Started By
Message
Whether you admit it or not, anti-Bama bias caused Bama to be out despite vast better team
Posted on 12/22/24 at 12:22 am
Posted on 12/22/24 at 12:22 am
Anyone with 1/10th of a brain knows in their deepest depths that Bama is a much better team than SMU. And yes, 9-3 with Wins vs Georgia, class of CF last 5 years, 29 point win at LSU at night, win vs SC, blowout of Missou WITH and I say with because people are so biased that they either say one or other. They either mention wins or losses, mostly peole just mention their losses out of anti-Bama bias as a case for not being in CFP and completely neglect the great wins. But those wins with the 3 losses to OU, Vandy, and Tenn are still much, much better than 0-2 vs Top 25, 0 ranked wins, losses vs BYU who ranks 78th on 247 talent composite, and best win was Pitt. If you can't bring yourself to admit this, then you're not living in reality.
Yes, Bama resume was better. 3 loss Top 15 SOS is always, always going to be better than 2 loss 65th ranked SOS. Otherwise, schedule North Dakota Science and Tech 12 games a year.
Even though every soul on earth, including the CFP committee knew Bama was vastly better than SMU, the anti-Bama bias is so strong amongst the public that they know people would lose their GD minds if Bama got in. Just like people hate Patrick Mahomes and the Chiefs. Just like there are 500,000 Youtube and Instagram edited videos making fun of Chris Collinsworth and Tony Romo sucking off Pat Mahomes and Chiefs in an edited way, they do it out of jealousy and insecurity because the Chiefs win super bowls. If the Chiefs did not win Super Bowls, people would not hate them. Does anyone hate the Jaguars? No. Why? Because they are losers. They are not a threat. Did everyone hate the Pats and Brady from 2007 to 2019? Absolutely. Just as much as Mahomes and Chiefs today. It's all jealousy and insecurity. You simply couldn't convince me otherwise.
I am not a Bama fan. I did not attend there. I attended another SEC school, but I am man enough to admit that Bama was left out because the public and radio analysts would lose their GD mind if Bama did get in out of insecurity. There are still thousands on twitter defending the SMU pick today. I don't even know how to respond to that.
If you downvote this or disagree, it is solely because you are apart of the mob, the mob that is anti-Bama bias because they have at one point or another destroyed your team. And "If you can't beat them, then make sure they can't get in so they don't even have the chance to beat you." People can't stand the winners.
Yes, Bama resume was better. 3 loss Top 15 SOS is always, always going to be better than 2 loss 65th ranked SOS. Otherwise, schedule North Dakota Science and Tech 12 games a year.
Even though every soul on earth, including the CFP committee knew Bama was vastly better than SMU, the anti-Bama bias is so strong amongst the public that they know people would lose their GD minds if Bama got in. Just like people hate Patrick Mahomes and the Chiefs. Just like there are 500,000 Youtube and Instagram edited videos making fun of Chris Collinsworth and Tony Romo sucking off Pat Mahomes and Chiefs in an edited way, they do it out of jealousy and insecurity because the Chiefs win super bowls. If the Chiefs did not win Super Bowls, people would not hate them. Does anyone hate the Jaguars? No. Why? Because they are losers. They are not a threat. Did everyone hate the Pats and Brady from 2007 to 2019? Absolutely. Just as much as Mahomes and Chiefs today. It's all jealousy and insecurity. You simply couldn't convince me otherwise.
I am not a Bama fan. I did not attend there. I attended another SEC school, but I am man enough to admit that Bama was left out because the public and radio analysts would lose their GD mind if Bama did get in out of insecurity. There are still thousands on twitter defending the SMU pick today. I don't even know how to respond to that.
If you downvote this or disagree, it is solely because you are apart of the mob, the mob that is anti-Bama bias because they have at one point or another destroyed your team. And "If you can't beat them, then make sure they can't get in so they don't even have the chance to beat you." People can't stand the winners.
This post was edited on 12/22/24 at 12:27 am
38
Posted on 12/22/24 at 12:24 am to Saunson69
No, losing games caused Bama to be out. Beat Vandy and Oklahoma next time.
Posted on 12/22/24 at 12:25 am to bstaceyau19
Bama lost to Vandy, the Vols, and Oklahoma.
That is not good. Especially after seeing how well the Vols did tonight.
Just STFU and beat Michigan. If you can.
That is not good. Especially after seeing how well the Vols did tonight.
Just STFU and beat Michigan. If you can.
Posted on 12/22/24 at 12:26 am to GoldenDawg
quote:
No, losing games caused Bama to be out. Beat Vandy and Oklahoma next time.
quote:
Bama lost to Vandy, the Vols, and Oklahoma.
You 2 did exactly as I suspected and pointed out in my 1st paragraph. Your anti-Bama bias neglected to mention the great wins, and solely pointed out of bias the losses.
If you're going to be a real man, you point it out objectively. The great wins, and the bad losses. It is only fair.
Read my 1st paragraph again.
This post was edited on 12/22/24 at 12:28 am
Posted on 12/22/24 at 12:28 am to Saunson69
There is no denying Bama would have been favored over teams that got in the playoffs. And the OP's point is valid..........but as for me, I'm just as happy the Bama 2024 season is coming to a close. We need closure to the Milroe/Saban era without more national embarrassment like Tennessee got. Deboer can focus on NIL and getting rid of the team cancers.
Posted on 12/22/24 at 12:28 am to Saunson69
Even if Alabama makes it in, it doesn't change the fact it's a bad format.
Seriously arguing about 3 loss teams and teams with 2 losses and no good wins.
That's a clue - 12 is way too many. It's impossible to exclude teams that aren't great.
