Game Thread: Early bowl games no one cares about but will watch anyway catchall

[sanjosecrimson]

When Harbaugh bolts for the NFL, Saban needs to hire the Michigan OL and DL coaches.

Ironically, it was the Washington OL that won the Joe Moore Award.

 

[JohnD]

Apparently not. Alabama dropped to 5th in the final AP poll.

The AP poll is means nothing anymore. And clearly it makes as little rational sense as it ever has.

 

[JohnD]

Penix may go high in the draft, but tonight's performance has dampened that shine.

He had a striking resemblance to Milroe in the game.

 

[JohnD]

This one feels like we were always waiting to finally pay for a bad spring camp and a crazy offseason. We almost got there but almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

I hope this wasn’t Saban’s last great shot at winning a NC. Next year will be even harder to win it than ever. We are fully capable of doing it but winning championships is hard enough winning just 2 games. Now potentially 3 games makes it even more difficult. We have alot of questions heading into Spring training and we have a very difficult schedule. I trust Saban but these past two seasons we probably should have won 1 of them with the talent we had.

The team we all thought we had in September showed up on Jan 1.

 

[AlexanderFan]

The team we all thought we had in September showed up on Jan 1.

In essence we beat up on lesser talented teams, showed up for Georgia, and reverted to form when confronted with a talented team that there was no emotional reason to get up for.

 

[JohnD]

Ironically, it was the Washington OL that won the Joe Moore Award.

You have to consider their competition.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

He had a striking resemblance to Milroe in the game.

In large part...because the offensive line wasn't giving him a whole lot of time to do anything.

Penix was far closer on his downfield shots than Milroe was under the same pressure, but he's not as mobile.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

What a slap in the face to Alabama, who should have been 3rd at worst.

4th but yes.

One cannot justify ranking Alabama above either Michigan or Texas on the basis of head-to-head, and you can't punish Washington for a loss making an extra game any more than you can Alabama, particularly when WASHINGTON BEAT TEXAS. (I would have less problem with us at #3 if UW had beaten, say, Florida St in the other playoff game).

There is just an ongoing bitterness vs Alabama - except, thankfully, in the CFP Committee.

No, this has nothing to do with it.
This has been how non-CFP rankings ALWAYS worked (and it's wrong btw) - you lose more games than somebody else, they drop you, even if you beat the teams ahead of you. And too often they couldn't care less about head-to-head results.

I mean, I could probably provide 3 dozen examples that don't involve Alabama but just to make the point, this is from ONE season:

1) 2016 Oklahoma (5) over Ohio State (6).
Seriously....Ohio State beat Oklahoma by 21 points IN NORMAN.....and both were 11-2. Ranking Oklahoma, who didn't make the playoff, ahead of Ohio St who did was insane, particularly when you remember that win was one of the best arguments in the Bucks' favor for making the playoffs despite not winning the conference.

2) 2016 Stanford (12) over Colorado (17)
Colorado beat Stanford, 10-5, in Palo Alto. I know that's not a large margin, but it's a head-to-head win on the road. They ended the year 10-4 while Stanford was 10-3...you know, because since Colorado WON THEIR DIVISION, they had to play an extra game and lost to a team (Washington) that made the playoffs. Ranking Stanford five spots ahead of a team that beat them due solely to "well, they have more losses" is an amusing selective amnesia. Colorado had more losses because they played a MUCH more difficult schedule (#10 Michigan, #11 OK St in the bowl) than Stanford, who faced zero OOC ranked teams.

3) 2016 LSU (13) over Florida (14)
Florida won by 6 in Baton Rouge and had a 9-4 record to LSU's 8-4 record. Ranking LSU ahead of them was and still is absurd. And yes, I saw the game, and YES, LSU "should" have won. So what?

4) 2016 Va Tech (16) over Tennessee (22)
VT played one extra game (10-4), had the same number of losses (9-4), and got absolutely shredded by the Vols head-to-head, 45-24. And Tennessee faced a whopping 11 bowl teams in 13 games compared to 8 in 14 for the Hokies. So same losses, tougher schedule, and a head-to-head win....and the AP thinks that makes Va Tech six spots better than Tennessee anyway. (I don't even like the Vols, but this entire poll is preposterous).

