Official 2019 NCAA Football thread

Like I've stated... if you want to be playoff eligible you must at least schedule 2 power 5 matchups (or group of 5 in the softer conferences)... and the "powder puff" must at least be a FBS team. I'm sure allybamie and elllessyou can find a CUSA or Sun Belt team to stomp on. (3 OOC and 9 conf games)

This goes for UF too...

 

If your conference is so bad ass, then your conference champ will absolutely come out the national champ in the end, right, so really only need that one representing the conference in the mix yeah?

Conference championships are the first round of playoffs, make the season count.

 

dang I took a huge hit in the pick em....rough week.

 

that it was. Updating now

 

The idea that non-round robin conference champs deserve some weighted chance to get into the playoff is so stupid. Pitt could have won the ACC last year. Are people really going to argue they were a near top-4 vying for a spot?

This is not the NCAAMBB Tournament where winning a conference tournament is some teams only hopes of making the tournament which let’s just a few more teams into it.

Excited for LSU-ALA. Not excited for post game chaos of a one loss ALA or LSU vying for a spot, but I honestly think they’re both better than any one-loss PC-12 champ.

 

default picker is at 225-74

 

Laughing that Vols or Bust is nearly the bust, saved by @JimBeam.

 

Everyone keeps utilizing their own bias to decide how teams get in. (Which is natural, and ok.)

The problem is, nothing is going to be perfect. Nothing is going to "work". The committee can only try to make it close, and make sense.

Keep in mind, their job is to put the "4 best teams in college football into the playoffs".
-Not the 4 best conference champions
-not the 4 with the hardest schedules
-not the 4 with lesser losses.


The reason nothing will be perfect is because of outliers. There are just too damn many outliers and you can NOT justify by conference championships or any other way decide who "deserves" to be in because we can all find ways to justify not letting 99% of teams in based on history. *See examples above.


If all college football fans got together (somehow) and came to a consensus (somehow) on a (somehow) "Perfect System", you all know damn well (just as I do) that some funky thing would happen the very first year of this "Perfect System" to FUCK.IT.ALL.UP.


And honestly, that's what we all love about college football. The UT's getting upset, the Alabama's losing during the season....the battles between #1 and #2 midseason. All the implications, all the possibilities.


I've stated this before, and will restate it here.....Alabama's seasons have been pretty boring as a fan for the last couple years.


A lot of the systems and playoff spot changes talked about here make me wonder if we are arguing in circles. For example: With the new playoff system, a lot of factors go in to ranking the playoff teams. The committees put different weights on those factors. SOS wasnt necessarily one of them. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isnt. I think the most frustrating thing for all CFB fans is inconsistency....but, CFB isnt consistent, therefore choosing the "4 Best Teams" is inconsistent.

Initially, I was on the "You have to win your conference" train. The 4 team playoff makes that seem valid. After watching it play out the last few years, i dontt think I can be on that train anymore. It is quite possible a team that doesnt win their conference could be better than 75% of the teams in the playoff. It works the other way, too. Just because you win your conference doesnt mean you are the top dog.

There can be a lot of funky things that happen that cause you not to be in the conference game. Things can simply work out a strange way.









Lets answer this question concisely: If LSU (the #1 team) loses this weekend to #2 Alabama, wins the rest of their games afterwards but, because Alabama won the head-to-head (and hypothetically stays undefeated and wins the SEC) and LSU doesnt play for the SEC Championship, does that automatically make a conference champion from the B12, P12, ACC better than LSU?

What if the front runner from those other conferences loses their conference championship game?


Is a one loss LSU (Non conference champion) better than a one loss conference loser?

 

short answer, yes. LSU is better than most if not all of those teams.

the issue with this year, is that the committee F'd up before when they put Alabama in AFTER A LOSS. Not only did they not play in their conference title game, they LOST their last game. The only team to BENEFIT from losing. Since they did that, the importance of conference titles, SOS, etc. that they had so claimed as part of their decision making process went straight out the window. If LSU loses a close one, but wins out...and doesn't make the playoff, then the committee is a hypocritical POS that just needs to go.

 

It’s SEC Shorts time

https://youtu.be/itldDa1FLd0

Here’s looking at all of the gators out there.

 

I know everyone in here has the same pick as me on this one

 

How is it a 12:30 game. I don’t get it.

 

it's at 2:30pm central. that may be pacific time.

 

I think that's just a typo.

In other news... I'm the first one on the list with triple digit losses. Yay me!

 

Um, didn't OHIO state benefit from losing the first year?


Also, Alabama benefited from Auburn losing, in the SECCG. Not from losing to Auburn.


See, there are so many ways to spin and twist and contort.


Again, each committee is different from year to year. Circumstances are different from year to year. With that, you could easily assume that the standards for picking the 4 best teams will change, year to year. Humans are involved. There is no such thing as consistency.

 

@stronghammer is LSU trying to even things up?

 

I see Odd Year Auburn is starting to pull some wins out of their asses right around mid season.


Watch out CFB Playoff Committee....They might razzle dazzle ya....

 

Into a NY6 bowl at best.