College Football Thread

I think expansion will happen eventually, but this time around it would have been perfect. Ohio State, Georgia, Michigan, and UCF would round out the top 8. Anyway I think the match ups are good for the playoff. Collision course for Bama and Clemson again though I believe. Oklahoma offense is crazy, but this Alabama team doesn’t just rely on their defense. They can score it too.
 
NinersSBChamps said:
I think expansion will happen eventually, but this time around it would have been perfect. Ohio State, Georgia, Michigan, and UCF would round out the top 8. Anyway I think the match ups are good for the playoff. Collision course for Bama and Clemson again though I believe. Oklahoma offense is crazy, but this Alabama team doesn’t just rely on their defense. They can score it too.
Click to expand...

I've always been for the Top 8 instead of the Top 4. Totally agree with you!
 
I like the top four.

All power five schools & ND should have to schedule nothing but power five opponents except for one game against a group of five or a D2 school.
 
UGA is one of the four best teams but they had two chances to play in and lost them both.

ND continues to reap the benefits of not being in a conference... that’s a joke.

OK being in makes sense, as their loss was better and avenged it.

I hope UCF rolls their bowl opponent
 
striker42 said:
https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/sport...rong-190743366.html?__twitter_impression=true

Pretty accurate take. The yards per play and strength of schedule stats are interesting. There really seems to be an unspoken belief in the committee that every team in a power 5 conference has a similar schedule.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty accurate that basically this is nothing new. The teams that plays a competitive schedule and loses less gets in... Way its been for years. Even in the Poll days and BCS formula days.

UGA had two opportunities to get in the playoff and couldn't. I'm not sure why would a quality loss and one blowout earns you a spot in the top 4 when others have less losses.

What your post conveniently excludes is that the committee doesn't have good reason to exclude OK, OSU either. What would be the basis for that exclusion?
 
Tapate50 said:
Yeah, pretty accurate that basically this is nothing new. The teams that plays a competitive schedule and loses less gets in... Way its been for years. Even in the Poll days and BCS formula days.

UGA had two opportunities to get in the playoff and couldn't. I'm not sure why would a quality loss and one blowout earns you a spot in the top 4 when others have less losses.

What your post conveniently excludes is that the committee doesn't have good reason to exclude OK, OSU either. What would be the basis for that exclusion?
Click to expand...

It all depends on what your goal is. If the goal is to put the 4 best teams in college football in the playoffs, then there's really no argument for leaving Georgia out.

Here's Kirk Herbstreit's take, "Who had the toughest strength of schedule? Georgia. Who had the best offensive efficiency? Georgia. Best defensive efficiency? Georgia. Game control? Georgia. Eyeball test? Georgia. What’s left?"

Georgia is one of the top 4 teams in the nation. So again, if the goal is to put the top 4 teams against each other, there's no excuse for leaving Georgia out.

Problem is, putting the top 4 teams isn't the primary consideration. The committee is run by ADs and other people with interests at stake. The other problem is Notre Dame got in.

With Notre Dame getting in, if you put Georgia in the playoffs you only have representation from 2 of the Power 5 (SEC with two, and ACC with one). There was no way that committee was setting the precedent of leaving 3 power 5 conferences out of the playoffs.

They also weren't going to set the precedent of letting a two loss SEC school in over a one loss conference champ from another conference. It doesn't matter what the strength of schedules were. You had too may reps from conferences who don't want to have their champions have to compete with SEC schools who had harder schedules.

Ultimately, it's a flawed system with the only way of improving it probably being expanding the playoffs. I'd probably go with a 12 team playoff with the top 4 schools getting byes.
 
It's impossible to say that UGA is without a doubt a top 4 overall team. The difference in OU and OSU, isn't that drastic. I mean OU and UGA went the distance just 11 months ago with most of the same players. Wins and losses have to mean something, otherwise the playoffs are useless. UGA lost twice. They don't deserve to be in.
 
Carp said:
It's impossible to say that UGA is without a doubt a top 4 overall team. The difference in OU and OSU, isn't that drastic. I mean OU and UGA went the distance just 11 months ago with most of the same players. Wins and losses have to mean something, otherwise the playoffs are useless. UGA lost twice. They don't deserve to be in.
Click to expand...

Of course it's impossible to say UGA is a top 4 team. It's impossible to say Bama is a top 4 team. However, 4 teams still have to get into the playoffs in spite of the fact that the contenders haven't yet played each other.

As Herbstreit said, based on the numbers, the eye test, and strength of schedule, all signs point to Georgia being a top 4 team.

And wins and losses do have to mean something. The question is how much should they mean. If you're going to disqualify Georgia because it has two losses, does that mean that UCF should automatically get in over Oklahoma because UCF is undefeated?

Leaving a team like Georgia out and saying it's because Georgia has 2 losses places a huge incentive on teams to schedule as many cupcake games as they can. It makes me want Georgia to cancel Notre Dame next year and the home and home its scheduled with Clemson. Why play games like that?

Wins and losses have to mean something. But you have to look at them in context. Georgia's only two losses were to LSU in Baton Rouge and against the consensus number 1 team in the nation who they would have beat had a couple calls gone their way. They blew out most of the teams they faced (smallest margin of victory was 14 points), including a lot of ranked opponents. Georgia beat Florida, a team that ended the season ranked 10th by 19 points!

