• The KillerFrogs

Head-to-Head

P

PineyWoodsFrog

Active Member
Frog-in-law1995 said:
Bama just needed an absolute miracle to beat a team that got boat raced at home by New Mexico State the week before. Playing better than Texas right now? They might be a 1 or 2 point favorite, but no way that should trump a double digit loss at home,
Click to expand...
Playing "better" than Texas was a bit of a stretch on my part. I meant to speak more along the lines of Alabama being a completely different team now than they were 10 weeks ago since they stopped trying to run the Tua/Bryce Young offense with Milroe and have since catered the offense to his strengths.
 
P

PineyWoodsFrog

Active Member
This Ain't Chopped Liver said:
Texas gets in the playoff if they win and FSU loses on Saturday. Michigan will win and be in. Oregon beats Washington and is in. The winner of Georgia/Alabama is in.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this. So, if Alabama and Texas both win who gets the higher ranking? Does Alabama leap-frog Texas for beating the #1 team and defending back-to-back champ (which shouldn't matter, but the committee does these types of things) or does the head-to-head give Texas the nod?
 
P

PineyWoodsFrog

Active Member
Planks said:
Here’s a question. Say SMU beats #22 Tulane, and say #24 Liberty if Liberty beats New Mexico State (which is not a given). Does SMU leapfrog Liberty for the NY6 spot?
Click to expand...
If SMU wins I think they get a NY6 spot. Even with an undefeated record, I don't think Liberty beats them out considering SMU's 2 losses were to Big 12 teams.
 
P

PineyWoodsFrog

Active Member
Semper frog said:
One loss Georgia is not getting left out
Click to expand...
Even with Texas having a head-to-head road win over the SEC champ in the case that Bama beats Georgia?

That would leave 3 teams fighting for 1 the final spot unless Florida State loses:
- Florida State (don't see how you leave them out if they finish undefeated, even tho they may not be best team)
- Texas as a 1-loss conference champ.
- Georgia as a 1-loss non-conference champ

If Florida State loses, it comes down to Texas and Georgia. You think they pick Georgia just based on who they think the best team is? Not saying you're wrong. Just curious.
 
Frog-in-law1995

Frog-in-law1995

Active Member
i think if things break exactly wrong for the committee and Mich, Texas, Bama and FSU all win, they’ll go with 1. Mich 2. Wash/Texas. 3. Texas/Oregon 4. Bama. Leaving out an undefeated ACC champ would be exceedingly tough, but at least there’s a real explanation for why - strength of schedule is lower than the other teams in play (and that’s a “must consider” criteria for the committee), loss of the QB means that’s just not the same team that went 13-0, and FSU would have the worst “best win” of the bunch as everybody else will have a win over a team currently in the committee’s top 10. It’s not fair at all, but they have to find some way to do it, and that seems to make the most sense.

The other option would be that if Oregon wins the PAC, maybe leave them out, but I think the above is the best option.
 
Limey Frog

Limey Frog

Full Member
PineyWoodsFrog said:
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?
Click to expand...
I made myself less-than-popular here in 2014 by taking Baylor's side in the great head-to-head debate. Why do you play the games? As far as I'm concerned, we weren't conference co-champions in 2014, and if it was a straight choice between us and Baylor of the playoff, it should have been Baylor. We coughed up 24 points in a quarter and lost the game. That's all.

If it's between 'Bama and Texas, Texas has to be in or the whole thing is garbage. It gets harder if it's a choice between Texas and Oregon, though not for me: I'd choose Oregon every time because Tuck Fexas.
 
W

Wexahu

Full Member
Limey Frog said:
I made myself less-than-popular here in 2014 by taking Baylor's side in the great head-to-head debate. Why do you play the games? As far as I'm concerned, we weren't conference co-champions in 2014, and if it was a straight choice between us and Baylor of the playoff, it should have been Baylor. We coughed up 24 points in a quarter and lost the game. That's all.

If it's between 'Bama and Texas, Texas has to be in or the whole thing is garbage. It gets harder if it's a choice between Texas and Oregon, though not for me: I'd choose Oregon every time because Tuck Fexas.
Click to expand...
But you play 12-13 games, they should all count. By only using HTH you are effectively rendering the one loss by the winner of the HTH matchup as a meaningless game.

Let's take two teams from the same league (not saying this is TCU-Baylor 2014). Team A is dominant all year and wins their games by an average of 25 points. Team B wins all it's games but one but by an average of only 7 points, and their loss is to a so-so team by a significant margin. Team B beats Team A on their home field by a point.

IMO Team A should absolutely be picked ahead of Team B, even though they lost to them. Not even a debate IMO.
 
Planks

Planks

Active Member
Limey Frog said:
I made myself less-than-popular here in 2014 by taking Baylor's side in the great head-to-head debate. Why do you play the games? As far as I'm concerned, we weren't conference co-champions in 2014, and if it was a straight choice between us and Baylor of the playoff, it should have been Baylor. We coughed up 24 points in a quarter and lost the game. That's all.

