So the PAC 12 has no shot at the Playoff.

[TrustMeIamRight]

You realize we still have 3 more weeks of games, right?

Why would Miami deserve to get in? Yes they'd have 1 loss. They'd also have 1 ranked win and no conference title.

Why would Auburn deserve to get in if they lose to Bama? 9-3 over 11-2 with a conference title? Not happening.

Why would ND deserve to get in? 2 losses, no 13th game, no conference title, and not as good of wins.

Why would Georgia deserve to get in if they lose the SEC CCG? 2 losses, no conference title, not as good of wins.

If Bama, OU, Clemson, and OSU wins out, those are your playoff teams.

1. Miami. Because they’d have one loss to the defending NC and didn’t have games where they were clearly the inferior team? OSU had 55 put on them by a 4 loss team, who the following week couldn’t put up 100 yards of offense.

2. Auburn. Auburn losing to Bama, they have no shot of a conference championship. If they win out, they will have beaten Georgia, Bama and then Georgia again. Absolute no brainer over OSU, which would be a worst case scenario for OSU. It’d leave Bama with 1 loss and they’d DEFINITELY get in over OSU if a 4th team was needed, giving 2 to the SEC. Same scenario happens if Bama beats Auburn, then loses to Georgia, leaving both with 1 loss and both more deserving than OSU.

3. ND has one of the toughest schedules in the nation and will have played teams from the SEC, ACC and PAC 12 who will be playing in their conference championship games. Not to mention, also hammering MSU AT MSU, and doing the same to NC State. Their two losses would be to Georgia and Miami. The Iowa loss is going to KILL OSU, especially with why Wisconsin did to Iowa the next week.

If OSU has lost close hard fought games to OU and Iowa. I’d feel different. The fact they didn’t and had a 4 loss team hang 55 on them. OSU isn’t getting in and IMO, should not, because they aren’t one of the 4 best teams.

 

[ericd7633]

Let me ask you this - What on earth would make you think that Stanford would remain ranked when they're 23rd right now and could get 2 more losses? Is that win over Cal going to somehow catapult them up the rankings so far they can't drop out even with finishing the year with back-to-back losses? IMO Stanford and michigan aren't ranked teams if they both drop 2 more games. Not sure where the argument would be to the contrary.

They're 22nd btw. And the committee ranked an 8-5 USC team a couple years ago after they lost to a top 10 team in the CCG, so there's precedent. It really depends on if they'd stay ranked after losing to ND. If they do, I doubt the committee punishes them for the extra game against a top 10 team. My guess is that if they lose to ND close they won't drop out. That's pretty consistent with how the committee has reacted thus far.

 

[Across The Field]

1. Miami. Because they’d have one loss to the defending NC and didn’t have games where they were clearly the inferior team? OSU had 55 put on them by a 4 loss team, who the following week couldn’t put up 100 yards of offense.

2. Auburn. Auburn losing to Bama, they have no shot of a conference championship. If they win out, they will have beaten Georgia, Bama and then Georgia again. Absolute no brainer over OSU, which would be a worst case scenario for OSU. It’d leave Bama with 1 loss and they’d DEFINITELY get in over OSU if a 4th team was needed, giving 2 to the SEC. Same scenario happens if Bama beats Auburn, then loses to Georgia, leaving both with 1 loss and both more deserving than OSU.

3. ND has one of the toughest schedules in the nation and will have played teams from the SEC, ACC and PAC 12 who will be playing in their conference championship games. Not to mention, also hammering MSU AT MSU, and doing the same to NC State. Their two losses would be to Georgia and Miami. The Iowa loss is going to KILL OSU, especially with why Wisconsin did to Iowa the next week.

If OSU has lost close hard fought games to OU and Iowa. I’d feel different. The fact they didn’t and had a 4 loss team hang 55 on them. OSU isn’t getting in and IMO, should not, because they aren’t one of the 4 best teams.

1. Miami looked like garbage in too many games against flat out awful teams. Barely escaping North Carolina, Syracuse, and Florida State are a horrible look, especially considering they'd have 1 (ONE) ranked win.

2. I'm going off the idea that Auburn loses. You're bring in upsets, which throw everything off.

3. ND has had a good schedule, but it's not much different than OSU's. They have better losses. OSU will have better wins, as well as a 13th game and a conference title. That's going to hurt ND. Plus, since you're such a big fan of using recent years, why would they get in over OSU when 2 years ago we trounced them in our bowl game and last year they were 4-8? You can't say the last 2 years only apply to the B1G and nobody else.

 

[trojanfan12]

My mistake. Basically if all the "top" teams in your conference get upset, then they can have 11 bowl eligible teams. Wow, what conference strength you've got there.

lol Maybe the problem is that the bottom half of the B1G isn't as good as the bottom half of the PAC?

Although, I'm sure that if the top of the PAC beat the hell out of of the bottom of the PAC, you'd claim that it just means that the bottom of the PAC is really bad rather than the top being really good.

