Alabama's ranking is the best evidence of the committee's objectivity.

(12-09-2019 12:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Just my takes on the final CFP rankings:

Nay ..... Alabama is criminally under-ranked.

Alabama at #13? Does anyone doubt even this wounded, Tua-less Alabama would be a favorite over every team ranked ahead of them at least up until #5? And probably over Georgia too? Heck probably over Oklahoma? You'd have to get to the three unbeaten teams to choose over them.

If you had to bet your life on the winner of these games in a bowl on a neutral field, who would you bet on over Alabama?

Auburn? Nope. Auburn needed miracles - not just a 'doink' missed FG but TWO freak pick-sixes and the refs giving them a FG try at the end of the half to squeak out a 3-point win over Bama at home.

Penn State? Not a chance. Maybe keep it to 10 point margin.
Wisconsin? Alabama would beat them by 20.
Florida? Please. Alabama wins that game 31 - 14.
Utah? Are you serious? Even worse than Wisky and Florida.
Oregon? Don't make me laugh. Alabama would mow them down.
Baylor? Are you kidding?

Seriously, Alabama should be ranked #5 or so. And i HATE Alabama, LOL.
...
Anyway.

I cannot, WILL NOT, ignore head-to-head results. The Tide played just 2 ranked teams, and lost to both of them. Based on that fact alone it's hard to rank them very high. I understand making them about equal to Auburn because, frankly, that's what I saw. As to comparing them to Oregon - you can just as well say that Auburn needed some breaks to beat the Ducks, so transitive property, yada, yada... As to whether Baylor can play with them... I guess we'll find out.

Nobody is saying ignore H2H, just don't use it as anything other than what it's good for - as a TB when records are equal.

I mean, right now, in the NFC West, the 49ers are 11-2 and the Seahawks are 10-3. The Hawks have a win over the Niners. Should the Hawks be ahead of them in the division standings? Silly, not as long as the Niners have a better record. If they both end up with the same record, then yes, H2H should be the first tie-breaker.

Similarly, it makes zero sense for Auburn to be ahead of Alabama and Michigan to be ahead of Notre Dame.

Heck, H2H is especially dumb in college football, because for H2H to be truly valid, the game should be on a neutral field, or else there should be two games, home and away. E.g., in the 49ers/Hawks situation, the game the Hawks won was in Seattle, but they will play again in San Francisco.

If there's just one game, then that gives an advantage to whoever gets to play it at home.

Bama is ranked as low as they are because they have no top 25 wins and only have one win against a winning P5 team by 13 against Texas A&M who is unranked and 7-5. At some point that has to matter.

They lost close to LSU? So did unranked Texas

They lost close to Auburn? So did A&M

Actually beating good teams matters.

You can't compare the Seahawk/49'er situation to Auburn/Alabama

Every NFL team plays same number of home games. Division play home and home. they play all of the same teams except one. Auburn played a FAR tougher schedule - having to play Georgia and Florida from the East while Alabama got Tennessee (when they sucked) and South Carolina. Flip those schedules and Auburn is 11-1 and making a case to be in the CFP. BTW - other measure. Auburn lost to LSU by three IN Baton Rouge. LSU beat Alabama by 5 in Tuscaloosa.

Auburn also had a win OOC over Pac 12 Champ Oregon. Alabama has an OOC win over what, Western Carolina?

Auburn >>>>>Alabama and it is not even close.

If anything, there was no arguement between 4 vs 5. This is why I like the top four. Only change I would make is to go back to BCS computer rankings. I just think the computers are fairer than the committee. Only change is not to remove variables like margin of win or any other elements that can help determine the four best teams.

(12-09-2019 06:18 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Bama is ranked as low as they are because they have no top 25 wins and only have one win against a winning P5 team by 13 against Texas A&M who is unranked and 7-5. At some point that has to matter.

They lost close to LSU? So did unranked Texas

They lost close to Auburn? So did A&M

Actually beating good teams matters.

Then why is Utah #11?