 

[Krymsonman]

And behind UGA at that.

Probably the AP's way of saying we shouldn't have been in the playoffs.

 

[whatsamatta U]

Something I thought towards the end of the game last night; change out MI unis to crimson and white, it would appear to be some of the old BAMA teams playing. Hard-nosed D with very few breakdowns and an offense not making mistakes and biding it's time waiting for the big play.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Something I thought towards the end of the game last night; change out MI unis to crimson and white, it would appear to be some of the old BAMA teams playing. Hard-nosed D with very few breakdowns and an offense not making mistakes and biding it's time waiting for the big play.

THAT was joyless murderball.

 

[Tidelines]

As the Seals say, " second is first loser. " Can't say I care between 4th or 5th.

 

[22Musso22]

I can't wait until the NCAA takes back Michigan's "Title"...

 

[teamplayer]

The team we all thought we had in September showed up on Jan 1.

We had a team that had some flaws, for sure, but we still managed to win 12 games and an SEC title and qualify for the playoff. That is a very good year, but like other years where we finished close, it always feels to be a bit of a shame to come so close and not get it done. Of course, since Saban has been here, it feels like we are going to win it every year. Watching our defenses in Saban's first ten years and our offense in 2020 have certainly raised our expectations to where anything short of perfection isn't quite good enough. Roll Tide!

 

[BamaInBham]

4th but yes.

One cannot justify ranking Alabama above either Michigan or Texas on the basis of head-to-head, and you can't punish Washington for a loss making an extra game any more than you can Alabama, particularly when WASHINGTON BEAT TEXAS. (I would have less problem with us at #3 if UW had beaten, say, Florida St in the other playoff game).



No, this has nothing to do with it.
This has been how non-CFP rankings ALWAYS worked (and it's wrong btw) - you lose more games than somebody else, they drop you, even if you beat the teams ahead of you. And too often they couldn't care less about head-to-head results.

I mean, I could probably provide 3 dozen examples that don't involve Alabama but just to make the point, this is from ONE season:

1) 2016 Oklahoma (5) over Ohio State (6).
Seriously....Ohio State beat Oklahoma by 21 points IN NORMAN.....and both were 11-2. Ranking Oklahoma, who didn't make the playoff, ahead of Ohio St who did was insane, particularly when you remember that win was one of the best arguments in the Bucks' favor for making the playoffs despite not winning the conference.

2) 2016 Stanford (12) over Colorado (17)
Colorado beat Stanford, 10-5, in Palo Alto. I know that's not a large margin, but it's a head-to-head win on the road. They ended the year 10-4 while Stanford was 10-3...you know, because since Colorado WON THEIR DIVISION, they had to play an extra game and lost to a team (Washington) that made the playoffs. Ranking Stanford five spots ahead of a team that beat them due solely to "well, they have more losses" is an amusing selective amnesia. Colorado had more losses because they played a MUCH more difficult schedule (#10 Michigan, #11 OK St in the bowl) than Stanford, who faced zero OOC ranked teams.

3) 2016 LSU (13) over Florida (14)
Florida won by 6 in Baton Rouge and had a 9-4 record to LSU's 8-4 record. Ranking LSU ahead of them was and still is absurd. And yes, I saw the game, and YES, LSU "should" have won. So what?

4) 2016 Va Tech (16) over Tennessee (22)
VT played one extra game (10-4), had the same number of losses (9-4), and got absolutely shredded by the Vols head-to-head, 45-24. And Tennessee faced a whopping 11 bowl teams in 13 games compared to 8 in 14 for the Hokies. So same losses, tougher schedule, and a head-to-head win....and the AP thinks that makes Va Tech six spots better than Tennessee anyway. (I don't even like the Vols, but this entire poll is preposterous).

Those were some good and great examples.

I'm now convinced that 4 is good enough .

I guess the only thing I would disagree with is that I am fully convinced, in fact I know, there is ongoing resentment towards Alabama by many - but as I noted, thankfully, not the CFPC. OTOH, I can't say with certainty that was the motive of any AP voter, much less enough to matter, because I can't know their motives.

This may be the first time that a playoff participant did not make the top 4, not sure. I think last year TCU, even after their humiliation at the hands of UGA, remained in the top 4, ahead of Alabama by the way, even though they had the same number of losses and Alabama had boat-raced their Big12C Game conqueror in the bowl. Of course, they did make the title game.

