Citrus Bowl.....Notre Dame vs. LSU
Outback Bowl.....Michigan vs. South Carolina
TaxSlayer Bowl.....Louisville vs. Mississippi State
Valero Alamo Bowl.....Stanford vs. TCU
Camping World Bowl.....Virginia Tech vs. Oklahoma State
Outback Bowl.....Michigan vs. South Carolina
TaxSlayer Bowl.....Louisville vs. Mississippi State
Valero Alamo Bowl.....Stanford vs. TCU
Camping World Bowl.....Virginia Tech vs. Oklahoma State
| Friday, Dec 29, 2017 - NCAA Football Game | |||||||
| 255 | USC | | +6½ | -110 | |||
| 256 | Ohio State | -6½ | -110 | |
<tbody>
</tbody>
| Saturday, Dec 30, 2017 - NCAA Football Game | ||||||
| 263 | Wisconsin | | -5½ | -110 | ||
| 264 | Miami Florida | +5½ | -110 |
<tbody>
</tbody>
| Monday, Jan 01, 2018 - NCAA Football Game | |||||||
| 267 | Central Florida | | +8½ | -110 | |||
| 268 | Auburn | -8½ | -110 |
<tbody>
</tbody>
I`ll do a bowl thread once the whole schedule comes out
Why the selection committee got it right.
Two weeks ago, Alabama lost to Auburn, and Nick Saban knew well enough to start making his pitch. Forget the fact that his team failed to win its division, let alone its own conference. He started stumping that the Tide deserved playoff consideration.
They lurked just outside the top four going into championship weekend, and it did seem very real indeed that this team could make the College Football Playoff despite a sloppy performance in a loss to its rival. It just needed a few games to go its way.
Then Saturday night happened, and the biggest piece that had to fall into place did: Ohio State beat undefeated Wisconsin, leaving the Tide and the Buckeyes jockeying for the No. 4 spot. The 12 hours in between Ohio State's getting crowned Big Ten champions and the playoff reveal were filled with delirious anticipation and debates that raged over how, exactly, the selection committee would judge these two teams.
Should they be judged on the eye test? Overall résumé? Ranked wins? Conference championships? Was oneunequivocally better than the other?
Ultimately, the selection committee let us know in decisive fashion that Ohio State and Alabama really were not that comparable, rendering the arguments that ensued over the past 48 hours moot. The members let us know in no uncertain terms that Alabama was indeed unequivocally better than Ohio State, despite sitting at home this weekend while watching five Power 5 teams earn conference championships.
That includes the Buckeyes, of course. They, too, made the playoff last year as a one-loss nonconference champion. So the precedent had already been set. But what the committee announced with this vote Sunday is that "unequivocally better" means that conference affiliation has no bearing on that definition.
For the first time, two teams made the playoff from the same conference, and the committee members seemed to dismiss the notion that they would have a hard time doing that with a collective shrug.
"The selection committee just favored Alabama's full body of work over Ohio State, and it was consistent over the course of the year, as we saw Alabama play week in and week out," committee chairman Kirby Hocutt told Rece Davis after the semifinals were announced. "Our rankings showed each and every week the selection committee believed Alabama was the better football team."
Alabama was ranked ahead of Ohio State in every single playoff ranking this season, going back to the first one revealed Halloween night. So there is consistency in that explanation. Alabama also did not lose by 31 points to Iowa. That loss by itself was enough to sink Ohio State's chances, at least in the committee's view.
Whether the committee got it right is subject to your own interpretation about what should be most important. Here is why I believe the committee got it right: Based on performance alone, Alabama consistently looked like a top-four team. Ohio State did not.
In all honesty, Ohio State should have been disqualified from consideration for that dreadful 55-24 loss against Iowa. Had that been the Buckeyes' only loss this season, the committee would in all likelihood have been willing to overlook it. Clemson has a bad loss, too, but the Tigers have so many quality wins and an ACC championship that it hardly mattered. If Ohio State had only one loss, I firmly believe the Buckeyes would be in today.
