CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => SEC => Topic started by: Nashville4UGA on November 27, 2017, 05:44:13 PM
-
Fellas, it seems like just last week the season started and here we are getting ready to watch UGA and Auburn in a rematch. I saw several topics on other threads preseason saying that UGA would see Auburn twice this year, so those guys wherever they may be deserve some kudos.
The feeling among many UGA fans is that we didn't show up in the first game and while somewhat true I'm not sure anyone was beating Auburn on 11/14 at Pat Dye field at Jordan-Hare Stadium. Auburn has a lot of talent on both lines of scrimmage and that in conjunction with some uncharacteristic mistakes, a rowdy home crowd, etc, made for a long day for UGA and things just kinda got out of hand.
But here we are a few weeks later and we have ourselves a rematch. While I am optimistic that UGA can hang with Auburn with a few tweaks to the game plan and the elimination of some costly penalties and what not in this upcoming game, i'm just not sure that our lines of scrimmage are good enough. It's going to take UGA's A+ game Saturday even with a banged up Kerryon Johnson to win.
I think our offense is going to have to spread the ball out with swing passes to the backs much like Alabama did in their game this past weekend, but also, throw more on early downs to keep the defense honest, take some deep shots on early downs to loosen up the defense, Mecole Hardeman needs more touches on jet sweeps. We have to be able to get that DLine gassed up front.
The Oline was tweaked a bit after the last meeting. New starter at RG, Ben Cleveland and the rest of the Oline will need to play at a much higher level than last time and our defense needs to tackle better and limit 3rd down conversions.
It's hard to beat a team twice in a season and I expect a much more even game this go around.
Thoughts?
-
Cincydawg and ftbobs did some research years ago and found that being hard to beat a team twice in the same season is an old saying without any statistical support. I believe they found in rematches the team that won the first meeting won over 60% of the time.
Haven't seen ftbobs in I don't know how long, and haven't seen CD since the first UGA/AU weekend, maybe they could verify......but I believe that's what they reported.
-
If AU can shut down UGA's running game again, then they might as well be handed the crystal ball trophy.
-
I think Mike is correct in recalling the statistical basis for the @60%.
For this game, I think UGA will have to pass the ball to free up the run. If they do, it's on and could go either way.
On the flip side, if KJ is healthy and plays the whole game, it'll be tough to beat the Tigers no matter what the Dawgs do. No certainty either way on KJ yet... But I bet he plays with a low-carry limit.
The wild card in this game to me is the return game of Hardman. If he has a great game, it might trump everything else.
I'll take Auburn 30 - 20 but I don't feel especially confident about it.
-
i think mdt is correct with ~60%.
for the sec in particular, i think in repeat matches it 5-1 in favor of repeat winners in seccg. 5-2 if you count bama/lsu bcs title. and it's usually a lopsided game. ave score is 35-17, even accounting for the loss. just the wins it's 38-14.
so i'll take uga. :smiley_confused1:
-
i'm still working with bobs trying to get things straightened out with his site on my server...
you can get to what you want, here: http://www.cfb-trivia.com/cfbt_menu.php/ (http://www.cfb-trivia.com/cfbt_menu.php/)
it'll be ready at some point for public digestion...
at any rate-
UGA simply didn't play that game as UGA has been playing all year. I don't know what was up with that. I mean, yeah, Auburn disrupted them and they played lights out, but.... that just wasn't the UGA team i've been watching.
Coupled with the fact Auburn has key elements banged up.............
I like Georgia in the rematch by a hair and only a hair- skin on teeth separation....
the monkey wrench this will present is complex to the point of hilarity-
"Bama knocked out by Auburn who knocked down UGA who knocked Auburn down"- and Okey, Wiscy couldn't likely beat any of those (healthy) three. Bama IN because, one loss... Auburn OUT, because- one loss late to lessor... UGA OUT- two losses same team(auburn-maybe)?
meanwhile, Clemson loss to frickin' 'cuse...
Okey lost to frickin' Iowa State...
Wiscy is the only one (right now) who deserves opportunity in the 'ring of three'.
-
Alabama does not deserve a spot in the playoffs, and that is not just my general despising of that state. They don't have the resume and they don't pass any definitive eyeball tests.
-
alabama doesn't deserve it over the seccg winner. or acccg or wisk or ou.
there's an argument to be made if one of wisk/ou lose. if they both lose, bama is likely in, regardless of deserve or not.
