Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
Comments
Thank you. I don't know why I've always been under the impression that a defense scoring against an offense didn't affect a team's defensive stats. I guess because... someone said it once and it makes complete sense?
A lot of the time people will remove the things defense have directly no control over to get a true picture of what the defense did, but it gets tricky. For example, if the offense fumbles at their own 20, but the defense yields no yardage and the opponent still kicks the FG, should that really still go against the defense? You can't really expect the D to generate a turnover on demand, or force a team out of FG range every time there is a sudden change. I think that is why they keep it overly generic, because even removing stuff like pick sixes, the D would still be getting penalized for offensive miscues, so might as well just leave it all and expect it evens out. There are advanced metrics like points surrendered per snap, yards surrendered per snap, defensive success rate and such that may actually account for those scenarios a little better, but I haven't ever looked into specifics of how those are calculated to be certain.
The only folks asking this question had to be a Big 10 writer, especially given the follow-up question. No one from the Big 10 should out rank UGA with all winning out - strength of schedule is just so lopsided and will only increase after the conference championships. These things are always maddening given the nature of conference loyalists weighing in. Check the ACC teams remaining in the polls as well as USC and their rank. Just win out and be champ and leave nothing to these folks.
Not for certain as Michigan beating Ohio State would leave open the Ohio States fans saying their 1 loss team is better than TN. and should get in above them.
Somehow I expect TN to make the playoff. Clempson isn't passing the eye test. USC will almost definitely stub their toe over the next 3 games. OSU at home beats MI . TN has a better resume than 1 loss MI. TCU may win out but may not. All that adds up to TN making it in.
BUT does the committee want a #1 UGA vs #4 TN? I think not. The committee would rather see fresh matchups. So that means #1 OSU blows out IL and #2 UGA gets by LSU. Problem solved. TV gets their OSU vs TN shootout and the committee gets new matchups.
Tennessee has a better loss than USC and at least two better wins (Bama and LSU). Even the Tenn's KY win was more impressive than USC barely making it by Oregon State.
I'm not saying that the committee won't give sit to USC if USC wins out (which is a big "if") - just that Tennessee deserves it more based on the record. The only thing USC has going for it, is that they can finish strong by beating three straight ranked teams.
But IMO, if UGA, Tennessee & TCU win out, it ought to be UGA, Michigan-OSU winner, Tennessee and TCU in that order. If TCU doesn't win out and USC does, then USC replaces TCU.
I agree with your take. But Dawgs will need to beat LSU by a solid margin, not necessarily a blow out, but not barely eek out a win either. A solid score win would or should solidify UGA at #1. Oh and need to close these last two regular season games out Big !! Hopefully no injuries.
Very logical and I agree. BUT don't kid yourself. It isn't just about football. Remember the criticism that last year's CFBCG would only drive interest in the SE? It is also about revenue generation.
USC has a marquee QB and good wr's. SHOULD they win out and be PAC12 champions the committee may weigh the benefit of the LA TV market, increased interest on the west coast, increased national interest (equaling increased revenue) vs adding Knoxville and another SEC team.
Football purists may argue that an OSU/TN semi and UGA/TN rematch final might drive ratings. But more national interest may trump that in the minds of the committee (and the people that "steer" the committee).
Probably a moot point as it will take OSU, USC, TCU and UGA winning out to test that theory. And all that is not likely to happen.