Washington v. Alabama

[Sgt. Largent]

I think UW deserved the #3 or #2 spot. Probably the #3 spot because Ohio State's resume is tough to beat with those quality wins even though they don't have a conference championship. The committee focused too much on the weak OOC schedule for UW (which really wasn't that weak considering Idaho's record and bowl game win), and not enough on the fact that they easily established themselves as the best team in a pretty good PAC-12 conference. Plus, the loss at home to top 10 USC was a much better loss than Clemson's loss at home to a mediocre Pittsburgh.

If UW had gone undefeated, you could make a really good argument for putting them at #1 and Alabama at #2. Obviously, these things don't happen to teams that haven't been good in years and play on the west coast.

To be fair, when trying to apply competitive balance to college football, sometimes all you have is non conference games.

So yeah, the Husky's non conference cupcakes did hurt them. Add in the fact that powerhouse Pac 12 teams like USC, Oregon and Stanford made it look like the Pac 12 was down............when in reality all that happened was a powershift up north. Instead of Oregon, USC and Stanford you have Colorado, UW and Wazzu.

Personally I think UW is right where they should be. Clear power conference champ with weak non conference schedule should be #4. If UW beat a tough non conference team like Oklahoma and teams like Oregon and Stanford were top 10 teams this year like Michigan, Wisconsin and Penn State? Then you'd have an argument.

 

[IndyHawk]

I think UW deserved the #3 or #2 spot. Probably the #3 spot because Ohio State's resume is tough to beat with those quality wins even though they don't have a conference championship. The committee focused too much on the weak OOC schedule for UW (which really wasn't that weak considering Idaho's record and bowl game win), and not enough on the fact that they easily established themselves as the best team in a pretty good PAC-12 conference. Plus, the loss at home to top 10 USC was a much better loss than Clemson's loss at home to a mediocre Pittsburgh.

If UW had gone undefeated, you could make a really good argument for putting them at #1 and Alabama at #2. Obviously, these things don't happen to teams that haven't been good in years and play on the west coast.

Another great post!Anyone think Penn State is better than USC right now?

 

[fenderbender123]

I think UW deserved the #3 or #2 spot. Probably the #3 spot because Ohio State's resume is tough to beat with those quality wins even though they don't have a conference championship. The committee focused too much on the weak OOC schedule for UW (which really wasn't that weak considering Idaho's record and bowl game win), and not enough on the fact that they easily established themselves as the best team in a pretty good PAC-12 conference. Plus, the loss at home to top 10 USC was a much better loss than Clemson's loss at home to a mediocre Pittsburgh.

If UW had gone undefeated, you could make a really good argument for putting them at #1 and Alabama at #2. Obviously, these things don't happen to teams that haven't been good in years and play on the west coast.

To be fair, when trying to apply competitive balance to college football, sometimes all you have is non conference games.

So yeah, the Husky's non conference cupcakes did hurt them. Add in the fact that powerhouse Pac 12 teams like USC, Oregon and Stanford made it look like the Pac 12 was down............when in reality all that happened was a powershift up north. Instead of Oregon, USC and Stanford you have Colorado, UW and Wazzu.

Personally I think UW is right where they should be. Clear power conference champ with weak non conference schedule should be #4. If UW beat a tough non conference team like Oklahoma and teams like Oregon and Stanford were top 10 teams this year like Michigan, Wisconsin and Penn State? Then you'd have an argument.

I agree about the shift in power. The PAC-12 is just as good as it's been in recent years. There's no reason for pollsters or committee members to think otherwise just because the teams that are good are different than the ones who have been good in recent years.

I don't see any tough OOC opponents on Clemson's schedule. Auburn is a decent team, but not much better than Idaho.

 

[Trrrroy]

You are off off your rocker if you think Idaho is anywhere near Auburn's level.

 

[fenderbender123]

Maybe 15 years ago, but if you've been paying attention you'll have noticed that the traditionally weaker programs have closed the gap quite a bit. Auburn is better than Idaho, but it's not like they are waaway better.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Maybe 15 years ago, but if you've been paying attention you'll have noticed that the traditionally weaker programs have closed the gap quite a bit. Auburn is better than Idaho, but it's not like they are waaway better.

They are way better, one team is a top 5 SEC program, and the other isn't even in a conference at this time.......and the last conference Idaho was in the WAC disbanded from 1A.

To compare the two as equal non conference opponents as you did above is crazytown. You would have got laughed out of the conference room if you were on the selection committee trying to make that argument.

 

[fenderbender123]

I said Auburn was better than Idaho. They aren't WAY better than Idaho, however. Washington/Alabama are WAY better than Idaho. And overall, my point still stands. Replacing Idaho with Auburn on the OOC schedule only makes it slightly stronger, yet everyone keeps riding this opinion that it should have made a world of difference in SOS.

