Georgia

[Naitch]

Delete This. Double post.

 

[Naitch]

We're not talking about Vegas, we were talking about you silly little puppies wanting attention

I'm a Clemson fan, but it's obvious UGA lives rent free in your head.

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

Expanded playoff plus SEC getting rid of divisions will change the landscape.

 

[joevol33]

I'm a Clemson fan, but it's obvious UGA lives rent free in your head.

. They're the ones in a Tennessee board trying to convince everyone how great they are, but I'm the problem? I admit, I love telling them they're not a dynasty, but if they were rent free in my head, wouldn't I be stalking them? They came here, not me chasing them down.

 

[BAMA-DAWG]

This. By every objective standard based on actual games played on actual football fields we are better than Bama this year and that’s the end of it.

That ain't wut the committee say

 

[rjd970]

That ain't wut the committee say

It is in every released category they claim to use during weekly evaluation. Head to head, overall record, common opponents, etc.

What they are saying vs what they claim are the criteria are different, which is part of the frustration of UT fans and if the roles were reversed you would feel the same way.

 

[ZippyMorocco]

Haha yea he’s a Kirby bandwagon fan nothing more. I’m a Tennessee fan but I still know know more about Georgia’s recent 30 year history than that guy.

I have watched UGA play 480 times, and watched them lose 138 times. If any questions, ask me.

 

[BAMA-DAWG]

It is in every released category they claim to use during weekly evaluation. Head to head, overall record, common opponents, etc.

What they are saying vs what they claim are the criteria are different, which is part of the frustration of UT fans and if the roles were reversed you would feel the same way.

Maybe, but the real difference is quality of loss. Bama lost two games by four total points and were in both games up to the end. UT's two losses revealed the deficiencies that were suspected all season, but were masked by a prolific offense. Ultimately the performance in the USC game proved to be unpardonable. Had it happened the first month of the season, perhaps UT would be in front of Bama.

 

[rjd970]

Maybe, but the real difference is quality of loss. Bama lost two games by four total points and were in both games up to the end. UT's two losses revealed the deficiencies that were suspected all season, but were masked by a prolific offense. Ultimately the performance in the USC game proved to be unpardonable. Had it happened the first month of the season, perhaps UT would be in front of Bama.

But quality of loss is not a metric the committee uses, per their published criteria. So if the committee is using it, they aren't publishing it. I really think if the roles were reversed you would be outraged.

If I'm being honest, do I know that UT is better than Bama? 3 point win at home over them is pretty even, and then you have the losses on UT resume. What I do know, is per the committee's criteria UT wins every metric over bama.

At the end of the day what we know is UT has Bama beat by every on-field, actual played games, data points. Anything else is projection. Looks like the committee is putting more emphasis on what they think vs what they actually see when comparing two teams. I go back to it again, if that is the case I don't know why the games are even played.

 

[BAMA-DAWG]

But quality of loss is not a metric the committee uses, per their published criteria. So if the committee is using it, they aren't publishing it. I really think if the roles were reversed you would be outraged.

If I'm being honest, do I know that UT is better than Bama? 3 point win at home over them is pretty even, and then you have the losses on UT resume. What I do know, is per the committee's criteria UT wins every metric over bama.

At the end of the day what we know is UT has Bama beat by every on-field, actual played games, data points. Anything else is projection. Looks like the committee is putting more emphasis on what they think vs what they actually see when comparing two teams. I go back to it again, if that is the case I don't know why the games are even played.

I would agree with that. I heard a talking head say that a Bama matchup vs any of the playoff contenders would be preferred by the committee over a UT matchup vs the same teams. Again, it really goes back to the USC loss. They respected UT, even after the loss to UGA. But UT couldn't have crapped the bed at a worse time vs USC. Now, as to where they send you bowling, I think UT earned the Sugar bowl, but it won't surprise me if they give it to Bama.