UGA claims 1942 alsoFor consistency I went with AP NC's only.
I'm already seeing speculation by Talking Heads about whether Kirby can win it again, soon. Just enjoy what is for a bit, eh?Yep.
I was walking back from my haircut ponder how many plays in football are inches from being something else, like that first TD catch by the Dawgs. It was good coverage, the WR just wrestled the ball away as it was thrown a bit short. Stetson's "fumble" was a hair from going OB. Young's non-fumble was a hair from being a fumble.
Plays that could easily have gone the other way.
Yep.
But maybe we should just assign a narrative that Georgia just "wanted it more" or perhaps that Alabama has CFP fatigue...
Prior to the game, FPI predicted a 58.4% Georgia win percentage in this game. Which means that if you play the game 1000 times, we'd predict that Georgia wins 584 and Alabama wins 416. Some of those would be tight games. Some of those would be blowouts either way. All of which would be within the statistical likelihood of probable outcomes. If they'd been blowouts, you'd be DAMN sure we'd be writing narratives about it.
In this game, Alabama outgained Georgia by 35 yards. Alabama converted 3rd downs at 45% to Georgia's 33%. Alabama ran 85 offensive plays to Georgia's 56. Alabama held the ball for 31 and a half minutes.
Alabama lost because they were -1 in the TO battle and they were less able to convert scores into touchdowns rather than field goals.
Statistically, the two teams weren't that far from even. Yet it was a 15-point victory for the Dawgs. And a few Georgia turnovers/mistakes/etc could have swung the margin to a 15-point Bama win quite easily...
This is why other sports play a 7-game series in the playoffs. Football is IMHO somewhat more deterministic (i.e. stronger team winning) than other sports, but not so much that a single game's outcome actually tells you all that much. But we have to talk about it like it means everything.
I'm a believer that contested games USUALLY come down to turnovers and other unpredictable flukes, but the Talking Heads have to try and analyze and predict. I bet if we surveyed games with no more than a 4 point spread, the team winning the TO battle wins 75-80% of them.This made me think about 1970 ND.
Then there are the other fluke unpredictable plays that happen. For a team that is a 15 point favorite, it rarely matters. It just makes a closer win.
A lot of the "luck" element is simply when you have your good or great year.(Whispers quietly ... I think OSU could've taken LSU. It would've had to be really feeling it, but Clemson was in that game at points, despite Lawrence being pretty out of sync. Granted, it would've been a shootout for the ages)
Ohio State was incredible in 2019 but Clemson was just as good and LSU was better. That team might have won it all in a different year.
(Whispers quietly ... I think OSU could've taken LSU. It would've had to be really feeling it, but Clemson was in that game at points, despite Lawrence being pretty out of sync. Granted, it would've been a shootout for the ages)According to the ranking that you posted in another thread, Ohio State that year was not only better than Clemson but also better than LSU and one of the very best CFP teams of the eight-year CFP era and I *THINK* those rankings are end-of-year so AFTER tOSU lost to Clemson and LSU beat them.
How often have we had blow outs in the NC game? Not very, a couple I recall (including the BCS). Teams are pretty evenly matched usually, and OSU would have been competitive with LSU that year, though LSU would be favored. Burreaux was just that good.Blowout is obviously a bit subjective. I tend to think of it as more than two scores so 17+ points but I make exceptions if a late score or two moves it into or out of that range. This year's NC was 15 points but I think it is important to note that it was a one score game and the team behind had the ball VERY late in the game. The Pick-6 made it look a bit more lopsided but it was a competitive game.
But one chance in three is pretty decent odds, and that is about a 7 point dog, and a turnover or two, not to mention those close passes that are tipped, or get home, or are dropped, etc.
Most teams will need to make the CFP several times to win an NC, it could be the first time. Or not.
I'm more literal about blow outs I think, meaning a score like 48-14 is a blowout to me, a score you'd see playing a G5 program. But it's subjective and you offered a nice summary.Honestly the definition to me is more about time than final score. What I mean is the answer to the question of whether or not a game was a blowout should be answered by considering the following question:
28 points or moreWhat @Cincydawg (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=870) and I are saying is that it isn't just the final margin.
Osborne would start pulling starters with a 4 TD lead in the 2nd half
Blowout is obviously a bit subjective. I tend to think of it as more than two scores so 17+ points but I make exceptions if a late score or two moves it into or out of that range. This year's NC was 15 points but I think it is important to note that it was a one score game and the team behind had the ball VERY late in the game. The Pick-6 made it look a bit more lopsided but it was a competitive game.
My subjective view of blowouts in the NC in the CFP and BCS eras:
- 2012: Bama by 28 over ND. This was probably the biggest blowout as ND was down 35-0 before they got on the board.