Nay: the committee’s justification for Wisconsin not budging. They rewarded one half of play and said “how they performed” was the reason they didn’t drop and got the Rose Bowl. You know, the part of the game they wanted to watch, and ignoring the other half when they couldn’t score a point and only picked up 131 yards of offense (bloated by the 83-yard final drive that stalled out).

Can’t listen to the committee anymore. It’s just a cash grab anyway. At least the top four were obvious to identify.

(12-09-2019 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 06:18 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Bama is ranked as low as they are because they have no top 25 wins and only have one win against a winning P5 team by 13 against Texas A&M who is unranked and 7-5. At some point that has to matter.

They lost close to LSU? So did unranked Texas

They lost close to Auburn? So did A&M

Actually beating good teams matters.

Then why is Utah #11?

They dominated 7-5 ASU who beat Oregon
They dominated 7-5 Cal
They beat 7-5 Washington

That’s two more P5 teams with a winning record than Bama did. Three if you consider 7-5 BYU as a de-facto P5. They even have a win over a meh 6-6 team by blowout like Bama does too. (WSU compared to MSU)

(12-09-2019 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Just my takes on the final CFP rankings:

Yay ... The CFP got the Final 4 right, in terms of the teams and the seedings.

Nay ..... Alabama is criminally under-ranked.

Alabama at #13? Does anyone doubt even this wounded, Tua-less Alabama would be a favorite over every team ranked ahead of them at least up until #5? And probably over Georgia too? Heck probably over Oklahoma? You'd have to get to the three unbeaten teams to choose over them.

If you had to bet your life on the winner of these games in a bowl on a neutral field, who would you bet on over Alabama?

Auburn? Nope. Auburn needed miracles - not just a 'doink' missed FG but TWO freak pick-sixes and the refs giving them a FG try at the end of the half to squeak out a 3-point win over Bama at home.

Penn State? Not a chance. Maybe keep it to 10 point margin.
Wisconsin? Alabama would beat them by 20.
Florida? Please. Alabama wins that game 31 - 14.
Utah? Are you serious? Even worse than Wisky and Florida.
Oregon? Don't make me laugh. Alabama would mow them down.
Baylor? Are you kidding?

Seriously, Alabama should be ranked #5 or so. And i HATE Alabama, LOL.

Yay .... Got the G5 rankings all right. Not only Memphis #1, but then Boise and App State ahead of Cincy, but also getting Navy in as well. Five G5 teams in from three different conferences, and deservedly so. Heck if anything, Air Force should have been in there too. Banner year for the G5.

Nay ... Utah ranked way too high. Does anyone think Utah could beat any of the four teams ranked behind them? It didn't matter because they didn't make the NY6 anyway but still

More generally, this shows IMO a flaw in the CFP approach, namely, teams not getting stung bad for losing CCGs. It's like the committee is saying "well, they play an extra game against a good team while others stay home, so we won't punish them much". That is dumb thinking. A game is DATA and can't be ignored!

Look at the ranked CCG game losers this past week ... nobody fell much at all. It makes no sense. When you lose, especially if you get routed, you should FALL just as if it was October.

Bottom line ... Cincy should be behind Navy, Wisky should be behind Penn State.

Heck, we can say a similar thing about H2H, the CFP overrates it. Auburn should be behind Alabama, Michigan behind Notre Dame. H2H is a tie-breaker, not a be-all.

Anyway.

Quo you need to do your homework on the 1 second given to Auburn at the end of the first half. Rules require that time on the clock be reviewed and Auburn had just gained a first down which stops the clock. The game officials, the head of the officials, and the SEC office all confirmed that it was the correct call. Now when Saban asked for 1 more second a few years ago that was a miracle.

And another thing, defense is part of the game, and backup QB's are ripe for the picking.

Now I agree that Alabama should be ranked higher, but razzing Auburn over the 1 second is just wrong as it was plainly within the rules. Sell that troll elsewhere.

But your general premise I agree with. The committee got the right 4 teams and in the correct order. And Alabama should be higher. But all of the rankings after #4 were just ESPN bowl placement and promotional material and are meaningless compared to the AP.

(12-10-2019 02:11 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 06:18 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Bama is ranked as low as they are because they have no top 25 wins and only have one win against a winning P5 team by 13 against Texas A&M who is unranked and 7-5. At some point that has to matter.

