Bama and playoff?

[Nerwen Aldarion]

I never doubt the stupidity of some people in a fanbase. I’m certain Alabama is no exception and several want Saban gone. Are they stupid? Hell yes. But they exist

 

[thehill98]

Bama's schedule is awful. They have lost to the only decent team they played, and they never had the lead in that game, even playing at home. Their best win is Texas A&M.

On the flip side, it was a close game and it was the #2 team in the nation and they still have to play Auburn.

It would be a travesty if they get in the playoffs without winning their conference, much less even their division, IMO. They would have also probably got in if they beat LSU and lost the conference championship game. So in effect, the LSU game didn't matter either way as long as they beat Auburn.

The Bama privilege is real.

Why a travesty this year? They’ve gotten in twice before and won national titles. A few teams have gotten a championship chance without winning their conference, not that i don’t disagree with you, but it’s been done before.

 

[ptcarter]

Here is a little food for thought. Say Tennessee wins out and Auburn beats Alabama. Lo and behold, we have 2 losses in SECe and Bama has 2 losses in SECw. I'm not trying to put spin or interpret this in any way. Would anybody have thought that after the first week of the season?

 

[Tennesseefan2019]

Here is a little food for thought. Say Tennessee wins out and Auburn beats Alabama. Lo and behold, we have 2 losses in SECe and Bama has 2 losses in SECw. I'm not trying to put spin or interpret this in any way. Would anybody have thought that after the first week of the season?

5-3 in the SEC and 3rd in the SEC East will be a miraculous achievement considering how the season started out

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Yep. As much as I hate it, if there was ever a team that deserves a benefit of the doubt it's Alabama.

Over the last few years, I think the perception of the SEC being the best conference or deserving benefits of the doubt has shifted more to Alabama being deserving of benefits of the doubt. The SEC doesn't carry as much weight as it did in the early 2010s.

Alabama deserves the benefit of the doubt this year due to previous years results, but the undefeated Clemson team that beat them in 2 of the last 3 doesn't?

Anyone who touts that narrative is using a huge double standard.

 

[05_never_again]

Alabama deserves the benefit of the doubt this year due to previous years results, but the undefeated Clemson team that beat them in 2 of the last 3 doesn't?

Anyone who touts that narrative is using a huge double standard.

Not just last year's results. Alabama's been up to this level of play for a much longer time than Clemson has, and even though their schedule is relatively weak (and was last year too) it's still a tougher schedule than Clemson's. The best team Clemson has played (not beaten, just played) is going to be who...an A&M team likely to end the season with 5 losses?

I know Clemson can't control their conference schedule, but the ACC is a total joke this year.

 

[rjd970]

Why a travesty this year? They’ve gotten in twice before and won national titles. A few teams have gotten a championship chance without winning their conference, not that i don’t disagree with you, but it’s been done before.

I don't like that narrative. Who's to say any other 1-loss team those years would have not done the same? Bama just got a second chance and nobody else has even had that same opportunity. I don't think the committee got it wrong, per se, but they would have been equally right with any number of other 1-loss teams. Somebody has to win the playoffs.

This year would be more of a travesty than others. Bama has played a crap schedule. Some of it is their fault, some of it isn't. But if we are going to punish a team like UCF for having a weak schedule but going undefeated and destroying every team they played, then the same should hold for Bama with one loss to the only decent team they played.

 

[05_never_again]

I don't like that narrative. Who's to say any other 1-loss team those years would have not done the same? Bama just got a second chance and nobody else has even had that same opportunity. I don't think the committee got it wrong, per se, but they would have been equally right with any number of other 1-loss teams. Somebody has to win the playoffs.

This year would be more of a travesty than others. Bama has played a crap schedule. Some of it is their fault, some of it isn't. But if we are going to punish a team like UCF for having a weak schedule but going undefeated and destroying every team they played, then the same should hold for Bama with one loss to the only decent team they played.

Alabama running through an SEC schedule is in no way remotely comparable to UCF running through an American schedule. Mediocre SEC teams are much better than mediocre G5 teams.

Alabama backed their way into 2 postseasons (one BCS and one CFP) because certain dominoes fell that needed to fall and they were the best team available, so to speak, once multiple teams in front of them lost. They had objectively "better" losses or fewer losses than other teams who could reasonably be considered. Then they validated the decision when they won titles in each of the years that happened.

