So who was a more deserving 4th team. Talk of a 6 or 8 team playoff doesn't seem realistic when we can't seem to find a good 4th team.
They've been 4 times. They've been smoked 3 and the other was a historic collapse in which they were smoked in the 2nd half. Sorry, I can't stand BK at ND but somehow he is held accountable for losses 7 years ago and assigned a 'style points' expectation as a result of this thing. Meanwhile, OU just gets the high hat into the playoffs every year. Even on this board, the good Dr was talking about Oregon and Utah needing to win with style points because they are Oregon and Utah. At some point in time, we have to take a more realistic assessment of who/what Oklahoma really is.
[QUOTE="IrishCorey, post: 171975, member: 2673" At some point in time, we have to take a more realistic assessment of who/what Oklahoma really is.[/QUOTE] Oklahoma was the only team left with 1 loss and they were a conference champ. Are you ready to take a 2 loss team?
Oregon was the 4th best team, but they didn't get it done. They had their chances, but they blew them. I have no sympathy.
Problem with just out and out saying ...no f'n way OU gets in again after their record in previous years is that take this year for example. Oregon lost 2 games but it a conference champion, OU lost 1 game and is a conference champion. How do you justify denying this years OU team and giving the slot to Oregon. You say the Big 12 is a horse **** conference that doesn't play defense. Nobody but Pac12 fans think the Pac 12 is the better conference. Oregon might in fact be the better team, we'll see how they do against a pretty decent Wisconsin team in the Rose Bowl. Probably the next step is a 6 team playoff with a play in game between the #4 and #5 teams the week after the conference championship games. Truthfully I think that if they had that this year Gerorgia might have beaten OU and been the 4th team. We aren't going to anything beyond 4 teams any time soon. Right now a championship game between Clemson and LSU is two extremely worthy participants. No cinderella's!
I have always said a 2 loss team is out, even when it eliminates Alabama. I'm sure hell not going to advocate a 2 loss Oregon now.
Second-guessing after the fact is the most popular verbal exercise among sports fans. It's been going on as long as I've been alive, which is a long time. The second guessing about OK is a prime example. Everyone's a "never shoulda been there" expert after the results are in. I find it comical. OK was the logical choice. Just because they got their clocks cleaned doesn't mean they "never shoulda been there". Carry on, gentlemen.
My biggest beef, being an ND fan and supporter of Pac12 football, is that all of those teams have to meet a 'beauty test' before they are even considered, and when they are considered, it's only because they are the last man standing for a position. Meanwhile, OU gets a seat at the head of the table each year. They've been 4 times. They've been humiliated 3 times and suffered a historic 2nd half flop in the other. Either way, all 4 times they've been there.. they've been humiliated. I expect it from SEC fans, but I think it's funny when ND fans don't see this for what it is. As for what 'only Pac12 fans think' ehh, I'm pretty sure that I just spent a month reading ND fans talking about what total horse **** Iowa State is. Then, I watched ND expose them for just that. Big 12 defense wasn't exactly on showcase yesterday.
See.Corey this.has nothing to do with the SEC. OU is the only 1 loss team left.standing. You are the.one pushing for automatic bids for conference champions.????
Hey Scott, an article in today's Houston Chronicle says that Mond is not a guaranteed starter next year that you have a freshman named Zach Calzada will give him a run for the money. You think that's accurate?
Reading these comments about looking at a team’s past history to determine playoff rankings, caused me to think about Virginia in basketball. They historically underperformed in the NCAA tourney and were the first 1 seed to lose to a 16 year in 2018. They got to spend the offseason reading about how they were the most predictable team to bomb in the post season. The next year they won the tournament. I thought the NCAA may have erred by getting rid of computer rankings entirely and leaving the decision to a ‘blue ribbon’ committee’. The computer analysis did use hard, detailed data to analyze conference strength and schedule strength to measure who were the best teams. I am sure the committee members have an abundant data base at its disposal but like Corey I do wonder if subjective factors such as a team’s historic pedigree influence the members.
Bob, Corey is advocating using subjective factors. He is proposing that since OU has done so badly in the past that they not be chosen to be in the playoffs.
Terry... Not from what we saw this year. Calzada has a great arm, but needs more time to adjust to the speed of the game. He probably has a higher ceiling as a passer, but if our OL doesn't do a big uptick next year... he'd never survive. BTW... everyone is down on OU... and I honestly don't think they were the 4th best team, but I suspect we're going to see it didn't matter who ran into the L$U buzzsaw. That offense is that good. They caught lightning in a bottle this year, and I don't see anyone stopping them. Clemson might keep it close for longer, but I suspect the Kitties will put up 45+ on them as well.
KP, I thought Corey was arguing that it is unfair that ND’s playoff position is devalued because of their past performance in the playoffs but that Oklahoma’s past performances are not held against them. Basically, a goose/gander argument. I am not sold on the first part of his specific argument ( ND/P12 devaluation) although I agree with his more general point that subjective factors may influence the committee’s decision considering thar the words ‘eye test’ have been used more than a few times by their spokesmen when discussing weekly ratings. If ND had beaten Michigan, I suspect they would have gotten the #4 spot over Oklahoma given that the road loss to Ga would have been viewed as a better loss than OK loss to KSU. Ditto for Utah had they beat Oregon as they were ranked above OK before the conference championship games. So, in Okla’s case, an objective measurement ( # of losses) was used to select the final choice although that measurement is not quite fair since it does not take conference strength or SOS into consideration. Subjective factors seem to come more into play when the committee choice is over who gets left out when comparing teams from different conferences or independents with identical records. I thought the computer rankings deserved some consideration since they did crunch a lot of objective data to try put some value on conference strength and SOS to assign a ranking.
I have no problem with computers playing a part.in the selection. Maybe I misunderstood Corey so I what I will say is I don't believe a.team should be left out of.the playoffs because they have.lost.badly in previous years. Oklahoma was the only remaining 1 loss team so objectively they got the last spot.
Last year, I lit into a guy who - after the fact - said ND should not have been in the playoffs. My challenge was, who should have been there in ND's place? He couldn't come up with an answer. I ask the same question of the second guessers here. The last sentence in kp's post just above this one should close the matter. With full respect to Corey, his argument about past performance is hogwash.
All I know is that fans have been complaining since there were fans over the NC. Bowl Coalition to attempt to match the top 2 teams from the regular season gave us a bunch of 1 v 2 type of matchups, but the complaint was that it was rigged by the sportswriters who had bias when voting, so the BCS was going to fix that, but then the computers gave us the OU/LSU game when OU had gotten beat in the B12 Championship game, badly by KState. So computers go out the window so we get that blue ribbon committee with no bias to select 4 teams, you know those 2 extra teams that were screwed over by the BCS 2 team formula!! One thing the college football playoff doesn't have is the possibility of the Cinderella team making it all the way. You see that in Pro Sports once in a while with a wild card team winning it all, you see it in NCAA sports with playoffs of 16/32/64 teams. But not in football. I kind of like that! If we went to 8 teams I'd still like to not have guaranteed slots for conference champions. Most years Power 5 conference champions would be more than worthy of being in the Elite 8, but some years they might be a Cinderella team, like back in '96 when a medicocre Texas team knocked off Neb. That team wouldn't have been worthy of being in an 8 team playoff. I've mentioned a play in game between CFP #4 and #5 the week after the Conference Championships. That still wouldn't have given Oregon a shot this year though. If they go to 8 then they need to have a break after conference championship week, then start back up Dec 20th for Rd 1, Dec 27th for Semi's and Jan 4th for the Championship.