Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia and Alabama picked for College Playoff
-
On top of that bama couldn't get blown out the teams they played are all heavy run and they have played no elite qbs this year so no chance to get blow out bama is an illusion and the sec will get exposed as well as the acc and the committee will look like a bag of dicks as usual
On top of that bama couldn't get blown out the teams they played are all heavy run and they have played no elite qbs this year so no chance to get blow out bama is an illusion and the sec will get exposed as well as the acc and the committee will look like a bag of dicks as usual
Ah so this is a Big 10 whine fest.
Clemson did some exposing last year but it had nothing to do with the ACC.....
-
On top of that bama couldn't get blown out the teams they played are all heavy run and they have played no elite qbs this year so no chance to get blow out bama is an illusion and the sec will get exposed as well as the acc and the committee will look like a bag of dicks as usual
Ah so this is a Big 10 whine fest.
Clemson did some exposing last year but it had nothing to do with the ACC.....
Ah so this is a Big 10 whine fest.
Clemson did some exposing last year but it had nothing to do with the ACC.....
I think Clemson is going to expose everyone this year...including Nick Saban and company.
-
Bama played nobody this year like every year they only play 8 conference games like Clemson and play an fcs school they lost the one tuff game and got dominated by auburn and auburn got boat races by Georgia bama does not belong schedule better and leave the south and play home and home then they have a argument
Bama was the next worthy team. USC and OSU had terrible losses on their records. Given those two teams didn't deserve to get into the playoff, who do you think got overlooked?
Bama was the next worthy team. USC and OSU had terrible losses on their records. Given those two teams didn't deserve to get into the playoff, who do you think got overlooked?
A game against an FCS team should be looked as a loss. In my opinion.
-
On top of that bama couldn't get blown out the teams they played are all heavy run and they have played no elite qbs this year so no chance to get blow out bama is an illusion and the sec will get exposed as well as the acc and the committee will look like a bag of dicks as usual
Ah so this is a Big 10 whine fest.
Clemson did some exposing last year but it had nothing to do with the ACC.....
Ah so this is a Big 10 whine fest.
Clemson did some exposing last year but it had nothing to do with the ACC.....
It goes in cycles. I seem to recall the Big 10 doing some exposing at times as well.
-
Here is another point:
The ACC is just about as bad at scheduling FCS opponents. Their teams had 11 of them on their schedules this year.
The likes of Citadel, Furman, Presbyterian, Murray St. Central Connecticut, Delaware, Jacksonville St. Youngstown St. (Pitt), William and Mary, North Carolina Central, Old Dominion.
-
The Big 12 still had several games vs. FCS schools like: Jackson St. Delaware St. Cental Arkansas, Northern Iowa, Eastern Washington, SE Missouri Sts.....and Baylor played Liberty and LOST.
7 games
-
The Pac 12 is still playing FCS:
Montana, Montana St. Southern Utah, Weber St. Portland St, Northern Arizona, North Dakota, Northern Colorado
8 games.
-
The Big Ten played exactly TWO (2) games vs. FCS schools:
Rutgers played Morgan St.
Maryland played Towson St.
These are the two most recent additions to the Big Ten and they carried over their schedules from their prior conferences.
So, bottom line on this in terms of the P5 conferences playing FCS schools:
SEC still scheduled 13
ACC had 11
Pac 12 had 8
Big 12 had 7
Big Ten had 2.
-
Ah so this is a Big 10 whine fest.
Clemson did some exposing last year but it had nothing to do with the ACC.....
It goes in cycles. I seem to recall the Big 10 doing some exposing at times as well.
It goes in cycles. I seem to recall the Big 10 doing some exposing at times as well.
No doubt. I hope OSU gets in next year and does some damage.
-
You can't say "4-7" Florida then call FSU a top 4 win for Bama.
Fair enough although those are completely different teams. They just played each other and proved that, too.
Fsu was a preseason ranking there rank was based on last year and bias. I watched almost all of a bama's games this year they are not what they said they are. The sec bias came up again. How it is possible to not play and move up. And further evidence of the bias is when osu lost to ou compare how many spots osu dropped as compared to bama's loss. Auburn dominated bama in the same fashion ou did to Osu. You can point to the Iowa loss all you want but the conference championship whips that out now compare the records not even close osu got robbed. Like I said I like bama hope they beat Clemson but osu should have been in there is no excuse for in and once again the committee shows us there a joke and the playoff has to go to 8 teams to take the human bias out of 5 of the picks.
