Bama getting no respect

[selmaborntidefan]

I knew something was up after Bama beat A&M @ Kyle Field (who was supposed to cream us) and then stayed in neutral in the polls, but then when Tennessee the very next week beat the same team but in Neyland and they went up like three spots.

You mean in the AP poll, which has nothing to do with the CFP poll?

The first CFP poll wasn't even released until the end of October.

And Tennessee went up two spots when they beat aTm (in the AP poll) because:
a) #14 Louisville lost
b) #10 USC lost to Notre Dame

not because of any kind of "wow, they looked more impressive than Alabama." Teams ahead of them lost, they won, they moved up.

We stayed at #11 because either all the teams ahead of us won their games or (in the case of Oregon) they lost to another team in the top ten in a close game. It wasn't the media, it wasn't the pundits, it was typical AP voting, which I'll be the first to admit is insanely ignorant. Indeed, the AP voters make the CFP members look collectively like Einsteins.

 

[rtr90]

They absolutely can. There is zero consistency to any of this committee’s “reasoning”. Yes, only the final poll matters. But with this committee more than any other, the prior rankings set up their future rankings. What will be especially telling is where we are in relation to the #4 slot after the Auburn game.

Currently, we are being punished for things that other teams are being rewarded for, and get zero movement for things other teams are rewarded for. For example. We are being continuously punished for losing to Texas, but Oregon is basically being continuously rewarded for losing to undefeated Washington. This committee is applying different standards to different teams, so we really have no idea what they are going to do when the music stops.

thank you

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The BCS computers giving 2 SEC teams a rematch in the title game is what led to the current system.....

I know this - there's not a way to not sound mean about it - this myth, religious conviction, honest mistake in evaluation - I know it's been out there for years, but no matter how many times it gets repeated here, it isn't true.

The CFP was formed because after about 8-9 years of Congress sending signals that they didn't like the way the BCS was administered, the Utah Attorney General (Mark Shurtleff) sent NCAA President Mark Emmert a rather threatening letter in 2011 that coincided with the eventual Alabama vs LSU rematch in the title game. Basically, he said they were setting up to file a lawsuit against CFB for violating antitrust laws with the BCS. He, of course, was mad because Utah had twice finished very highly and - from his point of view - had been excluded from GETTING THE MONEY that the BCS teams got. (He didn't care about trophies, he cared about money).

That lawsuit organization began in APRIL 2011, long before the season began. The four-team playoff was all of a sudden announced on June 26, 2012. They weren't mad about the rematch, they feared the consequences of losing another lawsuit.

There had been Congressional rumblings in 2003 and 2004 - so the NCAA created an additional bowl game for the Welfare Chiselers like Boise State and (then) TCU and Utah. Joe Barton - who by chance was a high school classmate of my former second-in-line boss - threatened action after Texas beat Oklahoma head-to-head and wound up going to the Fiesta Bowl with no championship hopes.

By the way - the fear of an antitrust suit is EXACTLY why there's no conference championship requirement to make the four-team playoff, because it would deny access to teams who are not in conferences. (I'm not a lawyer, but I read a lot).

The NCAA lost an antitrust lawsuit in 1984, which is why we now get to see all the games, and they lost another over NIL. The entire organization is set up to create the illusion of equal access while denying it. Amazingly enough, they still can use the committee to deny access...which might be why they've decided to go to a 12-team.

2011 Alabama-LSU did NOT cause the four-team playoff, no matter how many times that story gets told. And if it did...why isn't there a limit on teams now??? Three times a conference has gotten two teams into the Alabama Invitational (I love that term tbh with you).

 

[Cruloc]

This iteration of the committee has a conundrum if we win out and teams already above us don't lose....Georgia would have to lose, Michigan/Ohio State one has to lose, Oregon/Washington one has to lose.

The problem would be if we beat Georgia, Texas wins out, Oregon wins out, FSU wins out, Michigan/Ohio State one wins out. The committee has us pegged with the criteria of the head to head with Texas, they aren't going to put us over Texas if we're both 12-1. If Oregon beats Washington, they aren't putting us over Oregon at 12-1.

If we beat Georgia, yeah, we'll have the best win....with a head to head loss to the Big 12 champ with the same record.

The conundrum is.....if Bama gets left out at 12-1 given the head to head loss, the committee is saying, don't schedule tough out of conference games. If we get in, then the committee is saying head to head doesn't matter.

