It's hard to wrap my head around it, but there are still folks thinking a 1 loss non-champ is a threat to a 1 loss champ. I don't know how to respond to that line of thinking other than hoping they aren't making the financial decisions for their families.
McElroy was basically making the point that it's never been about picking the best 4 teams and he used Ohio state (in a previous year) as an example. It was beautiful and Galloway about lost his shit. Best teams vs. deserving teams has always been a weird balancing act and has never been applied consistently. FSU will likely make it in because they deserve it, but Oregon is getting a boost because they are perceived as a better team than Texas.
The only way your view makes any sense is if you believe that there is a higher probability of a 1 loss non-champ Washington jumping a 1 loss texas champ (basically zero chance) vs. the probability of 1 loss Texas champ jumping a 1 loss Oregon champ (small, but greater than zero). Everything is possible with people being involved, but that's a really bad take if that's what you are saying.
Because there is zero chance of us beating out 13-0 washington for a spot. It's unlikely at this point we jump 12-1 Oregon based on the committee love for them, but it's a greater than zero chance and an argument could be made. Oregon winning increases our odds vs Washington winning. It's pretty simple.
As far as game watching -
I'll be pulling for Oregon Friday night (even if we don't have a shot at jumping them, I'd rather play them vs. Washington in the playoffs)
Saturday AM - Pulling for Texas
Saturday Afternoon - pulling for Bama
Saturday Night - Pulling for Louisville and Iowa
We are way, way overdue for some upsets in these top teams this season. Odds are very good that at least one will happen. As long as it's not Washington or OSU, we'll have a shot. There would be nothing sweeter than Iowa over Michigan (a guy can dream).
Yeah, the committee has had plenty of chances to jump Alabama over Texas while we were struggling a bit and Bama had some good wins during that stretch. That isn't 100% guarantee a CCG win over Georgia doesn't tip the scale, but they clearly haven't forgotten about the head to head. The dialog I've heard consistently that Texas goes in over Bama based on head to head (even from Bama homers), but then in the next sentence they say the SEC champ deserves to go. Unprecedented conflict, I don't think anyone knows for sure what the committee does with that. I think Texas is the less controversial pick, but that may not mean anything to the committee
Either way, I just hope they play a better game than Florida did last week. FSU tried to lose that game multiple times, but Florida would have no part of it. That shit was hard to watch. Undisciplined, stupid football. I was just thinking how thankful I was Napier isn't our coach.
It's not crazy (like Iowa over Mich), but still only around ~25% chance based on the odds. But there is a better chance Bama wins over Georgia. As much as everyone is doom and gloom, Texas still has a decent shot. If you believe ESPN's predictor (which looks reasonable to me), we are sitting at about 50/50 shot of making playoffs (near 100% if FSU loses and still a decent shot if Bama wins). Texas chances are actually not that much lower than Georgia's chances, but Georgia controls their destiny.
I was thinking about that angle as well, but I believe the Oregon love is too strong. I expected them to put tOSU at #5 this week in front of all the one loss teams. The fact that they elevated Oregon above and kept Texas and Bama below is telling. If Bama wins, we get the spot (based on head to head) or Bama gets the spot (because Bama/SEC and recency of win over Georgia). Most of the predictors I've seen basically makes the scenario a coin toss (ie - nobody knows how the committee would deal with it, it's totally unprecedented).
Hard disagree that a Georgia non-champ gets in. Much more likely that we pass up Bama if they win and get that spot. Nothing is guaranteed, but the chance of SEC being excluded is much higher than the chance of them putting 2 in with a non-champ. It's been beat to death in this thread, but all the times a one loss non-champ has made it was when there were no 1 loss champs in play.
The only new thing we learned tonight is that there is no situation where we jump Oregon. The rest of it is business as usual. FSU loss and we're in. Bama win and we have a good shot.
You don't understand how this works. They do this every year and every year people freak out about it for no reason. They don't apply the conference champ data point until after the CCG's. tOSU will not be above a 1 loss conference champ on Sunday.
Yeah, that's great against Georgia, but how has Texas done against the other elite SEC team? Oh, that's right, we're 8-2-1 against Bama.
Ironically, Vandy is the only SEC team that has a good record against Texas. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say we'll start chipping into that next year.
I'm honestly surprised how many in the media are saying that FSU should be out while one loss Texas/Bama/Oregon should be in. I think it's wrong, but I want to believe... If FSU isn't #4 tonight, they are likely done if they don't look impressive in a win on Saturday. Besides the "better team" argument, I think the media hates the idea that we might get a "wasted" playoff game where FSU isn't competitive. I don't know how much the committee has the same mindset, but who the hell wants FSU in at this point over a 1 loss Texas, Bama, or Oregon?
There is a lot of chatter in the media saying this would be the solution. I still think it's a long shot, but it sure solves a lot of potential problems and only screws FSU. It's all going to come down to where the committee falls on prioritizing best teams vs. deserving teams.
Because people like that don't like to fall on swords publicly and admit screw ups. I could never be a politician because I'm the first guy to fall on a sword (even if it isn't mine) if it moves things forward. If you aren't screwing things up on a regular basis, you aren't trying hard enough.... Most of the committee members are glorified politicians pushing their agendas, there is no performance incentive for them to "get the right teams".
OK, but not in the same league of dumb as Jimbo's contract (or Lincoln's). Elko's an unproven guy. Maybe the base salary is too high or the term too long, but using incentives is a good way to only pay the guy if he does well. For me, the dumb contracts in college football are the guaranteed 9+m/year even if you suck. That said, I've got zero background in compensation for football coaches, I have no idea what makes these guys tick. But I've spent a lot of years around comp plans for sales execs and I don't mind paying them 2x what the CEO makes if he's knocking it out of the park. And a painless exit plan for non-performers if they can't get done in a reasonable amount of time. Why it has to be so different for coaches, I don't understand.
Yeah, I don't know. Even if $17.5m is the payout for an NC year, that's not a dumb number. Shit like that drives finance people crazy (because it's hard to know what to plan for), but the reality is that will be a very rare year and even if he's winning an NC ever few years that's $ well spent. It's a way you can convince Elko he's making as much (or more) as the top guys without committing to pay him $10m/year+. Under that plan, chances are his average annual salary would be well under $10m, even if he's getting into the playoffs frequently.
The lack of clarifying language on those incentives is surprising. Maybe this is just the summary and that detail is elsewhere? Maybe the intent is to only get paid for the highest accomplishment, but it reads as if he gets a 10.5m (cumulative) bonus for winning the national championship. That's certainly how I'd interpret it if it was my comp plan. I'd be curious which way it goes. Honestly, a national championship is probably worth much more than $3.5m (and not likely to be paid frequently if at all), so I suspect it's cumulative. It doesn't look like a terrible contract, obviously a much better than what they get themselves into with Jimbo.
Pretty much all college football teams have flaws and there have been plenty of very flawed teams with national championships. That's the beauty of college football. A bunch of 18-22 year old guys are always going to make things a bit unpredictable. If we get into the playoffs, this team could absolutely get it done.