Bama getting no respect

[KrAzY3]

Here is the problem… if you say there is no reason Oregon should be ranked ahead of us then we might as well take away the 2011 title. We didn’t get in because SOS… we got in because everyone in the country that wasn’t part of the paddling nation knew the best team lost the game on weird circumstances. Oregon is in that EXACT same boat.

Texas beat us by 10 at home. Under no circumstances should we be ahead of them while they are just 1 loss.

The rankings make far more sense than many wish to believe. SOS should not negate H2H. SOV and context of losses should factor in more than SOS if we really want the 4 best teams.

I have no problem with it. We should have beat Texas and we should’ve blown out Arkansas, Ole Miss, and USF but we didn’t. We have ourselves to blame.

I have been consistent in this, since before 2011. The BCS wasn't perfect but it factored in all the stuff we're discussing. And guess what? It said Alabama belonged in the BCSCG in 2011 and it says Alabama should be #6 right now. I'm being perfectly consistent on this issue.

Oregon has played two teams with a pulse! You say Alabama should have blown out Ole Miss, but Ole Miss is arguably better than Washington. Oregon only played two teams with a winning record! Two! They lost one of those games!

So, Oregon plays one top 10 team and loses to them, and only two teams with a winning record but Alabama deserves to be behind them because they didn't blow out a top ten team (they did win 24-10)?

 

[rtr90]

It’s weird…. In 2017 we seriously had people saying “we beat FSU” in November like it really meant something. Now we want to ignore a week 2 game vs Texas and the fact that FSU skunked LSU in a neutral site game.

Really what it is… SOS doesn’t matter to most as much as “math that puts Alabama in the playoffs”

Dont care about individual games, the resume says we played #1 Strength of Schedule

Period

 

[Tide&True]

At this point there's definitely bias against Bama we've beaten 3 top 25 teams by 2 TDs and still aren't getting the respect in the rankings what are yalls thoughts?

Being disrespected has won more championships than you can imagine😎

 

[Power Eye]

Dont care about individual games, the resume says we played #1 Strength of Schedule

Period

Strength of schedule is kind of irrelevant. According to ESPN, Indiana has the #1 strength of schedule. Strength of record, on the other hand, should be relevant since it determines your performance relative to your record, and we are #4 behind Ohio St, Washington and FSU.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Points of order:

The SEC did NOT force Georgia to cancel the Oklahoma game. And in fact, Oklahoma did not want to cancel the game. Georgia did, and did.

This is incorrect.

SEC directs Georgia, Tennessee to 'postpone' college football series with Sooners given Oklahoma's upcoming conference move

Given Oklahoma's upcoming move to the SEC, along with Texas', the SEC announced on Wednesday it directed Georgia and Tennessee to postpone their series with the Sooners.

www.espn.com

The SEC announced Wednesday that it "directed" Georgia and Tennessee to "postpone" scheduled games with Oklahoma because the Sooners are on their way to the SEC.


What's funny is everyone focuses on "Georgia dropped the game" and forgets all about Tennessee - because this discussion has nothing to do with who plays whom and everything to do with discrediting Georgia.

 

[JayBama_in_PCOLA]

Just win and things will take care of itself. We would smash UTx by ten points at least if we played them again.

 

[81usaf92]

I have been consistent in this, since before 2011. The BCS wasn't perfect but it factored in all the stuff we're discussing. And guess what? It said Alabama belonged in the BCSCG in 2011 and it says Alabama should be #6 right now. I'm being perfectly consistent on this issue.

Yet you have also said in 2017 that we should be rewarded for beating a 6-6 FSU team and Auburn shouldn’t get any credit for beating 2 #1 teams in November.Yet last year you were one of the many arguing that two loss Alabama should be in over 1 loss TCU.

The problem is that Alabama fans only love SOS when it says they are in and love to ignore it when it shows a bad schedule.

