Alabama No Ohio State No
- Thread starter PlutoDroid
- Start date
25 - 45 ranking spots is more than “not far off”.
Alabama will have two wins against teams (LSU & MSU) better than UCF’s best two wins (Memphis x2).
No..... no I am not. I place a great deal of value in having no losses. Nice sale analogy though. Hope you didn't work to hard on it.
I could say Memphis and USF but they arent great wins. My point originally is comparing Alabama and UCF on their resume. Neither team has a quality win.
Alabama plays in a tougher conference but has a loss to a three loss team with no quality wins.
Ohio State has two losses to a Big Twelve champ and a blowout loss to a middle of the pack BIG team. They have two great wins over top ten teams.They are BIG champions and play in the best division this year.
UCF has no quality wins, they have zero losses and are AAC champions.
If you assign a scoring system based on results here is gow I score it.
Alabama by virtue of playing a P5 conference slate gets 50 points as does Ohio State. Ohio State gets an additional two points for an extra conference game.
UCF gets 40 points for playing an AAC schedule.
Ohio State gets deducted five points for losing to a P5 champion at home. They get deducted 20 points for losing by more than three scores to a five loss team. They get 20 points for winning a P5 conference title . They gain an additional ten points for 2 top 10 wins giving them 57 points.
Alabama gets deducted 8 points for losing by two scores on the road to a three loss SEC West champion. They get no additional points for top ten wins giving them 42 points.
UCF gets 10 points for winning the AAC conference and no additional points for 0 top ten wins.
Their point total would equal 50 points if I didnt factor in the fact they are the only undefeated team in FBS. For my argument sake and because its my own slanted formula they get 8 points for this giving them 58 points and the nod.
We'll see how good UCF is when they face Auburn. My guess is they get rolled, but I've been wrong many times before.
BCS would have been full of controversy this year. Who you not taking from Clemson, OU, UGA? But this year it’s hard picking four. If they only had to pick three it’s easy. If they got to pick 8 also easy. 5, 6, 7 would have been harder. Each year there’s a clear separation at some point, when it happens to be at four the CFP works great. When it doesn’t, not so much
Finebaum and the rest of his Alabama hype crew are incredibly happy the SEC got its way. He said a fraudulent Wisconsin team shouldnt have got in even had they won.
He justified leaving Ohio State because they were leaking oil at the end of the game, meaning Wisconsin made a comeback.
Mr. Finebaum said if Ohio State had won 41 to 17 the commitee would have put them in. ????? They said the blowout to Iowa was too hard to overlook.
How would blasting an undefeated team change what happened four weeks ago? Dont give me the eye test because they still lost by 31. Same players.
You already stated Wisconsin was not that good, so beating an average team by 30 doesn't make that Iowa loss go away. They would have to beat Mercer by sixty six to excuse any loss right?
I hope UCF murders Auburn just for ESPN's spin story. All of a sudden UCF will become worthy .
The nice thing about this year's problem is that the top 3 teams are definitely in. When arguing about a 4th team, it's really just a matter of which team close to the top 4 gets lucky enough to be invited. This is way better than the BCS. I think the formation of super-conferences and divisions has really caused the most problems and clearly the CCGs can cause as much confusion as not having any CCGs. If there hadn't been CCGs and things were as they are now, the final four would have been Clemson, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Wisconsin. The top two would have remained the same, but what a difference the CCGs made for the final two teams.
There's a lot to consider for future tweaking of the system. I don't think expanding the playoffs is the answer. This will never happen, but imagine eliminating the B12 and moving all of those schools plus eight Group of 5 schools to each of the remaining four conferences (four more schools to the SEC, B10, ACC, and six more schools to the PAC12) in order for the SEC, ACC, B10, and PAC18 to have two 9-team divisions in which each of those teams play eight divisional games and the divisional winners face off in CCGs to determine the four playoff teams.
I know it will never happen and even if you had four conferences with two 10-team divisions with each team playing 9 divisional games there would be outcries. For one thing, non conference/non-division games would mean nothing in terms of the playoffs. A team could go 0-3 or 0-4 in the non conference, win 8 games in the division, win the conference championship, and make the playoffs. No one would ever schedule tough non conference games; everyone would load up on cupcakes in September and that month would feel like preseason instead of important games.
I think the current format is about as good as it will get.
