Has nothing to do with hate. Nor does it have anything to do with good losses (which Bama had And which ND never got rewarded for either). They didn’t earn it in the field regardless of how good a team they were
Hope the committee is happy
- Thread starter baron100
- Start date
Stop with the hatred nonsense. Bama had 2 losses and a few close wins. Period, fact, end.
And man, you calling your arguments ‘facts’, is a stretch. Please name Bama’s big wins, which you never answered from a prior poster
If if if if???? That has nothing to do with if, it’s what was. And the “ FACTS” are what exactly?
And thank you for this response because this is exactly my point. Sadly there are many on this board incapable of critical thinking. I was under the believe that the committees mandate was to determine the 4 BEST teams and in that respect they failed. And, yes thorough granularity is essential in determining that. It was easier to go with a Cinderella story and pick a 1 L OSU over Bama. we’ll see how the board responds when we suffer through 2 brutal loses on the road to top 10 teams and a 1 loss Michigan gets in that doesn’t win the big 10.
You're being politically correct right now.
OSU was a better team than tcu. Politically correct from you to put in tcu
Seems to me that there is an obvious solution here. The playoff committee should be disbanded immediately. In the future, you will pick the teams which are to participate in the playoffs. Because you are right and everybody else is wrong.
I am still waiting for him to list the big wins that Bama had? Over a 5 loss Ole Miss team or a 4 loss MSU team? Or the 6 loss Arky team or the 7 loss Auburn?
Agreed. was probably the best team more then just once in the holtz era. It would have been interesting to see how the committee would have weighed that Stanford game. In 92 there was zero room for error but no one would have said nd was not one of the best 2 or 3 teams in the country—- likely the best. So do you throw them out of a 4 team playoff because they lost an extremely tight game to a good team. If there was a playoff
sos #2 in the country. so you
sos was #2 in the country. Who did TCU and OSU beat?
SOS was #2 in the country and I agree they didn’t have a top ten win. They had a few “ good“ wins but the resume of TCU, OSU, MICH was nothing to brag about either.what were the great wins those teams had, PSU? Reread my posts there are many facts to support my believe Bama is a top 4 team. Did they deserve to be in? No but were they one of the 4 best teams I believe they were. If the committee mandate is most deserving, fine but I’m under the impression it’s 4 best. I don’t think TCU, Mich or OSU are better.
I listed their best wins in a prior post. Waiting for your list of great wins by TCU, OSU ?
you have not presented facts, get over yourself. You presented your opinion of their talent and capability. They lost to Tenn and LSU, and had zero compelling wins. ZERO compelling wins
TCU, OSU, Mich had 1 loss, 1 loss, 0 losses, respectively.
And now you are pivoting in your own argument...."Did they deserve to be in? No but were they one of the 4 best teams I believe they were". That is not fact, that is opinion. They simply didn't earn a berth when they lost both of their games to what were season ending top 10 teams.
The scrap heaps are full of outstanding teams that couldn’t perform at their best when it mattered most. Those teams may have more talent and more potential but they aren’t better teams. Something was clearly missing in Alabama this year because they laid several eggs, not just the two losses.
I'm not going to read through posts but the title is hope the committee is happy....
They didn't force Michigan to lay an egg and lose to TCU. Yes TCU wasn't a great team, but the only issue is UM losing. I do not like UM at all, but they would have been able to contain Georgia at least somewhat. I think UM would have struggled to score though because i think Georgia would have stopped UMs run game.
Also, ohio state should have beaten georgia. TCU Ohio state probably would have been an ok game.
They didn't force Michigan to lay an egg and lose to TCU. Yes TCU wasn't a great team, but the only issue is UM losing. I do not like UM at all, but they would have been able to contain Georgia at least somewhat. I think UM would have struggled to score though because i think Georgia would have stopped UMs run game.
Also, ohio state should have beaten georgia. TCU Ohio state probably would have been an ok game.
K State also lost to TCU by 10 earlier in the year.
Both teams also played Texas, which Bama beat on a last second FG, and which TCU beat by a TD.
Marcus Freeman seems to agree with me , ( voted Bama 3rd), so I’ll leave it at that. 4 BEST teams and the committee failed.
As I said earlier, you should be the sole person selecting the playoff teams. Because you are right and everyone else is wrong.
I would also point out that, in both polls, Bama was ranked # 5 AFTER the bowls in the final polls.
That’s pretty funny , no sarcasm intended. Trust me it takes a lot more than the outcome of a football game to upset me. it was more funny then upsetting and ultimately only wasted 45 min of my evening. Would have been nice to see a competitive championship game though.
Tell that to Marcus, I bet he knows a bit more about football then you do. Have a nice evening
No doubt Marcus does. But one of the two polls which have Bama # 5 is the coaches' poll, which includes a lot of coaches. And they STILL have Bama #5.
What clearly upsets you is the fact that Bama did not make the playoffs. I'm not going to go back and count them, but you have 20-30 posts in this thread lamenting Bama's fate.
Committee failed? Really? Even Nick Saban had TCU in the top 4
Nick Saban's final top 25
1. Georgia2. Alabama
3. TCU
4. Michigan
5. Ohio State
Just subjective BS. It was decided on the field, as it's suppose to do.
After reading through the CFP Selection Committee Protocols (https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2016/10/24/selection-committee-protocol) I think it is pretty clear TCU was the right choice, whether or not you believe they were one of the four "best" teams. As for the argument that Alabama should have been selected, here a sentence from the protocols that I think is pretty relevant:
“The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non‐champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non‐champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.”
