Yahoo! Sports: Georgia, Michigan, TCU and USC should be in no matter what

[TopFrog]

Georgia, Michigan, TCU and USC should be in no matter what​

Story by Dan Wetzel

The penultimate 2022 College Football Playoff rankings that will be revealed Tuesday night are likely to look as such:

1. Georgia (12-0)
2. Michigan (12-0)
3. TCU (12-0)
4. USC (11-1)
5. Ohio State (11-1)
6. Alabama (10-2)

Perhaps Georgia and Michigan are swapped — the Wolverines' best wins are better than the Bulldogs' best wins. Or perhaps it's Alabama, based on two close road losses, that sits at No. 5, above Ohio State, who lost big, 45-23, to Michigan at home Saturday.

Whatever, none of that really matters.

If the top four are Georgia, Michigan, TCU and USC, then committee chairman Boo Corrigan should make a simple declaration.

The field is set. These are the four teams that will appear in the playoff. This weekend’s conference championship games will be for seeding purposes only.

Read more at https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nc...d-usc-should-be-in-no-matter-what/ar-AA14C145

 

[Pharm Frog]

Article is precisely correct which is why it likely will not happen like it says.

 

[Tshirt Fan]

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

No way USC should be in with a loss. They’d have a worse record than Ohio State, the same record as (likely) ACC champ Clemson, and only one game better than PAC 12 champ Utah who will have beaten them twice.

 

[Pharm Frog]

No way USC should be in with a loss. They’d have a worse record than Ohio State, the same record as (likely) ACC champ Clemson, and only one game better than PAC 12 champ Utah who will have beaten them twice.

So they’d be better off not having won their own zone of a conference? Makes no sense at all. Makes more since then playing a round robin plus one though.

 

[TopFrog]

Beat Kansas State

 

[Rex Kramer]

I like the logic put forth here, but seeing as the CFP committee does not do things according to logic…

Also, not sure if I like the logic because it works in TCU’s favor or because it appears sound. If we were in a situation like OSU right now, I’m sure that emotional arguments would sway me more than this logical argument.

 

[TopFrog]

I would say the only change would (should) be if USC loses to Utah (again). A two-loss USC will not be in ahead of one-loss tOSU or two-loss Bama, IMO.

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

So they’d be better off not having won their own zone of a conference? Makes no sense at all. Makes more since then playing a round robin plus one though.

no, an 11-1 USC would be in the exact same boat.

 

[Fred Garvin]

Just win, baby! We can't let them have a reason to drop us for tOSU. This headline is exhibit A.

Saturday's Michigan-Ohio State game was the most-watched regular season college football game EVER on FOX with 17 million viewers; and it was the most-watched regular season college football game on any network in 11 years.

 

[HToady]

Everyone of the conference championship games pits one team that because of previous losses can’t make it to the final 4. So what’s the point? Yea I know....money.

 

[HToady]

Plus every team that doesn’t play next Saturday doesn’t get to move up for sitting at home, right? I mean that was the rule that caused the Big 12 to start a championship game even though we all know who the champion is

 

[KillerFrog InD KitchenSink]

no, an 11-1 USC would be in the exact same boat.

Wetzel's says that if you do rank Ohio State ahead of USC right now, then it is a different argument. Then the extra game can matter- a win and USC passes Ohio State, a loss and Ohio state stays ahead. But if you rank USC ahead right now based on what the teams have done this year then what happens in the PAC-12 championship game shouldn't matter. He expounds on this in this article:

Should the College Football Playoff field already be set? | College Football Enquirer

Yahoo Sports’ Dan Wetzel, and Sports Illustrated’s Pat Forde and Ross Dellenger discuss the results of a wild Week 13 in college football, and debate if the College Football Playoff Field should already bet set before conference championship week.

sports.yahoo.com

You cannot intellectually say, after 12 weeks, that USC is better than Ohio State and then say, but we're going to make USC and only USC, in this argument, clear a 13th hurdle where Ohio State doesn't have to do anything. Ohio State, by not winning their division, gets a bye. Alabama gets a bye.

IT's actually a pretty compelling argument.

