Play-off Rant

[Patriotgame]

This has NOTHING to do with whether OU gets into the play-off or not. We lost a game we shouldn't have and must blame ourselves. But I will use OU for comparison sake.

However, the ranking make ZERO sense. There is no idea for anyone to determine what logic is being used to determine the "quality" when it comes to win or losses especially among the one loss teams.

For instance, Georgia loses at home to a team that has ZERO hope of having a winning record yet they are 5 spots ahead of an OU team that loses, on the road, to a ranked team? Yes, Georgia has beaten ranked teams but so has OU. Explain the logic used to justify the gap?

Utah is 9-1 yet lost to one of the only 3 teams they have played with a winning record! What logic determines there loss is better than ours or their wins are better than ours?

My point is, this system needs a component that is NOT subjective and is based on an objective everyone is on a level playing field: a computer component.

Just my thoughts.

 

[runningback43]

I agree with everything you wrote. This is why I'm a fan of having a true playoff system. Get rid of the bowls and have a playoff system that every other level of NCAA football has.

 

[Senior Sooner]

This has NOTHING to do with whether OU gets into the play-off or not. We lost a game we shouldn't have and must blame ourselves. But I will use OU for comparison sake.

However, the ranking make ZERO sense. There is no idea for anyone to determine what logic is being used to determine the "quality" when it comes to win or losses especially among the one loss teams.

For instance, Georgia loses at home to a team that has ZERO hope of having a winning record yet they are 5 spots ahead of an OU team that loses, on the road, to a ranked team? Yes, Georgia has beaten ranked teams but so has OU. Explain the logic used to justify the gap?

Utah is 9-1 yet lost to one of the only 3 teams they have played with a winning record! What logic determines there loss is better than ours or their wins are better than ours?

My point is, this system needs a component that is NOT subjective and is based on an objective everyone is on a level playing field: a computer component.

Just my thoughts.

My Sentiments, EXACTLY, (Including that We shot ourselves in the foot), except yours are more Well-Thought-Out, Logical, Socially Acceptable, and Printable!

 

[Plainosooner]

Georgia has three quality wins. Notre Dame, Auburn and Florida. OU has Baylor, who most voters think is the weakest p5 one loss team. I'm not justifying the vote separation. Just explaining their view. If Georgia loses the SEC CCG, l'll be very surprised if they're ahead of a one loss Sooner team after everybody's CCG.

Utah is more about OU looking pretty ordinary in Manhattan, and for a half against ISU and Baylor. If we win out and Baylor's only losses are to us, l think we pass Utah no matter what. Oregon is another issue.

 

[veritas59]

This has NOTHING to do with whether OU gets into the play-off or not. We lost a game we shouldn't have and must blame ourselves. But I will use OU for comparison sake.

However, the ranking make ZERO sense. There is no idea for anyone to determine what logic is being used to determine the "quality" when it comes to win or losses especially among the one loss teams.

For instance, Georgia loses at home to a team that has ZERO hope of having a winning record yet they are 5 spots ahead of an OU team that loses, on the road, to a ranked team? Yes, Georgia has beaten ranked teams but so has OU. Explain the logic used to justify the gap?

Utah is 9-1 yet lost to one of the only 3 teams they have played with a winning record! What logic determines there loss is better than ours or their wins are better than ours?

My point is, this system needs a component that is NOT subjective and is based on an objective everyone is on a level playing field: a computer component.

Just my thoughts.

It's early.

Chill

 

[iasooner1]

Get rid of some (but not all) of the Bowl games. Re-do the stupid conference alignment schemes and make an equitable limit to reward the top 2 (or 3?) members of each conference, for the short term. If paying players comes to full fruition disregard and go to a pro-playoff setup

 

[OUSOONER67]

Its easy to see why. SEC teams are ranked up faster and fall far less in the polls than teams from other Conferences.
Add the constant Pimping of the SEC by the talking heads on every network and you can see why. Its not by accident either, they do it to sway the Committee in their favor of the teams THEY think should get in. 8 or more teams are the answer but how long before we see that happen? Until then this system is way too flawed to be fair.

 

[iasooner1]

Blame Disney/CBS/ABC/FOX/Espin etc

 

[Soonerborn59]

The problem I have is that this committee has shown from day one that they make the rules to evaluate teams depending on the team. Its never consistent in any way. Yes UGA has some quality wins but its like the loss to SC and a 3rd string QB never happened while the OU loss to KSU is weighted heavily and the same with Penn St.

Alabama is being graded on losing to LSU but yet have ZERO quality wins. Every time chairman Mullens says “ we evaluate and discuss all teams”. Is really just bullshit talk. Its even funnier when he said “ Alabamas body of work is impressive”. WTF how?

