AU64

Bama vs Georgia

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

If Auburn would of beaten Georgia this year you would have had a two loss team in over teams with better records.

We did beat UGA this year ( just getting that out of the way.) That two loss team would’ve also had the better SOS and the best looking resume. 

33 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

One loss teams all got chosen over an undefeated team that was a conference champion this year.

Again, SOS and the best resume. Beating Miss State, LSU, and a healthy FSU team still looks better than beating the Austin Peays and the Memphis’ of the world even with a quality loss. 

 

33 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

they did not benefit from playing an extra game vs those they were competing for slots against.

Playing the SECCG did not help Auburn’s chances but I’m not going to sit here and say playing the SECCG was a penalty and bitch that we had to play in the game. It’s rather flukish that Bama was able to lose late and depend on others to lose late as well. If you go to an 8 team field, guess who will still be in the playoffs?

Last time I checked, since the CFP started, and for years even before that, the SECCG winners were shoo-ins to play indirectly or directly for the title.

33 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

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?

Our schedule is tough enough imo. The Big 10 teams aren’t exactly trailblazers given they were collectively snubbed from the playoffs- one reason because one team lost by over 30 to a weak team, the other because they lost the CCG on top of a weak schedule. So you tell me what good that did?

Edited by aujeff11
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




9 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

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

Of course. It's all good until you taste your own medicine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no problem with two teams coming from the same conference. Especially when those two teams can and end up defeating the cream of the crop of the ACC and the Big 12. 

 

It just means more  :-\

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

We did beat UGA this year ( just getting that out of the way.) That loss two would’ve also had the better SOS and the best looking resume. 

 

Again, SOS and the best resume. Beating Miss State, LSU, and a healthy FSU team still looks better than beating the Austin Peays and the Memphis’ of the world even with a quality loss. 

 

Playing the SECCG did not help Auburn’s chances but I’m not going to sit here and say playing the SECCG was a penalty and bitch that we had to play in the game.

Last time I checked, since the CFP started, and for years even before that, the SECCG winners were shoo-ins to play indirectly or directly for the title. 

Our schedule is tough enough imo. The Big 10 aren’t exactly trailblazers given they were collectively snubbed from the playoffs- one reason because one team lost by over 30 to a weak team, the other because they lost the CCG on top of a weak schedule. So you tell me what good that did?

And many would say beating Wisconsin, Penn State, and Michigan State looks better than beating LSU and Miss State. Sorry you can't judge FSU off of paper practically which is what you are doing with that one game (they could of improved, they could of crashed and burned especially since Jimbo is now at aTm).

The conference games moving forward across the board need to be looked at for all teams and conferences. If you disagree that is fine, but this isn't just an Auburn thing.

You are right, they put a ton of weight on that SEC championship game. Then conferences like the Big 12 they punished for not having one (TCU/Baylor), told them in the CFP they would be punished for not having one, pretty much pressured them into having one, and now it doesn't matter if there is one or not. That is a joke and easy to fix in fairness to all contenders.

Awesome point about the Big 10 and you use the key words imo. Cause if they don't have a conference championship, Wisconsin doesn't have to play that extra game, and they choose the field at the end of the regular season, Wisconsin is in. Is Alabama still a 1 loss team if it had to play say S. Carolina instead of Mercer?

So way to many inconsistencies in selection and basis for my taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Texan4Auburn said:

And many would say beating Wisconsin, Penn State, and Michigan State looks better than beating LSU and Miss State.

The committee said themselves that losing to an unranked team by 30 couldn’t be ignored. The committee set a precedent of not forgiving bad losses which is a totally different topic. 

1 hour ago, Texan4Auburn said:

Sorry you can't judge FSU off of paper practically which is what you are doing with that one game

The committee said they would take the injury’s effect on the season in account, why can’t you? 

1 hour ago, Texan4Auburn said:

You are right, they put a ton of weight on that SEC championship game. Then conferences like the Big 12 they punished for not having one (TCU/Baylor), told them in the CFP they would be punished for not having one, pretty much pressured them into having one, and now it doesn't matter if there is one or not.

I still say it matters whether there is a CCG or not. One of these days, the conferences might come together and say let’s do a deeper playoff field and start doing 9 conference games and drop the CCG. I would not mind that. But for now, winning the conference almost always guarantees that we won’t need help. 

It’s not like Bama lost to Auburn and they were still CFP front runners. They became very vulnerable to the whims of the committee. Bama needed help and there were subsequent losses that Bama had to depend on in order to be back in tbe running. You have to think that if Wisconsin won their CCG that they would absolutely be in. 

