nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

What is the point of out of conference play?

PharmDawg2054

The first game of the season we have Auburn vs Washington in which Auburn pulls out a narrow victory. While listening to analysts many of them agree that if Washington goes undefeated for the rest of the season that they would be a shoe-in for the playoffs.

What is the point of out of conference play at this point and how could you honestly say you are putting in "the 4 BEST teams"

Auburn will likely finish 3rd or 4th in the SEC west this season. Does Washington's loss to Auburn not signify the weakness of the PAC 12 and at the same time signify that 3-4 SEC schools would be better candidates for the playoff spot as the "best team?"

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

levander

I’ve always thought the whole “loss early in the season doesn’t hurt you as much” bit was just spiel to get people to not stop watching. Like if people think their chance at a championship is already gone, not the die hard s, but a lot of the fair weathers will stop watching.

But every team that made the playoffs last year did have one loss. So if they go undefeated the rest of the season, there’s a good chance they get in. Just not the certainty the sportscasters you were listening to spun it as.

WCDawg

A. it's fun.
B. it's informative.
C. it fills up the schedule.
How would you compare conferences to other conferences if there was only intra-conference games ?

PharmDawg2054

@WCDawg said:
A. it's fun.
B. it's informative.
C. it fills up the schedule.
How would you compare conferences to other conferences if there was only intra-conference games ?

I agree with you on this, that the out of conference play is extremely important in comparing talent and deciding who the best teams are.

My question is what is the point in that if the CFP committee does not take it into account?

PharmDawg2054

@levander said:
I’ve always thought the whole “loss early in the season doesn’t hurt you as much” bit was just spiel to get people to not stop watching. Like if people think their chance at a championship is already gone, not the die hard s, but a lot of the fair weathers will stop watching.

But every team that made the playoffs last year did have one loss. So if they go undefeated the rest of the season, there’s a good chance they get in. Just not the certainty the sportscasters you were listening to spun it as.

That makes sense and if many other teams have 1 loss then of course it is possible, but I think these out of conference games should carry the weight they deserve when approached by the committee at the end of the season

BamaDawg

I think it makes the season much more exciting (remember Notre Dame).

As for the playoffs, if UGA and Alabama meet in the SECCG and are undefeated, and one barely beats the other, Washington doesn't get in.

PharmDawg2054

@BamaDawg said:
I think it makes the season much more exciting (remember Notre Dame).

As for the playoffs, if UGA and Alabama meet in the SECCG and are undefeated, and one barely beats the other, Washington doesn't get in.

point is there is no way Washington should get in at all in my opinion

BamaDawg

@PharmDawg2054 said:

@BamaDawg said:
I think it makes the season much more exciting (remember Notre Dame).

As for the playoffs, if UGA and Alabama meet in the SECCG and are undefeated, and one barely beats the other, Washington doesn't get in.

point is there is no way Washington should get in at all in my opinion

I'm not arguing with you. I think the committee has done fairly well the last few years getting the top teams in. However, are you saying that no 1 lost team should get or are we just talking about Washington? Remember that Clemson lost to Syracuse (I think) last year.

PharmDawg2054

@BamaDawg said:

@PharmDawg2054 said:

@BamaDawg said:
I think it makes the season much more exciting (remember Notre Dame).

As for the playoffs, if UGA and Alabama meet in the SECCG and are undefeated, and one barely beats the other, Washington doesn't get in.

point is there is no way Washington should get in at all in my opinion

I'm not arguing with you. I think the committee has done fairly well the last few years getting the top teams in. However, are you saying that no 1 lost team should get or are we just talking about Washington? Remember that Clemson lost to Syracuse (I think) last year.

This in particular is more geared towards Washington. If Washington can not beat a team that will most likely finish 3rd or 4th in the SEC West, then they should not make playoffs in my opinion. Now, If Auburn somehow wins out (beating UGA, Bama and winning SEC championship)... then I could see Auburn as well as Washington going to the playoffs

As far as Clemson went last year... I do not think they should have went to the playoffs. I do not believe that any team who loses to Syracuse should be talked about as a national championship contender, not all loses are created equally.

It also showed in my opinion how undeserving Clemson was to be in the playoffs when Bama defeated Clemson 24-6. Bama had closer games with: FSU, Colorado State, TAMU, LSU, MS State, Auburn, and Georgia

Bama also had 10 of its 14 opponents score more points against them than Clemson did in that season

WCDawg

@PharmDawg2054 said:

@WCDawg said:
A. it's fun.
B. it's informative.
C. it fills up the schedule.
How would you compare conferences to other conferences if there was only intra-conference games ?