Oregon is there because the eye test suggests they are one of the best teams in the country. It’s pretty simple. Had they beaten Washington then it’s more likely than not that they are the #4 team and not FSU. Another reason is that Alabama and Texas have played each other and Texas won by double digits on the road. Deciding between those two is going to cause far more controversy than letting Oregon in. Path of least resistance is how the committee has used ever since it’s inception and I honestly don’t know why anyone really throws SOS around like it’s a metric that really matters anymore.

 

[FF4bama]

This is incorrect.

SEC directs Georgia, Tennessee to 'postpone' college football series with Sooners given Oklahoma's upcoming conference move

Given Oklahoma's upcoming move to the SEC, along with Texas', the SEC announced on Wednesday it directed Georgia and Tennessee to postpone their series with the Sooners.

www.espn.com

The SEC announced Wednesday that it "directed" Georgia and Tennessee to "postpone" scheduled games with Oklahoma because the Sooners are on their way to the SEC.


What's funny is everyone focuses on "Georgia dropped the game" and forgets all about Tennessee - because this discussion has nothing to do with who plays whom and everything to do with discrediting Georgia.

 

[KrAzY3]

Yet you have also said in 2017 that we should be rewarded for beating a 6-6 FSU team and Auburn shouldn’t get any credit for beating 2 #1 teams in November.Yet last year you were one of the many arguing that two loss Alabama should be in over 1 loss TCU.

The problem is that Alabama fans only love SOS when it says they are in and love to ignore it when it shows a bad schedule.

If we really want to just go over things I said in the past, sure let's have it.

I took exception to the playoff committee's ranking of Auburn in 2017, specifically week 13 . You betcha, it was wrong. And for the record Auburn finished the season with four losses and Alabama finished with one. For the record, if Auburn only had one loss of course I'd have put them ahead of Alabama!

You are now arguing for a two loss team over a one loss team, if we're going to move the goalposts that much why not Alabama over Washington and FSU? They've played a tougher schedule than both... I'm comparing one loss teams to one loss teams.

I'm not sure which Alabama fans you are talking about, but I've been rock solid this whole time in my preference for the BCS, my disdain for the stupid committee, and my referring to Sagarin not as the sole source of information but as a counterpoint to said stupid committee.

 

[TrueCrimson7]

There are so many justifications that can be given for committee rankings. No formula exists. It seems that a traditional powerhouse will be given the nod for an undefeated easy schedule over a one-loss difficult one. It was not automatically that way on computer rankings. A team is harshly penalized for any loss. It is what it is.

 

[81usaf92]

If we really want to just go over things I said in the past, sure let's have it.

I took exception to the playoff committee's ranking of Auburn in 2017, specifically week 13 . You betcha, it was wrong. And for the record Auburn finished the season with four losses and Alabama finished with one.

You are now arguing for a two loss team over a one loss team, if we're going to move the goalposts that much why not Alabama over Washington and FSU? They've played a tougher schedule than both... I'm comparing one loss teams to one loss teams.

I'm not sure which Alabama fans you are talking about, but I've been rock solid this whole time in my preference for the BCS, my disdain for the stupid committee, and my referring to Sagarin not as the sole source of information but as a counterpoint to said stupid committee.

Seems like you read what you wanted to read instead of what I actually said. My point is that you yourself have changed your perspective based on the benefits of an argument for Alabama getting in and personal biases like 95% of the fanbase. You are nowhere near as committed to the SOS argument as you try to present yourself or else you would have never questioned Auburn over Alabama in 2017 based purely on SOS and H2H. Adding the fact that they lost 4 means just as much as Oklahoma winning the 2014 Sugar for the argument.

 

[BamaInBham]

Want respect?

Don't lose by double-digits at home.

All double digit-loses are not the same and it was 1 point from being a single-digit loss. Bama was leading the game in the fourth qtr. It's not like they snuck in with a couple of backdoor scores to make the game look closer than it was. OTOH, UTx was the better team that day.

