(11-17-2017 06:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (11-17-2017 04:47 AM)TripleA Wrote: And as someone else mentioned. Houston had a shot last year, if they had run the table. So, it's highly unlikely, but it isn't quite impossible.
Yes. Houston could have done it last year. They "just" needed to (a) go undefeated, and (b) have both Oklahoma and Louisville have great years.
Of those things, only Oklahoma having a great year came through. Houston lost to a few AAC teams, and then Louisville wasn't quite as good as hoped.
But had Houston gone unbeaten, they very well could have made the playoffs. They had tons of credibility going in to the season after winning the Peach Bowl as well.
Key thing is scheduling: Without beating P5 powers, the CFP will never take our schedules seriously enough to make the playoffs. We have to schedule not just any P5 but top P5 to prove it to them.
I guess I’m more cynical than TripleA. I don’t think Houston would have made the play off last year if they went undefeated. I actually do believe the selection committee is not above using pure BS to block a G5 team. Hell, they are doing it now. Zero reason UCF isn’t in the top 10 if Wisconsin is a top 10 team.
Memphis might be another good case study. After beating Ole Miss (who had beat Bama), why wasn’t Memphis in the top ten?
Look, the “eye test” and SOS are always going to be handy tools to eliminate any G5 regardless of who they beat and who they schedule. The “eye test” is a totally made up test that means whatever they choose to make it mean. SOS will always be an albatross for any G5 team because any G5 team will always be stuck with at least 8 games vs G5 teams.
UH had Oklahoma and Louisville on the schedule in 2016, something that will almost never happen to a G5, and also played in the top G5 conference. Despite this, they still had an SOS that was well into the lower half of football for that year (I think it was rated in the 80’s if I remember correctly). SOS will always be an easy throw down excuse to eliminate a G5.
Here’s the thing. SOS is mostly irrelevant. By thier own definition, the committee is tasked with finding the 4 “best” teams—not the most “deserving”. So, what you really need is enough comparative data points to tell who the best teams are. It’s doesn’t matter if the total schedules were better or worse—it’s what you did when you did meet those tough teams. Teams with multiple losses are ranked in front of teams with no losses because of Who they lost to. But my question has always been “How the hell does losing to good teams do anything other than prove you aren’t good enough to beat good teams”. Yet it’s routinely used as an explanation for why a multiple loss squad is in front of an undefeated G5.
Last year is our best expample. An undefeated G5 with 2 P5 wins was well outside the top ten and was rsnked behind at least one 4 loss team. This committee will NEVER put a G5 in the playoff. It will take serious reform in the method in which the committee is appointed for a G5 to have any chance of making the playoff. There will need to be a real effort to equally balance the committee with P5 and G5 reps before any G5 will ever be placed in the playoff. Right now, it’s structurally impossible. JMHO.
