Damn, there go his lips again.

One of life’s lesser mysteries is why reporters keep asking Bill Hancock to opine about the chances for playoff expansion.

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs

6 responses to “Damn, there go his lips again.

  1. We got our shot and missed … no shame in playing a Sugar Bowl with what is likely to be our weakest team for the immediate future.

    I still hate the committee because there’s no way the biases are checked at the door. For example, even though Stricklin and Stansbury (in particular) didn’t have a team in the fight, does anyone really believe they would be objective in discussing Georgia?

    The teams apparently line up with the BCS which also would have also had us at 5.

    We have no one to blame but ourselves for the abortion of a game plan, execution, and game day coaching in Red Stick vs. the Corn Dogs.

    Like

    • Macallanlover

      I certainly will not defend the game planning for that debacle in Baton Rouge but everyone I hear on this subject overlooks what I think contributed more to this loss:

      1) it was in Red Stick with a passionate crowd and a team with its back against the wall. It was more than just a one loss team event, it was their program’s future because of what was transpiring with their, questionable, HC’s job. He loses that game, he loses not just the SEC hopes, he loses the recruiting, his support from any of the fanbase, and almost certainly his job. This was a desperate team being attacked from all angles. Not being without talent, they “played up” that particular Saturday, their A game was better than UGA’s C game. And the extra TD near the end made it a memorable unacceptable loss of 20 rather than 13.

      2) It was not a “must win” for UGA because they could still make Atlanta, beat Bama, and still make the playoffs. As it played out they did have that exact opportunity, and almost grabbed the golden chain. But they had to be perfect, and they almost were as they fell one spot short. One hopes that helps them deal with this situation in 2019 because there will be two high profile games that also will not have a total knock out effect if they lose one (ND and A&M).

      3) UGA was a talented team that had not been tested, and was out of rhythm because of the staff shuffling the deck continually, and not having found their leadership to insure they were totally bought in, nor understood the gravity of losing a high profile game on their chances of achieving their playoff dreams. It turned out this proved to be the fatal flaw.

      Like

  2. Uglydawg.

    So there was little debate on one through three?
    That many people just pretended ND belongs?
    If not having a conference championship “W” is ignored, so should an “L” be ignored.
    Get the human beings out of this and let a computer do unbiased work
    If we trust computers to land passenger jets (yes, they do..have since the L-1011 in the 70s) with hundreds of souls on them, we should trust one to pick a few football teams for a play-off.
    There were at least three teams that should have been in ahead of the Dodging Irish.

    Like

    • Macallanlover

      Your biggest error is in thinking the computer starts out as a blank sheet of paper and is totally objective. From everything I have read on this over the years, a human programs the start point with some subjectivity, similar to the human pre-season polls. The computer then has to work its way through this interaction process and overcome those built in biases. It is why no two computers ever came up with the exact same rankings, and that is your proof that something is flawed with the “objective” issue. Same results should yield the same order of finish, doesn’t happen.

      Like

      • There is natural bias in anything like this. I don’t think anyone expects total objectivity. The human polls have a lot of bias. Regional/conference, preseason expectations, and brand are 3 I can come up with off the top of my head. The human bias gets worked out by the number of participants in the poll to get it as close to statistically valid as possible. The greater the number and the wider the variety of respondents leads to the result that makes sense. The computer rankings have the bias of one individual or a team of individuals. The model is the product of the developer’s preference and, more likely than not, differing results.

        I think those of us who believe a BCS type of formula would produce a more trustworthy result just want transparency about the rules of engagement.

        Some years the committee has said team A is in over team B because we think A>B. Other years it was team A>B even though team B won head to head and won the conference. The committee seems to change the rules with no rational explanation for why they did what they did.

        By the way, the BCS formula came up with the exact same list as the committee and would have done so with a whole lot less drama, but that’s why the WWL loves the committee.

        Like

  3. Flying Peak Dawg (formerly AusDawg85)

    Meh…Kirby threw the LSU game so they’d have a better shot at taking out Bama. We were always safe for the SECCG. Didn’t work out so we had to deal with Bama directly. This explains the fake punt.

    Ha..fooled you. Nothing explains that fake punt. Nothing. 😩

    Like