When discussing the new playoff committee's top 25 rankings on Tuesday night, ESPN analysts Danny Kanell and David Pollock debated about whether TCU or Oregon should currently be ranked 4th in the country and agreed that both teams should be ranked ahead of Alabama at this point. Fellow ESPN analyst Kirk Herbstriet, however, disagreed, and said, "If you were to ask me who I think is the better team, I'd say Alabama is better than Oregon or TCU. That's just a gut feeling, an eye-test kind of thing" (just paraphrasing).
I usually respect Kirk Herbstriet's opinions, because he tends to be unbiased. Even though he's an Ohio State graduate, he's never been shy about criticizing his Buckeyes and the Big Ten conference when he deems it necessary. However, I strongly disagree with him here. What's the point of teams scheduling tough out-of-conference opponents if they're not going to be rewarded at season's end by beating these teams, simply because the playoff committee thought another, less tested team, was more impressive via the eye-test? When looking at a team's resume, what's more important? More impressive victories against quality competition or looking better on television against less quality competition? I'll take the former over the latter every day.
Now, this isn't to say I don't think Alabama is a good football team. I do. Also, with the Tide still yet to play LSU, Mississippi State, Auburn, and possibly a team in the SEC championship game, by season's end, they could very well have as good of a resume as any other team in the country. However, to this point in the season, I think they deserve to be ranked 7th, behind: 1) Mississippi State, 2) Florida State, 3) Auburn, 4) Oregon, 5) TCU, and 6) Kansas State.
To this point in the season, Alabama has only two impressive victories - their opener against West Virginia, where they beat the Mountaineers by 10, and a 59-0 romp over then #21 Texas A&M, who is now out of the top 25 and struggled to beat Louisiana-Monroe last week. So, as the season has progressed, that win over A&M has appeared less impressive, and their standout win to this point was a 33-23 victory over a 6-3 West Virginia team at a neutral location to start the season (ranked 23rd in the latest poll).
Oregon, meanwhile, defeated #8 Michigan State 46-27 at home and defeated #18 UCLA on the road by 12. Both those wins are more impressive than anything Alabama has on their resume to this point.
TCU has defeated #15 Oklahoma at home and #23 West Virginia on the road. Again, Oklahoma is a more impressive victory than Texas A&M and a win in Morgantown against West Virginia is more impressive than a win against the Mountaineers at a neutral location.
Lastly, Kansas State's most impressive win was a victory in Norman against #15 Oklahoma, which is, yet again, more impressive than Alabama's best win to this point in the season.
If Alabama wins out and defeats LSU, Mississippi State, Auburn, and wins the SEC championship game, then rest assured, they'll be one of the four teams in the playoff. However, at this point in the season, I don't care about the "eye-test," their resume is less impressive than that of Oregon, TCU, and Kansas State.
I usually respect Kirk Herbstriet's opinions, because he tends to be unbiased. Even though he's an Ohio State graduate, he's never been shy about criticizing his Buckeyes and the Big Ten conference when he deems it necessary. However, I strongly disagree with him here. What's the point of teams scheduling tough out-of-conference opponents if they're not going to be rewarded at season's end by beating these teams, simply because the playoff committee thought another, less tested team, was more impressive via the eye-test? When looking at a team's resume, what's more important? More impressive victories against quality competition or looking better on television against less quality competition? I'll take the former over the latter every day.
Now, this isn't to say I don't think Alabama is a good football team. I do. Also, with the Tide still yet to play LSU, Mississippi State, Auburn, and possibly a team in the SEC championship game, by season's end, they could very well have as good of a resume as any other team in the country. However, to this point in the season, I think they deserve to be ranked 7th, behind: 1) Mississippi State, 2) Florida State, 3) Auburn, 4) Oregon, 5) TCU, and 6) Kansas State.
To this point in the season, Alabama has only two impressive victories - their opener against West Virginia, where they beat the Mountaineers by 10, and a 59-0 romp over then #21 Texas A&M, who is now out of the top 25 and struggled to beat Louisiana-Monroe last week. So, as the season has progressed, that win over A&M has appeared less impressive, and their standout win to this point was a 33-23 victory over a 6-3 West Virginia team at a neutral location to start the season (ranked 23rd in the latest poll).
Oregon, meanwhile, defeated #8 Michigan State 46-27 at home and defeated #18 UCLA on the road by 12. Both those wins are more impressive than anything Alabama has on their resume to this point.
TCU has defeated #15 Oklahoma at home and #23 West Virginia on the road. Again, Oklahoma is a more impressive victory than Texas A&M and a win in Morgantown against West Virginia is more impressive than a win against the Mountaineers at a neutral location.
Lastly, Kansas State's most impressive win was a victory in Norman against #15 Oklahoma, which is, yet again, more impressive than Alabama's best win to this point in the season.
If Alabama wins out and defeats LSU, Mississippi State, Auburn, and wins the SEC championship game, then rest assured, they'll be one of the four teams in the playoff. However, at this point in the season, I don't care about the "eye-test," their resume is less impressive than that of Oregon, TCU, and Kansas State.
Comments
Post a Comment