They lost close to LSU? So did unranked Texas

They lost close to Auburn? So did A&M

Actually beating good teams matters.

Then why is Utah #11?

They dominated 7-5 ASU who beat Oregon
They dominated 7-5 Cal
They beat 7-5 Washington

That’s two more P5 teams with a winning record than Bama did. Three if you consider 7-5 BYU as a de-facto P5. They even have a win over a meh 6-6 team by blowout like Bama does too. (WSU compared to MSU)

And yet they got stomped by the only two teams better than 7-5 they played.

(12-10-2019 02:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Just my takes on the final CFP rankings:

Yay ... The CFP got the Final 4 right, in terms of the teams and the seedings.

Nay ..... Alabama is criminally under-ranked.

Alabama at #13? Does anyone doubt even this wounded, Tua-less Alabama would be a favorite over every team ranked ahead of them at least up until #5? And probably over Georgia too? Heck probably over Oklahoma? You'd have to get to the three unbeaten teams to choose over them.

If you had to bet your life on the winner of these games in a bowl on a neutral field, who would you bet on over Alabama?

Auburn? Nope. Auburn needed miracles - not just a 'doink' missed FG but TWO freak pick-sixes and the refs giving them a FG try at the end of the half to squeak out a 3-point win over Bama at home.

Penn State? Not a chance. Maybe keep it to 10 point margin.
Wisconsin? Alabama would beat them by 20.
Florida? Please. Alabama wins that game 31 - 14.
Utah? Are you serious? Even worse than Wisky and Florida.
Oregon? Don't make me laugh. Alabama would mow them down.
Baylor? Are you kidding?

Seriously, Alabama should be ranked #5 or so. And i HATE Alabama, LOL.

Yay .... Got the G5 rankings all right. Not only Memphis #1, but then Boise and App State ahead of Cincy, but also getting Navy in as well. Five G5 teams in from three different conferences, and deservedly so. Heck if anything, Air Force should have been in there too. Banner year for the G5.

Nay ... Utah ranked way too high. Does anyone think Utah could beat any of the four teams ranked behind them? It didn't matter because they didn't make the NY6 anyway but still

More generally, this shows IMO a flaw in the CFP approach, namely, teams not getting stung bad for losing CCGs. It's like the committee is saying "well, they play an extra game against a good team while others stay home, so we won't punish them much". That is dumb thinking. A game is DATA and can't be ignored!

Look at the ranked CCG game losers this past week ... nobody fell much at all. It makes no sense. When you lose, especially if you get routed, you should FALL just as if it was October.

Bottom line ... Cincy should be behind Navy, Wisky should be behind Penn State.

Heck, we can say a similar thing about H2H, the CFP overrates it. Auburn should be behind Alabama, Michigan behind Notre Dame. H2H is a tie-breaker, not a be-all.

Anyway.

Quo you need to do your homework on the 1 second given to Auburn at the end of the first half. Rules require that time on the clock be reviewed and Auburn had just gained a first down which stops the clock. The game officials, the head of the officials, and the SEC office all confirmed that it was the correct call. Now when Saban asked for 1 more second a few years ago that was a miracle.

And another thing, defense is part of the game, and backup QB's are ripe for the picking.

Now I agree that Alabama should be ranked higher, but razzing Auburn over the 1 second is just wrong as it was plainly within the rules. Sell that troll elsewhere.

But your general premise I agree with. The committee got the right 4 teams and in the correct order. And Alabama should be higher. But all of the rankings after #4 were just ESPN bowl placement and promotional material and are meaningless compared to the AP.

He had a point at the end of the half. You have to be set for 1 second. How often have you seen 2 or 3 seconds go off before a team could spike the ball after a first down? If they didn't slow it down, its impossible to imagine them getting out and getting set for a FG with 1 second. But Alabama had a half to make up for that and fell short.

(12-10-2019 02:11 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 06:18 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Bama is ranked as low as they are because they have no top 25 wins and only have one win against a winning P5 team by 13 against Texas A&M who is unranked and 7-5. At some point that has to matter.

