This Alabama Team belongs in the 12 Team Playoff

[TideEngineer08]

The only good thing that comes out of committee meetings are people….

 

[jcabama]

I’ve enjoyed this thread and have some empathy for Tusk’s position. Much is (and probably should be made) of the OU loss but as I reflect on that game again, I can’t help but wonder what would have happened without the atrocious call made on RW’s negated TD. At the least it would have made the score more respectable and at the most it could have turned the momentum enough to make it even closer or possibly change the outcome. Don’t get me wrong, our qb played terribly, our D was not as prepared as they could have been and in every phase we were out coached but momentum is real in this sport and that play drained what little life we showed right out the door. I don’t know what committees do with info like this but with all the other data points comparing sos this might tip my lean if I were seated. Hope we get in, but will not whine if we don’t.

 

[M2J]

The OU and Vandy losses are super disappointing. But because this isn't a vintage Alabama team... The mainstream and ACC even Rece Davis is taking this situation to just allow for an invitational to teams that haven't been there before. I'm not going to be furious because I'd rather not lose 4 games and have that 4th loss be to tOSU possibly and I don't believe the 13th or 14th teams have the right to be furious... No more than I thought the 6th or 7th team sometimes during the old CFP.

BUT the point of the expansion is to allow the fringe teams that do accomplish something like become ACC or Big 12 or mid major champ to have a chance. Point of the committee is to look at resumes. Miami and SMU resumes highlight that they've played weaker schedules and any fine team they play, they lost to. Bama lost 2 they should've won but proved they can execute against 3 ranked teams include 1 top 10, and lost by 6 to another top 10. SMU and Miami didn't even play a top 15 team.

When I have multiple resumes, it's more likely I'll be more interested in the candidate that has some accomplishments against the field we're trying to compete to be a part of...even if there are some failures rather than a candidate that has big failures and hasn't even tried against the competition in the field. Sure they have wins, but this is no different than when the mid majors used to go 11-1 or 10-2 and were an after thought. The ACC and Big 12 are diminished and super conferences are a thing right now and the SEC is the super conference. 9 wins and mean more than 11. Even their top named teams want to join the SEC. SMU has every opportunity this Saturday to get there... Win

 

[BamaNation]

Coach Saban had an EXCELLENT point this week when asked about what to consider if Clemson beats SMU:

“Strength of schedule, and what teams did you beat?” Saban said. “How many good teams did you beat? I think that speaks volumes about what kind of team you’re capable of being. I think there’s a lot of ups and downs in college football. Probably the system has created that to some degree. It’s more difficult to be consistent."​

https://www.al.com/alabamafootball/...bama-vs-smu-for-potential-final-cfp-spot.html

So, instead of looking at who teams lost to, look at who they beat so you know their upside potential and what they have the ability to do. I've been trying to figure out why teams should continue playing tough schedules if we get left out. This is the best logic on how to evaluate teams with similar records that I've seen from anyone who had commented on it and it should be the approach the CFP committee explicitly articulates the next time their yokel gets on TV to talk about it. It's not enough just to talk about "strength of record" which is what the comments usually revolve around. It's how did you do against the best of those you played. We're 3-1 against CFP Top 25. 'Nuff said.

 

[crimsonaudio]