But there is no scrubbing away the performance we saw from a supposed top-four team at Iowa. This is not remotely similar to Alabama's loss, or even Clemson's loss to Syracuse. Ohio State had its full complement of players and got boat raced. The committee had every right to hold that against the Buckeyes. In this case, the Big Ten conference championship shouldn't have been used as the trump card to end the argument.
Placed in a vacuum, without names or conferences attached to these schools, Alabama had the better strength of record. According to ESPN Stats & Information, the average Top 25 team would have only a 9 percent chance of going 11-1 against Alabama's schedule. Accordingly, the average Top 25 team would have a 14 percent chance to go 11-2 against Ohio State's schedule.
Alabama also beat its opponents more decisively and spent all season ranked in the top two until its final loss to Auburn.
"I would say our charge is very simple," Hocutt said. "Our charge is, the selection committee has to identify the four very best teams in the country. When there are close separations between the teams, we're instructed to look at certain criteria. In this case, the margins weren't close enough to look at those."
Given that explanation and the way the committee ranked Alabama all season, what happened Sunday shouldn't come as a massive shock. In hindsight, it should have been completely expected. Couple that with the decision to put Ohio State in last season, and the committee has proved in consecutive years now that it will choose the four teams it deems to be the best. Conference championship or not. So Alabama is in. And now the matchup we all clamored for when the season began is here, just a little earlier than anticipated. It's Clemson vs. Alabama, Part III. Though nobody anticipated back in September they'd meet in the semifinal, the thought back then was the Tigers and Tide were indeed two of the best teams in the country.
Now that December's here, that idea hasn't changed.
Two weeks ago, Alabama lost to Auburn, and Nick Saban knew well enough to start making his pitch. Forget the fact that his team failed to win its division, let alone its own conference. He started stumping that the Tide deserved playoff consideration.
They lurked just outside the top four going into championship weekend, and it did seem very real indeed that this team could make the College Football Playoff despite a sloppy performance in a loss to its rival. It just needed a few games to go its way.
Then Saturday night happened, and the biggest piece that had to fall into place did: Ohio State beat undefeated Wisconsin, leaving the Tide and the Buckeyes jockeying for the No. 4 spot. The 12 hours in between Ohio State's getting crowned Big Ten champions and the playoff reveal were filled with delirious anticipation and debates that raged over how, exactly, the selection committee would judge these two teams.
Should they be judged on the eye test? Overall résumé? Ranked wins? Conference championships? Was oneunequivocally better than the other?
Ultimately, the selection committee let us know in decisive fashion that Ohio State and Alabama really were not that comparable, rendering the arguments that ensued over the past 48 hours moot. The members let us know in no uncertain terms that Alabama was indeed unequivocally better than Ohio State, despite sitting at home this weekend while watching five Power 5 teams earn conference championships.
That includes the Buckeyes, of course. They, too, made the playoff last year as a one-loss nonconference champion. So the precedent had already been set. But what the committee announced with this vote Sunday is that "unequivocally better" means that conference affiliation has no bearing on that definition.
For the first time, two teams made the playoff from the same conference, and the committee members seemed to dismiss the notion that they would have a hard time doing that with a collective shrug.
"The selection committee just favored Alabama's full body of work over Ohio State, and it was consistent over the course of the year, as we saw Alabama play week in and week out," committee chairman Kirby Hocutt told Rece Davis after the semifinals were announced. "Our rankings showed each and every week the selection committee believed Alabama was the better football team."
Alabama was ranked ahead of Ohio State in every single playoff ranking this season, going back to the first one revealed Halloween night. So there is consistency in that explanation. Alabama also did not lose by 31 points to Iowa. That loss by itself was enough to sink Ohio State's chances, at least in the committee's view.
Whether the committee got it right is subject to your own interpretation about what should be most important. Here is why I believe the committee got it right: Based on performance alone, Alabama consistently looked like a top-four team. Ohio State did not.