They lost close to LSU? So did unranked Texas

They lost close to Auburn? So did A&M

Actually beating good teams matters.

Then why is Utah #11?

They dominated 7-5 ASU who beat Oregon
They dominated 7-5 Cal
They beat 7-5 Washington

That’s two more P5 teams with a winning record than Bama did. Three if you consider 7-5 BYU as a de-facto P5. They even have a win over a meh 6-6 team by blowout like Bama does too. (WSU compared to MSU)

I would imagine that if you were forced to bet your life on the outcome of an Alabama vs Utah bowl game this year, and were given a betting line of Alabama giving 10 points, you'd still pick Alabama without batting an eye.

Nobody in their right mind thinks Utah would beat Alabama.

(12-10-2019 02:11 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 06:18 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Bama is ranked as low as they are because they have no top 25 wins and only have one win against a winning P5 team by 13 against Texas A&M who is unranked and 7-5. At some point that has to matter.

They lost close to LSU? So did unranked Texas

They lost close to Auburn? So did A&M

Actually beating good teams matters.

Then why is Utah #11?

They dominated 7-5 ASU who beat Oregon
They dominated 7-5 Cal
They beat 7-5 Washington

That’s two more P5 teams with a winning record than Bama did. Three if you consider 7-5 BYU as a de-facto P5. They even have a win over a meh 6-6 team by blowout like Bama does too. (WSU compared to MSU)

And they weren't competitive with Oregon at all. Alabama was competitive with Auburn, who beat Oregon.

Utah is such a paper tiger. Got exposed by Oregon as a fraud.

(12-10-2019 02:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Just my takes on the final CFP rankings:

Yay ... The CFP got the Final 4 right, in terms of the teams and the seedings.

Nay ..... Alabama is criminally under-ranked.

Alabama at #13? Does anyone doubt even this wounded, Tua-less Alabama would be a favorite over every team ranked ahead of them at least up until #5? And probably over Georgia too? Heck probably over Oklahoma? You'd have to get to the three unbeaten teams to choose over them.

If you had to bet your life on the winner of these games in a bowl on a neutral field, who would you bet on over Alabama?

Auburn? Nope. Auburn needed miracles - not just a 'doink' missed FG but TWO freak pick-sixes and the refs giving them a FG try at the end of the half to squeak out a 3-point win over Bama at home.

Penn State? Not a chance. Maybe keep it to 10 point margin.
Wisconsin? Alabama would beat them by 20.
Florida? Please. Alabama wins that game 31 - 14.
Utah? Are you serious? Even worse than Wisky and Florida.
Oregon? Don't make me laugh. Alabama would mow them down.
Baylor? Are you kidding?

Seriously, Alabama should be ranked #5 or so. And i HATE Alabama, LOL.

Yay .... Got the G5 rankings all right. Not only Memphis #1, but then Boise and App State ahead of Cincy, but also getting Navy in as well. Five G5 teams in from three different conferences, and deservedly so. Heck if anything, Air Force should have been in there too. Banner year for the G5.

Nay ... Utah ranked way too high. Does anyone think Utah could beat any of the four teams ranked behind them? It didn't matter because they didn't make the NY6 anyway but still

More generally, this shows IMO a flaw in the CFP approach, namely, teams not getting stung bad for losing CCGs. It's like the committee is saying "well, they play an extra game against a good team while others stay home, so we won't punish them much". That is dumb thinking. A game is DATA and can't be ignored!

Look at the ranked CCG game losers this past week ... nobody fell much at all. It makes no sense. When you lose, especially if you get routed, you should FALL just as if it was October.

Bottom line ... Cincy should be behind Navy, Wisky should be behind Penn State.

Heck, we can say a similar thing about H2H, the CFP overrates it. Auburn should be behind Alabama, Michigan behind Notre Dame. H2H is a tie-breaker, not a be-all.

Anyway.

Quo you need to do your homework on the 1 second given to Auburn at the end of the first half. Rules require that time on the clock be reviewed and Auburn had just gained a first down which stops the clock. The game officials, the head of the officials, and the SEC office all confirmed that it was the correct call.

Maybe by the rules, but if so, the rule is stupid and needs to be changed.

