• The KillerFrogs

Bowls Thread

WhiteHispanicFrog

Curmudgeon
What is laughable is the pivot so many people make when things don't turn out quite the way they want. I heard a million times on here on Wisconsin wasn't that good because the Big 10 sucks and they don't play anyone, that TCU should be ranked ahead of USC because the P12 sucks, that Ohio State should have been disqualified from the playoffs because they lost by 30 to Iowa!. Auburn lost to Clemson in the regular season and Georgia 3 weeks ago, not to mention LSU as well (the same LSU team that lost to Troy! Oh the horror!). Well, those are teams 5-8. Which one NOW deserved a playoff spot? The funny one is people on here now defending Ohio State's right to be in the playoff. Good god, talk about irony.

And I know there might be a possibility that a team not in the playoff could win, although I think the likelihood is extremely remote. All four of those teams above had a chance, all they had to do was win one more game. I don't understand, especially given how things turned out, how anyone can say the committee got it wrong, given the parameters they are working under. What if two SEC teams are actually the two best teams in the country? Is that even a possibility?

ezgif-5-94b33b8a22.gif
 

LSU Game Attendee

Active Member
IF they play the 9th conference game, they might lose and have a 2nd loss.

Point of order- half the conference WILL lose the 9th conference game, and there will be a negative feedback loop of all conference opponents looking weaker as W-L records will be worse.

The disparity in the number of conference games is the most easily-fixable load of horse in FBS.
 

stbrab

Full Member
Clemson plays two SEC teams in OOC. They don't play any more cupcakes than anyone else not named Notre Dame. This year their conference schedule set up to where they didn't get to play most of the worst teams, I think their overall schedule was one of the top ranked in the country.
I thought we were talking about Alabama...and their 4th OOC game in November is always a cupcake. I'm not saying they lose if it's a conference game. I just think it puts them in a more likely position.
 

netty2424

Full Member
I mean, that's true for ANY team. We know with absolute certainty that Syracuse could have beaten Clemson, because they did it earlier in the year. We know with absolute certainty that Iowa State could have beaten Oklahoma, they did it earlier in the year. That doesn't mean either of those teams had valid claims to get in to the playoff.

Yes, Auburn owned Alabama in the game that they played. They also owned Georgia in one of the games that they played. Most importantly, they also had a worse record. Other playoff teams had a similar issue.



These don't go together. Either Clemson couldn't possibly get by Alabama, in which case they got it wrong, or "that's why we play the game" rules apply and a minor upset happened. You can't point to Clemson getting demolished as BOTH proof that the committee was wrong but not a rebuttal that Alabama didn't belong.
Using ISU and Syracuse is an embarrassment to the discussion. We're clearly talking about 5,6,7,8 spots having realistic chances of winning it all. Not unranked teams. Yes ISU and Syracuse won big games, but they aren't winning 3 big games in 3 weeks which is what tournaments are designed to do.

Regarding the Clemson edit, your points make zero sense.
 

netty2424

Full Member
What is laughable is the pivot so many people make when things don't turn out quite the way they want. I heard a million times on here on Wisconsin wasn't that good because the Big 10 sucks and they don't play anyone, that TCU should be ranked ahead of USC because the P12 sucks, that Ohio State should have been disqualified from the playoffs because they lost by 30 to Iowa!. Auburn lost to Clemson in the regular season and Georgia 3 weeks ago, not to mention LSU as well (the same LSU team that lost to Troy! Oh the horror!). Well, those are teams 5-8. Which one NOW deserved a playoff spot? The funny one is people on here now defending Ohio State's right to be in the playoff. Good god, talk about irony.

And I know there might be a possibility that a team not in the playoff could win, although I think the likelihood is extremely remote. All four of those teams above had a chance, all they had to do was win one more game. I don't understand, especially given how things turned out, how anyone can say the committee got it wrong, given the parameters they are working under. What if two SEC teams are actually the two best teams in the country? Is that even a possibility?

