I haven't bothered to read the entire thread you linked, but if anyone thinks Louisville will get into the CFP because of Jackson (or Michigan because of Peppers), that is just delusional. Ask Stanford and Christian McCaffrey how they enjoyed their CFP experience last year or TCU and Boykin the year before. Jackson is a nice player. But the committee is not going to take Louisville over a better team because of him. That would be a sham and everyone would see it as such. If Louisville gets in, it will be because it is seen as one of the four best teams - Jackson or no Jackson.
ACC #2 in the RPI...
- Thread starter zipp
- Start date
I haven't bothered to read the entire thread you linked, but if anyone thinks Louisville will get into the CFP because of Jackson (or Michigan because of Peppers), that is just delusional. Ask Stanford and Christian McCaffrey how they enjoyed their CFP experience last year or TCU and Boykin the year before. Jackson is a nice player. But the committee is not going to take Louisville over a better team because of him. That would be a sham and everyone would see it as such. If Louisville gets in, it will be because it is seen as one of the four best teams - Jackson or no Jackson.
What is the point of this reply? It has nothing to do with the conversation you just quoted. Thanks for your "input" though, as we were going delusional until you set us straight.
What is the point of this reply? It has nothing to do with the conversation you just quoted. Thanks for your "input" though, as we were going delusional until you set us straight.
Hmmm? You brought the conversation into play, I commented on it, and you don't understand the relevance.
Maybe we need to go back one step at a time. If my comment is confusing in its relevance, then maybe that is because your comment wasn't relevant. So what is the relevance of you guys opining on Jackson getting you into the CFP?
You can say whatever you want. The other a$$hat is here with his same old agenda in every thread. It distills down to throwing water on whatever U of L topic is under discussion.
When everyone's had enough, we say so. Can you offer a dissenting opinion?...Sure. If that's all you do and you're banging the same old drum, excuse us if we notice.
Welcome and hope you make a worthwhile contribution.
Now they just "play a factor". Shortly it will be "I never mentioned conference championships."
Good stuff...
You're starting off a little slow, so let me help you out. Yes, you get it that I linked to a thread discussing Jackson and the CFP. That is a very solid first step, your understanding of this. The point is that tiger chimed in on that thread immediately bringing up his narrative of winning the conference championship to the discussion, being argumentative, while claiming in this thread that he's not argumentative and zipp has started everything.
You will, of course, forgive me if I don't take the time to read every thread on here. Your post I responded to simply struck me as odd. A forum without discussion is rather dull. I kind of took your post as being an explanation of why I saw so few posts on this board at all today. (I think I counted four topics engaged.) On our board the first page ends with a topic engaged around 6:00 pm tonight last I looked. So, when I came here to check stuff out, I saw only four or five, then your post, and I thought "I see why".
Anyway, as I understand the two of you through this thread, the Clemson fan says Louisville does not get in as a non-champion and you say you will, or at least, might. Frankly, until a non-champion gets in, I will agree with him. I am not one inclined to bet on something happening that has never happened. I know, we only have two years to go on so far. But, still, until it happens, I am skeptical.
We need some help, but saying it's never happened is just dumb...very small sample size
Your screen name apparently suits your personality.
As I understand your argument, the scenario went something like this: (1) Someone said Louisville would get in based on the presence of Jackson; (2) the Clemson fan said 'no way' without a conference championship; (3) you took offense to that as being "argumentative".
It could be a lot of things, and maybe I am being "argumentative" here. But, if that is essentially correct, the Clemson fan is correct in my opinion. You could have Jesus playing for you and it won't make a difference. If you are not one of the best four, you are out and, so far, the best four has been defined as conference champions from P5 conferences. Also, just as a side note, the Heisman won't be announced until six days after the CFP is announced.
No, saying it has never happened is accurate - small sample size or not. As of today, no one can say under what circumstances it will. So, until it happens, there is no logical argument to say it will happen. For all we know, the only plausible scenario is if there is a full moon on the first Saturday in December and the No. 1 team in all the land is from Maine.
