College Football Playoff

Dedicated to College Football and Draft discussion.
post

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:28 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:Alabama played 3 bowl teams in their OOC, one which is traditionally ranked very high

is it the strongest in football? Nope

Is it respectable? Absolutely.




As to your larger point about SEC OOC schedules in general...I agree with it. But not Bama.

There are 78 bowl teams. Seventy-eight. It's hard to not play at least 2.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:34 pm

then I don’t understand your position I’m afraid.

What other top teams played more than 3 bowl teams?

Is your issue simply with Mercer or their OOC schedule in general? I’m confused
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Alpha » Wed Dec 06, 2017 1:55 am

Ok motherfuckers...you're gonna have to feel the wrath.

I'll have you know my Mercer Bears only lost to Auburn by 14. So SUCK IT!

I think Alabama beating Mercer by ONLY 56 is a QUALITY win!

And THAT ALONE merits Alabama making the Final 4.
Alpha
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:51 am
Location: St. Pete
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 77 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Kress » Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:29 am

Alpha wrote:Ok motherfuckers...you're gonna have to feel the wrath.

I'll have you know my Mercer Bears only lost to Auburn by 14.



Was that a game where Auburn pulled their starters in the 3rd quarter? You know, like Clemson did when playing Miami? :jumprope:
Image
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 201 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:56 am

Scheduling a perennial top 5 talent rich program like FSU as an OOC opponent is not aiming low imo.

People are looking at Bama's schedule with the benefit of hindsight and crafting an argument. But is Bama really in control of how FSU or the rest of the SECW did in 2017? Of course not.. Had OU had a season like FSU perhaps Buckeye fans wouldn't be so proud about getting beat by 15pts at home against them.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9311
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:18 am

DreadNaught wrote:Scheduling a perennial top 5 talent rich program like FSU as an OOC opponent is not aiming low imo.

People are looking at Bama's schedule with the benefit of hindsight and crafting an argument. But is Bama really in control of how FSU or the rest of the SECW did in 2017? Of course not.. Had OU had a season like FSU perhaps Buckeye fans wouldn't be so proud about getting beat by 15pts at home against them.


Right.

Pre-season Alabama had a top 15 schedule. If Auburn had a 6-6 year, would Clemson be criticized for scheduling the Citadel(Who is worse than Mercer)? Or is just because of Alabama?
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:13 am

I have no problem with a school playing a single FCS team every year -- I do admit the timing that many schools in the SEC do it is a bit weird...most schools use them as a warm up game early in the season....as I said, for a title contender...playing Mercer is really not that different than playing Idaho, UTEP, Charlotte, etc. The title contender is going to win all those games 999 out of 1,000 times.

That being said, I think every title contender needs a powerhouse school on their resume...and quite frankly, outside a couple schools most do that. OU had OSU, Clemson had Auburn, Georgia had Notre Dame, Bama had FSU, OSU had OU, USC had ND...really the only team that didn't have a very good OOC game was Wisconsin (and in the recent past they have played Bama and Oregon if i recall).

Many of those teams also played a "big" little guy -- Bama with Fresno, OSU with Army, etc.


Don't get me wrong...I'm not suggesting all these teams had really tough schedules OOC nor that there isn't a difference between them. But it seems like most of them certainly had acceptable schedules.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:55 am

DreadNaught wrote:Scheduling a perennial top 5 talent rich program like FSU as an OOC opponent is not aiming low imo.

People are looking at Bama's schedule with the benefit of hindsight and crafting an argument. But is Bama really in control of how FSU or the rest of the SECW did in 2017? Of course not.. Had OU had a season like FSU perhaps Buckeye fans wouldn't be so proud about getting beat by 15pts at home against them.

With all due respect, that's how we should look at someone's schedule. All this pre-season top 25 is nonsense based on basically nothing but program history, usually by not always recent. Florida State, Florida, West Virginia, Texas and Tennessee were all preseason top-25 teams. Every single one of those teams has at least 5 losses.

The bottom line is that Bama played one really good team and they lost. What is getting them into the playoff? History? Conference reputation (completely unearned this season)? The eye-test? This may be blasphemous, but this is where I miss the BCS.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:18 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:Scheduling a perennial top 5 talent rich program like FSU as an OOC opponent is not aiming low imo.

People are looking at Bama's schedule with the benefit of hindsight and crafting an argument. But is Bama really in control of how FSU or the rest of the SECW did in 2017? Of course not.. Had OU had a season like FSU perhaps Buckeye fans wouldn't be so proud about getting beat by 15pts at home against them.

