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

[tusks_n_raider]

I'm not arguing you are trying to be misleading, since you didn't belabor the point but you cited FPI's SoS but you decided to skip their rankings. FPI has Alabama at #4, South Carolina is #14. It's not even close.

Sagarin, which I've always used has Alabama's SoS at 14 and South Carolina's at 17. This has actually shifted substantially since I looked at it last, as Alabama was in the single digits in SoS. The ranking for the record has Alabama at 5 and South Carolina at 13. Basically though my point remains. The argument South Carolina has for getting ahead of Alabama in is only there if they actually played a tougher schedule, and in the very least it's close enough to be debatable.


This as I alluded to earlier is just an argument against a 12 team playoff though, which I am certainly against. However if you have a 12 team playoff you can't just skip a team because you don't like how they're playing football. You made it clear elsewhere you just don't like this team. Alright, that's your right but it doesn't deprive a team of a deserved opportunity. Make no mistake Alabama deserves to be in the top 12 and due to that, they also deserve to be in the the playoff. It is that simple.

As far as the good loss bad loss thing, this is only really applicable to South Carolina because the other teams played such soft teams and still found a way to lose. The main issue with the argument that it is better to lose to a good team and beat a bad team than the other way around is, as computer rankings show you not logical.

Alright, so South Carolina lost to LSU and Alabama.
They beat Oklahoma and Vanderbilt.
Alabama beat South Carolina and LSU
They lost to Oklahoma and Vanderbilt.

That's 2-2 in those games for both teams. It shouldn't count more beat LSU and lose to Vanderbilt anymore than it counts less to lose to LSU and beat Vanderbilt. You still lost to one of those teams and you still beat the other. I don't pray at the church of head to head, but I would say in this case once you start splitting hairs, the one where you beat the other team starts to matter.

Not only that, but you seem concerned with how Alabama played but less so with how South Carolina played. South Carolina lost to LSU at home. Alabama blew out LSU on the road. South Carolina squeaked by Missouri, Alabama blew Missouri out. Also, the Georgia win remains as good as any win the SEC has had.

Another thing to look at if we really aren't sure between the two teams would be margin of victory. Since we established the somewhat similar schedule, Alabama's margin is ranked 13 and South Carolina is ranked 21. There just isn't anything I can look up that points to South Carolina being more deserving. They might be more consistent, but Alabama clearly has a higher peak as well as a better mean.

Having said all that, yes I think you can make a case that South Carolina deserves to be in a 12 team playoff. Just not over Alabama...

I don't disagree with this statement, it's just that it's not a fair or logical reason to keep a team out of the playoff.

In the end it doesn't matter what I think not one bit.

The Committee is going to put them in for the ratings.

It's going to tick off fans across the US and those fans will watch that 5/12 or 6/11 matchup to hope to see Alabama lose just as much as anyone here will watch to see them win.

I'm sure all kinds of stats can be thrown around to make a debate about it.

None of it is going to convince me that a 9-3 Alabama team that lost to Vandy, then Tennessee, and then with no more room for error gets drubbed by 3 TD's to a 5 loss SEC team "Deserves' to be in the Playoff for a National Championship.

It's a farce.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Let's start with South Carolina. They play in the same conference as Alabama, they have the same record as Alabama, and they played a softer schedule than Alabama. That alone should be enough, but the committee has a tie breaker (which I think they place too much importance on) that in this case is actually meaningful. Alabama beat South Carolina head to head. If South Carolina played a tougher schedule than Alabama I could at least get the argument for SC, but they didn't, so why on earth are we supposed to ignore SoS and head to head when comparing these two teams?

This right here needs to be tattooed acros the brain of every pundit, fan, or polemicist.
A) Head to head DOES matter.
B) It is NOT the be all and end all

There have been PLENTY of times when a team lost to head-to-head and yet everyone either knew the better team didn't win or something weird happened OR a team played a schedule so substantially superior to the other - and (key point) lost closely - that the ENTIRE RESUME trumped the head-to-head. A GOOD example is the 2011 LSU at Alabama regular season game. YES, LSU was a good team. But you didn't have to be a Tide partisan to say, "Meh, Alabama was the better team but weird stuff happened."