 

[IndyHawk]

Thats the thing people seem to think all SEC teams are the shit,well they are not.There are teams who suck in there in any given year- Ole Miss 2-6 Conf 5-7Ov Missouri 2-6 Conf 4-8Ov Miss St 3-5 Conf 6-7Ov Vand 3-5 Conf 6-7Ov
10 teams out of 14 had losing/even records out of 8 Conf games.Florida got beat twice,Auburn and LSU 3 times
Heres the site of your feared SEC ukeface: http://www.secsports.com/standings/football

 

[fenderbender123]

Agree. And my point is that it's just not that much more impressive to replace a win over Idaho with a win over Auburn in terms of looking at the entire season's SOS. It barely improves it at all.

 

[Trrrroy]

Auburn is playing against teams like Mississipi State, LSU, Texas AM, Georgia, Clemson, and Alabama. Teams fielding 3-5 star recruits across the board, and either winning those games or at least looking competetive.

Idaho lost to the Appalachian State Mountianeers, got blown out by Troy, required OT against the UNLV Rebels. When they did play teams fielding quality D1 talent like UW and WSU, they got blown out by 50 points.

Auburn and Idaho had one common opponent, the ULM Warhawks. Idaho squeaked by with a 3 point win. Auburn beat them by 51. It's not close. Idaho is playing a schedule filled with teams that even the worst SEC team blows out by 40 points. The talent level is nowhere close to the same.

 

[fenderbender123]

Auburn is playing against teams like Mississipi State, LSU, Ole Miss, Georgia and Alabama. Teams fielding 3-5 star recruits across the board, and either winning those games or ar least looking competetive.

Idaho lost to the Appalachian State Mountianeers, got blown out by Troy, required OT against the UNLV Rebels. When they did play teams fielding quality D1 talent like UW and WSU, they got blown out by 50 points.

Auburn and Idajo had one common opponet, the ULM Warhawks. Idaho squeaked by with a 3 point win.Auburn beat them by 51. It's not close. A win over Auburn looks a million times better than a win over Idaho.

Nothing in this post disputes anything I said on the subject. Auburn is a better team than Idaho. But Auburn isn't an elite team like Washington or Alabama. They're a decent quality, above average opponent. Idaho is definitely a below-average opponent. If the season was just 1 game, then a win over Auburn would look a million times better than a win over Idaho. However, when we're looking at 13 games, it hardly makes a difference in terms of OVERALL strength of schedule.

 

[Trrrroy]

I disagree. If UW replaced the Idaho win with an auburn win I think there is no question they are at least the #3 seed right now.

 

[fenderbender123]

I don't disagree with that. But that only happens because the pollsters and committee think that it would have been more meaningful than it actually it is, which is my point. Remember earlier in the year when aTm was ranked ahead of Washington (despite a worse record) solely because they beat 2 cupcakes + UCLA on their OOC schedule vs Washington's 3 cupcakes? Laughable.

Also, Clemson's loss to Pitt at home should have more than negated their win over Auburn in comparison to Washington's loss to USC. In other words, home loss to Pitt + home win over Auburn is worse than home win over Idaho + home loss to USC.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I said Auburn was better than Idaho. They aren't WAY better than Idaho, however. Washington/Alabama are WAY better than Idaho. And overall, my point still stands. Replacing Idaho with Auburn on the OOC schedule only makes it slightly stronger, yet everyone keeps riding this opinion that it should have made a world of difference in SOS.

Of course it'd make a difference. Your entire premise that started this discussion was trying to make a case that UW could have, or even should have been #2 or #3, and not #4......and that's just not true.

SOS shows both Clemson and Ohio State higher than UW, OSU even #1 in SOS.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-fo ... h-by-other

So you're telling me playing and beating the #9 SOS team in Auburn wouldn't have made a difference over the #109 team in Idaho?

Those are EXACTLY the kind of non conference SOS wins that separate the seeds every year, including this year.

 

[fenderbender123]

I said Auburn was better than Idaho. They aren't WAY better than Idaho, however. Washington/Alabama are WAY better than Idaho. And overall, my point still stands. Replacing Idaho with Auburn on the OOC schedule only makes it slightly stronger, yet everyone keeps riding this opinion that it should have made a world of difference in SOS.

Of course it'd make a difference. Your entire premise that started this discussion was trying to make a case that UW could have, or even should have been #2 or #3, and not #4......and that's just not true.

SOS shows both Clemson and Ohio State higher than UW, OSU even #1 in SOS.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-fo ... h-by-other

So you're telling me playing and beating the #9 SOS team in Auburn wouldn't have made a difference over the #109 team in Idaho?

Those are EXACTLY the kind of non conference SOS wins that separate the seeds every year, including this year.