Show me where I ever discussed Wisconsin. Or where I defended tOSU. I mentioned tOSU because they were the "bubble team" this year. The argument is not about the specific programs, but about the 5-8 spots. I don't care about any team except TCU and imo they weren't good enough to be in 4 or 8, so I'm not making any arguments for TCU here.

It's such a simple concept, if you lose in the tournament, you're out. If you win, and keep winning, you're a national champion. Open the doors and let teams in to settle it. Don't let a bunch of olds in a resort room in Grapevine dictate 4 teams when there's a decent chance 5 or 6 has a shot. It's completely absurd.
 
Last edited:

Wexahu

Full Member
Show me where I ever discussed Wisconsin. Or where I defended tOSU. I mentioned tOSU because of where they were the "bubble team" this year. The argument is not about the specific programs, but about the 5-8 spots. I don't care about any team except TCU and imo they weren't good enough to be in 4 or 8, so I'm not making any arguments for TCU here.

It's such a simple concept, if you lose in the tournament, you're out. If you win, and keep winning, you're a national champion. Open the doors and let teams in to settle it. Don't let a bunch of olds in a resort room in Grapevine dictate 4 teams when there's a decent chance 5 or 6 has a shot. It's completely absurd.

If teams 5-8 need to get in to keep everyone happy, fine, I'm not necessarily opposed to that. I defend the committee picking the right teams under the parameters that are set, not the parameters themselves, which the committee has no control over.

I'll say this though as it pertains to TCU. Our chances of winning a national title are better if they keep it at four teams than if they expand it to eight. The Alabamas, Ohio States and Oklahomas of the world are better equipped to withstand a 3-game buzzsaw than a team like TCU, unless we can start recruiting at an equal level to those teams. The difference in the depth within the rosters is pretty substantial. Much better chance for TCU to get in by going 12-1 or 13-0, hope a couple heavyweights get knocked out via the regular season, and have to win 2 games instead of 3. Expanding to 8 will only serve to ensure the Alabamas and Ohio States are in basically every year, and as much as we like to say those teams aren't that good, playing them on the field presents a whole different matter.

One other thing, you say that the results of yesterday's game proved the committee "got it wrong". How so? Alabama was really the only controversial pick and they proved them\y belong, didn't they? I mean, if the outcome of that game was reversed everyone would be saying Alabama shouldn't have made it. It goes to show in some people's mind the committee can't be right in any scenario, which is stupid. And if they would have set up an all-SEC semifinal, I guarantee you the narrative would have been that ESPN set that up to guarantee an SEC made it to the Title game. There is literally no scenario in which people aren't bitching about ESPN and the committee unless their team makes the playoff and wins it all.
 

Zubaz

Member
Using ISU and Syracuse is an embarrassment to the discussion. We're clearly talking about 5,6,7,8 spots having realistic chances of winning it all. Not unranked teams.
5,6,7,8 spots will almost ALWAYS have a realistic shot at winning it all. I am struggling to come up with a year in the last 10 years where that's not the case. What's the point in even bringing it up?

Regarding the Clemson edit, your points make zero sense.
You started off by saying that Clemson could realistically beat Alabama given another shot (a point I agree with, incidentally), and that dominating Clemson in one game doesn't necessarily mean that Alabama's inclusion was justified. Then you turned around and said that the Committee got it wrong putting Clemson at #1 because they got dominated by Alabama. They don't really go together.

Sometimes, upsets happen. We saw plenty this year. That doesn't mean that the higher ranked team wasn't justified in being higher ranked with the information available at the time.
 

Pharm Frog

Full Member
Bowl season conclusion: It must be nice to play in such a weak conference as the SEC and not have to navigate through the grind of a strong balanced conference round-robin play like the Big 12. Would that we could play the Florida's, Kentucky's, Ole Miss's, A&M's, LSU's, Mizzou's, Vandy's, Tennnesee's, Arkie's, and late season patsies like the top tier SEC clubs.
I defend the committee picking the right teams under the parameters that are set, not the parameters themselves, which the committee has no control over.

Remind us all again about these “set parameters” for picking “the right teams”. I mean the ones that are “set” and inviolable season-after-season and function as a constraint on the outputs of the committtee.

