Is there a scenario where we still back into the playoffs?

[editder]

They aren’t elite but they are playing consistently well and have acted right for 6 weeks.

They actually beat both Vandy and OU on the road.

They act like they actually want it… put ‘em in if there’s a slot.

Alabama lost to Texas last year and as a result stayed tethered just behind them for the rest of the year, even though there was ample evidence that we were the better team down the stretch, even before we beat UGA. The talking heads kept saying that the HTH matchup has to mean something, no matter when it took place.

After we beat UGA there should have been no question that we were a better team than Texas. I think this was borne out by the fact that the Bama and Michigan game was the de facto NC. Texas lost to UW, who was then beaten soundly by Michigan.

We deserved to be in the playoffs last year after beating UGA. They put Texas in by virtue of their HTH win over us. Therefore, it is my contention that it wasn’t Bama that knocked FSU out of the playoffs — it was Texas.

I got sidetracked there. My point is that the HTH result should be the only thing that matters. If it was good enough for Texas last year, it should be good enough for us this year, regardless of how well anyone thinks USCe is playing at the moment.

 

[KrAzY3]

A few things...

First, I would point out that the people that are arguing Alabama doesn't belong in the playoff or deserve it due to the season they had are basically just arguing against a 12 team playoff. If your argument is a team with 3 losses and Alabama's resume doesn't deserve to be playing for a championship, I'm actually with you. I was against the playoff, certainly against a 12 team playoff, so I get the idea that a team that doesn't have a top 2 resume doesn't belong.

Having said that, we have a 12 team playoff and the top 12 teams belong in that playoff. If anyone is arguing for South Carolina, a two loss SMU, or Miami it would only be because they are either deliberately choosing less deserving teams or they are just ignorant of the resumes.

Let's start with South Carolina. They play in the same conference as Alabama, they have the same record as Alabama, and they played a softer schedule than Alabama. That alone should be enough, but the committee has a tie breaker (which I think they place too much importance on) that in this case is actually meaningful. Alabama beat South Carolina head to head. If South Carolina played a tougher schedule than Alabama I could at least get the argument for SC, but they didn't, so why on earth are we supposed to ignore SoS and head to head when comparing these two teams?

SMU is in with one loss and I'll be cheering for them to win. However, if they end up with two losses it will be to the only two decent teams they played. Their resume just isn't there, their best win is against an 8-4 Louisville team, they need to beat Clemson to have earned their place in the top 12. The ACC championship game should not be viewed in the same way the SEC championship game is viewed, those two things are very different.

Miami is in a similar situation. Who did they beat? Their big win is Florida I guess? That's a 7-5 team, hardly something to brag about. Miami with one loss was below a two loss Alabama team for good reason. Now that they have 2 losses that gap should actually be wider.

Then there's Clemson, the other ACC team that's in the mix. Make no mistake, they don't deserve in the playoff no matter what, but they still have a good shot because playoffs. Clemson was 0-2 in SEC play. That's all I need to say, but I will say one more thing. Alabama is 2-0 against those teams.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

A few things...

First, I would point out that the people that are arguing Alabama doesn't belong in the playoff or deserve it due to the season they had are basically just arguing against a 12 team playoff. If your argument is a team with 3 losses and Alabama's resume doesn't deserve to be playing for a championship, I'm actually with you. I was against the playoff, certainly against a 12 team playoff, so I get the idea that a team that doesn't have a top 2 resume doesn't belong.

Having said that, we have a 12 team playoff and the top 12 teams belong in that playoff. If anyone is arguing for South Carolina, a two loss SMU, or Miami it would only be because they are either deliberately choosing less deserving teams or they are just ignorant of the resumes.

Let's start with South Carolina. They play in the same conference as Alabama, they have the same record as Alabama, and they played a softer schedule than Alabama. That alone should be enough, but the committee has a tie breaker (which I think they place too much importance on) that in this case is actually meaningful. Alabama beat South Carolina head to head. If South Carolina played a tougher schedule than Alabama I could at least get the argument for SC, but they didn't, so why on earth are we supposed to ignore SoS and head to head when comparing these two teams?

SMU is in with one loss and I'll be cheering for them to win. However, if they end up with two losses it will be to the only two decent teams they played. Their resume just isn't there, their best win is against an 8-4 Louisville team, they need to beat Clemson to have earned their place in the top 12. The ACC championship game should not be viewed in the same way the SEC championship game is viewed, those two things are very different.

Miami is in a similar situation. Who did they beat? Their big win is Florida I guess? That's a 7-5 team, hardly something to brag about. Miami with one loss was below a two loss Alabama team for good reason. Now that they have 2 losses that gap should actually be wider.

