Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread 2017 College football playoff debate containment thread

11-29-2017 , 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcticKnight
The Miami/Clemson and Auburn/Georgia situation seems set as win and in.

I think there wont be much drama on Sunday because OU is going to win and I think Wisconsin will win as well..

Bama will be left with no case to argue.
Wisconsin might win, but they're currently priced at 30% on Pinnacle, TCU roughly similar.

So the OU / Wisconsin combo is only 21% likely to happen
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
11-29-2017 , 01:50 PM
I have been hammering a bunch of different laughably inefficient lines for the last month, so I don't necessarily think these are reflective of reality, but Bookmaker is pricing meaningfully real possibilities for either Oklahoma or Clemson to make it in with a loss.

TCU is currently +230 (juice free line obv even lower) and BM is offering "Oklahoma to miss the playoffs" at +350

Miami is currently +306 (juice free line obv even lower) and BM is offering "Clemson to miss the playoffs" at +450


And those spreads are so wide, that the ACTUAL probabilities they're implying are even higher than +350 and +450
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
11-29-2017 , 01:54 PM
(In other words, OU is -265 to win the game, but -500 to make it, or Clemson is -360 to win the game, but -650 to make it... but obviously you can't profit from the absurdity in that direciton)
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
11-29-2017 , 08:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC2LV
No need to be a wiseass (that's my department, lol). It's not just that they lost their TE; it's that Miami has no competent backup (Richt has said that Irvin is immature - he's already been suspended twice - plus he runs poor pass patterns and basically can't block.) IOW, he's worthless. Add the loss of the TE to the fact that they already lost their star running back, plus their #1 receiver is hampered by a pulled hamstring, and you get an offense that's crippled. They probably couldn't beat Clemson even if completely healthy, but in this condition they're likely to be blown out unless the defense and special teams go crazy.
Ahmmon Richards, the wide receiver I referenced above, tore his knee up in practice this morning, will undergo surgery later this week, and is now obviously out for the Clemson game as well as whatever bowl Miami ends up this year. (That would be the Orange Bowl, if/when they lose to Clemson.)

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/co...187091878.html

This means that Miami's three most talented offensive players are out for the rest of the year. I would think that the betting line might go up even more in Clemson's favor now.
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
11-30-2017 , 05:54 PM
Can we just please have this.....

1 v 4 Clemson - Wisky
2 v 3 Auburn - Okla

and throw in a Jan 1 game
tOSU v Bama as a teaser game just for ****sandgiggles?
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
11-30-2017 , 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flabucki09
Can we just please have this.....

1 v 4 Clemson - Wisky
2 v 3 Auburn - Okla

and throw in a Jan 1 game
tOSU v Bama as a teaser game just for ****sandgiggles?
If your CFP wish comes true, Bama would play Miami in the Orange Bowl.
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
11-30-2017 , 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC2LV
If your CFP wish comes true, Bama would play Miami in the Orange Bowl.
Damn

I can't seem to find the formula for the bowl selections. I know each bowl has options if their tie-ins dont materialize. Just can't seem to find a definitive site.
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
11-30-2017 , 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flabucki09
Damn

I can't seem to find the formula for the bowl selections. I know each bowl has options if their tie-ins dont materialize. Just can't seem to find a definitive site.
Quote:
Selection Committee Responsibilities
  • Rank the top 25 teams and assign the top four to semifinal sites.
  • Assign teams to New Year’s bowls.
  • Create competitive matchups.
  • Attempt to avoid rematches of regular-season games and repeat appearances in specific bowls.
  • Consider geography.

Participants in the New Year’s Bowls

Both participants in the Orange, Rose and Sugar Bowls are contracted outside the playoff arrange*ment (Big Ten and Pac-12 to Rose Bowl; SEC and Big 12 to Sugar Bowl; ACC to Orange Bowl against the highest ranked available team from the SEC, Big Ten and Notre Dame). If a conference champion qualifies for the playoff, then the bowl will choose a replacement from that conference. When those bowls host the semifinals and their contracted conference champions do not qualify, then the dis*placed champion(s) will play in one of the other New Year’s bowls.

When not hosting semifinals, the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach Bowls will welcome displaced conference champions and the top-ranked champion from a non-contract conference. The highest-ranked available teams will fill any other berths. The selection committee will make the pairings.
http://www.collegefootballplayoff.co...609884945.aspx
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
11-30-2017 , 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules22
if clemp wins i figure itll look like this on tuesday

1. wisconsin
2. oklahoma
3.clemp
4. auburn
5. GA
6. bama
7. miami
8. ND if they beat tree
9. ohio state
10. penn st
11. TCU
12. usc
13. wsu/wu
Who is this clemp of witch you speak?
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
12-01-2017 , 06:34 AM
Ok here's an idea. We all know what the problem is: the committee would love to sneak Alabama in there, but there's just no way to justify it.

But what if, for this year only, they simply expand the pool to five teams, and sneak Bama in there at #5? Then they obviously give clemp a bye as #1, and have 2 vs. 5 and 3 vs. 4, then go from there.