And, I’m guessing that the word “parameter” is now used instead of “criteria” because “criteria” has become indefensible.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
Bowl season conclusion: It must be nice to play in such a weak conference as the SEC and not have to navigate through the grind of a strong balanced conference round-robin play like the Big 12. Would that we could play the Florida's, Kentucky's, Ole Miss's, A&M's, LSU's, Mizzou's, Vandy's, Tennnesee's, Arkie's, and late season patsies like the top tier SEC clubs.


Remind us all again about these “set parameters” for picking “the right teams”. I mean the ones that are “set” and inviolable season-after-season and function as a constraint on the outputs of the committtee.

And, I’m guessing that the word “parameter” is now used instead of “criteria” because “criteria” has become indefensible.

4 teams and not 8. That’s all. They got the right 4 teams, I’m not sure how that could be argued against.
 

netty2424

Full Member
If teams 5-8 need to get in to keep everyone happy, fine, I'm not necessarily opposed to that. I defend the committee picking the right teams under the parameters that are set, not the parameters themselves, which the committee has no control over.

I'll say this though as it pertains to TCU. Our chances of winning a national title are better if they keep it at four teams than if they expand it to eight. The Alabamas, Ohio States and Oklahomas of the world are better equipped to withstand a 3-game buzzsaw than a team like TCU, unless we can start recruiting at an equal level to those teams. The difference in the depth within the rosters is pretty substantial. Much better chance for TCU to get in by going 12-1 or 13-0, hope a couple heavyweights get knocked out via the regular season, and have to win 2 games instead of 3. Expanding to 8 will only serve to ensure the Alabamas and Ohio States are in basically every year, and as much as we like to say those teams aren't that good, playing them on the field presents a whole different matter.

One other thing, you say that the results of yesterday's game proved the committee "got it wrong". How so? Alabama was really the only controversial pick and they proved them\y belong, didn't they? I mean, if the outcome of that game was reversed everyone would be saying Alabama shouldn't have made it. It goes to show in some people's mind the committee can't be right in any scenario, which is stupid. And if they would have set up an all-SEC semifinal, I guarantee you the narrative would have been that ESPN set that up to guarantee an SEC made it to the Title game. There is literally no scenario in which people aren't bitching about ESPN and the committee unless their team makes the playoff and wins it all.
"Parameters that are set" is a whole different discussion.

But I agree that a field expansion makes it tougher for TCU. Makes it tougher for everyone.

But I'd rather TCU or whoever wins it all knowing they truly deserved it with no "what ifs?"

That's my only goal here.

The part about getting it wrong was sarcasm that the number 1 seed gotbeat. Wasn't being serious about that.
 

netty2424

Full Member
5,6,7,8 spots will almost ALWAYS have a realistic shot at winning it all. I am struggling to come up with a year in the last 10 years where that's not the case. What's the point in even bringing it up?


You started off by saying that Clemson could realistically beat Alabama given another shot (a point I agree with, incidentally), and that dominating Clemson in one game doesn't necessarily mean that Alabama's inclusion was justified. Then you turned around and said that the Committee got it wrong putting Clemson at #1 because they got dominated by Alabama. They don't really go together.

Sometimes, upsets happen. We saw plenty this year. That doesn't mean that the higher ranked team wasn't justified in being higher ranked with the information available at the time.
I'm bringing up 5-8 in support of expansion. I do believe one of those teams could get hot and run the table if given the opportunity. That's why I brought it up.

"They got it wrong" was sarcasm.
 

Spike

Full Member
How would you guys feel about a blueblood (atleast within their given sport) that consistently finished 2nd or 3rd in regular season and only occasionally wins the conference tournament but consistently gets homefield all the way to the championships?

Schlossnagles Frogs invariably hit a rough spot midseason only to get hot at just the right time. This is part of why I favor more teams getting in. Not sure how I feel about Bama's inclusion in the final four playoff but they played like they belonged last night. Who is to say Iowa State or UCF couldn't get hot at the right time?
 

