dfwabel

2017-18 NCAA Football Thread

Recommended Posts

There were 7 things when it came to college football I always was taught mattered:

  1. Resume

  2. Schedule

  3. Body of work

  4. Win your division

  5. Win your conference

  6. Don't lose late

  7. Don't lose your last game of the regular season

Alabama did not check ANY of those marks

And yet.......

 

Thanks a lot, committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're really going to argue Alabama wasn't one of the four best teams?  They steamrolled Clemson and beat Georgia on the backs of freshmen.  The point of the committee is to find the best four teams.  Was the team that lost by a kajillion to a poor Iowa team better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They lost to an eventual 4 loss Auburn team, and Bama’s offense was non existent for most of the game.

 

They just seem to get the benefit of the doubt, for almost every situation, all the time.

If another team had been in their position, with the same resume and season outcomes, said team would not have made the playoff, and everyone would’ve said ‘should’ve won game’s they needed too’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, shstpt1 said:

They lost to an eventual 4 loss Auburn team, and Bama’s offense was non existent for most of the game.

 

They just seem to get the benefit of the doubt, for almost every situation, all the time.

If another team had been in their position, with the same resume and season outcomes, said team would not have made the playoff, and everyone would’ve said ‘should’ve won game’s they needed too’

 

Clemson lost to an 8-loss Syracuse team.  The difference being Alabama's loss was to a team still good enough to win the best division in college football.  Why should Alabama get left out because they happened to lose to a good team and not one that wasn't good enough to bump them from the conference title game?

 

I wanted Alabama to get left out of the Playoff but ultimately there wasn't another team that had a legitimate argument.  If Ohio State doesn't get wrecked by Iowa, they get in.  But they did and that loss effectively disqualified them as it should have.

 

I know everybody wants to go with this notion Alabama didn't beat anybody but they were up 24-7 on Florida State late in the fourth when Francois got hurt.  As a Gator, as much as I hate to admit it, Florida State would have been a playoff contender with a healthy Francois.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the committee should have had different top 4 rankings/matchups;

 

1. Why give Bama a virtual home game in the Sugar Bowl?

2. Why not make Oklahoma #1 and have Bama play THEM instead?

3. Why not have Bama play in Pasadena?

 

Clemson-Georgia and OU-Bama I think would have worked out better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, See Red said:

I wanted Alabama to get left out of the Playoff but ultimately there wasn't another team that had a legitimate argument.  If Ohio State doesn't get wrecked by Iowa, they get in.  But they did and that loss effectively disqualified them as it should have.

 

Yeah, this is ultimately what people should be mad about. Based on how things were laid out, the only way you were replacing Alabama is by reaching (UCF as undefeated) or picking teams with much bigger flaws than Bama's (Ohio State against Iowa and USC against Wazzu/Notre Dame). The only other team you could put there was Auburn because they did beat Bama and did win the division, but they were soundly beaten by Georgia in the rematch (and you're not risking a trilogy for the title match-up) and had three losses. Blame Wisconsin. Blame Miami. Blame Notre Dame. 

 

Be mad at the rest of college football, and be mad at Georgia. Georgia should not have lost this game, but they went and did it. Alabama and their constant -- idk what to call it, arrogant? - lack of kicker let them have another shot, and they pooped themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, See Red said:

 

Clemson lost to an 8-loss Syracuse team.  The difference being Alabama's loss was to a team still good enough to win the best division in college football. 

 

Clemson was also without their QB, and that game was early in the season. They had plenty of time to show that they were a playoff team

 

Bama lost their last game of the season, but still moved up in rankings after not playing on championship Saturday.

 

 

13 minutes ago, SabresRule7361 said:

Maybe the committee should have had different top 4 rankings/matchups;

 

1. Why give Bama a virtual home game in the Sugar Bowl?

2. Why not make Oklahoma #1 and have Bama play THEM instead?

3. Why not have Bama play in Pasadena?

 

Clemson-Georgia and OU-Bama I think would have worked out better.

