Dawgs vs. Tide
Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat
- wbtfg
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 13622
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 12:52 pm
Dawgs vs. Tide
Fun game to watch. I thought Georgia got screwed on a couple calls or non-calls by the officials. That said, I thought Georgia took their foot off the gas and let Alabama back in the game.
I’ll tell you what, I would love to live the next few months in Tua’s shoes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’ll tell you what, I would love to live the next few months in Tua’s shoes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 9698
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:41 pm
- Location: Clancy, MT
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
I agree, the biggest call being the offsides call when Georgia blocked a punt that would've set them up deep in Alabama territory. Kid was absolutely not offsides on the replay.wbtfg wrote:Fun game to watch. I thought Georgia got screwed on a couple calls or non-calls by the officials. That said, I thought Georgia took their foot off the gas and let Alabama back in the game.
I’ll tell you what, I would love to live the next few months in Tua’s shoes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- wbtfg
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 13622
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 12:52 pm
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
Yep, that and the face mask non call.91catAlum wrote:I agree, the biggest call being the offsides call when Georgia blocked a punt that would've set them up deep in Alabama territory. Kid was absolutely not offsides on the replay.wbtfg wrote:Fun game to watch. I thought Georgia got screwed on a couple calls or non-calls by the officials. That said, I thought Georgia took their foot off the gas and let Alabama back in the game.
I’ll tell you what, I would love to live the next few months in Tua’s shoes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8620
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
I'm not sure why you would say that it's not truly a playoff? I think the committee truly believed those were the four best teams in the country, and I think that was proven to be true. I love the playoffs, and I think they're a GREAT event!! The Georgia-Oklahoma semi-final and the championship were both amazing games. I do agree with you though, that maybe Alabama shouldn't even have been in the playoffs. I mean they lost to Auburn, and then Auburn lost to Georgia in the SEC title game, so technically they weren't even the best team in their own division, and they were only the 3rd best team in the SEC overall. The way things played out this year, should strengthen the case for expanding to 8 teams though, which can't happen soon enough for me. With Alabama winning it all as the 4th seed, and with many people believing they shouldn't even have been in the field, I think it makes a pretty strong case for going to 8 teams.allcat wrote:It was a great game, I just don't think Alabama should have even been there. It is not truly a playoff, it is a made for tv event.
- allcat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8688
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:13 pm
- Location: 90 miles from Nirvana (Bobcat Stadium)
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
You hit it on the head, Alabama did not win their conference, which makes the whole season moot. They just picked 4 teams, Central Florida went undefeated and then beat Auburn. Alabama played one less game than Georgia, which gave them some heal up time. Picking Alabama made it made for tv instead of a true playoff. When you turn it into a totally subjective pick, you take away the competition.John K wrote:I'm not sure why you would say that it's not truly a playoff? I think the committee truly believed those were the four best teams in the country, and I think that was proven to be true. I love the playoffs, and I think they're a GREAT event!! The Georgia-Oklahoma semi-final and the championship were both amazing games. I do agree with you though, that maybe Alabama shouldn't even have been in the playoffs. I mean they lost to Auburn, and then Auburn lost to Georgia in the SEC title game, so technically they weren't even the best team in their own division, and they were only the 3rd best team in the SEC overall. The way things played out this year, should strengthen the case for expanding to 8 teams though, which can't happen soon enough for me. With Alabama winning it all as the 4th seed, and with many people believing they shouldn't even have been in the field, I think it makes a pretty strong case for going to 8 teams.allcat wrote:It was a great game, I just don't think Alabama should have even been there. It is not truly a playoff, it is a made for tv event.
