Toggle sidebar

Georgia and Ohio State

Probius

Probius

Hall of Fame
Mar 19, 2004
6,847
2,340
287
45
Birmingham, Alabama
With all the talk about Oklahoma getting the 4th spot in the playoff over Georgia, the thing that I think is getting overlooked is that Georgia was ranked ahead of Ohio State. So, what if Texas had beaten Oklahoma? Would that have meant Georgia would have gotten the 4th spot in the playoff over Ohio State? The committee made it clear that a 1-loss conference champ (Oklahoma) had preference over a 2-loss non-conference champ. So, how does Georgia end up ahead of Ohio State? I know this doesn't affect this year's playoff, but it does set a precedent for future years. Since the playoff was created in 2014, everyone has been trying to figure out how the committee is going to make their decisions. We now know that a 1-loss conference champ goes ahead of a 2-loss non-conference champ, but does that go out the window if the 1-loss conference champ had a really bad loss? What does this mean for future playoffs?
 
I think it means that the next change will be to expand to 6 teams with the first two getting a bye.

This would have been the perfect year to do that with most believing Alabama and Clemson had separated themselves. It would have been interesting to see ND vs. OSU and OU vs. GA fighting it out to play us and Clemson.

I'm fine with the way it is, but I hope if they change the number it only goes to 6 and not 8.
 
JBama_in_PCOLA said:
Needs to remain 4. Last thing I want is a watered down playoff. Georgia doesn't get blown out, they are in.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree entirely, but I just wonder how the Bama Nation perspective might change when we are ranked at 5 or 6 on the outside looking in.

It's hard to say the top six would have been a watered down version of talent. Not sure I'd say that about the top 8. So there is a fine line.
 
I think the committee looked at the losses those teams had and concluded that Georgia's bad loss at LSU was not as bad as Ohio State's bad loss at Purdue. They didn't penalize Georgia much for losing to Bama because they were winning a good part of the game. They also decided that OU's loss to Texas was not as bad as Georgia's loss at LSU so they put OU in ahead of Georgia. Had Texas beaten OU a second time then yes, I think they would have put a 2 loss Georgia in ahead of Ohio State. I think they look for the 4 best teams with conference championships only a secondary factor.
 
BamaMoon said:
I don't disagree entirely, but I just wonder how the Bama Nation perspective might change when we are ranked at 5 or 6 on the outside looking in.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for the nation, but if bama ever ends up 5th, that's where they'll deserve to be. Win the games and leave no doubt or lose and end up like last year, hoping...

And I guarantee I'll feel that way when it happens, as that's precisely how I felt last year. If you can't make the top four, you have no claim to being the best team in the country.
 
I don't think you can suppose anything from where Georgia and Ohio State wound up or how they were ranked going into the weekend games. Every ranking by the committee is supposed to be a ground-up process, and they can use that as an excuse to do virtually anything. Once they settled on #4, the rest was pretty inconsequential. It goes back to the old racing axiom, "If you're not first, you're first loser". If Texas had beaten OU for a second time, the UGA case would have been strong, but in all likelihood, the committee would have swallowed hard on the OSU loss to Purdue and put them in.
 
BamaMoon said:
I don't disagree entirely, but I just wonder how the Bama Nation perspective might change when we are ranked at 5 or 6 on the outside looking in.
Click to expand...

Well that could happen if the SEC tanked out and we had no competition but saying that and we didn't beat the tanked out league (insert Perdue equivalent) we would not be deserving of a top four ranking.

You make a case for 6, there will later be a case for 8, then 10, next 12. Where does it end and the season become not relevant.
 
I honestly don’t think Ohio State was ever in the conversation with the exception of lip service. Georgia would have gone in if OU had lost.
 