-
Probably. It's not like there's no precedent for Alabama getting in with a decent loss to a good team as their only resume point.
Or the committee might get gunshy about putting a non-conference-winner after Ohio State last year and look around the PAC. Though I'm hard pressed to argue that any of the PAC teams are better than Alabama.
I'd still much rather see it. Win your conference or GTFO. If those conference titles really aren't going to matter then we need to just disband the conferences and form the 16-32 team superleague across the country with 4 team pods and complete the NFL-ization of this sport. Winning your division still gives non-NC winners a nice goal and "consolation prize" for a good year, much the same way conference titles do now.
-
Win your conference or GTFO. If those conference titles really aren't going to matter then we need to just disband the conferences and form the 16-32 team superleague across the country with 4 team pods and complete the NFL-ization of this sport. Winning your division still gives non-NC winners a nice goal and "consolation prize" for a good year, much the same way conference titles do now.
Quote of the year.
So much yes.
-
Why should one late November loss be more damning than 2 losses earlier in the year?
-
Probably. It's not like there's no precedent for Alabama getting in with a decent loss to a good team as their only resume point.
Or the committee might get gunshy about putting a non-conference-winner after Ohio State last year and look around the PAC. Though I'm hard pressed to argue that any of the PAC teams are better than Alabama.
I'd still much rather see it. Win your conference or GTFO. If those conference titles really aren't going to matter then we need to just disband the conferences and form the 16-32 team superleague across the country with 4 team pods and complete the NFL-ization of this sport. Winning your division still gives non-NC winners a nice goal and "consolation prize" for a good year, much the same way conference titles do now.
first, why does everyone keep using "pods" when we have a perfectly good word for that split already. you even used it later. divisions. if they go to this and call it pods, i'm putting out a hit on someone updyke style.
second, bama would still be in really good shape. you think they won't have wildcards under an nfl lite style setup? hell, depending on how they count the games, bama might be in over au for the div champ. unless i'm mistaken, all games count in nfl, not just div or conf.
having said that, i'd be fine with that. i argued last year for psu over osu mainly for that reason. however, there's 2 things different this year i'd like to point out. 1 - i am an unabashed homer and roll tide, suck it tigers (both of you). 2 - bama won't be getting in over the sec champ, just along with them. it's far less egregious if a second non-champ team from a conf gets in with the champ than over them. there can certainly be 2 teams from same conf in the best 4 teams in nation.
-
first, why does everyone keep using "pods" when we have a perfectly good word for that split already. you even used it later. divisions. if they go to this and call it pods, i'm putting out a hit on someone updyke style.
second, bama would still be in really good shape. you think they won't have wildcards under an nfl lite style setup? hell, depending on how they count the games, bama might be in over au for the div champ. unless i'm mistaken, all games count in nfl, not just div or conf.
having said that, i'd be fine with that. i argued last year for psu over osu mainly for that reason. however, there's 2 things different this year i'd like to point out. 1 - i am an unabashed homer and roll tide, suck it tigers (both of you). 2 - bama won't be getting in over the sec champ, just along with them. it's far less egregious if a second non-champ team from a conf gets in with the champ than over them. there can certainly be 2 teams from same conf in the best 4 teams in nation.
Call it whatever you want. I used "pods" because I've seen it elsewhere.
There might be wildcards, but I wouldn't advocate for it, and I'd reserve my right to complain about it.
As long as the rules for winning the division are agreed upon beforehand, and can't be changed to accommodate whatever helmet team we "think" is good, I'm all for it. If we had such a system and total games counted and Alabama won the division, fair enough.
There can definitely be two of the best 4 teams from the same conference, but they need to back it up with resume. By the end of the year, I no longer want anyone trying to care what they "think" about a team's quality, or eyeball tests. If people knew who the best teams were, they'd make their living betting and we wouldn't have to play the games. But we do play them, quite often with unexpected results because one or both teams aren't what we thought, and nobody I know makes their bones living a life of luxury because they can just gamble on games....for good reason. I'm happy to argue about resumes, but we've got to get rid of this "Well you can watch them and see they're one of the best teams in the country" crap.
-
If UGA can avoid stupidity and learn to pass on first down, they can win this thing. They hung in pretty well for a while in the last game and then the defense wore down because the offense was not controlling the clock at all.
