(11-29-2021 04:30 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 04:09 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 04:04 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  As for Ole Miss, what an OOC schedule!

6-6 Louisville (neutral)
6-5 FCS Austin Peay (at home)
2-10 Tulane (at home)
7-5 Liberty (at home)

Nothing wrong with Ole Miss’a schedule actually. I think Alabama’s is a much bigger embarrassment.

Louisville should have been a good game, but the rest is trash.

You are an Illinois fan. You lost to UTSA and Charlotte kept it respectable (24-14). You have no business calling other schools trash. I feel confident in saying Louisville and Liberty would give Illinois all they could handle.

(11-29-2021 03:14 PM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  Believe I won the unpopular response.

I just want to see the 4 best teams not concerned with the conference affiliation or record.
FBS needs to expand to 24 at the minimum in the playoffs. Every conference champ then At Larges for the balance. FCS crowns the correct team every year.

Too bad the top 4 you picked arent the actual top 4. You chose the wrong OSU

Who has the #1 SOS? I’m amazed at the gauntlet schedule that Purdue plays every year. Should be ranked at 8-4.

(11-29-2021 02:49 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 12:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 12:41 PM)VolCajun Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 10:24 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 09:51 AM)VolCajun Wrote:  That said - I haven't watched any CFP title games anyway. The teams that get that far are so loaded with talent, that it's an NFL game (which I also don't watch) ....boring.

Oh sure. If Tennessee made the title game you wouldnt watch?

Sounds like bitterness at seeing Bama, LSU and Georgia succeed. Conference foes that have won the last 10-15 years. Not to mention Florida or Auburn.

No - I said I haven't watched (and I haven't watched any CFP finals, nor a BCS championship since Ohio State won back in 2003?) - not that I wouldn't watch under any circumstances.

The point was that if many are like me, then it would be a low-rated playoff when you start limiting it to just 2 conferences - especially with teams that have already played one another in the regular season. Great for the fans of a few schools - not that interesting to the rest of the nation.

If Georgia wins the SEC championship (which I will be watching, by the way - and rooting for Georgia because I want to see someone else get to the CFP championship game - just my opinion: dynasties are boring and bad for the sport), I'm not interested in seeing a re-match between those 2 schools just a few weeks later.

Michigan won their game against Ohio State - I don't want to see that one again either (OK - I didn't watch that one because I was at a Cajun game with my freshman kid at UL), but I still don't want to see the re-match.

What if the final CFP rankings were such that the semi-finals were Alabama-Georgia and Michigan-Ohio State? These games would both be re-matches of some of the last games played during the year - and they were decided in favor of Michigan and whoever wins the SEC championship. Why do the winners have to play those opponents again to decide who gets to play the champion of the other conference? You notice that the presumption is that the champ of one plays the also ran of the other - not two re-matches. Why? Unless you're a fan of the school that lost the first game (to whom it'll seem like a chance at redemption), it'll seem like it negates what happened on the field - so it turns neutral fans away.

It's like when the SWC conference had it's big tilts - the rest of the nation didn't care about what was effectively the Texas state championship - especially if it was always the winner of the Texas/Texas A&M game. A CFP of Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia and Michigan would be a Big 10 / SEC championship.

Well do you like the NCAA tournament? Because rematches aren't that rare. In the last 12 years, 3 of the national title games have been rematches of regular season games, and 7 of the 24 Final 4 (semifinal) games have been rematches of regular season games.

In contrast, under the CFP, none of the 21 playoff games have been rematches. Heck, none of the 42 NY6 bowls have been rematches.

In the entire history of college football bowls, there have been only 24 rematch bowl games, the last being the 2016 Heart of Dallas Bowl. That was a good game, btw - Army lost to North Texas 35-18 during the season, but beat them 38-31 in overtime.

So I'm not sure we should get all upset if we have a CFP playoff game that involves a rematch.

I don't think you can compare basketball & football games where rematches are concerned, the number of games per season in basketball makes each game inherently less important to your overall season. And in most if not all conferences, you already play your conference mates at least twice during the regular season in basketball so the whole "you get one shot at team x for the year and live with the consequences" doesn't apply. The stakes simply aren't as high.