Then there's Clemson, the other ACC team that's in the mix. Make no mistake, they don't deserve in the playoff no matter what, but they still have a good shot because playoffs. Clemson was 0-2 in SEC play. That's all I need to say, but I will say one more thing. Alabama is 2-0 against those teams.

USCe actually did play a tougher schedule according to ESPN's power rankings page.

They are ranked 15th and Bama 16th

That part is splitting hairs either way.

They have 3 losses and the worst one is to an 8-4 team by 3 points

Since the 2 point loss to Bama they have won 6 straight games and dominated 2 of the 3 teams that beat Bama.

Bama has proven time and time again that they are not consistent and when a game has stakes they puke all over the field.

I don't think ANY 3 loss team should have a chance to compete for a NC but unfortunately they don't seem to have enough 2 loss or less teams to fill out the field.

Well now that I look at the polls maybe they do..

Near the cutoff line are:

Miami 10-2
ASU 10-2
ISU 10-2
BYU 10-2

then

USCe 9-3
Bama 9-3
Ole Miss 9-3
Clemson 9-3

Most likely the final 2-3 teams selected will be out of those 8 teams.

All of those 3 loss teams are probably objectively better than those 2 loss teams.

But you know what I don't care.

If you lose 3 games don't cry about not making the field and if you're Bama.. especially don't cry about it when you lost TWO games to .500 teams and got DOMINATED in a non competitive way by one just 8 days ago.

But since they HAVE to take a 9-3 team pick the one that is most deserving and that is USCe. They haven't messed the bed in recent memory.

 

[STONECOLDSABAN]

USCe actually did play a tougher schedule according to ESPN's power rankings page.

They are ranked 15th and Bama 16th

That part is splitting hairs either way.

They have 3 losses and the worst one is to an 8-4 team by 3 points

Since the 2 point loss to Bama they have won 6 straight games and dominated 2 of the 3 teams that beat Bama.

Bama has proven time and time again that they are not consistent and when a game has stakes they puke all over the field.

I don't think ANY 3 loss team should have a chance to compete for a NC but unfortunately they don't seem to have enough 2 loss or less teams to fill out the field.

Well now that I look at the polls maybe they do..

Near the cutoff line are:

Miami 10-2
ASU 10-2
ISU 10-2
BYU 10-2

then

USCe 9-3
Bama 9-3
Ole Miss 9-3
Clemson 9-3

Most likely the final 2-3 teams selected will be out of those 8 teams.

All of those 3 loss teams are probably objectively better than those 2 loss teams.

But you know what I don't care.

If you lose 3 games don't cry about not making the field and if you're Bama.. especially don't cry about it when you lost TWO games to .500 teams and got DOMINATED in a non competitive way by one just 8 days ago.

But since they HAVE to take a 9-3 team pick the one that is most deserving and that is USCe. They haven't messed the bed in recent memory.

So they had similar strength of schedule, The same exact record, Alabama won the Head-to-head, And Alabama beat more ranked teams. But South Carolina should go ahead of alabama???

Look I don't think we deserve to get in either. But I can't follow the "South Carolina should get in ahead of Bama" argument.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

So they had similar strength of schedule, The same exact record, Alabama won the Head-to-head, And Alabama beat more ranked teams. But South Carolina should go ahead of alabama???

Look I don't think we deserve to get in either. But I can't follow the "South Carolina should get in ahead of Bama" argument.

Alabama has two albatross losses and USCe has 0

Bad Losses have consequences or at least they should.

No team that gets dusted by 3 TD’s 1 week before the regular season ends should get a mulligan and especially after they already have a previous bad loss.

The Vandy and OU losses are so bad they trump anything else.

There is not a player or coach on Bama’s entire team that has earned or deserved a shot at a NC.

They’re not good enough to play for a CG.

But hey maybe they are playing 5D chess instead of checkers.

*insert Eddie Murphy meme* “you can’t get beat by Texas if you don’t have to play them”

 

[STONECOLDSABAN]

Alabama has two albatross losses and USCe has 0

Bad Losses have consequences or at least they should.

No team that gets dusted by 3 TD’s 1 week before the regular season ends should get a mulligan and especially after they already have a previous bad loss.

The Vandy and OU losses are so bad they trump anything else.

There is not a player or coach on Bama’s entire team that has earned or deserved a shot at a NC.

They’re not good enough to play for a CG.

But hey maybe they are playing 5D chess instead of checkers.

*insert Eddie Murphy meme* “you can’t get beat by Texas if you don’t have to play them”

Didn't South Carolina get blown out by a bad Kentucky team? I mean let's be real here, the old rules don't really apply anymore. It is what it is. Alabama may still get in. I wouldn't turn down my team getting a shot in the playoffs because of what happened in Norman.

 

[TD7]

Didn't South Carolina get blown out by a bad Kentucky team? I mean let's be real here, the old rules don't really apply anymore. It is what it is. Alabama may still get in. I wouldn't turn down my team getting a shot in the playoffs because of what happened in Norman.

