I think we'll split the difference here buddy. At season's end, I'll come around on your position on Arizona State, and you'll come around on my position on Army. I told you I'd bet on them to defeat Tulane several weeks ago. I should've found a way to swindle you into actually making a bet of some kind.
The six one possession games hurt Arizona State a lot in terms of my view of them, but beating the best two teams in the Big 12 that they played (K State and Iowa State) by 10+ means that they are playoff worthy. I doubted that a lot along the way, but I won't do it anymore. They're not going to (using your rankings) defeat ND in round two, but a good season for them nonetheless. You were right. I was wrong about Arizona State.
We fundamentally disagree on South Carolina because of my well known aversion to multi possession losses. For the same reason, we radically disagree on Clemson. Both are far too high. I can even say the same thing about Texas. I won't say it about Indiana because their multi possession loss was mostly the fault of special teams, which is not really indicative of performance level.
I'm not sure why Texas gets to be above Ohio State. I'm not sure why South Carolina or Clemson get to be above SMU, but that's just me. I don't like to rank teams highly that I've seen definitively get beaten. Not lose a football game. That happens to everybody, but lose definitively, by 10+. That really hurts my perception of a team. SMU's two losses by six total points would put them in over a SC team that got humiliated by Ole Miss, but that's just me. Additionally, let's not overrate end of season performance, or Baylor fans will begin claiming they were robbed of a playoff position, and nobody wants that...
Who did Duke play, and how did I not even know they were a 9-3 team? Upon further review, Duke got the Notre Dame end of the ACC, and even against that thin schedule, they played seven (!) one possession games. I don't know about that one chief, but funnily enough, if their one possession game luck could've turned their one point home loss to SMU to a one point home win over SMU, that all of a sudden creates a three way tie for second place in the ACC. I don't know who would've won that tie break, but it would've been hilarious to see Miami be so overrated for the entire season, only to fall out of the championship game right at the end to be replaced with Duke of all teams. Good season for Duke nonetheless, and it would've been a great season if they could've found that two point conversion against SMU. Just don't expect this one possession game luck to repeat. Either play fewer one score games next year, or regression to the mean is coming.
You definitely had me on Army there! I was all in on Tulane, but you were right, buddy. Good thing you didn't get that bet in lol!
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the one-possession games here. While I'd love to stack the rankings with teams that have beat most opponents by two plus scores, but it doesn't happen often in college football. A lot of these teams play other teams with similar talent levels that leads to one-possession games. I'm in the camp that a win is a win, but that's just me.
Arizona State's got some bad losses, but they've made their way here. Texas was a tough one for me to place, but Ohio State's embarrassing loss to Michigan kept the Longhorns ahead of the Buckeyes. I think Texas may be an early out, though.
Duke's been weird this season. Are they a Top 25 team? No, but Manny Diaz has done a great job with a depleted roster in the wake of Elko leaving. They did well in a Power Four conference, so I rewarded them for that.
There's going to be a ton of regression for teams like South Carolina, Clemson, SMU, Arizona State and Duke that played close one-score games. We see that every year. But they keep winning them this season, and I don't fault them for that. After all, a win is a win.
I don't think I'm in the camp of punishing one possession wins. You're right that a win is a win, although they are less good than multi-possession ones. What I think I would advocate for is sharply increasing the punishment for multi-possession losses.
For instance, you say Ohio State's loss to Michigan was embarrassing, but to me, no three point loss can be as embarrassing as losing to Georgia by 15 points. Texas got their pants pulled down in a way we haven't seen anybody do to Ohio State yet. That's why I would have them higher. It isn't a crime to lose a football game to a team with a similar talent level, but it is very damning to lose in such a brutal fashion.
I think it would be an interesting playoff format to exclude all teams with multi possession losses, and include all the ones without them. This would mean a playoff without Georgia or Texas, but with Ole Miss and Alabama. The best thing about this is that it's subjective. The corrupt committee would have no power to choose the playoff teams, only put them in order. The way it should be.