That link more or less proves my point. That one game certainly helps Clemson's SOS, but their overall SOS is only 5% better than Washington's throughout the entire season (7th vs 14th out of 128 teams). IMO, that's not enough to mitigate their losing to Pittsburgh, especially considering that it's well within the over/under margin of error for accurately assessing schedule strength given the few amount of games that are played in CFB.

A lot of people predicted Washington would wind up #3, or possibly #2 depending on how conference champs were considered. So it's not just me. I'm not upset about how it all played out. But, I do think there's a tendency to overvalue one OOC game.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Auburn is playing against teams like Mississipi State, LSU, Ole Miss, Georgia and Alabama. Teams fielding 3-5 star recruits across the board, and either winning those games or ar least looking competetive.

Idaho lost to the Appalachian State Mountianeers, got blown out by Troy, required OT against the UNLV Rebels. When they did play teams fielding quality D1 talent like UW and WSU, they got blown out by 50 points.

Auburn and Idajo had one common opponet, the ULM Warhawks. Idaho squeaked by with a 3 point win.Auburn beat them by 51. It's not close. A win over Auburn looks a million times better than a win over Idaho.

Nothing in this post disputes anything I said on the subject. Auburn is a better team than Idaho. But Auburn isn't an elite team like Washington or Alabama. They're a decent quality, above average opponent. Idaho is definitely a below-average opponent. If the season was just 1 game, then a win over Auburn would look a million times better than a win over Idaho. However, when we're looking at 13 games, it hardly makes a difference in terms of OVERALL strength of schedule.

Lol at labeling Washington elite. Washington is anything but elite. They won a crap conference in a year it was hard to find 4 playoff caliber teams.

Alabama is so far ahead of everyone this season it's crazy, that's including Washington.

But face it - Washington's schedule was a joke and the only reason it didn't bite you was you had some very timely losses along the way.

 

[fenderbender123]

Elite is a relative term. If going 12-1 with the 14th hardest schedule in the country, winning your conference, and absolutely crushing 10 of those 12 teams isn't elite, then I don't know what is. Almost no team goes undefeated anymore. If you want to say the conference is "down", I'd first of all disagree that it isn't down and rather that there has been a shift in power, but even if it was down, then Washington still did exactly what an elite team would do in that situation...dominate and win the conference.

Besides, you or I have no idea if the best CFB teams are "down" this year, or if many of the other teams are "up" this year. Teams from prior years don't play teams from this year, so there's no way to know.

But the eye test helps strengthen the claim that Washington is elite. They have little to no weaknesses, NFL talent at almost every position, and play extremely fundamentally sound football in all phases. And like most elite teams, they've shown they can beat you multiple ways. If you don't think Washington is elite, then you either haven't watched them play much, haven't watched CFB much, or you have a very high standard of what constitutes an elite team.

IMO, there are 4 elite teams this year, and the committee nailed every one of them. The teams ranked behind them were not quite as dominant.

If you don't think Washington is elite, I'd love to hear what teams you think are and specifically what you saw them do that makes them appear more elite than Washington.

 

[Hawk-Lock]

The game is pretty simple to me. If Browning shows up, I think we can hang with Bama. But if we get the "deer in headlights" Browning that we saw against USC and in the Pac-12 championship, then we likely get blown out.

I will say this about Browning, I don't like the way he carries himself. His attitude is typically pretty lethargic. I saw his press conference on ESPN yesterday, and it reminded me so much of Jay Cutler. I just don't think he is a leader. A good QB, but not a leader. When he struggled in the two games I mentioned above, it really showed in his attitude.

 

[Milehighhawk]

The game is pretty simple to me. If Browning shows up, I think we can hang with Bama. But if we get the "deer in headlights" Browning that we saw against USC and in the Pac-12 championship, then we likely get blown out.

I will say this about Browning, I don't like the way he carries himself. His attitude is typically pretty lethargic. I saw his press conference on ESPN yesterday, and it reminded me so much of Jay Cutler. I just don't think he is a leader. A good QB, but not a leader. When he struggled in the two games I mentioned above, it really showed in his attitude.

Calling someone not a leader because they appear to lack emotion is short sighted. There have been many great, and I mean great, leaders that displayed little to no passion because they were always playing the long game, not getting caught up in extreme highs or lows. There are many different types of leaders and each one can be very effective. It is foolish to boil leadership down to one style and point at anything else that isn't done that way and claim "they aren't leaders!". It is even more naive to claim "I saw a press conference once" and then proceed to tear down an individual's character because of that.

I see Browning not as Jay Culter, who has many selfish attributes aside from his disposition, but rather as a level-headed young man who just isn't all that emotional and has many years ahead of him to grow into the leader he is becoming. It doesn't mean he lacks inner drive (necessary to even get to this point in his young football career), doesn't care, or cannot lead his football team.

 

[fenderbender123]

The SEC has looked just as bad. WSU doesn't really count.