Bama Game Thread: CFP Selection Show details (12p-4p EST ESPN): Times, where to watch; Selection show 'game thread'

[bvandegraff]

The more I think about this, the more I come back to South Carolina.

Even if you were to disqualify Alabama because of the quality of their losses, what about SC then? They also have an SoS in the teens, their losses were all to good teams, and they actually beat Clemson.

Head to head against SMU there's no real comparison, vastly better schedule, better wins, better losses. The only thing SMU has is a better record, but only due to an incredibly soft schedule which is easily demonstrated.

The committee is exactly what I've been saying they are. They chose solely based on what they wanted to have happen. They put their thumb on the scale, they broke with the polls, the broke with the computers, they chose inclusion over resume. The playoffs are now also exactly what I said they would become from the very start. This is about participation trophies, as the committee itself said when they cited SMU's conference record as justification for keeping them in.

It doesn't matter if your conference is crap (unless you're named Army), win those games and you get to go to the playoff. Quality of opponents does not matter.

I think they also caved to media pressure and picked SMU to avoid the inevitable howls and criticism that would’ve come with taking Bama yet again. Wonder why ESPN lets imbeciles like Booger and Orlovsky endorse selections that take money from their own pockets.

 

[KrAzY3]

I think they also caved to media pressure and picked SMU to avoid the inevitable howls and criticism that would’ve come with taking Bama yet again. Wonder why ESPN lets imbeciles like Booger and Orlovsky endorse selections that take money from their own pockets.

This is a bit more calculated on their part though and it's been brewing for a while.

For instance last year coming into the final week they had Oregon as their #1 one loss team (ranked 5). This despite a fairly soft schedule (not as bad as SMU but far enough behind to be really noticeable). Not only that, but Alabama, with the top SoS of the one loss teams was all the way down at 8, being penalized for an out of conference loss to one of the top teams in the country. It was nonsense (what happened to the won all their conference games magic thing SMU got?)

Then, when Alabama gave Georgia it's first loss in two years, the committee found themselves fumbling to try to have a ranking that wasn't absolutely absurd and what do they do? Do they point out that FSU played a soft schedule and their SoS is the difference between them and Alabama? Nope, they go with some nonsense about an injured quarterback.

The committee didn't do Alabama any favors that year. In fact the BCS had Alabama third, they disrespected Alabama. The year before? They left Alabama out and refused to move TCU down after a loss. So even the narrative that they've somehow had Alabama's back is nonsense. This is the second year in a row they've ranked Alabama lower than the BCS.

 

[The Ols]

The more I think about this, the more I come back to South Carolina.

Even if you were to disqualify Alabama because of the quality of their losses, what about SC then? They also have an SoS in the teens, their losses were all to good teams, and they actually beat Clemson.

Head to head against SMU there's no real comparison, vastly better schedule, better wins, better losses. The only thing SMU has is a better record, but only due to an incredibly soft schedule which is easily demonstrated.

The committee is exactly what I've been saying they are. They chose solely based on what they wanted to have happen. They put their thumb on the scale, they broke with the polls, the broke with the computers, they chose inclusion over resume. The playoffs are now also exactly what I said they would become from the very start. This is about participation trophies, as the committee itself said when they cited SMU's conference record as justification for keeping them in.

It doesn't matter if your conference is crap (unless you're named Army), win those games and you get to go to the playoff. Quality of opponents does not matter.

Boise State has TWO ranked wins…2
UNLV remained at 24 in the CFP poll…
BOTH of BSU’s ranked wins were vs UNLV…
That’s it…but…but…inclusion!!!
Smurfs got a bye…what!?!?!?

 

[The Ols]

There needs to be change…and if you want change, you rattle the cage of the biggest, baddest, most powerful school there is…they did, and it’ll work…at our expense.
We weren’t going to put together 4 straight games and run the table this year…so why not exact change now?

 

[bamadwain]

I'm not bitter because it was there for the taking and we could not take advantage of it, but I probably not watch any games but our bowl game because everyone in the SEC is saying we are crying and don't deserve to be in, I hope every SEC team gets skull drag in the playoffs and watch the Big 10 win a title because they have better odds with four teams

 

[jjv0004]

We lost to an Oklahoma team that was 1-5 in the SEC without its top 6 wide receivers and most of their o-line and we lost 24-3. What else did the committee need to justify Bama not making it. You have to earn it and Bama choked.

