Bama vs Georgia

[aujeff11 6,243]

On 1/9/2018 at 2:30 PM, AU64 said:

Considering Garcia's general track record as a student-athlete most people around here figured he had something on Steve to get as many "do overs" as he got while at USCe. 

Didn’t we actually beat a good South Carolina team partially because the Old Ball Coach benched Garcia too quick? 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

I know there's another thread about officiating in the NC game but I'd rather post in this one since it's about the game in general.

I know facemasks are easily missed by officials because they're sometimes not in position to see it so I'm not going to harp on the missed facemask on Alabama but I will say that the biggest blown call by the officials in the game was the offsides penalty on UGA when they blocked the punt on Alabama's 1st possession of the 2nd half..... On replay it clearly showed the UGA player was not in the neutral zone. He just timed the snap well but never crossed into the neutral zone. 

 

 

The offsides blown call is unforgivable on the officials part because there is a line judge and head linesman who are both standing right at the line of scrimmage on opposites sides of the field on every play and part of their job is to look for movement by the offense or defense but somehow the officials "thought" that the UGA player had jumped offsides but the replay showed otherwise. I honestly don't know why offsides calls are not reviewable. They can review how many number of players are on the field but somehow an offsides penatly is not reviewable. I think the rules committee needs to look at including offsides as something that is reviewable because the officials clearly blew that call. I can understand why holding or pass interference is not reviewable because those are more judgment calls but offsides is a pre-snap penatly just like too many men on the field. I just don't understand the logic of the number of players on the field being reviewable but offsides not being reviewable.

Had they not blown the offsides call then UGA at the very least could have gotten another FG and went up 16-0 or could have gotten a touchdown and made it 20-0. Either way it cost UGA points and helped keep Alabama in the game.

[AU64 10,122]

28 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Didn’t we actually beat good South Carolina team partially because the Ole Ball Coach benched Garcia too quick? 

Yep...I was there....not sure he benched him too soon or too late...but their offense was bad and AU kept the ball almost the entire 3rd quarter....very long drive which took up about 10 minutes and then on-side kick recovered and got the ball back again...and meantime the USC offense was just sitting on the bench   Think he had made a bad mistake somewhere in the first half and got pulled....can't recall all the details.  Mostly AU out frustrated  them. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

4 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Yep...I was there....not sure he benched him too soon or too late...but their offense was bad and AU kept the ball almost the entire 3rd quarter....very long drive which took up about 10 minutes and then on-side kick recovered and got the ball back again...and meantime the USC offense was just sitting on the bench   Think he had made a bad mistake somewhere in the first half and got pulled....can't recall all the details.  Mostly AU out frustrated  them. 

You're thinking of the  2006 Auburn-South Carolina game when we had the ball for the entire 3rd quarter and recovered the onside kick.

[AU64 10,122]

1 minute ago, Auburnfan91 said:

You're thinking of the  2006 Auburn-South Carolina game when we had the ball for the entire 3rd quarter and recovered the onside kick.

thanks.....you are right....could not remember which year. What I remember is that we kept the ball as you describe and that my seats were on row 50 or something on the upper deck and I think we could see Augusta in the distance.   

Was at the other game too when Garcia was the QB too.....and I recall Garcia's problems prior to the 2011 game when there was some doubt if he would play and he had a bad game too.....INT and could not find his receivers. . . 

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

One I'll give congrats to Bama.

Two, was kind of funny watching Kirby and Georgia do exactly what OU did do them last week that cost the OU game. Funny you guys says Gus, cause our OU friend was like wtf did Riley start calling the plays. Got roped into going to a bar with some people.

Three, still no doubts that OSU or even Wisconsin would of been competitive or could of won the NC.

Four, shows what a joke the system is. Alabama as a 4 seed out of 4 pretty much ended up with a 1st round bye (cause they didn't have to play the championship game), and then ended up with the least amount of travel time for all 4 teams.

Five, I was wrong and the ratings didn't flop. Still surprised by that.

[eibua12 81]

1 hour ago, Auburnfan91 said:

I know there's another thread about officiating in the NC game but I'd rather post in this one since it's about the game in general.

I know facemasks are easily missed by officials because they're sometimes not in position to see it so I'm not going to harp on the missed facemask on Alabama but I will say that the biggest blown call by the officials in the game was the offsides penalty on UGA when they blocked the punt on Alabama's 1st possession of the 2nd half..... On replay it clearly showed the UGA player was not in the neutral zone. He just timed the snap well but never crossed into the neutral zone. 

