College Football 2017 Week 8 running thread

The great bail out with this system is that it's all a matter of opinion. They have taken any numerical or computerized element out of the discussion and it's just "who do you think are the four best teams?". So it's easy to think that if Ohio State or Clemson wins their respective conference with two losses at least one of them will get in because reputation and ratings will hold some weight.

 

I'm sure most all of us know this, but it bears repeating, because I've seen it referenced more than once on this thread. The NCAA has nothing to do with the College Football Playoff. The CFP is its own little world.

I think there might be some on the selection committee who will be influenced by ratings and reputations, but I do know one member of the committee (Jeff Bower, former Southern Miss coach) and Jeff will play it straight, same way he coached. He'll look at all of the evidence in accordance with the guidelines and I think he'll do his best to get the committee to the four best teams after it's all said and done.

 

As far as I can tell all the selection committee plays it straight. As long as there are five power conferences and only four bids, their decisions will always be seen as biased or corrupt by some group of fans no matter what they decide.

 

No big fan of the Huskies, but let's compare OOC schedules with Alabama:

Both teams played Fresno State at home. A push.

Alabama played Colorado State at home; Washington played @ Rutgers. That's probably a push.

Alabama will play FCS Mercer. Washington played FCS Montana. Both at home, obviously. Montana is better than Mercer.

Alabama played FSU, neutral site. Washington plays nine conference games, so take any one of their Pac-12 South opponents as their fourth OOC game: @ Colorado, @ ASU, UCLA or Utah. Edge to Alabama, but not by that much.

All and all, their OOC schedules are virtually identical. But you think ESPN's gonna line up three cupcakes on the field at Alabama?

 

LOL, yeah that Alabama-FSU game is just incidental and totally balances out Washington's extra Pac-12 game.

Dude, you're hilarious.

 

I think Bama makes the playoff forever as long as they have fewer than three losses. It's weird question when you get into the "four best" or "four most deserving." I kind of lean to the latter, since the former is more subjective and the point of the playoff is to settle it on the field.
So give me four conference champs unless one or more has clearing demonstrated they are less deserving (aka lost to) a comparable at-large team.

I do though think the point is to find the best team, so if one "deserving" team has no realistic shot - say a 13-0 team from the American that survived some scares from lower-tier P5 teams, I have no problem leaving them out.

 

USC beating Notre Dame is a key to the Pac-12 getting a team in. If the Trojans win Saturday and run the table, they should be in. And if anyone else in the Pac-12 wins out (including beating USC in the championship game), the Trojans' win over the Irish can only help their argument.

I still think it's Alabama, then everyone else.

 

At this point in the season (it could change!) Alabama's win over Fla. St. doesn't look like such a much.

 

Sure, if you think FSU is the same team without its returning starter at quarterback.

 

Florida State now isn’t the same team Alabama beat without their QB

 

Edge to Alabama, but not by that much.

Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.

 

I read it. I comprehended it. It wasn't smart. It's completely baffling that you would even put the two in the same category.

I did get a chuckle though out of you taking some strength from the conclusion that Montana is better than Mercer, so Washington had it rougher.

Washington is playing a chickenshit game of trying to avoid losses rather than score big wins. It's pretty obvious.