 

[PA Tide Fan]

Apparently not. Alabama dropped to 5th in the final AP poll.

I wonder how many of those AP voters who were saying during the season that the Alabama-Texas head-to-head result was significant are now saying the Alabama-Georgia head -to-head result meant nothing.

 

[GulfCoastTider]

4th but yes.

One cannot justify ranking Alabama above either Michigan or Texas on the basis of head-to-head, and you can't punish Washington for a loss making an extra game any more than you can Alabama, particularly when WASHINGTON BEAT TEXAS. (I would have less problem with us at #3 if UW had beaten, say, Florida St in the other playoff game).



No, this has nothing to do with it.
This has been how non-CFP rankings ALWAYS worked (and it's wrong btw) - you lose more games than somebody else, they drop you, even if you beat the teams ahead of you. And too often they couldn't care less about head-to-head results.

I mean, I could probably provide 3 dozen examples that don't involve Alabama but just to make the point, this is from ONE season:

1) 2016 Oklahoma (5) over Ohio State (6).
Seriously....Ohio State beat Oklahoma by 21 points IN NORMAN.....and both were 11-2. Ranking Oklahoma, who didn't make the playoff, ahead of Ohio St who did was insane, particularly when you remember that win was one of the best arguments in the Bucks' favor for making the playoffs despite not winning the conference.

2) 2016 Stanford (12) over Colorado (17)
Colorado beat Stanford, 10-5, in Palo Alto. I know that's not a large margin, but it's a head-to-head win on the road. They ended the year 10-4 while Stanford was 10-3...you know, because since Colorado WON THEIR DIVISION, they had to play an extra game and lost to a team (Washington) that made the playoffs. Ranking Stanford five spots ahead of a team that beat them due solely to "well, they have more losses" is an amusing selective amnesia. Colorado had more losses because they played a MUCH more difficult schedule (#10 Michigan, #11 OK St in the bowl) than Stanford, who faced zero OOC ranked teams.

3) 2016 LSU (13) over Florida (14)
Florida won by 6 in Baton Rouge and had a 9-4 record to LSU's 8-4 record. Ranking LSU ahead of them was and still is absurd. And yes, I saw the game, and YES, LSU "should" have won. So what?

4) 2016 Va Tech (16) over Tennessee (22)
VT played one extra game (10-4), had the same number of losses (9-4), and got absolutely shredded by the Vols head-to-head, 45-24. And Tennessee faced a whopping 11 bowl teams in 13 games compared to 8 in 14 for the Hokies. So same losses, tougher schedule, and a head-to-head win....and the AP thinks that makes Va Tech six spots better than Tennessee anyway. (I don't even like the Vols, but this entire poll is preposterous).

This is documented evidence that "selection committees" or "poll voters" should be abolished as a means of choosing playoff berths. Let interconnected on-the-field results rule the day. And despite their flaws, let the BCS models make the choices. They have the highest probability of getting the right teams in... and keeping the wrong teams out. Hurt feelings and misguided senses of "fairness" to be noted and duly tossed.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I wonder how many of those AP voters who were saying during the season that the Alabama-Texas head-to-head result was significant are now saying the Alabama-Georgia head -to-head result meant nothing.

That's not what they'd argue.

They'd argue that Alabama has 2 losses and "Georgia looked really good against the ACC champ."

Now....it MIGHT be the case they're protesting the inclusion of Alabama a bit and rewarding UGA for thumping FSU. That's possible. But most of them don't watch most games either.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

This is documented evidence that "selection committees" or "poll voters" should be abolished as a means of choosing playoff berths. Let interconnected on-the-field results rule the day. And despite their flaws, let the BCS models make the choices. They have the highest probability of getting the right teams in... and keeping the wrong teams out. Hurt feelings and misguided senses of "fairness" to be noted and duly tossed.

I've got tons more.....

 

[RammerJammer14]

Apparently not. Alabama dropped to 5th in the final AP poll.

ROFL. Just AP writers with sour grapes. They punish us for losing to Texas but then pretend like our win over UGA didn’t happen because UGA beat FSU’s 3rd string team by 60pts. AP is a joke these days.