I mean they couldn’t have drawn up an easier path to the title game if they tried. All the good teams with talent are on the other side of the bracket. Kirby gave someone sexual favors.
. Might be like when Baltimore won Super Bowl with Dilfer at qb. Defense and a game manager might do it. Hope not, I hate uga.
They did get an easier path compared to Oregon. However, they have a back up at QB who looked like he was in over his head against Texas. He had a fumbled and a terrible pick, averaged less than 5.5 yards per completion. If this was the same uga defense, they probably could lean on them and win, but they just aren't. I think a QB that can run has given them problems all year, and Notre Dame has one. Notre Dame will he happy to make that game a rock fight, assuming they beat Indiana. Uga lost their punter as well, and in a low scoring field position game that could be a problem.
Normally, I would blame the SEC for giving such an easy path, but the SEC didn't set up the bracket; the Committee did, however I doubt they have any biases. What you see is a product of the system. When you have it set up where conference winners get bye weeks, this kind of thing is going to happen. If the bracket were set up based solely by rankings, it would definitely be more balanced. It is what it is...
big difference is Dilfer had years of nfl playing experience prior to that season. The Georgia QB has like 100 snaps in college.
I can't stand the playoff committee.. Go back to the BCS formula and let the top 12 play it off... As long as there are people involved (committee members) there will always agendas and conflicts of interest.
I actually like the idea of the conference champs getting automatic bids, but they should still be seeded accordingly. But yes, having the BCS computers figure out the rankings would be way better than a committee.
Guys, The BCS computers used poll data (I.e. essentially committees) and analytics (Sagaran, etc. again subjective depending upon the person doing it) to come up with their rankings. It’s all subjective, no matter how it’s done. There will always be some bias.
Understood. The BCS computers use less subjectivity though. So although not perfect, it's more "perfecter" than the committee!
I wouldn't say less subjectivity, but, perhaps, more consistent and more predictable (with Colley being the most predictable). For what it's worth, using only the computer rankings for the BCS (A&H, Billingsley, Colley, Massey, Sagarin, and Wolfe) and using the hi-drop/low-drop method, you'd see the following for computer rankings: #1 - Oregon (1.00) #2 - Georgia (0.95) #3 - Notre Dame (0.91) #4 - Ohio State (0.87) #5 - Texas (0.84) #6 - Penn State (0.78) #7 - Indiana (0.70) #8 - Alabama (0.63) #9t - Arizona State (0.60) #9t - SMU (0.60) #11t - Boise State (0.57) #11t - Tennessee (0.57) #13 - South Carolina (0.53) #14 - Clemson (0.48) #15 - Miami (0.46) #16 - BYU (0.43) #17 - Ole Miss (0.41) Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
So Bama got screwed. Basically Clemson got in for being ACC Champs and SMU took the last open slot over a more deserving Bama team.
