7 minutes ago, GrantNKY said:

Georgia’s schedule wasn’t any better besides Alabama and Florida. It’s not week in and week out. It’s 2 games. 

According to ESPN, UC’s SOS was 81. Georgia’s is 8. 

1 minute ago, TheDeuce said:

According to ESPN, UC’s SOS was 81. Georgia’s is 8. 

Yeah they played 2 teams in the top 10. UC didn’t. They also lost both of those games so strength of schedule doesn’t really prove anything. The rest of Georgia’s schedule is just as mediocre as UCs. 

5 minutes ago, GrantNKY said:

Yeah they played 2 teams in the top 10. UC didn’t. They also lost both of those games so strength of schedule doesn’t really prove anything. The rest of Georgia’s schedule is just as mediocre as UCs. 

That’s your opinion, facts don’t support it. 

 

Pat McAfee gets it:

https://twitter.com/PatMcAfeeShow/status/1336747109505257473?s=19

What boggles my mind is to think that if the College playoffs somehow consisted of 8 teams instead of the current 4, that an undefeated UC would still not be included in that format.  That's not right no matter how you look at.

1 hour ago, TheDeuce said:

That’s your opinion, facts don’t support it. 

What facts though? Outside of Florida and Bama, who has Georgia played that’s good. I’m not trying to say UC has faced a murderers row by any means, just that Georgia is beating a bunch of mediocre teams. 

7 hours ago, GrantNKY said:

What facts though? Outside of Florida and Bama, who has Georgia played that’s good. I’m not trying to say UC has faced a murderers row by any means, just that Georgia is beating a bunch of mediocre teams. 

The SOS... What are you using to determine that UC and UGA have played a similar schedule other than your opinion?

I just now saw the post by Walter that included Tim Brando's reply.  But, last night when I watched the rankings, that's exactly how I felt and now see it.  This is an invitational tournament in my eyes, from here on out.  The committee is deciding who they want in, and are willing to change whatever criteria they need in order to justify their decision.  The drop of Florida by only one spot (due to a loss from a mediocre) is a move done to protect Clemson, should they lose to ND this weekend. 

This is no longer a national playoff.  This is a sham.  The whole thing stinks.  Nobody can tell me what the pathway to a "bid" is at the beginning of the year...because there isn't one.  This is one of the biggest con jobs in America, designed to fleece millions and millions of dollars off of large, die-hard football fans and TV networks.

16 minutes ago, CincySportsFan said:

I just now saw the post by Walter that included Tim Brando's reply.  But, last night when I watched the rankings, that's exactly how I felt and now see it.  This is an invitational tournament in my eyes, from here on out.  The committee is deciding who they want in, and are willing to change whatever criteria they need in order to justify their decision.  The drop of Florida by only one spot (due to a loss from a mediocre) is a move done to protect Clemson, should they lose to ND this weekend. 

This is no longer a national playoff.  This is a sham.  The whole thing stinks.  Nobody can tell me what the pathway to a "bid" is at the beginning of the year...because there isn't one.  This is one of the biggest con jobs in America, designed to fleece millions and millions of dollars off of large, die-hard football fans and TV networks.

I'm a realist and know UC isn't on the same level of Bama, OSU, ND, and Clemson this year. I want to see the 4 best teams in. What makes all this so frustrating is that the committee is the only group who haven't recognized that UC is deserving to atleast be in position to get in if Clemson loses.

Both the coaches and AP have UC properly ranked at #6... 61 (!!!) AP voters had UC above Florida. Only one had UC below 6.

This isn't me being a homer. People who actually watch the games and are paid to evaluate/cover the teams each week recognize what the committee has done the past few weeks is flat out wrong based on what UC has done to date. 

9 hours ago, nkypete said:

What boggles my mind is to think that if the College playoffs somehow consisted of 8 teams instead of the current 4, that an undefeated UC would still not be included in that format.  That's not right no matter how you look at.

And that's also the reasoning for putting them there. So when people get all up in arms and say we should have 8 teams in the committee could respond with a G5 school still wouldn't be in.

UC wasn't going to get in becasue quite frankily the top 4 teams are pretty set. Alabama is in, Notre Dame is in, Clemson should win this weekend and they'll be in, and let's face it, Ohio State will steam roll Northwestern. What the committee has done the last two weeks however is bury them far enough down the rankings that if anarachy happens when they walk in next week they don't even have to consider them. 

I understand people are fustrated with this but plain and simple this is a members only club and if you aren't in a Power Five Conference you aren't invited. And it will never change. 

13 minutes ago, Pi said:

I understand people are fustrated with this but plain and simple this is a members only club and if you aren't in a Power Five Conference you aren't invited. And it will never change. 

It's really this simple. I don't understand why people are still up in arms about it. You are not getting in as a G5 with one Top 25 win, ever. It's not hard. 

16 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

It's really this simple. I don't understand why people are still up in arms about it. You are not getting in as a G5 with one Top 25 win, ever. It's not hard. 

Nor are you getting in with 12 of them. A G5 team isn't going. Period. 

3 minutes ago, Pi said:

Nor are you getting in with 12 of them. A G5 team isn't going. Period. 

Probably right. It's much easier to justify a G5 not getting in with only four teams, that becomes much more tough to do as you expand, IMO.