Jump to content

blutow

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by blutow

  1. +100, that is my hope and why I think it can only be good if Bama beats Georgia. Yeah, I agree that SEC should be on the bubble if Georgia doesn't win, I'm just not sure the football gods would allow that. The talk of 2 teams from SEC or B1G is silly in my opinion. I get the argument that OSU or Georgia might still be one of the best 4 teams in the country, but that's not how it works. Results/championships matter. If the committee was just picking the best 4 teams, FSU wouldn't even be in the discussion right now.
  2. I'm sitting on the fence between both camps. I think there is a decent chance the committee doesn't have the balls to exclude the SEC and will have to let Bama in if they win the conference. If that happens, I hope the discussion would be "well, we can't exclude Texas if we include Bama, let's take another look at FSU and Oregon.....". I think Bama winning is a long shot, but that scenario absolutely gives us a better shot than if Georgia wins (where there is a 100% guarantee they get a spot while also making our win over Bama less valuable).
  3. It's only nonsense if you believe 2 SEC teams get in. I know you think that (and anything is possible with a human committee), but that scenario is way, way crazier than the other scenarios. The only time it's happened in the past is when the non-champ goes in over a 2 loss champ. It's looking like it will be 5 very deserving champs. It's not the best team on paper, the results of the games have to matter to some degree.
  4. ??? If we have a one loss UGA, Bama only has one loss. It's the only game left.
  5. Bama beating Georgia can only help us. It's the committee's worst nightmare. They will want to put Bama in so bad, but it's really hard to discount that head to head loss to Texas. I'm not ruling out the committee putting Bama in and leaving Texas out in that situation, but it's still better than Georgia winning. If there is a situation where they leave an undefeated FSU out (or push champ Oregon out), a Bama win over Georgia increases the odds of either of those things happening.
  6. If huskies win, they go. If Oregon wins, they probably go, but Texas would at least have an argument.
  7. Oregon got ahead of us because 3 days before the first CFP rankings they beat Utah convincingly (ranked at the time) and OU lost to Kansas after almost losing to UCF the prior week (making our loss to OU look pretty bad). Then OU lost another one the next week. Once they put Oregon in front of us, (which was dumb to start with), nothing dramatic enough has happened to correct it. I doubt the tech win will be enough to shuffle the standings (since Oregon just beat a ranked OSU), but I guess it's possible.
  8. Yeah, I think the one loss Bama vs. Texas debate is a total shot in the dark and could fall either way. Logically it should be Texas, but we all know the committee members have agendas they are pushing and there are no hard rules. But I still think Bama winning out can only help Texas. I know anything is possible, but a 1 loss (non-champ) Georgia getting in as a 2nd SEC team (over a 1 loss champ Texas or Oregon) is way, way off the deep end in my opinion. The only situations I can remember that a P5 non-champ has gotten in over a champ is when the conference champ has 2 or more losses.
  9. I didn't see tonight's post game, but his comments leading into the ATM game were a little odd. He was overtly complimentary of ATM of player and coaches, with the exception of Jimbo not getting it done despite having everything needed. Could have just been Kiffin being Kiffin and the usual Jimbo hate, but my first thought was that Kiffin was opening a path for the job if it came open soon (or at least make a little noise to get Ole Miss to bump up his current salary). I'd have to think ATM was putting out feelers before firing Jimbo and maybe Kiffin was one of them. Seems like a poor culture fit, but does work with the speculation of ATM wanting to keep some of the defensive coaching staff in place.
  10. I'm not sure the committee share's his view of the world, but pretty good perspective from Pate here.
  11. It's the first time in the CFP era that we've been able to argue about this shit in late November. I'm gonna get my $'s worth. Nothing that is said about anything on this site makes a shit.
  12. The committee dug themselves into a stupid hole when they put Oregon in front of Texas and Bama in the initial rankings. Eye test and timing are the only explanation... I hope they use tech as a reason to adjust, but I seriously doubt that will happen. While they are supposed to consider common opponent results, they are theoretically not supposed to reward based on margin of victory. It's all bullshit, so they will do what they want and clearly we need these late season games to be convincing wins. If you look at what the criteria are supposed to be, a CCG champ Texas should be in good shape against a 1 loss Oregon, Bama, non-champ Georgia, non-champ OSU/Mich etc.. But it all likely comes down to who in that room can push their agenda on the others. Here's what "must" be considered by the committee (but then potentially ignored) - When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered: Championships won Strength of schedule Head‐to‐head competition (if it occurred) Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)