1 hour ago, Texan4Auburn said:

Awesome point about the Big 10 and you use the key words imo. Cause if they don't have a conference championship, Wisconsin doesn't have to play that extra game, and they choose the field at the end of the regular season, Wisconsin is in.

This part does suck. They can either win the conference championship and stay a frontunner, or lose out. It’s not a lose, lose situation, it’s a neutral, lose situation. Mostly though, these conference games provide the committee the last set of answers and insight before the final selection. It seems like you would be more okay with these conference games if Bama didn’t get to luck into backing in without playing in one. Like I said, it’s just a weird situation. If anything though, I would’ve put Ohio State at 4 instead of UCF. I will never put my weight behind them until their schedule is more significant. I was the same with Boise State in tbe Boise Days. Yeah they had one great game against Oklahoma in a non-championship game but that didn’t move the needle for me at all.

Edited by aujeff11
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

The committee said themselves that losing to an unranked team by 30 couldn’t be ignored. The committee set a precedent of not forgiving bad losses which is a totally different topic. 

The committee said they would take the injury’s effect on the season in account, why can’t you? 

I still say it matters whether there is a CCG or not. One of these days, the conferences might come together and say let’s do a deeper playoff field and start doing 9 conference games and drop the CCG. I would not mind that. But for now, winning the conference almost always guarantees that we won’t need help. 

It’s not like Bama lost to Auburn and they were still CFP front runners. They became very vulnerable to the whims of the committee. Bama needed help and there were subsequent losses that Bama had to depend on in order to be back in tbe running. You have to think that if Wisconsin won their CCG that they would absolutely be in. 

This part does suck. They can either win the conference championship and stay a frontunner, or lose out. It not a lose, lose situation, it’s a neutral, lose situation. Mostly though, these conference games provide the committee the last set of answers and insight before the final selection. It seems like you would be more okay with these conference games if Bama didn’t get to luck into backing in without playing in one. Like I said, that’s just a weird situation. If anything though, I would’ve put Ohio State at 4 instead of UCF. I will never put my weight behind them until their schedule is more significant. I was the same with Boise State in tbe Boise Days. Yeah they had one great game against Oklahoma in a non-championship game but that move the needle for me at all.

The committee also said there was practically no separation between Alabama and Ohio State. How is there practically no separation, and a team wins an additional game against an undefeated opponent, and the team at home still goes.  So to me the committee only continued its tradition of BS.

Especially when this was a previous committee comment on TCU being dumped from 3 to 6 in the final week, don't think they every answered why FSU didnt fall:

Quote

“Ohio State’s performance in a 13th game gave them a quality win against a highly ranked team that allowed them to move into that fourth spot,” Long said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2014/12/07/tcu-snub-shows-weekly-college-football-playoff-rankings-were-a-sham-whether-ohio-state-was-deserving-or-not/?utm_term=.fc1b1be802b3

Why wont I take the injury into account? Cause it was one game and game one of the season and FSU's entire season shows they had glaring issues on and off the field. Just like you can't judge Auburn this year off of only the Clemson game.

You  can see by above I have always had issues with the "conference games/champions" inconsistencies in decision making. 03 OU should of been out and USC in cause they lost to K State. Course back then PAC 10 everyone played everyone. 2014 Big 12 everyone played everyone, TCU should of been in. Oklahoma State, a conference champion lost out on a shot to a non conference champion with the same record and to a rematch. You also had longer off periods during the BCS. Want a fun read, go read the article about Meyer arguing against a OSU/Michigan rematch in 06 btw.

I'd like to see an end to the inconsistency. Make conference championships matter or say they don't matter. It is a simple fix, that will add consistency, that will impact all teams and all conferences equally. Like you said it is a neutral/lose situation, there is no benefit for the teams in it currently. You can make it a win/neutral/lose game across the board, or you can make it a completely neutral game across the board by making a decision on these games.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 1/11/2018 at 4:34 PM, Texan4Auburn said:

The committee also said there was practically no separation between Alabama and Ohio State. How is there practically no separation, and a team wins an additional game against an undefeated opponent, and the team at home still goes.  So to me the committee only continued its tradition of BS.

 

I said this was BS as well to BradATX. Apparently the “no separation” quote was an outright lie.

On 1/11/2018 at 4:34 PM, Texan4Auburn said:

like to see an end to the inconsistency. Make conference championships matter or say they don't matter.