With all due respect, that's how we should look at someone's schedule. All this pre-season top 25 is nonsense based on basically nothing but program history, usually by not always recent. Florida State, Florida, West Virginia, Texas and Tennessee were all preseason top-25 teams. Every single one of those teams has at least 5 losses.

The bottom line is that Bama played one really good team and they lost. What is getting them into the playoff? History? Conference reputation (completely unearned this season)? The eye-test? This may be blasphemous, but this is where I miss the BCS.


I don't believe it's fair to say Bama was aiming low when they scheduled FSU and play in the SECw is all. If you want to knock the resume after the fact that is fair, but that wasn't them aiming low trying to skate their way into the playoff.

Having only 1 loss to a quality opponent on the road got them in the playoff compared to the other two 2-loss teams (OSU,USC). I agree their (Bama) resume wasn't impressive. But the lack negatives outweighed the lack of positives in the end and it's tough to blame Bama for lack of success/underachieving teams like FSU, LSU, TAMU, MissSt, ALL had in 2017. I think Conference Championships are important, but not the end all-be all.

This was an odd year where the 4th playoff team was going to get in with an unspectacular resume compared to teams in years past. I get the argument for OSU, but I also get the argument against them, especially since Southern Cal had an equal if not better resume than Ohio State as a 2-loss Conf Champ.

@chrisfallica
In last 2 years, the 8 teams which reached the CFP had 6 losses by a combined 31 points. Ohio State's 2 losses this year have been by a combined 46 points (loss at Iowa was by 31).
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9311
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:53 pm

I think that USC or Wisconsin was more deserving based on resume. You can knock the Wisconsin schedule all you want, but it was a better one than the one Bama had in terms of difficulty. Both lost their last game of the season to top 6 teams. Both had their best win against 9-3 teams with warts.

USC has a stronger case, considering they won a conference which made the other conferences their bitch this season (Pac12 was 6-2 vs the P5, 2-0 vs Alabama's division). Funny enough, the SEC had the worst winning % vs the P5 this year at 6-9, going 1-5 vs the B1G, Big 12 and Pac12.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Kress » Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:56 pm

Ken Carson wrote:The eye-test?



This is where the argument gets circular. Eye test against...... who? Of course they looked good. They would look unstoppable against my high school team.
Image
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 201 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:13 pm

Kress wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:The eye-test?



This is where the argument gets circular. Eye test against...... who? .



Image
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Doctor » Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:53 pm

I love how people cry about conferences like they mean something. They don't. "Winning your conference" is half a step above "winning your bowl game". It's a relic from the previous money-grabbing era where people try to pump up and give importance to things are not important in order to sell tickets. Five years ago Wisconsin was the Big Ten champ three times in a row. You know the only team that cares about that? Wisconsin. Oregon was three-time champ of the Pac-12, who know who didn't care? Ohio State, FSU, Clemson, Bama.... everyone not in the Pac 12. So much fuss is made about which conference is better because without the fuss people would realize it's ****ing meaningless. It's like winning your division in the pros. The Texans have won the AFC South four of the last five years and no one outside the AFCS gives a ****. GB doesn't, Denver doesn't, Dallas and Philly certainly don't.

The only thing that matters is the National Championship. Everything is a feel-good consolation prize to help people forget that the whole system is a sham, and no sport one has more consolation prizes than college football.
Image
User avatar
Doctor
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:54 pm
Location: Out of the Office. Will return next Fall.
Has thanked: 182 times
Been thanked: 115 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:04 pm

Ken Carson wrote:I think that USC or Wisconsin was more deserving based on resume. You can knock the Wisconsin schedule all you want, but it was a better one than the one Bama had in terms of difficulty. Both lost their last game of the season to top 6 teams. Both had their best win against 9-3 teams with warts.

USC has a stronger case, considering they won a conference which made the other conferences their bitch this season (Pac12 was 6-2 vs the P5, 2-0 vs Alabama's division). Funny enough, the SEC had the worst winning % vs the P5 this year at 6-9, going 1-5 vs the B1G, Big 12 and Pac12.


So Wisconsin is more deserving despite not scheduling a strong OOC opponent while also not playing OSU or PennState in the regular season? It seems like you're completely dismissing Bama playing FSU based on how FSU's season played out. The Seminoles lost their starting QB in that Bama game and were forced to play a true FROSH all year, had Francios remained healthy FSU season would've been much better, thus making the Bama weak schedule argument mostly irrelevant when comparing them to any 2-loss team.

