Printable View
As of yesterday, TCU's SOS is 42nd in the country. Baylor's is 56th in the country. Ohio State's is 52nd in the country.
It is interesting that the top 6 teams relative to strength of schedule are SEC West teams: 1 - Auburn, 2 - Arkansas, 3 - LSU, 4 - Alabama, 5 - Texas A&M, 6 - Mississippi. Mississippi State comes in at 21.
All 7 SEC West teams are in Jeff Sagarin's top 20.
Let's say Auburn played us in Starkville and lost by 3. We both end up 11-1 with our loss coming to...... Arkansas, in Fayettenam.Quote:
Originally Posted by civildawg
Let's say also we kept our OOC and Auburn kept theirs (win over Kansas St)
I would hate it but Auburn would have the better resume.
"The whole we play power 5 teams in the bowl games" is a null and void argument now from Loafers. NC State, Kansas State, Arizona. Bring em on because we need it because we don't want to admit it but most other SEC programs go out and schedule a TOUGH OOC game. We gave unneeded fuel to the fire of the argument.
Bama - West Virginia
Arkansas- Texas Tech (meh but not UAB, USA, USM, UTM)
Auburn - Kansas State
Florida - Florida State
Georgia - Clemson AND Georgia Tech
Kentucky - Louisville
Ole Miss - Boise (will be in a Big 6 bowl)
South Carolina - Clemson
Tennessee - Oklahoma
So we are left with an awful Vanderbilt program, Missouri (who lost to sorry Indiana lololol and Texas A&M on our side!
I wonder what everyone would look like with the old BCS formula? And we have to quit thinking that a conference champ deserves a shot stuff. A lot of conference champs were left out for a long time with the BCS. It should be the best four teams. Size of school, alumni how they are playing now shouldn't factor. It is supposed to be the four best over the entire year. That said, Baylor deserves the fourth spot, and OSU definitely does not based on body of work, strength of record and such.
http://www.businessinsider.com/colle...anking-2014-12Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucky Dog
Going into the weekend it would have been Bama, FSU, Oregon, TCU, Ohio St, Baylor, Arizona
Any team that lost this year's Virginia Tech at home has no business in the playoff. That being said politics will get Ohio State in. That's why they should have kept the BCS formula and just expanded it to 4 or 8 or even better, 16 .
If on the field results don't count, why even play the game?Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitty
They beat West Virginia AT West Virginia.....Baylor lost to West Virginia.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
That trumps Baylor over tcu on the field?Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
You could make the argument...yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
Think about it, the game was AT Baylor....and Baylor had to comeback to win by 3. Home field typically is worth at least 3 points. So you could make the argument that those 2 teams are dead even.
Besides, TCU has 1 loss and it's to #6. Baylor has 1 loss and it's to an unranked team. If the game had been played at a neutral site, then yes, Baylor gets it due to head to head. But if you take names off of resumes and look at them side by side, TCU has a better one. You can't just ignore the loss to unranked WVU and give full credit to them winning head to head in a game where they trailed the majority of the game at home, IMO.
Not saying it isn't a close debate, but wouldn't you hope that people look at the fact we lost to Bama AT Bama if they were looking at our resume to determine if we were in?
ETA: I think the committee turns full coward tonight and puts Baylor and TCU at #5 and #6. That way they can avoid the "head to head" debate, but they can still put Ohio State in the playoff. At that point, you basically told TCU that their 55-3 win yesterday was good enough for them to drop 3 spots in the polls....further than they have moved in the last, what, 6-7 weeks combined? Today will be a cluster****, and I cannot wait! Love chaos
You could argue that tcu beating Kansas (3-9) by 4 is just as bad as losing to a bowl team. Afterall tcu had to come from behind to win that gameQuote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
Yep, sure could.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
That's why I think the committee avoids it altogether, puts Baylor at 5 and TCU at 6, and Ohio State in the playoff.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
If Texas or Oklahoma were 11-1 with a win over TCU, is there any doubt they'd be in everyone's top 4 right now?
If Wake Forest were 13-0 with Florida State's resume of barely beating bad teams, don't you think a lot of people would have them out right now?
If Purdue were 12-1 with a loss to Va Tech, would anyone be clamoring to bump them in?
The Committee has been better than most at ignoring prestige so far, but we'll see how good they really are.
Beat West Virginia at Morgantown***Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
When teams are even, compare what they did vs a common opponent not head to head. Sounds legit*Quote:
Originally Posted by MabenMaroon
They both played At West Virginia. TCU had to play Baylor at Baylor, while Baylor had a home game vs TCU. Can't ignore that.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
Baylors terrible loss is the punisher. Bad losses have to trump "good wins", they are not equal… Why?.. Because you are SUPPOSED to win if you want to be considered.Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
Tcu trailed Kansas most of the game and lost by 4.Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
Baylor beat Kansas by 46.
I know this comparison is ridiculous, but why stop at one common opponent? To me tcu beating WV by 1 and Baylor losing by 14 is a ridiculous argument when the 2 played.
If the committee throws out a close loss on the road, then all games between contenders should be neutral sites
Not all data points weight the same... But when two teams are 11-1 and one team beat the other, you have to use head to head as the overwhelming factor. I know WVU isn't ranked, but that is a good enough football team that you can't use them as ammunition against Baylor.
The committee, in my opinion, will lose all credibility if Baylor is behind TCU and Ohio State. They deserve to be ahead of both base on their best win, their worst loss, and head to head results.
Not a power 5 team, but when we scheduled USM they had been to somewhere around 15 consecutive bowls, routinely finishing with 9-11 wins and around the top 25. Is it our fault the wheels fell off between scheduling and playing them? Plus OM pushed the Boise game back 2 years because they needed a bowl in buckys first year and Boise was a top 25 team. If they play Boise in buckys first year, they lose and people view him completely differently. They wouldn't have been fighting for a bowl in EB that year and likely lay down. Ending at 4-8 instead of 6-6.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitty
Look at Sabans first 4 years at Bama when he was attempting to build the program. Their OOC's were eeaker than ours this year. No one said a damn thing when they see doing it. We have had to simply make bowl games the last 4 years, any way possible, for us to even be where we are now as a program. We played OKSt last year but weren't ready. This year we were ready but can't schedule a power 5 over one offseason.
My last and most important point is this, playing in the only division in college football with ALL Teams Bowl eligible should be all any SECWest team should have to finish 11-1/10-2 in order to get a playoff team in. Where are all of the SEC lobbyist pointing out the fact that every SECW team is bowl eligible? Based on that a 10-2 SECW team has more of an argument than any other 10-2 team and just about every 11-1 non SEC team. Guarantee if we were SEC champ and Bama was 10-2, Slime and the SEC office would be lobbying hard for 2 SEC teams to get in.