Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia and Alabama picked for College Playoff
-
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.
-
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.
Strength of Schedule is absolutely relevant to this subject. If you say that it is irrelevant, then you are saying there is no difference between playing an SEC team and an FCS team. I know the SEC is weak right now....but that weak?
-
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.
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.
No they didn't that flag got planted at the 50 in the 'Shoe. Love that Baker and all his doucheness.
-
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.
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.
So you’re saying they pulled a ‘Bama this year?
I find It amusing that the SEC fans that complain about Ohio State not leaving Big 10 country, while the majority of bowl games are played in the SEC’s own backyard.
-
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.
Strength of Schedule is absolutely relevant to this subject. If you say that it is irrelevant, then you are saying there is no difference between playing an SEC team and an FCS team. I know the SEC is weak right now....but that weak?
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.
Strength of Schedule is absolutely relevant to this subject. If you say that it is irrelevant, then you are saying there is no difference between playing an SEC team and an FCS team. I know the SEC is weak right now....but that weak?
The delta in strength of schedule between Mercer and Kentucky (or Mercer and Indiana) shouldn't be enough to change anything.
So you’re saying they pulled a ‘Bama this year?
I find It amusing that the SEC fans that complain about Ohio State not leaving Big 10 country, while the majority of bowl games are played in the SEC’s own backyard.
Surely this is a joke. It was an Ohio State fan that made the complaint about Alabama. I'm just pointing out Ohio State didn't leave its region either. I really could care less. College football is a regional game anyway. It's a really, REALLY stupid criticism and if an SEC fan used it I'd tell them the same thing.
-
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.
Strength of Schedule is absolutely relevant to this subject. If you say that it is irrelevant, then you are saying there is no difference between playing an SEC team and an FCS team. I know the SEC is weak right now....but that weak?
The delta in strength of schedule between Mercer and Kentucky (or Mercer and Indiana) shouldn't be enough to change anything.
So you’re saying they pulled a ‘Bama this year?
I find It amusing that the SEC fans that complain about Ohio State not leaving Big 10 country, while the majority of bowl games are played in the SEC’s own backyard.
Surely this is a joke. It was an Ohio State fan that made the complaint about Alabama. I'm just pointing out Ohio State didn't leave its region either. I really could care less. College football is a regional game anyway. It's a really, REALLY stupid criticism and if an SEC fan used it I'd tell them the same thing.
The delta in strength of schedule between Mercer and Kentucky (or Mercer and Indiana) shouldn't be enough to change anything.
They’re both cupcakes, but one is an in conference competition and the other is an optional FCS cream puff.
Two things that will define you: Your determination when you have nothing. Your attitude when you have everything. - Mike McCartney -
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.
Strength of Schedule is absolutely relevant to this subject. If you say that it is irrelevant, then you are saying there is no difference between playing an SEC team and an FCS team. I know the SEC is weak right now....but that weak?
The delta in strength of schedule between Mercer and Kentucky (or Mercer and Indiana) shouldn't be enough to change anything.
So you’re saying they pulled a ‘Bama this year?
I find It amusing that the SEC fans that complain about Ohio State not leaving Big 10 country, while the majority of bowl games are played in the SEC’s own backyard.
Surely this is a joke. It was an Ohio State fan that made the complaint about Alabama. I'm just pointing out Ohio State didn't leave its region either. I really could care less. College football is a regional game anyway. It's a really, REALLY stupid criticism and if an SEC fan used it I'd tell them the same thing.
Surely this is a joke. It was an Ohio State fan that made the complaint about Alabama. I'm just pointing out Ohio State didn't leave its region either. I really could care less. College football is a regional game anyway. It's a really, REALLY stupid criticism and if an SEC fan used it I'd tell them the same thing.
OSU scheduled a home/home with a Big 12 team and played them this year and in OK last year. Please tell me the last time ‘Bama has done this.
-
The delta in strength of schedule between Mercer and Kentucky (or Mercer and Indiana) shouldn't be enough to change anything.
They’re both cupcakes, but one is an in conference competition and the other is an optional FCS cream puff.
They’re both cupcakes, but one is an in conference competition and the other is an optional FCS cream puff.
And they're both easy wins, so who cares?
OSU scheduled a home/home with a Big 12 team and played them this year and in OK last year. Please tell me the last time ‘Bama has done this.
So again, when evaluating the 2017 teams, how does this make a difference for anything? It doesn't. And Bama's played USC and FSU the last two years. Your criticism is really dumb.
-
The delta in strength of schedule between Mercer and Kentucky (or Mercer and Indiana) shouldn't be enough to change anything.
They’re both cupcakes, but one is an in conference competition and the other is an optional FCS cream puff.
They’re both cupcakes, but one is an in conference competition and the other is an optional FCS cream puff.
Right. And on occasion a league cupcake can jump up and bite you. That will likely never happen with an FCS opponent. Oh, it might happen to a Baylor (it did this year when Liberty beat them) or to a Michigan (App. St.)....but not to an Alabama. There were plenty of times in the past when Mississippi St. was considered a cupcake....but you know what happened there.
No, the SEC...and everyone else...is going to have to drop the FCS cupcakes and play a 9 game conf. schedule.
-
Surely this is a joke. It was an Ohio State fan that made the complaint about Alabama. I'm just pointing out Ohio State didn't leave its region either. I really could care less. College football is a regional game anyway. It's a really, REALLY stupid criticism and if an SEC fan used it I'd tell them the same thing.
Except that we did clarify and state that Ohio State OFTEN leaves the region. They went to Oklahoma, they went to Virginia Tech...they often go to the West Coast.
How many times in say, the last decade has Alabama ever gone out of region on a true road game?
-
They’re both cupcakes, but one is an in conference competition and the other is an optional FCS cream puff.
Right. And on occasion a league cupcake can jump up and bite you. That will likely never happen with an FCS opponent. Oh, it might happen to a Baylor (it did this year when Liberty beat them) or to a Michigan (App. St.)....but not to an Alabama. There were plenty of times in the past when Mississippi St. was considered a cupcake....but you know what happened there.
No, the SEC...and everyone else...is going to have to drop the FCS cupcakes and play a 9 game conf. schedule.
There were plenty of times in the past when Mississippi St. was considered a cupcake....but you know what happened there.
Alabama hasn't lost to them in 10 years?
Surely this is a joke. It was an Ohio State fan that made the complaint about Alabama. I'm just pointing out Ohio State didn't leave its region either. I really could care less. College football is a regional game anyway. It's a really, REALLY stupid criticism and if an SEC fan used it I'd tell them the same thing.
Except that we did clarify and state that Ohio State OFTEN leaves the region. They went to Oklahoma, they went to Virginia Tech...they often go to the West Coast.
How many times in say, the last decade has Alabama ever gone out of region on a true road game?
And that has absolutely nothing to do with the resumes THIS year.
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