Then again.....its all a moot point come next year when we're in a 12 team format. If we were in a 12 team format now, we probably would get in even with a loss to Georgia. Both Ohio State and Michigan would make it in. Both FSU and Louisville probably. Both Oregon and Washington. Tulane would have to be in there. Texas makes it. Shoot, Penn State probably makes it then.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

They absolutely can. There is zero consistency to any of this committee’s “reasoning”. Yes, only the final poll matters. But with this committee more than any other, the prior rankings set up their future rankings.

The CFP has been a Muhammad Ali-style hype machine from day one.

Currently, we are being punished for things that other teams are being rewarded for, and get zero movement for things other teams are rewarded for. For example. We are being continuously punished for losing to Texas, but Oregon is basically being continuously rewarded for losing to undefeated Washington.

If Texas had not lost to Oklahoma, both Texas AND Alabama would be ranked higher than they are right now, so I'm not sure how this proves inconsistency.

This committee is applying different standards to different teams, so we really have no idea what they are going to do when the music stops.

1) It is impossible to consistently rank teams, which is why their own website says ranking teams is art, not science. Eventually, the head to head argument breaks down because it goes in a circle and you can find a 2-win team that beat the team that beat the team that beat the team that beat the team that was actually very good.

That being said, I understand the frustration here. Indeed, the ranking of Oregon over Alabama is FAR MORE PROBLEMATIC from my vantage point than TEXAS over Alabama. '

2) Urban Meyer said the same thing in 2017, saying he just wished teams knew what they were supposed to do in a loss situation like that.

I'd say "not losing to an also ran by 31" probably ranks high on that list, but I suspect Meyer would, too.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The conundrum is.....if Bama gets left out at 12-1 given the head to head loss, the committee is saying, don't schedule tough out of conference games. If we get in, then the committee is saying head to head doesn't matter.

The committee already sent that warning out when Ohio State made the mistake of playing Oklahoma early in 2017. Had they played, oh, Tulsa, they'd have one loss and a conference title - and probably be in ahead of Alabama.

But I don't think it's fair to say, "If Alabama gets in ahead of Texas, they don't value head to head," either. Head to head has a context that can be overcome depending on other circumstances.

Had we lost, 31-0, that's one thing. But we DID lead going into the fourth quarter, too.
Game at home? Point against us.
Game in September? helps modify it a bit, team played better later.

I'm still convinced what destroyed us with the committee and the media is NOT losing to Texas in September by 10, it was looking like the whole team caught mono against South Florida the next week. THAT CEMENTED the "Alabama is not what they were" narrative.

And here's the thing: a lot of media types (and Tim Brando, too) hold Alabama to the standard of the last 15 years, which HELPS us many times. But this is one of those instances where "they're not as good as ALABAMA used to be" hurts us. It's the old "good looking people have it easier," which is true, but it also comes with its own baggage.

It's like when Dr Hook sang the trauma of being "in love with a beautiful woman" and not being able to trust your friends, not being able to trust her, living in a combination of pure hell and pure ecstasy at the same time.

 

[RammerJammer14]

The committee already sent that warning out when Ohio State made the mistake of playing Oklahoma early in 2017. Had they played, oh, Tulsa, they'd have one loss and a conference title - and probably be in ahead of Alabama.

But I don't think it's fair to say, "If Alabama gets in ahead of Texas, they don't value head to head," either. Head to head has a context that can be overcome depending on other circumstances.

Had we lost, 31-0, that's one thing. But we DID lead going into the fourth quarter, too.
Game at home? Point against us.
Game in September? helps modify it a bit, team played better later.

I'm still convinced what destroyed us with the committee and the media is NOT losing to Texas in September by 10, it was looking like the whole team caught mono against South Florida the next week. THAT CEMENTED the "Alabama is not what they were" narrative.

And here's the thing: a lot of media types (and Tim Brando, too) hold Alabama to the standard of the last 15 years, which HELPS us many times. But this is one of those instances where "they're not as good as ALABAMA used to be" hurts us. It's the old "good looking people have it easier," which is true, but it also comes with its own baggage.

It's like when Dr Hook sang the trauma of being "in love with a beautiful woman" and not being able to trust your friends, not being able to trust her, living in a combination of pure hell and pure ecstasy at the same time.

I’m not so sure how much, if at all, the USF game hurts us. For one, everyone knows we were still trying to settle on a QB, and that game was also played in a tropical storm. Also, other teams ranked ahead of us have had similar or worse games. I have watched Washington stumble their way to 4th quarter comeback victories against teams with losing records at least 3 times in the last couple weeks. I have watched FSU struggle to put away similarly bad teams like Pitt. I have watched Texas scrape by almost every team they have played the last 4ish weeks, including a game that they really should have lost if KSU’s head coach hadn’t decided to go full retard both before overtime and during overtime.

