Kirby Smart ranks Bama #6 in final coaches poll..

[KrAzY3]

By my count we won 1 that we shouldn’t so if we take your one that you that the playoffs costed us then we are even.

Umm... you think I didn't factor that in?

 

[81usaf92]

Umm... you think I didn't factor that in?

Then what’s your point? One of your favorite Bama teams didn’t win but one of your least favorites did?

 

[81usaf92]

I think we would have less BCS apologists and revisionists had Colt threw this ball 1 second later.

Because this ultimately forces one of 3 matchups for a national championship and they are all bogus.

1) Bama vs Texas- why the hell did Bama have to play what was essentially a playoff game vs Florida while Texas got to lose a meaningless game to Nebraska and have no punishment for it. It’s 2003 all over again.

2) Bama vs Florida II- So we are forced into a direct rematch against a team we just drug across the Ga Dome carpet. But this time we play it with a hurt quarterback.

3) Bama vs TCU- So if TCU wins here, they essentially play a one game season and win a national championship. I mean this would be a far more bogus national champion and national championship game than anything the playoffs ever came up. Yet TCU was #3 in the post conference championship week standings.

Literally one play in Dallas saved the BCS and Alabama from probably the worst national championship scenario in history. Because essentially you either gave the #2 team a mulligan that they clearly didn’t deserve to prevent TCU from getting in or rewarded TCU for playing absolutely no one.

 

[rylandtide]

Smart:

1. UGA
2. TCU
3. Michigan
4. Ohio St.
5. Tennessee
6. Bama

…just more fuel for the fire, I’d say. Dude is a tool for sure, and disrespectful to the man that made him…

I question more his vote for #2. Anyone that voted TCU 2 is a few tools short in the tool box.

 

[bamaga]

Hate to say it, but he’s closer to being right than Nick putting us at No. 2. I’d have us no higher than 4 and probably at 5.

What 4 teams do you rank ahead of us? Michigan that lost to TCU? TCU that lost all dignity a couple of Mondays ago? Ohio St? ok, maybe Ohio St. Tennessee that lost by a million to USCe? all teams have warts, losing on the last play of the game twice in hostile environments are better looking to me. I have Alabama #3 .

 

[deliveryman35]

What 4 teams do you rank ahead of us? Michigan that lost to TCU? TCU that lost all dignity a couple of Mondays ago? Ohio St? ok, maybe Ohio St. Tennessee that lost by a million to USCe? all teams have warts, losing on the last play of the game twice in hostile environments are better looking to me. I have Alabama #3 .

Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan, for sure---and I"d probably throw in Tennessee. Michigan lost to TCU because of Jim Harbaugh' s brain dead play-calling and Tennessee--WITH Hindon Hooker--IMO was a better team than Alabama.

 

[bamaga]

Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan, for sure---and I"d probably throw in Tennessee. Michigan lost to TCU because of Jim Harbaugh' s brain dead play-calling and Tennessee--WITH Hindon Hooker--IMO was a better team than Alabama.

Tennessee? They beat Alabama on the last play of the game In Knoxville. Good teams don’t get blown out by mediocre South Carolina .

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I think you know my proposal.. but simply put no playoff.

That was my understanding years ago, but I can't assume that your position is necessarily the same as 2011, either. That's why I asked.

If there must be one, then I proposed a 3 team one with #1 seed getting a bye based on BCS style rankings and #2 playing at home. Remember I proposed that years ago as well.

It's basically the Plus One game - but you still have humans deciding who is 1, 2, and 3.

They playoff has provided no tangible benefit to the credibility of determining a champion.

I disagree. You gonna go tell defending champion Clemson, with a 29-game winning streak and an unbeaten season, "Too bad, you don't get to play for the championship"? That's exactly what happens with the BCS in 2019. And why should Clemson have to play the play-in game against a powerhouse?

In fact as we've seen the process has only undermined the true credibility of the sport, with absolute absurdities like pretending TCU is #2. It lends pretend credibility but it's just a second super special season.

All that happened was we found out what we always suspected with the minor programs. Two years from now NOBODY INCLUDING TCU will care they finished at #2. They will still be remembering that blasting they got in the last game.