Miami is in a similar situation. Who did they beat? Their big win is Florida I guess? That's a 7-5 team, hardly something to brag about.

Don't you love how "Ole Miss lost to Florida, who is terrible" is in the same sentence with the pundits as, "Miami beat the SEC, they beat Florida!"

===================

I have watched next to no CFB this year, so I can't make an educated guess on anything.

However, the love affair from what I've seen the last couple of days is the always unreliable pundits focusing on "man, what an offense!"

How many times are we gonna have to go through this again?

 

[Redwood Forrest]

Listen up! I don't care to make a case that Bama deserves a playoff slot, or a case that Bama doesn't deserve a slot. There are so many reasons for both that it would take a 12 man team of Philidelphia lawyers to keep it all straight.
Alabama is a long time, genuine Blueblood. The CFP playoff is a prestigeous feather in our bonnet, as well as a status symbol. Making the 12 team playoff is every decent team's goal. I will be Yelling Roll Tide.

 

[spidermayin]

On one hand, I want to see us make the playoffs and see if we can string several good games together. For example, play like we did against Georgia in the first quarter, but string together several games like that. On the other hand, I don't want to see us go on the road the first game and then have the opposing team's fans rush the field once again after we lay an egg. But, we've proven we can play well when we have time to prepare.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Frankly I hope Alabama gets I and wins the whole thing. Anybody that complains will be the same ones that demanded an expanded playoff out of "fairness". They will show their true colors.

 

[BigAlinKnoxville]

When is the final playoff rankings due?

Quoted to bump the question, because I was wondering the same thing.

Does anyone here know?

 

[BamaMoon]

Quoted to bump the question, because I was wondering the same thing.

Does anyone here know?

I believe next Sunday after the conference CGs.

 

[BigAlinKnoxville]

I believe next Sunday after the conference CGs.

Thanks. I found it after I posted that.

When are College Football Playoff rankings released? What to know

The College Football Playoff releases its newest top 25 rankings of the season soon. Here’s what to know and how to watch.

www.usatoday.com

 

[KrAzY3]

None of it is going to convince me that a 9-3 Alabama team that lost to Vandy, then Tennessee, and then with no more room for error gets drubbed by 3 TD's to a 5 loss SEC team "Deserves' to be in the Playoff for a National Championship.

It's a farce.

I just want to be clear, I agree with that sentiment in isolation. I don't think teams with those sorts of resumes deserve to be playing for a national championship. The issue is just that I don't think the other teams vying for the spot are more deserving. It's also a farce that Clemson might get in, that Miami still has a shot, that SMU could get in with two losses, that a top 12 team could get left out, etc...

So, the whole thing is a farce...

Frankly I hope Alabama gets I and wins the whole thing. Anybody that complains will be the same ones that demanded an expanded playoff out of "fairness". They will show their true colors.

To me this is really what we are up against. I even saw a poster a few week back allude to the idea that playoffs were supposed to include certain types of teams (more inclusive). No thanks. I didn't sign up for that. If you're going to have 12 teams let's put the 12 top teams in and see who actually earns it, I certainly hope that the charity cases get dominated.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I just want to be clear, I agree with that sentiment in isolation. I don't think teams with those sorts of resumes deserve to be playing for a national championship. The issue is just that I don't think the other teams vying for the spot are more deserving. It's also a farce that Clemson might get in, that Miami still has a shot, that SMU could get in with two losses, that a top 12 team could get left out, etc...

It would again serve this whole process right to have an Ohio State vs Alabama national championship game.

 

[BamaMoon]

It would again serve this whole process right to have an Ohio State vs Alabama national championship game.

