Category Archives: BCS/Playoffs

Making it up as they go along



Anybody think Georgia would be a 14-point ‘dog in a rematch?  (Hell, it wasn’t that big a spread in the SECCG.)

Again, not making the point that the Dawgs deserve to be in the CFP, just showing up the lack of consistent reasoning that goes into a subjective process.  That’s not gonna change with an eight-team field, either.



Filed under BCS/Playoffs

Love and kisses, the Selection Committee

Logically, this makes no sense.  Georgia should either be ahead of both one-loss conference champs, or behind both.

But as an “FU” to Corch?  Totally.

Well played, people.


UPDATE:  The man is shameless.

I guess every coaching staff should have a sexual abuser on it.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs, Georgia Football, Urban Meyer Points and Stares

“Do you want the best four teams in or not?”

Kirbs is in lobbying mode.

And Nick is there as his wing man.

“Based on the teams that we’ve played this year, I think this team deserves to be in the playoff as well,” Saban said. “I sure as hell don’t want to play them again, but that’s the best compliment I can give you or give them.”

Sagarin rates Georgia third in his rankings (with the number six SOS!).  Bill Connelly is right there with Sagarin.

And, in the end, none of it matters.  You can say it’s for any or all of the reasons Bill elucidates here, but I think the reality is simply that the selection committee isn’t ready to open up the can of worms that would inevitably and vehemently follow if it allowed a two-loss, non-conference champ team in ahead of (take your pick) one-loss conference champs Ohio State and Oklahoma or undefeated Notre Dame.

It’s not about the best.  It’s never been about the best.  The selection committee isn’t even wired for it to be about the best.

You’ll see a thousand different takes on which teams should be in the semis and a thousand impassioned reasons why.  None of them matter.  (Neither does the hot take that this season proves the format needs to grow to eight teams.)  The selection committee’s gonna selection committee.

I’m at peace either way it goes, personally speaking.  I am convinced after watching the SECCG that Georgia merits consideration as one of the four best, but you lose control of the debate when you drop two games in a year when there are alternatives.  C’est la guerre.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs, Georgia Football

It’s the end of the Herbstreit Doctrine as we know it.

Man, Kirk, I don’t even know you anymore.

Next thing you know, Herbie’s gonna unblock me on Twitter.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs, Georgia Football

Nothing but the best

Just think, eight-team playoff fanboys, with guaranteed slots for all P5 conference champs, the day is not far off when we can eagerly look forward to the likes of a three-loss team (one of those losses to the SEC’s biggest disappointment of the season, mind you) that won its conference title game without scoring an offensive touchdown gracing the CFP with its presence.

I mean, damn, sign me up for some of that sweet action now.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs

Not gonna happen.

I think the phrase for this is wishful thinking.

Appearing on “The Paul Finebaum Show,” Fallica argued that a loss to Alabama might not be enough to move Georgia down in the selection committee’s rankings.

“If Georgia right now is one of the four best teams why should they be penalized for having to play Alabama in the SEC Championship Game? If they lose, it doesn’t mean they aren’t one of the best four teams.”

It doesn’t matter.  A two-loss, non-conference winning team isn’t going into the CFP ahead of a one-loss conference champion.  It’s just not happening, regardless of which is best.

Because that’s not college football’s lords and masters want from their postseason.  I keep harping on this, but the way the system is built now, it’s to give the wealth a chance to be spread among the P5 conferences.

That’s why stuff like this

But what if instead they all went down? How much fun would it be?

What if …

— Georgia upsets Alabama.

— Pittsburgh pops Clemson.

— Texas outscores Oklahoma (again).

— Northwestern slogs past the Buckeyes.

What if, in all its glory, a sudden storm disrupts everything we think we know about this season in college football?

Wouldn’t it be, well, fun?

And more important: Would it prompt change?

… is equally wishful, but only to a point.  When the day comes — and it will come — that going to six, or eight, or whatever puts more change in the pockets of the conference commissioners, then that kind of thinking will become a happily convenient excuse for expansion, just like the 2011 national title game was.  The Delanys and Sankeys will say they’re doing it for the fans, but that’s not the actual motivation.

If these people were truly serious about improving how the semi-final field is selected to tamp down criticism of the decision making, there would be a serious attempt to improve the nature of the selection committee’s analysis and with that, a process that would be more open to the outside world.  Here’s an example of what I mean by that:

It’s easy to see how and why the selection committee is predisposed toward defense. Its current makeup includes five former coaches. They rightfully command a lot of respect from the other eight committee members. But the retired coaches’ average age is 71.6 years old – and Frank Beamer, who retired after the 2015 season, is the only one who coached in this decade.

Coincidentally, that’s when offense transformed college football.

At some point, those slots will be occupied by guys who coached in this era. When it happens, the predisposition toward defense will probably change.

It’d be nice, though, if the selection committee acknowledged right now, in real time, the reality of college football in the postmodern era: You’d better have an offense – because what happened Saturday can happen to your very good defense.

Defense remains hugely important. Having both is absolutely the best possible situation. See Alabama and Clemson. It’s best to be complete.

But if it’s one or the other? “Defense wins championships” is a nice talking point – but putting up points is a much better plan.

While that’s certainly a valid criticism, even that falls short.  The committee shouldn’t be picking or choosing whether offense matters more than defense.  What it should be doing is using a solid analytical framework to inform its decision making, a framework that would access how teams perform across the board, i.e., offense, defense and special teams, in order to set a hierarchy of the best.

No, that shouldn’t be the exclusive measure of things.  The eye test should matter.  Results on the field, too.  There’s a valid reason to have folks who have coached provide input in the room.  But maybe instead of having five dudes from another era doing that, you could drop a couple and put some advanced stat guys in the room with the rest of the group.  I’m sure someone could round up a couple of hats for them to take off before they go in the room.

I know.  That’s wishful thinking on my part.  The folks driving the CFP train already have all the transparency in the process they want.

You people jonesing for an eight-team playoff, just be patient.  It’s coming.  Not for the reasons you want it, though.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs

You can leave your hat on.

Nessler said something needs to be done with the CFP in terms of conference championship games, citing an assumption No. 3 Notre Dame’s inclusion into the Final without a conference title game.

“Either get rid of them,” he said of the conference title games, “or they need – as a committee – to say they don’t matter at all. It’s one or the other. You can’t have it both ways and they have had it both ways.”

That last sentence ought to become the official motto of the selection committee.  The problem for us is that while most people are like Brad Nessler and see being… um, let’s say dual-sided as a bug, the folks running the sport see it as a feature.  There are dangers in consistency that are best avoided if your real goal is spreading the wealth among the wealthy.

In this specific case, make a conference championship a necessary ticket to ride and you automatically exclude independents like Notre Dame, a program that has a national brand that commands a lot of attention and financial consideration.  Flat out deny conference championships as a qualifier and you make it much more likely that a top heavy conference — you know the one I’m talking about — has an improved chance of crashing the semis with two programs.

The P5 commissioners don’t want to be locked in either way, so they structure the committee in a way that lets subjectivity control the results far more than was the case under the BCS.  It’s also how you have the absurdity of ADs from Ohio State and Oklahoma sitting in judgment even as their football teams vie for a spot in the CFP semis.

Oh, right, I forgot.  Everybody checks their hats at the door.  Problem solved.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs