Time to stir up controversy: Alabama loses to Georgia

[Chewbaccer]

What should happen in this scenario:

Michigan in, Bama out.

What will actually happen, probably a natty on a platter for Bama.

But honestly if Georgia were to pull something out of their ass and pull out a win that I see no possible way of it happening, I'd like to see Bama left out cause we damn sure ain't beating them twice.

 

[tnapucco]

The fact that you gotta compare yourself to a G5 team that won't sniff the playoffs unless they are undefeated for 3-4 years straight is SAD and shows how strong your argument for OU being in the playoffs actually is.

So you admit UCF has no business being in the playoffs?

My work is done here.

Please delete all your threads. Thanks.

 

[Mistaken4193]

Bama is better than UGA too even if they lose to them .

Eye test is fine but at some point the criteria the committee claims to use has to count for something

Bama ( if they lose to UGA ) is likely to finish the year with 1 top 25 win. 1. If none of the criteria matters just get rid of the committee and use the polls to pick the playoff teams. They're all eye test

Im thinking 3 top 25 wins is more likely for Bama. LSU, Miss.State(who play Arkansas and OlePiss.), and I think Mizzou ends up 8-4 and is ranked.

In his scenario Michigan would deserve to go over Bama. We didnt deserve it last year but no one else did either and we were the tallest midget.

 

[7Samurai13]

You are right, games won on the field don’t mean anything, just let the committee decide

So you want 1/4 to 1/3 of the season to meaningless. Also why should the conference championship game be more meaningful than the game played earlier in the season, because you are saying that Michigan’s win over NW doesn’t mean anything. You want to reward teams that play in bad conferences and lose multiple games and pretend that it’s better than a team that loses one game in a game in a strong conference. This isn’t the NFL where divisions and conferences are relatively equal. They aren’t even close. How much attention do people pay towards the preseason in the NFL because that’s what non conference games will become, meaningless throw away games where you pull your starters after a series or two because you don’t want them to get injured before the games really matter.

 

[Yo Tee]

So you admit UCF has no business being in the playoffs?

My work is done here.

Please delete all your threads. Thanks.

That's not what I said. I said they WON'T be. Not that they SHOULDN'T be. Please read all my threads properly. Thanks.

 

[Pariah]

Michigan is gonna lose to Ohio State for the 50th time in a row, though. I refuse to argue hypothetical scenarios.

 

[Chewbaccer]

And also, there's still two more weeks of regular season games and CCGs to get this sorted out.

Michigan and Notre Dame still have tough games left, and Georgia still has a rivalry game left that if they lose, they're out whether they beat Bama or not.

 

[pitman]

So you want 1/4 to 1/3 of the season to meaningless. Also why should the conference championship game be more meaningful than the game played earlier in the season, because you are saying that Michigan’s win over NW doesn’t mean anything. You want to reward teams that play in bad conferences and lose multiple games and pretend that it’s better than a team that loses one game in a game in a strong conference. This isn’t the NFL where divisions and conferences are relatively equal. They aren’t even close. How much attention do people pay towards the preseason in the NFL because that’s what non conference games will become, meaningless throw away games where you pull your starters after a series or two because you don’t want them to get injured before the games really matter.

No I don’t want 1/3 of the season to be meaningless, the conference championship game would mean more, win it and you are in, kinda like the first round of playoffs. What I don’t want is to see 3 sec teams in the playoffs because a committee thinks they are the best 3 teams. Win your conference you are in... I also don’t want to wonder what UCF could have done had they been in last year. They did beat the team that gave Bama their only loss. But according to you winning on the field doesn’t matter. You just want a committee to tell you what teams belong, I have to wonder how TCU would have done the first year, had they been in. You have your opinion I have mine

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

No I don’t want 1/3 of the season to be meaningless, the conference championship game would mean more, win it and you are in, kinda like the first round of playoffs. What I don’t want is to see 3 sec teams in the playoffs because a committee thinks they are the best 3 teams. Win your conference you are in... I also don’t want to wonder what UCF could have done had they been in last year. They did beat the team that gave Bama their only loss. But according to you winning on the field doesn’t matter. You just want a committee to tell you what teams belong, I have to wonder how TCU would have done the first year, had they been in. You have your opinion I have mine

People keep on missing the elephant in the world: the system is way too subjective.

What makes a team "the best" or "most deserving"?

What constitutes as strength of schedule? Is it averaging together opponents winning percentage and opponents of opponents winning percentage OR is it purely on subjective "ranked wins"?

