Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: College Football Playoffs [J_R] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
J_R wrote:
Yes, they got it right.

Based on what? This is the sum of your argument: "Did they get it right? Based on the performances of #1 and #2 today, I'd say yes."

Brilliant insight! Let's use your logic. Alabama beat Washington by 17. Thus, looking at 'Bama's results this year, the Committee could have put them against Arkansas (19 point win) or Auburn (18 point win) and gotten the same result. Using your "logic," the Committee would have gotten it right.

Clemson beat OSU by 31. Looking at Clemson's results, the Committee could have put them against Boston College or Syracuse and gotten a similar ass-kicking. Using your "logic," the Committee would have gotten it right.

Boy, you really are a master of critical thinking ...

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think that the rankings are consistent with the process guidelines. Where are the inconsistencies?

You still haven't answered what blank slate means to you. I don't think it's the same context as used by committee members.
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [J_R] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
J_R wrote:
I think that the rankings are consistent with the process guidelines. Where are the inconsistencies?

Based on what??? The lop-sided results certainly indicate they did not pick the FOUR best teams, which would be inconsistent with the guidelines.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not necessarily. I used performance of 1 & 2 to validate those two choices that came out a month ago.

Maybe we have an internet forum disconnect. What teams would you have placed at 3&4 *when the rankings came out?* For me , the ones that were picked. Penn Staters complained a little, but their big 10 championship came with an overall worse record than OSU. Three losses is just too much to jump a 1 loss.
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [J_R] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
J_R wrote:
Not necessarily. I used performance of 1 & 2 to validate those two choices that came out a month ago.

Maybe we have an internet forum disconnect. What teams would you have placed at 3&4 *when the rankings came out?* For me , the ones that were picked. Penn Staters complained a little, but their big 10 championship came with an overall worse record than OSU. Three losses is just too much to jump a 1 loss.

I agree they got 1 and 2 correct. But, there was really no question or speculation when those two were announced and there was pretty much universal agreement those were 2 of the best teams in the country, at the times the rankings came out. But, Washington was always suspect. They were going to get in for winning the PAC 12, but, most agreed they were not one of the 4 best teams in the country, at the time the selection was made. Washington had a pathetic SOS and no signature wins. The only tough team they played (USC) absolutely destroyed them. They were huge underdogs (and rightfully so) when matched against 'Bama. Most pundits agreed that, at the time of the selection, they were not one of the four best teams. Most agreed USC was, but also agreed the Committee would hold their 3 losses against them. Whether that was right or wrong is debatable.

Regarding OSU - they couldn't even get to the conference championship game, let alone win it. Wisconsin should have beaten OSU (took them to OT) and WI is a good, not great, team. OSU struggled against Northwestern and Michigan State and looked questionable down the stretch.

So, my question really isn't, did they follow the "rules," it is, did they get it right? Review of the guidelines clearly shows enough wiggle room for them to say, fuck it, 3-loss USC is in. In fact, that was the entire point of the human committee - to do what the rankings would not do.

When I see them say "clean slate," that means they erase the prior "rankings" and say, at this point in time, who is the best? You don't ignore what they did in the regular season. But, you have no hesitation to jump #5 over #2 (for example). Their guidelines even permit them to look at the reasons for a loss during the regular season.

So, IMO, based on the reasons I set forth above, Wash and OSU were highly suspect and were not in the 4 best teams in the country. If that is the objective -- four best -- then I don't think they got it right. If the objective is -- 4 justifiable teams -- then, arguably, they barely got that right.

IMO, this gets "fixed" if you expand the playoffs. If there were 8 teams, I don't see how USC and FSU get left out. No chance. I think those teams would have made a run. I also hate the long layoff. Some teams thrive off it, while it kills others.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I mostly agree with you. I just don't see where there were enough "wiggle factors" to justifiably leap over the better records of 3 & 4 without revisionist post NYE ranking. Given that, I say they got it right.
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [J_R] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
J_R wrote:
I mostly agree with you. I just don't see where there were enough "wiggle factors" to justifiably leap over the better records of 3 & 4 without revisionist post NYE ranking. Given that, I say they got it right.

Ok, THAT argument, I understand. But, it still sounds to me like you are agreeing that while they made justifiable picks, they did not necessarily pick the 4 best teams in the country. They took the teams with the best records, but were the final records indicative of quality at the end of the year, when the selections were made? I don't think they were.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You seem really confused. Must have been drinking too much last night. Starting with a clean slate means the RANKINGS don't matter. The games that came before still matter. It isn't a best game of the week contest.