 

[KrAzY3]

You have to earn it and Bama choked.

No, you don't.

That's the issue. You can win zero games against good teams and get in. That's not earning it.

 

[CrimsonTitles]

We lost to an Oklahoma team that was 1-5 in the SEC without its top 6 wide receivers and most of their o-line and we lost 24-3. What else did the committee need to justify Bama not making it. You have to earn it and Bama choked.

Oklahoma was a bowl team. Yes, they were 1-5 in the SEC, but honestly they might still be better than anyone SMU has played. Would Clemson win more than 6 games in the SEC? I wouldn't bet on it. On the contrary, Oklahoma would win 8-9 in the ACC. You apparently don't have to earn it, because SMU certainly didn't. They haven't beaten anyone at all. Bama, on the other hand, did earn it with their wins imo. The losses are unfortunate, but losing to 2 bowl teams is not enough to offset all the good wins Bama has.

 

[CrimsonTitles]

The more I think about it, all this talk about devaluing the conference championship game if they left SMU out is a load of nonsense. Putting them in devalues it more imo. With teams getting in regardless of the result, it pretty much makes the championship game itself worthless, so it's already devalued. There's literally zero point to the game if both teams are in regardless. What they ended up doing was devaluing BOTH the championship games and the regular season.

 

[jjv0004]

Oklahoma was a bowl team. Yes, they were 1-5 in the SEC, but honestly they might still be better than anyone SMU has played. Would Clemson win more than 6 games in the SEC? I wouldn't bet on it. On the contrary, Oklahoma would win 8-9 in the ACC. You apparently don't have to earn it, because SMU certainly didn't. They haven't beaten anyone at all. Bama, on the other hand, did earn it with their wins imo. The losses are unfortunate, but losing to 2 bowl teams is not enough to offset all the good wins Bama has.

We were favored by 21 and lost by 21. That game cost the playoff. You can make all the excuses you want for Bama but we didn't deserve it. This team never should have lost to either Vandy or Oklahoma.

 

[KrAzY3]

We were favored by 21 and lost by 21. That game cost the playoff. You can make all the excuses you want for Bama but we didn't deserve it. This team never should have lost to either Vandy or Oklahoma.

Deserving to win a championship and deserving to be in the playoff are two very different things.

Sure you can argue that Alabama doesn't deserve a championship, but there's still a 12 team playoff, and only the 12 more deserving teams belong in.

I can show you data to demonstrate that Vandy and Oklahoma are about as good as anyone SMU played the entire season. So, why don't you tell me why SMU deserves to be in? Go ahead, explain it to me.

 

[CrimsonTitles]

We were favored by 21 and lost by 21. That game cost the playoff. You can make all the excuses you want for Bama but we didn't deserve it. This team never should have lost to either Vandy or Oklahoma.

If SMU deserved it, then Bama deserved it infinitely more. Too much has been made about our losses, which were not really all that bad. Not much at all has been made about our wins over Georgia, South Carolina, Missouri, and LSU. I'm not making excuses, I just fail to see how losing to 2 bowl teams is all that bad. Both Vandy and Oklahoma would win 8-9 games in the ACC, putting them on par with Clemson. Our wins over Georgia, South Carolina, Missouri, and LSU more than made up for those 2 losses, but nobody wants to recognize wins anymore.

 

[B1GTide]

Some fans are either too entitled or too stuck in the 4 team playoff model to get it. Alabama deserved to be in the field of 12. Period.

 

[ReturnToGlory]

Oklahoma was a bowl team. Yes, they were 1-5 in the SEC, but honestly they might still be better than anyone SMU has played. Would Clemson win more than 6 games in the SEC? I wouldn't bet on it. On the contrary, Oklahoma would win 8-9 in the ACC. You apparently don't have to earn it, because SMU certainly didn't. They haven't beaten anyone at all. Bama, on the other hand, did earn it with their wins imo. The losses are unfortunate, but losing to 2 bowl teams is not enough to offset all the good wins Bama has.

