Deep Creek
Well-Known Member
But honestly, who loses to Pitt? You lose to Pitt you shouldn't be in the playoffs.
The National Champions?
But honestly, who loses to Pitt? You lose to Pitt you shouldn't be in the playoffs.
I'd argue that it's about finding the best/most deserving teams based on the whole season. A team like USC evolved and ended up clearly being on of the best teams in the country, but they weren't ready to go at the beginning of the year. Their evolution was still recognized, they got to play in the Rose Bowl and finished #3. They were penalized for not playing a complete season by not getting a chance to play for the national championship.Penn St. belonged, they were the B1G champs and beat tOSU head to head. While I don't think we belonged, a lot of folks were saying USC should have been in because of the 8 game win streak and having beaten both teams who played in the PAC CCG.
Oklahoma started 1-2 then went on to finish 11-2 and won their conference.
The fact that 2 conference champs were left out would be a good start in determining what other teams may have belonged.
The problem with only 4 teams in the playoff is that it doesn't really take into consideration that college football teams tend to evolve (or devolve) as the season progresses. Every season we see huge changes in the polls because of this.
The National Champions?
I'd argue that it's about finding the best/most deserving teams based on the whole season. A team like USC evolved and ended up clearly being on of the best teams in the country, but they weren't ready to go at the beginning of the year. Their evolution was still recognized, they got to play in the Rose Bowl and finished #3. They were penalized for not playing a complete season by not getting a chance to play for the national championship.
I get the point, I don't disagree, and unfortunately it's impossible to have equal schedules. In our specific case though, Alabama was really the big difference. You guys could have just lost that game and been fine, but then you lost conference games too.So, a team who is clearly one of the best teams at the end of the season, doesn't get in over a team that started the season better, maybe played an easier schedule (especially at the beginning) and by the end of the season wasn't necessarily one of the best teams?
Another issue is that there is no schedule equity. If USC starts the season 3-0 or 3-1 because they played an easier schedule, does that somehow make them more worthy?
I wonder what USC's record would have looked like if they started the season playing Rutgers, Idaho and Portland St. or Bowling Green, Tulsa, Oklahoma and Rutgers instead of Alabama, Utah St., and Stanford?
4 teams isn't too many. The 4th seen won it the first year for fucks sake. You're right about this year though.We only had 2 deserving teams this year, but two more were given a shot. 8 teams, are you guys serious? USC got stomped by bama, I know I know we're suppose to believe they got better but maybe their schedule just got easier after bama. 4 teams is perfect, we've only had 1 competitive semi final game out of the 6 played, 4 teams might actually be too many.
I would agree if they were all playing high quality opponents early in the year AND if the committee were consistent. In 2014 tOSU wasn't very good early in the year but made one hell of a run late in the year culminating with an ass kicking of Wisconsin. USC didn't get that consideration. One could argue USC had more losses but they also played a more difficult early schedule this year than tOSU did in 2014.I'd argue that it's about finding the best/most deserving teams based on the whole season. A team like USC evolved and ended up clearly being on of the best teams in the country, but they weren't ready to go at the beginning of the year. Their evolution was still recognized, they got to play in the Rose Bowl and finished #3. They were penalized for not playing a complete season by not getting a chance to play for the national championship.
I always thought an 8 team playoff would be perfect, and while I'm still not necessarily against expansion, the arguments against are starting to make a lot more sense to me.
Let us bitch a little .lolI get the point, I don't disagree, and unfortunately it's impossible to have equal schedules. In our specific case though, Alabama was really the big difference. You guys could have just lost that game and been fine, but then you lost conference games too.
You could wonder what it would have been like with our schedule all you want, I'm sure you're off to an easy 3-0 start in that case, but then what? You guys had issues (like the QB spot) that were addressed because you were struggling. So you go from your easy 3-0 (or 4-0) start to still getting stanford in the first half of the year. Is Browne all of the sudden your guy because you had an easier start? Maybe... but is it crazy to think maybe the weaker schedule early just masks your issues so they don't get addressed? At least two of your losses are still there if that's the case.
It's impossible to say how it would work out. It's easy for you to say 'if only,' it's easy for me to say 'but,' but come on man... you guys weren't ready to go at the beginning of they year.
Clemson loses to Pitt at home and gets in the playoffs. Penn State loses to Pitt on the road and doesn't.
Ohio State would have been excluded in the old beauty pageant/popularity contest BCS. This is why it is better to include a few "maybes" than exclude the real champion. The maybe's will get weeded out in the first round even if let in.The 4th seen won it the first year for fucks sake.
4 teams isn't too many. The 4th seen won it the first year for fucks sake. You're right about this year though.
I was being sarcastic because many people were citing that loss as a reason why Ohio State should be in over Penn State.Clemson loses to Pitt at home and gets in the playoffs. Penn State loses to Pitt on the road and doesn't.
and he is the next head coach at Michigan State once Dantonio retires.Their HC is the old heart and soul if MSU. They're on the rise.
I figured as much. Just wanted those people to see how silly their logic was.I was being sarcastic because many people were citing that loss as a reason why Ohio State should be in over Penn State.
He must have inherited a shit storm of a defense at Pitt. He's a defense guy and they gave up quite a lot of points this year.Their HC is the old heart and soul if MSU. They're on the rise.
Two maybe three years is my expectation.He might be at top PC program before then. How long you think Diantonio has?