Commentary: Taking a torch to this joke of a CFP season

[Power Eye]

I only watched the first half. My main feeling was being grateful that the 2022 Alabama team was not playing Georgia last night.

I agree that it's possible we could beat them any given day, but no one, including us, was beating the Georgia team that showed up Monday night. That's my point.

It's unfortunate that we got such a terrible championship game, but to suggest TCU, Michigan or Ohio State didn't deserve to be there over us is puzzling. Even Coach Saban struggled with justifying us getting in the playoffs when ESPN provided him the opportunity to state his case. He had to resort to hypothetical point spreads. That's not a shot at Saban, it's just the best he had to work with. We kept ourselves out by losing two games, not the committee.

 

[JDCrimson]

They deviated this year and picked the deserving teams that's all and they are being humiliated for it as they should.

 

[CrimsonEyeshade]

The point is this: The Committee is supposed to select the best teams. It's not supposed to select the four teams with the best records. Cincinnati didn't belong in the playoff last year, either. But they had a better case than TCU did this year.

The Committee is supposed to get very deep into these teams and analyze their strengths and weaknesses, and total roster strength is inevitably part of that. If we're going to penalize Alabama for losing on the road on the last play to Tennessee -- who I also think should have been part of the final four; the SEC should have gotten THREE teams in, not just one or even two -- then there's no point to having subjective standards. Alabama, Tennessee and Georgia nearly played a round-robin eliminator, but TCU didn't have to go through that. But it did lose to Kansas State, which was a three-loss team. So which was worse, TCU losing to Kansas State, or Alabama losing to LSU (again on the road, again on the last play of the game)?

The Committee -- at the very worst -- should have taken Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan and Alabama. There's no justification for taking two Big Ten teams and not also taking two SEC teams. Remember, the standard is best team. It's not best record, it's not which team lived up to expectations (because expectations are set by sportswriters, who are no longer a relevant part of the selection process ever since the AP pulled out of the BCS metrics in a snit). Alabama was certainly not playing worse than TCU at the end of the year -- and then when you measure up the two rosters, there is no comparison.

At least when the field goes to 12 teams, the argument of who No. 11 or 12 is won't be as important as who No. 3 or No. 4 is now. But that's cold comfort for Alabama and Tennessee this year. Would either of them have beaten Georgia on a neutral field for the title? Probably not, but TCU could play that game 50 times and I doubt they'd win it a single time. Alabama or Tennessee? Probably 3 out of 10 -- which means they're both better teams than TCU. All TCU had was a better record, which isn't part of the standard.

Sorry, I still don't accept the conclusion that we were objectively and irrefutably one of the four best. It was a down year for the SEC, and we beat no one with a pulse.

We lost to the only two teams that physically could compete with us. Last plays, sure. Nonetheless, those games were as revelatory as they were embarrassing. They showed our significant flaws, which never went away.

 

[The Ols]

Sorry, I still don't accept the conclusion that we were objectively and irrefutably one of the four best. It was a down year for the SEC, and we beat no one with a pulse.

We lost to the only two teams that physically could compete with us. Last plays, sure. Nonetheless, those games were as revelatory as they were embarrassing. They showed our significant flaws, which never went away.

Most teams in the SEC W and Texas have pretty physical teams.I get what you're saying, but we play a tough schedule every year regardless of what others think...

 

[BamaMoon]

I'm struggling with the concept Tennessee belonged in the final 4. If the field includes Bama and Georgia that means leaving out Michigan or Oh. St.

I personally never thought we were deserving after the second loss, but I can buy the concept we were a better team than TCU with 2 losses but UT with their two losses???

They got blown out at South Carolina by a mediocre team. Injuries are supposed to be evaluated too, right? And they had lost their Heisman candidate QB who made them tick. So I can't see them being considered as a possible entry into a field of 4.

 

[OakMtn4Bama]

ESPN says title game had the lowest ratings of any game since the BCS began.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nc...pc=U531&cvid=d9cbee144bdb4493978a51e9898187f5

 

[Bamaatthebeach]

Final AP Poll.... TCU moved up one Michigan dropped to 3rd; we stayed 5th???

This. More than the game, this was most outrageous to me: they are the second best team in the country?

 

[TideEngineer08]

The SEC should have gotten 3 teams in? OSU should have beat GA, and came a lot closer than any SEC team would have. And UM was an undefeated team that looked the part all the way into the CFP.

Yes, Alabama was much better than TCU, but the SEC getting 3 teams in this year is just based on hindsight and frustration.

I do not necessarily agree. For one, Alabama didn't get a chance. For two, Mizzou and Kentucky both played Georgia close even if they really never had a real chance to win. Yeah, Georgia played down those games.