I think rematches in football these days should be avoided when at all possible, for instance the Big XII title game which they had enough sense not to bother having until it cost them a playoff spot. So I completely understand why they are doing it again now, but it isn't nearly as interesting as the other CCGs. At least with OU's Bedlam loss this year we aren't getting the exact same matchup for two straight weeks, the ultimate in ill-conceived rematches.

Rematches used to be fun under very specific conditions, before we had overtime. When the first game ended in a tie then the rematch offered a chance to resolve unfinished business - after the Choak at Doak in 1994 the FSU-Florida rematch in the Sugar Bowl made sense and was of high interest.

I think you can compare them. It's the same concept. Heck sometimes two hoops teams will meet 3 or 4 times in a season, and it doesn't ring anyone's bell. I would agree football rematches would be a problem if they are common, but as I noted, they are rare, so if we get one this year it should be no big deal.

Personally, regarding hoops, I do have some sympathy for the other side. I liked college hoops better in the 1970s and 1980s when OOC clashes among top teams were relatively rare. If Indiana and North Carolina had powerhouse teams, chances are they wouldn't play during the season, so we'd wait anxiously over the course of the season for their big clash in the NCAA tournament.

Nowadays, it seems like there are so many Duke-Kentucky, North Carolina-UCLA matchups, and early in the season, that this kind of mystery is lost.

But we've grown accustomed to it, and it just has never been a problem in football.

(11-29-2021 04:30 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 04:09 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 04:04 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  As for Ole Miss, what an OOC schedule!

6-6 Louisville (at home)
6-5 FCS Austin Peay (at home)
2-10 Tulane (at home)
7-5 Liberty (at home)

Nothing wrong with Ole Miss’a schedule actually. I think Alabama’s is a much bigger embarrassment.

Alabama did open with Miami in Atlanta, just like Michigan couldn't know that Washington wouldn't help their SoS back when the game was scheduled 'Bama had no way of knowing if Miami would be "back" or not.

Southern Miss has had a terrible year but they are a regional G5 team that Alabama has history with, 44 games in that series.

And Mercer is 7-3, a winning FCS team at least and also regional. Is there really any FCS team you wouldn't criticize 'Bama for scheduling though?

Granted, New Mexico State is one of the worst FBS programs and has been for years.

It seems you want Alabama to play a weighted, more difficult schedule because of their dominance for the last decade. It really isn't rational to think they'd play by different rules than everyone else, especially when the schedules are made years in advance and teams rise and fall. If you followed the SEC you'd remember it hasn't been that long since 'Bama was down, and since the SEC went to divisions in 1992 they've only won the west one more time (14) than Florida has won the east(13).

Certainly Ohio State & Michigan deserve credit for scheduling a strong (at least potentially) opponent OOC in Oregon & Washington, just like Alabama did with Miami. The rest of the schedules aren't that different either - Michigan played regional G5 teams in Western MI and Northern Illinois while Ohio State played Akron and Tulsa (not regional, but typically stronger than NM State for sure). The only real difference is in the B1G not having the FCS game that the SEC does, which the SEC can afford to play and still have no SoS issues due to the stronger conference slate. Alabama only gets Vandy every few years, while OSU & MI both have Rutgers & MD to feast on every single year.

Ohio State and Michigan also have to play each other every year as well as Penn State and Michigan State. Alabama has Auburn, LSU, and Texas A&M. I wouldn't give the SEC a "stronger conference slate". You're not getting credit for playing Florida and Georgia every year because you don't (Auburn plays Georgia every year but Alabama plays Tennessee every year). Alabama has played Southern Miss more times since 2010 than Florida or Georgia.

(11-29-2021 05:13 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  Who has the #1 SOS? I’m amazed at the gauntlet schedule that Purdue plays every year. Should be ranked at 8-4.

If you're using Massey, it's Indiana.

(11-29-2021 05:17 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 05:13 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  Who has the #1 SOS? I’m amazed at the gauntlet schedule that Purdue plays every year. Should be ranked at 8-4.

If you're using Massey, it's Indiana.

