Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,484
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 735
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
(12-03-2017 07:21 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  JR SEC & AllTideUp, I hope both of you are right about the ratings this year or even the B1G being left out and they campaign for change(although they were one of the slowest conferences to come around because they loved their Rose Bowl brand so I'm not sure this even will do it).

I agree they try and create the drama crap for ratings and $$$. IF you look at the tv ratings 3 weeks ago the preceding CFP playoff show had higher ratings than all but 2 games.

In regards to the NFL I have never gambled on sports. Its interesting but I have never heard that before. But what I was referring to is the process of the playoffs. The rules are set, teams know how they get in and human selection is not an element of the process.

We just need to get to 4P conferences and a champs only format. Then everything will be decided on the field.
12-03-2017 07:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,967
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
(12-03-2017 07:12 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  The wins OSU had over better quality opponents definitely trump one less loss by Alabama. If that is your logic put UCF in.

The committee had even previously stated quality of wins were more important than who you lost to.

UCF or any G5 team for that matter is a non-factor. They will never be judged on the same standard and they really shouldn't be.

But you're missing my point. OSU didn't have wins over better quality opponents...or at least that's not something you can quantify without injecting one's opinion. The same level of subjectivity the committee used to say "Bama is better than OSU" is the same level of subjectivity used to say "the teams OSU beat were better than the teams Bama beat."

Remember, who was it that said the teams OSU beat were worthy of top 10 slots? The committee.

Who was it that said Bama was better than any of the teams in question? The committee.

It's the age old argument of college football. You can't objectively determine a champion by using polls. The committee is just another poll. It's just that they happen to be smaller in number and greater in power. And we're actually better off because at least they're selecting multiple teams who can decide things on the field more a little more objectively.

It may not seem like it, but the committee actually judges by what they see on the field more than anything. Yes, they are absolutely worried about ratings and cash, but that's actually better than 100% pure politics which is what the old polls were based on. It's not perfect, but it's not altogether crooked either when you consider that it behooves them to protect the quality of the finished product.

The thinking that drives the committee to choose the best ratings for TV is the same thinking that will lead to an expanded playoff. It will be more fair and it will also make more money. The two aren't totally mutually exclusive.
12-03-2017 07:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,967
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
All in all, I wasn't particularly worried about whether Bama made the playoff this year.

I don't think we're quite good enough to win it. I'll be a little surprised if we take down Clemson actually. Auburn, I believe, exposed some weaknesses that are not easy to fix in the matter of a few weeks.

I think we're better than Ohio State so I'm not feeling apologetic either, but the point is that I don't think the 4th spot mattered as much as people are portraying it.
12-03-2017 07:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,394
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 76
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
(12-03-2017 07:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  All in all, I wasn't particularly worried about whether Bama made the playoff this year.

I don't think we're quite good enough to win it. I'll be a little surprised if we take down Clemson actually. Auburn, I believe, exposed some weaknesses that are not easy to fix in the matter of a few weeks.

I think we're better than Ohio State so I'm not feeling apologetic either, but the point is that I don't think the 4th spot mattered as much as people are portraying it.

Committee got the top three right, didn’t care who the forth was from either Alabama or Ohio State
12-03-2017 08:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,484
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 735
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
(12-03-2017 07:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  All in all, I wasn't particularly worried about whether Bama made the playoff this year.

I don't think we're quite good enough to win it. I'll be a little surprised if we take down Clemson actually. Auburn, I believe, exposed some weaknesses that are not easy to fix in the matter of a few weeks.

I think we're better than Ohio State so I'm not feeling apologetic either, but the point is that I don't think the 4th spot mattered as much as people are portraying it.

Syracuse. Clemson isn't as strong as they were last year either.
12-03-2017 08:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 182
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
(12-03-2017 07:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 07:12 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  The wins OSU had over better quality opponents definitely trump one less loss by Alabama. If that is your logic put UCF in.

The committee had even previously stated quality of wins were more important than who you lost to.

UCF or any G5 team for that matter is a non-factor. They will never be judged on the same standard and they really shouldn't be.

But you're missing my point. OSU didn't have wins over better quality opponents...or at least that's not something you can quantify without injecting one's opinion. The same level of subjectivity the committee used to say "Bama is better than OSU" is the same level of subjectivity used to say "the teams OSU beat were better than the teams Bama beat."

Remember, who was it that said the teams OSU beat were worthy of top 10 slots? The committee.

Who was it that said Bama was better than any of the teams in question? The committee.

