Western Kentucky, Mercer and South Florida aren’t tough competition. I will add to that statement and say South Florida gave us all we wanted the past two years.
| FTBL College Football Playoff Rankings Discussions & Updates
- Thread starter Nothing_But_A_Winner00
- Start date
bamafan9201
Member
And yet all 3 of those would be favored against over half of the people on SMU's schedule this year.
You may be right but I stick with my original post.
Crimson&WhiteGecko
Member
100% Agree.
SIDE NOTE: All of this is moot regarding changing who we scedule out of conference when ALL of our losses where in conference. It's like hammering our toe to keep the pain from hammering our thumb from hurting.
Last edited:
IMO, this is nothing more than a bluff (right now) to help generate change in the system.
bamafan9201
Member
It's the number in the loss column at this point not the quality of wins or losses. They made that pretty clear with their rankings this year. The only thing they've been consistent on is that H2H mattered quite a bit. Hence why certain teams did not jump us at any point.
As Brandon stated, I think we're looking at a massive change in the system. There's a lot of ways this will happen but I think the majority of people believe we will see automatic bids for lesser conferences removed and more automatic bids for the SEC and Big 10 added. There will be an emphasis on SoS in future CFP decisions and if it doesn't seem to fix after that they will likely begin the SEC vs Big 10 invitational format where they might bring in 1-2 at large bids and let them play.
I think we WILL see a few games canceled on Bama's non-conference schedule. As much as everyone wants to see those games, and yes this year we didn't lose to any non-conference teams. The issue still remains that our non-conference was easier than most years and was still head and shoulders better than other teams. If we had lost to say Wisconsin and beaten Oklahoma, we'd still have been a 3 loss team likely left out of the playoff. So it stands to reason, why take the extra RISK if it doesn't benefit you to do so.
Committee has stated that SoS will determine things, yet has constantly put SoS behind W-L record. At some point you have to adjust if that's the way things will continue to be done. I'd much prefer that we keep our Non-conference schedule and other teams are willing to schedule tougher as well but nobody wants to be left out of the playoffs while other teams get in because they decided to have a fun game earlier in the year.
Refuse to play conf games on road vs team that’s had 2 weeks to prepare.
50+yeartidefan
Member
Ridiculous. Didnt lose any non conference. And cant do anything about sec schedule.
50+yeartidefan
Member
Bur. Was suppose to be. Best. Anyway. It will be adjusted. Like anything else. Takes a cycle or 2
That was a rather glaring scheduling issue (to me anyway) I brought up before the season began... Bama got fucked compared to the rest of the SEC on how the bye weeks fell, and specifically the number of them compared to others. Years back, UA had a similar issue and got it "fixed". Now under the new format and league expansion, it's happened again. Byrne has enough clout, and Bama's brand is big enough within the SEC, that it should be an easy fix again, but that fact that it happened again to start with is troublesome. I haven't heard if it will be (we'll know soon), but I know they were not happy about it inside the facility.
PurlJam
Member
Good point. It's been that way a few years now after they fixed it the 1st time.
TerryP
Staff
Competing for a title...
I know but not exactly a hot bed of tough teams.