But on that note, way too much is being written into Georgia being this near invincible force because of a 58 point win in the "championship" game. The problem is that was no championship game. That was not 1995 Nebraska destroying Florida in the Fiesta Bowl. Or 2004 USC destroying Oklahoma in the BCS championship. That was Georgia destroying a glorified group of 5 team.

Georgia was very beatable; just the least beatable of all the teams this year.

 

[ChattTide]

This. More than the game, this was most outrageous to me: they are the second best team in the country?

"If you ain't first, you're last." -Ricky Bobby

Sorry. Felt we needed a little humor.

Roll Tide!!
ChattTide

 

[TIDE24]

ESPN says title game had the lowest ratings of any game since the BCS began.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nc...pc=U531&cvid=d9cbee144bdb4493978a51e9898187f5

I did not watch the NCG, got rid of YouTube TV after the Sugar Bowl. Didn't even know the score of the NCG until the next morning.

Jess has very good points in his article (as he always does) but this team put themselves in a position to make the committee make a choice and it should not have come to that. We were two plays from being undefeated, we were also 3 plays from being a 5 loss team as well. For all the complaints about the committee, warranted as they may be, Bama has no one to blame but Bama for not taking care of what they should have taken care on the field. This team was too talented to put themselves in a situation where the last play of the game decides the ball game in 5 games of the season. If they were truly a top four team that should not have been the case. Leave no doubt!

 

[timmyj3]

And to all of the media who are keeping TCU ranked at 2, you should be banned from participating in the poll for the next 50 years or the AP poll should be disbanded forever. You might as well rank, dare I say Tarletan State, #2!

Truer words have never been spoken. Not sure I would have TCU in the top 10.

 

[timmyj3]

Bama has no one to blame but Bama for not taking care of what they should have taken care on the field.

To a degree. I still firmly believe the Tenn game was outright theft. In my little warped mind Bama had one loss. The LSU game is all Bama's own doing. I don't believe the team took LSU seriously and Brian Kelly has been waiting to stick CNS for years.

 

[B1GTide]

I do not necessarily agree. For one, Alabama didn't get a chance.

Sorry, meant other than Alabama. CFP should have been GA, Alabama, UM and OSU.

 

[fralo4tide]

Part of the problem, and I’ve maintained this for the longest time, is failure to provide an objective definition of terms. The terms “most deserving” and “best” are subjective. What do we mean when we say one team is “better” than another? “Best” is not something that can be measured, like, say, in feet and inches. Likewise, “most deserving”. Is it one who has the most talent, who has the most wins, the fastest athletes, etc. Until the terms “best” and “most deserving” are made quantifiable, the argument will continue.

Also, is it the best team over the course of the year, or the current moment? To argue the former does not take into consideration the fact that teams improve over the year. A team that lost earlier in the year is not necessarily the same team now. And if a team improves over the year, does that then make them a “deserving” team also? Sorry, but this is where my mind takes me. And I could continue with this.

I would argue that Bama is not deserving over the course of the whole year, given the penalties, lack of discipline, etc. But currently they are one of the “best” 4 teams (even though I don’t know how to personally define that term); and that being one of these best teams, at the same exact moment made them a deserving team to be in the playoffs.

To sum up, everything hinges of whether it should be the best team or the most deserving, and secondly, how these terms are to be defined.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I do not necessarily agree. For one, Alabama didn't get a chance. For two, Mizzou and Kentucky both played Georgia close even if they really never had a real chance to win. Yeah, Georgia played down those games.

But on that note, way too much is being written into Georgia being this near invincible force because of a 58 point win in the "championship" game. The problem is that was no championship game. That was not 1995 Nebraska destroying Florida in the Fiesta Bowl. Or 2004 USC destroying Oklahoma in the BCS championship. That was Georgia destroying a glorified group of 5 team.

Georgia was very beatable; just the least beatable of all the teams this year.

But wait a minute....this is where the whole thing drives me crazy.

It seems to me that the problem is that IMPERFECT humans are demanding an IMPOSSIBLY PERFECT solution to an IMPERFECT game that - in this case - is played with a ball that bounces differently than any other sport and in bizarre ways. Almost every objection being lodged against TCU can be lodged against a number of teams if you just look close enough or follow enough sports. All we can ever get is a BEST POSSIBLE solution. In a way - and I want to be careful here - it's like the old comment about democracy isn't perfect but it's better than any of the alternatives.