It's the age old argument of college football. You can't objectively determine a champion by using polls. The committee is just another poll. It's just that they happen to be smaller in number and greater in power. And we're actually better off because at least they're selecting multiple teams who can decide things on the field more a little more objectively.

It may not seem like it, but the committee actually judges by what they see on the field more than anything. Yes, they are absolutely worried about ratings and cash, but that's actually better than 100% pure politics which is what the old polls were based on. It's not perfect, but it's not altogether crooked either when you consider that it behooves them to protect the quality of the finished product.

The thinking that drives the committee to choose the best ratings for TV is the same thinking that will lead to an expanded playoff. It will be more fair and it will also make more money. The two aren't totally mutually exclusive.

I agree what your saying about committees and polls in general and its why I don't like selection committees either. I guess I used it in my argument but Alabama just had too easy of a schedule and really had no quality wins. Even the other posters did that with USC and judgments about the PAC which I probably agree but its a judgment none the less.

There was no question a 2 loss Auburn team as conference champion was getting in and that's in a year where the SEC is probably as mediocre as it has been in a while, so the 2 loss part is a complete ruse. Next time when they want to include Alabama quality of schedule/wins will be the reason, oh well.

I would like 4 consolidated conferences and expanded conference playoffs to determine the final 4 for the CFP but I don't know that it will happen. I guess the other thing we could do is do away with all conference championship games and bowl games and every power conference gets a playoff team for every multiple of 3 or 4 teams they have. Even if the Power conferences grew to 72, 33% gives a 24 team playoff which FCS football does. I wouldn't even mind taking out the element of human selection for the seeding, it could be done by a computer and it goes by SEC 1, SEC 2, SEC 3, B1G 1, B1G 2, B1G 3, etc.... I wouldn't even mind if it was rotated equally among the conferences each year whose seed was considered #1 to take out the human element. Games would be played on campus sights of the higher seed until the semi-finals. Real games in December that matter in packed stadiums, that would be heaven for college football fans! Oh well.
(This post was last modified: 12-03-2017 09:31 PM by Win5002.)
12-03-2017 08:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,967
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
(12-03-2017 08:54 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 07:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 07:12 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  The wins OSU had over better quality opponents definitely trump one less loss by Alabama. If that is your logic put UCF in.

The committee had even previously stated quality of wins were more important than who you lost to.

UCF or any G5 team for that matter is a non-factor. They will never be judged on the same standard and they really shouldn't be.

But you're missing my point. OSU didn't have wins over better quality opponents...or at least that's not something you can quantify without injecting one's opinion. The same level of subjectivity the committee used to say "Bama is better than OSU" is the same level of subjectivity used to say "the teams OSU beat were better than the teams Bama beat."

Remember, who was it that said the teams OSU beat were worthy of top 10 slots? The committee.

Who was it that said Bama was better than any of the teams in question? The committee.

It's the age old argument of college football. You can't objectively determine a champion by using polls. The committee is just another poll. It's just that they happen to be smaller in number and greater in power. And we're actually better off because at least they're selecting multiple teams who can decide things on the field more a little more objectively.

It may not seem like it, but the committee actually judges by what they see on the field more than anything. Yes, they are absolutely worried about ratings and cash, but that's actually better than 100% pure politics which is what the old polls were based on. It's not perfect, but it's not altogether crooked either when you consider that it behooves them to protect the quality of the finished product.

The thinking that drives the committee to choose the best ratings for TV is the same thinking that will lead to an expanded playoff. It will be more fair and it will also make more money. The two aren't totally mutually exclusive.

I agree what your saying about committees and polls in general and its why I don't like selection committees either. I guess I used it in my argument but Alabama just had too easy of a schedule and really had no quality wins. Even the other posters did that with USC and judgments about the PAC which I probably agree but its a judgment none the less.

There was no question a 2 loss Auburn team as conference champion was getting in and that's in a year where the SEC is probably as mediocre as it has been in a while, so the 2 loss part is a complete ruse. Next time when they want to include Alabama quality of schedule/wins will be the reason, oh well.

No doubt Auburn would have gotten in, but it's still not the same situation. Auburn had one close loss on the road to #1 Clemson. The other loss was also close, also on the road, and came against a decent LSU team. They beat a couple of top 5 teams along the way.

