|
Replies: 36
| visibility 1
|
All-In [40088]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18282
Joined: 10/28/15
|
I think Georgia’s biggest problem in front of the cfp committee
Dec 7, 2018, 7:45 AM
|
|
Is that Ken Hatfield was tired of watching them choke in the 4th quarter.
Message was edited by: lovingit®
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1824]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 977
Joined: 3/11/15
|
Their problem is they played 3 real teams and
Dec 7, 2018, 7:48 AM
|
|
went 1-2 in those games. They also played Austin Peay, Middle Tenn St and UMass. They can talk about the SEC all they want, that is a terrible OOC schedule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Their OOC schedule was not good, but overall
Dec 7, 2018, 7:52 AM
|
|
They had one of the strongest schedules in the country. Their opponents, cumulatively, have the 4th-highest win percentage in the nation.
In-conference, probably only Tennessee has an argument for playing a tougher schedule than Georgia has.
The reason they are not in is the number 2. They lost one too many games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30746]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34445
Joined: 6/22/03
|
Not hard to put together a high win % when you
Dec 7, 2018, 7:56 AM
|
|
Play tears like Kentucky and SCAR.
Need another win? Quick, call Akron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I have them 31st in opponents' opponents' win percentage.
Dec 7, 2018, 8:02 AM
|
|
Still pretty good.
I mean you can just subjectively decide that the teams Georgia played weren't very good. That's fine. But the teams they played won more games than just about anybody else. And that's a fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30746]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34445
Joined: 6/22/03
|
I agree, UGAs OOC schedule helped boost their weak Conference schedule
Dec 7, 2018, 8:46 AM
|
|
But it just wasnt enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: Their OOC schedule was not good, but overall
Dec 7, 2018, 7:57 AM
[ in reply to Their OOC schedule was not good, but overall ] |
|
They were 3-2 against "ranked at the time" teams (inlcudes the coots). That is not playoff worthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Never said they were playoff worthy.
Dec 7, 2018, 8:00 AM
|
|
But it's not because they didn't play a tough schedule, as the previous poster was saying. It's because they lost two games.
They played a very tough schedule, if you measure schedule strength by teams winning and losing games, which I think is the best measure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Also 3 wins vs. "ranked at the time" is better than both
Dec 7, 2018, 8:05 AM
[ in reply to Re: Their OOC schedule was not good, but overall ] |
|
Clemson and Oklahoma. (That said, I don't really like measuring by "ranked at the time"; I prefer "ranked at the end".)
The "-2" part of that "3-2" is the bad part. That's more than the 4 playoff teams combined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Their OOC schedule was not good, but overall
Dec 7, 2018, 9:13 AM
[ in reply to Their OOC schedule was not good, but overall ] |
|
UGA played FIVE, count em, FIVE teams that are non-Division 1 FBS schools.
They played FIVE cupcakes that arent even in the same NCAA division. That's almost half of their opponents.
Sure, raw stats say they played good opponents. If you remove the names of the teams UGA played and look at it like this:
UGA beat XXXX team that went 10-3 and outscored opponents 687-64
UGA beat XXXX team that went 11-2 and outscored opponents 564-96
Yeah, that looks like a strong schedule.
Until you replace "XXXX" with "Austin Pea", "App State" and "Samford" and realize that 5 of the 12 teams they played arent even Division 1 FBS schools.
UGA was ranked highly purely due to SEC bias. Nothing more. UGA is a crap team this year that masked their crappiness by playing a Furman-quality schedule which allowed them to rack up their current win record. It was a cheap season and UGA got their wins due to raw talent, not due to development, depth, coaching, playcalling, or anything else. They just have a bunch of good recruits playing high school teams.
I would wager that if UGA played our schedule, or any actually competitive schedule, they wouldnt even be ranked in the top 15.
UGA should change their name from "The Bulldogs" to "The Pastrymen", because they're full of cupcakes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40088]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18282
Joined: 10/28/15
|
I hate Georgia as much as the rest but what are you talking about,
Dec 7, 2018, 9:17 AM
|
|
5 non division one fbs schools? Unless South Carolina is one of them and then I can see that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
You are mind-numbingly incorrect in every way.