Again, you are new here, so we'll cut you some slack. No one is trying to impose an "agree with us or else" style here. You have an opinion, and it matches tiger's opinion, and that's perfectly fine. You decided to join into this conversation defending tiger's opinion, and that's ok also. The point you are still not up to speed on, is the fact that tiger has not been able to share his opinion, where it fits, then move on. He's chosen the tactic of making sure to point out every time someone on here posts something that does not agree with his opinion, and therefore try to argue the same point over and over and over, and now try to claim in this thread that he's not being argumentative. He's a Clemson fan on a Louisville board, and as you can imagine, on a Louisville board we enjoy talking about the possibilities of both the CFP and Jackson winning the Heisman. Where we take offense is when a Clemson fan starts getting involved in every conversation with the same argument telling us we are wrong, and now claiming he's not doing that and that it's another poster's fault, not his.
There are two years of evidence or two data points. The conference champion factor is correlated with the four best teams. So, I understand if people accept a small data set and a coincidental correlation as cause and effect.
Quite simply, the CFP process is prescribed to be "more art than science" and, in essence, an effort to select the four best teams. Any detail beyond that is clearly prescribed as tie-breakers and only if needed as such.
Could a committee person apply a conference champion criterion in his own, personal determination of the four best teams? I can't see why not, esp. since that step in the process is pretty much undefined. But it's not mandated or conclusively proven/demonstrated based on the last two years of CFP selections.
We'll see...
Quite simply, the CFP process is prescribed to be "more art than science" and, in essence, an effort to select the four best teams. Any detail beyond that is clearly prescribed as tie-breakers and only if needed as such.
Could a committee person apply a conference champion criterion in his own, personal determination of the four best teams? I can't see why not, esp. since that step in the process is pretty much undefined. But it's not mandated or conclusively proven/demonstrated based on the last two years of CFP selections.
We'll see...
If two P5 conferences have 2 loss champions, a non-champion could make the playoffs. Since that scenario has not yet happened, "will" is just wishful thinking.
That will absolutely be the case if there is at least one 1-loss non-champion from the ACC, SEC, or Big Ten...
Whatever. Again, as I said to "zip", you will forgive me I hope if I don't bother to go read every thread on here. Not my fight.
The basic flaw in your argument, as I see it, is you are trying to fit a binary equation into a fluid dynamic. On paper, the committee is supposed to pick the best four teams. But, in reality, the system is skewed against it. The BCS was the closest we cam to binary. It was determined by two polls (coaches' and Harris) and a composite of computers. That resulted in the Alabama/LSU rematch which pissed off a lot of people since Alabama did not even win its division. (I am an Alabama fan, by the way, so I liked it.) We got the current system in response (my opinion).
A lot of people are of the opinion that if you do not win your conference, you are inferior to someone who does. I don't necessarily agree, but that seems to be a common sentiment.
If you want my personal opinion, I came into this season thinking this would be the year that either a 2-loss team, a non-champion, or a non-Power 5 team gets in. I still think that. But I cannot fathom an argument for any of them to come true until it actually happens. It can happen. It will happen. It may happen this year. But there is no current argument for it to happen.
Again, only two data points against it. But zero data points for it.
True. And right now the only data we have is win your conference, or settle for something less than a playoff spot. Again, I don't think that is going to stay true. But, for now, it is all we have. Two points make a line; three make a trend. We'll see.
I think if Texas A&M loses to Alabama then Texas A&M would be behind Louisville. The SEC is pretty weak this year with the exception of Alabama and Texas A&M so their conference affiliation won't help them this year. Then there is also the fact that Louisville beat Texas A&M in the Bowl game last year so I am rooting for Alabama.
Ohio State and Michigan are both possibilities so I am hoping one of them slips up and loses a game they shouldn't lose. Don't consider Washington a lock even if they go undefeated because the PAC 12 is awful. The BIG12 found out your not always included when you think you are. You are right if things don't work out this year there is always next year and I have no problem with your opinion about our situation.
Ohio State and Michigan are both possibilities so I am hoping one of them slips up and loses a game they shouldn't lose. Don't consider Washington a lock even if they go undefeated because the PAC 12 is awful. The BIG12 found out your not always included when you think you are. You are right if things don't work out this year there is always next year and I have no problem with your opinion about our situation.
I'd like to put my little two cents in, if I may.
During the first playoff, the committee indicated one of the reasons TCU/Baylor weren't considered for the playoffs was not having that "13th data point" i.e., a conference championship game. This is one of the main reasons the Big 12 chose to implement a CCG. No one knows for sure if being a conference champion is the end-all-be-all, but it obviously plays a huge role in the committee's decision.
I've always stated that I don't believe a non-confernce winner should get in over a conference winner. Obviously, exceptions can be made; an 11-1 non conference winner getting in over a 10-3 conference winner for example.
