OT: Which team gets the 12th CFP slot? SMU or Alabama?
- Thread starter RCBeta79
- Start date
Let's assume the following:
1} Oregon has a 55% chance of beating either OSU or Penn State on a neutral field.
2} Penn State has a 70% chance of beating Clemson at home.
3) Penn State has a 65% chance of beating Arizona State on a neutral field.
The chance of Penn State winning both games is .7*.65 = 45.5%
So yeah, I prefer Oregon's position. But if you disagree with my assumptions, you could certainly come to a different conclusion.
Playoff games are worth somewhere around $25M to the winners. They get to keep $15 for expenses the other $10 goes into the bowl payout pot. That pot gets divided by 18 teams so Rutgers gets more money so I hope a B1G team wins the championship
And the legalization of everything they were given the Death Penalty for in the first place.
Pretty much sums it all up. Penn State has an easier route to the finals than Oregon. And Clemson is seeded below the team they just beat on a neutral field. And Notre Dame gets in with a SOS of 78. Only to be outdone by Boise State at 81 with SMU in similar territory at 71. Crazy!!
Last edited:
when it was just 2, there were complaints from programs that didn't make it.
When there were 4 , complaints were made!
Now the whine is on even though playoffs expanded to 12 and best of the rest are also entered.
No matter how many teams are in the playoffs , someone ill find something to complain about.
My complaint is I feel a 12 team playoff should include all the 9 conference champions and 3 at large entrants or make it a 16 team playoff with 7 at large teams in it and call that fair-play 😁
Go back to 4 teams or maybe 6. There are not many legit NC contenders each season.
Is it the best of the rest though? Boise, Indiana, SMU, Clemson, ASU, ND you can keep going. DO they legitimately have a claim at the National Championship. If you're going to 12 just go to 24 or 32 and make a true tournament. Do away with conference championship games and guaranteed allotments.
After the next 2 years, that's going away iirc. Allotment will be more fixed and won't be based on CFP performance.
That's BS. They set up the system. The SEC played hardball about the number of teams and byes for conference champs. This is all because of the SEC and their business partners. They have zero legitimate complaining to do.
The fact that a 3 loss team is even getting consideration shows you the respect the SEC gets. Just because Alabama didn't get in doesn't mean the SEC didn't get respect, being considered at all means something in itself. A 3 loss team from anywhere else including the B10 this year wouldn't get the same consideration.
I like the system and think it's good, the only problem that's popped up due to realignment is the potential easier path for the 5 seed. When this was set up the PAC and B12 still had their strong teams and strong teams were spread among the conferences instead of concentrated in 2. So you get "weaker" 3 and 4 seeds now. If this was Oregon, UGA, Texas, PSU because the PAC and B12 were alive and well no one would say easy path for the 5 seed. Concentration of stronger teams in 2 conferences creates this issue.
I'd like to see home games in the 2nd round too but it's not likely. That might even out a bit some of the easy 5 seed path stuff. But if not that, maybe expansion to 14 and only byes for the top 2 seeds (more times than not the SEC/B10) and the rest just get seeded according to ranking (conference champs still get bids in though). 14 is already written into the 2026 contract if they go that route so it's an easy thing to do.
I like the system and think it's good, the only problem that's popped up due to realignment is the potential easier path for the 5 seed. When this was set up the PAC and B12 still had their strong teams and strong teams were spread among the conferences instead of concentrated in 2. So you get "weaker" 3 and 4 seeds now. If this was Oregon, UGA, Texas, PSU because the PAC and B12 were alive and well no one would say easy path for the 5 seed. Concentration of stronger teams in 2 conferences creates this issue.
I'd like to see home games in the 2nd round too but it's not likely. That might even out a bit some of the easy 5 seed path stuff. But if not that, maybe expansion to 14 and only byes for the top 2 seeds (more times than not the SEC/B10) and the rest just get seeded according to ranking (conference champs still get bids in though). 14 is already written into the 2026 contract if they go that route so it's an easy thing to do.
Potentially playing the #9 ranked is easier than playing the #12 ranked?
Alabama fans need to STFU. They claim a natty in a year they did not even make their conference championship game.
More amazing to me is that SMU's offenses, giving them the death penalty, are now perfectly legal.
The games are played between individual teams, not conferences.
C'mon you get the point...ASU played tougher conference schedule...and more than likely a better team irrespective of rankings.