How is that different from what Ohio State did? Again, OSU got blasted by Oklahoma and blasted by a 5 loss team. When OSU got in last year, everybody talked about the very close loss to Penn State. They said that even though PSU won the game that it wasn't a convincing win so it didn't trump the other aspects of OSU's resume. I know you said PSU should have gotten in last year, but it's not your or my opinion that settles this. The committee set a precedent. They basically said every conceivable metric matters. It's not just wins, it's the margin of victory. It's not just losses, it's the depth of loss.

I do agree with you that the SEC was fairly mediocre this year. In fact, I'm fairly shocked that this is the year we got 2 in. But the Big Ten was at best no better. My memory might be failing me, but I can't think of a significant win against a quality non-conference opponent all season for the B1G. If this were basketball then we'd be talking about the B1G's league RPI.

And again, don't discount this, the last 2 representatives from the B1G laid eggs. No one on TV is really talking about that, but I guarantee you that was a huge consideration in the committee's decision. The B1G has not had a great reputation the last several years. In fact, Ohio State's playoff run in 2014 and their title in 2002 accounted for the most meaningful wins the league has had over the course of nearly 20 years.

If the B1G wants the benefit of the doubt then they're going to have to start winning meaningful games on a consistent basis. Otherwise, reputation will take precedence.
12-03-2017 10:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 182
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
(12-03-2017 10:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 08:54 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 07:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 07:12 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  The wins OSU had over better quality opponents definitely trump one less loss by Alabama. If that is your logic put UCF in.

The committee had even previously stated quality of wins were more important than who you lost to.

UCF or any G5 team for that matter is a non-factor. They will never be judged on the same standard and they really shouldn't be.

But you're missing my point. OSU didn't have wins over better quality opponents...or at least that's not something you can quantify without injecting one's opinion. The same level of subjectivity the committee used to say "Bama is better than OSU" is the same level of subjectivity used to say "the teams OSU beat were better than the teams Bama beat."

Remember, who was it that said the teams OSU beat were worthy of top 10 slots? The committee.

Who was it that said Bama was better than any of the teams in question? The committee.

It's the age old argument of college football. You can't objectively determine a champion by using polls. The committee is just another poll. It's just that they happen to be smaller in number and greater in power. And we're actually better off because at least they're selecting multiple teams who can decide things on the field more a little more objectively.

It may not seem like it, but the committee actually judges by what they see on the field more than anything. Yes, they are absolutely worried about ratings and cash, but that's actually better than 100% pure politics which is what the old polls were based on. It's not perfect, but it's not altogether crooked either when you consider that it behooves them to protect the quality of the finished product.

The thinking that drives the committee to choose the best ratings for TV is the same thinking that will lead to an expanded playoff. It will be more fair and it will also make more money. The two aren't totally mutually exclusive.

I agree what your saying about committees and polls in general and its why I don't like selection committees either. I guess I used it in my argument but Alabama just had too easy of a schedule and really had no quality wins. Even the other posters did that with USC and judgments about the PAC which I probably agree but its a judgment none the less.

There was no question a 2 loss Auburn team as conference champion was getting in and that's in a year where the SEC is probably as mediocre as it has been in a while, so the 2 loss part is a complete ruse. Next time when they want to include Alabama quality of schedule/wins will be the reason, oh well.

No doubt Auburn would have gotten in, but it's still not the same situation. Auburn had one close loss on the road to #1 Clemson. The other loss was also close, also on the road, and came against a decent LSU team. They beat a couple of top 5 teams along the way.

How is that different from what Ohio State did? Again, OSU got blasted by Oklahoma and blasted by a 5 loss team. When OSU got in last year, everybody talked about the very close loss to Penn State. They said that even though PSU won the game that it wasn't a convincing win so it didn't trump the other aspects of OSU's resume. I know you said PSU should have gotten in last year, but it's not your or my opinion that settles this. The committee set a precedent. They basically said every conceivable metric matters. It's not just wins, it's the margin of victory. It's not just losses, it's the depth of loss.

I do agree with you that the SEC was fairly mediocre this year. In fact, I'm fairly shocked that this is the year we got 2 in. But the Big Ten was at best no better. My memory might be failing me, but I can't think of a significant win against a quality non-conference opponent all season for the B1G. If this were basketball then we'd be talking about the B1G's league RPI.

And again, don't discount this, the last 2 representatives from the B1G laid eggs. No one on TV is really talking about that, but I guarantee you that was a huge consideration in the committee's decision. The B1G has not had a great reputation the last several years. In fact, Ohio State's playoff run in 2014 and their title in 2002 accounted for the most meaningful wins the league has had over the course of nearly 20 years.

