Started By
Message
re: Lawyer's Perspective: Georgia is Objectively a Top Four Team
Posted on 12/7/23 at 10:21 am to SummerOfGeorge
Posted on 12/7/23 at 10:21 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Georgia's issue was that while they are objectively one of the 4 best they don't have an objectively top 4 resume and played a good but not great SoS. Combine that with no conference title and they weren't going to get in in a year like this.
A fair counterargument, but ultimately unpersuasive. Strength of schedule is a delusive ranking that can punish teams playing in the best conferences.
The fact that Wake Forest may be ranked above Arkansas or Arizona State may be ranked above Vanderbilt skews the "strength of schedule" ranking, but is ultimately irrelevant. Would Georgia not have beaten Wake or ASU in the same way that it beat Arkansas and Vanderbilt?
Wins over ranked teams is a more appropriate evaluation of relative teams' strength. Georgia enjoyed dominating wins over #21 Tennessee, #11 Ole Miss, #9 Missouri, and lost by a FG to #4 Alabama. That is a more impressive resume than - as evidenced above - any team currently in the playoffs other than Alabama.
The fact that #8 Alabama was only granted a spot (and thus moved up four ranks) due to its victory over the #1 team proves that Georgia is indeed a playoff team. How else can one justify Alabama's rank advancement?
This post was edited on 12/7/23 at 10:25 am
2
Posted on 12/7/23 at 10:26 am to ClassicCityAlum
quote:
Wins over ranked teams is a more appropriate evaluation of relative teams' strength. Georgia enjoyed dominating wins over #21 Tennessee, #11 Ole Miss, #9 Missouri, and lost by a FG to #4 Alabama. That is a more impressive resume than - as evidenced above - any team currently in the playoffs other than Alabama.
I don't disagree, but Michigan's 3 best wins (vs #7 Ohio State, @ #10 Penn St, N #17 Iowa) are "better" than Georgia's 2 best wins (vs #9 Mizzou, vs #11 Ole Miss, @ #21 Tennessee). So it kind of washes out, there. Then you throw in that Michigan is undefeated and Georgia isn't plus Michigan won the B1G and Georgia didn't win the SEC, and you can see where they fell the way they fell.
Comparatively, Alabama's 3 best wins (#6 UGA, #11 Ole Miss, #13 LSU) are much better than FSU's 3 best wins (#13 LSU, #15 Louisville, #22 Clemson), and like Georgia, Alabama's only loss is to a playoff team, while FSU didn't play a team in the Top 12 all season.
quote:
The fact that #8 Alabama was only granted a spot (and thus moved up four ranks) due to its victory over the #1 team proves that Georgia is indeed a playoff team. How else can one justify Alabama's rank advancement?
Rank advancement is irrelevant as the committee re-ranks the entire Top 25 from scratch each week. Can you argue that their previous rankings were silly? Obviously. Alabama and Texas being behind Oregon was always egregious based on the facts on the ground (not to mention Ohio State).
Long story short, I'm not saying I agree with them, but there is a reasonable argument for why Michigan is in and Georgia isn't.
This post was edited on 12/7/23 at 10:29 am
Posted on 12/7/23 at 10:34 am to ClassicCityAlum
You cowards could have kept Oklahoma on your schedule, but decided to schedule yet another cupcake instead. You needed a real win over a proven winner, and you were allowed that opportunity in the SECCG. As usual Bama skull dragged your team up and down the field and dominated in the trenches.
The conference championship is usually the first round of the playoffs. Win or go home. That's why it's really weird you were somehow voted in after being demolished by Bama two years ago.
Now be a good dog, and Go beat FSU and make us all proud.
The conference championship is usually the first round of the playoffs. Win or go home. That's why it's really weird you were somehow voted in after being demolished by Bama two years ago.
Now be a good dog, and Go beat FSU and make us all proud.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News