I'm quite positive you did not watch almost all of bama's games, or you saw them win 4 conference games by 30+?
Stop whining about SEC bias. Everyone could easily argue there's Ohio State bias had they been chosen. Committee was going to look biased either way. Get over it. Don't lose by 30.
It may be as simple as this: There has never been a 2 loss team in these playoffs in the now 4 or so years they have been running, and the committee didn't want to go that way this time.
Then you have to ask yourself: who then only had 1 loss? Well...there was UCF...only undefeated team...but they were not going to pick them.
And there was Wisconsin. Only loss to Ohio St. On resume alone, Wisconsin may actually have had the better credentials. There loss was to OSU, Bama to Auburn.....OSU ended up ranked higher than Auburn. Both had what I ...and everyone else, considered weak schedules. Both OSU and USC had much stronger strength of schedules...but both had two losses.
So...between Alabama and Wisc. it came down to only possibly a few things: A. Wisconsin just lost the previous day...where Bama had the good sense to lose a week earlier B. They went by reputation alone or C. it came down to the "eye" test....they just thought Bama was a better team.
The last one is what they professed....but honestly....I think that the last one was influenced by A and B. They thought Bama looked better because in the past Bama has been better, and they forgot how Bama was overwhelmingly manhandled by Auburn. While Wisc. lost to OSU...I wouldn't call it an overwhelming manhandling. Wisc. just could not keep up with OSU's quick strike ability. So...to me...it all boils down to B: they chose Bama out of reputation alone.
Wisconsin blows. Every team in the top 10 would beat them.
Ohio State, Penn St. Wisconsin, Michigan St. Michigan, Northwestern, Iowa.......collectively were better than the SECs top half:
And, record wise you are wrong. Ohio State, PSU and Wisconsin were a combined 33-5. Bama, Auburn and GA had the same 33-5 record. But note: the SEC teams only played 8 conference games...where the Big Ten played 9. Ergo...the SEC doubles up on cupcakes. While the Big Ten played a few "lesser lights"..they only had the chance really to play 1 team like that. The SEC schedules at least 2. And nowhere on any Big Ten schedule will you see them playing FCS schools, like Mercer or the Citadel, or Louisiana-Monroe.
By getting 2 teams into the playoffs, this committee is actually rewarding the SEC for their weak butt scheduling. The Big Ten, Pac 10, ACC, Big 12 all play a 9 game conference schedule....the SEC only plays 8 conference games.
If I were the Commissioners of the other conferences....I would make a demand that the SEC play the same number of conference games as the rest of them do......and that any game agains an FCS opponent should count as a half loss.
Nobody cares that Big 10 teams played an extra game against Purdue instead of some G5 team. Come up with something better.
Plain and simple the committee changes there rules and makes excuses to put whom ever they want in sec bias alieve and well this has Espn's doing all over it and if people want to bitch about osu's loss to Iowa then the clear next team was USC and they should have been in over bama and people want to say eye test than the clear team was osu who is the only team THE ONLY TEAM to be ranked in the top ten on d and o the buckeyes season swung on there qb giving the ball away
They would have changed "there rules" that they established last year in order to put Ohio State in this year....
Bama played nobody this year like every year they only play 8 conference games like Clemson and play an fcs school they lost the one tuff game and got dominated by auburn and auburn got boat races by Georgia bama does not belong schedule better and leave the south and play home and home then they have a argument
OHIO STATE DID NOT LEAVE THE NORTH EITHER
Your arguments are so bad.
On top of that bama couldn't get blown out the teams they played are all heavy run and they have played no elite qbs this year so no chance to get blow out bama is an illusion and the sec will get exposed as well as the acc and the committee will look like a bag of dicks as usual
Yeah, everyone knows the Iowa Hawkeyes are a super prolific offense. Are you serious right now?
-
You can't say "4-7" Florida then call FSU a top 4 win for Bama.
Fair enough although those are completely different teams. They just played each other and proved that, too.