Arizona State's primary argument is that, as a Power Four team, it played a more difficult schedule and should probably be forgiven for its loss to Cincinnati because it was without starting quarterback Sam Leavitt. For the record, ASU's strength of schedule ranked No. 42 in Sagarin (part of the old BCS formula) and No. 72 by ESPN. Boise State's SOS is No. 89 and No. 82, respectively, by those same metrics.
| Team | Record | SOS (Sagarin) | Wins vs. currently ranked teams (CFP) | Best wins | Worst loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona State | 11-2 | 42 | 2 | BYU, Iowa State | Cincinnati |
| Boise State | 12-1 | 89 | 1 | UNLV (twice) | N/A |
College Football Playoff bracket: Does Arizona State or Boise State deserve a first-round bye?
The first two conference champs to punch their ticket to the CFP are the subject of another debate
www.cbssports.com
C'mon you get the point...ASU played tougher conference schedule...and more than likely a better team irrespective of rankings.
Arizona State's primary argument is that, as a Power Four team, it played a more difficult schedule and should probably be forgiven for its loss to Cincinnati because it was without starting quarterback Sam Leavitt. For the record, ASU's strength of schedule ranked No. 42 in Sagarin (part of the old BCS formula) and No. 72 by ESPN. Boise State's SOS is No. 89 and No. 82, respectively, by those same metrics.
Team Record SOS (Sagarin) Wins vs. currently ranked teams (CFP) Best wins Worst loss Arizona State 11-2 42 2 BYU, Iowa State Cincinnati Boise State 12-1 89 1 UNLV (twice) N/A
College Football Playoff bracket: Does Arizona State or Boise State deserve a first-round bye?
The first two conference champs to punch their ticket to the CFP are the subject of another debate
Oh you're not allowed to cite SOS when comparing teams apparently.
Fun Fact: Alabama had a SOS of 15 (Sagarin) and 18 (ESPN) which was higher than every CFP team except Georgia.
Funnier Fact: SMU was 57 (ESPN) and 61 (Sagarin).
Bama's argument vs. SMU is valid imho, but I'm not losing sleep over them getting snubbed lol.
I’m not disputing that.
Well Boise played the best team in the country, and only lost that game at the end.
All of the polls have Boise above ASU, which is what I was pointing out with my inquiry.
All they had to do was set up a 16-team playoff with no BYEs. If the idea was that 2 teams was blatantly unfair to someone.. like Auburn , TCU etc.
And 4 teams was also unfair, in the very first one Ohio State was argued against but ended up winning it...
Why, oh why didn't they go straight to 8 or 16? The answer is SEC's greedy desire for their champ to get a BYE. They wanted 6 or 12.
With 16 all of the questions would have disappeared and we'd be arguing over seeding, and home games vs neutral sites... but Bama, Ole Miss, South Carolina and Miami would all be IN and could prove their worth in the CFP.
An argument could be made for BYU over South Carolina based purely on the fact that there are too many SEC teams there and a desire for more fairness for under-ranked conferences.
(using AP Top 25) The teams would be:
Oregon
Georgia
Notre Dame
Texas
Penn State
Ohio State
Tennessee
Boise State
Indiana
Arizona State
Alabama
SMU
Clemson
South Carolina
Miami (FL)
Ole Miss
And the games would be (first team is home if not at neutral sites):
Oregon vs Ole Miss
Georgia vs Miami (FL)
Notre Dame vs South Carolina
Texas vs Clemson
Penn State vs SMU
Ohio State vs Alabama
Tennessee vs Arizona State
Boise State vs Indiana
I think this setup would be superior to what we have.
And 4 teams was also unfair, in the very first one Ohio State was argued against but ended up winning it...
Why, oh why didn't they go straight to 8 or 16? The answer is SEC's greedy desire for their champ to get a BYE. They wanted 6 or 12.
With 16 all of the questions would have disappeared and we'd be arguing over seeding, and home games vs neutral sites... but Bama, Ole Miss, South Carolina and Miami would all be IN and could prove their worth in the CFP.
An argument could be made for BYU over South Carolina based purely on the fact that there are too many SEC teams there and a desire for more fairness for under-ranked conferences.
(using AP Top 25) The teams would be:
Oregon
Georgia
Notre Dame
Texas
Penn State
Ohio State
Tennessee
Boise State
Indiana
Arizona State
Alabama
SMU
Clemson
South Carolina
Miami (FL)
Ole Miss
And the games would be (first team is home if not at neutral sites):
Oregon vs Ole Miss
Georgia vs Miami (FL)
Notre Dame vs South Carolina
Texas vs Clemson
Penn State vs SMU
Ohio State vs Alabama
Tennessee vs Arizona State
Boise State vs Indiana
I think this setup would be superior to what we have.
Last edited:
