I like and understand the article, but (save the last two games) I don't think OSU is one of the best 4 teams in the country. I can't say with certainty that OSU would have done any better yesterday vs. either opponent. Let Alabama and Clemson battle for the top spot, and let OU and ND be the laughing stock. I'm just happy that it's not OSU in the latter spot, and they get to soak in the Rose Bowl and TCB against Washington.
posted by Crimson streakyeah bc that matters, Ohio st played northwestern in the big championship, who ND bear handily. That argument is retarded.
It was a three-point game until ND scored a touchdown in the final three minutes. If that's "handily", then OSU shit-stomped them so badly that they're disbanding their program out of shame.
posted by SportsAndLadyIsn't that sports though? There is usually a couple teams that are significantly better than everyone else. But you still have a playoff where other teams get to attempt to knock them off. It just seems so logical.
Except that it's almost a sure bet that those additional games wouldn't be competitive.
posted by queencitybuckeyeExcept that it's almost a sure bet that those additional games wouldn't be competitive.
Lol have you ever watched sports before? There's no way to say what you are saying. Underdogs win all the time.
In 2014, OSU was a 10 point dog against Bama and 7.5 point dog against Oregon. No way those games would be competitive, right?
posted by queencitybuckeyeExcept that it's almost a sure bet that those additional games wouldn't be competitive.
Which means nothing other than asking people whether they'd rather watch meaningful playoff games that potentially will be blowouts or meaningless bowl games that'll potentially be even further diminished because various key players skip them to prep for the NFL.
If the goal is to satisfy the people who weren't convinced who the national champion was when it was decided by the writers then the goal has been accomplished. A National Championship game was created....but people whined that the Number 2 team wasn't obvious and that the Numer 3 team was being robbed....robbed of I don't know what because they had the opportunity to compete all year.
Because of this....a semifinal round was put into place...just in case the selection committee got number 2 and 3 wrong. This gave them a "buffer" to make sure the top 2 teams were in the "playoffs".
If the goal is to determine who the best team is then another round doesn't make it more likely. I'd be satisfied with going back to one championship game. My only reservation would be having to hear all the whiners who finished the season at 3 again.
posted by SportsAndLadyLol have you ever watched sports before? There's no way to say what you are saying. Underdogs win all the time.
In 2014, OSU was a 10 point dog against Bama and 7.5 point dog against Oregon. No way those games would be competitive, right?
OSU in 2002 was probably the greatest upset in terms of underdogs. What I’m saying is expanding is pointless because these semifinal games are repeatedly trash, auto bids would be a joke, and teams like Georgia and Ohio State would get mulligans for losses basically.
I remember hearing the SEC commish say pretty much we can’t expand without auto bids for conference champs, so Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Ohio State and Washington get in and are your top 5 while Notre Dame, Georgia and Michigan are the at larges. And then as you said underdogs win all the time imagine if you had teams like Northwestern pull off the upset?
That format in 2012 would have produced #13 Florida State, unranked Wisconsin, #8 Stanford, #2 Alabama and #7 Kansas State with your highest at large seeds being #1 Notre Dame, #3 Florida and #4 Oregon
posted by queencitybuckeyeExcept that it's almost a sure bet that those additional games wouldn't be competitive.
It’s almost a sure bet that OSU and Georgia were better than ND and Oklahoma. Come on.
posted by SportsAndLadyLol have you ever watched sports before? There's no way to say what you are saying. Underdogs win all the time.
In 2014, OSU was a 10 point dog against Bama and 7.5 point dog against Oregon. No way those games would be competitive, right?
and they were not competitive. That they were upsets is of no significance, the point is they were shitty games unless they involved "your" team. Most of the games in the playoff era have been shitty games. Why do you believe adding more games will change that fact?
posted by HereticWhich means nothing other than asking people whether they'd rather watch meaningful playoff games that potentially will be blowouts or meaningless bowl games that'll potentially be even further diminished because various key players skip them to prep for the NFL.
Would high draft picks playing for a low seed against a powerhouse make a different decision because it's the playoff?
posted by queencitybuckeyeand they were not competitive. That they were upsets is of no significance, the point is they were shitty games unless they involved "your" team. Most of the games in the playoff era have been shitty games. Why do you believe adding more games will change that fact?
I don't understand; are you wanting the games to be better games? Because that's 1) dumb and 2) not at all what I'm trying to argue.
The college football playoffs should have 6-8 teams in it. That's my point. Has nothing to do with wanting "better games"
posted by SportsAndLadyI don't understand; are you wanting the games to be better games? Because that's 1) dumb and 2) not at all what I'm trying to argue.