Yeah I was just going to post this-- @ #15 Iowa, #3 Cincinnati, @Penn State, #11 Michigan State, #7 Ohio State, @ #2 Michigan, @Purdue. They even played Western KY OOC and they finished 8-4 and in the CUSA CCG.

(11-29-2021 04:30 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 04:09 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 04:04 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  As for Ole Miss, what an OOC schedule!

6-6 Louisville (neutral)
6-5 FCS Austin Peay (at home)
2-10 Tulane (at home)
7-5 Liberty (at home)

Nothing wrong with Ole Miss’a schedule actually. I think Alabama’s is a much bigger embarrassment.

Louisville should have been a good game, but the rest is trash.

Calling Liberty a trash game is ridiculous. They were 10-1 last year, and even with the transition from FCS to FBS they haven't had a losing season since 2005. And that game was likely scheduled for a special reason, to pit Ole Miss against former HC Freeze if he was still at Liberty...which he was and it was a competitive game, with Liberty only going down 14-27.

(11-29-2021 05:33 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 04:30 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 04:09 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 04:04 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  As for Ole Miss, what an OOC schedule!

6-6 Louisville (neutral)
6-5 FCS Austin Peay (at home)
2-10 Tulane (at home)
7-5 Liberty (at home)

Nothing wrong with Ole Miss’a schedule actually. I think Alabama’s is a much bigger embarrassment.

Louisville should have been a good game, but the rest is trash.

Calling Liberty a trash game is ridiculous. They were 10-1 last year, and even with the transition from FCS to FBS they haven't had a losing season since 2005. And that game was likely scheduled for a special reason, to pit Ole Miss against former HC Freeze if he was still at Liberty...which he was and it was a competitive game, with Liberty only going down 14-27.

Agreed. Liberty is a good football school, the problem lies everywhere else regarding them.

(11-29-2021 03:29 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 03:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 01:55 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 01:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 12:54 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  This just shows how far from reality the computers are. No way is the SEC stronger than the B1G top to bottom, and Alabama is barely a top 10 team.

SEC had a winning record against the ACC (7-3) and Big 12 (1-0, future mate Texas). Losing record against Pac 12 (1-2) and Big 10 (0-1)

Reality is the SEC once again had the best ooc record:
SEC 35-7 83.3%
Big 10 26-9 74.3%
Big 12 15-6 71.4%
MWC 21-17 55.3%
ACC 21-19 52.5%

Is you who is out of touch with reality. Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Nebraska are not even close to Missouri, South Carolina, Florida, Vanderbilt, LSU, Auburn. The top half of the Big 10 is competitive with the SEC this year, but not the bottom half.

Feasting on bad FCS teams (13-1) and bad G5 teams. Other than Georgia, the SEC only played 9 P5 games.

You have to look beyond the records.

Vandy? LOL. Both Auburn and Illinois went to Happy Valley. Only Illinois came away with a win. If Rutgers had done what the 6-6 SEC teams did (one P5 OOC, one FCS, two weak G5's) they'd be at 6-6. If Illinois had done 9 P5's, they'd be 6-6 as well.

Bowling Green, 10th in the MAC beat Minnesota, 2nd in the Big 10 West. Illinois lost to a CUSA team and beat a bottom feeder in CUSA. Rutgers won its 3 ooc games against an FCS, bad G5 and one ACC team. You should look up teams records before making yourself look ridiculous with your claims.

And look who the SEC won their games against. Troy (bad), ULM (bad), Ga State (bad), Southeast Missouri, Eastern Illinois, Alabama State, McNeese State- not just FCS teams, but BAD FCS teams.

I'm not the ridiculous SEC Fanboy

You're the ridiculous Big 10 fanboy! That's ok.

(11-29-2021 05:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 02:49 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 12:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 12:41 PM)VolCajun Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 10:24 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  Oh sure. If Tennessee made the title game you wouldnt watch?

Sounds like bitterness at seeing Bama, LSU and Georgia succeed. Conference foes that have won the last 10-15 years. Not to mention Florida or Auburn.

