Did anyone else think...
- Thread starter Patriotgame_rivals
- Start date
Patterson shed a few tears discussing his team's loss today. I can understand that feeling, because TCU really has been an outstanding team this year. They just played are growing juggernaut twice this season. Wisconsin was lucky that they haven't played one team of TCU's quality this year. They might be shedding tears too.
The Sooners don't like to run up the score under LR, and I greatly appreciate that.
TCU did not impress me today.
Watching Georgia, Ohio State and Clemson so far, it seems that OU has faced the boys....now it will face the men.
Watching Georgia, Ohio State and Clemson so far, it seems that OU has faced the boys....now it will face the men.
Maybe Clem qualifies for that comparison; the others, meh
No way will the committee leave out a power-5 conference champion east of the Rockies.
bye-bye bama
bye-bye bama
At the moment tomorrow should look like Clem, Sooners, Georgia & #4. MAYBE the $ec sneaks bama back in after all...
I'm impressed by the fact that the only teams invited (12) by CFP committees all were power conference champions.
1-loss bama or 2-loss tosu... Maybe the comm self-corrects for dissing Penn State last year ?
I'm like the other way on their play calling. I thought the first series in the 2nd half was strange w/ 3 straight pass of 10+ yds deep on each pass attempt. They missed on all three. Then Baker connects deep on his first play. BOOM. TD OU. It was a huge momentum swing to OU.
I thought it was odd they came out will Hill throwing deep. He's just not accurate. Those throws he had in the first half were outliers.
Shouldn't have happened IMO, but the lure of (broadcast) cash from a Bama-Clemson game was too tempting to ESPN, who worked tirelessly through the night into this morning to express their shock and horror at the thought that the playoffs could be missing the big cheese of the SEC West.
So that means i was wrong. Last year they had a non-champion in the field in tOSU, who immediately left the competition after their 31-0 loss.
The committee is still burned at tOSU for making them look like the trend-chasing fools they are.
If this holds any weight, then sure am glad the committee didn't hold it against OU for embarrassing them in the playoffs 2 years ago.
Was there widespread controversy about the inclusion of OU? I figured that the Sooners were there as designated losers.
Doesn't matter. Ohio State wasn't chosen last year because of trend-chasing.
They were there because they and not Penn State were considered a contender, and won 5 in a row to end the regular season.
The spurned Nittany Lions won their last NINE games including the CCG, but lost a whopper of a Rose Bowl against USC, losing 52-49.
Better try next time.
Sorry, but a playoff quality team doesn't get blown out 49-10 by Michigan, while also dropping another game during the season.
Same rules apply this season as well. If Ohio State were a quality playoff team, they wouldn't have been blown out 55-24 by an unranked Iowa team, while also losing another game to OU.
So ya...there is a trend here. If you wanna make the playoff, don't lose twice in the season, and especially one of the including being blown out by over 30pts. Quality playoff teams don't let that happen.
No more tries are needed after this one. You're annoyance with Alabama making the playoff is nothing but jealousy and hatred of Alabama.
Every time I hear "blown out" associated with ranking i cringe. There's simply no proper use for margin of victory in the selection process, regardless of what anybody says. Nobody will ask next year how many points you beat so-and-so by, because quality wins and their ability to overshadow bad losses IS a valid tool for analysis, while opinion and disagreement ln the world of "we bet so-and-so by 27, and you only beat them by 1 will never ever end.
A win and a loss is exactly what the names say. Use of them should be conservatively applied, but they are the most important determinant in whether or not a team is worthy of the playoffs. The others rightly should ignore margin of victory or loss unless there is simply no other way to decide a comparison between teams. It should ONLY be used when no other criteria can offer up the differences between teams.
Shame on E's blatant lobbying to get Bama in. I intend to boycott the Sugar Bowl in response. Feel welcome to do so yourself. They won't listen until the money slows, so this might take a while, because college football is imperiled by corporatism and greed, and only the fans can save it.
A win and a loss is exactly what the names say. Use of them should be conservatively applied, but they are the most important determinant in whether or not a team is worthy of the playoffs. The others rightly should ignore margin of victory or loss unless there is simply no other way to decide a comparison between teams. It should ONLY be used when no other criteria can offer up the differences between teams.
Shame on E's blatant lobbying to get Bama in. I intend to boycott the Sugar Bowl in response. Feel welcome to do so yourself. They won't listen until the money slows, so this might take a while, because college football is imperiled by corporatism and greed, and only the fans can save it.
Team A loses to team B by 10. Team B loses to team C by 7. Team C loses to team A by 42. Who is the better 11-1 team?
Auburn had 2 losses and had they won yesterday they would be in.
That's an expensive mic he's dropping...Auburn had 2 losses and had they won yesterday they would be in.
Nah I'm gonna watch the game. Cuz I'm not upset over Alabama getting in. The ONLY thing that I am not thrilled about, is 2 teams from the same conference getting in. But that has nothing to do with Alabama's worthiness though.