Alabama has played a crap schedule this year, but Clemson's is even crappier. Ohio St hasn't exactly played juggernauts either (their best win is over a Wisconsin team that had also lost to Illinois) but they have yet to play Penn St and Michigan. Alabama now joins several other teams with 1 loss (Georgia, Oregon, Utah, Penn St, Oklahoma), but they clearly have the "best" loss out of any of those teams.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Alabama running through an SEC schedule is in no way remotely comparable to UCF running through an American schedule. Mediocre SEC teams are much better than mediocre G5 teams.

Alabama backed their way into 2 postseasons (one BCS and one CFP) because certain dominoes fell that needed to fall and they were the best team available, so to speak, once multiple teams in front of them lost. They had objectively "better" losses or fewer losses than other teams who could reasonably be considered. Then they validated the decision when they won titles in each of the years that happened.

Alabama has played a crap schedule this year, but Clemson's is even crappier. Ohio St hasn't exactly played juggernauts either (their best win is over a Wisconsin team that had also lost to Illinois) but they have yet to play Penn St and Michigan. Alabama now joins several other teams with 1 loss (Georgia, Oregon, Utah, Penn St, Oklahoma), but they clearly have the "best" loss out of any of those teams.

Georgia State, Western Kentucky, and Appalachian State called. They said that mediocre SEC teams aren't even as good as Sunbelt teams.

 

[volinbham]

Alabama has played a crap schedule this year, but Clemson's is even crappier. Ohio St hasn't exactly played juggernauts either (their best win is over a Wisconsin team that had also lost to Illinois) but they have yet to play Penn St and Michigan. Alabama now joins several other teams with 1 loss (Georgia, Oregon, Utah, Penn St, Oklahoma), but they clearly have the "best" loss out of any of those teams.

They may have the best loss but hard to find a quality win - maybe A&M

 

[05_never_again]

Georgia State, Western Kentucky, and Appalachian State called. They said that mediocre SEC teams aren't even as good as Sunbelt teams.

I said mediocre SEC teams are much better than mediocre G5 teams. There's also a big difference between a G5 team playing a P5 team once and beating them versus playing a P5 schedule for 8 conference games.

This season, App St and Georgia St are not mediocre Sun Best teams. They are sitting 1/2 respectively in the Sun Belt East. App St was briefly ranked as high as 20th in the country before losing to Georgia Southern. Western Kentucky has the 5th best (out of 14) conference record in CUSA, slightly better than mediocre. That Arkansas team they just beat is also one of the worst teams in SEC history. Far worse than mediocre.

 

[bamawriter]

I don't like that narrative. Who's to say any other 1-loss team those years would have not done the same? Bama just got a second chance and nobody else has even had that same opportunity.

Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Ohio State all did it before Bama. They simply didn't cash in.

 

[rjd970]

Alabama running through an SEC schedule is in no way remotely comparable to UCF running through an American schedule. Mediocre SEC teams are much better than mediocre G5 teams.

Alabama backed their way into 2 postseasons (one BCS and one CFP) because certain dominoes fell that needed to fall and they were the best team available, so to speak, once multiple teams in front of them lost. They had objectively "better" losses or fewer losses than other teams who could reasonably be considered. Then they validated the decision when they won titles in each of the years that happened.

Alabama has played a crap schedule this year, but Clemson's is even crappier. Ohio St hasn't exactly played juggernauts either (their best win is over a Wisconsin team that had also lost to Illinois) but they have yet to play Penn St and Michigan. Alabama now joins several other teams with 1 loss (Georgia, Oregon, Utah, Penn St, Oklahoma), but they clearly have the "best" loss out of any of those teams.

I agree to a point, but disagree with the bolded. The fact that they won doesn't validate anything. First, somebody has to win it. Any of the other 1-loss teams could have won it too. Second, there is nothing "objective" about any of it. It is a committee making the decision based on polls decided by a committee. Do they get a re-match with the same resume if their name is KY and not Bama? I personally don't think they do.

Also, lest we forget, we had Bama on the ropes and with competent officiating and one less bone-headed play that was anybody's game. We are 5-5.

 

[05_never_again]

I agree to a point, but disagree with the bolded. The fact that they won doesn't validate anything. First, somebody has to win it. Any of the other 1-loss teams could have won it too. Second, there is nothing "objective" about any of it. It is a committee making the decision based on polls decided by a committee. Do they get a re-match with the same resume if their name is KY and not Bama? I personally don't think they do.

