Looking too far ahead (playoffs)

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Linayus said:

I'd put us an even 50% right now. Especially with Bama's injuries in the middle defensively. If they can't figure out a solution there, we're going to have our way running the ball like we did against Georgia.

I'd say thus all depends on the staff's ability to keep the team focused after a big win. Keep them focused and rest the starters after a good lead this week and pop the top on the next can of WOOP A$$!

[Auburn2Eugene 2,317]

7 hours ago, AUBourne said:

Not reading the rest of your post.  You come across like a cry baby and hostile because someone does not agree with you. Life must be hard for you.  I don't know why typing your either of your responses could not have been done without so much rudeness but I guess some people (like you obviously) are just like that.  Bet you are a real joy to be around.  Then again hiding behind a keyboard and talking down to people is probably about as brave as you get. 

You should. You should go back and read the entire conversation. @Strychnine is spot on with everything said. 

You are basically judging a book by its cover. You read the first part and said, nope not reading anymore because I don't like how you are talking. People are too sensitive these days, and you just proved it. Context is king

4 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

As the season continues to descend into the realm of whacky and unpredictable, it is not completely unrealistic that a two loss USC or Washington PAC 12 Champion gets a shot at the playoffs.

I think you have quickly become one of my favorite posters.

You are spot on, and I applaud you for not responding to the person I quoted before you.  

[Strychnine 1,802]

22 minutes ago, Auburn2Eugene said:

You should. You should go back and read the entire conversation. @Strychnine is spot on with everything said. 

You are basically judging a book by its cover. You read the first part and said, nope not reading anymore because I don't like how you are talking. People are too sensitive these days, and you just proved it. Context is king

I think you have quickly become one of my favorite posters.

You are spot on, and I applaud you for not responding to the person I quoted before you.  

 

Responding to him after that would have been pointless, and the likelihood of actual hostile words would have increased.  I was honestly hoping that he might read it, absorb it, and become a better poster.  I suspected I was wasting my time with the second post, but was hoping to be proven wrong.  Being described as a crybaby did make me laugh though, almost as much as Penn State being characterized as an upstart or the concept of NCAA narratives driving the FBS postseason did.  If he thought I was being hostile, I would hate to see his reaction if it had been Meta that responded to him.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,677]

15 hours ago, AUBourne said:

I hope you are right but I don't trust the politics.I think last year proved the committee cares more about money than about which teams deserves to be in playoffs. PSU won the Big10, won the Big10 Championship game and beat OSU head to head. Yet OSU was given a playoff spot instead.    If the committee can make an argument for the name brand program over the upstart then the blue blood gets in.

The defending champion Clemson beat AU head to head. I think we have a real issue if Miami wins the ACC.  I think Alabama gets a higher seed than AU unless we dominate them. A close win at Jordan-Hare is not enough based on the PSU vs OSU results.

But if Clemson wins I think a case will still be made for both Miami and OSU over Auburn.

 

 

 

I'd give OSU two things: back then, 2 loss teams making it was prohibited damn near. And it was made worse that PSU's losses came to an unranked team and a blow out vs UM. OSU had 4 top 14 wins, with two being blowouts. Even with the weaker schedule, I think PSU makes it in if they dont lose to Pitt (or beats Michigan). That's their own fault I believe. Its not really politics, you just have to have a strong enough repertoire. OSU with 2 losses has a win over a mid ranked PSU and a Wisconsin team that the CFP clearly doesn't respect. Even though if Auburn wins out they wont be competing with OSU for a spot, they'd get picked over easy. If Auburn, Miami, and Oklahoma win out, they're 3. That fourth spot is between 1 loss UA and 2 loss OSU. OU and AU have the strongest schedules and best losses. Alabama also would have a great loss to us, and wins over presumably ranked MSU and LSU. Its very likely they'd get slipped in for money over OSU not us 

[AUBourne 425]

2 hours ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

I'd give OSU two things: back then, 2 loss teams making it was prohibited damn near. And it was made worse that PSU's losses came to an unranked team and a blow out vs UM. OSU had 4 top 14 wins, with two being blowouts. Even with the weaker schedule, I think PSU makes it in if they dont lose to Pitt (or beats Michigan). That's their own fault I believe. Its not really politics, you just have to have a strong enough repertoire. OSU with 2 losses has a win over a mid ranked PSU and a Wisconsin team that the CFP clearly doesn't respect. Even though if Auburn wins out they wont be competing with OSU for a spot, they'd get picked over easy. If Auburn, Miami, and Oklahoma win out, they're 3. That fourth spot is between 1 loss UA and 2 loss OSU. OU and AU have the strongest schedules and best losses. Alabama also would have a great loss to us, and wins over presumably ranked MSU and LSU. Its very likely they'd get slipped in for money over OSU not us 

I can understand your take on last season and it makes sense.  Though my point was not to dwell so much on the past but to get a feel for Auburn's chances I do have a gripe in how emphasis on what is important to getting in changes. TCU got left out based on the whole idea that they didn't play in a championship game (in OSU's favor) and then that was not so important (in OSU's favor) last year. See before the season started in 2014 the NCAA published a list of criteria the committee would judge teams on.  Winning a conference title game was not on that list (winning a conference title was and TCU did that). Also on their list was results vs common opponents (they both played Minnesota. TCU 30-7 over Gophers and OSU 31-24 so edge clearly to TCU). Another factor was strength of schedule. TCU finished the regular season ranked number 11 sos and OSU number 26 sos.  Also the committee was to evaluate significant injuries.  OSU was down to a 3rd string QB while TCU had an All-American in Boykin. These are the reason I felt then and still do that the emphasis was changed to get the final results.

But if we win out I think I am actually most concerned with how the committee views the loser of the Miami - Clemson game in comparison to Auburn.  It could be Miami, Oklahoma, Clemson in the first 3 spots.  Will be very interesting to see it all unfold and it is certainly nice that AU is in the conversation this late in the season.

And thank you for being civil. I appreciate your thoughts.

[eibua12 81]

Funny everyone discounts ND, if you get into the two lose conversation ND has the best resume.  UGA and UM. Even if UGA loses to Bama or Auburn in the SECCG. 

The committee puts stock in Conference Champs this hurts ND and makes selection easy.  BIG 10, BIG12, SEC, and ACC would be the logical picks but what if USC wins out?  Is their resume better then tOSU or Wisky?  Is it better then OSU/TSU?  I would say better then BIG10. 

USC should be ranked 7th tonight right behind Auburn!  Auburn plays Bama (one down) Miami will play Clemson (one down). Even if they put UGA ahead of them UGA/Plays West Winner (one down).  They will be sitting pretty and cheering for others but hard to say they don't get in. 

BTW SOS for the SEC this year sucks the other conferences are playing 9 games with at least one other game from the 5.