Fsu was a preseason ranking there rank was based on last year and bias. I watched almost all of a bama's games this year they are not what they said they are. The sec bias came up again. How it is possible to not play and move up. And further evidence of the bias is when osu lost to ou compare how many spots osu dropped as compared to bama's loss. Auburn dominated bama in the same fashion ou did to Osu. You can point to the Iowa loss all you want but the conference championship whips that out now compare the records not even close osu got robbed. Like I said I like bama hope they beat Clemson but osu should have been in there is no excuse for in and once again the committee shows us there a joke and the playoff has to go to 8 teams to take the human bias out of 5 of the picks.
I'm quite positive you did not watch almost all of bama's games, or you saw them win 4 conference games by 30+?
Stop whining about SEC bias. Everyone could easily argue there's Ohio State bias had they been chosen. Committee was going to look biased either way. Get over it. Don't lose by 30.
It may be as simple as this: There has never been a 2 loss team in these playoffs in the now 4 or so years they have been running, and the committee didn't want to go that way this time.
Then you have to ask yourself: who then only had 1 loss? Well...there was UCF...only undefeated team...but they were not going to pick them.
And there was Wisconsin. Only loss to Ohio St. On resume alone, Wisconsin may actually have had the better credentials. There loss was to OSU, Bama to Auburn.....OSU ended up ranked higher than Auburn. Both had what I ...and everyone else, considered weak schedules. Both OSU and USC had much stronger strength of schedules...but both had two losses.
So...between Alabama and Wisc. it came down to only possibly a few things: A. Wisconsin just lost the previous day...where Bama had the good sense to lose a week earlier B. They went by reputation alone or C. it came down to the "eye" test....they just thought Bama was a better team.
The last one is what they professed....but honestly....I think that the last one was influenced by A and B. They thought Bama looked better because in the past Bama has been better, and they forgot how Bama was overwhelmingly manhandled by Auburn. While Wisc. lost to OSU...I wouldn't call it an overwhelming manhandling. Wisc. just could not keep up with OSU's quick strike ability. So...to me...it all boils down to B: they chose Bama out of reputation alone.
Wisconsin blows. Every team in the top 10 would beat them.
Ohio State, Penn St. Wisconsin, Michigan St. Michigan, Northwestern, Iowa.......collectively were better than the SECs top half:
And, record wise you are wrong. Ohio State, PSU and Wisconsin were a combined 33-5. Bama, Auburn and GA had the same 33-5 record. But note: the SEC teams only played 8 conference games...where the Big Ten played 9. Ergo...the SEC doubles up on cupcakes. While the Big Ten played a few "lesser lights"..they only had the chance really to play 1 team like that. The SEC schedules at least 2. And nowhere on any Big Ten schedule will you see them playing FCS schools, like Mercer or the Citadel, or Louisiana-Monroe.
By getting 2 teams into the playoffs, this committee is actually rewarding the SEC for their weak butt scheduling. The Big Ten, Pac 10, ACC, Big 12 all play a 9 game conference schedule....the SEC only plays 8 conference games.
If I were the Commissioners of the other conferences....I would make a demand that the SEC play the same number of conference games as the rest of them do......and that any game agains an FCS opponent should count as a half loss.
Nobody cares that Big 10 teams played an extra game against Purdue instead of some G5 team. Come up with something better.
Plain and simple the committee changes there rules and makes excuses to put whom ever they want in sec bias alieve and well this has Espn's doing all over it and if people want to bitch about osu's loss to Iowa then the clear next team was USC and they should have been in over bama and people want to say eye test than the clear team was osu who is the only team THE ONLY TEAM to be ranked in the top ten on d and o the buckeyes season swung on there qb giving the ball away
They would have changed "there rules" that they established last year in order to put Ohio State in this year....
Bama played nobody this year like every year they only play 8 conference games like Clemson and play an fcs school they lost the one tuff game and got dominated by auburn and auburn got boat races by Georgia bama does not belong schedule better and leave the south and play home and home then they have a argument
OHIO STATE DID NOT LEAVE THE NORTH EITHER
Your arguments are so bad.
On top of that bama couldn't get blown out the teams they played are all heavy run and they have played no elite qbs this year so no chance to get blow out bama is an illusion and the sec will get exposed as well as the acc and the committee will look like a bag of dicks as usual
Yeah, everyone knows the Iowa Hawkeyes are a super prolific offense. Are you serious right now?