No, South Carolina destroyed Kentucky 31-6.

 

[Bama9001]

I really don't envy the committee on picking those 12 teams. Their job seems much harder than when there were just 4 teams.

What do you do with Indiana? Do they have a win against a single top 25 team? How do they 'deserve' to be in over a team with multiple top 25 wins including a top ten win. There are multiple of those.

Seems we have to waste bids on a couple teams just because of the rules.

We don't deserve to be in the hunt for a championship but we do deserve it more than most of the other fringe teams.

There will be 3-5 teams in the playoffs that have zero chance. There will be teams sitting at home that could possibly run the gauntlet. Bama has the wins on their resume, could run that gauntlet, but most likely will be at home watching these other teams get crushed.

 

[STONECOLDSABAN]

No, South Carolina destroyed Kentucky 31-6.

Oh yeah, I got those backwards my bad.

 

[BamaMoon]

FULL DISCLOSURE: If we get in I'll root for Bama like it was the 1992 Sugar Bowl.

But for those who have doubts about whether Bama deserves it, I'd say it's not because we doubt Bama and "believe" other teams are more deserving. I certainly don't.

My concern is that I don't want the bad tendencies/attitudes/politics etc. to be rewarded with a playoff run that, if successful for a game or two, might further encourage the problems of the past couple of years. It's the belief that not making the playoff could possibly help the program in the long run.

 

[ROCKEE]

When is the final playoff rankings due?

 

[Tideflyer]

Do you really see any championship team. I don’t. They are all mediocre.

Well, you have a point there, I suppose.

 

[Tideflyer]

FULL DISCLOSURE: If we get in I'll root for Bama like it was the 1992 Sugar Bowl.

But for those who have doubts about whether Bama deserves it, I'd say it's not because we doubt Bama and "believe" other teams are more deserving. I certainly don't.

My concern is that I don't want the bad tendencies/attitudes/politics etc. to be rewarded with a playoff run that, if successful for a game or two, might further encourage the problems of the past couple of years. It's the belief that not making the playoff could possibly help the program in the long run.

Agree with the first and second statements. Then again, I just don’t look at “ college “ football like I used to, which pains me no end.

 

[Power Eye]

FULL DISCLOSURE: If we get in I'll root for Bama like it was the 1992 Sugar Bowl.

But for those who have doubts about whether Bama deserves it, I'd say it's not because we doubt Bama and "believe" other teams are more deserving. I certainly don't.

My concern is that I don't want the bad tendencies/attitudes/politics etc. to be rewarded with a playoff run that, if successful for a game or two, might further encourage the problems of the past couple of years. It's the belief that not making the playoff could possibly help the program in the long run.

If that’s true, then that’s a systemic issue that will plague us throughout DeBoer’s tenure regardless of whether we make the playoffs. Luckily, I don’t think that’s case.

 

[CajunCrimson]

Metrics says it’s Bama. The rankings seems to agree. Head to head, we won. FPI has us like 4th (I.e. the computers love us too)

the commish has power. SEC gets 4.

 

[CajunCrimson]

 

[tusks_n_raider]

FULL DISCLOSURE: If we get in I'll root for Bama like it was the 1992 Sugar Bowl.

But for those who have doubts about whether Bama deserves it, I'd say it's not because we doubt Bama and "believe" other teams are more deserving. I certainly don't.

My concern is that I don't want the bad tendencies/attitudes/politics etc. to be rewarded with a playoff run that, if successful for a game or two, might further encourage the problems of the past couple of years. It's the belief that not making the playoff could possibly help the program in the long run.

That is a large part of the ‘why’ of me saying they don’t deserve it.

They are arrogant and disrespectful towards opponents they feel are inferior to them and do not properly prepare to play on a game by game basis.

They are also not in control of themselves and their emotions and have emotional outbursts on the field.

And I mean why shouldn’t they be that way when their “Captains” can’t control their emotions either.

The staff is also arrogant and think their gameplans are so great that they don’t have to make adjustments to the what the opposing staff is doing.

The entire team from the staff to the players reeks of entitlement like they can just suit up and the other team will lay down.

People talk about how they want accountability and discipline for these guys and to do things the right way but then you see the playoff carrot dangling and that goes away?

No it doesn’t work like this. There are consequences to actions.

Take your lumps and go to a Bowl Game and get better and do better next season.

9-3 with 2 embarrassing losses and embarrassing on the field actions doesn’t cut it.

 

[CajunCrimson]

That is a large part of the ‘why’ of me saying they don’t deserve it.

They are arrogant and disrespectful towards opponents they feel are inferior to them and do not properly prepare to play on a game by game basis.