Also, I agree on the positives you've pointed out but your not weighing the negatives (# of losses, margin of loss) into it. Beating quality opponents is great and teams should benefit from it, but losing by 30+ points should also matter (which OSU and USC both did). So comparing 2 loss teams to 1 loss teams you have to look at the losses as well as the wins.

I'm not a fan of style points or quality losses, but it certainly plays a role. Moreso in the games you lose. Had OSU lost to Iowa on a last second FG I believe they would've got in over a 1-loss Bama. But that 30+ point loss to an unranked team was devastating after already losing to OU.

There is also the factor that Vegas favors Bama over the other teams.

Like I said it's really splitting hairs for that 4th team. I get the arguments but think the committee got it right when weighing both the positives and negatives of the resumes from Bama, OSU, and USC.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9311
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:08 pm

Doctor wrote:I love how people cry about conferences like they mean something. They don't. "Winning your conference" is half a step above "winning your bowl game". It's a relic from the previous money-grabbing era where people try to pump up and give importance to things are not important in order to sell tickets. Five years ago Wisconsin was the Big Ten champ three times in a row. You know the only team that cares about that? Wisconsin. Oregon was three-time champ of the Pac-12, who know who didn't care? Ohio State, FSU, Clemson, Bama.... everyone not in the Pac 12. So much fuss is made about which conference is better because without the fuss people would realize it's ****ing meaningless. It's like winning your division in the pros. The Texans have won the AFC South four of the last five years and no one outside the AFCS gives a ****. GB doesn't, Denver doesn't, Dallas and Philly certainly don't.

The only thing that matters is the National Championship. Everything is a feel-good consolation prize to help people forget that the whole system is a sham, and no sport one has more consolation prizes than college football.


I completely disagree the winning your conference is meaningless as you described. It matters to the coaches, players, alumni, and fans. Especially for the players and coaches who will be able to point to those banners and tell their kids that they were part of that.

Obviously the grand prize of winning it all (National Championship/Super Bowl) is the goal, but that doesn't mean winning your conference is meaningless.

You sound like Ricky Bobby...

Image
Last edited by DreadNaught on Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9311
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:10 pm

Also, dread, the BCS projections (using AP instead of Harris) put Bama at 4 as well.

I know it's all subjective, but this year appears to have worked out. For the most part, people appear to be less angry than they were last year with Penn State.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:22 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:I think that USC or Wisconsin was more deserving based on resume. You can knock the Wisconsin schedule all you want, but it was a better one than the one Bama had in terms of difficulty. Both lost their last game of the season to top 6 teams. Both had their best win against 9-3 teams with warts.

USC has a stronger case, considering they won a conference which made the other conferences their bitch this season (Pac12 was 6-2 vs the P5, 2-0 vs Alabama's division). Funny enough, the SEC had the worst winning % vs the P5 this year at 6-9, going 1-5 vs the B1G, Big 12 and Pac12.


So Wisconsin is more deserving despite not scheduling a strong OOC opponent while also not playing OSU or PennState in the regular season? It seems like you're completely dismissing Bama playing FSU based on how FSU's season played out. The Seminoles lost their starting QB in that Bama game and were forced to play a true FROSH all year, had Francios remained healthy FSU season would've been much better, thus making the Bama weak schedule argument mostly irrelevant when comparing them to any 2-loss team.

Also, I agree on the positives you've pointed out but your not weighing the negatives (# of losses, margin of loss) into it. Beating quality opponents is great and teams should benefit from it, but losing by 30+ points should also matter (which OSU and USC both did). So comparing 2 loss teams to 1 loss teams you have to look at the losses as well as the wins.

I'm not a fan of style points or quality losses, but it certainly plays a role. Moreso in the games you lose. Had OSU lost to Iowa on a last second FG I believe they would've got in over a 1-loss Bama. But that 30+ point loss to an unranked team was devastating after already losing to OU.

There is also the factor that Vegas favors Bama over the other teams.

Like I said it's really splitting hairs for that 4th team. I get the arguments but think the committee got it right when weighing both the positives and negatives of the resumes from Bama, OSU, and USC.

Please stop with the FSU lost their quarterback schtick. 3 years ago, Ohio State lost Braxton Miller, started a freshman QB, went 11-1, lost their backup freshman QB and started their 3rd string QB, winning the B1G championship, a playoff game against Alabama and the National Championsip against Oregon. That's what can happen when an actual elite team loses a starting QB. An elite team doesn't lose 6 games because they lose a couple of QBs.