Fair enough although those are completely different teams. They just played each other and proved that, too.
A bad team beat another bad team by 2 scores. Shmuck me, I'm impressed.
-
You can't say "4-7" Florida then call FSU a top 4 win for Bama.
Fair enough although those are completely different teams. They just played each other and proved that, too.
Fsu was a preseason ranking there rank was based on last year and bias. I watched almost all of a bama's games this year they are not what they said they are. The sec bias came up again. How it is possible to not play and move up. And further evidence of the bias is when osu lost to ou compare how many spots osu dropped as compared to bama's loss. Auburn dominated bama in the same fashion ou did to Osu. You can point to the Iowa loss all you want but the conference championship whips that out now compare the records not even close osu got robbed. Like I said I like bama hope they beat Clemson but osu should have been in there is no excuse for in and once again the committee shows us there a joke and the playoff has to go to 8 teams to take the human bias out of 5 of the picks.
I'm quite positive you did not watch almost all of bama's games, or you saw them win 4 conference games by 30+?
Stop whining about SEC bias. Everyone could easily argue there's Ohio State bias had they been chosen. Committee was going to look biased either way. Get over it. Don't lose by 30.
It may be as simple as this: There has never been a 2 loss team in these playoffs in the now 4 or so years they have been running, and the committee didn't want to go that way this time.
Then you have to ask yourself: who then only had 1 loss? Well...there was UCF...only undefeated team...but they were not going to pick them.
And there was Wisconsin. Only loss to Ohio St. On resume alone, Wisconsin may actually have had the better credentials. There loss was to OSU, Bama to Auburn.....OSU ended up ranked higher than Auburn. Both had what I ...and everyone else, considered weak schedules. Both OSU and USC had much stronger strength of schedules...but both had two losses.
So...between Alabama and Wisc. it came down to only possibly a few things: A. Wisconsin just lost the previous day...where Bama had the good sense to lose a week earlier B. They went by reputation alone or C. it came down to the "eye" test....they just thought Bama was a better team.
The last one is what they professed....but honestly....I think that the last one was influenced by A and B. They thought Bama looked better because in the past Bama has been better, and they forgot how Bama was overwhelmingly manhandled by Auburn. While Wisc. lost to OSU...I wouldn't call it an overwhelming manhandling. Wisc. just could not keep up with OSU's quick strike ability. So...to me...it all boils down to B: they chose Bama out of reputation alone.
Wisconsin blows. Every team in the top 10 would beat them.
Ohio State, Penn St. Wisconsin, Michigan St. Michigan, Northwestern, Iowa.......collectively were better than the SECs top half:
And, record wise you are wrong. Ohio State, PSU and Wisconsin were a combined 33-5. Bama, Auburn and GA had the same 33-5 record. But note: the SEC teams only played 8 conference games...where the Big Ten played 9. Ergo...the SEC doubles up on cupcakes. While the Big Ten played a few "lesser lights"..they only had the chance really to play 1 team like that. The SEC schedules at least 2. And nowhere on any Big Ten schedule will you see them playing FCS schools, like Mercer or the Citadel, or Louisiana-Monroe.
By getting 2 teams into the playoffs, this committee is actually rewarding the SEC for their weak butt scheduling. The Big Ten, Pac 10, ACC, Big 12 all play a 9 game conference schedule....the SEC only plays 8 conference games.
If I were the Commissioners of the other conferences....I would make a demand that the SEC play the same number of conference games as the rest of them do......and that any game agains an FCS opponent should count as a half loss.
Nobody cares that Big 10 teams played an extra game against Purdue instead of some G5 team. Come up with something better.
Plain and simple the committee changes there rules and makes excuses to put whom ever they want in sec bias alieve and well this has Espn's doing all over it and if people want to bitch about osu's loss to Iowa then the clear next team was USC and they should have been in over bama and people want to say eye test than the clear team was osu who is the only team THE ONLY TEAM to be ranked in the top ten on d and o the buckeyes season swung on there qb giving the ball away
They would have changed "there rules" that they established last year in order to put Ohio State in this year....
Bama played nobody this year like every year they only play 8 conference games like Clemson and play an fcs school they lost the one tuff game and got dominated by auburn and auburn got boat races by Georgia bama does not belong schedule better and leave the south and play home and home then they have a argument
OHIO STATE DID NOT LEAVE THE NORTH EITHER
Your arguments are so bad.
