Froggish
Active Member
Could find 8 Decent teams..Either way it’s a great way to middle finger both the NCAA and the P5 presidents who look down on them
WEEK 7 - Other Games Thread
- Thread starter LVH
- Start date
LSU Game Attendee
Active Member
Expanded playoffs reduce the direct influence of Mickey Mouse, condi Rice, Barry Alvarez, etc. The bigger the expansion, the better IMO.
And will make it even harder for a team like TCU to win it all. I’m sure all the blue bloods would love playoff expansion.
netty2424
Full Member
You can’t win the lottery if you don’t buy a ticket.
LSU Game Attendee
Active Member
I think TCU will usually stand a better chance on the football field than in a closed-door Gaylord room of B10 and SEC experts doing Disney’s bidding.
Just saying that this is another thing that will have unintended consequences. Basically the days of an underdog-type program (BYU, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Washington, or TCU) actually winning a national title will be all but gone. Granted, it's damn unlikely as it is but it will be almost totally impossible with expanded playoffs & more games.
This is what I have trouble reconciling.....
"The Rose Bowl team was good enough to win the title if only they were given a chance". Average recruiting rank of Rose Bowl team - #56.
"The 2014 would have won it all if only they were given a chance". Average recruiting rank of the 2014 team - #36
and then now.
"We've got to start recruiting better if we expect to compete toe to toe with the very best teams" Average recruiting rank of 2019 team - #29.
So which is it? Personally I think the odds of TCU winning a title were the best, as slim as they were, with the old BCS format. We almost won a title and got to a #2 or #3 ranking having played only one top 10 team and with a team that had an average recruiting ranking of 56. The odds of that happening now are slim and none and the odds of it happening with expanded playoffs is zero.
netty2424
Full Member
Your biting off your nose to spite your face Wex, but go ahead and dig in.
If you can’t run the gauntlet and win it, then you can’t win it. So be it. But why predetermine that minus the play on the field. Sometimes a team gets hot and makes a run. Period.
We don’t know if 2010 or 2014 teams could win it all if given the chance, but we do know with 100% certainty they would not win it without an opportunity.
I'm just saying the conventional wisdom as far as expanding playoffs if that it would mean more teams have a chance of winning a title. I think it's the opposite and I think it'll become clear a few years into the expanded version.
For the record, I'm not necessarily opposed to it for the reason you mention, but it will absolutely not be a situation where a bunch of non-blue blood teams become involved and are winning games.
Zubaz
Member
I mean this is just objectively false. We never "almost won a title" either years we went to a BCS bowl. With the exception of the last two years, during the entirety of the BCS era we were in a Non-AQ conference. Our chance of playing for, let alone winning, the BCS title was 0.00%, same as UCF and Boise's is under the CFP. You can say "We would have gotten in if Texas / Cinci had lost in 2009 or if Auburn had lost in 2010", I don't buy that. Utah and Boise both got jumped by 1-loss teams during their undefeated runs that led to BCS berths, we would have been no different. In 2009, we would have been jumped by Florida or Texas despite their losses the last week, and in 2010 we would have been jumped by Stanford or Wisconsin. Not a doubt in my mind.
Whatever slim chance a team like TCU has in the CFP formula to win 2 straight games against top teams, or under an expanded format where they'd have to beat 3 or 4 teams, the fact that they at least have an on-the-field path to the title is preferable to one where we know, with absolute certainty, they had no path.
I don't think it was 0%. I think had Auburn or Oregon had lost in 2010 there was a much better than zero percent chance we are playing in the NCG. We'll just have to disagree there. Back then there wasn't near the divide in perception between P5 and G5 teams as there is now. I'm not sure "P5" was even a term used then, the status the Mountain West had then far exceeded what the AAC has today.
Zubaz
Member
Yes, this is where we are going to have to disagree. If anything, I'm pretty sure the gulf was even wider, and I would argue that the trailblazing mostly by Utah, Boise State, and TCU are what is responsible for the current AAC getting the respect that it currently gets. Before those three teams broke through, it was a "known fact" that those Non-AQ teams would never be able to compete at the higher level. Utah scrapped and clawed to get in under the old system before they added the 5th game, only to get matched up with the worst AQ champion that everyone knew they'd beat, then claim it didn't really count because it was just the Big East. Boise's Fiesta Bowl was where people first took notice, and TCU's Rose Bowl was MASSIVE in changing perception. 2005-2010 was where it was shown that the Non AQ teams could compete, that's why you saw the claim shift from "They don't have the same athletes, they can't compete" to "They might win one big game, but they can't grind week to week", and that was a huge tonal shift.
It wasn't. The term was "Mid Major" or "Non-AQ".
This is just complete baloney. In the initial 2010 AP poll Boise and TCU were ranked #3 and #6. By the 2nd week of the season they #3 and #4. In the first BCS poll that came out that year on October 17 Boise, TCU and Utah were ranked #3, #5, and #9 respectively. That's three non AQ's in the BCS top ten.
Contrast that with the modern day non-AQ darling Central Florida being ranked #21 in the 2018 preseason AP poll coming off a 13-0 season, and being #12 in the initial CFP rankings as an undefeated team in the middle of a 20-something game unbeaten streak.
The MW and Boise got WAY WAY more respect than the current G5 teams (and AAC conference) and it's not even close. To say definitively that because UCF couldn't make a CFP today that TCU or Boise wouldn't have potentially made a NCG 10 years ago is false, because perceptions between the teams and leagues was totally different then.
netty2424
Full Member
Would you agree that Oklahoma’s playoff appearances have elevated that program by the mere fact that they’ve just competed in them?