I'm not going to quote it all for the sake of time and space, but...
All playoffs have arbitrary criteria! Every single one, it's just a matter of who decides what. What are the divisions, most rely on automatic entrants, but they have produced all sorts of their own absurdities. They all get lost in their own man made creations, which are for the most part built around inclusion. Which by the way is what I say the college playoff would always be about. Even the SEC commissioner publicly supported expansion or the sake of inclusion, so let's not pretend playoffs are anything other than a process made to make the not-so-special teams feel special.

The SEC has supported a playoff since at least the early 1990s, but they wanted it maxed at four teams. The expansion is basically, "Well, okay, we'll give you this but you have to give us that," which is going to be good for the conference when we have 3, 4, maybe even 5 teams in what will prove to be a monstrosity but no more so than meaningless bowl games.

I was critical of those people in that room for a number of reasons. One of which you've seen me mention often which is their criteria. But also because there is no counter balance. You know what I've said so you know my complaints.

As far as Sagarin, correct me if I'm wrong but it's a made made computer rankings. So he doesn't change them on a whim, he simply displays the results. He's not capable of doing things like we've seen the human controlled rankings do, which is show clear favoritism.

Yes, it's made of computer rankings.

And... here you have why I so vocally defended the BCS. The BCS was a combination of merit based things that produced in my mind what was the best system as of yet that we've seen in choosing participants. Nothing is perfect, but the two polls had their roles reduced enough that a few people in a room couldn't really take over the process, much less completely control it like the playoff committee did.

But here is where you lose me - because there are no circumstances under which 2003 Oklahoma is somehow BETTER getting into a championship than 2022 TCU was. Not. One. When a team ranked #1 can get blown out by a 3-loss team AND REMAIN #1 "because that's the system we have," I have some problems with that.

Now I will AGREE with you - and I've written many an article about it - that the BCS was NOWHERE NEAR AS BAD as the detractors wanted to say it was. 2000 FSU over Miami wasn't the end of the world (and everyone always excludes Washington for some reason in that one). 2001 Nebraska was a fluke caused by 9/11. And we got a great game in 2002 with Miami and Ohio State as well as 2005 with Texas and USC. Even the selection of Oklahoma over Texas in 2008, while debatable, was NOT the end of the world for anyone but Texas. So I "get" a lot of what you're saying here.

Finally, the computers brought hard numbers to the table, further flushing out bias. TCU is not a great team, we all knew it, but humans didn't want to admit it.

TCU beat Michigan - which they supposedly couldn't do.

Now, your counter might be wait, but the BCS would have chosen the same 4 teams! And yes, they would have in fact done that this year. But not in that order, and in fact I'd point out that the committee actually went the wrong direction in their rankings. They put TCU at #3 while the BCS had TCU at #4, exacerbating an issue when TCU had good fortune shine on it during the regular season. This gave TCU the very best matchup of the playoffs, and lead to the absolutely insane idea TCU was actually the #2 team.

You and I are in complete agreement that:
1) TCU should have at LEAST dropped to 4 (and would have with the BCS no doubt)
2) TCU being #2 is a disgusting joke that appears to be a new way of "well, the loser of the title game is the real #2"...even though they didn't think that when they made TCU #2 in 2014.

Nothing will be perfect, but small mistakes get amplified in the post season. The BCS had a way in which to weed out a lot of mistakes. The problem was it didn't please people (it didn't seem to please you for some reason despite serving Alabama quite well), their feelings, and have inclusion and so on. But that never should have been the goal.

My issue with the BCS was very simple - it was heavily weighted with preseason presuppositions that put a team like 2004 Auburn or - sans the Prothro injury, 2005 Alabama - in a no-win situation. "Yeah, too bad you won all your games, next year you should start the season ranked higher. Tough luck!" Now granted...my issue was the three unbeaten teams scenario like 2019. But the next problem is "which one-loss team should be here?" I mean, we found out in 2000 - according to the BCS - "Miami, yeah we know you beat Florida State, but tough! Your loss to Washington miraculously turns your win over Florida State into a Florida State win over you, too bad, try next year." Again - DEFENSIBLE in the larger picture because FSU had a substantially tougher SoS...but pretty difficult to justify "every game counts," which was their motto.