On top of that bama couldn't get blown out the teams they played are all heavy run and they have played no elite qbs this year so no chance to get blow out bama is an illusion and the sec will get exposed as well as the acc and the committee will look like a bag of dicks as usual
Yeah, everyone knows the Iowa Hawkeyes are a super prolific offense. Are you serious right now?
Fair enough although those are completely different teams. They just played each other and proved that, too.
I'm quite positive you did not watch almost all of bama's games, or you saw them win 4 conference games by 30+?
Stop whining about SEC bias. Everyone could easily argue there's Ohio State bias had they been chosen. Committee was going to look biased either way. Get over it. Don't lose by 30.
Wisconsin blows. Every team in the top 10 would beat them.
You don't know that unless and until they play. Wisc. has a stout offensive line, defensive line and running game. They play Miami in the Orange Bowl....so we shall see.
Nobody cares that Big 10 teams played an extra game against Purdue instead of some G5 team. Come up with something better.
Lets put it this way: playing fewer in conference games allowed Georgia and Alabama to duck each other. Instead...they each decided to play FCS teams. Even if Alabama had to play Kentucky rather than Mercer...that would have been better.
They would have changed "there rules" that they established last year in order to put Ohio State in this year....
Maybe the only valid point you make....the same rules that were applied last year to OSU applied this year to Alabama. I would not argue with that...not sure why anyone else would.
Like I said....I still think that the Committee did NOT want to establish a precedent by putting a 2 loss team into the Field of Four. I don't think it would have mattered if OSU had lost by 30 points or 3 points to Iowa.
OHIO STATE DID NOT LEAVE THE NORTH EITHER
They have plenty of times in the past. They went to Oklahoma this year. They regularly have gone to the west coast to play Pac 12 teams. Show us any time in the past 20 years that Alabama has ever gone out of the south to play anyone that was not a bowl game.
Your arguments are so bad.
Yeah, everyone knows the Iowa Hawkeyes are a super prolific offense. Are you serious right now?
-
You can't say "4-7" Florida then call FSU a top 4 win for Bama.
Fair enough although those are completely different teams. They just played each other and proved that, too.
Fsu was a preseason ranking there rank was based on last year and bias. I watched almost all of a bama's games this year they are not what they said they are. The sec bias came up again. How it is possible to not play and move up. And further evidence of the bias is when osu lost to ou compare how many spots osu dropped as compared to bama's loss. Auburn dominated bama in the same fashion ou did to Osu. You can point to the Iowa loss all you want but the conference championship whips that out now compare the records not even close osu got robbed. Like I said I like bama hope they beat Clemson but osu should have been in there is no excuse for in and once again the committee shows us there a joke and the playoff has to go to 8 teams to take the human bias out of 5 of the picks.
I'm quite positive you did not watch almost all of bama's games, or you saw them win 4 conference games by 30+?
Stop whining about SEC bias. Everyone could easily argue there's Ohio State bias had they been chosen. Committee was going to look biased either way. Get over it. Don't lose by 30.
It may be as simple as this: There has never been a 2 loss team in these playoffs in the now 4 or so years they have been running, and the committee didn't want to go that way this time.
Then you have to ask yourself: who then only had 1 loss? Well...there was UCF...only undefeated team...but they were not going to pick them.
And there was Wisconsin. Only loss to Ohio St. On resume alone, Wisconsin may actually have had the better credentials. There loss was to OSU, Bama to Auburn.....OSU ended up ranked higher than Auburn. Both had what I ...and everyone else, considered weak schedules. Both OSU and USC had much stronger strength of schedules...but both had two losses.
So...between Alabama and Wisc. it came down to only possibly a few things: A. Wisconsin just lost the previous day...where Bama had the good sense to lose a week earlier B. They went by reputation alone or C. it came down to the "eye" test....they just thought Bama was a better team.
The last one is what they professed....but honestly....I think that the last one was influenced by A and B. They thought Bama looked better because in the past Bama has been better, and they forgot how Bama was overwhelmingly manhandled by Auburn. While Wisc. lost to OSU...I wouldn't call it an overwhelming manhandling. Wisc. just could not keep up with OSU's quick strike ability. So...to me...it all boils down to B: they chose Bama out of reputation alone.