But we have to be careful about setting a precedent.
Imagine this: a 12-1 ACC champion Louisville team gets left out of the playoff because a 12-1 Ohio state conference winner and a 11-1 Michigan non-conference winner knocks them out. I think we all can agree that Louisville fans would lose their ever-loving minds.
Of course, if FSU were in the same position UL is in now, forget everything I just said, I'd want FSU to get in as a non conference winner. Hypocritical? Yup.
Having said all of that. It would be hilarious to watch the fallout throughout college football if the ACC were to get two teams into the college football playoff. Especially if it were to knock out a 1 loss champion from another conference.
Message boards would explode and I would love every minute of it.
During the first playoff, the committee indicated one of the reasons TCU/Baylor weren't considered for the playoffs was not having that "13th data point" i.e., a conference championship game. This is one of the main reasons the Big 12 chose to implement a CCG. No one knows for sure if being a conference champion is the end-all-be-all, but it obviously plays a huge role in the committee's decision.
I've always stated that I don't believe a non-confernce winner should get in over a conference winner. Obviously, exceptions can be made; an 11-1 non conference winner getting in over a 10-3 conference winner for example.
But we have to be careful about setting a precedent.
Imagine this: a 12-1 ACC champion Louisville team gets left out of the playoff because a 12-1 Ohio state conference winner and a 11-1 Michigan non-conference winner knocks them out. I think we all can agree that Louisville fans would lose their ever-loving minds.
Of course, if FSU were in the same position UL is in now, forget everything I just said, I'd want FSU to get in as a non conference winner. Hypocritical? Yup.
Having said all of that. It would be hilarious to watch the fallout throughout college football if the ACC were to get two teams into the college football playoff. Especially if it were to knock out a 1 loss champion from another conference.
Message boards would explode and I would love every minute of it.
If Louisville won a weak conference and ended with one loss, I wouldn't have a serious problem being passed over by a stronger team with one loss, conference champ or not. And that's because SOS matters and should matter. Winning a weak conference shouldn't trump a team with a better SOS and the same record. Winning a weak conference would not indicate you were one of the four best teams.
The prerequisite to use a conference champ tie-breaker is two or more "comparable" teams. Doing well in a weak conference makes you comparable to no team by definition, except perhaps other weak teams...
The prerequisite to use a conference champ tie-breaker is two or more "comparable" teams. Doing well in a weak conference makes you comparable to no team by definition, except perhaps other weak teams...
Last year's games, including bowls, are not part of the equation.
To say the SEC is "down" this year is both an understatement and somewhat misleading (or mislead, whichever you prefer). It is especially off when we are talking about the SEC West in particular. Outside of Mississippi State, pretty much everyone in the SEC West is ranked in the top 25 this week. So if TAMU goes 11-1 with six games in that division, as the earlier poster suggested, its resume and SOS will be better than just about any other non-champion. In fact, I can think of no one who will have a better resume among the non-champions.
My guess is that on November 1 UL will be ahead of TAMU in the CFP rankings. But, going forward, TAMU has games left at Mississippi State and vs. Ole Miss and LSU which will add to its resume. UL has Houston plus BC, Wake and UK. Assuming both win out and barring chaos, I doubt either make the CFP. But, either way, I suspect TAMU finishes ahead of UL in the final rankings.
ESPN's updated FPI stats show Louisville's chances of winning out to be 52.4%. A&M's chances are 5.3%...
That has to be a mistake. I can see TAMU's odds to win out being marginal. They have some tough games ahead. But Louisville at 52%? Against air? Something is not right.
You might want to take a look at Texas A&M's schedule before you post. They only have one tough game left and that is LSU the last game of the season. Ole Miss has now lost 4 games I think we can safely say they aren't the team everybody thought they would be.
You might want to look at Ole Miss's schedule. They have lost to Florida State, Alabama, at Arkansas and they are losing at LSU. You might be the only one who doubts they are a good team. They are 3-3 and in the top 25 for a reason.
Ole Miss is only ranked because of SEC bias a 4 loss team shouldn't be ranked in the top 25 and come Monday I doubt they will be. I don't know if I would use Arkansas as a team of strength either because they lost by 53 points tonight. They probably won't be ranked this week either.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
LOUISVILLE AT GTECH GAME THREAD- 3:45PM THE CW
- Latest: TheRealVille
-
-
-