Ironically, the CFPC had UTx 2 spots ahead of OU, with the same records, even after the h2h loss in the first 2023 "reveal". So, obviously, h2h is not everything to them. Yes, the UTx/OU game was closer on a neutral field, OTOH, Bama lost to a much better team than UTx did.

 

[KrAzY3]

You are nowhere near as committed to the SOS argument as you try to present yourself or else you would have never questioned Auburn over Alabama in 2017 based purely on SOS and H2H. Adding the fact that they lost 4 means just as much as Oklahoma winning the 2014 Sugar for the argument.

I think I'm in touch with my thoughts on the matter. Thanks for the insight though, and as an aside I'm not trying to get into some never ending discussing on the issue but I will try to clarify what I think. Also for the record I didn't think Alabama belonged in the 2014 BCSCG, since you brought that up.

I view SoS and H2H as merely components of the rankings. I thought the rankings with Auburn got completely out of control, much in the same way a BCS computer can on occasion go off the rails. Auburn with two losses was ahead of an undefeated Wisconsin, a one loss Oklahoma, and a one loss Alabama team. This is miles apart from what we're discussing here.

SoS is part of the discussion, a tie breaker in the same sense H2H can be a tie breaker. I thought it was extreme to use it to say here's an undefeated Big 10 team, let's put two loss Auburn ahead of them. My argument all along has actually been the middle ground, not some undying loyalty to SoS or as you pointed out I wouldn't have supported Alabama's claim in 2011 either. So now your argument would be that my viewpoint changed before 2011? I care more about computer rankings than SoS for the record, SoS is just a part of the computer rankings.

Of course there's some bias but my argument all along has been to let the data support the argument without letting the data become the argument itself. It's pretty insane though that the same committee that once put two loss Auburn ahead of an undefeated Big 10 team, has Alabama, with the #4 strength of record, #6 in the BCS, at #8.

The fact is it's the committee that's failing to be consistent!

Edit: I just looked it up, and the BCS in 2017 actually had Auburn two spots lower, below both undefeated Wisconsin and one loss Oklahoma. So yet again I agree with the BCS over the committee and that's basically been my position all along.

TLDR the committee moved Auburn up two spots relative to the BCS because of their schedule and then moved Alabama down two spots relative to the BCS despite their SoS being exceptional.

 

[STONECOLDSABAN]

Seems like you read what you wanted to read instead of what I actually said. My point is that you yourself have changed your perspective based on the benefits of an argument for Alabama getting in and personal biases like 95% of the fanbase. You are nowhere near as committed to the SOS argument as you try to present yourself or else you would have never questioned Auburn over Alabama in 2017 based purely on SOS and H2H. Adding the fact that they lost 4 means just as much as Oklahoma winning the 2014 Sugar for the argument.

I am going to be depressed if this team runs the table and we get left out. No matter what the justification is. Especially if we beat a number 1 ranked Georgia team right before we get left out. This would have been a good year for the 12-team playoff with no one looking dominate this year.

 

[Power Eye]

I am going to be depressed if this team runs the table and we get left out. No matter what the justification is. Especially if we beat a number 1 ranked Georgia team right before we get left out. This would have been a good year for the 12-team playoff with no one looking dominate this year.

I think we can all agree on that. I will say though, that under the BCS/non-playoff scenario, our fate would be almost assuredly sealed right now in that we would very much be on the outside looking in with utter chaos being the only hope we had, so at least we aren't still under that regime.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

I would not put it past Kirby to “lose on purpose” to Ole Miss specifically because of this. Our only chance to make the playoffs is by beating an undefeated UGA.

I can't think of a single HC that would do that...

 

[BamaInBham]

Yet you have also said in 2017 that we should be rewarded for beating a 6-6 FSU team and Auburn shouldn’t get any credit for beating 2 #1 teams in November.Yet last year you were one of the many arguing that two loss Alabama should be in over 1 loss TCU.

The problem is that Alabama fans only love SOS when it says they are in and love to ignore it when it shows a bad schedule.