Because IIRC, the replay ruled that the time keeper incorrectly ran the last second off the clock, when it should have been stopped for the first down. But time stoppage for a first down is temporary, it's not the same as a "time out", so had the time keeper correctly stopped the clock with one second left when the AU receiver was tackled, there is no way Auburn could have gotten the FG unit on the field and set up before the ref re-started the clock. The ball would have been placed and the chains moved and the clock wound long before AU could have done any of that.

So in effect, the replay review created a free "time out" for Auburn that allowed them to set up for a FG try that they never would have been able to set up for. That's wrong, and the rules should be changed to not allow that.

Something like a "no substitution" rule during a time-remaining replay unless a team has a time-out to use to actually stop the clock.

What the ref should have said after the replay review was something like "replay shows that there was one second left on the clock when the Auburn receiver was tackled, but as that is insufficient time for the offense to assemble and run another play, the half is over".

So I was correct, Alabama was screwed by that process.

Heck, IIRC, I'm not even sure a rule change is needed, as I think the college rule, like the NFL rule, is that at the line of scrimmage, the offense must be "set" for at least a second before the ball is snapped, which should have run the clock out on Auburn before the snap even if they got the FG unit out on the field.

Any way you slice it, AU should not have gotten that field goal. They caught a big unmerited break there.

(12-10-2019 08:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 02:11 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 06:18 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Bama is ranked as low as they are because they have no top 25 wins and only have one win against a winning P5 team by 13 against Texas A&M who is unranked and 7-5. At some point that has to matter.

They lost close to LSU? So did unranked Texas

They lost close to Auburn? So did A&M

Actually beating good teams matters.

Then why is Utah #11?

They dominated 7-5 ASU who beat Oregon
They dominated 7-5 Cal
They beat 7-5 Washington

That’s two more P5 teams with a winning record than Bama did. Three if you consider 7-5 BYU as a de-facto P5. They even have a win over a meh 6-6 team by blowout like Bama does too. (WSU compared to MSU)

And yet they got stomped by the only two teams better than 7-5 they played.

That’s a huge issue with Utah and why Utah is very close in ranking.

You asked why Bama was that low it’s the complete lack of decent wins outside of A&M and the Aggies haven’t beaten any winning teams and have beaten one 6-6 team.

This isn’t who would you bet on, it’s stacking resumes with some wiggle room for eye test.

(12-10-2019 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 02:11 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 06:18 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Bama is ranked as low as they are because they have no top 25 wins and only have one win against a winning P5 team by 13 against Texas A&M who is unranked and 7-5. At some point that has to matter.

They lost close to LSU? So did unranked Texas

They lost close to Auburn? So did A&M

Actually beating good teams matters.

Then why is Utah #11?

They dominated 7-5 ASU who beat Oregon
They dominated 7-5 Cal
They beat 7-5 Washington

That’s two more P5 teams with a winning record than Bama did. Three if you consider 7-5 BYU as a de-facto P5. They even have a win over a meh 6-6 team by blowout like Bama does too. (WSU compared to MSU)

I would imagine that if you were forced to bet your life on the outcome of an Alabama vs Utah bowl game this year, and were given a betting line of Alabama giving 10 points, you'd still pick Alabama without batting an eye.

Nobody in their right mind thinks Utah would beat Alabama.

They aren’t tasked with “who would you bet on?”. They are tasked with weighing resume as well.

When you combine the two Bama has a serious lack of good wins and a weak SOS where they lost to the best teams they played.

You can dispute what they should be ranking but given what they are tasked with it shouldn’t be a surprise that they have them there.

Folks in Vegas probably think that Texas A&M, Iowa State, Washington, and others would beat UVA but the Hoos actually won enough games to get a resume that warrants inclusion. They won 9, beat four bowl teams, lost only to bowl teams, and only Clemson was out of hand.

I may not bet on them but at some point what you’ve done matters as much or more than who you’d place bets on.

(12-10-2019 08:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 02:11 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 06:18 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Bama is ranked as low as they are because they have no top 25 wins and only have one win against a winning P5 team by 13 against Texas A&M who is unranked and 7-5. At some point that has to matter.