Same thing will happen next year too no matter where Alabama ends up.
Seriously arguing about 3 loss teams and teams with 2 losses and no good wins.
That's a clue - 12 is way too many. It's impossible to exclude teams that aren't great.
Same thing will happen next year too no matter where Alabama ends up.
This post was edited on 12/22/24 at 12:32 am
Posted on 12/22/24 at 12:29 am to Saunson69
Only teams that are thought to possibly be the top team in the nation should get in and Bama was not seen as that. It's Bama's own fault for losing 3 games that they werent in. Win and no one can argue them being in.
Posted on 12/22/24 at 12:29 am to Saunson69
quote:
You 2 did exactly as I suspected and pointed out in my 1st paragraph. You 100% anti-Bama bias neglected to mention the great wins, and solely pointed out of bias the losses.
So, it's anti-Bama bias because most of us do not believe that Alabama should be judged by one set of rules and everyone else judged by a different set.
You people are crazy.
Posted on 12/22/24 at 12:43 am to Saunson69
Teams that lose by 21 points to mediocre 6-6 teams have no argument. You claim Alabama's win over LSU by 29 was a great win. Then how pathetic was Alabama's loss by 21 points to a team LSU beat by 20. You're cherry-picking. It could just as easily be said that the losers of those games each had an off-game, which doesn't make Alabama's win against LSU a great win. Alabama barely beat SC, that's a great win? Yes, they beat a very good Georgia team, but they fell behind after having a 28-point lead? Do really good teams blow 28-point leads?
Alabama was an inconsistent good team. Next time don't lose to Vanderbilt.
Overall your argument is not convincing. I would have picked SC over SMU and Alabama. Cocky had two close losses (to LSU and Alabama) and ONE bad loss. Alabama had TWO bad losses and ONE close loss.
Alabama was an inconsistent good team. Next time don't lose to Vanderbilt.
Overall your argument is not convincing. I would have picked SC over SMU and Alabama. Cocky had two close losses (to LSU and Alabama) and ONE bad loss. Alabama had TWO bad losses and ONE close loss.
Posted on 12/22/24 at 12:47 am to bstaceyau19
quote:
No, losing games caused Bama to be out. Beat Vandy and Oklahoma next time.
That right there.
Posted on 12/22/24 at 12:49 am to GoldenDawg
quote:
GoldenDawg
Georgia doesn't get a seat at the bash Bama table... Vandy does.
.... let that sink in......
Posted on 12/22/24 at 12:49 am to Saunson69
Don't worry, I'm sure hammer will find a way to claim the championship this year too
Posted on 12/22/24 at 12:55 am to Saunson69
How many playoffs has bama backed into without winning their own conference? Anti-bama bias? Hilarious!
Posted on 12/22/24 at 1:07 am to Saunson69
That gump head still cannot wrap itself around the fact that you just didn’t deserve to be there
Posted on 12/22/24 at 1:42 am to Saunson69
Vandy manhandled bama.
Okl. took their lunch money and their women.
South Car. has a much much much bigger gripe than bama. Hell, Ole Miss does too.
Okl. took their lunch money and their women.
South Car. has a much much much bigger gripe than bama. Hell, Ole Miss does too.
Posted on 12/22/24 at 3:42 am to GBJs
Bama had 3 losses and one was Vanderbilt. Ole Miss had 3 losses and one was Kentucky at home. Not to mention losing to LSU which should be an automatic disqualifier. Overall South Carolina had 3 tougher losses although they lost to LSU as well. Not good. 3 losses shouldn’t get you into the top ten. Tennessee had 2 losses and they got in. And then lost their asses. But they managed to beat Bama, Florida and Vandy. That’s life.
Posted on 12/22/24 at 5:02 am to Saunson69
quote:
Whether you admit it or not, anti-Bama bias caused Bama to be out despite vast better
Actually, there is irrefutable factual evidence to show that you are wrong.
Per the committee’s ranking, but for Clemson’s upset of SMU in the ACC title game, Bama would have been in the playoffs - over Ole Miss, USC and Miami.
This also pretty much nullifies Bama’s crying about the committee “not valuing their tough schedule” as, despite the fact that Bama was 3-2 vs teams with .500 or below records including a 21-point loss in the penultimate week of the season to 6-6 Oklahoma, the committee was ready to put Bama on.
The only tangible justification the committee could use for doing so was Bama’s 3-1 record vs “ranked” teams. Of course, the real reason the committee was putting them in was in fact “Bama bias”.
If the selection committee had actually followed their own guidelines to compare teams, Ole Miss would have been the first team out instead of Bama. The two team did not play head to head, and the SOS score diffference was negligible - meaning that “outcomes vs common opponents” should have been the comparator.
Bama and Ole Miss played 4 common opponents. Ole Miss had the superior outcomes in three of the four instances, including far more convincing victories vs UGA and USC.
So why didn’t the committee follow its own stated rubric for comparing teams with Bama and Ole Miss?
Bama Bias.
/thread
Posted on 12/22/24 at 5:28 am to 3down10
quote:
12 is way too many. It's impossible to exclude teams that aren't great.
And there are arguments being made to expand it yet again. It is pathetic
Posted on 12/22/24 at 5:32 am to Saunson69
My negro in christ, we are not reading all that.
This post was edited on 12/22/24 at 5:43 am
Posted on 12/22/24 at 5:36 am to Saunson69
LOL, IMO, the only reason this dominated the talk around the playoff is because it was Bama and the Saban nostalgia. If Ole Miss or SC had been in the 11 spot and had SMU hold their ranking ahead of them, not nearly as much would've been said.
This post was edited on 12/22/24 at 5:37 am
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News