HG73

Active Member
If teams 5-8 need to get in to keep everyone happy, fine, I'm not necessarily opposed to that. I defend the committee picking the right teams under the parameters that are set, not the parameters themselves, which the committee has no control over.

I'll say this though as it pertains to TCU. Our chances of winning a national title are better if they keep it at four teams than if they expand it to eight. The Alabamas, Ohio States and Oklahomas of the world are better equipped to withstand a 3-game buzzsaw than a team like TCU, unless we can start recruiting at an equal level to those teams. The difference in the depth within the rosters is pretty substantial. Much better chance for TCU to get in by going 12-1 or 13-0, hope a couple heavyweights get knocked out via the regular season, and have to win 2 games instead of 3. Expanding to 8 will only serve to ensure the Alabamas and Ohio States are in basically every year, and as much as we like to say those teams aren't that good, playing them on the field presents a whole different matter.

One other thing, you say that the results of yesterday's game proved the committee "got it wrong". How so? Alabama was really the only controversial pick and they proved them\y belong, didn't they? I mean, if the outcome of that game was reversed everyone would be saying Alabama shouldn't have made it. It goes to show in some people's mind the committee can't be right in any scenario, which is stupid. And if they would have set up an all-SEC semifinal, I guarantee you the narrative would have been that ESPN set that up to guarantee an SEC made it to the Title game. There is literally no scenario in which people aren't bitching about ESPN and the committee unless their team makes the playoff and wins it all.
Why have a committee? Every conference now has a championship game. That is the first round of the playoff, the winners are in the 5 team tournament. Seed 4 plays seed 5 in a wild card game. Winner in the final four and play on from there. This year would have USC vs tOSU in the wild card game, Clemson, UGA and OU rounding out the 5. NO COMMITTEE AT ALL. Win and in.
 

Pharm Frog

Full Member
4 teams and not 8. That’s all. They got the right 4 teams, I’m not sure how that could be argued against.

Most awesome circular logic. They must choose four teams and only four teams and those four teams are the right ones because they are chosen and one will eventually win and be the right champion because the other three were the right opposition. NCAA football version of rex non potest peccare. Maybe we could rename it "wex non potest peccare"
 

ShreveFrog

Full Member
Why have a committee? Every conference now has a championship game. That is the first round of the playoff, the winners are in the 5 team tournament. Seed 4 plays seed 5 in a wild card game. Winner in the final four and play on from there. This year would have USC vs tOSU in the wild card game, Clemson, UGA and OU rounding out the 5. NO COMMITTEE AT ALL. Win and in.

You need to allow a good G5 team to have a chance of getting in, ala UCF this year, or like a 2009-10 TCU.
 

Mean Purple

Active Member
Considering the source, this argument is unbelievable. Who did Ohio State beat this year? I thought the Big 10 sux? If OSU is so big and fast, how did they lose to slow, no talent Iowa by 30 points?
A. Ohio State beat Michigan State, Penn State, Michigan and Penn State in the regular season. Bama gets to claim lsu and msst for their big wins. Advantage Ohio State.
B. Anybody who watched the Cotton Bowl can see that Ohio State would have beat Clemson as well. Clemson was not worthy of #1, that was obvious. And how the cfp ranks the upper teams has direct relation to how teams are ranked all the way down the list.
C. Neither Bama, nor Ohio State's bowl performance, nor other bowl performances changes the fact that the cfp and not held to its claimed reasoning (qualifying factors) when picking their top 4, or top 12 for that matter.
D. The fact that you always want to keep TCU ranked lower, as well as you're getting offended like a Austin snowflake when people rightly point out that the cfp has botched the crap out of it all since inception (including when they use your own logic that you quickly dance away from), is what is laughable. It is almost as laughable as the people who are claiming that the reason Auburn lost to UCF, even after they lost 3 games and knew they were lucky to get an NY6 bowl bid, is because they somehow lacked motivation. Cause playing in the Peach Bowl is not better than Liberty, etc...
 

Mean Purple

Active Member
One of you, not gonna say who, but one of you on this board is actually Larry Culpepper. Come on, you can admit it. Hey, no shame. I get it. You invented something and won't stand to have it questioned.
 
Top