Geezer. Part Bionic,. Part Iconic
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8620
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with your premise that they picked Alabama solely to boost the TV ratings. The committee is charged with picking who they believe to be the four best teams in the country, regardless of the outcome of a few one off head to head results. Even though UCF beat Auburn, while Alabama lost to Auburn, do you really believe that UCF is a better team than Alabama? I don't, and with the way the playoffs played out, I don't think many people would say that. But that's exactly why I'm so adamant about wanting the playoffs to be expanded...because UCF should at least get an opportunity to compete for the championship, even though I don't think there's any chance that they'd beat any of the four teams that were in the playoffs. You never know though...nobody gave BSU a chance at beating Oklahoma back in 2006 either.allcat wrote:You hit it on the head, Alabama did not win their conference, which makes the whole season moot. They just picked 4 teams, Central Florida went undefeated and then beat Auburn. Alabama played one less game than Georgia, which gave them some heal up time. Picking Alabama made it made for tv instead of a true playoff. When you turn it into a totally subjective pick, you take away the competition.John K wrote:I'm not sure why you would say that it's not truly a playoff? I think the committee truly believed those were the four best teams in the country, and I think that was proven to be true. I love the playoffs, and I think they're a GREAT event!! The Georgia-Oklahoma semi-final and the championship were both amazing games. I do agree with you though, that maybe Alabama shouldn't even have been in the playoffs. I mean they lost to Auburn, and then Auburn lost to Georgia in the SEC title game, so technically they weren't even the best team in their own division, and they were only the 3rd best team in the SEC overall. The way things played out this year, should strengthen the case for expanding to 8 teams though, which can't happen soon enough for me. With Alabama winning it all as the 4th seed, and with many people believing they shouldn't even have been in the field, I think it makes a pretty strong case for going to 8 teams.allcat wrote:It was a great game, I just don't think Alabama should have even been there. It is not truly a playoff, it is a made for tv event.
And as for your comment about Alabama having more "heal up" time, neither one of them had played a game in the last month, prior to the semi-final games, so I don't think that extra week that Alabama got by not playing in the SEC championship game was really a factor at all.
- BelgradeBobcat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8131
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:52 pm
- Location: Belgrade, Montana
- wbtfg
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 13622
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 12:52 pm
- RickRund
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7316
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:08 pm
- Location: Post Falls ID
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
All in favor say AYE!!!wbtfg wrote:2ndBelgradeBobcat wrote:
I vote for Mike Leach for Commissioner of everything.
Would have been nice to see what difference a UCF would have made? Maybe they would have gone to the BIG ONE, maybe not!
I am certainly not an expert on talent to make any predictions.
msubobcats@outlook.com
Audiatur et altura pars: Let both sides be fairly heard.
Audi alteram partem: listen to the other side.
Audiatur et altura pars: Let both sides be fairly heard.
Audi alteram partem: listen to the other side.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8620
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
That was hilarious, but he was spot on in everything he said, especially the part about the opportunity for college football to own the month of December, I think 64 teams would be a bit much, or even 32, but 16 would be amazing. If they had a 16 team playoff, with the first three rounds played during December, it would be the most exciting month in sports. It would be like the NCAA BB tourney times 10, because college football is much more popular overall than college hoops. I guarantee you that 99% of the people who were against the four team playoff, are now saying "why in the hell didn't we do this a long time ago", and I also guarantee you that if the playoffs are expanded to 6, 8, 12,16 teams, or whatever, after a couple of years 99% of the people who are currently against expanding beyond four teams will be saying the same thing. The NCAA would make so much money from a 16 team playoff, that they wouldn't know what to do with it all. The broadcast rights would sell for an obscene amount of money.BelgradeBobcat wrote:
I vote for Mike Leach for Commissioner of everything.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 9698
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:41 pm
- Location: Clancy, MT
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
Let's not ask for the world right away, let's just go for 8 teams. Each of the P5 conferences get an autobid, and then 3 at large selections to get the UCFs in there (and TCUs and Boise States of recent years).
And it's still completed in 3 weeks.
Done.
And it's still completed in 3 weeks.
Done.
- allcat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8688
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:13 pm
- Location: 90 miles from Nirvana (Bobcat Stadium)
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
I did not say Alabama got in for the tv ratings. I think Ohio State would have gotten the same ratings. I said by picking a second place finisher, they determined that the SEC was that much better, making this a made for tv event, not a true playoff. When you have only 4, they should all be 1st place teams. This year you left out the big 10 and the pac12 as well as ucf. It is what it is, I just don't think it's a playoff, Now it is being judged for talent just like figure skating. I'm not a fan of any judged competition. I want the fastest skier, not the prettiest. To me Alabama lost in the regular season which with just 4 should disqualify them. When we did not let the herd into the fcs playoffs, how would you have felt to have the Big Sky winner left out of the playoffs. You can take the heal up comment how you want but one more game does make a difference.John K wrote:I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with your premise that they picked Alabama solely to boost the TV ratings. The committee is charged with picking who they believe to be the four best teams in the country, regardless of the outcome of a few one off head to head results. Even though UCF beat Auburn, while Alabama lost to Auburn, do you really believe that UCF is a better team than Alabama? I don't, and with the way the playoffs played out, I don't think many people would say that. But that's exactly why I'm so adamant about wanting the playoffs to be expanded...because UCF should at least get an opportunity to compete for the championship, even though I don't think there's any chance that they'd beat any of the four teams that were in the playoffs. You never know though...nobody gave BSU a chance at beating Oklahoma back in 2006 either.allcat wrote:You hit it on the head, Alabama did not win their conference, which makes the whole season moot. They just picked 4 teams, Central Florida went undefeated and then beat Auburn. Alabama played one less game than Georgia, which gave them some heal up time. Picking Alabama made it made for tv instead of a true playoff. When you turn it into a totally subjective pick, you take away the competition.John K wrote:I'm not sure why you would say that it's not truly a playoff? I think the committee truly believed those were the four best teams in the country, and I think that was proven to be true. I love the playoffs, and I think they're a GREAT event!! The Georgia-Oklahoma semi-final and the championship were both amazing games. I do agree with you though, that maybe Alabama shouldn't even have been in the playoffs. I mean they lost to Auburn, and then Auburn lost to Georgia in the SEC title game, so technically they weren't even the best team in their own division, and they were only the 3rd best team in the SEC overall. The way things played out this year, should strengthen the case for expanding to 8 teams though, which can't happen soon enough for me. With Alabama winning it all as the 4th seed, and with many people believing they shouldn't even have been in the field, I think it makes a pretty strong case for going to 8 teams.allcat wrote:It was a great game, I just don't think Alabama should have even been there. It is not truly a playoff, it is a made for tv event.
And as for your comment about Alabama having more "heal up" time, neither one of them had played a game in the last month, prior to the semi-final games, so I don't think that extra week that Alabama got by not playing in the SEC championship game was really a factor at all.
Geezer. Part Bionic,. Part Iconic
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8620
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
I agree. I would be ecstatic if they just expanded it to 8 for now, but I honestly don't believe even that will happen any time soon. This was just year 4 of a 10 year contract, so I think it's highly unlikely that they'll expand beyond 4, before the current contract expires. I mean it took the powers that be forever just to sign off on a 4 team playoff, and there seems to be lots of opposition to expansion, so I'm afraid it's going to stay at 4 for awhile. The format you suggested is logical, but I'd go a step further even, and mandate that one of the 8 slots has to be set aside for a non P% school every year. Non P5 teams rarely crack the top 10 in the rankings, so if you don't give them an autobid, they'd still get left out most years. 2 at large berths for the P5 conferences is enough. And I'd also mandate that the P5 auto bids must go to the conference champs, regardless of whether the selection committee might think that another team is actually better than the champ.91catAlum wrote:Let's not ask for the world right away, let's just go for 8 teams. Each of the P5 conferences get an autobid, and then 3 at large selections to get the UCFs in there (and TCUs and Boise States of recent years).
And it's still completed in 3 weeks.
Done.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8620
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
I really do get your point, and I agree with you to some extent. I don't think it's right that they sometimes pick a team that didn't win their conference over one or more conference champs. Don't forget that they did the same think last year, when they picked Ohio State, even though they didn't win the Big 10. I think that proves that it doesn't have anything to do with them favoring the SEC, and I certainly don't think that it invalidates the whole playoff system, and turns it into nothing more than a "made for TV" event. And I still say that playing one more game in a season is a complete non-factor, when both teams have been off for at least a month. If one team had been off for a week, while the other team played a game the previous week, then you'd have a valid argument, but when one team has been off 5 weeks versus only 4 weeks for the other team (or however long it was), you can't tell me that's a significant factor.allcat wrote:I did not say Alabama got in for the tv ratings. I think Ohio State would have gotten the same ratings. I said by picking a second place finisher, they determined that the SEC was that much better, making this a made for tv event, not a true playoff. When you have only 4, they should all be 1st place teams. This year you left out the big 10 and the pac12 as well as ucf. It is what it is, I just don't think it's a playoff, Now it is being judged for talent just like figure skating. I'm not a fan of any judged competition. I want the fastest skier, not the prettiest. To me Alabama lost in the regular season which with just 4 should disqualify them. When we did not let the herd into the fcs playoffs, how would you have felt to have the Big Sky winner left out of the playoffs. You can take the heal up comment how you want but one more game does make a difference.John K wrote:I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with your premise that they picked Alabama solely to boost the TV ratings. The committee is charged with picking who they believe to be the four best teams in the country, regardless of the outcome of a few one