I agree. I do think the conference championships still matter they’re just not the ultimate litmus test at the end of the day.

With a lot of things of life there are caveats. I actually thought tOSU had the stronger case because I thought the positives outweighed the negatives when the positives are winning a conference championship plus a decent schedule, and the negatives are l horrible loss and two total losses. A new precedent has been set though. 

On 1/11/2018 at 4:34 PM, Texan4Auburn said:

Why wont I take the injury into account? Cause it was one game and game one of the season and FSU's entire season shows they had glaring issues on and off the field. Just like you can't judge Auburn this year off of only the Clemson game.

Sometimes subtle issues can be exacerbated by major issues. It’s really the same reasoning for the committee not condemning Clemson’s loss to Syracuse. Clemson was suffering in a bunch of aspects of the game after the QB went down. 

Great talk bro 🍺🍻

Edited by aujeff11
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean not to bring out the tin foil hats but this is evidence that bama got help like usual. I didn't even watch the game. I'm just now seeing this but it's what we've been seeing for years.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WFE12 said:

I mean not to bring out the tin foil hats but this is evidence that bama got help like usual. I didn't even watch the game. I'm just now seeing this but it's what we've been seeing for years.

 

Tin foil hat away all you want buddy!

I'm not sure why people are impressed with how "awesome" they are when bammer doesn't play on anywhere close to a level playing field.

They watch a greyhound win a Bassett hound race and come away impressed too?

Bammer.....pshaw....

Edited by AUsince72
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2018 at 5:31 AM, WFE12 said:

I mean not to bring out the tin foil hats but this is evidence that bama got help like usual. I didn't even watch the game. I'm just now seeing this but it's what we've been seeing for years.

 

I am certainly no fan of Nick Saban but I applaud him for getting rid of Brown for assaulting a coach but while he was at it he should of got rid of the Wilson guy for shoving Fromm's head into the ground after the play was over with and the ref standing right there. At the very least Wilson should have been ejected!! The whole Big 10 referee team was a absolute joke. I have been around a long time but this was  absolutely the  worst called game I have ever seen, pitiful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A golf buddy of mine sent me this. He has no affiliation with any college football team. I guess it's because he is from New Your, Brooklyn to be exact. He thought I would get a chuckle out of it, which I did. Some of you may have already seen this but for those that haven't , here you go. WDE!!!

IMG_0159.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know all of you are not happy about Bama winning another championship but I am. After the conclusion of the game I thought Bama got the benefit of a majority of the calls or no calls but after several days of reading and watching internet content about the game, I really don't feel Alabama got more or less calls than Georgia. Both teams got away with a lot of no calls. The job the Big 10 crew done was terrible. I am sure I could get in a big debate with you guys but I am not. I will always be wrong since I am an Alabama fan on an Auburn board as far as you guys and girls are concerned. I think Alabama did prove they deserved to be in the playoff.

 

One more thing people. I know y'all refer to Bama as UAT but I would prefer y'all calling them TUA!

  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, E'Town4Bama said:

I know all of you are not happy about Bama winning another championship but I am. After the conclusion of the game I thought Bama got the benefit of a majority of the calls or no calls but after several days of reading and watching internet content about the game, I really don't feel Alabama got more or less calls than Georgia. Both teams got away with a lot of no calls. The job the Big 10 crew done was terrible. I am sure I could get in a big debate with you guys but I am not. I will always be wrong since I am an Alabama fan on an Auburn board as far as you guys and girls are concerned. I think Alabama did prove they deserved to be in the playoff.

 

One more thing people. I know y'all refer to Bama as UAT but I would prefer y'all calling them TUA!

Not going to be a jerk bc that’s not how most people roll here. I am sure the same courtesy would be extended on a Bama board for an Auburn fan. 🙄. But just so you know.....I don’t call them UAT, Bama or Tua.... I’ll just leave it at that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2018 at 4:31 AM, WFE12 said:

I mean not to bring out the tin foil hats but this is evidence that bama got help like usual. I didn't even watch the game. I'm just now seeing this but it's what we've been seeing for years.

 

Expect more of the same for years to come.  At uat “it just means more.”   It is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WeagleAU said:

Expect more of the same for years to come.  At uat “it just means more.”   It is what it is.

Oh for sure man...Us winning a national championship is even more in doubt because of this. There has clearly been an agenda for years and we have to go against that and the team itself.

Edited by WFE12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, E'Town4Bama said:

know all of you are not happy about Bama winning another championship but I am

Could have been worse. Could’ve been Georgia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now