Consider the 1985 Denver Broncos, who went 11-5...and because of the divisional setup stayed home with 8-8 Cleveland made the playoffs. IS THAT FAIR or FARCE? What about the 2008 New England Patriots, who also went 11-5 and stayed home while 8-8 San Diego went to the playoffs? Oh but I guess according to the arguments I'm seeing here - since Tom Brady was injured - the Patriots weren't as good, right? Or the 11-5 Saints with a 34-19 over Seattle win open the playoffs at 7-9 - SEVEN AND NINE - Seattle and lost ON THE ROAD to a team that had no business being there at all.

Okay - the immediate counterargument is, "But the parity in the NFL is closer than in CFB." But my larger point is you can pick any sport and find something wrong with how they determine a champion. Divisional setups are ripe for this problem as the 73 Mets and 87 Twins and 2022 Phillies prove.

And we need to drop this "they said four best teams" - because that is NOT what it says (as I covered yesterday). There's plenty of problem with the inconsistency of the media and the inconsistency of the voters. There's plenty from the fans, too.

================================

In regards to this whole whether Georgia beat a worthy opponent and something about greatness, who cares? NOBODY had the idea BEFORE the Florida game (in which I remind you Nebraska was an underdog) that 1995 Nebraska was an unstoppable juggernaut. They pancake Spurrier and in 60 minutes and one memorable Tommie Frazier run, they miraculously transform into an unbeatable team.

Here's what a bunch of you are missing about that entire setup, though:

1) Nebraska, despite being defending national champion, didn't even begin the year at #1. Florida State, led by Danny Kanell - yep, Punch Face himself - were #1. Nebraska was #2 until Virginia absolutely shocked FSU in early November on a Thursday night ESPN game.

2) And then what happened? Ohio State was #2. Now remember this - back then the Rose Bowl still had a mandatory contract with the B1G and Pac-10...so we were heading towards a repeat of 1994, when Penn State got jobbed. Except Ohio State blew it in the second half at Michigan and lost and voila! Nebraska gets Florida in the Fiesta Bowl...in which Florida was favored. And plenty of news outlets at the time were going with "neither of these teams has really played a challenging schedule."

As far as 2004, I don't think Auburn would have beaten USC - but I also don't think they would have lost by 36 points, either. The point there is you can't say AFTER THE FACT that "well, if you lost by X points in the final, it proves the process was wrong."

TCU DID beat Michigan - which Ohio State couldn't do on their home field. Sure, the refs hosed Michigan - hell, if that's the argument, the refs hosed Alabama in the Tennessee game, too (consider the double standards on both DPI and roughing the passer).

In the end, though, the most impressive looking team all year was Georgia, and they validated it against Ohio State. TCU was just the dessert.

 

[CrimsonEyeshade]

It seems to me that the problem is that IMPERFECT humans are demanding an IMPOSSIBLY PERFECT solution to an IMPERFECT game that - in this case - is played with a ball that bounces differently than any other sport and in bizarre ways. Almost every objection being lodged against TCU can be lodged against a number of teams if you just look close enough or follow enough sports. All we can ever get is a BEST POSSIBLE solution. In a way - and I want to be careful here - it's like the old comment about democracy isn't perfect but it's better than any of the alternatives.

And we need to drop this "they said four best teams" - because that is NOT what it says (as I covered yesterday). There's plenty of problem with the inconsistency of the media and the inconsistency of the voters. There's plenty from the fans, too.

Precisely.

 

[CrimsonTheory]

I agree that it's possible we could beat them any given day, but no one, including us, was beating the Georgia team that showed up Monday night. That's my point.

You don't know if that Ga team would have showed up against bama/OSU, after all Ga only won the semifinal because buckeyes missed a field goal. Ga/TCU always going to be 100/0 in Ga favor but against Bama/OSU it would been closer to 55/45 or even 50/50. Which makes that Ga team very beatable.

 

[Clay]

I don't know if I can make a case for us this year. What I do think is TCU should have been seeded 4th. The Natty should have been UGA v the Michigan/Ohio St game winner. Just my 2 cents.

 

[DrJJoyner]

Final AP Poll.... TCU moved up one Michigan dropped to 3rd; we stayed 5th???

Basically, the four CPB teams are going to be ranked 1-4, with the Champ 1, the finals loser 2, and the other two in the order they went in. Since Alabama was 5th, the best they could do was hold serve.

On the one hand, that's fair. TCU had to play two more games. On the other hand, it's silly, in that Georgia exposed them bad and Alabama crushed the team that beat TCU in the Big 12 Championship Game.

 

[DrJJoyner]

I don't know if I can make a case for us this year. What I do think is TCU should have been seeded 4th. The Natty should have been UGA v the Michigan/Ohio St game winner. Just my 2 cents.

I thought that going in. I know Ohio State didn't play in its conference championship game but it was clearly a better team than TCU and it was unfair to Georgia, the clear #1 seed, to have to be the tougher opponent.