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

We didnt deserve it last year but no one else did either and we were the tallest midget.

I go by the earned computer models, and I don't think that was the case at all. Don't get me wrong, Alabama deserved a shot at the National Championship game, but so did UCF, Wisconsin, Ohio State, and USC.

Lets look at Colley Matrix's objective, earned (not ELO) algorithm:

1. Clemson - .616 SOS (12th best), 4 wins in top 25
2. Georgia - .610 SOS (15th best), 2 wins in top 25
3. UCF - .534 SOS (65th best), 2 wins in the top 25
4. Wisconsin - .564 SOS (36th), 2 wins in the top 25
5. Alabama - .555 SOS (43rd), 1 win in the top 25
6. Ohio State - .620 SOS (8th), 4 wins in the top 25
7. Oklahoma - .523 SOS (70th), 3 wins in the top 25
8. USC - .586 SOS (25th), 2 wins in the top 25.

Anderson & Hester, another earned algorithm system:

1. Clemson - .578 SOS (22nd), 5 wins in the top 25
2. Georgia - .572 SOS (25th), 3 wins in the top 25
3. UCF - .500 SOS (70th), 2 wins in the top 25
4. Wisconsin - .543 SOS (47th), 3 wins in the top 25
5. Oklahoma - .538 SOS (52nd), 4 wins in the top 25
6. Ohio State - .595 SOS (11th), 4 wins in the top 25
7. Alabama - .540 SOS (51st), 1 win in the top 25
8. USC - .583 SOS (16th), 2 wins in the top 25

So without a doubt, Clemson and Georgia earned their way in: Strong SOS, at least 2 wins in the top 25, won 12 games, and rated by the computers in the top 2.

Oklahoma, despite being in that 5th to 7th spot, I can see (not necessarily agreeing) being the #3 team. They beat Ohio State (badly), and had two wins against TCU.

With Bama, the do not see them as best of the worst. Their only marquee win was against LSU. They failed to win their division and their SOS was not as strong as Ohio State and Wisconsin.

Wisconsin might have had the better argument for the #4 spot. They won 12 games, qualified for the conference championship game, beat multiple top 25 teams, and only lost to an 11-2 Ohio State by 6 points (Bama lost to Auburn by 12 points). If it wasn't for that holding penalty within the last minute of the OSU game, Wisconsin probably would be undefeated going into the bowl season.

Ohio State lost to Iowa and Oklahoma, but their SOS was elite, beat 4 top 25 schools, won the toughest conference SOS wise, and had 11 wins (without an FCS push).

For UCF, they played a decent schedule, won all their games, had two wins against Memphis, and was the highest scoring team in the country.

The only argument I can see with Alabama is the injury argument. Bama was pretty dominate UNTIL they beat LSU, and that's when the injuries kicked in. The close game against Miss State and the loss to Auburn was excused because of the injury bug.

So when you look at it objectively, I do NOT see Alabama was so better than everybody outside of Georgia and Clemson. In a BETTER system, would have included more than just Oklahoma and Alabama.

 

[7Samurai13]

No I don’t want 1/3 of the season to be meaningless, the conference championship game would mean more, win it and you are in, kinda like the first round of playoffs. What I don’t want is to see 3 sec teams in the playoffs because a committee thinks they are the best 3 teams. Win your conference you are in... I also don’t want to wonder what UCF could have done had they been in last year. They did beat the team that gave Bama their only loss. But according to you winning on the field doesn’t matter. You just want a committee to tell you what teams belong, I have to wonder how TCU would have done the first year, had they been in. You have your opinion I have mine

By doing conference champs only, that what you just did, a team like Northwestern can go 0-3 in nonconference but still go to the playoffs because those games are now the equivalent to the NFL preseason. No one is going to schedule good teams because you get nothing for beating those teams and you can get an injury that effectively ends your season, see Florida State in 2017.

You want to fix a problem that hasn’t happened yet. What team was left out that shouldn’t have been? Do you think that there should be no punishment for losing games by 5 scores?

 

[Yo Tee]

I go by the earned computer models, and I don't think that was the case at all. Don't get me wrong, Alabama deserved a shot at the National Championship game, but so did UCF, Wisconsin, Ohio State, and USC.

