"if Oklahoma would have lost, we would have put a two loss Georgia in over an 1 loss OSU"

[dennis580]

Can you guys win a playoff game for once though at least?

Were only 0-2 thats a very small sample size. Hopefully we can be 2-2 in a little over a month from now.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

Were only 0-2 thats a very small sample size. Hopefully we can be 2-2 in a little over a month from now.

Well I for one will be pulling for OU

Anything but Bama/clemson

 

[Cafe_Puro]

Wins and losses are absolutely not subjective.

Comparing schedules can be though. But I do think we can agree that comparing G5 schedules to P5 schedules is not the same as P5 vs. P5 schedules. You're comparing teams with top 15 SOS in one case and comparing a top 15 SOS to a 70 something SOS in another.

I also think the committee is doing exactly what I said, ranking who they think the best teams are in order. The problem is that by subjectively ranking like this they often reward teams for either not making their championship game or losing to the right team. It's idiotic and it kind of shits in the face of the whole "every game matters" thing.

wait..what? Comparing schedules is different than comparing wins and losses how? A schedule is just wins and losses right? So you ARE comparing wins and losses.. And g5 v p5 is a fair comparions in my example becus the committee stated that in their rankings as well.. Osu IS better than ucf..even tho ucf has a better record.. So them saying uga IS better than OSU is the same thing.. You dont agree.. Fine.. But you dont agree with their rankings either. I cant fix that. Most ppl certainly agree losing by 29 is unforgivable.. That is the case..

 

[Cave_Johnson]

wait..what? Comparing schedules is different than comparing wins and losses how? A schedule is just wins and losses right? So you ARE comparing wins and losses.. And g5 v p5 is a fair comparions in my example becus the committee stated that in their rankings as well.. Osu IS better than ucf..even tho ucf has a better record.. So them saying uga IS better than OSU is the same thing.. You dont agree.. Fine.. But you dont agree with their rankings either. I cant fix that. Most ppl certainly agree losing by 29 is unforgivable.. That is the case..

Oh boy, you're just not getting it. I said wins and losses are not subjective. You either win or you lose. The quality of those wins and losses (the schedule) absolutely has a subjective element to it unless, like I said, you're comparing a G5 school to a P5 school where there is no debate.

You seem really certain about what teams are better than other teams. I'm saying I'm not certain. The only thing we know for sure from the top 8 is that Alabama beat Georgia and ND and Ohio State beat Michigan. Subjectively ranking these teams based on the perceived quality of their wins and losses and then voting them into a bracket is not the best way to go about this. Teams should earn their way in on the field.

I'll tell you one thing though, I guaran-fucking-tee every single team out there would rather lose one game by 29 and win a conference championship than lose 2 games and win nothing. That's regardless of the margin of defeat.

 

[BoiseStateFan27]

Well, I'm sure glad Oklahoma won then

Otherwise we would be stuck seeing the same game for a 3rd time in the past year....what would it be next time?

Georgia chokes a 2nd half lead to Alabama's 3rd string QB somehow? At this pace, the 2019 SEC championship would be an Alabama comeback using a linebacker at QB or something

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Also, why the hell is it that point differential only seems to matter in losses in the minds of so many people who watch college football? Ohio State also clown-stomped 8th ranked Michigan by 23.

You would think the Purdue loss and the Michigan win would balance themselves out but they don't for some reason. Probably because focusing in on point differential in specific games in football is stupid af.

 

[rmilia1]

It's apparently better to have no top 10 wins , 2 losses ( including losing by 3 touchdowns to a 3 loss team ) than it is to win your league , beat a top 10 team by a zillion and lose 2 game by 4 TDs to a 6 loss team

The issue I've always had is people debate "4 best teams " vs "4 most deserving teams " but they change their argument based on what team they're arguing . This year highlights that more than any since playoff inception .

The 4 most deserving teams got in . Not the 4 best . Last year the 4 best got in but not the 4 most deserving . Until they set a concrete group of guidelines I personally am going to continue to rapidly lose interest in the playoffs

 

[poewelch84]

Well I for one will be pulling for OU

Anything but Bama/clemson

Anything????? Even Notre Dame as National Champ

 

[GoldRusher]

I love college football w my heart & soul but what the actual fuck is going on here?

Since when is losing just as good as a win? this type of shit is starting to give me a bad distaste for the game.

