Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,574
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 139
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #1
Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
The committee picked the tide over the B1G and PAC 12.
12-03-2017 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,474
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
Sooo much Big Ten Butthurt on the web right now
12-03-2017 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,548
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 255
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
Satan coming through with his end of the bargain with little Nicky or the epic butthurt of Ohio State fans whining about the same ruling that put THEM into the playoff over PSU last year....

Some days there are no winners

03-lmfao
12-03-2017 04:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 221
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
(12-03-2017 04:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Satan coming through with his end of the bargain with little Nicky or the epic butthurt of Ohio State fans whining about the same ruling that put THEM into the playoff over PSU last year....

Some days there are no winners

03-lmfao

In fair disclosure I am from the Midwest, and this isn't meant to be an anti-Alabama or SEC commentary but more of an anti-CFP process discussion. I also think PSU should have got in last year over OSU due to the head to head victory and winning the conference. BUT... there is a huge difference between the quality of wins OSU had last year in wins over
#14 OU at OU
#8 Wisconsin at Wisconsin
#3 Michigan

Alabama didn't have even close to the quality of wins this year the 2016 OSU team had.

Then we heard on the tv who would win heads up quoted repeatedly on ESPN yesterday. Who the heck knows! What quality win did Alabama have this year to tell you whether they would or wouldn't?

Could Alabama win the whole CFP? sure. Did they deserve to be in? Absolutely not! There is nothing on their schedule that says they deserved to be in. I would have been fine if they put USC in over both too. The only thing they can use to place Alabama in is to say they "think" or "feel" they are the best team. There is absolutely nothing based on the season to show that, even though its possible they could be.

You can't have the 3rd best team from any of the leagues in as a participant in only a 4 team college football playoff. I'm a fan who watches college football 11 a.m. to midnight every Saturday during the regular season. But now that the season is over, I for the most part turn off the debacle known as bowl games or post-season exhibition games, and while I'm curious to see how Oklahoma does I won't watch the the Alabama vs Clemson, nor will I watch if it is Alabama vs Ga. in the final(no offense to Ga.) When the CFP becomes the bias of human selection committee's or influenced by network desires it really devalues the sport. It makes me decide to watch a legitimate product the NFL more and more each year.
12-03-2017 05:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,603
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 862
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #5
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
(12-03-2017 05:24 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 04:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Satan coming through with his end of the bargain with little Nicky or the epic butthurt of Ohio State fans whining about the same ruling that put THEM into the playoff over PSU last year....

Some days there are no winners

03-lmfao

In fair disclosure I am from the Midwest, and this isn't meant to be an anti-Alabama or SEC commentary but more of an anti-CFP process discussion. I also think PSU should have got in last year over OSU due to the head to head victory and winning the conference. BUT... there is a huge difference between the quality of wins OSU had last year in wins over
#14 OU at OU
#8 Wisconsin at Wisconsin
#3 Michigan

Alabama didn't have even close to the quality of wins this year the 2016 OSU team had.

Then we heard on the tv who would win heads up quoted repeatedly on ESPN yesterday. Who the heck knows! What quality win did Alabama have this year to tell you whether they would or wouldn't?

Could Alabama win the whole CFP? sure. Did they deserve to be in? Absolutely not! There is nothing on their schedule that says they deserved to be in. I would have been fine if they put USC in over both too. The only thing they can use to place Alabama in is to say they "think" or "feel" they are the best team. There is absolutely nothing based on the season to show that, even though its possible they could be.

You can't have the 3rd best team from any of the leagues in as a participant in only a 4 team college football playoff. I'm a fan who watches college football 11 a.m. to midnight every Saturday during the regular season. But now that the season is over, I for the most part turn off the debacle known as bowl games or post-season exhibition games, and while I'm curious to see how Oklahoma does I won't watch the the Alabama vs Clemson, nor will I watch if it is Alabama vs Ga. in the final(no offense to Ga.) When the CFP becomes the bias of human selection committee's or influenced by network desires it really devalues the sport. It makes me decide to watch a legitimate product the NFL more and more each year.

You know what we didn't have?

2 loses...
12-03-2017 05:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,750
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
(12-03-2017 05:24 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 04:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Satan coming through with his end of the bargain with little Nicky or the epic butthurt of Ohio State fans whining about the same ruling that put THEM into the playoff over PSU last year....

