NM, responding to the wrong post.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Bowl Games (other than ours) and associated silliness 2024 Plus the Playoffs
- Thread starter MtnBuff
- Start date
GABuff
Well-Known Member
I`m not sure, but I think that means you switch from your left hand to your right hand
7 out of 8 is a higher win percentage plus my experience is that for this kind of stuff the relevant folks usually look at losses first in such a situation. Just remember how many times teams have been penalised for losses in their championship games.
GABuff
Well-Known Member
To me the last few days proved that they should not expand from 12 teams to 16 teams, but should contract to 8 or even 6. As much as I love the NCAA basketball tournament, the fact that a team that finished in 4th place in the Big 12 could be "national champions" (as an example) makes a mockery of the regular season, let alone conference tournaments.
And having what is essentially a bye late in the season further reduces the chances of them losing a conference game at the end of the season.
You can talk all you want about SOS but before SOS the committee is going to look at actual number of losses. Playing the extra conference game plus those conference games being consecutive without the break increases the chances of an upset when teams are beat up and tired.
This.
It's not just that they play an extra body bag game.
It's when they plan an extra body bag game.
No, I guess I don't. Do you think Alabama would have made the playoffs with a loss to A&M instead of their W over Mercer?
Would Tennessee have missed the playoffs with a L to Texas instead of a W over UTEP?
"Maybe" to both, but I don't think anyone outside the selection committee could answer those questions with any confidence.
I understand it's an implied -- but unstated -- criteria. We don't know how overall record is weighed against the other criteria.
Only three SEC teams finished with fewer than 6 wins. Three others finished with exactly 6 wins. Imagine one more conference game that forces 8/16 teams having an extra loss, almost assuredly reducing the number of bowl eligible teams. They then had four 9-3 teams so most likely that number gets reduced.
If you can’t see how playing Mercer in November instead of say, Kentucky or Florida or Ole Miss or South Carolina or Arkansas helps with the W/L record, which directly feeds into the resume for CFP, I don’t know what else to say
If you can’t see how playing Mercer in November instead of say, Kentucky or Florida or Ole Miss or South Carolina or Arkansas helps with the W/L record, which directly feeds into the resume for CFP, I don’t know what else to say
This again ignores than any conference could schedule those body bag non conf games later in the season and chooses not to.
The argument "we make it harder on ourselves and it's not fair" just doesn't resonate with me.
ACC and Big 12 would be penalized for those games.
Yes the other conferences could water down their schedules, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Other conferences could inflate the records of all their teams thus artificially inflating the strength of their opponents schedules.
Yak explained it well in terms of the SEC records. Even ignoring the probabilty of the top teams losing additional games the strength of schedule is inflated because their conference opponents have extra wins. An extra "real" game means that those top teams have not only some extra losses but wins again some teams with reduced win percentages.
In effect you are making playoff decision based on apples to oranges comparisons.
Just use CU as an example. Swap our game against KU with Mercer.
That's a good point that hasn't gotten enough attention.
In the context of the thread title and discussion, I did assume (reasonably?) that's what you were discussing.
But, ok. Help me out. If not the CFP/MNC, to my reckoning, the only two meaningful things college football teams compete for are conference championships and revenue. Maybe there's something else you have in mind, because I don't see how 8 vs 9 game schedules help with either. I'm listening though.
Yea. And do you understand they'd have better SOS therefore affecting their resumes in the other direction?
This is what some of us have referred to as the self fulfilling prophecy that the SEC has created over the last 20something years. Play fewer conference opponents and instead have every conference member schedule body bag games late in the season. Of course, on average over many, many years the conference as a whole will play in more bowl games and have better average records than other conferences.
Maybe. Or Alabama and Ole Miss would be 8-4 teams with zero argument for the playoff while Tennessee would be 9-3 and on the fringe.
Of course overall W/L matters the most, hokie.
Source? Army would be very interested to learn this.
I'm not saying it's not a factor, but I think it's going too far to state that as certain fact.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
Yes. And their SOS, SIR, GC and PR might increase. But that incentive has dampened by this Committee. That’s a shame.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
Only if is Power adjusted. Discussed above.
Stop arguing in bad faith. We aren’t talking about G5 programs.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
That’s why you look at more than one variable. Multivariate, not that other word.
Are you suggesting an 8-4 Alabama team should get in because their analytics might increase because they played and (hypothetically) lost to Florida?
hawg1
Well-Known Member
It depends.
I guess my biggest issue with this entire discussion is some are noticing "hey, what they're doing is permissible by the rules and advantageous for those other teams". And then instead of the next thought being "maybe we should do that too!", it's "we should change the rules to stop them from doing something we could do if we wanted".
Last edited:
You totally deflect and then accuse me of arguing in bad faith?!?!?
Good night, Yak.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
No. That’s not what my argument suggests.
And those wins and bowl appearances lead to more money and exposure, more money and exposure lead to better recruiting, more talent and better coaches, which lead to even more and better bowl and playoff appearances which lead to more money and exposure ... rinse and repeat
Of course there are other factors for the largely unprecedented dominance the SEC has enjoyed the last 20 odd years but that dominance isn't down to it meaning more in the South or SEC programs simply being better than others, but rather the fact that the system has greatly benefited the SEC teams and helped their top programs to stay at or near the top year in, year out.
Last edited:
hawg1
Well-Known Member
I never understood why B1G didn’t go to 8.