They are going to have to ride Fromm to win it.
-
That is a complete total nonsense argument. The purpose of the committee is to select the best four teams and not some arbitrary secondary method of choice. Just because a team wins its conference does not make it better than the second or even third place team of another conference.
FWIW I am completely reconciled to the fact that Alabama is not going to make the playoffs. Hocutt has defacto announced that Ohio will be in the playoffs if they beat Wisconsin. That is what he meant when he said there was little difference between 5-8. Should Ohio be in the playoffs with their two blowout losses versus Alabama with it's one loss to Auburn? Hell no, but the Big 10 runs the NCAA and Ohio runs the Big 10.
-
Being conference champ is an admitted positive on the list of criteria. It counts.
There could be TWO slots open if TCU beats OU.
-
The committee is FAR more arbitrary than the old BCS system. At least a third of that formula was set in stone before the season began, and the other two-thirds, while by vote, had an advantage over the current system in that so many more votes theoretically allows for more democratic opinion.
Now, a small handful of people can do whatever they want. It's much easier to put in who they want in, and they're accountable to nobody. If the committee wants Alabama in, they're in. If Alabama doesn't make it, it's because the committee didn't want them.
Resume has so very little to do with it.
-
i agree with that. and said as much when the cfp came about. just use the bcs but take top 4 instead of 2. and stop tweaking every year.
-
Being conference champ is an admitted positive on the list of criteria. It counts.
There could be TWO slots open if TCU beats OU.
I wonder if the committee will act gun-shy about non-conf. champs after last year. I don't think anybody would've thought TOO much about it, but the committee kinda drew attention to themselves with some comments they made which sounded at least a little like buyer's remorse with the whole Ohio State thing last season.
No doubt in my mind they put OSU in mainly because of helmet factor. Then they crapped the bed, and it wouldn't surprise me if that were a big factor in keeping Alabama out this year.
Which is a serious drawback, imo. I've stated that based on resume (pending this weekend's CG's), I very well may not have Bama in my top 4. But I don't trust the committee to do anything that wise. I trust them a lot more to do a make-up call for Ohio State last year and block Alabama out....which is not a good reason at all to keep Bama out. If they don't have Alabama in, they need better reasons than getting bit by the Buckeyes in days gone by.
-
I like the committee idea.
I think they get it pretty much right. Sometimes there is no "right".
-
I believe the committee idea has been a disaster. They have one criteria one day and change it the next. They tell us one day conference championships are very important then the next they put Ohio in and leave out conference champion Penn State who actually beat them head to head which is another criteria. They make TCU number three who then blows out their final opponent and then they arbitrarily move TCU completely out of the playoffs.
What about these weekly rankings? They go to great lengths broadcasting their rankings on a prime time television show. Then they say they wipe the slate clean and start again the following weekend. So, in effect, the rankings that they just did were completely useless. Does that make any sense to anybody?
You could do better with a saloon full of drunks.
-
A conference championship is worth about half a win. Ohio State obviously had but the one loss while PSU had two. That is a rather important factor omitted in your "analysis".
A one loss team has a leg up on a two loss team, obviously, and the CG win makes up about half the difference.
I like the committee approach. I think they get it right most of the time and the fourth spot is likely to be somewhat controversial in most years with no clear answer.
-
How do you guys feel about same-conference teams both getting in if they haven't played? Does it matter if they already have? What's the harm in letting 2 teams in from a conference if those 2 teams haven't settled it on the field (Bama-UGA this year, for instance)?
-
A conference championship is worth about half a win. Ohio State obviously had but the one loss while PSU had two. That is a rather important factor omitted in your "analysis".
A one loss team has a leg up on a two loss team, obviously, and the CG win makes up about half the difference.
I like the committee approach. I think they get it right most of the time and the fourth spot is likely to be somewhat controversial in most years with no clear answer.
See, and I'd argue you seriously undervalue playing (and winning) an extra game, and against a division champ. Depending on the situation, that may be plenty to offset an extra loss, especially if it's earlier on and depending on how much merit is being given to the "hottest teams right now."
Which is why I personally like a sheer resume discussion at the end of the season. Your power rankings and eyeball tests mean nothing to me, and they mean nothing to the real world.
-
Cincy, where are any of your representations documented about committee policies? The fact is the committee rules one way and a year later reverses course depending on their personal preferences. If their purpose is other than selecting the best four teams they should simply admit what they are doing which is politicking.