Now... what I predicted years ago is happening. I said it would go like this did I not?

Indeed, you did. The crying for "we need more teams" began in 2014 when Ohio State was chosen over (wait for it) TCU. And this part I never doubted you on, either.

So you won't see me acting happy. Alabama has been undermined in this process by the way, The playoff has cost them dearly, they would have been a healthy team playing Michigan for the championship last year.

I fail to see this as undermining anything but okay.

We gained nothing by this... but to appease people who didn't truly care about crowning the most worthy champion anyway.

Again, this is where it devolves from a passionate objection into ludicrousness. "Hey, you beat THREE OF THE BEST TEAMS IN THE COUNTRY IN A ROW" does not turn some team into an "unworthy champion." Boise State is NOT....NOT......NOT going to get selected after playing a collection of in-season cupcakes and then play and beat Alabama, Ohio State, and Georgia in consecutive games.

But if they did...I don't see how that makes a champion unworthy. Because they weren't ranked by:
a) a bunch of humans who don't watch all the games
b) a bunch of computers who only know the data a human programs into them

I just don't see it.

Here's what's going to happen: Alabama is going to be the FIRST 2-loss team that has to play 3 games and win it - and actually does it. And then Alabama is going to be the FIRST #16 seed to do it, too.

I just wanted to assure your position hadn't changed - but you made remarks earlier over Super Bowl 42 and well, that's where I get lost. New England didn't have to play the Giants in some sort of injustice and then fail. And that's where I got lost.


Thanks - sincerely
RTR

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I think we would have less BCS apologists and revisionists had Colt threw this ball 1 second later.

Because this ultimately forces one of 3 matchups for a national championship and they are all bogus.

1) Bama vs Texas- why the hell did Bama have to play what was essentially a playoff game vs Florida while Texas got to lose a meaningless game to Nebraska and have no punishment for it. It’s 2003 all over again.

2) Bama vs Florida II- So we are forced into a direct rematch against a team we just drug across the Ga Dome carpet. But this time we play it with a hurt quarterback.

3) Bama vs TCU- So if TCU wins here, they essentially play a one game season and win a national championship. I mean this would be a far more bogus national champion and national championship game than anything the playoffs ever came up. Yet TCU was #3 in the post conference championship week standings.

Literally one play in Dallas saved the BCS and Alabama from probably the worst national championship scenario in history. Because essentially you either gave the #2 team a mulligan that they clearly didn’t deserve to prevent TCU from getting in or rewarded TCU for playing absolutely no one.

I think - and this goes for everyone INCLUDING me - that one's views on this are probably inextricably bound to whatever perceived injustices have been observed firsthand during a CFB season.

I began watching in 1978. The BCS began after I had watched 20 seasons of college ball.

Wanna know how many UNDISPUTED championships I saw in those 20 years?
Three (1986, 1992, 1995)

Every other year had SOME controversy. A team won a title despite a head-to-head loss (1978, 1993, 1996), another unbeaten there wasn't room for (1987), a soft touch schedule (1980, 1984) or "the bowls wouldn't let the best two teams settle it on the field" (1983, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1997).

The BCS was a HUGE STEP FORWARD that should not be sold short. Had we had the BCS in 1983, Nebraska plays Texas and one of them wins it. Same with Colorado and Ga Tech in 1990 and - probably best of all - Miami and Washington in 1991.

One of the things that went wrong in the early days of the BCS (2000, 2001) was NOBODY CAME OUT AND DEFENDED THE SYSTEM as it was. Not one pundit went with, "yes, I know Miami beat FSU, but it was by 3 points during FSU's worst quarter of the season, FSU played a tougher schedule - and who would you pick in a rematch?" Nobody spoke openly and said, "Yes, we understand the Nebraska thing is frustrating, but please know it only happened because the Washington State vs Colorado game wasn't played."

Problem was, people could understand a loss - they couldn't tolerate Nebraska going after getting routed, 62-36. 2003 simply convinced everyone the whole system was a joke. From that point on, it was ripped incessantly. The only time I can say we got the WRONG CHAMPIONSHIP GAME was when LSU should have played USC in 2003. Otherwise, even the controversial ones all appeared right to the eye test.