Lets look at Colley Matrix's objective, earned (not ELO) algorithm:

1. Clemson - .616 SOS (12th best), 4 wins in top 25
2. Georgia - .610 SOS (15th best), 2 wins in top 25
3. UCF - .534 SOS (65th best), 2 wins in the top 25
4. Wisconsin - .564 SOS (36th), 2 wins in the top 25
5. Alabama - .555 SOS (43rd), 1 win in the top 25
6. Ohio State - .620 SOS (8th), 4 wins in the top 25
7. Oklahoma - .523 SOS (70th), 3 wins in the top 25
8. USC - .586 SOS (25th), 2 wins in the top 25.

Anderson & Hester, another earned algorithm system:

1. Clemson - .578 SOS (22nd), 5 wins in the top 25
2. Georgia - .572 SOS (25th), 3 wins in the top 25
3. UCF - .500 SOS (70th), 2 wins in the top 25
4. Wisconsin - .543 SOS (47th), 3 wins in the top 25
5. Oklahoma - .538 SOS (52nd), 4 wins in the top 25
6. Ohio State - .595 SOS (11th), 4 wins in the top 25
7. Alabama - .540 SOS (51st), 1 win in the top 25
8. USC - .583 SOS (16th), 2 wins in the top 25

So without a doubt, Clemson and Georgia earned their way in: Strong SOS, at least 2 wins in the top 25, won 12 games, and rated by the computers in the top 2.

Oklahoma, despite being in that 5th to 7th spot, I can see (not necessarily agreeing) being the #3 team. They beat Ohio State (badly), and had two wins against TCU.

With Bama, the do not see them as best of the worst. Their only marquee win was against LSU. They failed to win their division and their SOS was not as strong as Ohio State and Wisconsin.

Wisconsin might have had the better argument for the #4 spot. They won 12 games, qualified for the conference championship game, beat multiple top 25 teams, and only lost to an 11-2 Ohio State by 6 points (Bama lost to Auburn by 12 points). If it wasn't for that holding penalty within the last minute of the OSU game, Wisconsin probably would be undefeated going into the bowl season.

Ohio State lost to Iowa and Oklahoma, but their SOS was elite, beat 4 top 25 schools, won the toughest conference SOS wise, and had 11 wins (without an FCS push).

For UCF, they played a decent schedule, won all their games, had two wins against Memphis, and was the highest scoring team in the country.

The only argument I can see with Alabama is the injury argument. Bama was pretty dominate UNTIL they beat LSU, and that's when the injuries kicked in. The close game against Miss State and the loss to Auburn was excused because of the injury bug.

So when you look at it objectively, I do NOT see Alabama was so better than everybody outside of Georgia and Clemson. In a BETTER system, would have included more than just Oklahoma and Alabama.

 

[Mistaken4193]

I go by the earned computer models, and I don't think that was the case at all. Don't get me wrong, Alabama deserved a shot at the National Championship game, but so did UCF, Wisconsin, Ohio State, and USC.

Lets look at Colley Matrix's objective, earned (not ELO) algorithm:

1. Clemson - .616 SOS (12th best), 4 wins in top 25
2. Georgia - .610 SOS (15th best), 2 wins in top 25
3. UCF - .534 SOS (65th best), 2 wins in the top 25
4. Wisconsin - .564 SOS (36th), 2 wins in the top 25
5. Alabama - .555 SOS (43rd), 1 win in the top 25
6. Ohio State - .620 SOS (8th), 4 wins in the top 25
7. Oklahoma - .523 SOS (70th), 3 wins in the top 25
8. USC - .586 SOS (25th), 2 wins in the top 25.

Anderson & Hester, another earned algorithm system:

1. Clemson - .578 SOS (22nd), 5 wins in the top 25
2. Georgia - .572 SOS (25th), 3 wins in the top 25
3. UCF - .500 SOS (70th), 2 wins in the top 25
4. Wisconsin - .543 SOS (47th), 3 wins in the top 25
5. Oklahoma - .538 SOS (52nd), 4 wins in the top 25
6. Ohio State - .595 SOS (11th), 4 wins in the top 25
7. Alabama - .540 SOS (51st), 1 win in the top 25
8. USC - .583 SOS (16th), 2 wins in the top 25

So without a doubt, Clemson and Georgia earned their way in: Strong SOS, at least 2 wins in the top 25, won 12 games, and rated by the computers in the top 2.

Oklahoma, despite being in that 5th to 7th spot, I can see (not necessarily agreeing) being the #3 team. They beat Ohio State (badly), and had two wins against TCU.

With Bama, the do not see them as best of the worst. Their only marquee win was against LSU. They failed to win their division and their SOS was not as strong as Ohio State and Wisconsin.