I would also like a justification of the secrecy of the meetings. Why are we the public denied insight into how these decisions are made?
-
The preference for conference champs is pretty clear in the public outline of what counts here. The issue is comparing a one loss at large team versus a 2 loss conference champ. Last year, they chose the former, I think because Ohio State beat Oklahoma. Penn State had two losses, hence my comment that a conference championship is worth about half a win EXTRA. So, last year Penn State who finished 11-2 was really something like 11.5 and 2, while Ohio State was 11 and 1.
I also think that fourth slot will routinely have a controversial pick. If Wisconsin and OU win, it won't be this year. The odds seem pretty good that one or both may lose.
-
Looks like Georgia is going to win this thing. Congrats to long-frustrated Dawg fans.
Wish that the late, great Mr. Hoople were around to see this.
-
the ooga team playing right now is the one i've watched all season, not the one who lost to these guys earlier.
MrHoople is watching, i'm certain of it. He's sitting there with his wife, watching his beloved dawgs. that would define heaven to him.
-
Wow, quite a turnaround from last time.
As for the playoff, they don't strictly pick the "best 4 teams", it's a 50/50 combination of 'best 4 teams' and 'resume'. Wisconsin isn't one of the best 10 teams in the country, but their resume is good because of the zero in the loss column.
USC, Alabama, and Ohio State are all top-5 quality-wise, but all are on the outside looking in because their resumes are lacking. You could go 10-deep with teams that would be favored vs. Wisconsin by Vegas, and yes that means something.
-
Obviously a great win for Dawg fans, and the seniors who came back who could have been in the NFL.
Auburn played tough and just faded late, the score didn't indicate how close the game was, and Johnson's being hurt was clearly a factor. Gus did a good job trying to play around that.
The turnovers were also key. The zebras made three really bad calls IMHO including a late hit OB on Auburn that looked like a nothing to me.
That Auburn front 7 is pretty serious I think.
I suspect UGA will face OU and I tend to doubt they can "manage" that QB they have sufficiently well unless they can mount long sustained drives and keep him on the bench.
-
In "other news", Chubb became the #2 rusher in SEC history yesterday. The number three rusher at Georgia is Sony Michel, which is pretty solid company considering they did it at the same time.
RTDB.
-
Congratulations, Dawg fans and especially you Cincy. You guys have waited a long time to get here and you have a fine team.
I expect UGA and my Sooners to meet up and I am looking forward to an exciting game.
-
What a great game, especially for the seniors who came back this year.
The offensive game plan was much better this time around. More sweeps, more throws on 1st down.
#74 Cleveland made a big difference at RG than Kindley did in the first game.
A limited Kerryon Johnson certainly helped, but we didn't see much out of the other backs that Malzahn said they had confidence in.
Fromm looked good.
Roquan Smith is just a stud at LB. (going to miss him next year)
Really happy with the performance on Saturday and for a chance at OU in the playoffs. Should be a good game and a great challenge for our defense.
-
Having confidence in a guy to fill a role is quite different than equating them to the best back in the league. Auburn doesn't have any other players like a healthy Kerryon My Wayward Johnson, and neither did any other SEC teams this year.
-
Gratz to the Dawgs!! They earned that one. I wish AU had just a couple less injuries (and TOs) but such is life in the SEC--attrition is a big part of late season success.
Georgia was easily the best SEC team, all-around, this year.
-
Having confidence in a guy to fill a role is quite different than equating them to the best back in the league. Auburn doesn't have any other players like a healthy Kerryon My Wayward Johnson, and neither did any other SEC teams this year.
There aren't many backs like him, for sure, I was just going by what Coach Malzahn said in several interviews about having confidence in them. Cam Martin and Malik Miller only had 6 carries between them on Saturday.
-
Kerryon Johnson got my vote for Gutty Performance. He is slippery and has good vision and can run in traffic. He could have sat that out and not risked further injury or damage to an NFL career, but he went out there and did his best. That was impressive.
-
It was a great win for UGA with excellent adjustments from game one. I believe Auburn's last four games were just too much for them to handle both mentally and physically. Both of Auburn's fumbles and the blocked FG were all when the game was within seven points either way. It was a close game, but, as you said, Auburn definitely faded at the end.
Congrats UGA fans....