But, yes, you're correct that if the officials hadn't gone all Tim Donaghy on us and actually called that play what it was, the matchup would have been hilarious to see what happened.

(It would have been Cincinnati, coached by Brian Kelly btw).

 

[81usaf92]

I think - and this goes for everyone INCLUDING me - that one's views on this are probably inextricably bound to whatever perceived injustices have been observed firsthand during a CFB season.

I began watching in 1978. The BCS began after I had watched 20 seasons of college ball.

Wanna know how many UNDISPUTED championships I saw in those 20 years?
Three (1986, 1992, 1995)

Every other year had SOME controversy. A team won a title despite a head-to-head loss (1978, 1993, 1996), another unbeaten there wasn't room for (1987), a soft touch schedule (1980, 1984) or "the bowls wouldn't let the best two teams settle it on the field" (1983, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1997).

The BCS was a HUGE STEP FORWARD that should not be sold short. Had we had the BCS in 1983, Nebraska plays Texas and one of them wins it. Same with Colorado and Ga Tech in 1990 and - probably best of all - Miami and Washington in 1991.

One of the things that went wrong in the early days of the BCS (2000, 2001) was NOBODY CAME OUT AND DEFENDED THE SYSTEM as it was. Not one pundit went with, "yes, I know Miami beat FSU, but it was by 3 points during FSU's worst quarter of the season, FSU played a tougher schedule - and who would you pick in a rematch?" Nobody spoke openly and said, "Yes, we understand the Nebraska thing is frustrating, but please know it only happened because the Washington State vs Colorado game wasn't played."

Problem was, people could understand a loss - they couldn't tolerate Nebraska going after getting routed, 62-36. 2003 simply convinced everyone the whole system was a joke. From that point on, it was ripped incessantly. The only time I can say we got the WRONG CHAMPIONSHIP GAME was when LSU should have played USC in 2003. Otherwise, even the controversial ones all appeared right to the eye test.

But, yes, you're correct that if the officials hadn't gone all Tim Donaghy on us and actually called that play what it was, the matchup would have been hilarious to see what happened.

(It would have been Cincinnati, coached by Brian Kelly btw).

My problem is that every year Alabama doesn’t get in we have this constant nonsense that “this wouldn’t happen in the BCS”. But in fact it probably would if you just look at it objectively.

Aside from 2014, the committee hasn’t had to do anything that was just unexplainable. Honestly had the committee moved Michigan to #1 and TCU to #4 there would be less of an argument. But they ultimately did it because they didn’t want Ohio St fans taking over glendale because Georgia fans are going to be priced out since the national championship is in LA. They really did it so both top seeds would have a home atmosphere. Because let’s face it… TCU doesn’t have that many fans and both Ohio St and Michigan were going to travel.

 

[twofbyc]

The logic isn't wrong - top 4 teams are still the top 4 teams (hence TCU is 2 since they made the title game) and then you have Bama and UT and UT beat Bama so Bama is 6.

I don't agree... but I get it.

I don’t agree with that “logic”- if you lose, unless everyone else loses, you drop in the regular season. Applying different logic in the last ranking, especially after 2 was curb stomped by 1, smacks of arrogance by the CFPC in their unwillingness to admit they blew it.

 

[twofbyc]

Smart:

1. UGA
2. TCU
3. Michigan
4. Ohio St.
5. Tennessee
6. Bama

…just more fuel for the fire, I’d say. Dude is a tool for sure, and disrespectful to the man that made him…

I sincerely hope this is posted in the locker room.

 

[B1GTide]

I don’t agree with that “logic”- if you lose, unless everyone else loses, you drop in the regular season. Applying different logic in the last ranking, especially after 2 was curb stomped by 1, smacks of arrogance by the CFPC in their unwillingness to admit they blew it.

In fairness, the CFP's last ranking was the one that listed the top 4. They don't list final rankings based on results.

Also, everyone blaming the media for TCU's ranking needs to remember that the coach's poll came to the same conclusion. Those two polls seem to have a gentleman's agreement that the top 4 stay in the top 4, and the CG game loser stays at 2.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

My problem is that every year Alabama doesn’t get in we have this constant nonsense that “this wouldn’t happen in the BCS”. But in fact it probably would if you just look at it objectively.