Wisconsin might have had the better argument for the #4 spot. They won 12 games, qualified for the conference championship game, beat multiple top 25 teams, and only lost to an 11-2 Ohio State by 6 points (Bama lost to Auburn by 12 points). If it wasn't for that holding penalty within the last minute of the OSU game, Wisconsin probably would be undefeated going into the bowl season.

Ohio State lost to Iowa and Oklahoma, but their SOS was elite, beat 4 top 25 schools, won the toughest conference SOS wise, and had 11 wins (without an FCS push).

For UCF, they played a decent schedule, won all their games, had two wins against Memphis, and was the highest scoring team in the country.

The only argument I can see with Alabama is the injury argument. Bama was pretty dominate UNTIL they beat LSU, and that's when the injuries kicked in. The close game against Miss State and the loss to Auburn was excused because of the injury bug.

So when you look at it objectively, I do NOT see Alabama was so better than everybody outside of Georgia and Clemson. In a BETTER system, would have included more than just Oklahoma and Alabama.

Alabama had 2 top 25 wins. (LSU,Miss.St.)

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Alabama had 2 top 25 wins. (LSU,Miss.St.)

No, not according to the objective models I posted. At 8-4, Miss State is hardly an elite school.

I suppose your retort is "Well they beat LSU, that makes them elite". If that's the case, then Troy is an elite school as well. They beat LSU in their own backyard and went 10-2 in the regular season.

The fact of the matter is, there's no evidence that Bama was so much better than Wisconsin, Ohio State, or even UCF as far as resume goes. You can argue even, which I would agree.

We should have an 8 team playoff, therefore all of these teams are in.

 

[Mistaken4193]

No, not according to the objective models I posted. At 8-4, Miss State is hardly an elite school.

I suppose your retort is "Well they beat LSU, that makes them elite". If that's the case, then Troy is an elite school as well. They beat LSU in their own backyard and went 10-2 in the regular season.

The fact of the matter is, there's no evidence that Bama was so much better than Wisconsin, Ohio State, or even UCF as far as resume goes. You can argue even, which I would agree.

We should have an 8 team playoff, therefore all of these teams are in.

I was using the committee top 25. Dont matter though on field when Healthy Bama proved they were the best in the Playoff.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

I was using the committee top 25. Dont matter though on field when Healthy Bama proved they were the best in the Playoff.

So no, response to my points. I figured that.

Yes, Bama won the four team playoff. Never said otherwise.

I am not disputing the point that Bama didn't deserve it. I said they did, but I still do not see how they were better than the teams that were left out.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

I just don’t see why everyone is opposed to a 8 team play off, 5 conference champs best G5, best independent, and one at large?

So what if Bama had to play UCF in the first round

In the end there would be no question

If they said the best independent gets a spot — teams would be lining up for a shot to be independent.

Notre Dame, UMass, Liberty, Army, New Mexico State and BYU are the only independents.

Right now — Notre Dame fans everywhere are agreeing 1000% with your CFP idea

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

As I’ve said before — we need to go to a 130 team playoff. If you lose your first game — sorry. Your season is done.
They could stretch the playoff out to last all year. There’d be no down time for these athletes (unless they lose) and once the National Champ is crowned — the next year tournament begins the following weekend.

 

[Mistaken4193]

So no, response to my points. I figured that.

Yes, Bama won the four team playoff. Never said otherwise.

I am not disputing the point that Bama didn't deserve it. I said they did, but I still do not see how they were better than the teams that were left out.

1 less loss than Ohio State. And didnt lose by 30+ points to a bad Iowa team. 2 ranked wins and Was destroying teams before they had a million injuries.

 

[crimsontater]

the committee's job one, is to put the 4 BEST teams in. not the 4 most deserving.

last year when errbody was all beside themselves at bama being put in over tosu. there was a split second on live tv where chairman hocutt answered everything, but his answer was lost in the shuffle. rece davis was asking all the usual questions about how they arrived at their conclusion. as they were ending the segnent, hocutt said, we never had tosu ahead of bama, we never had to go to a tie-breaker.

now, fast forward to the scenario described by the op. if, if we still had the same selection committee as before, i'd say bama ends up in the cfp again. however, this is a new group with a new chairman. i think they would put michigan in over bama. simply because jim delaney would proly resort t violence if they didnt. after all, he is the primary reason we even have a selection committee.

the easy fix is simple. only conference champs are eligible for the playoffs. i love bama and i love all the trophies. but sometimes, the best team dont always win. thats as much a part of sports as anything. the selection committee, is trying to erase that. yes i know, it's all about tv ratings.