Started By
Message
re: Lawyer's Perspective: Georgia is Objectively a Top Four Team
Posted on 12/7/23 at 10:26 am to ClassicCityAlum
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
2
Posted on 12/7/23 at 10:29 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
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.
I believe the B10's nigh 20-year track record in the BCS / playoffs vs. the SEC (and especially vs. Georgia / Alabama, recently) should help the committee forsee what would undoubtedly be another Georgia drubbing of Michigan.
However, even excluding that consideration, your argument (again, I think it's a fair one) could place Michigan at #1. However, that would still leave Georgia in the playoffs with a hard backstop at #4.
Posted on 12/7/23 at 10:33 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
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).
If the prior ranks are irrelevant, then how can the committee determine what constitutes "quality" wins and losses? Why would championship games carry any weight given that one's opposition is neither "strong" nor "weak" since pre-playoff rankings are irrelevant? Why would Alabama advance four spots if Georgia's #1 ranking was meaningless?
I appreciate your arguments. You are helping me see why the committee made the decisions that they did. However, those decisions were ultimately erroneous and logically incoherent. Thank you, though, for the insight from the other side.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News