Alabama’s OOC is weak this season. That said, I’m not sure any of the one loss teams have an impressive Non-Conf schedule this season.
SoS matters. So does how a team’s loss occurred. Oregon led the entire game until the last possession. They were 10 seconds away from victory. Alabama never had the ball in a position to take the lead.
For Oregon’s loss, one could argue that it was at least competitive and both teams were close to neutral. Alabama’s loss left no room for argument as to who the better team was.
1 Like
What are you talking about? Alabama was one Onside kick away from having a shot to win the game against #1. Alabama’s first half was the worst half since the Utah game. Alabama and LSU were equal on total offensive production. The deciding factor was two unforced turnovers on a punt and a run fumble. Oregon blew a 21-6 lead To a 4 loss team. The fact is Oregon couldn’t stop a 21 pt run against the 64th offense in America.
1 Like
Just a suggestion, for now. You might have more fun here:
3 Likes
It’s comical how you come to a Utah board to defend the tide.
2 Likes
Oh. You prefer group think and zero discussion from outsiders. You would fit in well with Alabama people.
Weren’t you banned from the last UFN?
You mean by saying Utah wins out they deserve to be in over Alabama? The only thing I am defending is that Oregon needs Alabama to lose and for them to win out. Oregon is not one of the top 4 teams from what I have seen nor are they a top 6 team. I probably would slot then behind Oklahoma and Alabama at this point. I have Utah at four.
Alabama lost. I get it. I don’t think we make the playoff because Utah is winning out. How is that “defending the Tide?”
4 Likes
I mean, weren’t we all banned in the end?
8 Likes
I was just thinking, doesn’t it seem funny that Utah’s “bad loss” this season is to Southern Cal, in their home stadium? If you had told me at the beginning of this season that that could possibly seem like a plausible scenario, I would most certainly have looked askance at you with extreme prejudice.
2 Likes
Exactly my point. They aren’t a playoff team compared to Utah. Compared to Oklahoma & Oregon? Absolutely.
2 Likes
But that isn’t the point of the playoff. It’s not the 4 best conference champions it’s the 4 best teams. If we are wanting “fair” it needs to be 16 team playoff with 10 conference champs and six at large.
I agree in direction. Yet consider this scenario. Two conference championships of the five have two or even three losses. We have seen that in the PAC-12, I believe. Then one of the other three conferences has a team that did not win the conference championship while their only loss is to that undefeated conference champion that happens to be the #1 or 2 ranked team in the country.
The dilemma is clear. Should it be the best four teams no matter what or the best four conference champions, regardless of record? We need to recognize that if two conference champions have only one loss, the three others are undefeated, picking the last one contains all of the perils in judgement we now see in play.
1 Like
I agree. And to be clear it’s not “my” way. It’s the current system. I’m just playing devils advocate here. I like your approach while it will not lessen conflict over the ultimate goal. Consider that the sole loss by that otherwise not conference champion was in 3OT and the home team won. We could go on with scenarios. The point is, expand to eight.
In Utah’s case, win every game…be undefeated. Utah would not need this pretzel logic beauty contest had they beaten USC. Still I believe they will be 12-1 and make it into the CFP. But I’m a homer.
1 Like
This is really the fundamental issue. I prefer seeing a champion selected. Someone noted earlier the most powerful fact: Under the BCS or CFP systems, the last time there was a first-time national champion was 1996 (or maybe 1998, I don’t recall). I suspect that the only reason we have the current CFP system (a modified BCS, IMHO) is that it works well for ESPN. (Doesn’t ESPN also happen to control the SEC Network?)
We didn’t even have Conference Title games till Alabama vs Florida in 1992. Most conferences hated the idea because it could damage their argument for the subjective #1 ranking. Then, because of the other conferences like Big 12, SEC and ACC has the Bowl coalition to try and get #1 & 2 decided and not have split titles. They could never get PAC 10 or Big 10 to buy in because of the Rose Bowl. Then the BCS was created and the first champ was in 1998 when Tee Martin led the Vols over FSU. The current system was birthed out of the Alabama v LSU BCS title game. Trying to make it “fair” by not leaving out 3 & 4. Honestly, moving to 8 will leave people complaining. You have to do 16 if you want it fair. We either care about fair or best teams. 8 teams is probably too many to be best teams (there tends to be only 5 or 6). But, it won’t be fair either at 8. 8 is a bad deal. 4 or 16 is the only way to do Best or Fair.
Personally, the current system is fine. Just remember, we are just 27 years removed from just regular season and bowl game era. The sport has made great progress.
Trying to paint this as the ESPN overlords is weird since it was all Roy Kramer trying to end split titles
SC being ranked with a good chance to finish ranked has been one of the biggest reliefs this season as a Utah fan.
Well if we are looking for just the 1 eliminate all teams with 1 loss. If you lose one time clearly you aren’t number one using your logic. If we eliminate a one loss team who lost to an undefeated team clearly we can eliminate a team who lost to a multi-loss team, no?
Sooooo…you agree Alabama never had the ball with a chance to take the lead?
Cool.
Now to answer your question, that’s what I was talking about.
A one loss conference champion making the playoffs is perfectly logical. Now, what’s illogical is having a team that is unequivocally not the best team in their conference try to argue that they need a chance to prove they’re the best team in the nation. That’s crazy talk. And just because it’s been said in years past doesn’t mean it wasn’t crazy then, and isn’t crazy now.
1 Like