deserve a shot at the playoffs

 

As the season continues to descend into the realm of whacky and unpredictable, it is not completely unrealistic that a two loss USC or Washington PAC 12 Champion gets a shot at the playoffs.

[AU64 10,122]

4 minutes ago, ReidMcLain said:

I would rather have more BYE weeks to help cobat injuries as opposed to watching Auburn play East Wesleyean Polytechnic orphanage college, but college football is a business and that would be the loss of a lot of revenue. 

And RE: the pac 12. They may not be outstanding this year but they have a lof of name brands in the college football like Stanford, Oregon, USC, and recently Washington. If they had a 1 loss team (conference champion) even with a less than average out of conference resume I would say they absolutely deserve a shot at the playoffs

True....and EWPO also needs the money......that's a separate discussion but if the Power 5 schools quit playing the EWPOs of the world we will never see another Troy University or UAB program come out of the ground.

[WFE12 9,191]

Skip to the 1:00 mark. Interesting opinion on expanding the playoff.