 

 

The offsides blown call is unforgivable on the officials part because there is a line judge and head linesman who are both standing right at the line of scrimmage on opposites sides of the field on every play and part of their job is to look for movement by the offense or defense but somehow the officials "thought" that the UGA player had jumped offsides but the replay showed otherwise. I honestly don't know why offsides calls are not reviewable. They can review how many number of players are on the field but somehow an offsides penatly is not reviewable. I think the rules committee needs to look at including offsides as something that is reviewable because the officials clearly blew that call. I can understand why holding or pass interference is not reviewable because those are more judgment calls but offsides is a pre-snap penatly just like too many men on the field. I just don't understand the logic of the number of players on the field being reviewable but offsides not being reviewable.

Had they not blown the offsides call then UGA at the very least could have gotten another FG and went up 16-0 or could have gotten a touchdown and made it 20-0. Either way it cost UGA points and helped keep Alabama in the game.

Actually they should have blown the play dead assessed a false start penalty and punted, horrible across the board. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

10 hours ago, Texan4Auburn said:

Four, shows what a joke the system is. Alabama as a 4 seed out of 4 pretty much ended up with a 1st round bye (cause they didn't have to play the championship game),

The SECCG and the CFP are separate entities. I too think it’s weird that Bama got in but if Auburn was 11-1 and our only loss prevented us from playing for the SECCG, I’d still want a shot if our team is still among the elite of the country. Two times now Auburn and Bama have battled with direct implications to SEC and BCS/CFP titles so it would behoove of us to quit bitching about a one loss Bama getting in. I swear to God some of y’all have listened to: “SEC Fatigue -let’s undercut the SEC’s chances of multiple teams in the playoff” arguments too much and are running with it.

You can go a little further, what if we are 11-1 and beat two number one team’s back to back but didn’t make the playoff because we couldn’t make it to the lousy SECCG that isn’t even necessary. If anything, make it a field of 6, best 4 CCG winters and 2 at large bids or “wildcards”

10 hours ago, Texan4Auburn said:

Three, still no doubts that OSU or even Wisconsin would of been competitive or could of won the NC.

 Wisconsin’s schedule was pretty weak  and they didn’t win their CCG- the same standard that everyone is holding to Bama. tOSU lost by over thirty to a bad horrible team. The committee deemed that loss unforgivable.

[fishepa 1,901]

Wisconsin is the problem here, if they won their conference championship game bammer wouldn't have got a shot.

[keesler 5,924]

If "if's" and "but's" were candy and nuts................woulda - shoulda - coulda.

What's done is done and IMHO watching a 1 loss Bama that didn't have to win the conference resulting in two SEC teams in the CFP and both advancing to face off for the NC just increased Auburn's chances exponentially in the future.  

This chain of events that occurred in the CFP set a precedent for future SEC teams and tells us that two SEC teams can indeed make the playoffs.  I didn't want our 2 biggest rivals to make it, and had Auburn taken care of their own business like both of those teams we'd be having a different discussion today.  But knowing the possibility exists for 2 SEC teams to get in is a good thing.

 

[AUsince72 11,084]

2 minutes ago, keesler said:

If "if's" and "but's" were candy and nuts................woulda - shoulda - coulda.

What's done is done and IMHO watching a 1 loss Bama that didn't have to win the conference resulting in two SEC teams in the CFP and both advancing to face off for the NC just increased Auburn's chances exponentially in the future.  

This chain of events that occurred in the CFP set a precedent for future SEC teams and tells us that two SEC teams can indeed make the playoffs.  I didn't want our 2 biggest rivals to make it, and had Auburn taken care of their own business like both of those teams we'd be having a different discussion today.  But knowing the possibility exists for 2 SEC teams to get in is a good thing.

 

Especially since the TV ratings were (surprisingly to me) so high.

Heck, next year ESPN will push for 4 SEC teams to make the playoffs.

[80Tiger 899]

27 minutes ago, keesler said:

If "if's" and "but's" were candy and nuts................woulda - shoulda - coulda.

What's done is done and IMHO watching a 1 loss Bama that didn't have to win the conference resulting in two SEC teams in the CFP and both advancing to face off for the NC just increased Auburn's chances exponentially in the future.  