off head to head results. Even though UCF beat Auburn, while Alabama lost to Auburn, do you really believe that UCF is a better team than Alabama? I don't, and with the way the playoffs played out, I don't think many people would say that. But that's exactly why I'm so adamant about wanting the playoffs to be expanded...because UCF should at least get an opportunity to compete for the championship, even though I don't think there's any chance that they'd beat any of the four teams that were in the playoffs. You never know though...nobody gave BSU a chance at beating Oklahoma back in 2006 either.allcat wrote:You hit it on the head, Alabama did not win their conference, which makes the whole season moot. They just picked 4 teams, Central Florida went undefeated and then beat Auburn. Alabama played one less game than Georgia, which gave them some heal up time. Picking Alabama made it made for tv instead of a true playoff. When you turn it into a totally subjective pick, you take away the competition.John K wrote:I'm not sure why you would say that it's not truly a playoff? I think the committee truly believed those were the four best teams in the country, and I think that was proven to be true. I love the playoffs, and I think they're a GREAT event!! The Georgia-Oklahoma semi-final and the championship were both amazing games. I do agree with you though, that maybe Alabama shouldn't even have been in the playoffs. I mean they lost to Auburn, and then Auburn lost to Georgia in the SEC title game, so technically they weren't even the best team in their own division, and they were only the 3rd best team in the SEC overall. The way things played out this year, should strengthen the case for expanding to 8 teams though, which can't happen soon enough for me. With Alabama winning it all as the 4th seed, and with many people believing they shouldn't even have been in the field, I think it makes a pretty strong case for going to 8 teams.allcat wrote:It was a great game, I just don't think Alabama should have even been there. It is not truly a playoff, it is a made for tv event.
And as for your comment about Alabama having more "heal up" time, neither one of them had played a game in the last month, prior to the semi-final games, so I don't think that extra week that Alabama got by not playing in the SEC championship game was really a factor at all.
- allcat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8688
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:13 pm
- Location: 90 miles from Nirvana (Bobcat Stadium)
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
If you expand the playoff to 8 teams, you make some teams play 16 games, equivalent to the pro regular season. Tell me which pro team finished with the same roster they started with. I realize the pros have 53? that they are able to keep changing. Fbs football more people but they don't get to add anybody. I don't know the stats, but it sure seems that we have a lot more injuries with the 16 game pro season from when it was 14. I do agree Ohio State shouldd have been lit out last year, to me this just enhances my argument that it is made for tv.John K wrote:I really do get your point, and I agree with you to some extent. I don't think it's right that they sometimes pick a team that didn't win their conference over one or more conference champs. Don't forget that they did the same think last year, when they picked Ohio State, even though they didn't win the Big 10. I think that proves that it doesn't have anything to do with them favoring the SEC, and I certainly don't think that it invalidates the whole playoff system, and turns it into nothing more than a "made for TV" event. And I still say that playing one more game in a season is a complete non-factor, when both teams have been off for at least a month. If one team had been off for a week, while the other team played a game the previous week, then you'd have a valid argument, but when one team has been off 5 weeks versus only 4 weeks for the other team (or however long it was), you can't tell me that's a significant factor.allcat wrote:I did not say Alabama got in for the tv ratings. I think Ohio State would have gotten the same ratings. I said by picking a second place finisher, they determined that the SEC was that much better, making this a made for tv event, not a true playoff. When you have only 4, they should all be 1st place teams. This year you left out the big 10 and the pac12 as well as ucf. It is what it is, I just don't think it's a playoff, Now it is being judged for talent just like figure skating. I'm not a fan of any judged competition. I want the fastest skier, not the prettiest. To me Alabama lost in the regular season which with just 4 should disqualify them. When we did not let the herd into the fcs playoffs, how would you have felt to have the Big Sky winner left out of the playoffs. You can take the heal up comment how you want but one more game does make a difference.John K wrote:I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with your premise that they picked Alabama solely to boost the TV ratings. The committee is charged with picking who they believe to be the four best teams in the country, regardless of the outcome of a few one off head to head results. Even though UCF beat Auburn, while Alabama lost to Auburn, do you really believe that UCF is a better team than Alabama? I don't, and with the way the playoffs played out, I don't think many people would say that. But that's exactly why I'm so adamant about wanting the playoffs to be expanded...because UCF should at least get an opportunity to compete for the championship, even though I don't think there's any chance that they'd beat any of the four teams that were in the playoffs. You never know though...nobody gave BSU a chance at beating Oklahoma back in 2006 either.allcat wrote:You hit it on the head, Alabama did not win their conference, which makes the whole season moot. They just picked 4 teams, Central Florida went undefeated and then beat Auburn. Alabama played one less game than Georgia, which gave them some heal up time. Picking Alabama made it made for tv instead of a true playoff. When you turn it into a totally subjective pick, you take away the competition.John K wrote:I'm not sure why you would say that it's not truly a playoff? I think the committee truly believed those were the four best teams in the country, and I think that was proven to be true. I love the playoffs, and I think they're a GREAT event!! The Georgia-Oklahoma semi-final and the championship were both amazing games. I do agree with you though, that maybe Alabama shouldn't even have been in the playoffs. I mean they lost to Auburn, and then Auburn lost to Georgia in the SEC title game, so technically they weren't even the best team in their own division, and they were only the 3rd best team in the SEC overall. The way things played out this year, should strengthen the case for expanding to 8 teams though, which can't happen soon enough for me. With Alabama winning it all as the 4th seed, and with many people believing they shouldn't even have been in the field, I think it makes a pretty strong case for going to 8 teams.allcat wrote:It was a great game, I just don't think Alabama should have even been there. It is not truly a playoff, it is a made for tv event.
