re: Is it possible for a 3-loss team Playoffs?

Depends on how long the committee keeps valuing wins over Centenary vs close losses to top teams

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

They already announced this last week. They are considering strength of conference in its selection process.

So yes it’s possible to get in at 9-3 in the SEC.

quote:

---

It’s inevitable at some point. A 9-3 team with all good losses and enough good wins will eventually make a strong enough case.

---

That’s gonna be our issue if we finish 9-3. If we have good wins, that means we’ll have to have some “bad losses” to finish 9-3. Beating Bama and Texas back to back weeks would be incredible resume builders (even if both were at home). But that means we lose 2 out of 4 to Kentucky, Auburn, or Tennessee on the road or State at home. Now, none of those losses individually is necessarily “bad.” But 2 of them, combined with the Ole Miss loss, is going to look “bad.” Even if those teams are good, all their records won’t be.

Mathematically impossible. We already cannibalized ourselves BEFORE adding the dumb fricking 9th game. Everybody in that scenario we lose to could be really good football teams—better than 15 of the B1G’s 18 teams—and still finish 8-4 or 7-5. Sankey fricked us. We need every team we play to win every game they play against teams we don’t play. Ole Miss already fricked us against Florida.

I’ve been following college football religiously for 40 years. And every iteration of naming a champion or choosing playoff teams (AP/Coaches Poll, BCS—which heavily factored in polls—4 team playoff, 12 team playoff) has always used number of losses as the 1st factor to eliminate teams. Losses have mattered much more than wins.

I don’t think injuries should be a factor at all. You did what you did. Florida State could have lost their entire starting 22 a couple of years ago, and STILL should have made the 4-team playoff at 13-0. They got royally fricked. HOWEVER, since they did set that precedent of accounting for injuries to hurt a team, they should be willing to do the reverse and consider it to help a team.

That’s why Lane keeps bringing up our injuries and the 9-game schedule every chance he gets lately. He’s not trying to temper fan expectations, he’s talking to the CFBP committee. He wants them to take all our injuries into account, but logically, if they’re trying to get the “best” teams in the playoffs at the time of the selection, it really only matters how good we are at the end of the season. So if we are to lose 2 more games, it would probably be better to lose them in October. And on the road. So that means losing to Kentucky and Auburn, and then finishing the season on a 4-game heater with wins over Bama, Texas, and at Tennessee and Arkansas and WITH the addition of Trey’Dez Green. The only problem with that, though, is it’s highly unlikely a team that loses to both Kentucky and Auburn could win those last 4. Even with Trey. Anything can happen, I guess, and we’ll have to wait to see how it plays out, but I think we have to go 10-2 this year to make it. A 9-3 team might eventually make the 12-team playoff, but I just don’t see a realistic path for it being 2026 LSU.

It ALL depends on what records other contending teams have in other conferences.

Pull for teams like Oregon, Penn State, Iowa, Nebraska, BYU, Utah, Texas Tech, Houston to lose at least 2 games and preferably three.

LSU, IMO, has too many crucial injuries to end up in the CFP this season. I think we'll have trouble even ending up 9-3 (which was my preseason pick for our team.)

It depends on what other teams do.

quote:

---

Also, it turns out Ole Miss is bad, A&M is worse, and Clemson is a high school team. It wouldn’t surprise me if we lost 3 or 4 more games at all.

---

What an absolutely terrible take.

Mostly it depends on other playoff contenders records. If you have something like a 2007 top 5 situation, a 3 loss team can get in.