Wisconsin blows. Every team in the top 10 would beat them.
Ohio State, Penn St. Wisconsin, Michigan St. Michigan, Northwestern, Iowa.......collectively were better than the SECs top half:
And, record wise you are wrong. Ohio State, PSU and Wisconsin were a combined 33-5. Bama, Auburn and GA had the same 33-5 record. But note: the SEC teams only played 8 conference games...where the Big Ten played 9. Ergo...the SEC doubles up on cupcakes. While the Big Ten played a few "lesser lights"..they only had the chance really to play 1 team like that. The SEC schedules at least 2. And nowhere on any Big Ten schedule will you see them playing FCS schools, like Mercer or the Citadel, or Louisiana-Monroe.
By getting 2 teams into the playoffs, this committee is actually rewarding the SEC for their weak butt scheduling. The Big Ten, Pac 10, ACC, Big 12 all play a 9 game conference schedule....the SEC only plays 8 conference games.
If I were the Commissioners of the other conferences....I would make a demand that the SEC play the same number of conference games as the rest of them do......and that any game agains an FCS opponent should count as a half loss.
Nobody cares that Big 10 teams played an extra game against Purdue instead of some G5 team. Come up with something better.
Plain and simple the committee changes there rules and makes excuses to put whom ever they want in sec bias alieve and well this has Espn's doing all over it and if people want to bitch about osu's loss to Iowa then the clear next team was USC and they should have been in over bama and people want to say eye test than the clear team was osu who is the only team THE ONLY TEAM to be ranked in the top ten on d and o the buckeyes season swung on there qb giving the ball away
They would have changed "there rules" that they established last year in order to put Ohio State in this year....
Bama played nobody this year like every year they only play 8 conference games like Clemson and play an fcs school they lost the one tuff game and got dominated by auburn and auburn got boat races by Georgia bama does not belong schedule better and leave the south and play home and home then they have a argument
OHIO STATE DID NOT LEAVE THE NORTH EITHER
Your arguments are so bad.
On top of that bama couldn't get blown out the teams they played are all heavy run and they have played no elite qbs this year so no chance to get blow out bama is an illusion and the sec will get exposed as well as the acc and the committee will look like a bag of dicks as usual
Yeah, everyone knows the Iowa Hawkeyes are a super prolific offense. Are you serious right now?
I'm quite positive you did not watch almost all of bama's games, or you saw them win 4 conference games by 30+?
Stop whining about SEC bias. Everyone could easily argue there's Ohio State bias had they been chosen. Committee was going to look biased either way. Get over it. Don't lose by 30.
Obviously you didnt watch the games. The sec was a dumpster fire of dog Sheet this year. They have three ok teams. Georgia is ok they run the ball well not a threat to pass,. Auburn and bama are the same not to mention bama is massively depleted on defense. I think the committee put who the wanted in and it stems from the big ten leaving to go to fox but the pac12 got hosed too. Yeah they both lost by 30 but there both conference champ in better conferences. So the should have taken the conference titles and the 30 point loses and made them a wash then compared the three team. It's not even close bama would be last. Then holcut come out and say they made the decision on the assumption bama might get healthy. cowpoop. This was a set up and they made there mind up before the championship games.
-
And the debate rages on maybe an 8 team playoff next year will help solve these debates an16 team playoff will practically eliminate them.......well except the 16 versus 17 controversy
........a D-1A long running pet peeve of mine. Hopefully they will catch up with the D-1AA, D-II, D-III, high school, etc.
-
I'm quite positive you did not watch almost all of bama's games, or you saw them win 4 conference games by 30+?
Stop whining about SEC bias. Everyone could easily argue there's Ohio State bias had they been chosen. Committee was going to look biased either way. Get over it. Don't lose by 30.
Obviously you didnt watch the games. The sec was a dumpster fire of dog Sheet this year. They have three ok teams. Georgia is ok they run the ball well not a threat to pass,. Auburn and bama are the same not to mention bama is massively depleted on defense. I think the committee put who the wanted in and it stems from the big ten leaving to go to fox but the pac12 got hosed too. Yeah they both lost by 30 but there both conference champ in better conferences. So the should have taken the conference titles and the 30 point loses and made them a wash then compared the three team. It's not even close bama would be last. Then holcut come out and say they made the decision on the assumption bama might get healthy. cowpoop. This was a set up and they made there mind up before the championship games.