They lost close to LSU? So did unranked Texas

They lost close to Auburn? So did A&M

Actually beating good teams matters.

Then why is Utah #11?

They dominated 7-5 ASU who beat Oregon
They dominated 7-5 Cal
They beat 7-5 Washington

That’s two more P5 teams with a winning record than Bama did. Three if you consider 7-5 BYU as a de-facto P5. They even have a win over a meh 6-6 team by blowout like Bama does too. (WSU compared to MSU)

And yet they got stomped by the only two teams better than 7-5 they played.

Utah lost to USC by 7 points. Is your argument that losing by 7 is getting stomped, but that Alabama losing by 5 is not getting stomped?

Auburn should be in front of both Alabama and Utah because Auburn has better wins. Alabama doesn't have better wins than Utah. "Good losses" should get little or no weight. The point of the sport is to win games, not to say "we could have won, if only..." And as pointed out above, there are other teams that lost close games to LSU and Auburn.

Further, it's just a minor quibble about "second ten" rankings that has no effect on bowl games or anything else. If you think Alabama should be in a CFP bowl, then you have to argue that the Tide should have been ranked ahead of Penn State or even higher than that.

(12-10-2019 10:57 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 02:11 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 06:18 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Bama is ranked as low as they are because they have no top 25 wins and only have one win against a winning P5 team by 13 against Texas A&M who is unranked and 7-5. At some point that has to matter.

They lost close to LSU? So did unranked Texas

They lost close to Auburn? So did A&M

Actually beating good teams matters.

Then why is Utah #11?

They dominated 7-5 ASU who beat Oregon
They dominated 7-5 Cal
They beat 7-5 Washington

That’s two more P5 teams with a winning record than Bama did. Three if you consider 7-5 BYU as a de-facto P5. They even have a win over a meh 6-6 team by blowout like Bama does too. (WSU compared to MSU)

I would imagine that if you were forced to bet your life on the outcome of an Alabama vs Utah bowl game this year, and were given a betting line of Alabama giving 10 points, you'd still pick Alabama without batting an eye.

Nobody in their right mind thinks Utah would beat Alabama.

They aren’t tasked with “who would you bet on?”. They are tasked with weighing resume as well.

IIRC, the CFP has always said there job is to pick the "best teams", where "best" isn't
defined by any given technical criterion but rather is just the overall impression created by a conglomeration of many factors.

We all know Alabama is better than Utah. Nobody thinks Utah would beat Alabama. So yes, the "bet on" criterion is a good way to think about it, because it captures and summarizes all those factors.

IMO, Alabama is WAY under-ranked. If Alabama were to play any of the teams ranked after #5 in the CFP, they would be a favorite against all of them, and a pretty big favorite, at least 7 points. Penn State is the only one that would give me pause about who would win the game, and it would take me about 5 seconds to say "Alabama" to that as well. And I don't think you believe otherwise.

And the computers say UVA is the #33 team. They shouldn't be ranked, it is purely a courtesy to the ACC and Orange Bowl to (a) avoid embarrassment for the former and (b) excuse the Orange Bowl from having to invite someone, thus creating hard feelings. UVA is 'rank' not ranked.

(12-10-2019 11:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 10:57 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 02:11 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  Then why is Utah #11?

They dominated 7-5 ASU who beat Oregon
They dominated 7-5 Cal
They beat 7-5 Washington

That’s two more P5 teams with a winning record than Bama did. Three if you consider 7-5 BYU as a de-facto P5. They even have a win over a meh 6-6 team by blowout like Bama does too. (WSU compared to MSU)

I would imagine that if you were forced to bet your life on the outcome of an Alabama vs Utah bowl game this year, and were given a betting line of Alabama giving 10 points, you'd still pick Alabama without batting an eye.

Nobody in their right mind thinks Utah would beat Alabama.

They aren’t tasked with “who would you bet on?”. They are tasked with weighing resume as well.

IIRC, the CFP has always said there job is to pick the "best teams", where "best" isn't
defined by any given technical criterion but rather is just the overall impression created by a conglomeration of many factors.