If it's between 'Bama and Texas, Texas has to be in or the whole thing is garbage. It gets harder if it's a choice between Texas and Oregon, though not for me: I'd choose Oregon every time because Tuck Fexas.
Click to expand...

I’m fine with the idea that the committee would take Baylor over TCU due to head to head. Which the committee did effectively do, having Baylor at #5 and TCU at #6. I do think TCU was the better team, but our resumes were probably close enough that is perfectly reasonable to have Baylor ahead of TCU based upon the head to head result. That’s what I think I would have done had I been a member of the committee.

However, I wholeheartedly reject your statement “As far as I'm concerned, we weren't conference co-champions in 2014”. The rules are the rules. TCU and Baylor were co-champions. Co-champions are how pretty much every conference did it before conference championship games came around. College football history is full of co-champions. Yet 2014 TCU seems to be the only team in the history of college football that that the college football fans talk about “not actually being a true conference champion.” I’m tired of 2014 TCU being the only team that ever gets singled out this way

The B1G had THREE co-champions in 2010. Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Michigan State. Wisconsin beat Ohio State. Michigan State beat Wisconsin. Iowa beat Michigan State. Going into the Rose Bowl game, I don’t remember anyone talking about how Wisconsin wasn’t a “true” conference champion as they had lost the head to head to Michigan State.
 
Limey Frog

Limey Frog

Full Member
Planks said:
However, I wholeheartedly reject your statement “As far as I'm concerned, we weren't conference co-champions in 2014”. The rules are the rules.
Click to expand...
That's why I wrote "a far as I'm concerned". I think those rules are dumb. Especially when you're marketing the league with the tag line "one true champion".
 
Limey Frog

Limey Frog

Full Member
Wexahu said:
But you play 12-13 games, they should all count. By only using HTH you are effectively rendering the one loss by the winner of the HTH matchup as a meaningless game.

Let's take two teams from the same league (not saying this is TCU-Baylor 2014). Team A is dominant all year and wins their games by an average of 25 points. Team B wins all it's games but one but by an average of only 7 points, and their loss is to a so-so team by a significant margin. Team B beats Team A on their home field by a point.

IMO Team A should absolutely be picked ahead of Team B, even though they lost to them. Not even a debate IMO.
Click to expand...
The games you play against other championship contenders count more.
 
Zubaz

Zubaz

Member
Planks said:
I’m fine with the idea that the committee would take Baylor over TCU due to head to head. Which the committee did effectively do, having Baylor at #5 and TCU at #6. I do think TCU was the better team, but our resumes were probably close enough that is perfectly reasonable to have Baylor ahead of TCU based upon the head to head result. That’s what I think I would have done had I been a member of the committee.

However, I wholeheartedly reject your statement “As far as I'm concerned, we weren't conference co-champions in 2014”. The rules are the rules. TCU and Baylor were co-champions. Co-champions are how pretty much every conference did it before conference championship games came around. College football history is full of co-champions. Yet 2014 TCU seems to be the only team in the history of college football that that the college football fans talk about “not actually being a true conference champion.” I’m tired of 2014 TCU being the only team that ever gets singled out this way

The B1G had THREE co-champions in 2010. Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Michigan State. Wisconsin beat Ohio State. Michigan State beat Wisconsin. Iowa beat Michigan State. Going into the Rose Bowl game, I don’t remember anyone talking about how Wisconsin wasn’t a “true” conference champion as they had lost the head to head to Michigan State.
Click to expand...
Indeed. If you want to talk about split titles not being as impressive as outright titles, or that H2H should be used for the purposes of bowl bids....sure that's fair, no problem. But the idea that TCU was not a legitimate conference champion ignores DECADES of precedent for every conference that didn't have a CCG, which until the 2010's was *most of them*.

For crying out loud, 2002 Ohio State won the national title.....as a conference co-champion.
 
B

bronco

Active Member
Wexahu said:
Could have easily kept us out last year if they wanted to. We weren't conference champions and we had plenty of less than impressive wins. To be clear, I think we deserved a spot, but I can't believe the "they just pick who will get the best ratings and who they see fit" bit is still a narrative.
Click to expand...
Last year there was only two one loss teams. Ohio State and TCU. Next up was 2 loss Bama
 
This Ain't Chopped Liver

This Ain't Chopped Liver

Active Member
PineyWoodsFrog said:
I agree with you on this. So, if Alabama and Texas both win who gets the higher ranking? Does Alabama leap-frog Texas for beating the #1 team and defending back-to-back champ (which shouldn't matter, but the committee does these types of things) or does the head-to-head give Texas the nod?
Click to expand...
I think Texas is now ranked ahead of Alabama due to that head-to-head win, because I think Alabama, even with that loss, has a clear more impressive group of following wins over currently ranked #11 Miss., #21 Tennessee and #13 LSU. They were all at Alabama, but all by 14 points, 24-10, 34-20 and 42-28. Texas has that great road win over #8 Alabama, but after that, only a home win over #25 Kansas State, 33-30.

That being said, I think if Bama beats Georgia that should be enough to finally get them ranked ahead of Texas.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top