Obviously you didnt watch the games. The sec was a dumpster fire of dog Sheet this year. They have three ok teams. Georgia is ok they run the ball well not a threat to pass,. Auburn and bama are the same not to mention bama is massively depleted on defense. I think the committee put who the wanted in and it stems from the big ten leaving to go to fox but the pac12 got hosed too. Yeah they both lost by 30 but there both conference champ in better conferences. So the should have taken the conference titles and the 30 point loses and made them a wash then compared the three team. It's not even close bama would be last. Then holcut come out and say they made the decision on the assumption bama might get healthy. cowpoop. This was a set up and they made there mind up before the championship games.
I think they had their minds made up when OSU got worked by a 7-5 team by 30 points.
OSU had to destroy Wisconsin to make the committee forget that Iowa loss. They didn’t. I know you are homering out but at least attempt to be objective.
-
Obviously you didnt watch the games. The sec was a dumpster fire of dog Sheet this year. They have three ok teams. Georgia is ok they run the ball well not a threat to pass,. Auburn and bama are the same not to mention bama is massively depleted on defense. I think the committee put who the wanted in and it stems from the big ten leaving to go to fox but the pac12 got hosed too. Yeah they both lost by 30 but there both conference champ in better conferences. So the should have taken the conference titles and the 30 point loses and made them a wash then compared the three team. It's not even close bama would be last. Then holcut come out and say they made the decision on the assumption bama might get healthy. cowpoop. This was a set up and they made there mind up before the championship games.
I think they had their minds made up when OSU got worked by a 7-5 team by 30 points.
OSU had to destroy Wisconsin to make the committee forget that Iowa loss. They didn’t. I know you are homering out but at least attempt to be objective.
I think they had their minds made up when OSU got worked by a 7-5 team by 30 points.
OSU had to destroy Wisconsin to make the committee forget that Iowa loss. They didn’t. I know you are homering out but at least attempt to be objective.
Plus OSU sealed the deal beating WISC, all one loss teams in the final four.....easy out for the selection committee.
Rank Logo Team Record 1 
Clemson University 12-1 2 
University of Oklahoma 12-1 3 
University of Georgia 12-1 4 
University of Alabama 11-1 5 
Ohi8o State University 11-2 6 
University of Wisconsin 12-1 -
The final USA TODAY Sports college football re-rank of the regular season mirrors the College Football Playoff poll in leading with Clemson, Oklahoma and Georgia. Then we get into a debate.
The Playoff selection committee placed Alabama ahead of Ohio State in rounding out its four-team field of national semifinalists. Meanwhile, the re-rank leaps Ohio State ahead of the Crimson Tide following the Buckeyes’ win against once-unbeaten Wisconsin to win the Big Ten Conference.
Ohio State safety Damon Webb celebrates after making a fourth quarter interception against Wisconsin.THOMAS J. RUSSO, USA TODAY SPORTSIn total, the re-rank considered two factors in Ohio State’s corner while still considering the team’s ugly loss to Iowa in November. For one, the Buckeyes can tout a major-conference championship while Alabama finished second in its own division. Secondly, the Buckeyes’ two best wins – Wisconsin and Penn State – are better than the Tide’s most impressive win, against LSU.
-
Fair enough although those are completely different teams. They just played each other and proved that, too.
A bad team beat another bad team by 2 scores. Shmuck me, I'm impressed.
A bad team beat another bad team by 2 scores. Shmuck me, I'm impressed.
One was a national championship contender that played 89% of its games without the player without whom they suck (and relevant to this discussion, Bama got the elite 11%), and still scratched out 6-6, while the other is terrible.
-
Fair enough although those are completely different teams. They just played each other and proved that, too.
I'm quite positive you did not watch almost all of bama's games, or you saw them win 4 conference games by 30+?
Stop whining about SEC bias. Everyone could easily argue there's Ohio State bias had they been chosen. Committee was going to look biased either way. Get over it. Don't lose by 30.
Wisconsin blows. Every team in the top 10 would beat them.