They are also not in control of themselves and their emotions and have emotional outbursts on the field.

And I mean why shouldn’t they be that way when they’re “Captains” can’t control their emotions either.

The staff is also arrogant and think their gameplays are so great that they don’t have to make adjustments to the what the opposing staff is doing.

The entire team from the staff to the players reeks of entitlement like they can just suit up and the other team will lay down.

People talk about how they want accountability and discipline for these guys and to do things the right way but then you see the playoff carrot dangling and that goes away?

No it doesn’t work like this. There are consequences to actions.

Take your lumps and go to a Bowl Game and get better and do better next season.

9-3 with 2 embarrassing losses and embarrassing on the field actions doesn’t cut it.

I haven’t seen one team (much less 12) who aren’t doing the exact same thing, especially in our conference. Any are playing down to competition at least 2-5x/year.

then again, I may be able to go back and find quotes from our people here complaining about how we should have rolled USCe, who now say they should go instead of us.

lol. High horses. Soap boxes. All over the place in college football.

 

[cdub55]

FULL DISCLOSURE: If we get in I'll root for Bama like it was the 1992 Sugar Bowl.

But for those who have doubts about whether Bama deserves it, I'd say it's not because we doubt Bama and "believe" other teams are more deserving. I certainly don't.

My concern is that I don't want the bad tendencies/attitudes/politics etc. to be rewarded with a playoff run that, if successful for a game or two, might further encourage the problems of the past couple of years. It's the belief that not making the playoff could possibly help the program in the long run.

Completely understand that sentiment but the reality of it is, if the coaches don't nip the undisciplined behavior in the bud, winning or losing will not be a wake up call for them. Entitlement doesn't reason, it simply moves the needle and finds an excuse and someone else to blame. The culture CKD wants to establish has to come from him, not from us having non-playoff failure.

 

[KrAzY3]

USCe actually did play a tougher schedule according to ESPN's power rankings page.

They are ranked 15th and Bama 16th

That part is splitting hairs either way.

I'm not arguing you are trying to be misleading, since you didn't belabor the point but you cited FPI's SoS but you decided to skip their rankings. FPI has Alabama at #4, South Carolina is #14. It's not even close.

Sagarin, which I've always used has Alabama's SoS at 14 and South Carolina's at 17. This has actually shifted substantially since I looked at it last, as Alabama was in the single digits in SoS. The ranking for the record has Alabama at 5 and South Carolina at 13. Basically though my point remains. The argument South Carolina has for getting ahead of Alabama in is only there if they actually played a tougher schedule, and in the very least it's close enough to be debatable.

I don't think ANY 3 loss team should have a chance to compete for a NC but unfortunately they don't seem to have enough 2 loss or less teams to fill out the field.

This as I alluded to earlier is just an argument against a 12 team playoff though, which I am certainly against. However if you have a 12 team playoff you can't just skip a team because you don't like how they're playing football. You made it clear elsewhere you just don't like this team. Alright, that's your right but it doesn't deprive a team of a deserved opportunity. Make no mistake Alabama deserves to be in the top 12 and due to that, they also deserve to be in the the playoff. It is that simple.

As far as the good loss bad loss thing, this is only really applicable to South Carolina because the other teams played such soft teams and still found a way to lose. The main issue with the argument that it is better to lose to a good team and beat a bad team than the other way around is, as computer rankings show you not logical.

Alright, so South Carolina lost to LSU and Alabama.
They beat Oklahoma and Vanderbilt.
Alabama beat South Carolina and LSU
They lost to Oklahoma and Vanderbilt.

That's 2-2 in those games for both teams. It shouldn't count more beat LSU and lose to Vanderbilt anymore than it counts less to lose to LSU and beat Vanderbilt. You still lost to one of those teams and you still beat the other. I don't pray at the church of head to head, but I would say in this case once you start splitting hairs, the one where you beat the other team starts to matter.

Not only that, but you seem concerned with how Alabama played but less so with how South Carolina played. South Carolina lost to LSU at home. Alabama blew out LSU on the road. South Carolina squeaked by Missouri, Alabama blew Missouri out. Also, the Georgia win remains as good as any win the SEC has had.

Another thing to look at if we really aren't sure between the two teams would be margin of victory. Since we established the somewhat similar schedule, Alabama's margin is ranked 13 and South Carolina is ranked 21. There just isn't anything I can look up that points to South Carolina being more deserving. They might be more consistent, but Alabama clearly has a higher peak as well as a better mean.

Having said all that, yes I think you can make a case that South Carolina deserves to be in a 12 team playoff. Just not over Alabama...

They are arrogant and disrespectful towards opponents they feel are inferior to them and do not properly prepare to play on a game by game basis.

I don't disagree with this statement, it's just that it's not a fair or logical reason to keep a team out of the playoff.