Started By
Message
re: CFB needs Bama to win
Posted on 11/28/18 at 7:04 am to RiverCityTider
Posted on 11/28/18 at 7:04 am to RiverCityTider
quote:
Which victory has established Bama as an all time great?
If any of those victories--and the manner in which they were won--aren't so great, why has no one done it in the last 130 years?
None of Oklahoma's or Ohio State's wins are remotely impressive. Good thing for them they play in much weaker conferences.
But, yeah, this is all a moot troll thread anyway. You're trolling and Bama's rolling Saturday. RTR
1
Posted on 11/28/18 at 7:25 am to The Quiet One
Beating Ga will prove more than all those wins combined.
I actually think Ga is much better than anyone we have played .
I actually think Ga is much better than anyone we have played .
Posted on 11/28/18 at 7:51 am to RiverCityTider
quote:
Which victory has established Bama as an all time great?
It's not possible for one victory to make a team an "all-time" great. It's just a ridiculous notion.
Having said that, Bama through 12 games in 2018 has put together one of the most impressive regular seasons of all time, and it's obvious on the face of it. We literally blew out (beat by 3 scores) every team we faced.
Your dismissal of the importance of the "eye test" tells me all I need to know regarding the difference in the way you and I see the game. For me, the eye test, i.e. how good a team looks game in and game out, is the single most important metric to use when ranking teams. I've played enough football to know quality when I see it, and I can see it even when the team in question is playing against lesser competition. Hell, you can get a very good look at a team by just watching practice.
And so, you may believe that Alabama is definitely out of the playoffs with a loss to Ga. I do not. When the former coaches in the committee room posit the question, "Who would you least want to play?", there's no universe where 2018 Bama, even with a loss to Ga, is outside the top 4 in that metric.
Simply put, you are putting your own personal bias and personal perception on this whole deal, and what you personally think or want has nothing to do with anything. Bama has crushed every team they've faced this year, and running the gauntlet in that way means a hell of a lot. A reasonable loss to Ga doesn't erase the reality of that sustained domination.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 7:55 am to RiverCityTider
quote:
I actually think Ga is much better than anyone we have played
This is definitely true. GA, if they go toe-to-toe with Bama and lose, will still have a very good argument for the playoffs, especially if Oklahoma loses. I think a 2-loss Ga gets in over a 1 loss OSU.
OSU lost to 6-6 Purdue by 29, and needed overtime luck to beat 5-9 Maryland. They also had to come from behind and barely beat 4-8 Nebraska. I think OSU's only hope is for Oklahoma to lose and for Bama to blow the doors off GA.
If GA beats Bama, then I think OSU and Oklahoma are both left out.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 8:19 am to prevatt33
quote:
Simply put, you are putting your own personal bias and personal perception on this whole deal, and what you personally think or want has nothing to do with anything.
Ridiculous. I’m being as objective as possible. You are claiming that the committee will do something it has never done before. The onus is on you to defend that.
The wishful thinking is in believing that this committee will pick the four best teams.
Bama is impressive. But I was never more impressed by a team than 1973 Bama. And they blew their place in history with shitty special teams play resulting in a one point loss.
I believe
Georgia
Oklahoma
Ohio State
Clemson
Notre Dame
are at least better than any team we have played so far. So the idea that we have earned our way in already is ludicrous.
And the best win? Nationally the perception is its OSU over Michigan. That is the most impressive win according to the same people who thought Michigan had the best defense in the Country. And these people are seeing shades of 2014, when an OSU team got hot late and then rolled in the playoff.
No sir. Your wrong. I hope you never know it, because that would mean we screwed up in Atlanta.
Listen to Reese Davis insights on this. He is also convinced that Bama needs to win to get in.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 8:22 am to RiverCityTider
If this Bama team does not make the playoffs with one loss, then the playoffs are a fraud.
Bama is one of the best 4 teams in the nation period.
Bama is one of the best 4 teams in the nation period.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 8:55 am to RiverCityTider
quote:
Let’s get real. Which victory has established Bama as an all time great?
Auburn? Lol
LSU? Give me a break
Miss St. Come on
Texas A&M. Get real
Who does Bama need to beat? The '85 Bears?! This Alabama team has had the most dominant season in college football history.
Also, I'm laughing so hard at you saying over and over again that 'the committee has never done that' in regards to selecting a non-conference champion over a 1-loss conference champion.
a) you act like this committee has been in place for decades. The CFP is still a fairly new entity and there will inevitably be a number of things that the committee will do over the years that has 'never been done before'
b) you point out that the committee has never chosen a non-conference champion over a 1-loss conference champion, but you leave out the fact that UCF was left out last year, and they were an UNDEFEATED conference champion. (I'm not saying UCF deserved to be in last year, but it still negates the argument you are trying to make)
No, the committee has never chosen a 1-loss non conference champion over a 1-loss conference champion. The reason for this is because they've never been in anywhere close to a position to consider doing that. This is that situation.