No - I said I haven't watched (and I haven't watched any CFP finals, nor a BCS championship since Ohio State won back in 2003?) - not that I wouldn't watch under any circumstances.

The point was that if many are like me, then it would be a low-rated playoff when you start limiting it to just 2 conferences - especially with teams that have already played one another in the regular season. Great for the fans of a few schools - not that interesting to the rest of the nation.

If Georgia wins the SEC championship (which I will be watching, by the way - and rooting for Georgia because I want to see someone else get to the CFP championship game - just my opinion: dynasties are boring and bad for the sport), I'm not interested in seeing a re-match between those 2 schools just a few weeks later.

Michigan won their game against Ohio State - I don't want to see that one again either (OK - I didn't watch that one because I was at a Cajun game with my freshman kid at UL), but I still don't want to see the re-match.

What if the final CFP rankings were such that the semi-finals were Alabama-Georgia and Michigan-Ohio State? These games would both be re-matches of some of the last games played during the year - and they were decided in favor of Michigan and whoever wins the SEC championship. Why do the winners have to play those opponents again to decide who gets to play the champion of the other conference? You notice that the presumption is that the champ of one plays the also ran of the other - not two re-matches. Why? Unless you're a fan of the school that lost the first game (to whom it'll seem like a chance at redemption), it'll seem like it negates what happened on the field - so it turns neutral fans away.

It's like when the SWC conference had it's big tilts - the rest of the nation didn't care about what was effectively the Texas state championship - especially if it was always the winner of the Texas/Texas A&M game. A CFP of Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia and Michigan would be a Big 10 / SEC championship.

Well do you like the NCAA tournament? Because rematches aren't that rare. In the last 12 years, 3 of the national title games have been rematches of regular season games, and 7 of the 24 Final 4 (semifinal) games have been rematches of regular season games.

In contrast, under the CFP, none of the 21 playoff games have been rematches. Heck, none of the 42 NY6 bowls have been rematches.

In the entire history of college football bowls, there have been only 24 rematch bowl games, the last being the 2016 Heart of Dallas Bowl. That was a good game, btw - Army lost to North Texas 35-18 during the season, but beat them 38-31 in overtime.

So I'm not sure we should get all upset if we have a CFP playoff game that involves a rematch.

I don't think you can compare basketball & football games where rematches are concerned, the number of games per season in basketball makes each game inherently less important to your overall season. And in most if not all conferences, you already play your conference mates at least twice during the regular season in basketball so the whole "you get one shot at team x for the year and live with the consequences" doesn't apply. The stakes simply aren't as high.

I think rematches in football these days should be avoided when at all possible, for instance the Big XII title game which they had enough sense not to bother having until it cost them a playoff spot. So I completely understand why they are doing it again now, but it isn't nearly as interesting as the other CCGs. At least with OU's Bedlam loss this year we aren't getting the exact same matchup for two straight weeks, the ultimate in ill-conceived rematches.

Rematches used to be fun under very specific conditions, before we had overtime. When the first game ended in a tie then the rematch offered a chance to resolve unfinished business - after the Choak at Doak in 1994 the FSU-Florida rematch in the Sugar Bowl made sense and was of high interest.

I think you can compare them. It's the same concept. Heck sometimes two hoops teams will meet 3 or 4 times in a season, and it doesn't ring anyone's bell. I would agree football rematches would be a problem if they are common, but as I noted, they are rare, so if we get one this year it should be no big deal.

Personally, regarding hoops, I do have some sympathy for the other side. I liked college hoops better in the 1970s and 1980s when OOC clashes among top teams were relatively rare. If Indiana and North Carolina had powerhouse teams, chances are they wouldn't play during the season, so we'd wait anxiously over the course of the season for their big clash in the NCAA tournament.

Nowadays, it seems like there are so many Duke-Kentucky, North Carolina-UCLA matchups, and early in the season, that this kind of mystery is lost.

But we've grown accustomed to it, and it just has never been a problem in football.

there are 38-40 basketball games among champs. 4 games is rare, although 3 happens a lot. There are only 15 football games for the champ.