But I digress. Wisconsin's schedule was objectively tougher than Alabama's, so you going back to the 'who they scheduled' argument is weak sauce.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:30 pm

Kress wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:The eye-test?



This is where the argument gets circular. Eye test against...... who? Of course they looked good. They would look unstoppable against my high school team.

That's what I'm getting at. A completely subjective 'well, they really smoked Ole Miss' (who lost to 5-7 Cal, by the way). If you look at facts like strength of schedule, best win, quality of loss, stronger conference, division winner, etc...
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:48 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
So Wisconsin is more deserving despite not scheduling a strong OOC opponent while also not playing OSU or PennState in the regular season? It seems like you're completely dismissing Bama playing FSU based on how FSU's season played out. The Seminoles lost their starting QB in that Bama game and were forced to play a true FROSH all year, had Francios remained healthy FSU season would've been much better, thus making the Bama weak schedule argument mostly irrelevant when comparing them to any 2-loss team.

Also, I agree on the positives you've pointed out but your not weighing the negatives (# of losses, margin of loss) into it. Beating quality opponents is great and teams should benefit from it, but losing by 30+ points should also matter (which OSU and USC both did). So comparing 2 loss teams to 1 loss teams you have to look at the losses as well as the wins.

I'm not a fan of style points or quality losses, but it certainly plays a role. Moreso in the games you lose. Had OSU lost to Iowa on a last second FG I believe they would've got in over a 1-loss Bama. But that 30+ point loss to an unranked team was devastating after already losing to OU.

There is also the factor that Vegas favors Bama over the other teams.

Like I said it's really splitting hairs for that 4th team. I get the arguments but think the committee got it right when weighing both the positives and negatives of the resumes from Bama, OSU, and USC.

Please stop with the FSU lost their quarterback schtick. 3 years ago, Ohio State lost Braxton Miller, started a freshman QB, went 11-1, lost their backup freshman QB and started their 3rd string QB, winning the B1G championship, a playoff game against Alabama and the National Championsip against Oregon. That's what can happen when an actual elite team loses a starting QB. An elite team doesn't lose 6 games because they lose a couple of QBs.

But I digress. Wisconsin's schedule was objectively tougher than Alabama's, so you going back to the 'who they scheduled' argument is weak sauce.


I wasn't comparing FSU to the OSU's title team, just making a point that FSU would've been better than the 6 loss team they turned out to be had Francois played the whole season for them. But it seems you disagree with that point so we'll just agree to disagree there.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9311
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:52 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:Please stop with the FSU lost their quarterback schtick. 3 years ago, Ohio State lost Braxton Miller, started a freshman QB, went 11-1, lost their backup freshman QB and started their 3rd string QB, winning the B1G championship, a playoff game against Alabama and the National Championsip against Oregon. That's what can happen when an actual elite team loses a starting QB. An elite team doesn't lose 6 games because they lose a couple of QBs.

But I digress. Wisconsin's schedule was objectively tougher than Alabama's, so you going back to the 'who they scheduled' argument is weak sauce.


I wasn't comparing FSU to the OSU's title team, just making a point that FSU would've been better than the 6 loss team they turned out to be had Francois played the whole season for them. But it seems you disagree with that point so we'll just agree to disagree there.

I would agree they would probably be better than 6 losses, but they still would not be a great team/win. A good team would have figured out a way to go 8-4 at worst with the hand they were dealt.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:16 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
I wasn't comparing FSU to the OSU's title team, just making a point that FSU would've been better than the 6 loss team they turned out to be had Francois played the whole season for them. But it seems you disagree with that point so we'll just agree to disagree there.

I would agree they would probably be better than 6 losses, but they still would not be a great team/win. A good team would have figured out a way to go 8-4 at worst with the hand they were dealt.


I think FSU still loses to Clemson and is at best a 2-loss team w/ Francios. They almost/should've beat Miami w/ their true FROSH QB. Anyways I was just making the point that hypothetically a ranked 9-3/8-4 FSU team would've helped Bama's resume more than how it played out after Francios was injured.

But it's splitting hairs either way and just a subjective debate. However the oddsmakers seems to like Bama in the playoffs fwiw and that helps validate the committee's decision.