Now some of you might have noticed that there's a little problem in the next round, where there are three teams, and it doesn't seem completely fair to give clemp another bye. But that's just a detail, they can work something out for sure.

What do you guys think? This could work!
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
12-01-2017 , 07:44 AM
The committee does not search for ways to put Alabama or Ohio St in.
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
12-01-2017 , 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBears
This is the worst thing about 8 when you have conference championships.

Penn State and Alabama missed out on their conference title games, so they get to sit at home and rest assured that they are in the playoffs, while slightly better team that make the conference championship game risk losing and getting bumped.

Clemson, Miami, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Georgia, UGA all have resumes good enough to make a field of 8 without the CCG and would prefer to stay home and get the six seed or whatever than play the CCG and try to get the 2 seed but risk losing and falling out of the field.

Of course, teams like USC and Stanford who are both not in the field would love the chance to play in, but I think the downside is larger than the upside.

If you're gonna go to 8, I think you have to do the rest of the regular season and CCG very differently than the current system
This is easily solved, just make the top 4 ranked champions auto-bids into the playoffs. Then the conference champ games become your 8-team playoff. If a 7-5 team luckboxes the conf, then they'll be left out as they are ranked lowest.
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
12-01-2017 , 09:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxtower
This is easily solved, just make the top 4 ranked champions auto-bids into the playoffs. Then the conference champ games become your 8-team playoff. If a 7-5 team luckboxes the conf, then they'll be left out as they are ranked lowest.
This is basically what we have now, except they let Ohio State in last year
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
12-02-2017 , 05:03 PM
Bump.

So OU is in. Shocker!

3 spots left.
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
12-02-2017 , 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush
The committee does not search for ways to put Alabama or Ohio St in.
A room full of active athletic directors and a few NCAA members dont want the teams with the highest ratings and ticket sale potential in the play
offs. Its college football, its all about money. Esp this. They may exactly "look" for ways to put these kind of teams in but they damn sure will if they get the slightest chance. First we heard conf championship realllllly matter when they left TCU out which was a joke. Then meh they dont really matter just getting the four best teams. Just like non confrence schedules will only ever matter for teams who arnt the big dogs. If bama/ohio st/clemson/auburn had wiskys non conf schedule no one in that room would give two ****s
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
12-02-2017 , 05:25 PM
every year there are points in favor of the team A that gets in and points in favor of the team B that gets left out. this doesn't mean that all of the things for team B "don't matter" it means on the balance they matter slightly less
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
12-02-2017 , 05:32 PM
Guys theres a reason 7 of the 13 members are either current or former athletic directors/presidents of a unv/current or former NCAA member. You think they are the best group to identify the four best/most deserving teams in the country? They about ratings/ticketsales/$$$$ more than they ever will give a **** of actually getting it right. Which is the entire reasons its the only sport ever to have 13 guys decide which teams should play in the playoffs.
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
12-02-2017 , 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by timhardawyhatesu
Guys theres a reason 7 of the 13 members are either current or former athletic directors/presidents of a unv/current or former NCAA member. You think they are the best group to identify the four best/most deserving teams in the country? They about ratings/ticketsales/$$$$ more than they ever will give a **** of actually getting it right. Which is the entire reasons its the only sport ever to have 13 guys decide which teams should play in the playoffs.


College basketball has a selection committee bro
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
12-02-2017 , 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush
College basketball has a selection committee bro
Almost the same thing
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
12-02-2017 , 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by timhardawyhatesu
Guys theres a reason 7 of the 13 members are either current or former athletic directors/presidents of a unv/current or former NCAA member. You think they are the best group to identify the four best/most deserving teams in the country? They about ratings/ticketsales/$$$$ more than they ever will give a **** of actually getting it right. Which is the entire reasons its the only sport ever to have 13 guys decide which teams should play in the playoffs.


They may not be the best group to decide top 4 but no way are they discussing rigging in favor of better ratings
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
12-02-2017 , 07:24 PM
out of curiousity, which scenario out of putting in alabama or ohio st is the "see its obvious they just care about ratings!" move?

what parts of the current rankings and their implication for the next ones (acc/sec winner in, ou in, wisky or bama/osu in) do you think prove they arent basing it off of football?
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
12-02-2017 , 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush
They may not be the best group to decide top 4 but no way are they discussing rigging in favor of better ratings
I'm not saying it's "rigging", but seriously lol if you think money does not factor in their decision making process. The first year if it was Texas instead of tcu in the exact same situation they are never ever ever getting jumped by anyone. But tcu had no shot.
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
12-02-2017 , 07:49 PM
The OU win combined with an Auburn loss and Bama is done before nightfall.
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
12-02-2017 , 07:51 PM
This game does not matter for bama. The ou and big10 champ game are the only ones that do. They could still get in with a Ohio state win. I think they would honestly but it's going to be close
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote
12-02-2017 , 07:54 PM
Yeah I don’t think Alabama needs Auburn to win
2017 College football playoff debate containment thread Quote

      
m