Also, lest we forget, we had Bama on the ropes and with competent officiating and one less bone-headed play that was anybody's game. We are a 5-5.

Sure it does. Teams that were in front of Alabama faltered and let Alabama back in it. Alabama was next in line, and in both instances they ended up winning the whole thing when it looked like for a second they were going to miss out on it entirely. Could someone from the outside other than Alabama have won it? Perhaps, but they were behind Alabama in line, and justifiably so because of resume. That fact that somebody else might have been able to do that too doesn't justify passing over Alabama just because.

Also, I think it's pretty objective that a loss to LSU is better than a loss to South Carolina (Georgia), Auburn (Oregon), USC (Utah), Minnesota (Penn St), or Kansas St (Oklahoma). Can you argue with a straight face that any of those losses are better to a loss to LSU?

 

[rjd970]

Sure it does. Teams that were in front of Alabama faltered and let Alabama back in it. Alabama was next in line, and in both instances they ended up winning the whole thing when it looked like for a second they were going to miss out on it entirely. Could someone from the outside other than Alabama have won it? Perhaps, but they were behind Alabama in line, and justifiably so because of resume. That fact that somebody else might have been able to do that too doesn't justify passing over Alabama just because.

Also, I think it's pretty objective that a loss to LSU is better than a loss to South Carolina (Georgia), Auburn (Oregon), USC (Utah), Minnesota (Penn St), or Kansas St (Oklahoma). Can you argue with a straight face that any of those losses are better to a loss to LSU?

Why do you think Penn St loss to Minnesota is an open and close objectively worse loss than Bama's to LSU? Penn State lost on the road and Minnesota's has a receiving trio that belongs in the same discussion as Bama's and LSU's. Metric wise, Penn State actually has a defense that is objectively better than Bama. Morevoer, if Penn State were to beat OSU, then that would open the door for Bama a little more yet there would be zero evidence to suggest Bama is better than either one.

 

[05_never_again]

Why do you think Penn St loss to Minnesota is an open and close objectively worse loss than Bama's to LSU? Penn State lost on the road and Minnesota's has a receiving trio that belongs in the same discussion as Bama's and LSU's. Metric wise, Penn State actually has a defense that is objectively better than Bama. Morevoer, if Penn State were to beat OSU, then that would open the door for Bama a little more yet there would be zero evidence to suggest Bama is better than either one.

Minnesota's schedule was soft as Charmin until they played Penn St, even softer than Alabama's, and several of those victories were less than impressive (South Dak St, Fresno St, Georgia Southern, and Purdue were all 1-possession games).

 

[volinbham]

Bama's argument would be stronger if they'd lost to LSU on the road. Bama was nearly a TD favorite and missed the spread by 2 scores.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

I said mediocre SEC teams are much better than mediocre G5 teams. There's also a big difference between a G5 team playing a P5 team once and beating them versus playing a P5 schedule for 8 conference games.

This season, App St and Georgia St are not mediocre Sun Best teams. They are sitting 1/2 respectively in the Sun Belt East. App St was briefly ranked as high as 20th in the country before losing to Georgia Southern. Western Kentucky has the 5th best (out of 14) conference record in CUSA, slightly better than mediocre. That Arkansas team they just beat is also one of the worst teams in SEC history. Far worse than mediocre.

Western Kentucky and Alabama both boat raced a common SEC opponent, Arkansas.

I guess it just means more when Bama does it.

 

[05_never_again]

Western Kentucky and Alabama both boat raced a common SEC opponent, Arkansas.

I guess it just means more when Bama does it.

Western Kentucky has also lost to Central Arkansas, Louisville, Marshall, and FAU. Would Alabama lose all those games too?

You can go transitive property on a single game and make almost any argument in the world. I mean, Texas St beat Georgia St who beat Tennessee who beat South Carolina who beat Georgia. Could Texas St beat Georgia?

 

[90 Vol]

No way in hell the crooked azz committee keeps a 1 loss Bama team out of the playoff. I wouldn't agree with it, I just don't see them letting that happen.

 

[05_never_again]

No way in hell the crooked azz committee keeps a 1 loss Bama team out of the playoff. I wouldn't agree with it, I just don't see them letting that happen.

Say Ohio St, LSU, and Clemson all win out. Alabama's only loss is to LSU. Who should get in over Alabama as the 4th team?