Aside from 2014, the committee hasn’t had to do anything that was just unexplainable. Honestly had the committee moved Michigan to #1 and TCU to #4 there would be less of an argument. But they ultimately did it because they didn’t want Ohio St fans taking over glendale because Georgia fans are going to be priced out since the national championship is in LA. They really did it so both top seeds would have a home atmosphere. Because let’s face it… TCU doesn’t have that many fans and both Ohio St and Michigan were going to travel.

Yeah, but you know they'll never admit this.

I recall that morning I was sitting in church and my brother (the Emmy winner!) texted me the 2014 selections; I nearly fell in the floor from shock. Remember - almost every pundit out there had written off Ohio State for three reasons: 1) the Va Tech loss was pretty bad for a resume; 2) they were down to a third-string QB; 3) the ASSUMPTION we would operate under the old logic of "you're not gonna drop a team three spots in the polls after a 52-point win."

My instinctive reaction was, "They've already ruined the playoff, and here comes expansion." Because you're still never going to convince me that committee drops OKLAHOMA or TEXAS from 3 to 6 after that big a win. It LOOKED so brazen at the time as if to say, "it's an invitational and you don't draw!" It just looked so contrived to get a certain outcome to me. That being said - I also remembered when the pundits were clamoring for an Ohio State-Michigan rematch SIX WEEKS BEFORE THE GAME WAS PLAYED back in 2006. It was revolting to put it mildly. So I did know that it was possible that maybe Ohio State was underrated in 2014, too.

The rallying cry for expanding the playoff was always going to be there, but a team suddenly knocking out another team like that looked incredibly suspicious. What the committee COULD HAVE DONE to make it more acceptable was put Ohio State AHEAD of TCU the week the Buckeyes beat #25 Minnesota; the WORST thing the committee did (that nobody noticed at the time) was TCU jumped from SIX to FOUR - ahead of Alabama, mind you - after TCU thumped Kansas State by 21. Alabama got punished for that overtime win at LSU and TCU got moved ahead. In other words, their biggest mistake was giving TCU too much credit early on (Nebraska fell 3 spots in that same poll DURING AN OFF WEEK!).

I don't think the 2014 selection was wrong, but I DO think it gave the expansion people fuel for their arson, er, fire.

 

[81usaf92]

Yeah, but you know they'll never admit this.

I recall that morning I was sitting in church and my brother (the Emmy winner!) texted me the 2014 selections; I nearly fell in the floor from shock. Remember - almost every pundit out there had written off Ohio State for three reasons: 1) the Va Tech loss was pretty bad for a resume; 2) they were down to a third-string QB; 3) the ASSUMPTION we would operate under the old logic of "you're not gonna drop a team three spots in the polls after a 52-point win."

My instinctive reaction was, "They've already ruined the playoff, and here comes expansion." Because you're still never going to convince me that committee drops OKLAHOMA or TEXAS from 3 to 6 after that big a win. It LOOKED so brazen at the time as if to say, "it's an invitational and you don't draw!" It just looked so contrived to get a certain outcome to me. That being said - I also remembered when the pundits were clamoring for an Ohio State-Michigan rematch SIX WEEKS BEFORE THE GAME WAS PLAYED back in 2006. It was revolting to put it mildly. So I did know that it was possible that maybe Ohio State was underrated in 2014, too.

The rallying cry for expanding the playoff was always going to be there, but a team suddenly knocking out another team like that looked incredibly suspicious. What the committee COULD HAVE DONE to make it more acceptable was put Ohio State AHEAD of TCU the week the Buckeyes beat #25 Minnesota; the WORST thing the committee did (that nobody noticed at the time) was TCU jumped from SIX to FOUR - ahead of Alabama, mind you - after TCU thumped Kansas State by 21. Alabama got punished for that overtime win at LSU and TCU got moved ahead. In other words, their biggest mistake was giving TCU too much credit early on (Nebraska fell 3 spots in that same poll DURING AN OFF WEEK!).

I don't think the 2014 selection was wrong, but I DO think it gave the expansion people fuel for their arson, er, fire.