- 2004: USC over OU by 36. This might even be a worse blowout than the 2012 NCG. Oklahoma scored the last 9 points after trailing 55-10.
In total that is 11 in 24 years which is almost half but that depends on what you think about the italicized ones that are borderline.
Yup, I figure usually at least 3 of the teams in the CFP are very very good, and capable of beating you half the time, the other one would need some breaks, maybe could beat you 25% of the time, so the odds are against you no matter how good you are unless you are unusually great.Florida's been facing this for as long as FSU was good and the SECCG began in '92. FSU-SECCG-Bowl. Super fun stuff, good luck winning all 3. Spurrier never did. Meyer did once, but none of the FSU teams he faced were like the ones Spurrier faced. Tough sledding.
(Whispers quietly ... I think OSU could've taken LSU. It would've had to be really feeling it, but Clemson was in that game at points, despite Lawrence being pretty out of sync. Granted, it would've been a shootout for the ages)Ehhh......OSU got up 16-0 on that Clemson team, so it had everything going for it and all the momentum and still lost AND LSU put up 630 yards on that same team with no turnovers.
Ehhh......OSU got up 16-0 on that Clemson team, so it had everything going for it and all the momentum and still lost AND LSU put up 630 yards on that same team with no turnovers.I mean...LSU was really good. But OSU was better on the fancystats for a reason - they had a great pass rush and a great back end. No team would have matched up better with LSU that season than OSU. Clemson needed like a million big breaks just to barely squeak by. Certainly, would have been a much better championship game.
I'm doubtful.
What @Cincydawg (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=870) and I are saying is that it isn't just the final margin.agreed
If Nebraska is up 56-28 late in the third quarter, pulls their starters, gives up two late TD's by backups, and wins 56-42 that is still a blowout because the game was not in doubt once they got to 56-28. Conversely, if Nebraska is in a dogfight where the third quarter ends with the Huskers holding a 35-28 lead but then they score three fourth quarter TD's to win 56-28, that game is NOT a blowout because it was in doubt into the fourth quarter.
I mean...LSU was really good. But OSU was better on the fancystats for a reason - they had a great pass rush and a great back end. No team would have matched up better with LSU that season than OSU. Clemson needed like a million big breaks just to barely squeak by. Certainly, would have been a much better championship game.Cool. Then beat Clemson with a 16-point head start, lol.
Cool. Then beat Clemson with a 16-point head start, lol.The lads and I got together and we are sending you to football school so you can stop having bad football takes.
I guess the "right" response to "OSU was a better matchup because of X, Y, and Z" would be WHO GIVES A SHIT?Apparently you care a lot because you seem pretty upset by it.
(1) Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/SECNetwork/videos/1623575661311799)Somebody wearing a Chubb shirt 😎
Dawg fans being intense.
Apparently you care a lot because you seem pretty upset by it.It's cute you think that.
It's cute you think that.Is it cuter than writing in all caps about how know one cares?
Takes A LOT of effort to type in call caps, I TELL YOU WHAT! And red font? FERGIT IT!Football fans: "What if two the best teams got to play each other that one year. That would have been awesome!"
So it's not about the OSU-LSU matchup, now OSU was better than Clemson?Yes. By the numbers, OSU was better than Clemson that season. By many stats, they were better in that game. Upsets happen - that's life in sports. It is profoundly silly to say OSU couldn't compete with LSU because they lost to Clemson. It's the dumbest take of them all.
Yes. By the numbers, OSU was better than Clemson that season. By many stats, they were better in that game. Upsets happen - that's life in sports. It is profoundly silly to say OSU couldn't compete with LSU because they lost to Clemson. It's the dumbest take of them all.This is a good example of if I posted what you did, you'd disagree with me.
Sam nailed it.Yep, go with what you want to believe and ignore the truth. That's how Fox News is a thing.
Fro be all like:
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/FzM9WB-wsQKYxg4dtWbLH0scNYI=/1400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15992505/download.jpg)
WHO CARES!!!!111!!!
I guess the "right" response to "OSU was a better matchup because of X, Y, and Z" would be WHO GIVES A SHIT?If you don't care about this aspect of the discussion, just leave it alone, others may find it of interest. I don't see a reason to drive the discussion in some OTHER direction.
If you don't care about this aspect of the discussion, just leave it alone, others may find it of interest. I don't see a reason to drive the discussion in some OTHER direction.My apathy sprung up when my criticism was criticized. Which is stupid. It's all stupid.
My apathy sprung up when my criticism was criticized. Which is stupid. It's all stupid.(https://i.imgur.com/KeY6zaf.png)
Takes A LOT of effort to type in call caps, I TELL YOU WHAT! And red font? FERGIT IT!BIG RED FONT, BABY!!!!