Most of my realistic UGA buddies here expect to drop the FL game.Fun thread, but I will be very surprised if GA is undefeated going into the SECCG.
I'm terrified of Florida. It is seasons like this where they crap the bed all year and then beat us by 20
Yup......Most of my realistic UGA buddies here expect to drop the FL game.
Text from a friend a few days back:
Only because of the timing. As proof, if there are a bunch of upsets in conference championship games and a bunch of 2 or 3 loss teams win those games, how many of those teams would make the playoff? Not many, if any? Why? Because the committee has shown that they look at the entire season, not just the last game of the season.
ETA - the committee has said many, many times over the years - the conference championship only matters if ALL other things are equal. In other words, they only add weight to that game if there are 2 teams that are virtually indistinguishable when examining their seasons as a whole. Well, how often is that going to happen, if ever?
I think you're missing the point IRT how the playoff committee views conference championships. They are not a be all end all but used as a differentiation factor when all other things are equal or comparable. From the playoff committee website:You are applying some special significance to the conference championship game that really doesn't exist. Why should one game in the season matter any more than another. It is just another game when you have a playoff.
They will think that they should have jumped ship and joined the ACCI wonder what UGA will think if Richt and Miami get in and they don't.......
And that TCU, Bucky Badger, PsssU will lose before their title games, too. OU and tOSU hold serve the rest of the way (including their title games), which I make 10-1 against, and they're in. Likewise Clemps and obviously 'Bama - possibly even with a SECCG loss if it's to Uga (won't happen).I get the feeling that UGA is going to lose before the title game
The problem is the committee counts WINS >>>>> LOSSES.......
Clemson would also have beaten Auburn, Louisville, Va Tech, Ga Tech, NC State, and FSU and possibly a good Miami team.
Oklahoma would have beaten Ohio St, Oklahoma St, TCU, and somebody good twice. If Ohio St wins the B1G then the Sooners win looks even better.
We would have beaten FSU, Auburn, and ATM.......and MAYBE a decent or not decent LSU (who really knows?)
It's not the slam dunk if we don't win out, folks. The SEC as a whole is NOT that good this year, and we had the misfortune
to draw weak Eastern teams like Vandy and the Vols this year.
Win your games or don't complain. Been my mantra since 1978.
You have it right until the bottom of your post. Winning a conference championship only carries any weight - any at all - if 2 teams with the same resume are being compared.I think you're missing the point IRT how the playoff committee views conference championships. They are not a be all end all but used as a differentiation factor when all other things are equal or comparable. From the playoff committee website:
Establish a committee that will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength of schedule and head-to-head competition when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree (treat final determination like a tie -breaker; apply specific guidelines)
When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:
•Championships won
•Strength of schedule
•Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
•Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)
Strength of schedule, head-to-head competition and championships won must be specifically applied as tie-breakers between teams that look similar.
Winning a conference championship is not just another game. It holds significant weight with the committee..
Perception, my friend, is a quirky thing. You can bet that the Auburn game will not only be a tough out for us but probably our most difficult game all season...same is true for dawgs.Not sure why, after seeing some auburn games, mercer, lsu, I am not sure they have the stones for bama or uga right now.
That is a thought. We won't know until such a scenario presents itself again.It's possible that Alabama and Georgia could both be in the playoff but only if the committee was not scared off by what happened last year with Ohio State. Of course Ohio State was not the B1G champion but was included and then got blown out by Clemson. Sure, that situation may be a bit different because Penn State wasn't included there while here both Alabama and Georgia would be included. Still, if the 2nd place SEC team would lose the semi-final game you'd again have some other conference champion claim that they should have been chosen instead. The safe play for the committee would be to take conference champions only so they wouldn't be open to nearly as much criticism. They could however stick to their guns and take who they think are the 4 best teams again regardless of whether they won their conference. I don't know which way they'd go. It's a 50-50 guess at this point.