Honestly, Georgia's 11-2 is more impressive than Oklahoma's 12-1. Oklahoma had to go into OT to beat Army, were in close games against unranked Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, and eked out wins against Texas and West Virginia.

I'm not sure Georgia loses a game with Oklahoma's schedule and I think Oklahoma drops 3 or 4 with Georgia's schedule. If I'm on the committee, that's how I measure things.
 
striker42 said:
Of course it's impossible to say UGA is a top 4 team. It's impossible to say Bama is a top 4 team. However, 4 teams still have to get into the playoffs in spite of the fact that the contenders haven't yet played each other.

As Herbstreit said, based on the numbers, the eye test, and strength of schedule, all signs point to Georgia being a top 4 team.

And wins and losses do have to mean something. The question is how much should they mean. If you're going to disqualify Georgia because it has two losses, does that mean that UCF should automatically get in over Oklahoma because UCF is undefeated?

Leaving a team like Georgia out and saying it's because Georgia has 2 losses places a huge incentive on teams to schedule as many cupcake games as they can. It makes me want Georgia to cancel Notre Dame next year and the home and home its scheduled with Clemson. Why play games like that?

Wins and losses have to mean something. But you have to look at them in context. Georgia's only two losses were to LSU in Baton Rouge and against the consensus number 1 team in the nation who they would have beat had a couple calls gone their way. They blew out most of the teams they faced (smallest margin of victory was 14 points), including a lot of ranked opponents. Georgia beat Florida, a team that ended the season ranked 10th by 19 points!

Honestly, Georgia's 11-2 is more impressive than Oklahoma's 12-1. Oklahoma had to go into OT to beat Army, were in close games against unranked Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, and eked out wins against Texas and West Virginia.

I'm not sure Georgia loses a game with Oklahoma's schedule and I think Oklahoma drops 3 or 4 with Georgia's schedule. If I'm on the committee, that's how I measure things.
Click to expand...


I agree 100%. I don’t see how a team that was ranked number four can out play and almost beat the number one team in the Nation and they’re dropped out of the top four.

Ohio states lost to Purdue and Oklahoma’s horrible defense carry more negative weight than Georgia’s loss to LSU
 
striker42 said:
Of course it's impossible to say UGA is a top 4 team. It's impossible to say Bama is a top 4 team. However, 4 teams still have to get into the playoffs in spite of the fact that the contenders haven't yet played each other.

As Herbstreit said, based on the numbers, the eye test, and strength of schedule, all signs point to Georgia being a top 4 team.

And wins and losses do have to mean something. The question is how much should they mean. If you're going to disqualify Georgia because it has two losses, does that mean that UCF should automatically get in over Oklahoma because UCF is undefeated?

Leaving a team like Georgia out and saying it's because Georgia has 2 losses places a huge incentive on teams to schedule as many cupcake games as they can. It makes me want Georgia to cancel Notre Dame next year and the home and home its scheduled with Clemson. Why play games like that?

Wins and losses have to mean something. But you have to look at them in context. Georgia's only two losses were to LSU in Baton Rouge and against the consensus number 1 team in the nation who they would have beat had a couple calls gone their way. They blew out most of the teams they faced (smallest margin of victory was 14 points), including a lot of ranked opponents. Georgia beat Florida, a team that ended the season ranked 10th by 19 points!

Honestly, Georgia's 11-2 is more impressive than Oklahoma's 12-1. Oklahoma had to go into OT to beat Army, were in close games against unranked Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, and eked out wins against Texas and West Virginia.

I'm not sure Georgia loses a game with Oklahoma's schedule and I think Oklahoma drops 3 or 4 with Georgia's schedule. If I'm on the committee, that's how I measure things.
Click to expand...

1. Yes. UCF absolutely should be in. I've stated as much many times. They are a good team that's done all that's been asked of them. They deserve a shot.

2. UGA didn't just lose to LSU. They got annihilated. OU's only loss was by 3 points to a very good Texas team. If UGA and OU had better luck vs Bama and Texas, OU would be undefeated and UGA would still have a blowout loss on their record. There is not a single valid argument for putting in a 2, loss UGA team.

3. Army is a good team, which is why they're ranked 22 in the AP poll. So is Texas and West Virginia. You also realize UGA struggled to put even UT away right? 11 point game at the start of the 4th quarter. OU could easily have the same record they currently do with the same schedule UGA plays and UGA might be 11-2. You have no way whatsoever to prove otherwise. It's a strawman argument.
 
Clemson having their way in this first half. Well dominating everywhere except their kicking. Why was it an automatic that the Irish were in the playoff again?
 
Between this game and the Alabama blowout in the NCG before the playoff started, Notre Dame hasn't done a good job of convincing people of anything.

Hopefully this forces them to join a big conference if they want to sniff the playoffs next time around.
 
So [MENTION=52]NinersSBChamps[/MENTION] , I'm not an SEC guy but would like to know your thoughts on what's going on right now.

I don't think Ohio State would have fared any better. Funny thing is I think UCF if they didnt lose their QB could beat ND and hold their own with OU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top