11 out of the 16 playoff spots...

quote:

---

11 out of the 16 playoff spots...
...have gone to 4 teams.

Bama 4
Clemson 3
OSU 2
OU 2

---

Meh

The only one I have a gripe with is Bama '17. Got in on reputation alone. That was the biggest drawback of the cfp and it's starting to rear its ugly head. Committee just assumes they are better despite on the field performance and puts them in. Now they get to recruit on making the CFP AGAIN and the cycle just continues.

I would have to check but pretty sure all of those teams either beat or would have beat Troy

Just pointing out since you are apparently looking for a recurring theme

quote:

---

no, I think the committee decided that a team that loses twice (by 15 at home to OU and by 31 (!!!) to unranked Iowa) isn't deserving.

I'm not saying Bama is better than OSU. I'm only saying that the committee didn't make some horrible error. They just clearly decided those two losses (especially by 31 to Iowa) couldn't be tolerated.

---

So let's hear your pitch about why Bama got in over Wisconsin. We're right back into the "Trust me they are better" argument which is total horseshite given the schedule Bama played. CFP spots are being rewarded on name and reputation.

quote:

---

So let's hear your pitch about why Bama got in over Wisconsin. We're right back into the "Trust me they are better" argument which is total horseshite given the schedule Bama played. CFP spots are being rewarded on name and reputation.

---

of course name and reputation have something to do with it. A 1-loss Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, etc. are going to get more love than most other 1-loss teams. Why? Because they've got a history of elite play and routinely have the best players (recruits and NFL draftees).

In a sport with 130 teams but only 4 playoff spots, you're going to have to use some mechanism for picking the teams. And since there's only a 12 game schedule, with little cross-conference play, you can't base it solely on record, conference championships, etc. Other factors have to be considered. I mean, why isn't UCF in the playoff this year?

It's imperfect, but it's far better than relying on human polls or the BCS formula (which was 2/3 human polls and a constantly-tweaked formula).

You could say the exact same thing about Wisconsin and the schedule they played there bud.

quote:

---

of course name and reputation have something to do with it. A 1-loss Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, etc. are going to get more love than most other 1-loss teams. Why? Because they've got a history of elite play and routinely have the best players (recruits and NFL draftees).

---

what does that have to do with analyzing teams for a CFP? It's absolutely ridiculous that people are conceding this bias to the committee. Bama shouldn't get in the top 4 because of 2009-2016. They should get in based on 2017.

The stats the OP pointed out are only going to get more disproportionate if folks do not demand rules and transparency.

They weren't respected by any of the polls, all season long. Their schedule was so putrid, that they had to win the conference to make it in. Their chance was there, despite the schedule, but they blew it. Alabama beat FSU, when everyone considered them "good". People on this board were saying that LSU was better than most teams ranked ahead of them, and BAMA dominated LSU. They kneeled the ball, rather than winning by 21 and were never threatened in the game. BAMA beat the team that destroyed LSU, which gave them wins against 4 top 25 teams. Wisconsin never beat a team that was ranked in the top 25 at any point during the year. If your schedule isn't there, then you have to go undefeated. That is what I learned from this whole thing. The committee was willing to put in an undefeated Wisconsin team, but they lost their only scheduled game.