Anybody look at Oklahoma's SEC schedule? Played Alabama, Texas, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Missouri, South Carolina, LSU and Auburn. If they had gotten the Texas schedule, maybe they're better than 6-6.

 

[AWRTR]

The lack of weight the difficulty of competition between the conferences is given is a real problem. I don't have a good solution. It's tough to compare apples to oranges. The ACC and Big 12 are not good conferences. I agree with many other posters on this thread that SMU nor Clemson would be in the top half of the SEC. The Big 12 is no better. Maybe ASU could have some close games, but does anyone think ASU could beat UF or USCe right now? I certainly don't. My best solution is for the BIG and SEC to take their ball and go home in every sport. Form their own league and raid the last few big-name programs like FSU, Notre Dame, Miami, and a couple of others and have their own playoffs in every sport. Everyone would know who the real champion is.

 

[PA Tide Fan]

Right now all the really good teams are in just 2 conferences (SEC and B1G). Since the committee wants to spread CFP selections among all conferences then in hindsight conference realignment was a huge mistake. I don't know how allowing Texas and Oklahoma to join the SEC helped our playoff chances. For that matter I don't know how allowing Oregon to join the B1G helped Ohio State's chances. Had the conferences stayed the same we might be in the playoff and in the case of Ohio State they'd probably be B1G champions with a bye right now.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

Some fans are either too entitled or too stuck in the 4 team playoff model to get it. Alabama deserved to be in the field of 12. Period.

I feel like they matched the committee’s supposed criteria to be selected.

To me they were ‘selectable’

I know it probably semantics but I can’t get on the board the ‘deserved’ part because of OU.

Now in being selectable I did think the committee would choose Bama over SMU because of everything most of you have been discussing wrt SOS and because I thought they would want the ratings that Bama would bring.

I’m upset about how they always lie about things.

Based on what was said they made it sound like Bama would be taken.

They unmercifully dropped Miami after a 2nd loss but kept SMU ahead of us.

They have no way to explain it.

That idiot chairman was back on the show yesterday around 4:00pm my time and Rece straight asked him why they took SMU over Bama… what were the terms and things looked at and How was the choice made..

Dude with a straight face said… “That’s the great part about this… I don’t know”

I wanted to kick a hole through my TV to make contact with him.

They will not give it to you straight… just allergic the the truth.

 

[JDCrimson]

We can be upset about 2 things at the same time. We can be upset that Alabama didn't handle its business to get into the F12. However, we can also be upset at the sheer incompetence of how this format was designed. And how gullible for Sankey allowing it to be implemented in the first place. He got majorly played. And if he was lied to then, he should comeback to scorch the earth underneath feet of those people who had a hand in this ridiculousness playing out.

 

[KrAzY3]

Based on what was said they made it sound like Bama would be taken.

They unmercifully dropped Miami after a 2nd loss but kept SMU ahead of us.

They have no way to explain it.

That idiot chairman was back on the show yesterday around 4:00pm my time and Rece straight asked him why they took SMU over Bama… what were the terms and things looked at and How was the choice made..

Dude with a straight face said… “That’s the great part about this… I don’t know”

I wanted to kick a hole through my TV to make contact with him.

They will not give it to you straight… just allergic the the truth.

If you look at the makeup of the committee (a WNBA reporter?) it's clear that some people had no business being there and no doubt some people were competent and trying to do their job. That response by the chairman might have actually given away more than he intended. I've never heard a committee spokesman publicly rebuke a choice that was made, I kind of want to see the clip because that sounds as close as anyone has come.

To me that could be interpreted as, it doesn't make sense to me either...

 

[cdub55]

Sports is the last bastion where the PC and equality crowd has not spread its nasty disease. That was until now. Putting teams in the tournament based on "most deserving" is one of the softest and repulsive things a sport can do. What does it really even mean? We all know that answer but it would make us vomit to rationalize it. In football a person can do everything right and still get ran over because the guy running the ball is bigger, faster, and stronger. A person can be in the right place at the right time and still get absolutely annihilated. Did he deserve that result? Did he deserve that embarrassment? Probably not. I'm sure he is a good guy. But football don't care. Unfortunately the Powers that Be do care and it has changed the game we love.