Some days there are no winners

03-lmfao

In fair disclosure I am from the Midwest, and this isn't meant to be an anti-Alabama or SEC commentary but more of an anti-CFP process discussion. I also think PSU should have got in last year over OSU due to the head to head victory and winning the conference. BUT... there is a huge difference between the quality of wins OSU had last year in wins over
#14 OU at OU
#8 Wisconsin at Wisconsin
#3 Michigan

Alabama didn't have even close to the quality of wins this year the 2016 OSU team had.

Then we heard on the tv who would win heads up quoted repeatedly on ESPN yesterday. Who the heck knows! What quality win did Alabama have this year to tell you whether they would or wouldn't?

Could Alabama win the whole CFP? sure. Did they deserve to be in? Absolutely not! There is nothing on their schedule that says they deserved to be in. I would have been fine if they put USC in over both too. The only thing they can use to place Alabama in is to say they "think" or "feel" they are the best team. There is absolutely nothing based on the season to show that, even though its possible they could be.

You can't have the 3rd best team from any of the leagues in as a participant in only a 4 team college football playoff. I'm a fan who watches college football 11 a.m. to midnight every Saturday during the regular season. But now that the season is over, I for the most part turn off the debacle known as bowl games or post-season exhibition games, and while I'm curious to see how Oklahoma does I won't watch the the Alabama vs Clemson, nor will I watch if it is Alabama vs Ga. in the final(no offense to Ga.) When the CFP becomes the bias of human selection committee's or influenced by network desires it really devalues the sport. It makes me decide to watch a legitimate product the NFL more and more each year.

You seem like a nice guy so don't take this the wrong way, but the NFL is the least legitimate product on the tube. They are so illegitimate that they classify themselves as an entertainment business instead of a sports business.

Why do they do that? Because on every Sunday 85% of the NFL teams win against the closing line. The closing line shows which team had the most money bet on it. Gambling and the NFL are way to closely tied to be legitimate. So 85% of the time the house wins on the NFL. Let that sink in.

College ball has its flaws, and I'm sure gambling finds its way into it especially in the post season where there are so many ways to control spreads and chizzle the closing line what with coaching transfers, substandard match ups in bowls that create little or no interest for one of the teams, and Super Bowl like betting for the finals. But it is by no means the NFL.

From the time I was twelve until I was about 37 I followed the NFL faithfully. I did that until a friend of mine developed a gambling habit and a former bookie I happened to know (I just knew him I've never bet on games) showed my buddy the closing lines and the house take. It cured my buddy better than counseling could have. He realized he was a sucker.

The NFL pays what it does so that the players don't care about the post season. The chump change they get for that doesn't amount to 1% of what they earn and it just puts their bodies more at risk. Just look at the farce that the Pro Bowl became.

So while they do still like the Super Bowl because it enhances their endorsements, most of the postseason is just a drag on their bodies.

So be warned if you think you are finding the real deal in the NFL you are grossly mistaken.

Stick to your favorite college team. That's as close to the real deal as you are going to get.

As to the CFP, it is what it is, a mechanism for controlling advertising rates for the networks. I like the fact that 3 schools are coming from a 3 state area in the Southeast this year. Nothing will move us toward a champs only model faster than what is taking place now. Oklahoma will draw in Texas but basically this year there will be little interest West of the Mississippi River and North of the Mason Dixon line.

If that doesn't lite a fire under their butts nothing will. The only thing that happened this year is that Ohio State has twice been added when others seemed more deserving, the PAC was an exercise in mediocrity this year with USC losing by 35 to a Notre Dame squad that was blown out by Miami who was just blown out by Clemson, and nobody wanted to see Clemson hang 50 on Wisconsin. If you think Ohio State's speed was too much for the Badgers they would have seen nothing but taillights on the Clemson backs and receivers.

So Alabama was put in to try to make the Clemson game competitive. I have no idea how Georgia will do against OU or vice versa.