If the B1G wants the benefit of the doubt then they're going to have to start winning meaningful games on a consistent basis. Otherwise, reputation will take precedence.

If ranking quality of wins is subjective, it would seem ranking quality of losses is also. I do think OSU got the benefit of the doubt last year over PSU, and over TCU the first year though, maybe it was there turn.

Sounds like we both want a different playoff in the future though.
12-03-2017 11:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,482
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 136
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #19
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
Anytime human judgement is involved, it is a mess. I would rather have the computers decide based on solid criteria.
12-04-2017 12:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,967
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
(12-03-2017 11:49 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 10:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 08:54 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 07:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 07:12 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  The wins OSU had over better quality opponents definitely trump one less loss by Alabama. If that is your logic put UCF in.

The committee had even previously stated quality of wins were more important than who you lost to.

UCF or any G5 team for that matter is a non-factor. They will never be judged on the same standard and they really shouldn't be.

But you're missing my point. OSU didn't have wins over better quality opponents...or at least that's not something you can quantify without injecting one's opinion. The same level of subjectivity the committee used to say "Bama is better than OSU" is the same level of subjectivity used to say "the teams OSU beat were better than the teams Bama beat."

Remember, who was it that said the teams OSU beat were worthy of top 10 slots? The committee.

Who was it that said Bama was better than any of the teams in question? The committee.

It's the age old argument of college football. You can't objectively determine a champion by using polls. The committee is just another poll. It's just that they happen to be smaller in number and greater in power. And we're actually better off because at least they're selecting multiple teams who can decide things on the field more a little more objectively.

It may not seem like it, but the committee actually judges by what they see on the field more than anything. Yes, they are absolutely worried about ratings and cash, but that's actually better than 100% pure politics which is what the old polls were based on. It's not perfect, but it's not altogether crooked either when you consider that it behooves them to protect the quality of the finished product.

The thinking that drives the committee to choose the best ratings for TV is the same thinking that will lead to an expanded playoff. It will be more fair and it will also make more money. The two aren't totally mutually exclusive.

I agree what your saying about committees and polls in general and its why I don't like selection committees either. I guess I used it in my argument but Alabama just had too easy of a schedule and really had no quality wins. Even the other posters did that with USC and judgments about the PAC which I probably agree but its a judgment none the less.

There was no question a 2 loss Auburn team as conference champion was getting in and that's in a year where the SEC is probably as mediocre as it has been in a while, so the 2 loss part is a complete ruse. Next time when they want to include Alabama quality of schedule/wins will be the reason, oh well.

No doubt Auburn would have gotten in, but it's still not the same situation. Auburn had one close loss on the road to #1 Clemson. The other loss was also close, also on the road, and came against a decent LSU team. They beat a couple of top 5 teams along the way.

How is that different from what Ohio State did? Again, OSU got blasted by Oklahoma and blasted by a 5 loss team. When OSU got in last year, everybody talked about the very close loss to Penn State. They said that even though PSU won the game that it wasn't a convincing win so it didn't trump the other aspects of OSU's resume. I know you said PSU should have gotten in last year, but it's not your or my opinion that settles this. The committee set a precedent. They basically said every conceivable metric matters. It's not just wins, it's the margin of victory. It's not just losses, it's the depth of loss.

I do agree with you that the SEC was fairly mediocre this year. In fact, I'm fairly shocked that this is the year we got 2 in. But the Big Ten was at best no better. My memory might be failing me, but I can't think of a significant win against a quality non-conference opponent all season for the B1G. If this were basketball then we'd be talking about the B1G's league RPI.

And again, don't discount this, the last 2 representatives from the B1G laid eggs. No one on TV is really talking about that, but I guarantee you that was a huge consideration in the committee's decision. The B1G has not had a great reputation the last several years. In fact, Ohio State's playoff run in 2014 and their title in 2002 accounted for the most meaningful wins the league has had over the course of nearly 20 years.

If the B1G wants the benefit of the doubt then they're going to have to start winning meaningful games on a consistent basis. Otherwise, reputation will take precedence.

If ranking quality of wins is subjective, it would seem ranking quality of losses is also. I do think OSU got the benefit of the doubt last year over PSU, and over TCU the first year though, maybe it was there turn.

Sounds like we both want a different playoff in the future though.

They're both subjective. You're right.

There will always be some degree of subjectivity in this thing, but I do think if we go to 8 then we can get all the conference champs in and have enough space to get any other team that might have a legitimate shot.

I'm not quite sure how they'll pull it off, but I think they'll figure something out.
12-04-2017 08:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.