 

[Across The Field]

lol Maybe the problem is that the bottom half of the B1G isn't as good as the bottom half of the PAC?

Although, I'm sure that if the top of the PAC beat the hell out of of the bottom of the PAC, you'd claim that it just means that the bottom of the PAC is really bad rather than the top being really good.

The best thing for you guys would've been for Washington and USC not to look like garbage against bad teams this year. It would be much better for those two and Stanford and Wazzou to have 10-11 wins each while the bad teams stay bad. Otherwise it just looks like your conference is mediocre, which is the case.

 

[outofyourmind]

lol Maybe the problem is that the bottom half of the B1G isn't as good as the bottom half of the PAC?

Although, I'm sure that if the top of the PAC beat the hell out of of the bottom of the PAC, you'd claim that it just means that the bottom of the PAC is really bad rather than the top being really good.

 

[trojanfan12]

I know USC is 9-2, but they haven't looked good at all. Their best win is a 42-24 win over Stanford, who has shown that without Bryce Love, they are horrible.

Well, Bryce Love was healthy when USC beat them, so you don't have much of a point here.

 

[trojanfan12]

The best thing for you guys would've been for Washington and USC not to look like garbage against bad teams this year. It would be much better for those two and Stanford and Wazzou to have 10-11 wins each while the bad teams stay bad. Otherwise it just looks like your conference is mediocre, which is the case.

I agree. I never understood the "USC to the playoffs" talk this year anyway. Anyone who was paying attention knew that Darnold was going to be throwing to an all new and unproven receiving corp and that the o-line was losing 3 starters. Knew it was going to take time to gel. Honestly, I think we're lucky to be 9-2. All things considered, we should probably be 7-4.

As of now, I think we're better than our #11 ranking, but I don't think we deserve playoff consideration regardless of how the rest of the season plays out. We struggled with consistency longer than we should have and getting boatraced by the Domers really hurts our resume.

 

[socaljim242]

I haven't seen one USC fan try and make a case for them to be anywhere near the playoffs. Thats loss to ND sunk that ship. Lots of good teams have lost on the road this year but that was a beatdown. USC fans know that the D line was decimated for that game but it doesn't matter it happened. What I do question is how some teams beat trash and move up and USC has been treading water the past few weeks despite winning.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

1. Miami looked like garbage in too many games against flat out awful teams. Barely escaping North Carolina, Syracuse, and Florida State are a horrible look, especially considering they'd have 1 (ONE) ranked win.

2. I'm going off the idea that Auburn loses. You're bring in upsets, which throw everything off.

3. ND has had a good schedule, but it's not much different than OSU's. They have better losses. OSU will have better wins, as well as a 13th game and a conference title. That's going to hurt ND. Plus, since you're such a big fan of using recent years, why would they get in over OSU when 2 years ago we trounced them in our bowl game and last year they were 4-8? You can't say the last 2 years only apply to the B1G and nobody else.

When I speak of ND over the B1G — it has nothing to do with a single team. It has to do with how the conference is viewed as a whole. I’m not saying OSU shouldn’t get in because MSU was blown out 2 years ago or because OSU was blown out last year. I’m saying any B1G team with a comparable record will get passed over this year. Why? First, they had two games against CFP quality teams, both games were home games for the B1G and both games they were severely outplayed. Because of that — the ‘ranked’ wins they have will only be against other B1G teams. Second, the past performances of the B1G doesn’t shed a good light on the conference. You can continue to say it doesn’t matter, but I GUARANTEE other conference heads at the CFP meetings will be bringing it up (as well as the OOC losses). The last reason I say ND gets in over OSU — they play a national schedule and will have played top teams from every conference almost. They aren’t beating just B1G teams — it is a xompetitive advantage for them to face teams from all over.

Miami would have a blowout win over ND, a win over VaTech, a better record and their only loss would be to Clemson. Unless Clemson beats them like Iowa did OSU, I could easily see them put Miami in with one loss over a B1G with 2 losses or a PAC with 2 losses.

Basically — I think OSU would need about a dozen things to happen to get into the CFP. Sitting down at 9 with some conferences locked into spots already — it is going to hurt them that they lost to OU. If OU loses to TCU, who deserves the CFP? TCU or OU. Say they take TCU — are you going to say OSU is more deserving than OU for spot? Or say OU loses to TCU and still get picked for the CFP — are you saying a team that finished with the same record, comparable SOS and beat OU isn’t more worthy?

OSU has no one to blame but themselves — they were completely outplayed in their two losses and it will kill them when the committee puts the top 4 together.

 

[uncfan103]

Why do you think the NFL doesn't just have 4 game playoffs? There have been PLENTY of SB champs that weren't in the top 4 seeds overall.

Money.

 

[trojanfan12]

I haven't seen one USC fan try and make a case for them to be anywhere near the playoffs. Thats loss to ND sunk that ship. Lots of good teams have lost on the road this year but that was a beatdown. USC fans know that the D line was decimated for that game but it doesn't matter it happened. What I do question is how some teams beat trash and move up and USC has been treading water the past few weeks despite winning.