I agree with you on this, that the out of conference play is extremely important in comparing talent and deciding who the best teams are.

My question is what is the point in that if the CFP committee does not take it into account?

I think every game is considered to some extent. If you lose out of conference it sure has a negative affect.

LowcountryDawg21

If Washington goes undefeated the rest of the way, I think their loss to AU actually doesn’t hurt them that much, and may help when compared with other losses among conference champions. Auburn may only be the 3rd or 4th best team in the West, but that still makes them one of the better SEC teams. When comparing that against other losses, it may wind up helping if it’s between Washington and another one loss conference champ. Say UGA, OU, and Ohio State are all undefeated conference champs, and Clemson and Washington are one loss champs. Clemson lost to Florida State, who I think we can agree is a dumpster fire this year. Washington lost to Auburn in the first game of the year. I think Washington gets in.

@PharmDawg2054- question for you on Clemson last year. Who would you have put in over them?

GrayDawg

@LowcountryDawg21 said:
If Washington goes undefeated the rest of the way, I think their loss to AU actually doesn’t hurt them that much, and may help when compared with other losses among conference champions. Auburn may only be the 3rd or 4th best team in the West, but that still makes them one of the better SEC teams. When comparing that against other losses, it may wind up helping if it’s between Washington and another one loss conference champ. Say UGA, OU, and Ohio State are all undefeated conference champs, and Clemson and Washington are one loss champs. Clemson lost to Florida State, who I think we can agree is a dumpster fire this year. Washington lost to Auburn in the first game of the year. I think Washington gets in.

@PharmDawg2054- question for you on Clemson last year. Who would you have put in over them?

UCF!

pippin888

@PharmDawg2054 said:
The first game of the season we have Auburn vs Washington in which Auburn pulls out a narrow victory. While listening to analysts many of them agree that if Washington goes undefeated for the rest of the season that they would be a shoe-in for the playoffs.

What is the point of out of conference play at this point and how could you honestly say you are putting in "the 4 BEST teams"

Auburn will likely finish 3rd or 4th in the SEC west this season. Does Washington's loss to Auburn not signify the weakness of the PAC 12 and at the same time signify that 3-4 SEC schools would be better candidates for the playoff spot as the "best team?"

There are several reasons these out of conference games can help you if you win it will give you greater National exposure it also helps with recruiting to pull a recruit out of a another state when you spank their home state team it also gives the players an exciting trip to somewhere they may never have gone otherwise

levander

@PharmDawg2054 said:

@BamaDawg said:

@PharmDawg2054 said:

@BamaDawg said:
I think it makes the season much more exciting (remember Notre Dame).

As for the playoffs, if UGA and Alabama meet in the SECCG and are undefeated, and one barely beats the other, Washington doesn't get in.

point is there is no way Washington should get in at all in my opinion

I'm not arguing with you. I think the committee has done fairly well the last few years getting the top teams in. However, are you saying that no 1 lost team should get or are we just talking about Washington? Remember that Clemson lost to Syracuse (I think) last year.

This in particular is more geared towards Washington. If Washington can not beat a team that will most likely finish 3rd or 4th in the SEC West, then they should not make playoffs in my opinion. Now, If Auburn somehow wins out (beating UGA, Bama and winning SEC championship)... then I could see Auburn as well as Washington going to the playoffs

As far as Clemson went last year... I do not think they should have went to the playoffs. I do not believe that any team who loses to Syracuse should be talked about as a national championship contender, not all loses are created equally.

It also showed in my opinion how undeserving Clemson was to be in the playoffs when Bama defeated Clemson 24-6. Bama had closer games with: FSU, Colorado State, TAMU, LSU, MS State, Auburn, and Georgia

Bama also had 10 of its 14 opponents score more points against them than Clemson did in that season

If Clemson shouldn’t have gotten in, who should have? Ohio State was ranked 5th. And they had 2 losses, one of them to Iowa. The other to Oklahoma.

Then 6th was UCF. Aren’t you one of the guys who thinks it’s hilarious UCF claims to be national champions?

I really don’t feel like Bama should have made it. For a team that pulled in the #1 recruiting class for 7 years, they somehow managed to lack depth. And a couple of injuries late in the season really hurt them. If they’d made the SEC championship UGA would have beat them. But skipping the SEC chamionship and going to the playoffs gave them a month to heal and they were much more competitive.

But if Bama doesn’t go, who does? That’s to me why I was okay with Bama getting in. Not because they deserved it so much. But because there was no one with a better resume.

Maybe they should have let UCF in with no national level quality wins before the bowl games? And then they’d probably have no rationale for a national champion title at all)? But that sets a weird precedent. Are we gonna let any D1 school in if they go undefeated?