If the tables were turned

[18IsTheMan]

Read an interesting point. Assume we had beaten Bama by 2 points back on 10/12. Then assume we had gone on to finish 4-2, with a bad loss to an unranked team. Assume also that Bama, meanwhile, had rebounded from that loss to finish with 6 straight wins, with 3 coming against ranked teams. Is there any doubt whatsoever that Bama would have leapfrogged us. The head-to-head outcome would be the absolute farthest things from anyone's mind.

It's all perception. Bama finishing 6-0 with wins against 3 ranked teams would be looked on FAR more favorably than us doing the exact same thing. It would be viewed as Bama returning to being Bama.

 

[USClight]

The difference is the preseason perception that Alabama was #5 in the country and top 3 in the conference and South Carolina would finish 13th in the conference. That is a lot of ground to make up over the course of the season. We only cracked the top 25 a few weeks ago. The good news is next season we should start in the top 25, and resume won’t be as important. A lot of teams have a lackluster resume and are riding a win/loss record or backed by preseason perception.

 

[18IsTheMan]

The difference is the preseason perception that Alabama was #5 in the country and top 3 in the conference and South Carolina would finish 13th in the conference. That is a lot of ground to make up over the course of the season. We only cracked the top 25 a few weeks ago. The good news is next season we should start in the top 25, and resume won’t be as important. A lot of teams have a lackluster resume and are riding a win/loss record or backed by preseason perception.

I have to ask then, why do we even have a CFP committee? One would assume their job is to reason through all the factors and make rationale decisions. If all they do is say "well, Bama was perceived to be the stronger team in the preseason so we're obligated to go with that perception" then what function do they even serve? The average Joe fan on the street could do that.

 

[Lurker123]

From another thread, Bama has the same record, the head to head, and stronger SOS and a better win (UGA vs our top opponent Clemson).

One doesn't have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to follow that path.

Where do bad losses or momentum fall against that list? Is it really enough?

Edit: in the end, they have the name, and we dont as well. (National brand)

 

[SC95]

No matter how many teams compete in the CFP, some "deserving" team will be left out.

 

[18IsTheMan]

From another thread, Bama has the same record, the head to head, and stronger SOS and a better win (UGA vs our top opponent Clemson).

One doesn't have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to follow that path.

Where do bad losses or momentum fall against that list? Is it really enough?

Edit: in the end, they have the name, and we dont as well. (National brand)

I think the nature of their bad losses is enough to level the field. They allowed 40 points to Vandy. The only team Vandy scored more points against was Akron. We went to Vandy and held them to 7. Then they went to OU and allowed 24 in a very ugly-looking loss. We went to OU and held them 9 points in an impressive win.

Two of their losses were to very bad SEC teams. Vandy finished 3-5 in conference play and OU finished 2-6. In my mind, that more than negates the UGA win.

 

[Lurker123]

I think the nature of their bad losses is enough to level the field. They allowed 40 points to Vandy. The only team Vandy scored more points against was Akron. We went to Vandy and held them to 7. Then they went to OU and allowed 24 in a very ugly-looking loss. We went to OU and held them 9 points in an impressive win.

Two of their losses were to very bad SEC teams. Vandy finished 3-5 in conference play and OU finished 2-6. In my mind, that more than negates the UGA win.

It's hard to dismiss emotional involvement, and I'm including myself.

But would that negate the head to head, the SOS and the better win if WE were the ones that beat UGA and had all those other factors?

 

[18IsTheMan]

It's hard to dismiss emotional involvement, and I'm including myself.

But would that negate the head to head, the SOS and the better win if WE were the ones that beat UGA and had all those other factors?

FTR, I've been pretty clear that I don't think any 3-loss team deserves to get in the CFP. However, as the debate is raging over whether Bama deserves it over us, I'm engaging in the discussion merely as a thought exercise.

I think you equally have to ask, though, if it was Bama we were talking about, would there be nearly as much discussion? We've clearly been the better team the 2nd half. The more exciting team. The most dynamic individual player. Take the "Bama" factor out of the equation and I think it becomes pretty clear.

 

[Lurker123]

FTR, I've been pretty clear that I don't think any 3-loss team deserves to get in the CFP. However, as the debate is raging over whether Bama deserves it over us, I'm engaging in the discussion merely as a thought exercise.

I think you equally have to ask, though, if it was Bama we were talking about, would there be nearly as much discussion? We've clearly been the better team the 2nd half. The more exciting team. The most dynamic individual player. Take the "Bama" factor out of the equation and I think it becomes pretty clear.

I agree weve been more exciting the second half the year. I think that Bama qb would argue about most dynamic individual player. I watched the UGA game of theirs and that man was unbelievable. But that was earlier in the season.

The question, imo, is does momentum overshadow head to head, SOS, and marquee wins.

This just dawned on me, but with us beating clemson and A&M losing, did you know our marquee win of the season is that Clemson team? Other than that, we have a&M and Missouri who will be unranked or in the 20's.

I just barfed a little while typing that.

 

[Piscis]

FTR, I've been pretty clear that I don't think any 3-loss team deserves to get in the CFP. However, as the debate is raging over whether Bama deserves it over us, I'm engaging in the discussion merely as a thought exercise.

I think you equally have to ask, though, if it was Bama we were talking about, would there be nearly as much discussion? We've clearly been the better team the 2nd half. The more exciting team. The most dynamic individual player. Take the "Bama" factor out of the equation and I think it becomes pretty clear.

I think it boils down to the CFP being something of a college football based reality show. The committee is like the talent scouts looking for the participants who will draw the most tv viewers for ABC/ESPN/Disney. Bama, Ohio State, Texas, Penn State, Oregon and even Clemson are all national brands with big audience draws. South Carolina is not in that category. The playoff was not expanded to let in more "deserving" teams. It was expanded to increase ad revenue for Disney/ESPN who own the CFP. The "Bama factor" will never be taken out as long as the CFP is an invitational tournament put on by Disney.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I will say, it is nice to hear that even most mainstream folks are now acknowledging we were robbed in the LSU game and should be a 2-loss team and CFP lock if not for the refs.

 

[Maccmaine12]

If the roles was reversed and Bama played a 12th ranked Auburn on the road and they won, they would jump whoever to get in the playoffs. I don’t see how SC beating a team the committee said was better than the 3 loss SEC teams and that not benefit SC at all. Beating Clemson just to help out another team you thought was even would be nasty.

 

[Uscg1984]

Where do bad losses or momentum fall against that list? Is it really enough?

That's the $64,000 question.

I would just add that Bama's bad loss and momentum are one in the same. Their (2nd) bad loss was just 2 weeks ago.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I think the committee likely signaled their intent when Bama only fell 5 spots after getting hammered by a terrible OU team who finished 2-6 in conference play. A game in which Bama managed a single FG. They dropped IU 5 spots for losing to the #2 team in the country but Bama only fell 6 spots for losing to an unranked OU team? Tell me how that makes sense.

They also signaled their intent when Clemson somehow jumped 5 spots after beating the Citadel while we only jumped 3 spots even though we beat Wofford by a larger point margin.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I have also seen other prominent national voices noting, in addition to the fact that the refs robbed us against LSU, that we would also have won that game had Sellers not left injured. This is applying the committee's own logic from last year when they excluded FSU b/c their QB was out injured. In their opinion, FSU wasn't not one of the 4 best without him at QB. They have to apply that logic in reverse here.

They have shown that they are willing to consider factors like that, so it's not absurd to suggest they should do so here.