Realtorfrog
Full Member
Bama
Clemson
OU
Toss up between aOSU, ND and GA
Clemson
OU
Toss up between aOSU, ND and GA
The "they would beat" argument is the weakest one out there. You have to go with "did beat ".No, that is not obvious. ND should not be in the playoff and UGA Would wax OU and maybe beat Clemson. UGA is victim of having to play the #1 team in a ccg.
By the way —what definition?
I'd like nd at 4 so they would get slaughtered by Bama.
They need to join the ACC or be screwed like UCF. Need 8 teams or go back to 2. 4 sucks
Well, they beat Michigan and won at northwestern, so already their resume is as good as tOSU.I’m too lazy to look it up but I bet ND beat at least 8 teams better than anyone on UCFs schedule (or something close to that).
I’m too lazy to look it up but I bet ND beat at least 8 teams better than anyone on UCFs schedule (or something close to that).
To me, it’s about finding who THE BEST team is. You generally find that by putting the best four teams in and giving them all a shot, but in this particular set of circumstances, we KNOW FOR A FACT that Georgia isn’t the best team. We don’t know for a fact that Oklahoma or Clemson or ND isn’t the best.Except that it’s about putting the best 4 teams in.
Oh no doubt but they are more overrated than Florida State was in 2014. Ucf going 25-0 in 2 years and not even a chance.
NDs resume is better but it's pretty damn awful for a #3 seed. I expect them to lose by 14+ to Clemson or Bama. If Bama by 28
One of these years, the idots on ESPN are going to argue that a SEC team that loses a College Football “Playoff” semifinal game deserves to play in the title game.
No I get itThis is correct. Big 12 is going to look smart tomorrow. After all the criticism on adding the title game.
Think what he’s getting at is in 2014, the Big 12 not having those things kept us out. This year, OU has a loss similar to our 2014 loss—to a top 15 team not at home and OSU has a very bad loss again. So the addition of the CCG should prove to have fixed the problem.
Love it. Although they might be right.One of these years, the idots on ESPN are going to argue that a SEC team that loses a College Football “Playoff” semifinal game deserves to play in the title game.
Beg to disagree. STAN, VT, FSU and USC were all shadows of their normal selves, NW and PITT had NINE losses between them. They beat Michigan and Syracuse, both clearly overrated and BALL, WAKE, VAN and NAVY. Their schedule was extremely fortunate.Prettt damn awful??? Come on man. They’re undefeated. They beat 9 bowl teams. They beat 10 P5 teams (5 ACC, 2 BIG, 2 PAC, 1 SEC). They beat two teams who were playing in conference title games yesterday. They destroyed 8-4 Stanford, they destroyed 9-3 Syracuse, they beat Michigan. Hell two of their worst wins are FSU and USC, two college football blue bloods. What if TCU was undefeated with that schedule?
No I get it
But my point was that in 2014, they decided that how high your highs are (OSU’s higher ranked wins and 13th data point) are more more important than how low your lows are (their loss to VT compared to our loss to Baylor).
The announcers last night were discussing how the committee seems to be making it clear that how bad your loss is more important than how good your top wins are.
Beg to disagree. STAN, VT, FSU and USC were all shadows of their normal selves, NW and PITT had NINE losses between them. They beat Michigan and Syracuse, both clearly overrated and BALL, WAKE, VAN and NAVY. Their schedule was extremely fortunate.
Prettt damn awful??? Come on man. They’re undefeated. They beat 9 bowl teams. They beat 10 P5 teams (5 ACC, 2 BIG, 2 PAC, 1 SEC). They beat two teams who were playing in conference title games yesterday. They destroyed 8-4 Stanford, they destroyed 9-3 Syracuse, they beat Michigan. Hell two of their worst wins are FSU and USC, two college football blue bloods. What if TCU was undefeated with that schedule?