Now you say you cringe when you hear "blown out" when associated with rankings. Are you actually going to claim that if a #1 ranked team is beaten by an unranked team by 3pts, that you think their fall in the polls will the the same as if they were beaten by that unranked team by 30+pts?? Give me a break man. You are literally saying that all losses are equal and there is no variable to judge the varying degree of one loss being worse than others. It's like many OU fans on here crying about being ranked behind a 1-loss Clemson, when most OU fans thought Clemson's loss was worse than OU's loss. So yes, whether you like it or not, some losses are worse than others and there are multiple ways to determine that. I'm sorry if that reality is hurting your case for being upset that Alabama got into the playoff.
Huh? OU was up 17-16 at halftime, and even the final score (38-17) wasn't even close to one of the worst defeats in the short history of the CFP. Remember, the CFP has produced semifinals with scores of: 38-0, 31-0, & 59-20.
Last edited by a moderator:
Who else did each team play and what were their results? Their best games and their worst, who are they? How many times has the team played challenging opponents? And the others?
How many home and road games did each team play? Which team(s) played high level competition in non-conference play? How well does each team function as a team unit versus as a collection of talent? How do you rate their coaching, all of it? Does a team have an identifiable serious deficiency that the team has been unable to plug? (backup QB for Clemson?)
That''s just the start. None of those things mention margin of victory, the most widely mentioned outcome when different teams are compared, but nevertheless just worthless to a real examination of quality, it it widely known and used as a motivation to run up scores on their opponents. It's also used by them to thumb their noses at hostile competing coaches in an attempt to sabotage those coaches desires to have their team held in greater regard. That two of many motivations for what is essentially the equivalent of a cesspool of competing and highly variable components of a factoid that actually has little value in critical work.
How many home and road games did each team play? Which team(s) played high level competition in non-conference play? How well does each team function as a team unit versus as a collection of talent? How do you rate their coaching, all of it? Does a team have an identifiable serious deficiency that the team has been unable to plug? (backup QB for Clemson?)
That''s just the start. None of those things mention margin of victory, the most widely mentioned outcome when different teams are compared, but nevertheless just worthless to a real examination of quality, it it widely known and used as a motivation to run up scores on their opponents. It's also used by them to thumb their noses at hostile competing coaches in an attempt to sabotage those coaches desires to have their team held in greater regard. That two of many motivations for what is essentially the equivalent of a cesspool of competing and highly variable components of a factoid that actually has little value in critical work.
I get your point, but how does one really judge any of that without actually watching teams play? The margin of defeat in the Ohio St. vs Iowa game was a pretty accurate reflection of how the game really went. The coaches clearly did not have the players prepared, and the players were just plain awful and got dominated.
While I can see that the exact score/margin may be overrated, tOSU got dominated by a 7-5 Iowa squad. I mean DOMINATED. And that was tOSU's 2nd loss of the year, and it happened in November.
It's very hard for a team with multiple losses, neither of which they were very competitive in, one in which they were DOMINATED, to really be taken seriously as the best in the country.
Even LSU's 2-loss MNC team from 2007 lost both of those games in OT. OU this year against ISU lost a one score game. Etc.
The issue is an inability to quantify the experience of being there and seeing dominance, which varies by the viewer, and work that experience reliably into a selection process that has only as much error margin as that single quality alone. Thus the inclusion of margin increases potential error beyond the value of the margin created itself.
In the game at issue, which I watched, tOSU was like a candy factory giving away treats for free. They had so many turnovers, blown plays and penalties that the game itsellf was hard to follow. But it was just one game. Maybe everyone came down the 3-day flu and was still recovering. I mean, how many trivia should we examine in order to reliably pick the best teams. My belief is that even fewer factors should be considered than now, which makes the process more transparent to everyone and wipes away the minor benchmarks, to facilitate the unfogging of a process that seems to be truly known by nobody.
In the game at issue, which I watched, tOSU was like a candy factory giving away treats for free. They had so many turnovers, blown plays and penalties that the game itsellf was hard to follow. But it was just one game. Maybe everyone came down the 3-day flu and was still recovering. I mean, how many trivia should we examine in order to reliably pick the best teams. My belief is that even fewer factors should be considered than now, which makes the process more transparent to everyone and wipes away the minor benchmarks, to facilitate the unfogging of a process that seems to be truly known by nobody.
You forget Clemson took the foot off the gas and prolly could have rolled up 60pts on OU that night. That game wasnt as close in the 2nd half as the score shows.
Last edited by a moderator:
Leaving out the Big 10 & the Pac12 is marvelous in the respect that perhaps playoff expansions may occur. If the world of sports thinks Conference Champs count then make the Champ games part of the playoffs. (Round 1) Win you continue, lose your out. No matter what the records are. The NFL has mastered this. Wild Card teams can and have advanced to win the Super Bowl. Most lose though. Reward teams with earned Bye weeks based on Top 2 or 4 rankings etc.
But as it is now, if there is no firm ruling on whether Conference Champs must advance, then I would take a 1 loss Bama over a two loss tOSU or USC all day long. Losses should count as much as wins do.
But as it is now, if there is no firm ruling on whether Conference Champs must advance, then I would take a 1 loss Bama over a two loss tOSU or USC all day long. Losses should count as much as wins do.
Last edited by a moderator:
What I don't like about the whole deal is that Bama was given in essence a 'Bye' week. They didn't have to play in their Conf Champ game, therefore they were given the opportunity to heal and prepare. All the while they were given this 'bye' week for losing and did this while advancing.