Dec 7, 2018, 9:25 AM
[ in reply to Re: Their OOC schedule was not good, but overall ] |
|
Austin Peay was the only non-FBS school they played. The only teams in the nation who played more than one non-FBS school were Florida and Liberty, who both played 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Now I think you're actually just trolling..
Dec 7, 2018, 9:30 AM
|
|
Georgia didn't even play App St. or Samford (App St. would actually be a very quality FBS opponent...they received quite a few Top 25 votes in the AP and Coaches Poll).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13031]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22351
Joined: 4/24/04
|
Some of yall really try your best to overcomplicate the
Dec 7, 2018, 9:37 AM
[ in reply to Re: Their OOC schedule was not good, but overall ] |
|
SOS argument. There are several metrics out there that already calculate it for you and do a much, much better job of weighing each game correctly. All of this "they played 5 cupcakes and only 3 real games" stuff is ridiculous.
S&P+
Georgia - 11
Clemson - 99
FEI
Georgia - 4
Clemson - 101
Sagarin
Georgia - 6
Clemson - 48
I feel dirty for defending Georgia here, but if you are going to bash them at least get your facts straight and bash them for the correct things. Their SOS was very good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [309]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1509
Joined: 10/6/11
|
Re: Their OOC schedule was not good, but overall
Dec 7, 2018, 9:30 AM
[ in reply to Their OOC schedule was not good, but overall ] |
|
Really-the sec least is still one of the weakest divisions in all of college football. Have a clue at least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Except for the fact that this year, they were the strongest.
Dec 7, 2018, 9:31 AM
|
|
Are you kidding me? Are you aware that the SEC East had the best winning percentage of any division in the country? They even went 9-6 against the SEC West.
Do people just say stuff without having any idea what they are saying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Re: Except for the fact that this year, they were the strongest.
Dec 7, 2018, 9:38 AM
|
|
#1 Alabama x3
#2 Clemson
#3 Notre Dame
#11 LSU
#16 West Virginia
#19 Texas A&M x2
Those are literally the only games the SEC East lost this year outside of the division. They went 34-9.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30746]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34445
Joined: 6/22/03
|
Numbers and perception
Dec 7, 2018, 9:54 AM
[ in reply to Except for the fact that this year, they were the strongest. ] |
|
You see a SEC WEST win and see a number, . I see Arkansas
You see a team in the east go 3-0 vs the mighty SEC west and say wow, numbers!
I see a team that beat Arkansas, miss, miss st and say, ok.
You see a team beating 10-2 Buffalo Tech State and wow, numbers!. I see Buffalo Tech State.
The college football committee also looked at the NUMBERS 5 and 9.
ND , 5 acc wins, Clemson 9. YOU'RE IN at #2 and 3.
NUMBERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Yes, I will admit what I am posting is based on
Dec 7, 2018, 9:59 AM
|
|
actual numbers, not my "perceptions". Guilty as charged, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30746]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34445
Joined: 6/22/03
|
You missed the point
Dec 7, 2018, 10:42 AM
|
|
Numbers don't lie but they sure as heck can be used to tell a story.
My numbers were 100% correct. You can not deny.
ND , 5 acc wins.. clemson 9 acc wins
Clemson and ND are in the playoffs.
2 of the 4 teams in the playoffs have heavy ACC schedules. FACTS. NUMBERS
You can take those number and tell different stories to meet an agenda.
The ACC is so tough that CFP favors those teams and that is why ND and Clemson are in.
Or
THE ACC is so weak all you have to do is play a bunch of them and you are in the playoffs.
They are both just stories.
My perception
Beating Ark, miss, vandy, scar, tenn, miss st, Kentucky, and Missouri isn't any more impressive than beating Syracuse, Boston College, FSU, Miami, pitt, ncstate, and duke.
In the end it doesnt matter , its all stories.
UGAs biggest hurdle isn't the SEC, it is Bama.
If you want to win a NC, you have to beat Bama, just like Every1 else. Only difference is, they may have to jump that hurdle before Every1 else.
College football hasn't changeD in 5 years.
If you are in the big12, you have to beat Oklahoma if you want a shot at bama.
BIG10, you have to beat OSU if you want a shot at bama.
ACC, you have to beat Clemson if you want a shot at bama.
UGA took their shot.. boo hoo.