Oregon is there because the eye test suggests they are one of the best teams in the country. It’s pretty simple. Had they beaten Washington then it’s more likely than not that they are the #4 team and not FSU. Another reason is that Alabama and Texas have played each other and Texas won by double digits on the road. Deciding between those two is going to cause far more controversy than letting Oregon in. Path of least resistance is how the committee has used ever since it’s inception and I honestly don’t know why anyone really throws SOS around like it’s a metric that really matters anymore.

You are painting with a brush way too broad. E.g., other Alabama fans, as well as myself said that AU should be in in 2017 if they won out, even with 2 losses, and that Alabama should not get in last year even though they probably were one of the 4 best teams. "Some" or "Many" would be much more accurate words than the incorrect/wrong "All" or the generic "Alabama fans", implying all.

Keep in mind this is an Alabama board. That doesn't mean logic and fairness should be totally abandoned but why the strident opposition to "enthusiastic" supporters of the program? I say this, even though I personally try to be even-handed in this regard, though in other respects I'm an unapologetic "Alabama" fan.

 

[Oregon Tide]

People keep talking about the H2H with Texas. Didn't the Committee rank TX above OU in the initial rankings even after they lost?

 

[81usaf92]

I think I'm in touch with my thoughts on the matter. Thanks for the insight though, and as an aside I'm not trying to get into some never ending discussing on the issue but I will try to clarify what I think. Also for the record I didn't think Alabama belonged in the 2014 BCSCG, since you brought that up.

I view SoS and H2H as merely components of the rankings. I thought the rankings with Auburn got completely out of control, much in the same way a BCS computer can on occasion go off the rails. Auburn with two losses was ahead of an undefeated Wisconsin, a one loss Oklahoma, and a one loss Alabama team. This is miles apart from what we're discussing here.

SoS is part of the discussion, a tie breaker in the same sense H2H can be a tie breaker. I thought it was extreme to use it to say here's an undefeated Big 10 team, let's put two loss Auburn ahead of them. My argument all along has actually been the middle ground, not some undying loyalty to SoS or as you pointed out I wouldn't have supported Alabama's claim in 2011 either. So now your argument would be that my viewpoint changed before 2011? I care more about computer rankings than SoS for the record, SoS is just a part of the computer rankings.

Of course there's some bias but my argument all along has been to let the data support the argument without letting the data become the argument itself. It's pretty insane though that the same committee that once put two loss Auburn ahead of an undefeated Big 10 team, has Alabama, with the #4 strength of record, #6 in the BCS, at #8.

The fact is it's the committee that's failing to be consistent!

Edit: I just looked it up, and the BCS in 2017 actually had Auburn two spots lower, below both undefeated Wisconsin and one loss Oklahoma. So yet again I agree with the BCS over the committee and that's basically been my position all along.

1) you do realize that Auburn’s SOS was insanely higher than Wisconsin’s that year and just got done dominating two #1 teams in 3 weeks. And had the two best losses in the country on the road to the #1 and #15 teams in the country.

They earned that position and to have Bama fans argue against it only to make the same argument the other way last year shows that the fans are far more inconsistent than the committee.

2) The committee has been consistent. You have just hated the idea too much to see it. They always take the path of least resistance and only use SOS and SOR in matters when they are forced. They have done it since 2014 and aside from 2014 and 2015 they have picked the right 4 teams in every time. Something the BCS failed to do in far more instances in a comparable timeframe.

The ultimate purpose of the committee is to maximize profits and limiting certain teams from access to the cfp. It’s not this nefarious mission to screw Alabama and reward lesser conferences. Really the reason that warranted their existence is for how increasingly close the BCS was getting to having a G5 champ playing in a NCG

 

[Big Bama1966]

At this point there's definitely bias against Bama we've beaten 3 top 25 teams by 2 TDs and still aren't getting the respect in the rankings what are yalls thoughts?

One game at a time and no worries. Win out and they can say anything they want we are in.