Probius said:
With all the talk about Oklahoma getting the 4th spot in the playoff over Georgia, the thing that I think is getting overlooked is that Georgia was ranked ahead of Ohio State. So, what if Texas had beaten Oklahoma? Would that have meant Georgia would have gotten the 4th spot in the playoff over Ohio State? The committee made it clear that a 1-loss conference champ (Oklahoma) had preference over a 2-loss non-conference champ. So, how does Georgia end up ahead of Ohio State? I know this doesn't affect this year's playoff, but it does set a precedent for future years. Since the playoff was created in 2014, everyone has been trying to figure out how the committee is going to make their decisions. We now know that a 1-loss conference champ goes ahead of a 2-loss non-conference champ, but does that go out the window if the 1-loss conference champ had a really bad loss? What does this mean for future playoffs?
Click to expand...

They wound up ahead of Ohio State because they didn't lose by 29 points to Purdue. UGA did lose by 20 points.......to a top 15 team on the road.
They also never had another close game.

Ohio State rolled Michigan, but they had close games against then 2-6 Nebraska (at home) and needed overtime to beat scandal plagued Maryland on the road.
 
I'm not arguing for 6, and, as I stated, I'm happy with four.

But it'll eventually change and I'm just saying I hope they only go to six.
 
I don’t think there is any reason for precedent. The committee changes from year to year and each one will use whatever metric it chooses without reguard for what previous committees have done. As long as they can logically justify their decisions.

Had OU lost to Texas we would have seen a much more highly motivated tOSU. I suspect the Buckeyes would have rolled NW and finished ahead of Georgia for the fourth spot.
 
BamaMoon said:
I don't disagree entirely, but I just wonder how the Bama Nation perspective might change when we are ranked at 5 or 6 on the outside looking in.

It's hard to say the top six would have been a watered down version of talent. Not sure I'd say that about the top 8. So there is a fine line.
Click to expand...
At some point, it has to stop. A line has to be drawn, and folks just have to live with it. I know most people would respond to that by saying we are only at 4 right now. But we cannot expand the playoff based upon worthy teams getting left out. Because each time you expand, you create a larger pool of worthy teams. At 6 teams, the rest of the top 10 is going to claim to be worthy. If you expand to 8, it will be the rest of the top 15. And so on it goes. I know you're not arguing for an expansion, I'm just saying this is the reality of the situation and as an Alabama fan, when we lose, I've always said we've now left our fate in the hands of outside entities. Last year I was convinced we deserved to go. However, if Ohio State had not gotten blown out by Iowa, I am certain I would not have argued that. I would have believed we were a top 4 team, but that we had failed to close the deal.
 
I wonder how it all would have shaken out under the old BCS Formula...

Doesn't somebody, somewhere maintain that just for conversation sake? :conf3:
 
crimsonaudio said:
And lost by 29 to a 6-6 team.
Click to expand...

I get ya..... but let's look at it this way:

We talk about the burden of playing through an SECW schedule..... tOSU has the same situation in Michigan, Mich State and Penn State. Which is similar to us and LSU, State, Auburn.... though it's a soft bottom there (with Indiana and Rutgers). That's a fairly tough haul....

OU "tied" ARMY at the end of Regulation -- that (to me) is equal to a loss.....and they didn't get any grief over that. To me, that's a much worse outcome than Purdue. Purdue was playing on heavy heavy emotion that night. And the game spiraled out of control.

I'm glad we are playing OU. But (to me) they got way too much benefit of the doubt.....when their accomplishments (again, to me) were less than what tOSU did.
 
CajunCrimson said:
I get ya..... but let's look at it this way:

We talk about the burden of playing through an SECW schedule..... tOSU has the same situation in Michigan, Mich State and Penn State. Which is similar to us and LSU, State, Auburn.... though it's a soft bottom there (with Indiana and Rutgers). That's a fairly tough haul....

OU "tied" ARMY at the end of Regulation -- that (to me) is equal to a loss.....and they didn't get any grief over that. To me, that's a much worse outcome than Purdue. Purdue was playing on heavy heavy emotion that night. And the game spiraled out of control.

I'm glad we are playing OU. But (to me) they got way too much benefit of the doubt.....when their accomplishments (again, to me) were less than what tOSU did.
Click to expand...

I mean by that standard Ohio State has a loss to Maryland
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back