I went through this exercise just for fun. If we used this system this season, we would have an 11 team playoff with (in seeding order) Oregon, Boise State, Penn State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, SMU, Alabama, Miami, Ole Miss, BYU, and Louisville. The stans will cry that the ACC gets three teams, none of whom being their conference champion. The SEC gets two teams, none of them being their conference champion. They will cry that Liberty came scarily close to making the playoffs in this format.
To those I would say, you don't see Liberty here do you, and if you don't want conference championship games to be included in an exercise like this, tell the committee to stop treating them like regular season games. Quite frankly, I like my 11 team playoff much more than the 12 team one we have in real life. It leans extremely heavily into the 'most deserving' end instead of the 'best team' end, but in my ideal version of college football, a definitive loss (any definitive loss) is disqualifying. Too bad Georgia. Don't take a week off against Ole Miss next season.
I'm just trying to come up with a way to make the games important, because this season Georgia's humiliation at the hands of Mississippi ended up being entirely meaningless. Texas's humiliation at the hands of Georgia ended up being entirely meaningless, which some see as a good thing, but I don't. It used to be that people would tear down the goalposts when something like this would happen. In our new age college football it's entirely meaningless. To me, that means there's a serious problem with the format, and I don't know how to fix it.
I think that's a really interesting idea, Robbie! I think it would be a fun playoff, but not all multi-possession losses are built the same.
Sure, Texas got molly whopped by Georgia the first time. But does that mean that they're not one of the best or most deserving teams out there? Alabama's 24-3 loss to a 6-6 Oklahoma without a quarterback was one of the nation's worst losses. I think, if we went to a system like this, there has to be varying degrees of separation between these losses. (Yes, I realize I'm going into quality loss territory and I hate it too)
Basically, no matter how we make these rules, someone is going to be shafted. This year it was Alabama/South Carolina and BYU. Next year, it'll be someone else. When the playoff expands more - and it will - more teams will be crying unfair. That's how college football is.
Right. I put Alabama in there didn't I? Ignore that. It's a ten team playoff without Alabama. I entirely forgot about Oklahoma.
You're right that not all two score losses are created equal, but what I refuse to acknowledge is that any two score loss is on the level with any one score loss, regardless of opponent talent level, because one bounce can change the outcome in a one score loss. For instance, the most recent Super Bowl was wholly and entirely decided by a fumble recovery. A naked 50/50 play with nothing to do with the quality of the 49ers or the Chiefs. Plenty of CFB games are exactly the same. The same is not true in multi score games. No one play can swing anything. It's a much more all-encompassing defeat.
This is why in my mind, a two score loss to Oregon should be punished more harshly than a one score loss to Louisville. It wouldn't be by the committee now, because they like to give free passes for losing to good teams, but if I headed the committee, this would be my set of priorities. There is no such thing as a quality loss. There are losses by seven points or less, and then there are losses by eight points or more. That is the distinction between quality loss or not.
Also, I'm not sure if I like your fatalistic outlook about this sport. I'm not saying it's incorrect, but I just don't want to think about it. If this sport insists on prostituting itself for money much more than it already has, I can't see myself interacting with it much longer. That's a real shame, because I like it. I don't like it now as much as I like how it was in 1979, or 1999, or 2009, but I still like it, but if the sport insists on expanding an already too big playoff, what would be the point or watching the games? They're already verging on meaningless.
I will readily admit to being a casual fan of college football (which is why I had to regretfully decline your DM advance the other day), and I've discussed and proven elsewhere that casuals HATE big playoffs in every sport except basketball, where shot sample sizes (even in a single game) are so big that playoffs generally mess things up less in that sport than all others. Evidence (albeit circumstantial evidence) indicates that playoffs that are too big are perhaps the number one thing that drives casual fans away, and I'm on the verge of that with this sport right now.
CFB needs to tread carefully on this issue. More carefully than you'd think. They've spat in the face of casual fans enough already. I don't know if they need to go any further.
