We're sitting here tonight looking at three teams that would have been in an eight team playoff that lost. Lost, to teams ranked below them. You want to pull one out of the mix? Okay, let's put Washington in...oh, wait. They lost as well. A fifth ranked Georgia, a seventh ranked Michigan, an eighth ranked UCF, and a ninth ranked Washington all lost their games, convincingly. Lost, to team that were ranked below them. But, including these teams is going to help college football as a whole? How? The assertion I don't care for college football as a whole is a stretch of the wildest imagination. I'd call it a stupid comment but I don't want you to think I'm calling you stupid. I'm not. I've criticized how the playoffs are diminishing the value of the regular season. I've stated such here, more than once. But, you read that and come to the conclusion I don't care about the game as a whole. Asinine. And, you're right. What we have right now isn't good for the sport. What we had was a lot better.
My personal taste, my opinions, and even my personal feelings have nothing to do with what I've stated. I've said Ohio State didn't deserve to be in the playoffs because they lost to a sub.500 club in Purdue: by 29 points. That's not subjective. That's a fact. Teams that lose when playing a team they should have beaten, soundly, don't deserve a post season spot. Geez, we're talking about OSU losing to a team that Auburn just waxed. Auburn! Let me backtrack a bit here. My opinion does come into play in regard to my comments in this thread. I don't think a team that doesn't take care of business when they should, belong. But, that's an opinion based on what's happened on the field. On the field...which is where we're wanting all of this settled, right?
If you make a mistake is it right to blame other circumstances on its result? The SEC chose to partner with ESPN for it's launch of the SECN. We've seen how good of a partnership that has been. The PAC chose to partner with Fox--the also ran of college football coverage. Larry Scott is as much to blame as anyone for the position the PAC is in today. I don't believe the structure of the PAC network was a good idea in the first place. It's similar to what the LHN has produced in the sense to each team getting its own network, so to speak. I do agree with you that the PAC doesn't get the exposure other conferences have--but that's by choice. (I don't recall why the PAC chose FOX in the first place. I do recall wondering why they would choose a network that falls behind CBS, ABC, and ESPN in terms of viewers and coverage of college football.) We're back to Notre Dame being included, right? I've maintained for years that Notre Dame does get a break when it comes to college football. That's been a part of the game for over half of a century. However, here we are in the midst of teams and conferences screaming about the SEC only playing eight conference games. We're hearing "play Power 5!" And yet, here we are saying Notre Dame doesn't belong because they played nine Power 5 teams, and did so without a loss. The notion ND needs to be left out while they've done what everyone is crying for? That doesn't make sense. Yep. Good ball club. But certainly not a great ball club. I do like the reference of "how long UGA was winning" without mention of the fact they've been outscored 42-14 in the second half the last two years. One stupid play from keeping Bama out...with the game tied at that time, with UGA struggling to move the ball against the Bama defense, and a UGA defense that "wasn't prepared for another back-up quarterback." A good team that derped a game up in the regular season, a good team that blew its chances at the post season, again. It's UGA football--defined. Every year it's next year with UGA...been that way since 1980. Again, makes no sense. Was that season not settled on the field? If you're a commitree member who are you taking over Bama last year? A two loss Ohio State who, just like this year, loses to an unranked opponent—that time by 31? There's an argument for Wisconsin considering they were the only other one loss team at the end of the season. I see their decision based largely on Ohio State's loss. You may not like their decision last season. I would have questioned whether Wisconsin deserved to be there, but I woudn't be getting bent out of shape about their choice. Hell, I'm advocating a move back to the BCS system which wouldn't have been as kind to Bama. To add one more thought here...can you give me your thoughts on a team that could have gone into Jordan Hare and won at the end of last season? It's my opinion Auburn would have beaten any team at home at the end of last season. Y'all. I don't suit up on Saturdays. I remember that day very clearly...70's, playing golf off the Stono River, and not really giving a damn about who won the game, and thinking, "If it works out, it works out. If it doesn't; it is what it is." The reference to a two loss team not deserving a spot in this years playoff has nothing to do with what happened in 2007. It's intellectually dishonest to try to include that season when discussing this season. Hell, that season had what in the top ten, six or seven teams finishing with two losses? And we entered this post season with what, four unbeaten teams, two with one loss, two with two losses and one with three, right? We're going to end up with one undefeated, two with two losses...
Apologies, you post so many dissertations that I must have confused it with something else. Also apologies for insulting you (this time). Something else was pissing me off and I was a bit short (like your head coach). I didn't say OSU deserved shit back then or now. In fact the opposite whether I care to post or not. Perhaps you are confusing my posts with someone else. Back to original point. If an 8 team playoff was in effect today using current playoff rank, they would be playing ND which based on outcome should not have neen playing Clemson. As stated by myself and others, 8 teams is a more statistically significant sample than four. That is a fact, not an opinion. How you get to that eight is the only thing left to debate. If you still can't understand that, well... And then.
Nah, what we had before sucked worse. We’re trying to take “feel” out of the equation; at least we determine more on the field now than ever before. Of course you’re going to nit-pick after the fact and just look at this year, because that’s how decisions are made... The fact remains it’s physically impossible to fit five teams into four spots. Quarterfinals will have more evenly matched games. The entire sport will be invested rather than a region. And upsets will take college football to a different level. I recognize the value of the regular season; 8 teams spread across all conferences isn’t going to take away, especially if you require a top 10-ish rating to get in.
The thing is Terry it isn't about the 2 best teams. Maybe it should be but Alabama didn't even win their division of the sec in 2011 We had to play an extra game against a top team you didn't have too. Not fair and not right.. and to your argument then LSU beat the other top team at your place. So the two top teams had already played. We should have just been named National Champions. This year is a prime example of a team like Notre Dame playing what would have been a really tough schedule most years but this year it was crap. So they go undefeated and beat their chest when there could have been better Notre Dame teams in other years where they had 2 losses but were a better than this year team. Are you telling me in the sec west because it is so tough that a 2 loss team couldn't be better than any other team but the west is so tough 3 of the best teams in the country couldn't be in the west. Yet a Oklahoma who has maybe 2 tough games all year gets in over the better sec west team with 2 losses . That's why I want an eight team playoff is so the really really good team from the sec west may get in still because guess what.Its the toughest division bar none. Its all about the best teams right. UCF prime example as well. In the sec west they would be lucky to win more than 1 sec game. If our coaches and refs had gotten their head out of their asses with a depleted defense we should have beat them by 40 points. With 8 teams it is just 1 game different than now.
Speaking very conservatively, we'd still be looking at two blowouts and then hoping we'd see two decent games in the quarters. Would Ohio State vs Notre Dame been a good ball game? We can only speculate, but I'd think we'd be looking at three of the four being blowouts. Hell, I'm not sure UGA could have stayed with OU this season—the Bulldogs defense isn't on the same level as the one they field last year. Statistically significant is removing chance from the equation. Yet, the argument is based on chance. There's a chance the #8 team doesn't get blown out. There's a chance we won't see blowouts in the semifinals. Statistical facts give us results and those show the vast majority of those teams that would be in the eight wouldn't have a chance. History reflects these semi's haven't been competitive.
And yet sometimes they do win. The Giants won 2 superbowls after getting into the playoffs as a wild card. If they hadn't gotten in we might be talking about a 19-0 New England as the greatest team of all time.