 

If 2 SEC teams had to make it, I would’ve had Georgia #1 vs #4 Bama and #2OU vs #3 Clemson 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess I'm the only one here happy with the outcome tonight, That's fine.  Georgia played a hell of a game I give them a ton of credit.  They were dominant in the first half and monsters when it came to third down conversions.  For a good while I thought they were going to win especially in light of the lack of offense and kicker who should be walking back to Tuscaloosa from Atlanta.  Nice to see that Tagovailoa added a much needed dimension to an otherwise very predictable Alabama offense.  I'm going to enjoy this run while it lasts, I thought the last title would be it for awhile, maybe this one will be, doesn't make it any less special to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t's just hard for me to think that a team that LOST their last game of the year in an SEC West all or nothing game got the benefit of the doubt.

The committee essentially rewarded them for LOSING the Iron Bowl.

Bama has officially become more insufferable than Duke basketball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, UCF is still my National Champions too.

 

For everyone :censored: ing about "strength of schedule:"

 

2wRQFXW.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SabresRule7361

Stop it. Just...just stop it. Your constant whining makes it a chore to have to read through every Stanley Cup, Super Bowl, World Series, NBA Finals, and National Championship thread. 

 

So just stop. Stop whining. You’re creating a negative experience for many a CCSLC user. 

 

EDIT- and should you consider ignoring this, like you do with every other post that calls you out? Consider this a warning from a mod. Ignoring it will force us to consider further disciplinary actions. 

 

Thank you for your expected cooperation. 

Edited by Ice_Cap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bama fatigue plus not wanting to put up with the “S-E-C!” rubes makes for a lot of disappointment. We got to have a season with the SEC not being particularly impressive, but they just happened to have two really good teams. Almost like you don’t have to be from the best conference to be the best team or something, a concept many SEC fans don’t seem to understand. But to argue Bama didn’t belong, especially after last night is preposterous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar to Ohio State’s inclusion in the first playoff, Alabama’s victory only ensured the committee made the right decision. I know, nobody likes Alabama, and nobody wants to see them win, but they were one of the four best teams, and their performances in the playoff have justified their inclusion. The committee got it right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering why Kirby Smart was learning from the Andy Reid School of Choke Jobs. That was bad... not as bad as 28-3 or 21-3, but still bad.

 

Alabama was consistent all season long, that's why they got in and they won it all. The committee did the right thing... now granted, there is some beef with UCF being 14-0. But, until the system expands (if ever), this is what you're going to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Seadragon76 said:

I was wondering why Kirby Smart was learning from the Andy Reid School of Choke Jobs. That was bad... not as bad as 28-3 or 21-3, but still bad.

 

Alabama was consistent all season long, that's why they got in and they won it all. The committee did the right thing... now granted, there is some beef with UCF being 14-0. But, until the system expands (if ever), this is what you're going to have.

This was especially galling after Oklahoma did the exact same thing the week prior. It's 3rd and 2 at midfield. Fromm should be touching that ball not your "wildcat QB". I thin he sees that hole to the left and pulls the ball back from Michel before taking it himself for the first. 

 

(Side note) - That had to be the worst officiating crew I've ever seen in a championship game. Offsides that weren't there, facemasks that weren't called and allowing two Alabama players to openly hit Georgia players. one should have gotten a 15 yard penalty, the other should have been ejected then kicked off the team for going after his coach. Those issues aside, Alabama made the changes they needed to and earned that win, it wasn't given to them. I still feel if Ohio State had gotten in, the Clemson result would have played out as it did with Ohio State winning but Georgia probably would have won last night instead, unless Kevin Wilson decided to use the entire playbook. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DScruggy729 said:

Similar to Ohio State’s inclusion in the first playoff, Alabama’s victory only ensured the committee made the right decision. I know, nobody likes Alabama, and nobody wants to see them win, but they were one of the four best teams, and their performances in the playoff have justified their inclusion. The committee got it right. 

I agree that Alabama was one of the four best teams.  But did they have one of the four best bodies of work?  One loss is good, but they really lost their only big test.  I don't think this necessarily means that they got it right.  If Wisconsin could have put together one fourth quarter drive, they are left out.  They're still one of the four best teams...but the committee still would have gotten it right.