Yes. And expanding to eight will just result in more blue blood programs being elevated even higher than what they are. It's not like expanding to 8 will all the sudden result in the TCU's of the world being represented 50% of the time, or even 25% of the time, or in all honestly, even 10% of the time.
Way more often than not it's just going to be four more blue-blood programs getting that much more exposure and in turn separating themselves from the pack even that much more.
I get what you are saying, I just think our chances of being a really competitive program might be better without playoff expansion.
netty2424
Full Member
I think you’re assuming it’s all or nothing like everyone who would like to see expansion assumes we all of the sudden will be in it year after year. Probably not reality, but it gives those schools where things come together a shot.
A shot. That’s it. What they do with that shot is up to them.
It’s not necessarily about becoming a powerhouse and making appearances year after year, which would be great, but more about being given a deserved opportunity.
2010 deserved it(I know CFP didn’t exist).
2014 deserved it.
But we’ll never know what could’ve happened. For what? To keep out schools who might actually defeat a blue blood?
Schedule better in non-conference and go 11-1 or better. I know I'm beating the dead horse but it's such BS to think because of 2014 that we have no shot. That just isn't true at all. Beat Baylor that year and we're in. If one of a whole bunch of other things happen, we're in. If we had a CCG like the Big 12 does now and we win that game, we're in.
If we go 12-0 we will be in the CFP. Period. If you disagree with that you're just being totally unreasonable. Hell, 8 times out of 10 we'll be in with a 11-1 record. So to say we don't have a shot is disengenuous, that's just the woe is us mentality. We have a shot now, we just have to win games.
Zubaz
Member
This is exactly what I said though. It was the trailblazing by TCU, Utah, and Boise during those years, and the respect those teams were given for that success, that led to things like the G5 getting an automatic NY6 berth. That would have NEVER happened without those three teams paving the way. They wouldn't get ANY respect whatsoever to compete for those slots. Remember, those same three teams had really good seasons in the early 2000's that came up just short, but built the credibility of those teams (Boise and TCU especially). Look at where 1998 Tulane and 1999 Marshall were ranked for how Non-AQ teams were treated before Utah busted the BCS. It's night and day. UCF would have played in 2017 Liberty Bowl and 2018 Maaco Bowl Las Vegas if it weren't for TCU, Boise, and Utah.
Incidentally, these rankings also show the chance that those teams were given to compete for the national title. They would be ranked top 10 sure, Top 5 even, but NEVER in the Top 2 of the BCS, which is all that matters when discussing the opportunity to play for a National Title. In 2008, the highest BCS ranking achieved was Utah at #6. In 2009 it was TCU at #4 (and we were jumped by undefeated Cinci the last week of the season to boot). In 2010 it was Boise and TCU alternating at #3, which is the closest anyone ever came and where we disagree . In 2011 Boise was still on their Kellen Moore run so let's include that as well: They peaked at #4 and in Week 10 were still behind 1-loss Alabama.
WE have a shot, because we are in a P5 conference. No undefeated P5 champ has ever been left out, so we know there's a path for us even if that path is difficult. Even at 1-loss we'd have a really really good chance of getting in (we just had 1 loss in a year of really unlikely circumstances). Boise, Houston, UCF, the other G5 schools though? We know they have no shot. We've seen it twice already.
Mean Purple
Active Member
That is always an easy default answer ... unless the two teams of question in one year had a common opponent (and TCU beat Minnesota 30-7 while Ohio State played them 31-24) ... and ... one of the teams lost to a less than average team in non conference (where Ohio State lost at home to a 6-6 reg season Va Tech team). Which is what you would look at for 2014.
Other non conferense games that year can be a wash. Granted TCU played samford, who was a 7 win team and SMU — But Ohio State's glorious non-conf schedule that reg season, other than the loss at home to a 6-6 Va Tech team, was a 2-9 Kent State team and a reg season 7 win Navy. EDIT: Thanks Wex for pointing out the monumental victory Ohio State also had over a cincy team that also lost to the below average Va Tech team that year.
Probably better to argue the 13th data point ... oh, wait, Ohio State did not have a 13th data point in 2016 when they got into the CFP and Penn State, who beat Ohio State in head to head that year and won the Conference Championship Game and did not get into the CFP.
Then you can look at 2015, when OU got into the CFP with 1 loss and no 13th data point, and that loss was to a 5-7 Texas team, when TCU was kept out in 2014 and only had a loss to an 11 win highly ranked team.
In the end, it is obvious this thing was a mess and it becomes obvious that having a group of people in a room in Grapevine, who, if some reports are accurate, were pushed by some of their own in the room to revote in 2014 when TCU was gonna be in on a vote in 2014, is not a reliable means for picking a playoff ... which is really an invitational to put the big brands in and keep the other brands out while its committee has yet to give a consistent answer as to the criteria they use (evident by its own contradictions year to year).
All this to say, [Baylor asshoe].
Last edited:
Ohio State also beat 9-win Cincinnati in OOC. Why are you leaving that one out? So Cincinnati, Navy, Virginia Tech and Kent State is "pretty much a wash" with Samford, a 1-win SMU team, and Minnesota? What? We ended up with pretty much a terrible schedule by P5 standards. Didn't beat one team who didn't end the season (bowls included) with at least 3 other losses.
Also very clear differences in 2015 and 2016 in that in 2015 there were no other 1-loss P5 teams besides Oklahoma to choose from and in 2016 Penn State lost two games, including to Pitt and by 39 points to Michigan.
Why so obviously disingenuous on this subject?
Latest posts
-
-
GoFrogs: Kansas State at TCU Baseball Series Preview- Latest: Paint It Purple
-