 

[KillerFrog InD KitchenSink]

I would say the only change would (should) be if USC loses to Utah (again). A two-loss USC will not be in ahead of one-loss tOSU or two-loss Bama, IMO.

IOW, reward them for not making their championship game?

 

[Wexahu]

Wetzel's says that if you do rank Ohio State ahead of USC right now, then it is a different argument. Then the extra game can matter- a win and USC passes Ohio State, a loss and Ohio state stays ahead. But if you rank USC ahead right now based on what the teams have done this year then what happens in the PAC-12 championship game shouldn't matter. He expounds on this in this article:

Should the College Football Playoff field already be set? | College Football Enquirer

Yahoo Sports’ Dan Wetzel, and Sports Illustrated’s Pat Forde and Ross Dellenger discuss the results of a wild Week 13 in college football, and debate if the College Football Playoff Field should already bet set before conference championship week.

sports.yahoo.com

IT's actually a pretty compelling argument.

I wouldn't say the team on BYE should never pass the one that is playing in the CCGs but it needs to be a very convincing result. Just losing the game should not cost you, losing in blowout fashion maybe should, depending on other factors. We should definitely have more rope than USC of course.

 

[AroundWorldFrog]

 

[KillerFrog InD KitchenSink]

I wouldn't say the team on BYE should never pass the one that is playing in the CCGs but it needs to be a very convincing result. Just losing the game should not cost you, losing in blowout fashion maybe should, depending on other factors. We should definitely have more rope than USC of course.

I think the counter to Wetzel's argument is that the committee is charged to get the four best teams in the playoff, not the four most deserving teams. If the overriding goal is the four best teams, then how can they ignore extra the extra data that the championship games provide? I'm guessing that is how they will approach it, possibly to our detriment if we lose.

 

[Planks]

Wetzel's says that if you do rank Ohio State ahead of USC right now, then it is a different argument. Then the extra game can matter- a win and USC passes Ohio State, a loss and Ohio state stays ahead. But if you rank USC ahead right now based on what the teams have done this year then what happens in the PAC-12 championship game shouldn't matter. He expounds on this in this article:

Should the College Football Playoff field already be set? | College Football Enquirer

Yahoo Sports’ Dan Wetzel, and Sports Illustrated’s Pat Forde and Ross Dellenger discuss the results of a wild Week 13 in college football, and debate if the College Football Playoff Field should already bet set before conference championship week.

sports.yahoo.com

IT's actually a pretty compelling argument.

It is definitely a compelling argument, though I’m surprised they used USC as the example when TCU would have been the better example. TCU is undefeated, and beat every single team in their conference, including K State. But we could be punished by playing in an unnecessary conference championship, while Ohio State gets a bye week.

 

[Wexahu]

I think the counter to Wetzel's argument is that the committee is charged to get the four best teams in the playoff, not the four most deserving teams. If the overriding goal is the four best teams, then how can they ignore extra the extra data that the championship games provide? I'm guessing that is how they will approach it, possibly to our detriment if we lose.

This is kind of a myth. They say "best", but it's really the most "deserving", or whatever you want to call it. I think we all know what that means. The best teams don't always win every game, and winning has to take precedent.

 

[KillerFrog InD KitchenSink]

This is kind of a myth. They say "best", but it's really the most "deserving", or whatever you want to call it. I think we all know what that means. The best teams don't always win every game, and winning has to take precedent.

Not sure your point, but "most deserving" tends to mean what a team has accomplished. Overall record and who you have beaten. Essentially taking margin of victory and other non W/L data points out. "Best" is who is really better in a "power ranking" sense- who would be favored head to head, etc. W/L still important obviously, but overall power more important. "Best" uses other data points like MOV and efficiency and "eye test". The old BCS leaned toward most deserving with the computer systems they used- no MOV or efficiency or other data allowed. The playoff committee guidelines was a sort of reaction to that, spurred largely by the SEC. They wanted the playoff to be the four "best" teams. That is why I do think in the end they will use the Championship week results in their analysis. But I do get Wetzel's point that the fact that teams not even playing in the arena could potentially "win" (Alabama, Ohio State) stinks.