In all honesty, Ohio State should have been disqualified from consideration for that dreadful 55-24 loss against Iowa. Had that been the Buckeyes' only loss this season, the committee would in all likelihood have been willing to overlook it. Clemson has a bad loss, too, but the Tigers have so many quality wins and an ACC championship that it hardly mattered. If Ohio State had only one loss, I firmly believe the Buckeyes would be in today.
But there is no scrubbing away the performance we saw from a supposed top-four team at Iowa. This is not remotely similar to Alabama's loss, or even Clemson's loss to Syracuse. Ohio State had its full complement of players and got boat raced. The committee had every right to hold that against the Buckeyes. In this case, the Big Ten conference championship shouldn't have been used as the trump card to end the argument.
Placed in a vacuum, without names or conferences attached to these schools, Alabama had the better strength of record. According to ESPN Stats & Information, the average Top 25 team would have only a 9 percent chance of going 11-1 against Alabama's schedule. Accordingly, the average Top 25 team would have a 14 percent chance to go 11-2 against Ohio State's schedule.
Alabama also beat its opponents more decisively and spent all season ranked in the top two until its final loss to Auburn.
"I would say our charge is very simple," Hocutt said. "Our charge is, the selection committee has to identify the four very best teams in the country. When there are close separations between the teams, we're instructed to look at certain criteria. In this case, the margins weren't close enough to look at those."
Given that explanation and the way the committee ranked Alabama all season, what happened Sunday shouldn't come as a massive shock. In hindsight, it should have been completely expected. Couple that with the decision to put Ohio State in last season, and the committee has proved in consecutive years now that it will choose the four teams it deems to be the best. Conference championship or not. So Alabama is in. And now the matchup we all clamored for when the season began is here, just a little earlier than anticipated. It's Clemson vs. Alabama, Part III. Though nobody anticipated back in September they'd meet in the semifinal, the thought back then was the Tigers and Tide were indeed two of the best teams in the country.
Now that December's here, that idea hasn't changed.
This is why the committee got it wrong from this author’s own article: In all honesty, Ohio State should have been disqualified from consideration for that dreadful 55-24 loss against Iowa. Had that been the Buckeyes' only loss this season, the committee would in all likelihood have been willing to overlook it. Clemson has a bad loss, too, but the Tigers have so many quality wins and an ACC championship that it hardly mattered. If Ohio State had only one loss, I firmly believe the Buckeyes would be in today.
If OSU only had one loss. Therein lies the problem. So the committee says OSU and USC, who already play 9 P5 games in conf just like Alabama played overall, you should have scheduled a home game vs a FCS school and you would be in instead of another P5 school. Same for Penn St and Oklahoma last year. If they would have played Mercer and not Pitt or OSU they would have been in the 2016 playoffs.
In fact, I would argue that Oklahoma playing OSU at all did not help Oklahoma one bit in either year! Last year it screwed them out of a playoff spot and this year they still would have been in the playoffs had they beat Mercer instead of OSU. Why would Oklahoma want to schedule a tough OOC if the committee is saying losss matter more than wins?
The country and committee are are too hung up on the two loss issue for teams. The committee should not punish team support for playing tough schedules, they should reward them. But alas, the committee is saying fuck the fans, schedule FCS opponents and force your league to play 8 conf games instead of 9 which is bad for all of us. If the PAC 12, B10 and B12 had an extra game most likely they would be playing bad teams so one less game of good football for all of us.
Lastly, Saban needs to stop running his mouth about not being able to schedule anyone so they had to schedule Mercer. Complete BS. They already have Mercer scheduled for 2021, 4 Years out. Not to mention they were supposed to play a home and home with MSU in 2016/2017 which Bama backed out of. Had Bama beat MSU instead of Mercer I would have not had an issue with this selection but that means Bama would actually have had to go to East Lansing and play 10 P5 games which they have not done in years.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...a-michigan-state-football-series-off/2877807/
If OSU only had one loss. Therein lies the problem. So the committee says OSU and USC, who already play 9 P5 games in conf just like Alabama played overall, you should have scheduled a home game vs a FCS school and you would be in instead of another P5 school. Same for Penn St and Oklahoma last year. If they would have played Mercer and not Pitt or OSU they would have been in the 2016 playoffs.