Again, if we are getting punished for beating USF but looking bad doing it, other teams ahead of us certainly are not being punished for similar or worse games.

 

[Cruloc]

I’m not so sure how much, if at all, the USF game hurts us. For one, everyone knows we were still trying to settle on a QB, and that game was also played in a tropical storm. Also, other teams ranked ahead of us have had similar or worse games. I have watched Washington stumble their way to 4th quarter comeback victories against teams with losing records at least 3 times in the last couple weeks. I have watched FSU struggle to put away similarly bad teams like Pitt. I have watched Texas scrape by almost every team they have played the last 4ish weeks, including a game that they really should have lost if KSU’s head coach hadn’t decided to go full retard both before overtime and during overtime.

Again, if we are getting punished for beating USF but looking bad doing it, other teams ahead of us certainly are not being punished for similar or worse games.

I think we are ultimately stuck with the label of....they lost to Texas at home. If Texas loses they can put us anywhere, but not until then. When Washington loses, they'll drop them like a rock.

 

[spidermayin]

If we win out, we will have the best win out of everybody and likely the best loss of the 1 loss teams, assuming Texas wins out. If head to head counts for a whole lot, then I guess we are in a bad position. But, like Selma said above, that head to head should have context. We were early in the season with a green Jalen Milroe. We had not established our identity at that point

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I’m not so sure how much, if at all, the USF game hurts us. For one, everyone knows we were still trying to settle on a QB, and that game was also played in a tropical storm. Also, other teams ranked ahead of us have had similar or worse games. I have watched Washington stumble their way to 4th quarter comeback victories against teams with losing records at least 3 times in the last couple weeks. I have watched FSU struggle to put away similarly bad teams like Pitt. I have watched Texas scrape by almost every team they have played the last 4ish weeks, including a game that they really should have lost if KSU’s head coach hadn’t decided to go full retard both before overtime and during overtime.

Again, if we are getting punished for beating USF but looking bad doing it, other teams ahead of us certainly are not being punished for similar or worse games.

Because they don't watch the games THAT closely.

They look and see, "Hey, team is undefeated and won."
They look and see, "Damn, Alabama only beat USF by 14 points."

And even if Texas should have lost to KSU (which I didn't know but whatever), the Wildcats are a ranked team (#21) and USF is 5-5, with one win over an FCS school. The losses simply aren't comparable.

But again, it's more complicated than that simply because I honestly think we are competing against our reputation of past years, which is also unfair but the burden of success.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

If we win out, we will have the best win out of everybody and likely the best loss of the 1 loss teams, assuming Texas wins out. If head to head counts for a whole lot, then I guess we are in a bad position. But, like Selma said above, that head to head should have context. We were early in the season with a green Jalen Milroe. We had not established our identity at that point

For all the "this committee is inconsistent," I'll remind folks that in 2014, they ranked TCU ahead of Baylor EVEN AFTER the head-to-head loss UNTIL THE VERY LAST POLL and then suddenly dropped them three spots - and cited the head-to-head argument as the deciding factor.

It doesn't matter until they suddenly decide it does. Bear in mind that TCU had Baylor beat every way possible except a narrow late head-to-head loss: SOS, beat same opponents by more, everything - and dropped three spots because Baylor beat Kansas State by 9 and TCU beat KSU by "only" 21.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Btw - and I hope this lightens the mood a bit, I'm not intending this as a criticism of anyone at all.

A lot of the spleen venting all of us are doing are basically what I would call the car warranty argument: we all want ASSURANCE NOW that if we just do everything right, it will all be okay. I'm reminded of the scene in "Tommy Boy" where the parts salesman is telling Chris Farley the guarantee has to be "on the box" and saying, "I'm not gonna break, but if I do, this little note will make it all better!"

If you remember Farley's response - an offer to leave his intestinal contents in a box and write "guarantee" on the side of it - well, that's where we are now.

All we can do is take care of what we can take care of.

 

[Tidelines]

Texas has lost their starting RB ( Brooks ? )for the rest of the year. He had over 1000 yards so that will hurt. Just got to let things play out. I gave up on things being fair a long time ago. We will be okay whatever happens.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

They put Georgia in after getting blown out in their CCG, and put both Alabama and Ohio St in without winning their own divisions.

But it’s like I’ve been saying… Many here were so against a 2 loss Auburn team going through hell in November to get to Atlanta getting into Atlanta jumping Alabama citing “two losses are two losses”, but when a two loss Alabama with a lesser schedule is up against a 12-1 Big XII team the “two loss” argument suddenly disappears.

 

[crimsonaudio]

For all the "this committee is inconsistent," I'll remind folks that in 2014, they ranked TCU ahead of Baylor EVEN AFTER the head-to-head loss UNTIL THE VERY LAST POLL and then suddenly dropped them three spots - and cited the head-to-head argument as the deciding factor.

It doesn't matter until they suddenly decide it does. Bear in mind that TCU had Baylor beat every way possible except a narrow late head-to-head loss: SOS, beat same opponents by more, everything - and dropped three spots because Baylor beat Kansas State by 9 and TCU beat KSU by "only" 21.

In fact, people who are worked up seem to forget the ONLY CFP poll that matters is the final one determining the playoffs - every single poll leading up to that is ONLY about making money. It's eyeballs and website clicks to sell advertisers - that's literally 100% what the current CFP polls are for.

 

[teamplayer]

I don't think the committee truly believes that they will have to worry about us. Some may expect a possible loss at Auburn, but all of them expect a loss to UGA. Either way, if they are correct, they won't have to worry about us. However, if we finish 12-1 with an SEC championship trophy in tow and the mighty Bulldogs left in our wake, it should be impossible to say we are not one of the four best teams in the country. First, though, we have quite a bit yet to prove.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

He's not wrong.

The very same people saying, "Alabama should have been in over TCU last year despite two losses" are - at the same time - saying, "Auburn should not have been ranked #2 with two losses in 2017."

And WHY was Auburn #2 in 2017 - aside from the obvious, "Let's cause a ruckus?"

1) they had lost a one-score game to then #3 and defending champion Clemson
2) they had lost a one-score game to then #18 LSU on the road after blowing a 20-0 lead.
3) they had beaten - quite badly, in fact - #1 Georgia (40-17) and then #1 Alabama (26-14)

Auburn was ranked #6 by the CFP prior the Iron Bowl that year.
a) #2 Miami lost to 4-7 Pitt by double digits, a total embarrassment
b) #1 Alabama lost, 26-14, to Auburn

The only undefeated team in the country at that point was Wisconsin (no, UCF doesn't count).
#3 Clemson moved to #1 when 1 and 2 lost.
#4 Oklahoma moved to #3
#5 Wisconsin moved to #4

The CFP decided after knocking off two #1 teams in a few weeks, Auburn should be higher than #4. I don't know if that was the best choice, I probably wouldn't have made that myself. But you couldn't rank Alabama ahead of Auburn after the Iron Bowl. If a one-loss team can be ahead of an unbeaten then a two-loss team can absolutely be ahead of a one-loss team.

The beef seems to be, "Auburn shouldn't have been #2," which I can get behind that one.

But they would have been #4 and in the hunt under any poll conducted at any time under any circumstances INCLUDING the BCS.

And yeah, they lost to Georgia, but not one Alabama fan ever wants to say, "But Kerryon Johnson was injured and very limited." If you don't think Johnson mattered to Auburn, go look at his stats from the first game. 32 carries for 167 yards (5.2 per rush) and 2 catches for 66 yards and a TD.

All 81 keeps pointing out is how inconsistent it is to use arguments in favor of Alabama and then ignore them the moment they contradict the conclusion people want to make that favors Alabama.

It seems the height of inconsistency to me for folks to cry about the committee being inconsistent while themselves being inconsistent. There ARE legitimate criticisms that can be made regarding the CFP voters.

Those same criticisms can be made about the coaches poll or AP poll - but nobody gives a damn about those any longer. In 1979, 13 coaches abstained from voting in the final regular season poll, which spun the poll against Alabama. And six AP voters ranked the Tide below the Top Three - which inspired Frank Broyles to say, "Anybody that doesn't think Alabama is one of the three best teams in the country has no business ranking football teams in the first place."

Every criticism being made against the CFP has been made against every poll in the history of polls.

 

[crimsonaudio]

 

[MikeInBama]

View attachment 38223

UA over UGA
OSU over Michigan
Oregon over Washington
Texas lose

 

[TideEngineer08]

View attachment 38223

Oh this settles it. It's going to happen. And people are going to finally get that Alabama vs. Oregon match up they've wanted for so long.

Where is our resident Duck poster? Is he still around?