(11-29-2021 05:17 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 05:13 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  Who has the #1 SOS? I’m amazed at the gauntlet schedule that Purdue plays every year. Should be ranked at 8-4.

If you're using Massey, it's Indiana.

Sagarin also has IU at #1. Auburn is #2. Nebraska #3. LSU #4.

Big 10 has 4 of top 10 (3 in the West). SEC West has 4 of top 10. Stanford is #5. Texas #10.

(11-29-2021 05:17 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 04:30 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 04:09 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 04:04 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  As for Ole Miss, what an OOC schedule!

6-6 Louisville (at home)
6-5 FCS Austin Peay (at home)
2-10 Tulane (at home)
7-5 Liberty (at home)

Nothing wrong with Ole Miss’a schedule actually. I think Alabama’s is a much bigger embarrassment.

Alabama did open with Miami in Atlanta, just like Michigan couldn't know that Washington wouldn't help their SoS back when the game was scheduled 'Bama had no way of knowing if Miami would be "back" or not.  

Southern Miss has had a terrible year but they are a regional G5 team that Alabama has history with, 44 games in that series.

And Mercer is 7-3, a winning FCS team at least and also regional.  Is there really any FCS team you wouldn't criticize 'Bama for scheduling though?

Granted, New Mexico State is one of the worst FBS programs and has been for years.  

It seems you want Alabama to play a weighted, more difficult schedule because of their dominance for the last decade. It really isn't rational to think they'd play by different rules than everyone else, especially when the schedules are made years in advance and teams rise and fall.  If you followed the SEC you'd remember it hasn't been that long since 'Bama was down, and since the SEC went to divisions in 1992 they've only won the west one more time (14) than Florida has won the east(13).  

Certainly Ohio State & Michigan deserve credit for scheduling a strong (at least potentially) opponent OOC in Oregon & Washington, just like Alabama did with Miami.  The rest of the schedules aren't that different either - Michigan played regional G5 teams in Western MI and Northern Illinois while Ohio State played Akron and Tulsa (not regional, but typically stronger than NM State for sure).  The only real difference is in the B1G not having the FCS game that the SEC does, which the SEC can afford to play and still have no SoS issues due to the stronger conference slate.  Alabama only gets Vandy every few years, while OSU & MI both have Rutgers & MD to feast on every single year.

Ohio State and Michigan also have to play each other every year as well as Penn State and Michigan State. Alabama has Auburn, LSU, and Texas A&M. I wouldn't give the SEC a "stronger conference slate". You're not getting credit for playing Florida and Georgia every year because you don't (Auburn plays Georgia every year but Alabama plays Tennessee every year). Alabama has played Southern Miss more times since 2010 than Florida or Georgia.

Looking at the annual, every year opponents for Alabama, OH State & Michigan ONLY Arkansas has a losing overall record for the last 5 years in the SEC West...while over in the Big Ten East you do have comparable tough opponents at the top in each other, Penn State and MSU but you also get THREE annual opponents with overall losing records - Indiana, Maryland and Rutgers. You're "ahead" even in the years when Alabama gets Vandy, which was only once in the past 5 years.

As others have said here, the ceiling of the B1G is absolutely competitive with the top of the SEC, but the SEC floor is higher.

A few thoughts—looking purely at OOC performance is very misleading. Some conferences play 9 conference games while others play 8. The SEC plays 8 and loaded up on FCS and G5 competition that they went a combined 39-2 against, meanwhile they did a pedestrian 7-7 against P5 opponents. There’s not enough data points there to declare the SEC the best of the P5.

I’d also like to point out the mighty (AP) ranked teams that Georgia and Alabama have beaten:
Georgia: 22 Clemson and 23 Arkansas
Alabama: 8 Ole Miss and 23 Arkansas

Again, the tough competition in conference argument doesn’t hold up either. That’s hardly a murder’s row.

(11-29-2021 12:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-28-2021 11:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  To me, these CCGs are like play in games. whoever loses between Georgia and Alabama on a neutral field has no business in a playoff, especially if we’ve got an undefeated P5 and two 12-1 P5 champs.

