- Thread starter
- #1
Anotherwvufan
Well-Known Member
- 1,601
- 639
- 113
- Joined
- May 5, 2013
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
What do you guys think of the current playoff format. I think it is a mess but will stay around so ESPN and talk radio can keep the talk and bitching going around and getting better ratings. I call this the BCS +2 format. It really seems no different. Some thoughts on the process.
1. Are they looking for the best team or most deserving team? Take Ohio State, while I love to see them get screwed, the talking heads believe that they should have no chance since they lost to VT earlier in the season. Really, they look like they would be a good matchup for the SEC teams everyone is touting.
2. Baylor v. TCU- Baylors loss to us is now considered a "bad loss" by the talking heads. My take is that Baylor is the better team. When they played us, they lost their best OL before the game and lost another one during the game. The backup could not stop Shaquille Riddick who made 4 sacks and changed the game. I also look at the Trickett to White factor; against Baylor, we threw deep multiple times resulting in big plays and 6 Pass Interference calls. against TCU, Trickett never went deep to White (shoulder issues maybe), and the refs called nothing. We also did not fumble 5 times against Baylor. I think that Baylor poses more matchup problems for the SEC team(s) that make it in. Does TCUs win against Minnesota make them a better, or more deserving team?
3. In the end, this is just a popularity contest. I would much rather see a situation where a team can say if we keep winning, we will be in instead of looking and counting the teams that must lose for you to have a chance. If you hae 5 conferences and 4 teams, limit the committee and the subjective factors and let them exclude one of the conference champs instead of making arbitrary picks influenced by polls, money and ESPN.
1. Are they looking for the best team or most deserving team? Take Ohio State, while I love to see them get screwed, the talking heads believe that they should have no chance since they lost to VT earlier in the season. Really, they look like they would be a good matchup for the SEC teams everyone is touting.
2. Baylor v. TCU- Baylors loss to us is now considered a "bad loss" by the talking heads. My take is that Baylor is the better team. When they played us, they lost their best OL before the game and lost another one during the game. The backup could not stop Shaquille Riddick who made 4 sacks and changed the game. I also look at the Trickett to White factor; against Baylor, we threw deep multiple times resulting in big plays and 6 Pass Interference calls. against TCU, Trickett never went deep to White (shoulder issues maybe), and the refs called nothing. We also did not fumble 5 times against Baylor. I think that Baylor poses more matchup problems for the SEC team(s) that make it in. Does TCUs win against Minnesota make them a better, or more deserving team?
3. In the end, this is just a popularity contest. I would much rather see a situation where a team can say if we keep winning, we will be in instead of looking and counting the teams that must lose for you to have a chance. If you hae 5 conferences and 4 teams, limit the committee and the subjective factors and let them exclude one of the conference champs instead of making arbitrary picks influenced by polls, money and ESPN.