I think we'll split the difference here buddy. At season's end, I'll come around on your position on Arizona State, and you'll come around on my position on Army. I told you I'd bet on them to defeat Tulane several weeks ago. I should've found a way to swindle you into actually making a bet of some kind.
The six one possession games hurt Arizona State a lot in terms of my view of them, but beating the best two teams in the Big 12 that they played (K State and Iowa State) by 10+ means that they are playoff worthy. I doubted that a lot along the way, but I won't do it anymore. They're not going to (using your rankings) defeat ND in round two, but a good season for them nonetheless. You were right. I was wrong about Arizona State.
We fundamentally disagree on South Carolina because of my well known aversion to multi possession losses. For the same reason, we radically disagree on Clemson. Both are far too high. I can even say the same thing about Texas. I won't say it about Indiana because their multi possession loss was mostly the fault of special teams, which is not really indicative of performance level.
I'm not sure why Texas gets to be above Ohio State. I'm not sure why South Carolina or Clemson get to be above SMU, but that's just me. I don't like to rank teams highly that I've seen definitively get beaten. Not lose a football game. That happens to everybody, but lose definitively, by 10+. That really hurts my perception of a team. SMU's two losses by six total points would put them in over a SC team that got humiliated by Ole Miss, but that's just me. Additionally, let's not overrate end of season performance, or Baylor fans will begin claiming they were robbed of a playoff position, and nobody wants that...
Who did Duke play, and how did I not even know they were a 9-3 team? Upon further review, Duke got the Notre Dame end of the ACC, and even against that thin schedule, they played seven (!) one possession games. I don't know about that one chief, but funnily enough, if their one possession game luck could've turned their one point home loss to SMU to a one point home win over SMU, that all of a sudden creates a three way tie for second place in the ACC. I don't know who would've won that tie break, but it would've been hilarious to see Miami be so overrated for the entire season, only to fall out of the championship game right at the end to be replaced with Duke of all teams. Good season for Duke nonetheless, and it would've been a great season if they could've found that two point conversion against SMU. Just don't expect this one possession game luck to repeat. Either play fewer one score games next year, or regression to the mean is coming.
You definitely had me on Army there! I was all in on Tulane, but you were right, buddy. Good thing you didn't get that bet in lol!
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the one-possession games here. While I'd love to stack the rankings with teams that have beat most opponents by two plus scores, but it doesn't happen often in college football. A lot of these teams play other teams with similar talent levels that leads to one-possession games. I'm in the camp that a win is a win, but that's just me.
Arizona State's got some bad losses, but they've made their way here. Texas was a tough one for me to place, but Ohio State's embarrassing loss to Michigan kept the Longhorns ahead of the Buckeyes. I think Texas may be an early out, though.
Duke's been weird this season. Are they a Top 25 team? No, but Manny Diaz has done a great job with a depleted roster in the wake of Elko leaving. They did well in a Power Four conference, so I rewarded them for that.
There's going to be a ton of regression for teams like South Carolina, Clemson, SMU, Arizona State and Duke that played close one-score games. We see that every year. But they keep winning them this season, and I don't fault them for that. After all, a win is a win.
I don't think I'm in the camp of punishing one possession wins. You're right that a win is a win, although they are less good than multi-possession ones. What I think I would advocate for is sharply increasing the punishment for multi-possession losses.
For instance, you say Ohio State's loss to Michigan was embarrassing, but to me, no three point loss can be as embarrassing as losing to Georgia by 15 points. Texas got their pants pulled down in a way we haven't seen anybody do to Ohio State yet. That's why I would have them higher. It isn't a crime to lose a football game to a team with a similar talent level, but it is very damning to lose in such a brutal fashion.
I think it would be an interesting playoff format to exclude all teams with multi possession losses, and include all the ones without them. This would mean a playoff without Georgia or Texas, but with Ole Miss and Alabama. The best thing about this is that it's subjective. The corrupt committee would have no power to choose the playoff teams, only put them in order. The way it should be.