Why set them up for a potential rematch when we’ve already seen them meet on a natural field a month prior? There’s simply too few data points involved to say that the loser passes the “eye test” and disregard what the other conference champions achieved.

And let’s not pull the tough conference card—the SEC was 7-7 against P5 OOC competition and those 13 bowl eligible teams are a product of a 39-2 record against FCS and G5 competition. That’s a lot of cupcakes.

Only 2 conferences have placed 2 schools in the CFP in any given year, the ACC in 2021 when by fluke of COVID Notre Dame played as a full member, and the SEC a couple of years back with Georgia and Alabama. The ACC schools both lost in the semis and the SEC's both advanced to the championship game.

Perhaps the SEC gets a bit more respect for having won 12 of the last 20 College Football National Championships with those titles being claimed by 4 different schools. Tennessee's was just outside the 20 year parameter.

In that time frame the Big 10 has won 2, both by the Buckeyes. The ACC has won 3 with 2 different schools (Florida State and 2 for Clemson). Miami has 1 as an Independent. Texas has 1 and USC has one which they vacated due to sanctions.

In the SEC on any given year there are 8 schools who can beat you on any given Saturday, while the Big 10 has 6 who are annually viable. It is arguable that the SEC has what most computers rank as the strongest SOS year to year so there's that. And the 2 ACC champs routinely play SEC schools both as rivals and Clemson as season openers.

So Muskie here's what I say to you:

1. Two schools from the SEC getting into the BCS and CFP have only happened twice and in the CFP they beat the other 2 entrants to advance. So, while I agree a 2 loss Alabama shouldn't take a slot from a 1 loss conference champ, you are setting up as likely a situation which has occurred twice in 20 years and isn't likely this year just to spit a little venom at a conference which has 12 championships to the Big 10's 2 over 20 years.

2. When you look at the number of different SEC schools winning the championship over the last 20 years (4) compared to the ACC's 3 (by 2 schools), the B12 one (Texas in 2005), 1 independent, the PAC 12's 1 (vacated) and the Big 10's 2 by 1 school, I just don't think bias or advantage are applicable terms.

3. When you consider that only 3 of the last 20 national championships were won by teams outside of the greater South (2 by Ohio St & 1 by USC and vacated) I think it is established that schools in the greater South are competitively stronger.

17 championships among Texas, Miami, Florida State, Clemson,, Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., and Auburn in the last 20 years. If Georgia wins it all this year the SEC would have 5 different national champions in the last 20 years and 13 of the last 20.

So I see most of your OP as schadenfreude.

If Frank the Tank will remember when the CFP was first announced I was a lone voice in the wilderness crying for a champs only CFP. Almost everyone else who posted here wanted Best 4.

I like champs only because it gives every conference's regular season more meaning and makes the CCG's do or die events which is how I think all football should be played. Of course, we needed to consolidate into a P4 to get the decision away from a committee entirely in order to let all of it be decided on field play.

Some of those here who gripe the most about "fairness" are those who want the damned committee picking even more participants. Not me. I don't lump you in with those but champs only (IMO the only rational and just method) proponents are still in the minority. Why? Networks don't want a champion who doesn't draw national audiences! So they want a beauty pageant. I find nothing appealing about beauty pageants. I emceed two and they were both rigged. Hello!

As always, you present a lot of interesting thoughts to ruminate.

College football has a huge data points problem. There’s simply not enough data points in OOC P5 vs P5 competition to evaluate the relative strength of the 5 leagues. A format that includes all the major champs would alleviate this. But to that point, I think 12-1 with a conference crown is better than 12-1 without one so of Georgia falls to Alabama while Michigan and Oklahoma St prevail the P5 champions should be ranked higher. This brings me to Cincinnati. At 13-0, they’d have just as many top 25 wins (2 ND and Houston) as 12-1 Georgia but Cincinnati’s road win against ND is far more impressive than a home win against Arkansas and a neutral site win against Clemson.

Most of these problems would go away if they went to a 6-2 or 6-6 playoff system.