You don't know that unless and until they play. Wisc. has a stout offensive line, defensive line and running game. They play Miami in the Orange Bowl....so we shall see.
Nobody cares that Big 10 teams played an extra game against Purdue instead of some G5 team. Come up with something better.
Lets put it this way: playing fewer in conference games allowed Georgia and Alabama to duck each other. Instead...they each decided to play FCS teams. Even if Alabama had to play Kentucky rather than Mercer...that would have been better.
They would have changed "there rules" that they established last year in order to put Ohio State in this year....
Maybe the only valid point you make....the same rules that were applied last year to OSU applied this year to Alabama. I would not argue with that...not sure why anyone else would.
Like I said....I still think that the Committee did NOT want to establish a precedent by putting a 2 loss team into the Field of Four. I don't think it would have mattered if OSU had lost by 30 points or 3 points to Iowa.
OHIO STATE DID NOT LEAVE THE NORTH EITHER
They have plenty of times in the past. They went to Oklahoma this year. They regularly have gone to the west coast to play Pac 12 teams. Show us any time in the past 20 years that Alabama has ever gone out of the south to play anyone that was not a bowl game.
Your arguments are so bad.
Yeah, everyone knows the Iowa Hawkeyes are a super prolific offense. Are you serious right now?
You don't know that unless and until they play. Wisc. has a stout offensive line, defensive line and running game. They play Miami in the Orange Bowl....so we shall see.
Part of the committee's job is to speculate on these things.
Lets put it this way: playing fewer in conference games allowed Georgia and Alabama to duck each other. Instead...they each decided to play FCS teams. Even if Alabama had to play Kentucky rather than Mercer...that would have been better.
Slightly better, sure. Still completely irrelevant to this discussion.
They have plenty of times in the past. They went to Oklahoma this year. They regularly have gone to the west coast to play Pac 12 teams. Show us any time in the past 20 years that Alabama has ever gone out of the south to play anyone that was not a bowl game.
The past has zero bearing on this year, and they did not go to Oklahoma or anywhere else outside of Big 10 country this year.
-
I'm quite positive you did not watch almost all of bama's games, or you saw them win 4 conference games by 30+?
Stop whining about SEC bias. Everyone could easily argue there's Ohio State bias had they been chosen. Committee was going to look biased either way. Get over it. Don't lose by 30.
Obviously you didnt watch the games. The sec was a dumpster fire of dog Sheet this year. They have three ok teams. Georgia is ok they run the ball well not a threat to pass,. Auburn and bama are the same not to mention bama is massively depleted on defense. I think the committee put who the wanted in and it stems from the big ten leaving to go to fox but the pac12 got hosed too. Yeah they both lost by 30 but there both conference champ in better conferences. So the should have taken the conference titles and the 30 point loses and made them a wash then compared the three team. It's not even close bama would be last. Then holcut come out and say they made the decision on the assumption bama might get healthy. cowpoop. This was a set up and they made there mind up before the championship games.
Obviously you didnt watch the games. The sec was a dumpster fire of dog Sheet this year. They have three ok teams. Georgia is ok they run the ball well not a threat to pass,. Auburn and bama are the same not to mention bama is massively depleted on defense. I think the committee put who the wanted in and it stems from the big ten leaving to go to fox but the pac12 got hosed too. Yeah they both lost by 30 but there both conference champ in better conferences. So the should have taken the conference titles and the 30 point loses and made them a wash then compared the three team. It's not even close bama would be last. Then holcut come out and say they made the decision on the assumption bama might get healthy. cowpoop. This was a set up and they made there mind up before the championship games.
No, I definitely did watch the games. I'd put my college football couch time up against absolutely anyone's this season. If by "three ok teams" you mean three in the top 10, yeah, the SEC has that. And LSU. And Mississippi State. So in a pretty bad year, it still has 5 teams which I would submit would have a solid shot at beating any Big 10 team this year.
Bama's injured defenders are all back in time for the bowl, I believe. And you said that later in your post. Try to have some consistency.
Ohio State has a bigger national brand than Alabama. If you're going to pull out the cooky conspiracy theories, where exactly does that fit in?
If you call the conference titles and 30 point losses a wash (which is pretty stupid), then Alabama is 11-1 and Ohio State is 10-1. Hmm. Still seems pretty simple.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login