Jump to content


Big ten verse Everyone else...?


Recommended Posts


10 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

Besides UCF, who had a better case for the playoff than Alabama though? OSU lost any chance they had when they lost to Iowa. Wisconsin is really the only P5 team that had any chance to be in the other spot but they didn't win their conference either. UCF deserves a chance at the title, but there is no way they were getting into the playoff. 6 or 8 team playoff is the only way outside of maybe going undefeated back to back seasons and beating 2 P5 teams in a season (preferreably ranked)

Every P5 conference champion has a better case than alabama. Alabama lost their last game, and still made the playoffs. The conference champions have to play an extra game against one of the toughest teams in the country, while alabama relaxes and heals. You are supposed to win the championship on the field.  It is ridiculous to include alabama in the playoffs. It is bad enough that one P5 conference champion does not make the playoffs by design. To have a committee decide to exclude a 2nd conference champion is a crime.

Edited by MichiganDad3
  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
4 hours ago, HuskerNBigD said:

 

Well said, except some here will say you can’t judge a program by a loss. :dunno

 

Barrett has regressed since his freshman campaign and Ohio state would not be competitive with Bama. 

And neither bama  or georgia would be competitive with UCF.  Auburn handled them both, and UCF whipped Auburn. 

Link to comment
On 1/2/2018 at 0:08 PM, 1994 Husker said:

Well sir, we agree to disagree..I don’t presume judgment about a whole football program by one game, as you did by referencing Iowa...I look at the whole body of work by the team...since you using a one game assessment of program, I suppose I’ll go there..the team that whipped USC a few days ago..is the team that would Alabama give them all they could handle..

So you use one game as an assessment for Alabama but not for Ohio State? So losing by 35 points to an unranked team is better than losing a close game to a top 10 team? Also, Oklahoma manhandled Ohio State.  So getting beat by a good margin in two games is better than losing one game to a top 10 team? If Nebraska was in Alabama's shoes and Nebraska got snubbed for a 2 loss team then you'd be pissed 

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
On 1/2/2018 at 2:04 PM, MichiganDad3 said:

The winner of a P5 conference that goes 7-1 in bowl games gets snubbed from the playoffs while the sec conference runner up, that beat ababama, gets whipped by a non-P5 team. And the sec gets 50% of the teams in the playoffs. That is a load of crap!

So the selection committee should have known that the big would go 7-1 and should have known ucf would win? You can't be serious.  Most of us thought ucf would lose, a lot of people had Arizona win (I had Purdue). Etc.  Anyone who isn't biased would have had what the committee had.  I think they got it right and I despise the SEC.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

14 minutes ago, MichiganDad3 said:

Every P5 conference champion has a better case than alabama. Alabama lost their last game, and still made the playoffs. The conference champions have to play an extra game against one of the toughest teams in the country, while alabama relaxes and heals. You are supposed to win the championship on the field.  It is ridiculous to include alabama in the playoffs. It is bad enough that one P5 conference champion does not make the playoffs by design. To have a committee decide to exclude a 2nd conference champion is a crime.

OSU lost any chance they had by getting blown out by Iowa. USC didnt deserve to be in the playoff. UCF was never going to make it and your argument that they 'whipped' Auburn so they would beat Alabama is flawed. 

 

The committee got it about as right as they could have and it was proven by the semifinal results. Get over it.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, huskerfan333157 said:

So the selection committee should have known that the big would go 7-1 and should have known ucf would win? You can't be serious.  Most of us thought ucf would lose, a lot of people had Arizona win (I had Purdue). Etc.  Anyone who isn't biased would have had what the committee had.  I think they got it right and I despise the SEC.

I despise the committee. The playoffs should never have been designed to leave out a P5 champion. IMO, leaving out a 2nd P5 champion should be against the rules. The situation I described this year makes the situation stink even more. How much did TV money have to do with the decision? Is the committee independent? Get rid of the committee, and have a set of rules.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, MichiganDad3 said:

Every P5 conference champion has a better case than alabama. Alabama lost their last game, and still made the playoffs. The conference champions have to play an extra game against one of the toughest teams in the country, while alabama relaxes and heals. You are supposed to win the championship on the field.  That is ridiculous. It is bad enough that one P5 conference champion does not make the playoffs by design. To have a committee decide to exclude a 2nd conference champion is a crime.

 

I don't agree with the bolded.  Even if the playoff is extended to eight teams, I don't think P5 conference champions should get an automatic position in the playoff.  I'd be more in favor of extending the playoff to eight teams and completely eliminating the conference championship games. 