There is simply no way one can possibly argue--with a straight face, at least--that Bama was UNEQUIVOCALLY one of the four best teams in the country. While Bama can construct an argument that it was one of the four best, it simply falls flat on the UNEQUIVOCALLY part.
“The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non‐champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non‐champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.”
There is simply no way one can possibly argue--with a straight face, at least--that Bama was UNEQUIVOCALLY one of the four best teams in the country. While Bama can construct an argument that it was one of the four best, it simply falls flat on the UNEQUIVOCALLY part.
Last edited:
So now you are using the post bowl poll, as support for your argument??? Where was Bama prior to the bowls? Were they in top 4?? We will hang up and wait
Lol, you have died on that hill a number of times in this thread.
Last edited:
THE CRITERIA IN PLAY is the only VIABLE criteria. In other words, ACTUAL GAME OUTCOMES in what's considered to be a sport with SUFFICIENT PARITY at the upper levels to justify that as the DETERMINATIVE MEASURE.
Granular criteria measure stats, but in addition to ALL STATS NOT BEING EQUAL, they often don't capture DEFINING MOMENTS which occur at KEY INTERVALS which in turn decide THE OUTCOMES OF GAMES.
If in drama, THE PLAY IS THE THING, in sports, it's the GAME and its OUTCOME.
Which sports leagues rank their teams according to GRANULAR STATS that FLY IN THE FACE of actual outcomes? None.
The only rankings where granular stats serve an ACTUAL PURPOSE are POWER RATINGS which are merely INDICATIVE and DETERMINATIVE of NOTHING other than on how an individual may choose to BET.
As for the playoff committee seating the four best teams on criteria other than games won and lost -- it's not only a LUDICROUS CONCEPT but also MEANINGLESS without first DEFINING what constitutes a "BEST TEAM" other than won-lost record.
Have they calculated the algorithm for that yet and then stated that it's BINDING as a CRITERION? Not to my knowledge.
Say a team that was perfect in winning 9 games, lost its other three on FLUKE PLAYS AT THE WHISTLE. If the GRANULAR METRICS said they were still one of the BEST FOUR TEAMS, would you consider it appropriate for them to leapfrog one or more UNDEFEATED TEAMS? Not to mention teams with only one or two losses?
I don't think many would. And say you're an ND fan and that PERFECT BUT FOR THREE LOSSES team is UM or OSU. Are you kidding me?
Games aren't played to ABSTRACT, COLLECT AND TABULATE GRANULAR METRICS. They're played in order to see WHO WINS.
All that's needed to CLARIFY all of this is a SMALL EDIT, namely replacing the term FOUR BEST TEAMS with FOUR BEST TEAMS AS DEFINED BY THEIR WON-LOST RECORDS. In cases where there are two or more teams with the same records, a strength of schedule formula can be applied as a tie-breaker.
I realize that many CFB fans love the ALMOST TALMUDIC HAIR-SPLITTING of determining which are the best teams, but much of that is already HISTORY. The move from POLLS to PLAYOFFS has been slow, but it's also INEXORABLE and will CONTINUE.
Because, in the end, ACTUAL OUTCOMES MATTER.
Ranked fourth as I believe they were, they would have been IN.
Plus, they could have WON IT.
It was a GREAT team.
Let's just say that the goal isn't, then, since there appears to be a misunderstanding about that, the goal isn't to find the four best, the purportedly or supposedly 'best' teams. That's not the goal. It's to get the four most deserving teams. Either scenario sucks, 'cause you have a bunch of shitheads, bunch of dopes in suits picking the teams, rather than the teams playing their way in solely on the virtue of the W/L record.
But it's not the four best teams, repeat NOT THE FOUR BEST TEAMS. That's not the goal...
But it's not the four best teams, repeat NOT THE FOUR BEST TEAMS. That's not the goal...
I think THAT'S RIGHT.
And how in God's name would you determine them? With a SLIDE RULE?
Plus, you'd probably need an EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE UN to hammer out a RULES FRAMEWORK.
Winning is CAPITAL GAINED, and losing is CAPTIAL LOST.
It's BINARY. No algorithm needed.
Be careful on this board, while spot on, your post is waaaay to rationale for some. I agree 1000% with your post
Last edited:
Well because everybody KNOWS that Bama is always going to be one of the four best teams. You know, like, in the abstract. They could have lost three games this year, and they'd still be one of the four best. Even four. Heck in addition to the two games they actually lost, they had three more games I believe it was that easily could have gone the other way. Literally if just one play had gone different. A missed FG or a dropped pass. So they could have gone 8-4 and still been one of the four best teams, just on pure ability, and prowess, and like, who would you pick to win a game if you had everything riding on it, Bama or TCU? Most people would probably take their chances with Bama even at 8-4. Because they're just better.
And obviously we're not going to pick the four playoff teams on that basis. And the fact that fans are even arguing about this just shows you once again how morbid and unwholesome CFB's postseason is. And how it is crying for a much more strict W/L criteria, which the expanded playoff will come with, even if there are still several at-large bids....
Teams should have a SOS of 25 or higher to make the playoffs too, make this teams play a better schedule.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Recruiting 2026 WR target Connor Salmin commits to Clemson
- Latest: Fighting Irish
-
Basketball MBB: Game Thread | Notre Dame 112, Cal 110 (Final 4OT)- Latest: Tyler James
-