So that's my take. I'll stick to college ball for all of its faults because the NFL is the Professional Wrestling in pads.
(This post was last modified: 12-03-2017 06:19 PM by JRsec.)
12-03-2017 06:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,574
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 139
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #7
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
(12-03-2017 05:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 05:24 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 04:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Satan coming through with his end of the bargain with little Nicky or the epic butthurt of Ohio State fans whining about the same ruling that put THEM into the playoff over PSU last year....

Some days there are no winners

03-lmfao

In fair disclosure I am from the Midwest, and this isn't meant to be an anti-Alabama or SEC commentary but more of an anti-CFP process discussion. I also think PSU should have got in last year over OSU due to the head to head victory and winning the conference. BUT... there is a huge difference between the quality of wins OSU had last year in wins over
#14 OU at OU
#8 Wisconsin at Wisconsin
#3 Michigan

Alabama didn't have even close to the quality of wins this year the 2016 OSU team had.

Then we heard on the tv who would win heads up quoted repeatedly on ESPN yesterday. Who the heck knows! What quality win did Alabama have this year to tell you whether they would or wouldn't?

Could Alabama win the whole CFP? sure. Did they deserve to be in? Absolutely not! There is nothing on their schedule that says they deserved to be in. I would have been fine if they put USC in over both too. The only thing they can use to place Alabama in is to say they "think" or "feel" they are the best team. There is absolutely nothing based on the season to show that, even though its possible they could be.

You can't have the 3rd best team from any of the leagues in as a participant in only a 4 team college football playoff. I'm a fan who watches college football 11 a.m. to midnight every Saturday during the regular season. But now that the season is over, I for the most part turn off the debacle known as bowl games or post-season exhibition games, and while I'm curious to see how Oklahoma does I won't watch the the Alabama vs Clemson, nor will I watch if it is Alabama vs Ga. in the final(no offense to Ga.) When the CFP becomes the bias of human selection committee's or influenced by network desires it really devalues the sport. It makes me decide to watch a legitimate product the NFL more and more each year.

You know what we didn't have?

2 loses...
04-rock04-rock04-rock03-nutkick
12-03-2017 06:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,364
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
(12-03-2017 05:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 05:24 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 04:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Satan coming through with his end of the bargain with little Nicky or the epic butthurt of Ohio State fans whining about the same ruling that put THEM into the playoff over PSU last year....

Some days there are no winners

03-lmfao

In fair disclosure I am from the Midwest, and this isn't meant to be an anti-Alabama or SEC commentary but more of an anti-CFP process discussion. I also think PSU should have got in last year over OSU due to the head to head victory and winning the conference. BUT... there is a huge difference between the quality of wins OSU had last year in wins over
#14 OU at OU
#8 Wisconsin at Wisconsin
#3 Michigan

Alabama didn't have even close to the quality of wins this year the 2016 OSU team had.

Then we heard on the tv who would win heads up quoted repeatedly on ESPN yesterday. Who the heck knows! What quality win did Alabama have this year to tell you whether they would or wouldn't?

Could Alabama win the whole CFP? sure. Did they deserve to be in? Absolutely not! There is nothing on their schedule that says they deserved to be in. I would have been fine if they put USC in over both too. The only thing they can use to place Alabama in is to say they "think" or "feel" they are the best team. There is absolutely nothing based on the season to show that, even though its possible they could be.

You can't have the 3rd best team from any of the leagues in as a participant in only a 4 team college football playoff. I'm a fan who watches college football 11 a.m. to midnight every Saturday during the regular season. But now that the season is over, I for the most part turn off the debacle known as bowl games or post-season exhibition games, and while I'm curious to see how Oklahoma does I won't watch the the Alabama vs Clemson, nor will I watch if it is Alabama vs Ga. in the final(no offense to Ga.) When the CFP becomes the bias of human selection committee's or influenced by network desires it really devalues the sport. It makes me decide to watch a legitimate product the NFL more and more each year.

You know what we didn't have?

2 loses...

There are several significant factors that put Alabama in over Ohio State.

1. HoD is absolutely right. We had fewer losses and most apples to apples comparisons will only be made when teams have the same record.

2. The Big Ten representatives have been horrid the last 2 years. Both Michigan State and Ohio State got absolutely demolished. In fact, they were both shut out. From a competitive standpoint, the B1G has lost a great deal of credibility so I doubt very many committee members looked at those top 10 wins and said "yep, those are legit."

