• The KillerFrogs

Notre Dame or A&M

Hoosierfrog

Hoosierfrog

Tier 1
CountryFrog said:
Remember how impressed the committee was with TCU ending their season against a 3-win team a few years ago?
Click to expand...

What didn’t impress them was the lack of an extra game data point. You kind of like Ohio State this year playing more than one fewer game. But of course that isn’t an issue for them.
 
Hoosierfrog

Hoosierfrog

Tier 1
CountryFrog said:
It's really hard for me to imagine what the justification would be from the committee to put A&M in over Notre Dame. There's a much stronger case to be made for them getting in over OSU than ND imo.

Oh wait, what am I saying? The committee doesn't need justification for any of the [ Cumbie’s red zone playcalling ] they do.
Click to expand...

One reason I see is that it obviously mattered that Notre Dame defeated a Clemson team without their QB and 3 other starters...
 
CountryFrog

CountryFrog

Active Member
Hoosierfrog said:
One reason I see is that it obviously mattered that Notre Dame defeated a Clemson team without their QB and 3 other starters...
Click to expand...
Not saying you're wrong but that takes you down a very slippery slope any year but none moreso than this one. If you're doing that with one game then you have to make sure that you're analyzing every single team's wins with the same level of scrutiny in regards to players who were not playing.

And of course if you're doing that then you can't even consider Ohio St. Because if we're going to discount one team's victory for the lack of a full roster from their opponent then wouldn't you have to discount another team's lack of losses to their lack of games played compared to everyone else?
 
Hoosierfrog

Hoosierfrog

Tier 1
CountryFrog said:
Not saying you're wrong but that takes you down a very slippery slope any year but none moreso than this one. If you're doing that with one game then you have to make sure that you're analyzing every single team's wins with the same level of scrutiny in regards to players who were not playing.

And of course if you're doing that then you can't even consider Ohio St. Because if we're going to discount one team's victory for the lack of a full roster from their opponent then wouldn't you have to discount another team's lack of losses to their lack of games played compared to everyone else?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree, OSU should be excluded due to the TCU rule. TCU apparently lacked the extra game data point in 2014 (even though no one told the Big 12 prior to the year that was exclusionary). This year The Big 10 first decides not to play and then wants to be included after changing their rules again to allow OSU to play NW. This whole season has just been one big cluster.
 
CountryFrog

CountryFrog

Active Member
Wexahu said:
I predict that no matter what they do, people aren’t gonna like it.

May be wrong, but I have a hard time believing they’ll put a team in that lost by 24 to another playoff team the day before the teams are selected.
Click to expand...
You could be right but A&M lost to Alabama by 28. I've got a hard time understanding why that's better than losing to Clemson by 24 just because it happened in October instead of December.

Only in college football's scheissed up system would something like that actually matter.
 
CountryFrog

CountryFrog

Active Member
Hoosierfrog said:
Yeah, I agree, OSU should be excluded due to the TCU rule. TCU apparently lacked the extra game data point in 2014 (even though no one told the Big 12 prior to the year that was exclusionary). This year The Big 10 first decides not to play and then wants to be included after changing their rules again to allow OSU to play NW. This whole season has just been one big cluster.
Click to expand...
Agree. Big 10 did this to themselves. They shouldn't be rewarded for their idiocy.
 
CountryFrog

CountryFrog

Active Member
LisaLT said:
Exactly
Click to expand...
Are we certain that all of A&M's victories came exclusively against teams who were playing at full strength without any players missing?

Take that big 17-12 victory over Vandy that they had. Do we know for sure that Vanderbilt wasn't missing any starters who could've made a difference?
 
M

MAcFroggy

Active Member
Notre dame will get the 4 seed.

however, the best team between OU, ND, A&M, and cincy is probably Oklahoma. If Vegas had lines on those games, I imagine they would be favored over the other 3 teams.

a few years ago a 2 loss UGA ended up as the 5 seed ahead of 1 loss Ohio state. A lot of espn commentators were even pushing for two loss UGA over one loss OU. I think this two loss OU team that is conference champion is a better team than Notre dame, Texas A&M, or cincy.
 
Zubaz

Zubaz

Member
Personally I'm not too crazy of the argument that a 2-loss team should get in over a 1-loss team, even if I understand the "how they are playing right now vs earlier in the season" line.

Should there ever be a day where 1-loss TCU is fighting for the #4 spot with 2-loss USC or Ohio State or Florida State, I certainly don't want the precedent of subjectively saying of "Welllllll....who has more talent...."

To me, it should go:
  • Undefeated is in.
  • Sort out remaining slots among the 1-loss teams.
  • Sort out remaining slots among 2-loss teams (to date, this hasn't been necessary).
 
Last edited:
peacock

peacock

Active Member
this is the perfect year for the CFP committee to put in Cincy.....no 4 seed is not going to beat Bama...give the Bearcats and the G5 it's shot at the crown and when they get destroyed we wont have to listen to G5 teams complain for the next few years.
 

Latest posts

Top