 

I'd argue that Wisconsin should have gotten into the playoff before trying to argue in favor of putting an over ranked USC Pac 12 Champion into the playoff.  It's hard to argue with regards to Ohio State because you just never knew which team was going to show up.  They could more than likely beat every team that made it to the playoffs, but they could also get completely manhandled by every team that made the playoff.  Their loss to Iowa really hurt them.  The only way I could see how Ohio State could/should have made the playoff is if Auburn had won the SEC. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, junior4949 said:

 

I don't agree with the bolded.  Even if the playoff is extended to eight teams, I don't think P5 conference champions should get an automatic position in the playoff.  I'd be more in favor of extending the playoff to eight teams and completely eliminating the conference championship games. 

 

I'd argue that Wisconsin should have gotten into the playoff before trying to argue in favor of putting an over ranked USC Pac 12 Champion into the playoff.  It's hard to argue with regards to Ohio State because you just never knew which team was going to show up.  They could more than likely beat every team that made it to the playoffs, but they could also get completely manhandled by every team that made the playoff.  Their loss to Iowa really hurt them.  The only way I could see how Ohio State could/should have made the playoff is if Auburn had won the SEC. 

How can alabama be national champion if they are not even champions of the sec west? Championships should be won on the field, not determined by a committee.

Link to comment

1 minute ago, MichiganDad3 said:

I despise the committee. The playoffs should never have been designed to leave out a P5 champion. IMO, leaving out a 2nd P5 champion should be against the rules. The situation I described this year makes the situation stink even more. How much did TV money have to do with the decision? Is the committee independent? Get rid of the committee, and have a set of rules.

I have no problem with what the committee did this year but it shows we need to expand the playoffs to 8 teams.  The 5 p5 champions and the next best 3.  Take out one ooc for each team and the main bowls will get a playoff game: peach, fiesta, rose, orange, sugar, cotton.

 

Also, you can't throw out a team who lost one game 

 

Team a: lost to unranked team by 35 points, got beat badly by a top 4.

 

Team B: lost to top 7 team in a close game which prevented them from being in the CCG.

 

Team A: 2 losses team B 2 losses.  Worst loss: team A.

 

Let's go a step further: Team B loses a close game in CCG.  Team B's 2 losses are better than team A's. 

 

The only reason people don't want team B in it is because it's Alabama.  You take the names out of it and everyone will agree that Team B has a better resume 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, MichiganDad3 said:

How can alabama be national champion if they are not even champions of the sec west? Championships should be won on the field, not determined by a committee.

 

It's a slippery slope.  You really only have two choices here.  Either the games played during the regular season matter, or they don't.  By leaving Bama out of the playoff in favor of either the B1G Champion or the Pac 12 Champion, you are essentially saying games played during the regular season don't matter.  USC really struggled at times this year.  Then, they got completely manhandled by Notre Dame.  Ohio State got whipped at home by OU.  Then, they got crushed by Iowa. 

 

This is essentially the same argument as last year when Ohio State got in but Penn State did not.  The committee is basically saying games during the regular season do matter.  This is why there has yet to be a two or more loss team make the playoff.  The biggest reason it took so long to get a playoff was because people were concerned that games played during the regular season would have considerably less meaning.  Thus far, the committee has shown this not to be the case.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, huskerfan333157 said:

I have no problem with what the committee did this year but it shows we need to expand the playoffs to 8 teams.  The 5 p5 champions and the next best 3.  Take out one ooc for each team and the main bowls will get a playoff game: peach, fiesta, rose, orange, sugar, cotton.

 

Also, you can't throw out a team who lost one game 

 

Team a: lost to unranked team by 35 points, got beat badly by a top 4.

 

Team B: lost to top 7 team in a close game which prevented them from being in the CCG.

 

Team A: 2 losses team B 2 losses.  Worst loss: team A.

 

Let's go a step further: Team B loses a close game in CCG.  Team B's 2 losses are better than team A's. 

 

The only reason people don't want team B in it is because it's Alabama.  You take the names out of it and everyone will agree that Team B has a better resume 

 

+1. If team B was Nebraska, just think about the justifications being made to allow them in.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, MichiganDad3 said:

How can alabama be national champion if they are not even champions of the sec west? Championships should be won on the field, not determined by a committee.

 

You render the regular season irrelevant with this argument. The CFP has shown several times now that they believe the body of work is relevant, not just the hardware.

 

2 hours ago, MichiganDad3 said:

And neither bama  or georgia would be competitive with UCF.  Auburn handled them both, and UCF whipped Auburn. 

 

giphy.gif

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...