In fact, I would argue that Oklahoma playing OSU at all did not help Oklahoma one bit in either year! Last year it screwed them out of a playoff spot and this year they still would have been in the playoffs had they beat Mercer instead of OSU. Why would Oklahoma want to schedule a tough OOC if the committee is saying losss matter more than wins?
The country and committee are are too hung up on the two loss issue for teams. The committee should not punish team support for playing tough schedules, they should reward them. But alas, the committee is saying fuck the fans, schedule FCS opponents and force your league to play 8 conf games instead of 9 which is bad for all of us. If the PAC 12, B10 and B12 had an extra game most likely they would be playing bad teams so one less game of good football for all of us.
Lastly, Saban needs to stop running his mouth about not being able to schedule anyone so they had to schedule Mercer. Complete BS. They already have Mercer scheduled for 2021, 4 Years out. Not to mention they were supposed to play a home and home with MSU in 2016/2017 which Bama backed out of. Had Bama beat MSU instead of Mercer I would have not had an issue with this selection but that means Bama would actually have had to go to East Lansing and play 10 P5 games which they have not done in years.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...a-michigan-state-football-series-off/2877807/
Bama scheduled FSU, and FSU was supposed to be a national title contender
The SEC is stronger than the BIG 10, especially in the middle and lower tiers. The Big 10's lower tier is very large too
The SEC is stronger than the BIG 10, especially in the middle and lower tiers. The Big 10's lower tier is very large too
Bama scheduled FSU, and FSU was supposed to be a national title contender. Can't fault Bama for FSU losing it's QB on opening day.
The SEC is stronger than the BIG 10, especially the SEC West. The Big 10 is considerable weaker in the middle and lower tiers, and their lower tier is very large too. Ohio St's conference schedule has enough cupcakes already
Every single team in the SEC West has been highly ranked at some point in recent years
Three teams from the SEC West have won national championships in recent years, and Florida from the East has as well
Several Big 10 Champions have been blown off the field in their recent bowl appearances, including Ohio St
In Bowl games, the SEC is the best historically while the Big 10 is closer to the bottom
In head to head, the SEC dominates the Big 10, and does so just about every year
I'm posting this not to justify picking Bama over Ohio St, although it helps, I'm posting this in response to arguments mocking Bama's schedule. Choosing one or two games is straw-man cherry picking approach
The SEC is stronger than the BIG 10, especially the SEC West. The Big 10 is considerable weaker in the middle and lower tiers, and their lower tier is very large too. Ohio St's conference schedule has enough cupcakes already
Every single team in the SEC West has been highly ranked at some point in recent years
Three teams from the SEC West have won national championships in recent years, and Florida from the East has as well
Several Big 10 Champions have been blown off the field in their recent bowl appearances, including Ohio St
In Bowl games, the SEC is the best historically while the Big 10 is closer to the bottom
In head to head, the SEC dominates the Big 10, and does so just about every year
I'm posting this not to justify picking Bama over Ohio St, although it helps, I'm posting this in response to arguments mocking Bama's schedule. Choosing one or two games is straw-man cherry picking approach
I concur, and predicted such as well
Whatever decision they make they have to spin, and the logic they cite in their spin more inconsistent than not
I agree, and as I said earlier, I believe they have selected exactly the right teams all 4 years they have had this playoff selection committee. As for non-conference scheduling, teams that play 9 conference games should play 1 very good FBS team, 1 average FBS team and 1 below average FBS team (or if they can't get 3 FBS teams, 1 very good FCS team). Teams that play 8 conference games should play a similar schedule except add in a second at least average FBS team.
