Started By
Message
re: Any of y'all see Mark Bradley's picks on the upcoming season?
Posted on 5/28/19 at 11:32 am to Dawg4Life47
Posted on 5/28/19 at 11:32 am to Dawg4Life47
Ah the never changing pissing contest that is arguing over projections for the upcoming season.
Girls girls girls... you're both pretty. Now can we stop bitching about who has watched football longer and discuss things a little more relevant?
4 47 you've got some flawed logic in here, arguing that the schedule isn't a gauntlet due to past wins and their average losses over the past couple of seasons... Past performance doesn't necessarily indicate future results...
Are we a talented enough team at full strength to beat most if not all the teams on our schedule pretty handily? Absolutely. I don't think anyone is arguing the contrary.
At the same time, on our schedule we have Notre Dame, we draw Texas A&M from the west (as opposed to say Ole Miss, Miss St, Arkansas) which would be a more challenging matchup, many of the teams we do draw after their bye week which matters. We play Auburn on the road, and their season may dictate how "amped up" that environment may be.
It's a fair assessment to say that health will likely play a big factor in remaining undefeated or max of one loss.
And to say that "none of the teams are on the upswing" is just ignoring the obvious. Year 2 is typically a big year for recently hired coaches. Jimbo - year 2, Mullen - year 2 - both of these teams are definitely trending up in recruiting in the last year and a half, Florida's current off-season woes aside. That doesn't make them equivalent, but it doesn't mean you can just write them off as insta-wins either.
It's not "nega-dawg" to say that the schedule is less than friendly this year. I still think the team likely makes it through with only one loss, but wouldn't bet on an undefeated regular season just yet. Kirby has yet to show a season where we don't show up grossly outmatched for at least one road game against the West... And UGA hasn't had an undefeated regular season since... yeah...
This post was edited on 5/28/19 at 11:48 am
3
Posted on 5/28/19 at 1:04 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
And UGA hasn't had an undefeated regular season since... yeah...
Just haaaaad to go there, didn't you?
Posted on 5/28/19 at 1:15 pm to dawgdayafternoon
quote:
UF was undefeated in 2009. I don't think the 37 years without an undefeated season thing matters much. If the team doesn't have an off day against a good opponent, stays healthy and the schedule is manageable enough, it can be done.
Schedule is far from easy this season. Losing in the east would be pretty devastating given we have A&M and Auburn from the west. Losing to anyone in the east and then dropping one of those would make the playoffs out of the question even as SEC champ and make getting to the SEC CG practically impossible.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 1:19 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
And UGA hasn't had an undefeated regular season since... yeah...
yet people still think it's a good idea to schedule texas/oklahoma/etc in the regular season
Posted on 5/28/19 at 2:07 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
yet people still think it's a good idea to schedule texas/oklahoma/etc in the regular season
There's still time for games to get canceled. I think it's pretty clear that this is Kirby and Co reading the tea leaves for likely expansion of the playoffs... I'm still not 100% certain that it is necessary for us to bolster the schedule *quite* so heavily... but I do like one legitimate P5 in addition to whatever we're calling Tech these days.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 2:21 pm to WG_Dawg
That's the point of scheduling big teams...your chances of going undefeated are low to begin with in the SEC. Scheduling power 5 teams instead of cupcakes can help you over come one and, in some years, even two losses.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 2:25 pm to K9
quote:
That's the point of scheduling big teams...your chances of going undefeated are low to begin with in the SEC.
so making your schedule even harder is the answer? lol ok
quote:
Scheduling power 5 teams instead of cupcakes can help you over come one
it's always better to have less losses. Period.
quote:
in some years, even two losses.
If you have 2 losses you're pretty much out of the playoff race. Jsut because one looked good on paper doesn't mean much if the teams you're matching resumes with have 0-1 losses.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 2:55 pm to WG_Dawg
I would say 2 losses and your out of the current playoff format. Hearing the Big 10 whine about being left out of the playoffs means the next playoff format will include all P5 conference champions and 3 at large bids. The ACC knows they are currently a one team league and will back the new playoff format. On top of that the ACC gets to dangle the auto-bid to ND to get them to join the ACC. The PAC 12 has for the most part been shut out and the Big 12 has missed a couple as well.