The college football playoffs should have 6-8 teams in it. That's my point. Has nothing to do with wanting "better games"
But why should it? If the top 4 only can hardly be competitive over the course of 5 seasons why should it be expanded to 8? The goal is to determine a champion
posted by Classyposter58But why should it? If the top 4 only can hardly be competitive over the course of 5 seasons why should it be expanded to 8? The goal is to determine a champion
Because you need 6-8 to figure out the top 4. Clearly they were wrong this year (and lots of people knew it).
posted by iclfan2Because you need 6-8 to figure out the top 4. Clearly they were wrong this year (and lots of people knew it).
Why were they wrong? You can’t just say Ohio State looks really good and Georgia had a hell of an SEC championship so let’s forget about those ugly losses to LSU and Purdue because they’re better than Oklahoma and Notre Dame
posted by Classyposter58Why were they wrong? You can’t just say Ohio State looks really good and Georgia had a hell of an SEC championship so let’s forget about those ugly losses to LSU and Purdue because they’re better than Oklahoma and Notre Dame
You can’t just say it that way either. That’s the point of why you need more than 4 teams. But anyone who watched Oklahoma knew they had no defense and anyone who watched Notre Dame knew they were ok but hadn’t played anyone besides UM (who looked pedestrian of late). You’re making the argument for more than 4 without even realizing it.
Mark Richt “retiring” from Miami.
Classy is basically saying because 12 old dudes got together and ranked a team the 5th best team in the country, there’s no way they could do better than the #4 team.
Like I said, it’s mind boggling that people (idiots) out there are arguing for it to stay at 4 teams.
posted by SportsAndLadyClassy is basically saying because 12 old dudes got together and ranked a team the 5th best team in the country, there’s no way they could do better than the #4 team.
Like I said, it’s mind boggling that people (idiots) out there are arguing for it to stay at 4 teams.
And if they expand to 8 the argument becomes "12 old dudes got together and ranked a team the 9th best team in the country, there’s no way they could do better than the #8 team." The argument will never go away.
Hell, they decided they need to expand the basketball tournament from 64 to 68....it will never be good enough
It may not be perfect with 8 but it would be a lot better
Mike Leach said it best
You simply cannot know for sure if you have the best teams unless you auto invite a conference champion. Then everyone has a chance.
posted by SportsAndLadyClassy is basically saying because 12 old dudes got together and ranked a team the 5th best team in the country, there’s no way they could do better than the #4 team.
Like I said, it’s mind boggling that people (idiots) out there are arguing for it to stay at 4 teams.
No what I’m saying is just because Ohio State is good doesn’t mean they deserve a playoff berth. You guys are making the case that the Purdue loss didn’t matter and I really don’t want a college football landscape like that. What made OSU-Michigan so great in 2006 is that the whole season for a shot at a title came down to that game. You’re going to ruin these classic games by having, well sucks we lost but we still make the playoffs and have a shot
posted by Laley23You simply cannot know for sure if you have the best teams unless you auto invite a conference champion. Then everyone has a chance.
That’s it. By doing this your conferences will only agree if the conference champions get home games and are seeded 1-5 before the 3 at larges are. Is Notre Dame considered an at large then? Also Michigan was ranked above UCF so we’ve gotta see that team make the playoffs as an at large?
Honestly instead of expanding the playoffs why don’t we mandate who teams play in the non conference much like how the NFL makes your schedule based on your division finish the previous season. So next year the Big 10 Champ has to play the Big 12 champ as an example. Next year Ohio State’s non conference schedule is FAU, Cincy and Miami OH while BG plays at Kansas State and at Notre Dame. In no world should Bowling fucking Green have a more difficult non-conference schedule than Ohio State. Make the regular season really matter and put these teams through a gauntlet
posted by Classyposter58That’s it. By doing this your conferences will only agree if the conference champions get home games and are seeded 1-5 before the 3 at larges are. Is Notre Dame considered an at large then? Also Michigan was ranked above UCF so we’ve gotta see that team make the playoffs as an at large?
Honestly instead of expanding the playoffs why don’t we mandate who teams play in the non conference much like how the NFL makes your schedule based on your division finish the previous season. So next year the Big 10 Champ has to play the Big 12 champ as an example. Next year Ohio State’s non conference schedule is FAU, Cincy and Miami OH while BG plays at Kansas State and at Notre Dame. In no world should Bowling fucking Green have a more difficult non-conference schedule than Ohio State. Make the regular season really matter and put these teams through a gauntlet
Please never compare a mid level MAC program who HAS to schedule games like ND and KSU to keep its program running to Ohio State.
BG is getting paid a small fortune to play those games. No one pays OSU to play them.
Also, Morgan State and Louisiana Tech.