I've said this over and over again, but I'll say it once more. Some people in this thread keep treating a conference championship like it's a playoff qualifier, and IT IS NOT. If you treat the conference championship games like just another game on the schedule, neither Oklahoma or Ohio State would have a case to pass Alabama in the rankings, even with a loss to Georgia. I get that pretty much every other sport gives their conference champions an automatic playoff bid, but that is not how college football works. It has never worked that way. Alabama got into the championship game (and won it) in the BCS era without winning their conference, and that was when there were only two teams in the mix instead of 4. The CFP selection process is not so different except that it's a human comittee instead of a computer. They are still looking for the BEST 4 TEAMS, not the BEST 4 CONFERENCE CHAMPS. Until some of you guys can wrap your mind around that, you will never get it.
ONE MORE THING: All this talk about how this or that will 'tear college football apart' is a joke, and a total overreaction. It will do no such thing. I realize there is Bama fatigue, and fans all over the country would love for another team to take them out, but be that as it may, people are still watching the playoffs and championship games in record numbers. I heard so much talk last year about how the ratings for an all-SEC national championship game would be so bad, because half the country wouldn't be interested. Well...turns out the Alabama/Georgia national championship game was the second most watched cable event EVER. So get out of here with that crap. No matter what decision the committee makes this year, it won't 'tear college football apart'. It will make some teams mad, just like it does every year, and they will get over it and try again next season, just like they do every year.
This post was edited on 11/28/18 at 9:08 am
Posted on 11/28/18 at 11:40 am to RiverCityTider
quote:
You are claiming that the committee will do something it has never done before. The onus is on you to defend that.
One, there's no onus on me or anyone else in this conversation.
Two, I'm not claiming the committee will "do something it's never done before", as if we're considering some outlandish thing like putting a G5 team in.
The thing you continue to fail to realize every time you spout this "done something they've never done before" drivel is that THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN UNDEFEATED NOTRE DAME BEFORE. Also, there THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A YEAR WITH 3 UNDEFEATED P5 TEAMS. Hell, as best as I could quickly investigate, there has never been a year with 2 undefeated P5 teams. Remember, there have only been 4 fricking years of this shite!
There have also only been 4 iterations the playoffs, and so I have no idea why you taking the results of only 4 years and acting like there's some written-in-stone blueprint for this, like it's some centuries old process.
There are only 4 spots in the playoffs, and so there are 5 power 5 teams and a few independents with a shot, most notably ND. And in full view of this knowledge you are purporting that the committee will never leave out a 1-loss conference champ. Well, even you from your fictitious high horse can see that this year, if Oklahoma and OSU both win on Saturday, the committee will be forced to do the very thing that you say is impossible - leave out a 1-loss conference champion. It will be Bama, Clemson, ND, and either OK or OSU (assuming Bama and Clemson win).
And so, how in the ever loving frick, are you still yammering on about an impossibility that very well may definitely happen in less than a week?
And guess what, it will continue to happen in each and every year that there are 4 better options above the 1-loss conference champion.
Yes, I agree that in most years, any 1-loss conference champion ought to be safe. But it isn't every year. And it's possible each and every year for a P5 to make the playoffs and have more losses than a team who gets left out. This is due to the teams being chosen based on the preponderance of evidence regarding who the best teams are, not simply who won what regional trophy or counting everyone's losses.
You are just wrong, and at this point, embarrassing yourself.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 11:51 am to bamafan1001
quote:
Only one team west of the rockies has made a playoff in 4...now 5 playoffs.
2014 Oregon
2016 Washington
Posted on 11/28/18 at 11:57 am to RiverCityTider
Wait, my bad. ND can't possibly make the playoffs - the committee has never chosen a team with blue in their uniforms before. How could I have been so stupid? Such a fricking stupidly moronic retarded fricking stupid fricking retarded retard.
This post was edited on 11/28/18 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 11/28/18 at 12:01 pm to prevatt33
ND might be undefeated, but they are not one of the best 4 teams in the country.
Bama, Clemson, Ohio St, Oklahoma and Georgia would destroy them.
Vandy almost beat them and probably should have beat them.
LSU, Miss St and A&M would probably beat them.
Bama, Clemson, Ohio St, Oklahoma and Georgia would destroy them.
Vandy almost beat them and probably should have beat them.
LSU, Miss St and A&M would probably beat them.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 12:03 pm to remaster916
I don't disagree.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 12:09 pm to remaster916
quote:
ND might be undefeated, but they are not one of the best 4 teams in the country.
Bama, Clemson, Ohio St, Oklahoma and Georgia would destroy them.
Vandy almost beat them and probably should have beat them.
LSU, Miss St and A&M would probably beat them.
I don't completely disagree with you, but you can't say with 100% certainty that any of these teams would beat Notre Dame (like you, I believe most if not all of them would beat the Irish, but ND hasn't lost yet, so who knows for sure?)
You can't use the 'Vandy almost beat them' argument to justify why another team would beat them.
5-7 Maryland and 4-8 Nebraska almost beat Ohio State.
5-7 Texas Tech and 6-6 Oklahoma State almost beat Oklahoma.
Clemson barely beat Syracuse 27-23, but Notre Dame handily beat Syracuse 36-3.