I have no problem w us being left out, but really, you are gonna show how subjective the shit is w that statement? terrible man

Agree, that would have been total

 

[TheDayMan]

It's apparently better to have no top 10 wins , 2 losses ( including losing by 3 touchdowns to a 3 loss team ) than it is to win your league , beat a top 10 team by a zillion and lose 2 game by 4 TDs to a 6 loss team

The issue I've always had is people debate "4 best teams " vs "4 most deserving teams " but they change their argument based on what team they're arguing . This year highlights that more than any since playoff inception .

The 4 most deserving teams got in . Not the 4 best . Last year the 4 best got in but not the 4 most deserving . Until they set a concrete group of guidelines I personally am going to continue to rapidly lose interest in the playoffs

It’s better to not get bent over and taken to brown town by a shitty, lucky to be bowling team and then look like gutter trash for about half your conference schedule.

 

[rmilia1]

It’s better to not get bent over and taken to brown town by a shitty, lucky to be bowling team and then look like gutter trash for about half your conference schedule.

Until it's not. That's the thing with the CFB playoff system . We only know something for sure until it's did proven next year . Without specifics guidelines the whole thing just is kind of a best guess that changes how it works year to year . Some people may find that exciting . I don't . I find it annoying .

 

[cmc_rebar]

What part of “no coming back from getting your ass kicked by Purdue” is so hard for some of you?

They were so close to 3 more losses

Penn St under any other coach but Franklin would not have let osu win

Maryland was the better team in the field that day

Nebraska was better that day as well, but just can’t beat the bj’s Urban gives the devil

 

[TheDayMan]

Until it's not. That's the thing with the CFB playoff system . We only know something for sure until it's did proven next year . Without specifics guidelines the whole thing just is kind of a best guess that changes how it works year to year . Some people may find that exciting . I don't . I find it annoying .

I don’t know what you’re talking about, blowout losses killing playoff chances has been consistent. The committee is super crazy and feels top 4 playoff caliber teams don’t get their ass kicked for some reason.

 

[bamafan4evr12]

I can only hope we get to AQ's and 8 and at least we leave the last two or three spots to the networks to bid up the last few spots

8 is too many. If you have to expand and give everyone a chance go to 6, 5 conference champs and 1 at large for the best team to not win their conference. 1 and 2 get byes

 

[7Samurai13]

They were so close to 3 more losses

Penn St under any other coach but Franklin would not have let osu win

Maryland was the better team in the field that day

Nebraska was better that day as well, but just can’t beat the bj’s Urban gives the devil

Shit, had Michigan State has a competent offense that game was a hell of a lot closer than the score indicates.

 

[Ron G]

Here is a hypothetical for those of you in favor of the "best team" as opposed to the most deserving (that means most wins vs losses).
Team A (for sake of argument Alabama) starts the season with a serious flu bug that keeps it QB, center, left tackle, top RB , top receiver, middle linebacker, top corner and top rusher out of the first three games which they lose but not badly.
From that point on, they never give up more than 10 points, and never score less than 45. They end the season with a 9-3 record. Do they get in over three conference champions with no or 1 loss (maybe even their own if it were to have 2 losses) because they are the best team at that time?
You need to win. If wins don't count then why keep score? Good losses are not better than bad wins.
Group 5 should no longer even be referred to FBS as they have no chance whatsoever to be in the Championship Playoff.
And yes, I know they can play in other bowl games but being an FBS team implies a shot at the championship which of course currently it does not.

 

[Deep Creek]

Surprisingly, OU’s defense has gotten worse since firing Stoops.

Defense isn't good during Stoops era or post Stoops. Here are the offenses they played against in those two stretches.

Stoops defense versus
FAU
UCLA
Iowa State (Pre Brock Purdy)
Army
Baylor
Texas

After Stoops defense versus
TCU
Kansas State
Texas Tech
Oklahoma State
Kansas
West Virginia

 

[tducey]

Really don't think a 2 loss team should have been there over a 1 loss team. If that happened the committee would have had a lot of ? marks surrounding them.

 

[rmilia1]

I don’t know what you’re talking about, blowout losses killing playoff chances has been consistent. The committee is super crazy and feels top 4 playoff caliber teams don’t get their ass kicked for some reason.

This is the first time we've ever had a 1 loss team with a blowout loss in contention man. So if by consistent you mean once out of one then you're right

 

[rmilia1]

This is the first time we've ever had a 1 loss team with a blowout loss in contention man. So if by consistent you mean once out of one then you're right

Unless you count a 14 point home loss to a 6-6 team as a "blowout"? If you do then the committee is 1 out of 2