Toggle sidebar

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

OconeeTide said:
I feel like I am in the minority when i say this but Bama should of beat at least vandy or Oklahoma, but we didn't. IF we get left out of the CFP cant really blame the committee we have three losses, two of them are UGLY.
We were in the playoffs at Oklahoma, and we just lied down.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But if we're going to allow teams in with SOS & SOR of 60+, I change my tune.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jay Hughes, UAllday, SkinnyFats and 7 others
Power Eye said:
I would hate to make a decision like that based on one year, especially when going into last night’s ACCG SMU only had one loss and we had three, so it’s not like we are getting completely jobbed, but it warrants consideration.

We have typically fared very well in these games, but I imagine the real toll it takes is the impact it has on the health of the players headed into a brutal SEC schedule. I don’t worry about Wisconsin or FSU next year, but it’s an extra two games where the players get beat up. We will have ten games like that and a team like SMU probably has five games against teams of similar talent level.
Click to expand...
SMU isn't the only one. Look at Texas. Our SOS will always be decent enough being in the SEC. There is no real reason to play a strong OOC schedule
 
RollTide_HTTR said:
SMU isn't the only one. Look at Texas. Our SOS will always be decent enough being in the SEC. There is no real reason to play a strong OOC schedule
Click to expand...

Well Texas won’t always have a weak conference schedule, and they played the defending national champ on the road as an OOC game. It just worked out for them that their schedule was weak this year, but it wasn’t by design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BamaInBham and The Ols
Here's something that i don't think anyone is asking. Why isn't anyone stumping for Iowa St., or Army, or Unlv? If losses don't hurt, then why are we even in the debate? Clemson had to win to get in. So now, they've decided that a team shouldn't drop in the polls if they lose? If that's the reasoning, then smu should still be ahead of Clemson.
There's no legit argument for putting in smu. At the end of the day, what they want to say is that smu's 2 losses are better than Bamas 3 losses, without looking at the wins. That logic is the ONLY way they justify putting in SMU. I just don't see it happening. You don't get rewarded for almost winning.
We're getting wound up because the talking heads want to see a nobody get in so they have a good story. Hate to break it to everyone who isnt a real cfb fan, but Cam is absolutely correct, no one wants to watch smu get beat all over the field. The ratings will never be high for teams like that. Smu, boise st, indiana ain't drawing a big tv audience, Cinderella story or not.
Also, there's no way smu beats Miami, ole miss, or scar, so how do they keep them high?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanjosecrimson and B1GTide
BamaNation said:
Agreed.

But if we're going to allow teams in with SOS & SOR of 60+, I change my tune.
Click to expand...
100 percent agree, if the biggest factor on who gets in the CFP is SOS then we should be a lock, or if its based on ranked wins we should be in. I think whats gonna really look bad on the committee is if they leave Bama out after all that hot air in the media and the ADs from the ACC whining to ESPN.
Honestly anyone who really believes that Miami(Florida state but worse from last year) should get the nod over Bama is CRAZY.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BamaInBham, sanjosecrimson and B1GTide
Power Eye said:
Well Texas won’t always have a weak conference schedule, and they played the defending national champ on the road as an OOC game. It just worked out for them that their schedule was weak this year, but it wasn’t by design.
Click to expand...
Right. But if a weaker schedule works might as well embrace it. Indiana is another example
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide
toliver2 said:
Here's something that i don't think anyone is asking. Why isn't anyone stumping for Iowa St., or Army, or Unlv? If losses don't hurt, then why are we even in the debate? Clemson had to win to get in. So now, they've decided that a team shouldn't drop in the polls if they lose? If that's the reasoning, then smu should still be ahead of Clemson.
There's no legit argument for putting in smu. At the end of the day, what they want to say is that smu's 2 losses are better than Bamas 3 losses, without looking at the wins. That logic is the ONLY way they justify putting in SMU. I just don't see it happening. You don't get rewarded for almost winning.
We're getting wound up because the talking heads want to see a nobody get in so they have a good story. Hate to break it to everyone who isnt a real cfb fan, but Cam is absolutely correct, no one wants to watch smu get beat all over the field. The ratings will never be high for teams like that. Smu, boise st, indiana ain't drawing a big tv audience, Cinderella story or not.
Also, there's no way smu beats Miami, ole miss, or scar, so how do they keep them high?
Click to expand...
I think the only logic they can use to exclude us will actually have SMU ahead of Clemson and we will get double bumped. We would be behind SMU but ahead of Clemson & ASU in ranking. Makes no logical sense based on their statements last week to rank Clemson & SMU ahead of us
 
Snuffy Smith said:
I think the only logic they can use to exclude us will actually have SMU ahead of Clemson and we will get double bumped. We would be behind SMU but ahead of Clemson & ASU in ranking. Makes no logical sense based on their statements last week to rank Clemson & SMU ahead of us
Click to expand...
I fear it’s going to happen none the less.
 
Snuffy Smith said:
I think the only logic they can use to exclude us will actually have SMU ahead of Clemson and we will get double bumped. We would be behind SMU but ahead of Clemson & ASU in ranking. Makes no logical sense based on their statements last week to rank Clemson & SMU ahead of us
Click to expand...
Exactly, but why all of a sudden would smu get treated better than anyone else? That's the question. If they're gonna give them a pass, why would you not give it to another team with a better argument than smu? Unfortunately, the committee likes to reward weak teams for losing their conference championship game - tcu.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide
Snuffy Smith said:
I think the only logic they can use to exclude us will actually have SMU ahead of Clemson and we will get double bumped. We would be behind SMU but ahead of Clemson & ASU in ranking. Makes no logical sense based on their statements last week to rank Clemson & SMU ahead of us
Click to expand...
Clemson will be 4 or 12. If they are 4, we are in. If they are 12, you are right.
 
toliver2 said:
Yeah we lost to OU. But why all of a sudden does who you beat not matter as much as who you lose to? We have a win against the #2 team in the country. The SEC champ - Again! I'm tired of these small schools getting in because they lose their championship game - A la TCU. Does anyone else remember that fiasco? who has smu beaten that's ranked? Name anyone.
Click to expand...
Who you lost to only matters to the fans of teams who didn’t beat good teams.

Thats why its irritating to see Alabama fans chanting that nonsense against Alabama.
 
  • Thank You
  • Like
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: BamaInBham, Jay Hughes, 92tide and 1 other person
Aussie BamaFan said:
we wont get in now the fanboys are crying poor smu they will get destroyed in the first game they play
it will be TCU all over again these idiots never learn
Click to expand...
if smu gets in and gets notre dame, the game will not be a blowout. in fact smu could actually win that one. notre dame is one of 3 teams smu could beat. Arizona State and clempson being the others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tusks_n_raider
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back