I went through this exercise just for fun. If we used this system this season, we would have an 11 team playoff with (in seeding order) Oregon, Boise State, Penn State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, SMU, Alabama, Miami, Ole Miss, BYU, and Louisville. The stans will cry that the ACC gets three teams, none of whom being their conference champion. The SEC gets two teams, none of them being their conference champion. They will cry that Liberty came scarily close to making the playoffs in this format.
To those I would say, you don't see Liberty here do you, and if you don't want conference championship games to be included in an exercise like this, tell the committee to stop treating them like regular season games. Quite frankly, I like my 11 team playoff much more than the 12 team one we have in real life. It leans extremely heavily into the 'most deserving' end instead of the 'best team' end, but in my ideal version of college football, a definitive loss (any definitive loss) is disqualifying. Too bad Georgia. Don't take a week off against Ole Miss next season.
I'm just trying to come up with a way to make the games important, because this season Georgia's humiliation at the hands of Mississippi ended up being entirely meaningless. Texas's humiliation at the hands of Georgia ended up being entirely meaningless, which some see as a good thing, but I don't. It used to be that people would tear down the goalposts when something like this would happen. In our new age college football it's entirely meaningless. To me, that means there's a serious problem with the format, and I don't know how to fix it.
I think that's a really interesting idea, Robbie! I think it would be a fun playoff, but not all multi-possession losses are built the same.
Sure, Texas got molly whopped by Georgia the first time. But does that mean that they're not one of the best or most deserving teams out there? Alabama's 24-3 loss to a 6-6 Oklahoma without a quarterback was one of the nation's worst losses. I think, if we went to a system like this, there has to be varying degrees of separation between these losses. (Yes, I realize I'm going into quality loss territory and I hate it too)
Basically, no matter how we make these rules, someone is going to be shafted. This year it was Alabama/South Carolina and BYU. Next year, it'll be someone else. When the playoff expands more - and it will - more teams will be crying unfair. That's how college football is.
Right. I put Alabama in there didn't I? Ignore that. It's a ten team playoff without Alabama. I entirely forgot about Oklahoma.
You're right that not all two score losses are created equal, but what I refuse to acknowledge is that any two score loss is on the level with any one score loss, regardless of opponent talent level, because one bounce can change the outcome in a one score loss. For instance, the most recent Super Bowl was wholly and entirely decided by a fumble recovery. A naked 50/50 play with nothing to do with the quality of the 49ers or the Chiefs. Plenty of CFB games are exactly the same. The same is not true in multi score games. No one play can swing anything. It's a much more all-encompassing defeat.
This is why in my mind, a two score loss to Oregon should be punished more harshly than a one score loss to Louisville. It wouldn't be by the committee now, because they like to give free passes for losing to good teams, but if I headed the committee, this would be my set of priorities. There is no such thing as a quality loss. There are losses by seven points or less, and then there are losses by eight points or more. That is the distinction between quality loss or not.
Also, I'm not sure if I like your fatalistic outlook about this sport. I'm not saying it's incorrect, but I just don't want to think about it. If this sport insists on prostituting itself for money much more than it already has, I can't see myself interacting with it much longer. That's a real shame, because I like it. I don't like it now as much as I like how it was in 1979, or 1999, or 2009, but I still like it, but if the sport insists on expanding an already too big playoff, what would be the point or watching the games? They're already verging on meaningless.
I will readily admit to being a casual fan of college football (which is why I had to regretfully decline your DM advance the other day), and I've discussed and proven elsewhere that casuals HATE big playoffs in every sport except basketball, where shot sample sizes (even in a single game) are so big that playoffs generally mess things up less in that sport than all others. Evidence (albeit circumstantial evidence) indicates that playoffs that are too big are perhaps the number one thing that drives casual fans away, and I'm on the verge of that with this sport right now.
CFB needs to tread carefully on this issue. More carefully than you'd think. They've spat in the face of casual fans enough already. I don't know if they need to go any further.