For whatever reason, there is always media overreaction both ways to USC, imo.

In the beginning of the season, we were ranked too high because the media saw what what we did with Darnold last year, didn't take into consideration all of the players we lost, and thought we'd just keep rolling with no learning curve for the new guys.

Now, when it looks like we are getting healthy and players are beginning to gel, they want to rank us lower than we probably should be right now because of those earlier struggles.

 

[trojanfan12]

Why do you think the NFL doesn't just have 4 game playoffs? There have been PLENTY of SB champs that weren't in the top 4 seeds overall.

Agree. Teams can evolve or "devolve" as a season plays out. Last year, after 4 games, USC looked a lot more liuke one of the 4 worst teams in the nation, but finished looking like one of the 4 best.

Imo, an 8 team playoff would allow for all P5 champs to get into the playoff, plus a couple of "at large" bids for teams who have shown themselves to be a lot batter at the end of the season than the beginning.

 

[Across The Field]

Well, Bryce Love was healthy when USC beat them, so you don't have much of a point here.

They're not that good with him either.

 

[trojanfan12]

They're not that good with him either.

So basically, you're just going to continue to twist yourself like a pretzel trying to be on both sides of every argument.

Good to know. I hate wasting my time.

 

[Across The Field]

When I speak of ND over the B1G — it has nothing to do with a single team. It has to do with how the conference is viewed as a whole. I’m not saying OSU shouldn’t get in because MSU was blown out 2 years ago or because OSU was blown out last year. I’m saying any B1G team with a comparable record will get passed over this year. Why? First, they had two games against CFP quality teams, both games were home games for the B1G and both games they were severely outplayed. Because of that — the ‘ranked’ wins they have will only be against other B1G teams. Second, the past performances of the B1G doesn’t shed a good light on the conference. You can continue to say it doesn’t matter, but I GUARANTEE other conference heads at the CFP meetings will be bringing it up (as well as the OOC losses). The last reason I say ND gets in over OSU — they play a national schedule and will have played top teams from every conference almost. They aren’t beating just B1G teams — it is a xompetitive advantage for them to face teams from all over.

Miami would have a blowout win over ND, a win over VaTech, a better record and their only loss would be to Clemson. Unless Clemson beats them like Iowa did OSU, I could easily see them put Miami in with one loss over a B1G with 2 losses or a PAC with 2 losses.

Basically — I think OSU would need about a dozen things to happen to get into the CFP. Sitting down at 9 with some conferences locked into spots already — it is going to hurt them that they lost to OU. If OU loses to TCU, who deserves the CFP? TCU or OU. Say they take TCU — are you going to say OSU is more deserving than OU for spot? Or say OU loses to TCU and still get picked for the CFP — are you saying a team that finished with the same record, comparable SOS and beat OU isn’t more worthy?

OSU has no one to blame but themselves — they were completely outplayed in their two losses and it will kill them when the committee puts the top 4 together.

The ND thing is going to just have to be your opinion, I guess. If the committee sees better losses as being the only important thing, then they'll get in.

Why does a win over unranked Va Tech matter? Again, one ranked win for the whole year with no conference title. Not playoff-worthy.

OSU needs to win out along with Bama, Clemson, and Oklahoma. It's pretty much just that simple. At that point, you're looking at teams with no conference title and the same amount of losses, or a 1-loss team without a conference title and 1 ranked win. Those won't win out over Ohio State.

 

[Across The Field]

So basically, you're just going to continue to twist yourself like a pretzel trying to be on both sides of every argument.

Good to know. I hate wasting my time.

Explain to me how Stanford has been good this year.

 

[Across The Field]

Money.

And we all know the NCAA just hates money...

 

[trojanfan12]

Explain to me how Stanford has been good this year.

When they have had Bryce Love, they've been pretty good. They got off to their typical slow start (1-2), but have won 6 of their last 7 with a win over a ranked team and a 3 point loss on the road to another ranked team.

My point is that you used Stanford not being good without Love as a reason for take away from USC's win vs. Stanford. Then, when it was pointed out that he was healthy and played when USC beat them it's..."Well they aren't that good with him either."

Hey, if you want to twist yourself into knots trying to win the internet...you do you, I just won't waste anymore of my time.

 

[Across The Field]

When they have had Bryce Love, they've been pretty good. They got off to their typical slow start (1-2), but have won 6 of their last 7 with a win over a ranked team and a 3 point loss on the road to another ranked team.

My point is that you used Stanford not being good without Love as a reason for take away from USC's win vs. Stanford. Then, when it was pointed out that he was healthy and played when USC beat them it's..."Well they aren't that good with him either."

Hey, if you want to twist yourself into knots trying to win the internet...you do you, I just won't waste anymore of my time.

Oh I was pointing out that without Love, Stanford is absolutely horrible, not just bad. They didn't have him against an extremely awful Oregon St. team and escaped by 1 point. With him, they're not that good. Without him, they're absolutely horrible. Seriously, if they didn't have him this year, there's a real chance they're a 3 win team.