Outcome of the #CFBPlayoff National Championship Game:

BAMA beats Georgia +400
BAMA beats Oklahoma+450
Clemson beats Georgia+450
Clemson beats Oklahoma+600
Georgia beats BAMA +650
Georgia beats Clemson+700
Oklahoma beats BAMA +650
Oklahoma beats Clemson+700
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9311
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Selmon Rules » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:35 pm

Selmon Rules wrote:Noticed on one of the graphics they showed prior to announcement and it seemed like USCw had some of the better numbers on that (SOS, record against top teams, etc...) and with the same record that OSU had.... Not saying they are one of the top 4 teams in country but find it odd that it seems they weren't even in discussion....

Asked this question back on Sunday, Why wasn't USCw even in the discussion?? A little West Coast bias maybe??
Sig currently being held hostage by Photobucket, will return next fall
User avatar
Selmon Rules
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:27 pm
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:49 pm

Selmon Rules wrote:
Selmon Rules wrote:Noticed on one of the graphics they showed prior to announcement and it seemed like USCw had some of the better numbers on that (SOS, record against top teams, etc...) and with the same record that OSU had.... Not saying they are one of the top 4 teams in country but find it odd that it seems they weren't even in discussion....

Asked this question back on Sunday, Why wasn't USCw even in the discussion?? A little West Coast bias maybe??


Their 35 point loss to ND and having 2 losses are what most point to.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:57 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Selmon Rules wrote:Asked this question back on Sunday, Why wasn't USCw even in the discussion?? A little West Coast bias maybe??


Their 35 point loss to ND and having 2 losses are what most point to.


Same reasons OSU didn't get in. But I agree USCw should've got the same love from the talking heads that OSU was getting. The narrative all Saturday night was that if OSU won they were in the playoff. I was just sitting there like 'what about USCw'? Did they not just win their conference the night before? How is losing on the road to an unranked Iowa by 30+ somehow better than losing on the road to a T-10 Notre Dame team by 30+?

Not saying USCw deserved to get in the playoff, but they had strong case to be upset had OSU got in over them.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9311
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:00 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:
Their 35 point loss to ND and having 2 losses are what most point to.



Not saying USCw deserved to get in the playoff, but they had strong case to be upset had OSU got in over them.


Completely Agree. I think Bama is more deserving, but they had a better case IMO over OSU.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby mdb1958 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:15 am

Can anyone explain to me how West Florida got into the DivII final four?
mdb1958
 
Posts: 7015
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 136 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Bootz2004 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:18 am

mdb1958 wrote:Can anyone explain to me how West Florida got into the DivII final four?


No
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 18288
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 395 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Zarniwoop » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:20 am

They won their final 8 game?
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby NavyBuc » Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:01 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:
Their 35 point loss to ND and having 2 losses are what most point to.


Same reasons OSU didn't get in. But I agree USCw should've got the same love from the talking heads that OSU was getting. The narrative all Saturday night was that if OSU won they were in the playoff. I was just sitting there like 'what about USCw'? Did they not just win their conference the night before? How is losing on the road to an unranked Iowa by 30+ somehow better than losing on the road to a T-10 Notre Dame team by 30+?

Not saying USCw deserved to get in the playoff, but they had strong case to be upset had OSU got in over them.


Agree 100% about USC. I felt like they got shafted a bit. Not saying they should have gotten into the final 4, but they should have been considered more than OSU.

As far as Wisconsin goes, I go back to what I said about their schedule being their biggest enemy. And I know the argument is that Bama's schedule wasn't all that great, either, and it's hard to back Bama on that point, but Bama at least destroyed their weaker competition. Wisconsin had 2 or 3 easy games where they struggled a lot. They had a tough time with Purdue, they struggled with Illinois of all teams and Northwestern was right in that game with them until the final minute. Even Michigan was beating them in the 3rd quarter until their starting qb got hurt. I like Wisconsin and would have loved to see them beat Ohio State, but I watched several of their games this year because I either bet on them or against them.......they're not a top-4 team. I'm sorry. You can throw all the statistics and SOS you want out there, but I would bet any of the playoff teams all day against them. And I think the committee who watches a lot of football said the same thing. And while the committee goes a lot by resume, they also go by the non-computer element. Isn't that why they did away with the BCS? If we want to go strictly by resume and SOS and all that statistics stuff, then let's bring back the BCS. Maybe Wisconsin would have got in.
NavyBuc
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:07 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby mdb1958 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:24 pm

Div III Championship rematch from last year

Mount Union and Mary Hardin-Baylor
mdb1958
 
Posts: 7015
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 136 times
Been thanked: 66 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to College Football/Draft Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests