Game Thread: CFP Games on 12/21 (SMU/PSU TNT @ 11a) | (CLEM @ UTX TNT @ 3p) | (UTN @ OSU ABC @ 7p)

[81usaf92]

I hope we would do this to them in Tuscaloosa. Because it gets tiring of them playing Dixieland Delight every time they beat us in every sport. Kudos to Ohio State for trolling the trolls

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870690797743731063

 

[81usaf92]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870651642993066020

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870680027609825595

 

[Bpilktree]

I think Ohio St has been awakened. I don’t know if anyone can beat them at this point because they are finally playing like everyone envisioned them.

I think Oregon will get drug in the rematch, and we are left wondering if ND or Georgia has enough defense to keep it close.

Could be Tennessee is that bad but it feels like Ohio State found something that they were missing.

Tennessee doesn’t have a lot of weapons their receivers are very weak and they didn’t have their best player Sampson at running back. Once they got behind they were in trouble because they couldn’t use play action pass and were just trying to throw it with less talented threats on the outside. There weakness on defense is secondary and it got exposed by very talented relievers Ohio State has. It just wasn’t a good matchup going in vs Ohio State and then with running back out it was a bloodbath as they couldn’t control the ball like Michigan was able to do.

 

[Bpilktree]

Not that there was any doubt, but:

#7 beat #10 by ten, but they were up by 24 and those were garbage TDs
#5 beat #12 by 14, and it wasn't really that close
#6 beat #11 by 28, and it felt worse than that.
#8 beat #9 by 25, and it wasn't that close, either.

That right there is all the evidence you need that expanding larger than 8 teams (which I also opposed) was pointless fluff.

It wasn't one 9-12 seed, it was every one of them.
The only one who looked good was Clemson for a portion of the first half.

I don’t have a problem with 12 teams but you can’t give automatic byes to inferior teams because they won a weak conference. Maybe give them a home game as a reward though. and a 5 and 6 seed. That always makes them face the 1 or 2 seed if they win. If Texas and Penn state got the byes you have 8 teams pretty equal playing to get to quarterfinal round. You then add strength of schedule in there and you have some good matchups.
5. Boise State vs 12. South Carolina in Boise
6 Arizona State vs 11. Alabama in Tempe
7. Clemson vs 10 Tennesee in Clemson
8. Notre Dame vs 9.Ohio State in South Bend
Those are much better matchups and you reward team for winning conference some but not just a bye to quarterfinals. The one issue the NCAA and tv will have is you get games at Boise, Tempe, Clemson over Texas, Columbus and Happy Valley

 

[bamaga]

I’d rather see them win it rather than Georgia or Texas.

None of the three, if Texas wins, well Texas. If Georgia wins that would be 3 in four years , we would never hear the end of that. If Ohio St wins, two straight years of the B1G winning it with 2 different teams. That would be an in your face moment not to mention recruiting implications. No, Arizona St must win the national title. No one cares about the Big 12, even when they have good teams.

 

[bamaga]

The problem I see with Tennessee laying an egg , now all the others that got blown out will say they just played a bad game like the SEC team. Play bad and anyone can get blown out By a good team.

 

[Con]

The problem I see with Tennessee laying an egg , now all the others that got blown out will say they just played a bad game like the SEC team. Play bad and anyone can get blown out By a good team.

I’m still going to repeat what the experts are saying, “ this game does not diminish what they accomplished in the regular season.” Well experts I think it does.

 

[bamaga]

For the record, I have maintained all year that Tennessee was not a good team. The only decent team they beat was Alabama , and we were in a funk during that stretch. I still would like to know exactly what happened those 6 games. Anyway, back to the thread

 

[KrAzY3]

One thing about this playoff and Ohio State is just how much of a do-over this whole thing is.

Oregon beat Boise St. which due to weak OOC Big 10 scheduling was probably the best OOC win the conference had. They then went on to beat Ohio State and Penn State. They're undefeated. What's their reward? They get to play a super talented two loss Ohio State team, who even if they beat them is still only 1-1 against them with one more loss.

An 11-2 team is playing a 13-0 team that already beat them and this game is the one that counts because playoff games are magical. Ohio State can absolutely blow up their bracket and furthermore I would argue this is one reason some people might have wanted Alabama out, because if they got hot they could have done the same thing.

Here's a model someone did showing the chaos Alabama would have introduced to their bracket, dramatically reducing some team's odds of progression: https://www.samford.edu/sports-anal...ation-Reveals-Alabamas-True-Playoff-Potential

The regular season just doesn't matter that much and the talented teams that sneaks in can do a lot of damage...

 

[tusks_n_raider]

One thing about this playoff and Ohio State is just how much of a do-over this whole thing is.

Oregon beat Boise St. which due to weak OOC Big 10 scheduling was probably the best OOC win the conference had. They then went on to beat Ohio State and Penn State. They're undefeated. What's their reward? They get to play a super talented two loss Ohio State team, who even if they beat them is still only 1-1 against them with one more loss.

An 11-2 team is playing a 13-0 team that already beat them and this game is the one that counts because playoff games are magical. Ohio State can absolutely blow up their bracket and furthermore I would argue this is one reason some people might have wanted Alabama out, because if they got hot they could have done the same thing.

Here's a model someone did showing the chaos Alabama would have introduced to their bracket, dramatically reducing some team's odds of progression: https://www.samford.edu/sports-anal...ation-Reveals-Alabamas-True-Playoff-Potential

The regular season just doesn't matter that much and the talented teams that sneaks in can do a lot of damage...

I don't have a problem with that rematch because that is the same type of scenario where we got a rematch with LSU in 2011/12 and we won the 2nd time and that's the one that mattered.

They wanted Bama out because they didn't think they deserved to be in and imo they were right about that.

This Bama team with Milroe at QB wouldn't get out of the 1st round either.

The last 6-7 games he's had more turnovers than TD's.

There is no getting hot with a disaster like that at QB.

 

[denver]

Wasnt able to watch but saw the highlights...pretty much a mismatch - freshman QB, no running back, lost their WRs...but they were awful on defense. Home game for the best team money can buy so i dont think this is as much of a flex as many B10 folks thinks it is...plus, their money bought talent FROM the SEC to be able to win..lol...irony....

 

[KrAzY3]

I don't have a problem with that rematch because that is the same type of scenario where we got a rematch with LSU in 2011/12 and we won the 2nd time and that's the one that mattered.

There's a big part of that, that is missing.

LSU only had one more win than Alabama, and that was their game against Alabama. Oregon for the record also beat Michigan. So they beat Ohio State head to head and also beat the other team that beat Ohio State.

This Ohio State team has two more losses, so the result won't just erase the head to head loss like the LSU vs Alabama championship game, but it will also make another game go poof like it was meaningless.

Which is ironic considering how meaningful Alabama's losses seem to be to you and the committee. Bad losses count... sometimes (if Ohio State wins we'll pretend that Michigan loss didn't happen I guess). Big wins (Alabama over Georgia, South Carolina) also count... sometimes. Just have to get them at the right time I guess.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

For the record, I have maintained all year that Tennessee was not a good team. The only decent team they beat was Alabama , and we were in a funk during that stretch. I still would like to know exactly what happened those 6 games. Anyway, back to the thread

I can't tell sometimes if a question is rhetorical or straight faced serious so...



He's a DISASTER and every single loss can be pinned on his shoulders.

He's a Turnover machine and once he gets rattled he can't even complete a pass to Ryan Williams who has like a 10 Foot Catch radius in every direction.

I'll keep dunking on him because he deserves it.

He wanted this position and he sure didn't earn it or deserve to keep it.

He negotiated it like a contract with leverage in his favor.

When things go bad he just sulks or checks out and doesn't do a single thing to motivate himself or others.

It's a disgrace that he has a 'C' on his jersey and will have prints at Denny Chimes.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

There's a big part of that, that is missing.

LSU only had one more win than Alabama, and that was their game against Alabama. Oregon for the record also beat Michigan. So they beat Ohio State head to head and also beat the other team that beat Ohio State.

This Ohio State team has two more losses, so the result won't just erase the head to head loss like the LSU vs Alabama championship game, but it will also make another game go poof like it was meaningless.

Which is ironic considering how meaningful Alabama's losses seem to be to you and the committee. Bad losses count... sometimes (if Ohio State wins we'll pretend that Michigan loss didn't happen I guess). Big wins (Alabama over Georgia, South Carolina) also count... sometimes. Just have to get them at the right time I guess.

No a Bad loss counted against tOSU as well which is why they dropped to #8

But the difference is they only had 1 bad loss by 3 points. It's bad in context to a 6-5 team but not bad on the score board in addition to that.

Their other loss is by 1 point to the #1 Team.

Bama lost 3 times and twice to bad 6-5 teams and the last one was in non competitive fashion by 3 TD's.

The 2 situations are completely different.

 

[Bpilktree]

Then ther is no point in any sport of having a post season if all we are going to look at is regular season results. It matters when you win the games. The regular season just gets you an opportunity to play in the post season in any sport and win a title. The Giants beat the undefeated Patriots in the Super Bowl so they are seen as the NFL champion. The Patriots were undefeated in 2007 while the Giants were 10-6 in regular season including a loss to the Patriots earlier in the season. The Giants beat them in the Super Bowl and are Super Bowl champs. The Patriots win that game they are probably seen as best team ever they lost so they can’t even get mentioned. If they lost the regular season game but won Super Bowl they are seen differently.

 

[KrAzY3]

The 2 situations are completely different.

They're not relative to the committee's rankings. They put that Ohio State team above multiple one loss teams for example.

Remember the comparison for the sake of Alabama's inclusion is not Ohio State. It's SMU. So you have to take the same exact logic you are applying elsewhere and apply it there. On what basis does SMU earn a mulligan for losing to every top 25 team they played? Where are their good wins? What makes them deserve a spot?