My stance (and that of the committee) is that conference championships carry significant weight when comparing 2 comparable teams. Of course, like last year, Ohio St got in over Penn St but the 2 weren't "comparable" because Penn St had 2 losses and Ohio St only had 1. I don't think anyone is arguing that a 2 loss conference champ should get in over a 1 loss non conference champ. The committee is doing exactly what I think they are doing - using the above factors when teams are comparable. A conference championship certainly carries more weight than any other game when the 2 teams are comparable.You have it right until the bottom of your post. Winning a conference championship only carries any weight - any at all - if 2 teams with the same resume are being compared.
You are suggesting that the conference championship game is given extra weight. It is not - never has been given any more weight than any other game. It becomes just a part of the resume and the winner is only given extra credit for having played in the game under the scenario outlined above - if the two teams being compared are inseparable in every other way.
So far the committee has never chosen a conference champion over a non-champion with a better resume. In fact, so far the committee has not chosen a conference champion over any other team simply because it was a conference champion. 3 years in, 12 teams chosen, not once has it happened. It may happen some day. At that point we can discuss the merits of your argument. But this committee is not doing what you think that they are doing. They are not giving that game any more weight than any other game.
I guess my point is that if it is only broken out when needed as a tie breaker, then it isn't weighted at all until that point. In 3 years, the conference championship has been totally irrelevant and had nothing to do with the teams that made the playoff. So, again, it is not heavily weighted. In fact, it isn't weighed at all until they have no other choice but to consider it. It is like any other tie breaker - like the points scored against common opponents thing. Anyone really want to argue that this is "heavily weighted" when it is almost never used?My stance (and that of the committee) is that conference championships carry significant weight when comparing 2 comparable teams. Of course, like last year, Ohio St got in over Penn St but the 2 weren't "comparable" because Penn St had 2 losses and Ohio St only had 1. I don't think anyone is arguing that a 2 loss conference champ should get in over a 1 loss non conference champ. The committee is doing exactly what I think they are doing - using the above factors when teams are comparable. A conference championship certainly carries more weight than any other game when the 2 teams are comparable.
You're statement "so far the committee has not chosen a conference champion over any other team simply because it was a conference champion" doens't really apply because the committee hasn't had the opportunity to do so. If Penn St only had 1 loss last year they get in over Ohio St because......they won the conference championship. Pretty simple..
Well in the ideal situation, the contenders are all going to be conference champions, so it's only used a tie breaker if one contender isn't.I guess my point is that if it is only broken out when needed as a tie breaker, then it isn't weighted at all until that point. In 3 years, the conference championship has been totally irrelevant and had nothing to do with the teams that made the playoff. So, again, it is not heavily weighted. In fact, it isn't weighed at all until they have no other choice but to consider it. It is like any other tie breaker - like the points scored against common opponents thing. Anyone really want to argue that this is "heavily weighted" when it is almost never used?
Yeah, was going to say, thats a bit like saying number of wins isn't heavily weighted, but all the teams chosen have one or no losses...Well in the ideal situation, the contenders are all going to be conference champions, so it's only used a tie breaker if one contender isn't.
It basically is a tie breaker when deciding the last 4 teams. Generally, the top teams being considered for the playoff are so "comparable" that all these factors come into play.I guess my point is that if it is only broken out when needed as a tie breaker, then it isn't weighted at all until that point. In 3 years, the conference championship has been totally irrelevant and had nothing to do with the teams that made the playoff. So, again, it is not heavily weighted. In fact, it isn't weighed at all until they have no other choice but to consider it. It is like any other tie breaker - like the points scored against common opponents thing. Anyone really want to argue that this is "heavily weighted" when it is almost never used?
But not really. Ohio State got in over Penn State last year despite Penn State winning the conference and winning head to head. If they weighted a conference championship all that highly then there is no question Penn State would have been in.Yeah, was going to say, thats a bit like saying number of wins isn't heavily weighted, but all the teams chosen have one or no losses...