If Texas Tech falls to BYU, could they fall out of the top ten?
Bear with me.
Texas Tech has one current loss to an unranked Arizona State. They already beat BYU. If they lose to BYU, they become a 10-2 team like us and I think we have both better wins and better losses than they do. It wouldn't be unreasonable for them to slide down to #11 from #4.
"But the committee won't penalize a loss in a conference championship," I hear you saying. Under normal circumstances, I think you are right. However, the committee could argue that BYU and Texas Tech already played in the regular season and it is only the conference bylaws that put them together for a rematch in a conference championship. As such, they could say that this game doesn't get the special protections afforded normal conference championship games. [Yes, Alabama/Georgia is in the same boat but SEC gets special magical protections no one else gets. It just means more, you know?] Additionally, BYU avenges the regular season loss and ends with only one actual loss on their record; meaning they legitimately (via wins/losses record) should be in front of Texas Tech.
If I'm a committee member and Texas Tech takes a loss, I think it's worth evaluating dropping them out...
I know. I know. Wishful thinking.
Replies to: If Texas Tech falls to BYU, could they fall out of the top ten?
They absolutely should. Their schedule is a complete joke: B12+ APB, Oregon St, Kent St
(no message)
I feel like the committee already has a script written out for every scenario this weekend. It’s all
pre planned. AND……we never landed on the moon.
Bama is protected. If BYU loses then suddenly head to head matters & Miami is in.
All this drama is because of an 0-2 start. At the very least, 1-1 keeps the Irish in the hunt.
That would be great. It’s crap they count a win in those games but don’t count a loss.
(no message)
Re: That would be great. It’s crap they count a win in those games but don’t count a loss.
I don't think it's crap to have a system designed to protect the conference championship games -- if you would be in but for playing and losing that game then there are incentives for the conference to manipulate the game and wink wink nod nod the favorite into losing or otherwise bring the game into disrepute.
Sure, the existing system incentivizes a team like Alabama to sit its starters as they can lose and make it in anyway, but that's a different beast with sufficient precedent to not really implicate corruption.
nevertheless, it would be better for the conference championships to be rolled into the playoffs, such as a requirement that CFP entrants have participated in a postseason "tournament" of some kind which includes conference championship games and "invitational" games, or any other conference arrangements over a two-week period. Then re-rank and use the existing system.
Stronger/larger conferences (SEC/B1G) could just pair up their 3v6 and 4v5. Weaker/medium conferences (B12/ACC) could just pair up their 3v4, and G5s could coordinate to make their conference champions face off the following week. Anyone not invited to those would be eligible to be invited to a "Independence bowl game" (which would "draft" the best remaining teams, generally pitting the best of Independents, SEC/B1G#7, and B12/ACC#5) and a "best of the rest" 4-team tournament.
The important thing being that winning these games, aside from the 5 highest ranked conference champions, guarantees nothing, just an opportunity to prove yourself and improve your ranking/attractiveness to a traditional bowl game.
Games should never be played. But if they do they should count. Does Alabama
Fall out of top 12 if they lose then?
Consent Management