Yeah it stinks that Bama is in their confrench but they can cry all they want. They sure don't cry bout bama being in their conference when those ESPN checks come rolling in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Apparently I did miss your point...
Dec 7, 2018, 10:45 AM
|
|
Because nothing in your post is opposed to anything I posted. I said Georgia played a tough schedule. You are comparing them to Clemson and others, when I never did. Clemson also played a tough schedule.
And I also agree that Georgia shouldn't be in the playoff, and never said otherwise.
Apparently you misread everything I posted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30746]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34445
Joined: 6/22/03
|
Goodness gracias
Dec 7, 2018, 11:18 AM
|
|
You're whole sos argument is based soley on numbers in the win and loss column.
Which dont tell you how strong or weak anything is. They are just numbers.
Georgia played a schedule
Wyoming played a schedule
Clemson played a schedule
BYU played a schedule
Every 1 plays a schedule.
NUmbers are generated.
"Strength" is nothing more than PEOPLE personifying those numbers; More times than not soley for some agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
What you're saying is, to me, a great compliment.
Dec 7, 2018, 11:29 AM
|
|
Though it sounds like you are intending it as a criticism.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30746]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34445
Joined: 6/22/03
|
You Seem Easily IMPRESSED By A Pie chart.***
Dec 7, 2018, 1:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I'm a numbers guy, for sure.
Dec 7, 2018, 1:48 PM
|
|
Spreadsheets are my passion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7191]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 20374
Joined: 8/18/06
|
Re: I think Georgia’s biggest problem in front of the cfp committee
Dec 7, 2018, 7:52 AM
|
|
was no two-loss team has ever gotten into the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: I think Georgia’s biggest problem in front of the cfp committee
Dec 7, 2018, 9:22 AM
|
|
I don't think so. Before the playoff a 2 loss LSU team won the national title.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
The only teams with 1 loss that year were Kansas and Hawaii***
Dec 7, 2018, 9:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [666]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 780
Joined: 8/7/17
|
Re: The only teams with 1 loss that year were Kansas and Hawaii***
Dec 7, 2018, 10:49 AM
|
|
and Ohio State I believe. Who LSU played and beat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
...which gave Ohio St. 2 losses.***
Dec 7, 2018, 10:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26464]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20614
Joined: 9/2/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [362]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 679
Joined: 3/5/08
|
Re: I think Georgia’s biggest problem in front of the cfp committee
Dec 7, 2018, 8:54 AM
|
|
IMHO I think the committee laid this one on Kirby Smart. A team coached by a guy who callS a fake punt in that situation is not a championship team. Had he punted, likely Georgia wins and they are a 1 loss SEC champ and back in the CFP with Bama, Clemson & ND.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3362]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2725
Joined: 11/14/14
|
Re: I think Georgia’s biggest problem in front of the cfp committee
Dec 7, 2018, 9:00 AM
|
|
Losing to good teams should never be a measurable for the playoff committee. Winning against good team is the standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40088]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18282
Joined: 10/28/15
|
Well said***
Dec 7, 2018, 9:14 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6460]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10109
Joined: 11/2/03
|
Re: I think Georgia’s biggest problem in front of the cfp committee
Dec 7, 2018, 9:16 AM
|
|
You don't leave out two 1 loss conference champions for a 2 loss team that did not win its conference. You don't rematch the last game of the season in the first round of the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40088]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18282
Joined: 10/28/15
|
Agreed, ga can suck their thumb all they want but they had a chance to be in.
Dec 7, 2018, 9:20 AM
|
|
They beat LSU or Alabama and it’s a different conversation. In the current system a two loss non champ shouldn’t get in over a one loss conference champion
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10587]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9227
Joined: 12/29/06
|
Re: I think Georgia’s biggest problem in front of the cfp committee
Dec 7, 2018, 11:01 AM
|
|
What difference does playing a difficult schedule make id you can't beat the teams that make it a difficult schedule. Take Bama and LDSU off their schedule and it isn't so difficult. I have always contended that the #1 team in the country (this year Bama) plays the easiest schedule because they don't play anyone better than them. The hardest schedule is played by the worst team in the country (UTEP) because they did not play but one team that was better than them. Everyone else is somewhere between.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 36
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