The only conference against auto qualifying conference champions for the playoffs is the SEC. The playoffs will expand at the next contract extension and the SEC power teams will be ready. Instead of 9 games in conference we are targeting the best teams in other leagues which will increase the likelihood of getting in as an at large with 2 losses.
NFL players want to play in the toughest conference. The SEC has dominated recruiting those players for a while. This insures the players keep coming. From a fan perspective I would much rather watch Texas, FSU, or Oklahoma over a FCS team or Austin pea. I think the recruits would rather play in those big games as well.
The only conference against auto qualifying conference champions for the playoffs is the SEC. The playoffs will expand at the next contract extension and the SEC power teams will be ready. Instead of 9 games in conference we are targeting the best teams in other leagues which will increase the likelihood of getting in as an at large with 2 losses.
NFL players want to play in the toughest conference. The SEC has dominated recruiting those players for a while. This insures the players keep coming. From a fan perspective I would much rather watch Texas, FSU, or Oklahoma over a FCS team or Austin pea. I think the recruits would rather play in those big games as well.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 4:37 pm to GruvenDawg
An undefeated regular season is completely obtainable. We could also drop 2 games as you sometimes lose to lesser opponents. I don’t see us losing more than that if we stay healthy.
AU and A&M worry me....I’m not as concerned about FL as we’re going to go into that game with a chip on our shoulder due to Mullen’s mouth.
AU and A&M worry me....I’m not as concerned about FL as we’re going to go into that game with a chip on our shoulder due to Mullen’s mouth.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 4:49 pm to WG_Dawg
Yes I think that's what kirby is doing. He is following saban's model. Big games against big opponents.
- keeps players engaged all year, minus the 1-2 cupcakes.
- great for recruiting
- great for fan experience
- if you lose a game you can use the extra power 5 game to differentiate yourself from other 1 losses
- obviously looks good to committee
All of this doesn't work unless you know your team has top tier talent and Kirby has made sure that this is the case.
2017 is the perfect example. Dropped a game in conference to AU, but the road win at Notre Dame helped us in the committee room.
- keeps players engaged all year, minus the 1-2 cupcakes.
- great for recruiting
- great for fan experience
- if you lose a game you can use the extra power 5 game to differentiate yourself from other 1 losses
- obviously looks good to committee
All of this doesn't work unless you know your team has top tier talent and Kirby has made sure that this is the case.
2017 is the perfect example. Dropped a game in conference to AU, but the road win at Notre Dame helped us in the committee room.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 5:08 pm to K9
quote:
2017 is the perfect example. Dropped a game in conference to AU, but the road win at Notre Dame helped us in the committee room.
No... dropping the game to Auburn and then winning the rematch and winning the SEC helped us in the committee room. See: Oklahoma 2018... Lose Texas, Rematch Texas and win conference... boom 4 seed
None of this really matters that much though. These games weren't added with the current playoff environment in mind. Gruven pretty much nailed the only positive take there is on the schedule with regards to playoff benefits... there are plenty of other tradeoffs with big time home/home matchups like recruiting, fan attention, easier justification for season ticket prices, etc...
But at the end of the day, if we move to 5 guaranteed conference champions + 3 at large, # of losses likely will get trumped there for tangible resume to some degree. With only 4 spots, it doesn't happen, but just look at the top 10 rankings the last several years.
2018:
#7 - 10-2 Michigan
#9 - 10-3 Washington
10-12 - all 3 loss teams
2017:
#7 - 10-3 Auburn
2016:
#8 - 10-3 Wisconsin
#9 - 9-3 USC
#10 - 10-3 Colorado
#11 9-3 Florida State
There are generally going to be 2 and sometimes 3 loss teams that will be in the mix for top 8...
With that said, I still question the need if you're UGA to bolster the schedule significantly, given the likely additional P5 game in the SEC Championship. For the foreseeable future, that's likely a top 5 matchup assuming we make it, and if we don't, why the hell are we strengthening our schedule to begin with.