That would make the talking heads who wanted expansion heads explode!

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

I've now convinced myself Ole Miss is going to get in lol

 

[tusks_n_raider]

It would again serve this whole process right to have an Ohio State vs Alabama national championship game.

Ryan Day finding out he's got a chance at a NC after choking vs a 6-5 Michigan team...

 

[selmaborntidefan]

What the "pundits" out there want, as I've said for years, is the CFB version of "The Bad News Bears."

Uh - there's a reason that only happens in movies......

Even basketball, it's been 36 years since we had anything resembling a CHAMPION who was lowly regarded, and Kansas played in a tough conference (thus the high loss total) and had one of the best players in the country in Danny Manning.

 

[stlimprov]

It would again serve this whole process right to have an Georgia vs Alabama national championship game.

FIFY

 

[TideEngineer08]

As for the talk about a playoff berth "awarding" the bad locker room, IF the bad locker room is so bad, they are going to get bounced in that first game. (And I am NOT saying that the issues are no big deal - they are and they MUST be dealt with).

If the problems aren't in some fashion resolved, there is no way this team is going to South Bend or Happy Valley and winning. Zero, ziltch, nada. So whatever reward getting into the playoffs is, will be swiftly thrown into the ocean.

But if the team can rally, well, like I've said multiple times. You play the game to win the game.

 

[davefrat]

I'm not sure we deserve to be in the playoff, but I can't see how any Bama fan wouldn't want to get in, deserving or not.

 

[statgrad96]

I've now convinced myself Ole Miss is going to get in lol

This is kind of where I've been. I don't think that Alabama is the problem for South Carolina, it's Ole Miss. To me, there is no way the committee could put South Carolina in over an Ole Miss team that boat raced them 27-3 at Columbia and was taking knees at the end of the game to not score more.

Also, like Alabama, Ole Miss has a win over UGA, which is better than any of the wins USCe has.

Honestly, I think that the committee will try to avoid all of this by just putting in the 2nd ACC team.

 

[KrAzY3]

This is kind of where I've been. I don't think that Alabama is the problem for South Carolina, it's Ole Miss. To me, there is no way the committee could put South Carolina in over an Ole Miss team that boat raced them 27-3 at Columbia and was taking knees at the end of the game to not score more.

Also, like Alabama, Ole Miss has a win over UGA, which is better than any of the wins USCe has.

Honestly, I think that the committee will try to avoid all of this by just putting in the 2nd ACC team.

A couple of issues there. Ole Miss's resume is really worse than South Carolina or Alabama. They just have the head to head over South Carolina. But, if we're talking SoS then they are clearly lagging behind. Their SoS is 46 according to Sagarin, that's not even in the same ballpark. Their win over Georgia and head to head victory are allowing them to stay ahead of SC but the other metrics are clearly placing them behind Alabama. They also lost to Florida and Kentucky so they are carrying bad losses as well.

As far as the committee, they put in a second ACC team in their next rankings and they are doing something pretty dangerous potentially. Let's say for the sake of argument they put Miami ahead of Alabama, Ole Miss, and South Carolina. That alone is a bold statement, it's saying a team that beat no one , has an SoS of 61 and is ranked 14th according to Sagarin belongs in.

It also opens the door for three ACC teams to get in. So if SMU loses to Clemson, are both those teams in and leaving Miami in as well? Does the ACC deserve as many teams as the SEC? That would be a bold and ultimately incredibly stupid move by the committee.

Mind you, I'm basing this all on what they should do not necessarily what they will do, heh.

 

[editder]

On one hand, I want to see us make the playoffs and see if we can string several good games together. For example, play like we did against Georgia in the first quarter, but string together several games like that. On the other hand, I don't want to see us go on the road the first game and then have the opposing team's fans rush the field once again after we lay an egg. But, we've proven we can play well when we have time to prepare.

I love it that opposing teams rush the field when they win against us. People don’t rush the field when they beat Mississippi State.