We all know Alabama is better than Utah. Nobody thinks Utah would beat Alabama. So yes, the "bet on" criterion is a good way to think about it, because it captures and summarizes all those factors.

IMO, Alabama is WAY under-ranked. If Alabama were to play any of the teams ranked after #5 in the CFP, they would be a favorite against all of them, and a pretty big favorite, at least 7 points. Penn State is the only one that would give me pause about who would win the game, and it would take me about 5 seconds to say "Alabama" to that as well. And I don't think you believe otherwise.

And the computers say UVA is the #33 team. They shouldn't be ranked, it is purely a courtesy to the ACC and Orange Bowl to (a) avoid embarrassment for the former and (b) excuse the Orange Bowl from having to invite someone, thus creating hard feelings. UVA is 'rank' not ranked.

So why play the games if we aren’t going to hold beating NO ONE of consequence against someone?

At some point it has to matter

(12-10-2019 02:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Just my takes on the final CFP rankings:

Yay ... The CFP got the Final 4 right, in terms of the teams and the seedings.

Nay ..... Alabama is criminally under-ranked.

Alabama at #13? Does anyone doubt even this wounded, Tua-less Alabama would be a favorite over every team ranked ahead of them at least up until #5? And probably over Georgia too? Heck probably over Oklahoma? You'd have to get to the three unbeaten teams to choose over them.

If you had to bet your life on the winner of these games in a bowl on a neutral field, who would you bet on over Alabama?

Auburn? Nope. Auburn needed miracles - not just a 'doink' missed FG but TWO freak pick-sixes and the refs giving them a FG try at the end of the half to squeak out a 3-point win over Bama at home.

Penn State? Not a chance. Maybe keep it to 10 point margin.
Wisconsin? Alabama would beat them by 20.
Florida? Please. Alabama wins that game 31 - 14.
Utah? Are you serious? Even worse than Wisky and Florida.
Oregon? Don't make me laugh. Alabama would mow them down.
Baylor? Are you kidding?

Seriously, Alabama should be ranked #5 or so. And i HATE Alabama, LOL.

Yay .... Got the G5 rankings all right. Not only Memphis #1, but then Boise and App State ahead of Cincy, but also getting Navy in as well. Five G5 teams in from three different conferences, and deservedly so. Heck if anything, Air Force should have been in there too. Banner year for the G5.

Nay ... Utah ranked way too high. Does anyone think Utah could beat any of the four teams ranked behind them? It didn't matter because they didn't make the NY6 anyway but still

More generally, this shows IMO a flaw in the CFP approach, namely, teams not getting stung bad for losing CCGs. It's like the committee is saying "well, they play an extra game against a good team while others stay home, so we won't punish them much". That is dumb thinking. A game is DATA and can't be ignored!

Look at the ranked CCG game losers this past week ... nobody fell much at all. It makes no sense. When you lose, especially if you get routed, you should FALL just as if it was October.

Bottom line ... Cincy should be behind Navy, Wisky should be behind Penn State.

Heck, we can say a similar thing about H2H, the CFP overrates it. Auburn should be behind Alabama, Michigan behind Notre Dame. H2H is a tie-breaker, not a be-all.

Anyway.

Quo you need to do your homework on the 1 second given to Auburn at the end of the first half. Rules require that time on the clock be reviewed and Auburn had just gained a first down which stops the clock. The game officials, the head of the officials, and the SEC office all confirmed that it was the correct call. Now when Saban asked for 1 more second a few years ago that was a miracle.

And another thing, defense is part of the game, and backup QB's are ripe for the picking.

Now I agree that Alabama should be ranked higher, but razzing Auburn over the 1 second is just wrong as it was plainly within the rules. Sell that troll elsewhere.

But your general premise I agree with. The committee got the right 4 teams and in the correct order. And Alabama should be higher. But all of the rankings after #4 were just ESPN bowl placement and promotional material and are meaningless compared to the AP.

That's Auburn/Alabama thing at end of half, I think we're going to find some sort of rules change. At least a 2-3 second run off. A team shouldn't benefit from something where if it was done properly they couldn't get a play off. If the clock had stopped with 1 second to go, marked ready to play, and spike- time would have run out.