3. Piggybacking on the previous point, one of the committee's jobs is to "find the 4 best teams." In so doing, they must also consider how each team is capable of competing against the others. Point being, no one wants to watch a game where one team routs the other by 40. TV ratings are paramount and that may not sound fair, but ratings pay the bills. Putting a B1G team in that had already been whipped at home by another participant(Oklahoma) and that hadn't really done anything to demonstrate they might not get blown out by the others was not going to happen.

4. Ohio State's loss to Iowa was huge. Not just the loss, but the way they lost. You won't find very many commentators who would say that the same thing would have happened to Alabama in that situation. Perception factor...

5. Ohio State snuck in back in 2014 because they whipped Wisconsin in the CCG. Aside from OSU having a lot more cache than TCU, this dynamic gave the committee a reason to say "OSU is way better than their league." This year, the CCG came down to the final possession.

6. This may actually be the biggest factor....

Remember when Alabama and LSU had a rematch in 2011? Fewer people watched the game, yes. You know why that doesn't matter? Because the uproar gave the powers that be a shot in the arm and they finally relented on creating a playoff. The networks didn't have to be talked into it. They knew they were going to cash in so there was no chance they'd fight it.

You know what's going to happen this year? Fewer people will watch the playoff, yes. You know why that doesn't matter? Because soon and very soon we're going to expand the playoff. This is part of why the suits wanted so badly to get Notre Dame in. They understood the cause and effect.

Administrators will now be afraid of consistently losing a spot since the committee has shown the willingness to put 2 schools from the same conference in. The networks will make even more money and we'll probably end up with some sort of hybrid system where the P5 get their champions automatically in while the committee gets to pick 3 at-large schools. We'll get the anticipation of watching the conference race determine participants while also not forfeiting the drama of watching other schools be judged subjectively. Arguments will continue, but no one will really get left out.

Drama, drama, drama = ratings, ratings, ratings = cash, cash, cash
12-03-2017 06:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 221
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
(12-03-2017 06:34 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 05:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 05:24 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 04:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Satan coming through with his end of the bargain with little Nicky or the epic butthurt of Ohio State fans whining about the same ruling that put THEM into the playoff over PSU last year....

Some days there are no winners

03-lmfao

In fair disclosure I am from the Midwest, and this isn't meant to be an anti-Alabama or SEC commentary but more of an anti-CFP process discussion. I also think PSU should have got in last year over OSU due to the head to head victory and winning the conference. BUT... there is a huge difference between the quality of wins OSU had last year in wins over
#14 OU at OU
#8 Wisconsin at Wisconsin
#3 Michigan

Alabama didn't have even close to the quality of wins this year the 2016 OSU team had.

Then we heard on the tv who would win heads up quoted repeatedly on ESPN yesterday. Who the heck knows! What quality win did Alabama have this year to tell you whether they would or wouldn't?

Could Alabama win the whole CFP? sure. Did they deserve to be in? Absolutely not! There is nothing on their schedule that says they deserved to be in. I would have been fine if they put USC in over both too. The only thing they can use to place Alabama in is to say they "think" or "feel" they are the best team. There is absolutely nothing based on the season to show that, even though its possible they could be.

You can't have the 3rd best team from any of the leagues in as a participant in only a 4 team college football playoff. I'm a fan who watches college football 11 a.m. to midnight every Saturday during the regular season. But now that the season is over, I for the most part turn off the debacle known as bowl games or post-season exhibition games, and while I'm curious to see how Oklahoma does I won't watch the the Alabama vs Clemson, nor will I watch if it is Alabama vs Ga. in the final(no offense to Ga.) When the CFP becomes the bias of human selection committee's or influenced by network desires it really devalues the sport. It makes me decide to watch a legitimate product the NFL more and more each year.

You know what we didn't have?

2 loses...
04-rock04-rock04-rock03-nutkick

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.
12-03-2017 07:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 221
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Alabama Crimson Tide #4!!!
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.
12-03-2017 07:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,750
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
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: 2,364
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
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: 2,364
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
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: 1,474
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 79
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: 15,750
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
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: 221
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 11
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: 2,364
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
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: 221
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 11
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: 5,574
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 139
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: 2,364
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
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.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.