PineyWoodsFrog
Active Member
With the CFP teams being decided this week and the usual discussions about who should be in/out, I wanted to see what everyone's opinion was on the head-to-head criteria. Most notably, this would apply to Texas/Bama this year. Here are my thoughts:
I can remember 2 instances off the top of my head where the loser of a game between 1-loss teams ended up in the championship game and I didn't have a problem with either: 2000 Florida State (lost to Miami), 2008 Oklahoma (lost to Texas). Miami lost to #15 Washington and Texas lost to #7 Texas Tech. People tend to forget these things when talking about head-to-head in today's format.
I'm aware that this was the BCS-era, which looked at the season in totality and did not use head-to-head as a predictor of who should be in. I think I'm one of the few that actually didn't mind the BCS. When we went to playoff format, I wanted to keep it and just take the top 4 from it. It had some flaws, but I thought it was way better than a biased selection committee.
I am of the belief that the best team does not always win a particular game. Losing a head-to-head matchup just means you were not better that day. It doesn't mean you are not the better team THROUGHOUT the season.
We've seen teams lose very early in the season, fall in the polls, and go on a streak to end up right back where they fell from, as opposed to losing late in the season and not having time to make up ground. If WHEN you lose matters, shouldn't WHEN the head-to-head was played matter just as much? Once the winner of the head-to-head matchup loses, are the teams basically even and should be judged on their entire season or should the head-to-head be the deciding factor? Should WHO you lose to matter? The committee doesn't seem to focus much on who you lose to as much as who you beat. In 2014, I thought Ohio State losing at home to a 6-6 Virginia Tech team by 2 TDs would hold more weight than it did and maybe it would have if we weren't the team they were being compared to, but that was also early in the season, which probably also factored in.
What say y'all? Do y'all feel head-to-head should be the deciding factor or is it dependent on what happens the rest of the season? I'm sure all of us felt that we should have been selected over Baylor in 2014 if it had come down to the two of us because it's hard not to be bias in that situation. However, did you feel that way after we played them, after they lost to West Virginia, or was your opinion based on the CFP rankings?
I can remember 2 instances off the top of my head where the loser of a game between 1-loss teams ended up in the championship game and I didn't have a problem with either: 2000 Florida State (lost to Miami), 2008 Oklahoma (lost to Texas). Miami lost to #15 Washington and Texas lost to #7 Texas Tech. People tend to forget these things when talking about head-to-head in today's format.
I'm aware that this was the BCS-era, which looked at the season in totality and did not use head-to-head as a predictor of who should be in. I think I'm one of the few that actually didn't mind the BCS. When we went to playoff format, I wanted to keep it and just take the top 4 from it. It had some flaws, but I thought it was way better than a biased selection committee.
I am of the belief that the best team does not always win a particular game. Losing a head-to-head matchup just means you were not better that day. It doesn't mean you are not the better team THROUGHOUT the season.
We've seen teams lose very early in the season, fall in the polls, and go on a streak to end up right back where they fell from, as opposed to losing late in the season and not having time to make up ground. If WHEN you lose matters, shouldn't WHEN the head-to-head was played matter just as much? Once the winner of the head-to-head matchup loses, are the teams basically even and should be judged on their entire season or should the head-to-head be the deciding factor? Should WHO you lose to matter? The committee doesn't seem to focus much on who you lose to as much as who you beat. In 2014, I thought Ohio State losing at home to a 6-6 Virginia Tech team by 2 TDs would hold more weight than it did and maybe it would have if we weren't the team they were being compared to, but that was also early in the season, which probably also factored in.
What say y'all? Do y'all feel head-to-head should be the deciding factor or is it dependent on what happens the rest of the season? I'm sure all of us felt that we should have been selected over Baylor in 2014 if it had come down to the two of us because it's hard not to be bias in that situation. However, did you feel that way after we played them, after they lost to West Virginia, or was your opinion based on the CFP rankings?