Until the human element is eliminated we are never going to have a real playoff and teams like Alabama and the SEC in general is always going to get special provisions given to them. This committee is suppose to have integrity but yet they continue to move the goalpost depending on the team they are discussing.

There is a reason why this committee refuses to be transparent and allow people to sit in on the process to report on what really is and isn’t discussed in that room. BTW the chairman is one smug SOB if you ask me.

 

[Schoonerman]

Leave everything as it is. I love the speculating, teeth-gnashing, all the bowl games, the conversation, scenarios and the controversy with the CFP.

 

[Soonerborn59]

Leave everything as it is. I love the speculating, teeth-gnashing, all the bowl games, the conversation, scenarios and the controversy with the CFP.

The CFP system has destroyed the value of conference championships and in many ways the Bowls. Players are now sitting out meaningless bowl games to protect there futures. They didn’t do that back in the old days. Way to many Bowl games to begin with. I understand your stance but for me its time to move forward and eliminate the human factors.

 

[CTOkie]

The excessive number of bowl games won't ever decrease and may even increase as long as the bowl system, as a whole, keeps making money.
My opinion is to eliminate at least 6-8 of them and somehow format it so that every team participating, even if it loses the bowl game, still has a winning record. The six win quota to be bowl eligible is a joke.
But one positive thing every bowl game provides (aside from the money and treating players to sightseeing venues) is 15 extra practices for participating teams, which goes a long way in prepping for the following year and giving coaches more looks at players that are being redshirted or who didn't play much during the regular season.
So many current fans buy into the premise that bowl games are just exhibition games. Using OU as an example, do the great bowl wins by OU throughout its history that did not have a national championship at stake mean nothing ? By my count....at 5:22 in the morning...38 of OU's 51 bowl appearances had no national championships on the line. Personally, I don't regard any of OU's bowl games as exhibition games. Some of them were among the best games I have ever watched, win or lose.

 

[Soonerborn59]

The excessive number of bowl games won't ever decrease and may even increase as long as the bowl system, as a whole, keeps making money.
My opinion is to eliminate at least 6-8 of them and somehow format it so that every team participating, even if it loses the bowl game, still has a winning record. The six win quota to be bowl eligible is a joke.
But one positive thing every bowl game provides (aside from the money and treating players to sightseeing venues) is 15 extra practices for participating teams, which goes a long way in prepping for the following year and giving coaches more looks at players that are being redshirted or who didn't play much during the regular season.
So many current fans buy into the premise that bowl games are just exhibition games. Using OU as an example, do the great bowl wins by OU throughout its history that did not have a national championship at stake mean nothing ? By my count....at 5:22 in the morning...38 of OU's 51 bowl appearances had no national championships on the line. Personally, I don't regard any of OU's bowl games as exhibition games. Some of them were among the best games I have ever watched, win or lose.

I agree CT with most of what you have stated. Bowl games did mean a lot more back in the days than they do now. Of course I want OU to win them all but my feeling is that this isn’t the same thought process of players today. I absolutely hate the “ We didnt want to be there excuse” many fans give for losing and who knows maybe the players of today may actually think that way. However unless your in the playoffs or a NY6 Bowl most of the lesser Bowl match-ups are less appealing. Get rid of some of these bowls and maybe it will bring the interest back.

 

[CTOkie]

I agree CT with most of what you have stated. Bowl games did mean a lot more back in the days than they do now. Of course I want OU to win them all but my feeling is that this isn’t the same thought process of players today. I absolutely hate the “ We didnt want to be there excuse” many fans give for losing and who knows maybe the players of today may actually think that way. However unless your in the playoffs or a NY6 Bowl most of the lesser Bowl match-ups are less appealing. Get rid of some of these bowls and maybe it will bring the interest back.

Good points, 59.
We live in a sports world where every game has to have championship ramifications, above just having bragging rights or playing an opponent with a storied history. But the bowl projections I see on CBSSports do not interest me for the most part right now.
I would bet that if OU winds up playing Penn State or Notre Dame in a bowl game, there will be some fan interest even without a national championship on the line.

 

[Soonerborn59]

Good points, 59.
We live in a sports world where every game has to have championship ramifications, above just having bragging rights or playing an opponent with a storied history. But the bowl projections I see on CBSSports do not interest me for the most part right now.
I would bet that if OU winds up playing Penn State or Notre Dame in a bowl game, there will be some fan interest even without a national championship on the line.

Very true but unless we are in the playoffs or the B12 gets a second NY6 bowl then the Big 12 champ is headed to the Sugar every year when its not a CFP rotational year. In some ways I wish the committee had the ability to create matchups to whatever bowl they wished for the NY6. Then maybe we could actually see those OU - PSU , OU - Michigan type games in them. Don’t get me wrong the Sugar is nice but playing a SEC team in it every year can get kind of stale. Spread out the possible great matchups to give fans a change of pace.