I'll enjoy the games, but doesn't mean I agree with the logic behind adding them.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 5:25 pm to fibonaccisquared
The Notre dame road win most definitely helped us in the committee room. Which is what I said. Obviously the Auburn rematch did more, but if you don't think that beating a good Notre dame team helped us then idk what to say.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 5:52 pm to K9
Unfortunately, avoiding losses is more important than racking up wins. It is how the committee votes.
I hate that approach because it encourages teams to avoid a stacked schedule.
It is where things are at right now. Maybe it changes.
I hate that approach because it encourages teams to avoid a stacked schedule.
It is where things are at right now. Maybe it changes.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 5:52 pm to fibonaccisquared
With what I expect to be the new format for the playoffs of 5 auto bids and 3 at large I think you can get in with 2 losses and no championship game appearance.
Let’s say 7 years out UF wins SEC east and has 3 cupcakes (~ 50-60 SOS). Our one SEC loss is to UF (~5-15 SOS). UF gets blasted in SEC championship game, we lost a close one to a OOC blue blood for our other loss. Who’s the 2 loss team you take? SEC championship loser or team that played a schedule? If you look at baseball and basketball tournaments UGA would make it in over UF in that scenario. SOS is going to be the differentiator for the at large bids in the very near future.
I realize scheduling up OOC possibly makes it harder to get to the SEC championship game, however I think it drastically improves your odds if you didn’t make it to the SEC championship game.
Let’s say 7 years out UF wins SEC east and has 3 cupcakes (~ 50-60 SOS). Our one SEC loss is to UF (~5-15 SOS). UF gets blasted in SEC championship game, we lost a close one to a OOC blue blood for our other loss. Who’s the 2 loss team you take? SEC championship loser or team that played a schedule? If you look at baseball and basketball tournaments UGA would make it in over UF in that scenario. SOS is going to be the differentiator for the at large bids in the very near future.
I realize scheduling up OOC possibly makes it harder to get to the SEC championship game, however I think it drastically improves your odds if you didn’t make it to the SEC championship game.
This post was edited on 5/28/19 at 6:26 pm
Posted on 5/28/19 at 6:00 pm to K9
True or False, the SEC Champion has been left out of the playoffs at least once.
How specifically do you think the ND game helped us? Without it what, Bama jumps us despite losing their last game and not winning the SEC, and we are either a 4 seed or out?
I'm not arguing that there is no value to good matchups, but the committee up to this point has placed more value on fewer losses over quality wins and/or opponents played...
How specifically do you think the ND game helped us? Without it what, Bama jumps us despite losing their last game and not winning the SEC, and we are either a 4 seed or out?
I'm not arguing that there is no value to good matchups, but the committee up to this point has placed more value on fewer losses over quality wins and/or opponents played...
Posted on 5/28/19 at 11:52 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
Girls girls girls... you're both pretty. Now can we stop bitching about who has watched football longer and discuss things a little more relevant?
You pretty much agreed with my points.
History isn't that relevant when it comes to individual team but I do think it's relevant when it comes to looking at the history of SEC champs and going through the league undefeated.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 12:12 am to RD Dawg
quote:
You pretty much agreed with my points.
One would have presumed that was pretty obvious based on the next sentence starting with:
quote:
4 47 you've got some flawed logic in here
I think in general we agree on a fair amount regarding the schedule... The previous remark had less to do with structured arguments/logic and more to do with the little boy pissing contest that had begun... You were both spiraling and it was worth calling out... We're back on subject now. You're welcome.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 7:30 am to UnderDog68
I feel like our one loss this year will be at home against A & M.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 8:15 am to JCdawg
quote:
I feel like our one loss this year will be at home against A & M.
If we lose at home against them then we don't deserve any sort of playoff.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 2:11 pm to Dawg4Life47
quote:It's not even June. A&M is going to be good. UF is probably not going to suck and Auburn will probably be a tough game.
You just said we have a gauntlet of five teams with none in the top 10
Page 3 of 4
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News