Let me clarify. Many people who are and have been beating the war drums against the playoffs constantly come up with a bunch of nonsense that the playoffs is allegedly doing and what the BCS would have prevented.

Stop me if you heard this one before: “the playoffs are going to reward a two loss team”. 2 things… 1) the BCS has a 2 loss national champion but the cfp has yet to allow a 2 loss participate and 2) We have half the board now arguing for a 2 loss Alabama. I mean I heard “the season is irrelevant because of the prospect of a 2 loss champ” for years and here we are arguing that the cfp got it wrong because it excluded the best two loss team in the country.

Or how about this one… “the BCS prevented a G5 team from sneaking in”. Well that’s only because it was a one vs two format, and even then it constantly made a G5 team the first alternate. I mean the committee has been far more punitive to G5 teams than the BCS ever was. Yeah Cincy got in, but it took pretty much everyone in the country aside from Bama, UGA, and Michigan to have two losses. They really made it a mission to kept UCF out.

Here is another thing, coaches will be far more pro conference when there are 4 teams included. Don’t believe me… look at Dabo sandbagging Ohio St to 11. In the BCS, there was a restriction of 2 teams in BCS bowls per conference. Coaches didn’t really care as much because the conferences were represented Here there really isn’t. So saying “let’s go back to the BCS formula” opens up alot of shenanigans than many actually believe

 

[Perrett4Bama]

No, it's more like find someone else with an unemotional explanation.

You can't look at everything with crimson colored glasses.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

In fairness, the CFP's last ranking was the one that listed the top 4. They don't list final rankings based on results.

Also, everyone blaming the media for TCU's ranking needs to remember that the coach's poll came to the same conclusion. Those two polls seem to have a gentleman's agreement that the top 4 stay in the top 4, and the CG game loser stays at 2.

That's all fine with me - but they need to spell that one out.
How is TCU #2 in 2014 using that argument?

And I "get" they may have decided, "Hey, this is better," but it's inconsistent, too.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Let me clarify. Many people who are and have been beating the war drums against the playoffs constantly come up with a bunch of nonsense that the playoffs is allegedly doing and what the BCS would have prevented.

Stop me if you heard this one before: “the playoffs are going to reward a two loss team”. 2 things… 1) the BCS has a 2 loss national champion but the cfp has yet to allow a 2 loss participate and 2) We have half the board now arguing for a 2 loss Alabama. I mean I heard “the season is irrelevant because of the prospect of a 2 loss champ” for years and here we are arguing that the cfp got it wrong because it excluded the best two loss team in the country.

Or how about this one… “the BCS prevented a G5 team from sneaking in”. Well that’s only because it was a one vs two format, and even then it constantly made a G5 team the first alternate. I mean the committee has been far more punitive to G5 teams than the BCS ever was. Yeah Cincy got in, but it took pretty much everyone in the country aside from Bama, UGA, and Michigan to have two losses. They really made it a mission to kept UCF out.

Here is another thing, coaches will be far more pro conference when there are 4 teams included. Don’t believe me… look at Dabo sandbagging Ohio St to 11. In the BCS, there was a restriction of 2 teams in BCS bowls per conference. Coaches didn’t really care as much because the conferences were represented Here there really isn’t. So saying “let’s go back to the BCS formula” opens up alot of shenanigans than many actually believe

Alabama fans - "that'll result in a 2-loss champion"
Also Alabama fans - "we won the 1941 national championship with a 2-loss team"
Also Alabama fans - "we should be in the CFP despite 2 losses because of something that the committee NEVER said"

 

[STONECOLDSABAN]

Alabama fans - "that'll result in a 2-loss champion"
Also Alabama fans - "we won the 1941 national championship with a 2-loss team"
Also Alabama fans - "we should be in the CFP despite 2 losses because of something that the committee NEVER said"

Also Alabama fans- "You can't expand the playoff, that will result in a two-loss champion."

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Also Alabama fans- "You can't expand the playoff, that will result in a two-loss champion."

We had a two-loss champion with the recognized polls (Minnesota in 1960).
We had a two-loss champion with the BCS.

The CFP has yet to let a 2-loss team into the field.

I fail to see how this isn't better...if the REAL concern is "two-loss champions."