The alternatives to who was in comes down to Michigan, Oklahoma, and Penn State. FSU and USC never enter the conversation. Not only do they start with a clean slate, they also take into account the entire body of work.

USC's resume includes 3 losses including a 52 - 6 loss. And only two wins against teams ranked at the end of the season. Oh boy, that is amazing. Getting hot in the soft part of the PAC 12 schedule is not anything to get excited about. If anything, Washington's loss makes USC look worse since that was USC's big win.

FSU gave up 63 to Louisville. Case closed counselor. But there were two others, including to UNC.

Just because UW and OSU laid eggs does not make USC or FSU better than UM, OU, or PSU, let alone UW or OSU. The committee got it right, UW and OSU did not.

And boy did OSU lay an egg. Couldn't get out of their own way. One good play followed by 3 bad plays or a fumble at the end of the good play. Made yesterday's party really sucky.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sure they did. It was clear FSU and USC were not going to get in, but just about every pundit was saying they were in the top 4 or at least the top 6.

Don't be a bitch just because OSU proved to be a complete, total, and utter fraud last night.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
Sure they did. It was clear FSU and USC were not going to get in, but just about every pundit was saying they were in the top 4 or at least the top 6.

Don't be a bitch just because OSU proved to be a complete, total, and utter fraud last night.

Now you're just doing your Harbaugh imitation. I still remember what happened mid-October.

Let's just hope the weasels don't blow it against directional Michigan tomorrow.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
j p o wrote:
JSA wrote:
Sure they did. It was clear FSU and USC were not going to get in, but just about every pundit was saying they were in the top 4 or at least the top 6.

Don't be a bitch just because OSU proved to be a complete, total, and utter fraud last night.


Now you're just doing your Harbaugh imitation. I still remember what happened mid-October.

Let's just hope the weasels don't blow it against directional Michigan tomorrow.

I don't wear khakis.

OSU sucks.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
j p o wrote:
JSA wrote:
Sure they did. It was clear FSU and USC were not going to get in, but just about every pundit was saying they were in the top 4 or at least the top 6.

Don't be a bitch just because OSU proved to be a complete, total, and utter fraud last night.


Now you're just doing your Harbaugh imitation. I still remember what happened mid-October.

Let's just hope the weasels don't blow it against directional Michigan tomorrow.


I don't wear khakis.

OSU sucks.

Scoreboard.


http://www.espn.com/...ore?gameId=400869644

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Indeed.


Ohio State wasn't ready to be CFP contender after all


http://www.espn.com/...-year-away-after-all

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
Indeed.


Ohio State wasn't ready to be CFP contender after all


http://www.espn.com/...-year-away-after-all

Apparently not, they got beaten like a red-headed Rousey.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Truth be told, the game crushed me. Wifie and I were pulling for OSU. We never expected to see a blowout. At one point, I posted on FB to my other Big 10 friends/fans, "Good grief! OSU is as effective tonight as Rowdy was last night!"

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
J_R wrote:
I think that the rankings are consistent with the process guidelines. Where are the inconsistencies?

Based on what??? The lop-sided results certainly indicate they did not pick the FOUR best teams, which would be inconsistent with the guidelines.

This is a dumb post. You lose all sense of reason when talking college football. Complete nonsense.
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [Uncle Arqyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not in the least.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rose Bowl was interesting and competitive, but I don't think that either of those teams would have wanted any piece of Alabama. Gotta bring it every down to have a chance.
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [J_R] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I cannot decided whether that was 2 really good offenses or two really horrible Ds. But, yes, very fun game.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
Two games. Neither even remotely competitive. Is there anyone who thinks the Committee got it right?

I would love to see the playoffs expanded and have less time from the end of season to the bowl games. I would like to see what FSU and USC could do.

And Oklahoma. The Sooners might have been the best team at seasons end.

No, the choice of OSU over the BIG 10 Champion PSU was a mistake.
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Whether they get it right or not, the teams still have to show up and play. The results could have been the same had it been other teams involved.
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [champy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
champy wrote:
Whether they get it right or not, the teams still have to show up and play. The results could have been the same had it been other teams involved.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. The question still remains valid.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: College Football Playoffs [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
champy wrote:
Whether they get it right or not, the teams still have to show up and play. The results could have been the same had it been other teams involved.


Coulda, shoulda, woulda. The question still remains valid.

Not really. The question is always a coulda, shoulda, woulda when it comes to people.
Quote Reply

Prev Next