(11-29-2021 07:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A few thoughts—looking purely at OOC performance is very misleading. Some conferences play 9 conference games while others play 8. The SEC plays 8 and loaded up on FCS and G5 competition that they went a combined 39-2 against, meanwhile they did a pedestrian 7-7 against P5 opponents. There’s not enough data points there to declare the SEC the best of the P5.

I’d also like to point out the mighty (AP) ranked teams that Georgia and Alabama have beaten:
Georgia: 22 Clemson and 23 Arkansas
Alabama: 8 Ole Miss and 23 Arkansas

Again, the tough competition in conference argument doesn’t hold up either. That’s hardly a murder’s row.

According to Sagarin, there's not a single one of their top 10 schools with a top 15 schedule and only 2 in the top 22 with a top 15 schedule (Ohio St. is #16 and Alabama #18 in SOS). The top teams are relatively spread out this year.

(11-29-2021 07:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A few thoughts—looking purely at OOC performance is very misleading. Some conferences play 9 conference games while others play 8. The SEC plays 8 and loaded up on FCS and G5 competition that they went a combined 39-2 against, meanwhile they did a pedestrian 7-7 against P5 opponents. There’s not enough data points there to declare the SEC the best of the P5.

I’d also like to point out the mighty (AP) ranked teams that Georgia and Alabama have beaten:
Georgia: 22 Clemson and 23 Arkansas
Alabama: 8 Ole Miss and 23 Arkansas

Again, the tough competition in conference argument doesn’t hold up either. That’s hardly a murder’s row.

Thanks for suggesting that data point! Assuming you are using the current AP poll you forgot #25 Kentucky, and lets look at the AP ranked teams that Ohio State & Michigan have defeated -

Georgia - #22 Clemson, #23 Arkansas & #25 Kentucky
Alabama - #8 Ole Miss, #23 Arkansas
Ohio State - #11 Michigan State
Michigan - #7 Ohio State

That latest AP poll has 6 SEC teams ranked and 4 from the B1G. Again, the ceiling of the B1G is absolutely competitive with the top of the SEC, but the SEC floor is higher.

(11-29-2021 07:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This brings me to Cincinnati. At 13-0, they’d have just as many top 25 wins (2 ND and Houston) as 12-1 Georgia but Cincinnati’s road win against ND is far more impressive than a home win against Arkansas and a neutral site win against Clemson.

You forgot Kentucky again, so assuming they beat Houston then Cincinnati will still be 1 top 25 win behind Georgia. I agree with you though that going into South Bend and beating Notre Dame was a more impressive victory than any of Georgia's 3 top 25 wins.

(11-29-2021 07:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A few thoughts—looking purely at OOC performance is very misleading. Some conferences play 9 conference games while others play 8. The SEC plays 8 and loaded up on FCS and G5 competition that they went a combined 39-2 against, meanwhile they did a pedestrian 7-7 against P5 opponents. There’s not enough data points there to declare the SEC the best of the P5.

I’d also like to point out the mighty (AP) ranked teams that Georgia and Alabama have beaten:
Georgia: 22 Clemson and 23 Arkansas
Alabama: 8 Ole Miss and 23 Arkansas

Again, the tough competition in conference argument doesn’t hold up either. That’s hardly a murder’s row.

The SEC went 9-6 against P5 competition. Nobody else is at .500 except for the B1G, which is 8-4.The computer composite has the SEC at #1 and the B1G at #2. Both have been very good this year, and we still have a ton of bowl games, which will settle the issue. The B1G certainly has a pile of high-ranked teams, so I don't think there's been any bias towards the SEC over the B1G at the top of the heap in the CFP. Nobody else has any claims to make.

So the bottom line is the SEC is clearly at or right at the top of the heap, as it usually is. There's no mystery about it, the SEC has the most talent as judged by the NFL, which is the entity that knows about talent. This translates in to more superlatives for the SEC - more national titles, more playoff game wins, more NY6 wins, more bowl wins generally, and winning records vs other FBS entities. Not every single year of course, but over the past 15 years, by and large this has been the case.

So given the SEC's track record, IMO it makes little sense to argue about whether the SEC's rep has been validated through OOC competition. It clearly has, way moreso than any other conference, and so far it is on track to do so again, though there are no guarantees.