 

The issue here is that we had three teams we knew were in and every candidate for that fourth spot was flawed.  Wisconsin lost it's only true test.  Ohio State, which showed that on some days it could beat anyone, was manhandled at Iowa.  Nobody in the PAC 12 really seemed quite there.  I would say that the committee did get it right, but I'm not sure the way the playoff played out is validation.  I think they got it right last year with Ohio State, as well and they did not win.  You can't ask the committee to predict how it will play out; so I think they should assess what kind of year the teams had.

 

I have a very unpopular opinion about this...I think that with over 100 teams (including about 60 in the big conferences), a complete lack of schedule integrity, only 12 (or 13) games, randomness within the conference schedule, varying degrees of non-conference opponents, tiebreakers, and the importance of homefield advantage, that the decision should be made irrespective of conference titles and division titles.  Just look at the 12/13 game schedules that each team played and the results.  

 

I actually thought the Ohio State choices last year was more clear than Alabama this year.  "But they didn't even win their division."  Actually, they tied for the division lead with Penn State.  Is head-to-head everything?  Do we care the PSU won a close one at home vs. OSU while common opponent Michigan had very different results vs. those two teams?  I do.  But more importantly, non-conference games count and PSU did not deserve a pass on Pitt.  If PSU wins either of those games, then yeah, they belong.  Sometimes I wonder if people still would have felt this way if Penn State had lost a second non-conference game.  

 

As for this year, the bodies of work for teams 4 through about 10 did not have a clear winner.  I tend to think Alabama made sense.  I definitely do not think the conference title issue should be held against them.  Now, since they were borderline, a conference title game gives them a chance to pad their resume (then again, it's a double-edged sword; see Wisconsin) but with so much schedule randomness and only four teams, I don't think it makes sense to be rigid about conference championships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only saw the OT of the Georgia Oklahoma game and then the OT of last night’s game, and I can’t believe that people don’t think that’s better than the NFL system. That’s so exciting, and makes sacks and penalties so huge, and usually ensures that at least a FG is scored on every possession, so the second team is always up against the wall. 

 

I think NFL should do one 10-minute quarter (no sudden death), then go to the college system or variation thereof. Or just skip the 10-min quarter and go straight to the college way. It’s great. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I only saw the OT of the Georgia Oklahoma game and then the OT of last night’s game, and I can’t believe that people don’t think that’s better than the NFL system. That’s so exciting, and makes sacks and penalties so huge, and usually ensures that at least a FG is scored on every possession, so the second team is always up against the wall. 

 

I think NFL should do one 10-minute quarter (no sudden death), then go to the college system or variation thereof. Or just skip the 10-min quarter and go straight to the college way. It’s great. 

It is exciting.  The question is whether it's the best way to decide a game.  Is it too much like a shootout in soccer (a terrible way to decide a championship, but what are you going to do with a sport that does not score every hour)?

 

It's not as bad as a shootout; there is actual football being played.  The main thing it has going for it is that it's essentially fair.  The coin flip is not really that important.  I happen to like it better than the NFL's format (at least the original NFL OT) for that reason, but I think I'm in the minority.


I think the main reason people prefer the NFL OT is that special teams remains in the game.  I personally can live with OT not having special teams.  I think a secondary reason is that the fairness actually bothers people.  I've seen it likened to "everyone gets a trophy" (which is preposterous) but mainly people like to say "lose the coin flip?  Stop 'em!" For that reason I think most fans actually prefer the original NFL OT where a first-possession FG can win it.  I think the current system takes away some of the unfairness and I can live with it, though gun to my head, I think I prefer college.

 

Whenever this debate occurs, I like to acknowledge that baseball and basketball have much easier fixes (as does hockey; though it's not practical for regular-season games).  In football, it's almost impossible to balance equity with "playing the full game."  College has chosen equity and that's fine with me.  The NFL's new OT has mitigated the inequity some, so that's good.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now