U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-04-2017, 11:40 AM
 
929 posts, read 296,139 times
Reputation: 799

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina Knight View Post
Alabama being unequivocally better than Ohio State is an opinion maintained by ESPN. ESPN controls the College Football Playoff, operates the SEC Network, and rides Alabama to increase low ratings.

Alabama did something indeed. They went 11-1 and did not win their conference division.
The "unequivocally better" quote isn't from ESPN, it was stated by the committee chair for its rationale. In any event, I can't defend Alabama any more than I've had. Don't like them and I think they will get blasted by Clemson, but there just shouldn't be any controversy about their selection.

 
Old 12-04-2017, 11:47 AM
 
929 posts, read 296,139 times
Reputation: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by lluvia View Post
The columnist is a bit of a pot stirrer but he makes a great point.
If Auburn doesn't blow a 20-0 lead against LSU, then there would have been no Alabama vs.OSU for the 4th seed debate.

AL.com All-Access: LSU kept Auburn out of the playoff and put Alabama in | AL.com.
Auburn blowing that lead was probably the biggest avoidable playoff ramification of the season. They would be in. I still think they would have a case even with 3 losses if they had suffered a razor thin loss to Georgia. With Alabama being the fourth team and invoking some critical thinking, a case could have been made for Auburn.
 
Old 12-04-2017, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,582 posts, read 3,992,169 times
Reputation: 2906
If the number of playoff teams are increased, there will be even more vicious debates about the last teams selected.

More teams in the playoffs also makes the regular season results less important. In my view, a 1 seed shouldn't have to prove it is better than a 8 seed in a playoff.

If they expand playoffs, I think they need to have byes for the top two teams in the first round. They could go with 6 teams like the NFL with the bye for top two teams. That way it would be possible every year for all P5 conferences to be represented and easier for the Group of 5 conferences to be represented.

In this format, they could also guarantee a spot for the P5 champs, and one at large bid for the best non-conference champ which would reward a team with high SOS.

But moving to a playoff with a bye for the top two teams will lead to vicious debates over what teams are no. 2 and no. 3. That's not an issue right now.

Last edited by ClemVegas; 12-04-2017 at 03:16 PM..
 
Old 12-04-2017, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,248 posts, read 26,220,119 times
Reputation: 11701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian View Post
But moving to a playoff with a bye for the top two teams will lead to vicious debates over what teams are no. 2 and no. 3. That's not an issue right now.
You could come up with some objective criteria to determine seeding. It could be overall record, conference record, margin of victory, common opponents, etc.
 
Old 12-04-2017, 04:38 PM
 
9,423 posts, read 7,067,523 times
Reputation: 12183
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Clemson is way better than them this year even without Watson.



The problem was that they were all very long throws. Not in a vertical sense, but in the sense that they were still vertical passes being thrown from the opposite hash mark to the sideline. Sure, that's a cinch for Aaron Rodgers, but that's not a play you can expect a college QB to consistently make in clutchtime.

The smart thing to do would have been to call a draw on 1st and 20 to gain 5-7 yards. Ideally, you'd get about 7-8, but any positive gain would have been better than no gain. The idea is to make your 4th down manageable: 4th and 5, 4th and 7, 4th and 9. Even 4th and 15 would have been better. I put that one on the playcaller 100% because the goal in that situation is to go with the plays that have the highest probability of yielding positive yardage. Those plays weren't called.
Clemson is way better than them, but.. That wasn't obvious until that game. I mean, the only reason that game wasn't 58-0 again was because Clemson shot themselves in the foot several times early in the game and pulled starters with about 10 minutes to go.

I certainly didn't expect that score. Clemson normally plays down to teams in the ACC Championship. Both North Carolina and VT they were far better than, but they kept them in those games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
You could come up with some objective criteria to determine seeding. It could be overall record, conference record, margin of victory, common opponents, etc.

Objectivity can get you into trouble as well. Imagine a situation where Alabama goes 11-0 and loses to a 7-4 South Carolina team in double overtime after losing Jalen Hurts on the first series. All that's saying (which is really still true) is that if you lose a game, make sure you do it early in the year, because Conference Championships are the first round of the playoffs.

If you want to say that, it's fine, but then you have to figure out what to do when a situation similar to the above happens to TWO teams in the same year.

If you're just going off conference championships, then there is almost no reason to play tough non-conference games. This year, Alabama is kinda proving that point. The fact that they almost didn't make it, hopefully shows that they should schedule tougher non-conference opponents.

Instead of Mercer and Colorado State, let's say that Alabama had played and beaten.. Penn State and Virginia Tech.. Solid top 25 teams. All other things being the same, loss to Auburn, not playing in the SEC Championship.. Would you even have a question that Alabama should be in over Ohio State?
 
Old 12-04-2017, 05:05 PM
 
929 posts, read 296,139 times
Reputation: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labonte18 View Post
If you're just going off conference championships, then there is almost no reason to play tough non-conference games.


Best point yet as to why this notion that winning a conference championship should be a precursor to getting into a four team playoff ahead of a school from a different conference, is utterly absurd. But yes, while Alabama clearly was that fourth school in the field, hopefully these schools might think twice about scheduling the likes of Mercer. Every top school schedules several lower echelon I-A programs a season, but setting up games vs the likes of Mercer is downright ridiculous.
 
Old 12-04-2017, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,582 posts, read 3,992,169 times
Reputation: 2906
Alabama played Florida State, and that was a tight game until some special teams miscues. How many teams played Florida State or equivalent out of conference. That's tougher than playing one of those weak Big 10 teams like Indiana and Illinos and Rutgers. Bama also played Fresno State and Colorado State, decent teams. Yet you see people have a singular focus on Mercer.
 
Old 12-04-2017, 06:42 PM
 
Location: So California
8,531 posts, read 8,871,044 times
Reputation: 4631
And USC could beat Alabama or OSU on a given day. Expand the playoff, all conference champions and a couple at large teams and get on with it.
 
Old 12-04-2017, 06:59 PM
 
3,719 posts, read 3,876,167 times
Reputation: 2769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian View Post
Alabama played Florida State, and that was a tight game until some special teams miscues. How many teams played Florida State or equivalent out of conference. That's tougher than playing one of those weak Big 10 teams like Indiana and Illinos and Rutgers. Bama also played Fresno State and Colorado State, decent teams. Yet you see people have a singular focus on Mercer.
The problem I have with Alabama's non-conference schedule is that they have stopped playing true non-conference road games. They haven't played one in what, 7 years? Meanwhile Clemson just finished a home-and-home with Auburn. The next 2 years they will be doing a home-and-home with Texas A&M. Ohio State just finished one with Oklahoma. Michigan and Washington have on schedule for 2020 and 2021. Penn State and Auburn have a series scheduled for 2021 and 2022. There are numerous other series already scheduled. Heck even LSU went up to Green Bay last season to play Wisconsin.
 
Old 12-04-2017, 07:29 PM
 
929 posts, read 296,139 times
Reputation: 799
Alabama should be in the playoff. Alabama should be credited with playing Florida State and beating them. But having said that, Alabama's non-conference scheduling leaves something to be desired thru the years. And scheduling middle-of-the-road programs that no one can safely assume will be good by the time the teams meet, isn't anything to admire, but nor hold against them. Mercer is a whole other realm. Alabama isn't the only one who does it, but it deserves harping on, especially if you aren't playing legitimate road games outside the conference like TAM88 pointed out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top