  13. Yeah, agree to disagree. The SEC (or BIG) isn't getting 2 teams in this year unless there is total chaos. I do think there is decent chance they put Bama in front of Texas if they beat Georgia, but again they are only getting one spot unless everyone start losing this weekend.
  14. There is no situation where an SEC or BIG CCG loser goes in over Texas if we win out (or Oregon if they win out). Yeah, they have let CCG losers in in the past, but under different circumstances.
  15. Yeah, I still like our chances if we win out. But any way you cut it, a Bama win against Georgia helps our chances (even if it means Bama jumps Texas after the win). Bama winning improves the chances of a couple paths where we get in. Bama losing only hurts our chances since our win will be devalued a bit.
  16. We are locked in if FSU loses. I'm not sure how washington winning would help Texas, I rather both Washington and Oregon lose this weekend and that would lock Texas as well. Of course, Texas still needs to win out....
  17. Good on McElroy for pushing strongly for Texas over Bama based on head to head if it comes to that. Seems like opinions are pretty split on that one. It really would suck for Bama to be excluded after winning the SEC and they would basically be punished for scheduling a tough team early in the year. The right answer is that Texas and Bama should have been in front of Oregon from the start based on resume, but I can't see how they back pedal from what they have already screwed up (short of just admitting that they screwed up the initial rankings).
  18. Yeah, 13-1 is a great year any way you slice it, but missing CFP with that record (and the nature of our 1 loss) would suck. Even with a really good team, it's hard to get through a season with that record. When the stars align, you absolutely want to take your shot. We'd be a dangerous team in the playoffs. The only potential downside would be a blowout loss, but even that is probably better than a meaningless bowl game where many key players on both teams would probably be sitting out.
  19. If Bama beat Georgia in CCG, it's possible Texas could get the nod over Bama and SEC would be out. Bama would have better resume (and a very big recent win), but Texas would have the head to head. It would be an interesting discussion, but I bet Bama would get in based on overall resume and SEC historical dominance in CFP. Even with SEC bias, I can't see any way a CCG loser (even if it's UGA) gets in over any 1 loss or undefeated CCG winner.
  20. That all happened in the past and should have played into the initial rankings that put Oregon in front of Texas/Alabama. From my perception, they really screwed up the initial ranking and they won't change it going forward unless they can come up with the narrative the explain the logic. You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube. I don't see them saying "sorry, we didn't put much thought into the initial rankings, but we are looking at it logically now and moving Oregon behind Texas and Bama". Assuming it plays out with Oregon beating undefeated top ~5 Washington in the CCG, the case for Oregon over Texas gets stronger, not weaker.
  21. There is still room for PAC to be left out. I'm not saying it's likely, but Oregon could lose to Oregon state and then Washington loses in the CCG. An FSU loss is far and away the most likely path in for Texas.
  22. Yeah, that's rational/logical. But unfortunately they dug a deep hole by putting Oregon in front of Texas/Bama in the initial rankings (based on eye test at the time and OU loss making our loss look worse). They would need a "narrative" to explain a change going forward. It doesn't have to be a great explanation, but they need something to explain why it's changed. They could explain Bama jumping over Oregon based on a CCG win against Georgia (more impressive than Oregon beating an undefeated Washington), but I don't think a Texas CCG win over a lower ranked OSU or OU could be argued as a bigger win than Oregon over undefeated Washington. If we win out, I still like our chances, but we'll need help. FSU loss is most likely.
  23. +1 on this. Yeah, in some ways it was frustrating to be "so close" for so long, but that's a hell of a lot better than just hoping for bowl eligibility. If Sark can build a program that is in the mix consistently, good things will come. After living through McWilliams and Mackovic and then Strong and Herman, I'm sign up for Mack 2.0 in a heart beat.
  24. The CFP committee chairman mentioned consideration for injuries a couple times during his short interview. I'm not sure if that means they are currently giving teams like Texas propped up a bit until we get healthier or if it means they rank teams based on who is playing right now. I hesitate to read anything into what these guys say, I think it's probably driven by whoever in that room is best at pushing their agenda. I assume there must be ground rules when ESPN asks them questions about the rankings/criteria. Otherwise, why wouldn't ESPN just ask what logic the committee is using to the rank Oregon over Texas and Bama?
×
×
  • Create New...