Oregon. Yes they loss to Auburn but will be a conference champion.

I really do think a lot of people are discounting how good Oregon and Utah are. Oregon I really do believe is one of the 4 best teams in the country and I would favor them over Georgia and a Tua-less Bama.

Yes committee. They will keep Bama at 5 even with their weak ending schedule, so if Georgia upsets LSU, so they can force feed two SEC in the playoffs.

Here is the reality, the only evidence you have to point to that the committee will try and put in two SEC teams is 2017. Set aside them winning the title, that is irrelevant, tell us who should have been in over Alabama:

 

#5 OSU (11-2)

#6 Wisconsin (12-1)

#8 USC (11-2)

#9 PSU (10-2)

#10 Miami (10-2)

 

#7 was Auburn, an evil SEC team, so they are not up for consideration.

 

Maybe history played a factor in Alabama getting in as a non-conference champ winner, who knows. But the reality is the other teams had their own warts and didn't take advantage of the situation. Same will go for this year. If on the off chance two SEC teams make it to the playoffs, it will be because the others didn't do their part. Not because the Committee (which, to my understanding has no bias towards any conference) wants to see Nick Saban's grumpy butt on the screen.

I really do think a lot of people are discounting how good Oregon and Utah are. Oregon I really do believe is one of the 4 best teams in the country and I would favor them over Georgia and a Tua-less Bama.

 

I absolutely am. Until the Pac 12 shows they belong, they don't IMO. No chance I put Oregon or Utah in over UGA or Bama with similar records.

I really do think a lot of people are discounting how good Oregon and Utah are. Oregon I really do believe is one of the 4 best teams in the country and I would favor them over Georgia and a Tua-less Bama.

Many may not know of them, but they are both in prime position to get a slot.

I absolutely am. Until the Pac 12 shows they belong, they don't IMO. No chance I put Oregon or Utah in over UGA or Bama with similar records.

 

I'm inclined to agree.

I absolutely am. Until the Pac 12 shows they belong, they don't IMO. No chance I put Oregon or Utah in over UGA or Bama with similar records.

 

And this is where the system is flawed, in my opinion, because they'll never get a chance to show they belong.

I really do think a lot of people are discounting how good Oregon and Utah are. Oregon I really do believe is one of the 4 best teams in the country and I would favor them over Georgia and a Tua-less Bama.

You would know better than me, but the flaw with both of them just doing a quick search is they have each played a ranked team (at the time) team. Both lost. While they may be good, nothing stands out. Oregon's best win was a loss to Auburn. What is Utah's best win?

 

OU is the team best positioned, if they take care of business, to nab the final spot.

And this is where the system is flawed, in my opinion, because they'll never get a chance to show they belong.

 

Yes and no. Washington got in a few years ago and it was obvious they had no business being there. They would show they would belong without a blemish on their records. When we are having to make an argument, comparing/contrasting Pac 12 vs. SEC vs. Big 12, that is where Pac 12 is not going to get the benefit of the doubt. That is more so what Deuce means. Not saying it is fair or unfair, but it is the reality.

Yes and no. Washington got in a few years ago and it was obvious they had no business being there. They would show they would belong without a blemish on their records. When we are having to make an argument, comparing/contrasting Pac 12 vs. SEC vs. Big 12, that is where Pac 12 is not going to get the benefit of the doubt. That is more so what Deuce means. Not saying it is fair or unfair, but it is the reality.

 

Oh, I know it is the reality. Doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it. I'm just tired of hearing all the arguments and them being the basis for who gets in and who doesn't. I'd much rather see it actually played out on the field. And if then a team gets exposed for being a "fraud" by being embarrassed in a game, then they've got absolutely no excuse.

And this is where the system is flawed, in my opinion, because they'll never get a chance to show they belong.

 

Has an undefeated Pac 12 Champion been left out?

And this is where the system is flawed, in my opinion, because they'll never get a chance to show they belong.

 

Cinderella is only welcome in college basketball.

It doesn't matter who gets in, it will come down to Clemson and Ohio State. LSU is really good but if a crippled Tua can hang 40 points on them, Fields and Lawrence can too.

Edited November 20, 20196 yr by bugatti

Has an undefeated Pac 12 Champion been left out?

 

You know the answer as well as I. But, here we are arguing about the potential for a couple of 1-loss conference champions being left out, for a 1-loss non-champion. And if Boston College had the same record, against the same opponents as Clemson had this year...would people be automatically saying they should be in, the way they are the Tigers? Heck no, they'd be blasted for having bakery full of cupcakes on their schedule. But, because it's Clemson and they "proved it" by winning in previous years...they get a pass. So, you see what I'm getting at? We're using last year (and even further back, if you look at Washington) to use as an argument for who gets in and who's left out...this year. But hey, it makes great fodder for all the talking heads on tv, and boosts Ru's traffic here on BGP.

You know the answer as well as I. But, here we are arguing about the potential for a couple of 1-loss conference champions being left out, for a 1-loss non-champion. And if Boston College had the same record, against the same opponents as Clemson had this year...would people be automatically saying they should be in, the way they are the Tigers? Heck no, they'd be blasted for having bakery full of cupcakes on their schedule. But, because it's Clemson and they "proved it" by winning in previous years...they get a pass. So, you see what I'm getting at? We're using last year (and even further back, if you look at Washington) to use as an argument for who gets in and who's left out...this year. But hey, it makes great fodder for all the talking heads on tv, and boosts Ru's traffic here on BGP.

We are discussing it now, but we are still three weeks from really debating the merits of the Committee's decision. The one-loss non champion debate only comes in if others do not take care of business, leaving the door open for debate, which is where these other variables come into play. The '17 debate only came about because other teams allowed it to become one.