And as for your comment about Alabama having more "heal up" time, neither one of them had played a game in the last month, prior to the semi-final games, so I don't think that extra week that Alabama got by not playing in the SEC championship game was really a factor at all.
Geezer. Part Bionic,. Part Iconic
- Bobcat4Ever
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3515
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:26 pm
- Location: Nevada
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
Two major factors played into the difficulty of creating even the 4-team playoff. One was loss of school time. Once Christmas break is past this becomes a bigger issue. The real elephant was the traditional bowl games. I think they’ve solved that nicely for now (although the Rose Bowl seemed a little non-traditional), but it may be too big of a hurdle for 8 teams.
- Darth Yoda
- 2nd Team All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 1162
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:47 pm
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
Considering the legacy constraints mentioned (mostly the Bowl financial power and entrenchment), I think they could still easily get to 6 teams. Two more Bowls would get elevated to "playoff status", and the top 2 ranked teams would get a first round bye. Four teams have a 'play-in' game a week earlier than it starts now, and those teams meet the semifinals against the #1 and #2 ranked teams. Then is goes exactly like it does now.
Baby steps. 6 is better than 4.
Baby steps. 6 is better than 4.
- Bobcat4Ever
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3515
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:26 pm
- Location: Nevada
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
Excellent!Darth Yoda wrote:Considering the legacy constraints mentioned (mostly the Bowl financial power and entrenchment), I think they could still easily get to 6 teams. Two more Bowls would get elevated to "playoff status", and the top 2 ranked teams would get a first round bye. Four teams have a 'play-in' game a week earlier than it starts now, and those teams meet the semifinals against the #1 and #2 ranked teams. Then is goes exactly like it does now.
Baby steps. 6 is better than 4.
- BelgradeBobcat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8131
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:52 pm
- Location: Belgrade, Montana
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
Bowl games-outside of the playoffs-are declining in attendance and interest. Most bowl games I saw were poorly attended. Even players are choosing to skip them. The conference championship games and the playoffs are more captivating. As the bowl games continue to decline I think they will be replaced by playoff games.
-
- 2nd Team All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 1383
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:54 pm
Re: Dawgs vs. Tide
Agree with Belgrade Bobcat. Many bowl games are poorly attended and as a result don't get the attendance or TV revenue desired.
Quit messing around and get to minimum 8 teams (I prefer 16 teams) ASAP. You don't need baby steps...set the plan in place and get it done.
If I was running one of the secondary bowls I would be lobbying to get one of the playoff games immediately even if only a "sweet sixteen" game. Then I would have a sizable part of the country and fans interested in attending or watching rather than a quarter full stadium.
Even the major bowls would benefit in the long run.
I also like giving some of the underdog teams and conferences a chance, like the TCUs, Boise State, UCF, etc. But the Power 5 money wants to control and doesn't want to lose their "elite status" to some upset team.
Just my opinion.
Quit messing around and get to minimum 8 teams (I prefer 16 teams) ASAP. You don't need baby steps...set the plan in place and get it done.
If I was running one of the secondary bowls I would be lobbying to get one of the playoff games immediately even if only a "sweet sixteen" game. Then I would have a sizable part of the country and fans interested in attending or watching rather than a quarter full stadium.
Even the major bowls would benefit in the long run.
I also like giving some of the underdog teams and conferences a chance, like the TCUs, Boise State, UCF, etc. But the Power 5 money wants to control and doesn't want to lose their "elite status" to some upset team.
Just my opinion.