Penn St, whose 1 loss (hypothetically) is to Minnesota? Georgia, whose 2 losses (hypothetically) are to South Carolina and LSU? Oregon, whose one loss is to Auburn? Utah, whose one loss is to USC? Oklahoma, whose one loss is to Kansas St? The only one you can really make an argument for is that a 12-1, Big 12 champ Oklahoma gets in over Alabama. None of those others would get in over them.

 

[rjd970]

Minnesota's schedule was soft as Charmin until they played Penn St, even softer than Alabama's, and several of those victories were less than impressive (South Dak St, Fresno St, Georgia Southern, and Purdue were all 1-possession games).

Bama doesn't have a quality win is my point. That is the problem. Clemson doesn't either and they have a common opponent with Bama. I know I know...UNC, but that was still a win. Which should count more, an ugly win or a pretty loss?

So the question becomes do you want to give bama a pass because they had to play one tough game and lost, or do you want to just call it a loss and say sorry you had one of the best teams this year in your division?

Here's the deal. Ugly wins should count more than pretty losses. If Penn state wins out with a win over OSU, and Minnesota loses one...we have Bama, PSU, Minnesota, and OSU with one loss...Then order of preference should be PSU, OSU, then Bama. And I'm not sure Minnesota should be below Bama. Bama may have the better loss than anyone else on that list...but PSU and Minnesota would definitely have the better wins and OSU's win (Wisconsin) would equal Bama's win against Auburn as their best. The SEC this year is not your Daddy's SEC.

Minnesota may still lose one this year, but you put the team that played this last weekend on a neutral field against Bama and its a toss up.

Plus, Bama lost. Period. Even if you think a pretty loss makes a better resume, if it is close then another team should get in above Bama because we have already seen that playoff game (LSU). Thats JMO.

All this talk is pointless anyway, this will mostly take care of itself by the end of the year.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Bama doesn't have a quality win is my point. That is the problem. Clemson doesn't either and they have a common opponent with Bama. I know I know...UNC, but that was still a win. Which should count more, an ugly win or a pretty loss?

So the question becomes do you want to give bama a pass because they had to play one tough game and lost, or do you want to just call it a loss and say sorry you had one of the best teams this year in your division?

Here's the deal. Ugly wins should count more than pretty losses. If Penn state wins out with a win over OSU, and Minnesota loses one...we have Bama, PSU, Minnesota, and OSU with one loss...Then order of preference should be PSU, OSU, then Bama. And I'm not sure Minnesota should be below Bama. Bama may have the better loss than anyone else on that list...but PSU and Minnesota would definitely have the better wins and OSU's win (Wisconsin) would equal Bama's win against Auburn as their best. The SEC this year is not your Daddy's SEC.

Minnesota may still lose one this year, but you put the team that played this last weekend on a neutral field against Bama and its a toss up.

Plus, Bama lost. Period. Even if you think a pretty loss makes a better resume, if it is close then another team should get in above Bama because we have already seen that playoff game (LSU). Thats JMO.

All this talk is pointless anyway, this will mostly take care of itself by the end of the year.

Alabama played Duke, not UNC.

 

[VOL_Lyfe]

Not winning the SECW
No conference Title
1 win against a P5 with a winning record

They need a lot of help this time and I just don’t see it

Wasnt this the scenario in 2017?

 

[rjd970]

Say Ohio St, LSU, and Clemson all win out. Alabama's only loss is to LSU. Who should get in over Alabama as the 4th team?

Penn St, whose 1 loss (hypothetically) is to Minnesota? Georgia, whose 2 losses (hypothetically) are to South Carolina and LSU? Oregon, whose one loss is to Auburn? Utah, whose one loss is to USC? Oklahoma, whose one loss is to Kansas St? The only one you can really make an argument for is that a 12-1, Big 12 champ Oklahoma gets in over Alabama. None of those others would get in over them.

If OSU wins out that means PSU would have two losses.

A one loss PSU absolutely goes above Bama because that would include a win over OSU and a loss to a undefeated or one loss Minnesota team. You could even argue OSU should go above Bama in that scenario because the quality wins would be about equal (Auburn and Wisconsin). If Wisconsin wins out it would be even better for OSU.

The interesting scenario is if OSU, PSU, and Minnesota all finish with one loss. All should go above Bama because they all would have a better quality win than Bama. OSU's win would be against Wisconsin, which would be an equal win to Bama's over Auburn (hypothetically) so that would be a toss-up.

If Bama doesn't like it then they don't need to schedule NM State and start off the year against Duke on a neutral site.