This chain of events that occurred in the CFP set a precedent for future SEC teams and tells us that two SEC teams can indeed make the playoffs.  I didn't want our 2 biggest rivals to make it, and had Auburn taken care of their own business like both of those teams we'd be having a different discussion today.  But knowing the possibility exists for 2 SEC teams to get in is a good thing.

 

I see a rule coming from the CFP that prevents 2 schools coming from the same conference.  They will eventually regionalize the system.

[cole256 17,042]

On 1/8/2018 at 11:24 PM, CAReeves2010 said:

I was just impressed at how fast he found the open receiver after checking his reads in this type of situation. I'll wait a few years to pull for him when he changes uni colors.

Looked the safety off like a pro

[aujeff11 6,243]

Damian Harris decided to not enter the draft.

 

Crap.

 

Ridley, Payne, and Scarborough are going pro.

[WeagleAU 594]

18 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

I know there's another thread about officiating in the NC game but I'd rather post in this one since it's about the game in general.

 

The offsides blown call is unforgivable on the officials part because there is a line judge and head linesman who are both standing right at the line of scrimmage on opposites sides of the field on every play and part of their job is to look for movement by the offense or defense but somehow the officials "thought" that the UGA player had jumped offsides but the replay showed otherwise. I honestly don't know why offsides calls are not reviewable. They can review how many number of players are on the field but somehow an offsides penatly is not reviewable. I think the rules committee needs to look at including offsides as something that is reviewable because the officials clearly blew that call. I can understand why holding or pass interference is not reviewable because those are more judgment calls but offsides is a pre-snap penatly just like too many men on the field. I just don't understand the logic of the number of players on the field being reviewable but offsides not being reviewable.

Had they not blown the offsides call then UGA at the very least could have gotten another FG and went up 16-0 or could have gotten a touchdown and made it 20-0. Either way it cost UGA points and helped keep Alabama in the game.

Overall, it was bad year in officiating.  One of the worst years for officiating in bowl games that I can remember.  I’m not sure how some of those missed calls and issues can be improved, but hopefully they can work on it on the offseason .

[Barnacle 9,064]

6 hours ago, cole256 said:

Looked the safety off like a pro

Yeah he did. And not only that, he snapped his head back to the receiver and thew the ball without hesitation. It's hard not to want to wait a fraction of a second more to make sure your guy is open. It was really beautiful to watch. He really minds me of a more mobile Brees. 

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

14 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

The SECCG and the CFP are separate entities. I too think it’s weird that Bama got in but if Auburn was 11-1 and our only loss prevented us from playing for the SECCG, I’d still want a shot if our team is still among the elite of the country. Two times now Auburn and Bama have battled with direct implications to SEC and BCS/CFP titles so it would behoove of us to quit bitching about a one loss Bama getting in. I swear to God some of y’all have listened to: “SEC Fatigue -let’s undercut the SEC’s chances of multiple teams in the playoff” arguments too much and are running with it.

You can go a little further, what if we are 11-1 and beat two number one team’s back to back but didn’t make the playoff because we couldn’t make it to the lousy SECCG that isn’t even necessary. If anything, make it a field of 6, best 4 CCG winters and 2 at large bids or “wildcards”

 Wisconsin’s schedule was pretty weak  and they didn’t win their CCG- the same standard that everyone is holding to Bama. tOSU lost by over thirty to a bad horrible team. The committee deemed that loss unforgivable.

That's cool and all, but SEC fatigue and all that have nothing to do what I was talking about.

So you are cool then if Auburn goes 13-0 and wins the SEC and is labeled the #1 seed. Then travels all the way to California to play the #4 Seed, that happens to be the University of Southern California who didn't win their conference and in the Rose Bowl? That is what I was pointing out. The 4 seed got the bye and the best travel accommodations.

For the undercut and all that... sorry not the way I grew up in athletics. Groups are drawn, you take the draw, you win the group or your ass goes home. No.. oh so sorry you got the group of death, lets have a committee save you. If you can't beat them today then there is no guarantee you can beat them tomorrow. So absolutely, a 11-1 Auburn team that didn't win the SEC can sit at home.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

1 hour ago, Texan4Auburn said:

That's cool and all, but SEC fatigue and all that have nothing to do what I was talking about.

So you are cool then if Auburn goes 13-0 and wins the SEC and is labeled the #1 seed. Then travels all the way to California to play the #4 Seed, that happens to be the University of Southern California who didn't win their conference and in the Rose Bowl? That is what I was pointing out. The 4 seed got the bye and the best travel accommodations.