Everybody talks about what a huge win Ohio State had over Michigan, but fails to point out that Notre Dame beat Michigan in the first week of the season, and that was when ND was still starting Wimbush at QB instead of Book. Notre Dame is undoubtedly a better offense since Book took over.
This post was edited on 11/28/18 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 11/28/18 at 1:06 pm to DeeBeepy
Clemson barely best Syracuse because they had a 3rd string QB in the game.
Syracuse lost their QB in the ND game.
Syracuse lost their QB in the ND game.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 1:55 pm to prevatt33
quote:
if Oklahoma and OSU both win on Saturday, the committee will be forced to do the very thing that you say is impossible - leave out a 1-loss conference champion. It will be Bama, Clemson, ND, and either OK or OSU (assuming Bama and Clemson win).
Of course you know I was referring to the fact that the committee has never left out a one loss champ in favor of a conference runner up.
But don’t let that stop you. Blither on.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 1:57 pm to RiverCityTider
quote:
I believe
Georgia
Oklahoma
Ohio State
Clemson
Notre Dame
are at least better than any team we have played so far. So the idea that we have earned our way in already is ludicrous.
So you are saying that in order to qualify for the playoffs, a team must have a win over another potential playoff team. Nice circular logic you got there. Gotcha. Bold strategy, Cotton.
Another thing. Guess who else will make the playoffs even if they lose on Saturday? Clemson.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 2:04 pm to RiverCityTider
quote:
Of course you know I was referring to the fact that the committee has never left out a one loss champ in favor of a conference runner up.
But don’t let that stop you. Blither on.
No sir, nope, nuh-uh. You yammered your pie hole on and on about the committee "doing something they've never done before," and you entire premise was built on that singular notion.
I showed through multiple examples how the committee can and will do whatever they please in order to rank the 4 best teams, and that the past is no precedent whatsoever for the future, particularly in a year with an unprecedented number of undefeated P5 teams.
Also, you insinuated that the onus was on me to prove you assertion wrong, which is arse-backwards. This is something stupid people say in the middle of an argument. What - scientists can just claim whatever the hell they want, and the rest of the scientific community has to refute it? bullshite. Each and every entity has the responsibility of the burden of proof of their own assertions. It was and is you responsibility to support whatever assertions you are making, not mine.
Again, you have become a laughing stock in this thread, and and now back-tracking your own statements to save face. Just stop, bro. It's over.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 2:20 pm to RiverCityTider
RCT, I'm going to stop with this thread now. All that can be said between us has been said, and there's no point in continuing on. If you've got another post in ya, post it. But I won't reply. Despite our disagreement here, I've enjoyed the discussion. Let's call this one and have a clean slate in another argument another day. Take care. 
Posted on 11/28/18 at 2:23 pm to prevatt33
Calm down son. Hopefully we won’t have to find out.
We just disagree on to what extent a conference championship is weighted. It seems clear to me that the w-l record carries more weight. See Ohio State last year.
But we are yet to see a scenario whereby, through strength of schedule or the “eye test” or whatever, a one lost champion is jumped by a non champion.
Most would say 2011 played a roll in the advent of the playoff. Do you disagree? To date, the committee hasn’t been forced into a decision between a one loss champ and a one loss runner up.
So the question is, when that happens, will they defer to the champion. I say yes for several reasons, not the least of which is the hell raised over 2011 and the risk of alienating the majority of college football against the current system. There is money involved here. And there is pressure to spread the wealth and the prestige. In that environment it will be hard to justify putting a team in that lost their championship less than 24 hours ago.
We just disagree on to what extent a conference championship is weighted. It seems clear to me that the w-l record carries more weight. See Ohio State last year.
But we are yet to see a scenario whereby, through strength of schedule or the “eye test” or whatever, a one lost champion is jumped by a non champion.
Most would say 2011 played a roll in the advent of the playoff. Do you disagree? To date, the committee hasn’t been forced into a decision between a one loss champ and a one loss runner up.
So the question is, when that happens, will they defer to the champion. I say yes for several reasons, not the least of which is the hell raised over 2011 and the risk of alienating the majority of college football against the current system. There is money involved here. And there is pressure to spread the wealth and the prestige. In that environment it will be hard to justify putting a team in that lost their championship less than 24 hours ago.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 2:27 pm to remaster916
quote:
Clemson barely best Syracuse because they had a 3rd string QB in the game.
Syracuse scored 23 on Clemson's defense. Does Trevor Lawrence play defense too?
quote:
Of course you know I was referring to the fact that the committee has never left out a one loss champ in favor of a conference runner up.
Since you want to go that route, find me ONE SINGLE INSTANCE since the CFP was created where there has been a one-loss team that did not win their conference and didn't make the playoff. The fact is, ending the season with one loss and NOT winning the conference is rarely ever going to happen (Alabama is the only team that has done it) so of course the committee has never been faced with this decision. The fact remains that Alabama has appeared FAR more dominant through 12 games than Ohio State or Oklahoma. It's not even close.
This post was edited on 11/28/18 at 2:32 pm
Page 4 of 5
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News