And if you go well they don't deserve one but neither does Alabama... alright then by extension neither does Ohio State. We might as well work our way up the list. Heck, Notre Dame lost to a MAC team...

 

[tusks_n_raider]

They're not relative to the committee's rankings. They put that Ohio State team above multiple one loss teams for example.

Remember the comparison for the sake of Alabama's inclusion is not Ohio State. It's SMU. So you have to take the same exact logic you are applying to Ohio State vs. Oregon and apply it there. On what basis does SMU earn a mulligan for losing to every top 25 team they played? Where are their good wins? What makes them deserve a spot?

And if you go well they don't deserve one but neither does Alabama... alright then by extension neither does Ohio State. We might as well work our way up the list.

I'm not going back and forth with you about this.

Alabama could have been in and should have been in at 10-2 just like tOSU.

But they projectile soiled the field in Norman by THREE TD's.... 21 Points to a 6-5 team

They lost to two 6-5 teams by a Total of 26 points AND have a 3rd loss outside of that.

tOSU lost 2 games by 4 points total and one was to the #1 team.

If there isn't a noticeable difference in those two resumes then I don't know what else I can say to make it clearer.

But that's it from me. I will not debate this.

To me it's as clear as a 50 Carat Diamond.

 

[Power Eye]

I don’t have a problem with 12 teams but you can’t give automatic byes to inferior teams because they won a weak conference. Maybe give them a home game as a reward though. and a 5 and 6 seed. That always makes them face the 1 or 2 seed if they win. If Texas and Penn state got the byes you have 8 teams pretty equal playing to get to quarterfinal round. You then add strength of schedule in there and you have some good matchups.
5. Boise State vs 12. South Carolina in Boise
6 Arizona State vs 11. Alabama in Tempe
7. Clemson vs 10 Tennesee in Clemson
8. Notre Dame vs 9.Ohio State in South Bend
Those are much better matchups and you reward team for winning conference some but not just a bye to quarterfinals. The one issue the NCAA and tv will have is you get games at Boise, Tempe, Clemson over Texas, Columbus and Happy Valley

I'm ok with 5 conference winners getting in, but not the top 4 getting byes, and that, to me, is the reason we had terrible games in the first round. Honestly, there are only 6 teams that have any chance at winning the national title (Texas, Ohio St, Oregon, Georgia, ND, and Penn St) and four of them didn't get byes and played in the first round against competition that had no chance. Therefore, we have lopsided first round games, and most likely two lopsided 2nd round games (Texas/AZ St & Penn St/Boise St). We also have maybe the two best teams playing each other in the 2nd round (Oregon/OSU) when they shouldn't be facing one another until the semis at the earliest.

Take away the top 4 conference teams getting byes and here are the first round matchups we would have had:

• ND/Clemson with the winner playing Penn St
• Ohio St/AZ St with the winner playing Texas
• Tennessee/SMU with the winner playing Georgia
• Indiana/Boise St with the winner playing Oregon

In that scenario, we have one definite dud in the 1st round (OSU/AZ St) but the rest could have been interesting games. The 2nd round games would be interesting with the exception of whoever got Oregon.

 

[KrAzY3]

Alabama could have been in and should have been in at 10-2 just like tOSU.

Alabama's SoS 16
Ohio State's SoS 46

I'm honestly not really concerned with debating you personally either way though, but I've been arguing for logic in rankings for the past 20 years roughly so I'm not stopping now, heh. Don't take this as an attempt to get you to respond, because it's not.

For the sake of the general public here's the breakdown and it's really fairly simple.
If we for instance are willing to absolve Ohio State of the "sin" of the Michigan loss if they beat Oregon in the rematch, then we are conceding that a big victory can erase a bad loss. Well, Alabama has two big victories and two bad losses.

In the playoffs big wins mean everything, but for some reason we now have a system which basically says big wins in the regular season really don't mean much at all. Oregon's win over Ohio State? Meh, do it again. Alabama's win over Georgia? Let's just forget that happened. It's not logically consistent.

The only reason SMU got in over Alabama was due to one less loss, but Alabama had wins over 3 top 25 teams including what is arguably a tie for the best regular season win, while SMU had 0. Those big wins were regular season wins though which for some reason mean far less due to the time of year.

SMU's one less loss meant so much to the committee. Ohio State's one less loss meant so much. But, if Oregon loses to Ohio State resulting in a head to head tie? That one less loss means absolutely nothing!

 

[B1GTide]

Then ther is no point in any sport of having a post season if all we are going to look at is regular season results. It matters when you win the games. The regular season just gets you an opportunity to play in the post season in any sport and win a title. The Giants beat the undefeated Patriots in the Super Bowl so they are seen as the NFL champion. The Patriots were undefeated in 2007 while the Giants were 10-6 in regular season including a loss to the Patriots earlier in the season. The Giants beat them in the Super Bowl and are Super Bowl champs. The Patriots win that game they are probably seen as best team ever they lost so they can’t even get mentioned. If they lost the regular season game but won Super Bowl they are seen differently.

Yep, the playoffs are the second season.