For the undercut and all that... sorry not the way I grew up in athletics. Groups are drawn, you take the draw, you win the group or your ass goes home. No.. oh so sorry you got the group of death, lets have a committee save you. If you can't beat them today then there is no guarantee you can beat them tomorrow. So absolutely, a 11-1 Auburn team that didn't win the SEC can sit at home.

Hold on, the #1 seed team in the playoff is given the closest geographical travel. Clemson was #1 so they got to play in the Sugar Bowl. Had UGA been the #1 seed, they would have played in the Sugar Bowl. It just so happened that Alabama got a favorable travel schedule as the #4 seed because of who was the #1 seed. Had Oklahoma been the #1 seed, Alabama would have probably played in the Rose Bowl against Oklahoma.

[aujeff11 6,243]

8 hours ago, Texan4Auburn said:

The 4 seed got the bye and the best travel accommodations.

What fan91 ^ said. 

The 1 seed gets “home field advantage” thus the closest travel arrangements. Bama being the four seed didn’t receive any travel accommodations at all when they played Clemson. They benefitted travel wise from playing against a regional 1 seed as the 4 seed.

8 hours ago, Texan4Auburn said:

So absolutely, a 11-1 Auburn team that didn't win the SEC can sit at home

While potential two and three loss conference champions can still earn a spot?  I think not.

[keesler 5,924]

I think the CFP Committee's decision to give UAT a spot in the playoff opened the door and made Auburn's path to the CFP easier in the future.  A precedent was established and we don't even have to win the division to make it in.  Obviously the nation didn't have so much SEC fatigue that they turned off their TVs Monday night.  They just wanted to watch some good football, and that game delivered.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

14 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Hold on, the #1 seed team in the playoff is given the closest geographical travel. Clemson was #1 so they got to play in the Sugar Bowl. Had UGA been the #1 seed, they would have played in the Sugar Bowl. It just so happened that Alabama got a favorable travel schedule as the #4 seed because of who was the #1 seed. Had Oklahoma been the #1 seed, Alabama would have probably played in the Rose Bowl against Oklahoma.

And there should not be any it just so happened. They also need to do something about the conference championships as it adds another game. There is an advantage to not having to play the game.

As I said somewhere before, start picking the contenders after the final week vs after conference championships. Then teams can choose not to participate, or they can play their entire third string if they like without it impacting their playoff contention.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

8 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

What fan91 ^ said. 

The 1 seed gets “home field advantage” thus the closest travel arrangements. Bama being the four seed didn’t receive any travel accommodations at all when they played Clemson. They benefitted travel wise from playing against a regional 1 seed as the 4 seed.

While potential two and three loss conference champions can still earn a spot?  I think not.

If Auburn would of beaten Georgia this year you would have had a two loss team in over teams with better records. One loss teams all got chosen over an undefeated team that was a conference champion this year. So that already occurs. Auburn would of clearly benefited from being conference champions, they would of benefited from the playoffs being decided in the final week of the season, they did not benefit from playing an extra game vs those they were competing for slots against.

Also when it comes to the discussion, what about conferences like the SEC that play the most games against the FCS vs the Big 10 that no longer will allow FCS opponents after the couple of grandfathered in games are over?

[lionheartkc 6,150]

On 1/10/2018 at 10:24 AM, 80Tiger said:

I see a rule coming from the CFP that prevents 2 schools coming from the same conference.  They will eventually regionalize the system.

Not as long as Saban has influence and bama keeps backing in. Once he's gone, I could definitely see it.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

4 hours ago, keesler said:

I think the CFP Committee's decision to give UAT a spot in the playoff opened the door and made Auburn's path to the CFP easier in the future.  A precedent was established and we don't even have to win the division to make it in.  Obviously the nation didn't have so much SEC fatigue that they turned off their TVs Monday night.  They just wanted to watch some good football, and that game delivered.

Or, has Alabama become big enough of a villain that the nation will turn in with the hopes of watching them crash and burn. I can tell you that where I was at that was what people were hoping. They wanted exactly what they got in the first half of the game.

Which if this is the case is bad for college football playoffs, cause Alabama will get in over anyone with similar resume's due to ratings.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

3 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

Not as long as Saban has influence and bama keeps backing in. Once he's gone, I could definitely see it.

SEC will fight like hell for that rule the first time the conference is left out.