Wow! ESPN...I mean ABC taking every opportunity to tell us the B1G is over-rated.

Donate To GopherHole
Apparently home field is actually an advantage! It would be interesting to see some of the scores if they had played on a neutral site.
 

I think the cold played a huge advantage. It’s nice seeing SEC come up this far cause let’s be honest they’re not used to the weather and they would rather play in a indoor climate controlled stadium
 

corcorangopher said:
Never been a three loss national champion. If they keep expanding the playoff there will be a day a three loss team makes a run and maybe wins it. Then the game will have a crappy crowned champion and not a season long excellence team. Won’t that be a proud moment for the game? The idea a playoff always crowns the ‘best’ team is false. NCAA basketball tournament regularly demonstrates the best team can falter.
Click to expand...
That’s the danger of a tournament vs. a crowning. You may get the team that came together at the right time vs. who had the best season. Neither is perfect, pick your poison. I kinda liked the old way(get off my lawn) there usually aren’t that many contenders.
With the 4 team bracket there always was the question, “who got left out”, more that likely it should have been, “who didn’t belong”.
Now that we have 12 teams, there are a bunch of pretenders, as shown yesterday. More will show up next round. I mean there was talk of Army getting in a couple weeks ago, because they hadn’t lost.
The rules as far as rosters sizes and scholarships go are just enough to let an SMU, Indiana, Tennessee, come up with a season, due to schedules being so unbalanced with the new huge conferences and 12 team playoff, to get a shot. And take a sh@t.
The old writers/coaches vote was sometimes controversial, but you may have gotten the team with the best season being taken vs. the team who was paying best at the right time.
 

Tech Machine said:
That’s the danger of a tournament vs. a crowning. You may get the team that came together at the right time vs. who had the best season. Neither is perfect, pick your poison. I kinda liked the old way(get off my lawn) there usually aren’t that many contenders.
With the 4 team bracket there always was the question, “who got left out”, more that likely it should have been, “who didn’t belong”.
Now that we have 12 teams, there are a bunch of pretenders, as shown yesterday. More will show up next round. I mean there was talk of Army getting in a couple weeks ago, because they hadn’t lost.
The rules as far as rosters sizes and scholarships go are just enough to let an SMU, Indiana, Tennessee, come up with a season, due to schedules being so unbalanced with the new huge conferences and 12 team playoff, to get a shot. And take a sh@t.
The old writers/coaches vote was sometimes controversial, but you may have gotten the team with the best season being taken vs. the team who was paying best at the right time.
Click to expand...
I don't think the 2011 Giants feel like less than true champions even though they made the playoffs by going 9-7 against a weak division and then running the table in the playoffs.

If you take advantage of the regular season schedule you have , then win your way to the title in the CFP, in my opinion, you've earned it. And if OSU, PSU, and Notre Dame get easy first round wins because SMU, Tennessee, and Indiana got in, they earned that by getting the higher seed and home games. I'm in the camp that actually thinks everything worked out the way it should (aside from some quibbles about seeding) in the inaugural year of the new format.
 

LongLiveMilesTarver said:
Apparently home field is actually an advantage! It would be interesting to see some of the scores if they had played on a neutral site.
Click to expand...
Top 14 teams combined to lose 4 games all year
Assuming they played an average of 7 home games they were 52-4 at home all year
They were 4-0 this weekend


Expand that to the top 25 and there were 13 home losses. Assuming 7 home games per team the top 25 was 162-13 at home.
They were 4-0 this weekend.

The gophers own one of those 13!
 


Tech Machine said:
That’s the danger of a tournament vs. a crowning. You may get the team that came together at the right time vs. who had the best season. Neither is perfect, pick your poison. I kinda liked the old way(get off my lawn) there usually aren’t that many contenders.
With the 4 team bracket there always was the question, “who got left out”, more that likely it should have been, “who didn’t belong”.
Now that we have 12 teams, there are a bunch of pretenders, as shown yesterday. More will show up next round. I mean there was talk of Army getting in a couple weeks ago, because they hadn’t lost.
The rules as far as rosters sizes and scholarships go are just enough to let an SMU, Indiana, Tennessee, come up with a season, due to schedules being so unbalanced with the new huge conferences and 12 team playoff, to get a shot. And take a sh@t.
The old writers/coaches vote was sometimes controversial, but you may have gotten the team with the best season being taken vs. the team who was paying best at the right time.
Click to expand...
To me, the champion should be the best team at the end of the year, not which team had the best overall season. And the best way to find that out is through a tournament that includes the conference champions.

Each team in the tournament will play a minimum of 3 games against teams that are the best from their conference and/or the higher ranked teams. The team that goes undefeated (either 3 or 4 wins in a row) in this version of the playoffs is the best team at the end of the year.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
I don't think the 2011 Giants feel like less than true champions even though they made the playoffs by going 9-7 against a weak division and then running the table in the playoffs.

If you take advantage of the regular season schedule you have , then win your way to the title in the CFP, in my opinion, you've earned it. And if OSU, PSU, and Notre Dame get easy first round wins because SMU, Tennessee, and Indiana got in, they earned that by getting the higher seed and home games. I'm in the camp that actually thinks everything worked out the way it should (aside from some quibbles about seeding) in the inaugural year of the new format.
Click to expand...
The point of what you’re saying is exactly what many CFB don’t want. The nfl rewards winning the postseason. It’s a get survive and advance to be playing your best at the right time. College has always been about full season results. Instead you’re encouraging an nfl lite which sounds awful
 

Some guy said:
I thought Indiana should’ve been in
I think Notre dame is going to the national championship game

I think Notre dame would’ve pounded bama or ole miss last night



If the gophers were 11-1 but beat like one team in the top half of the big ten and played nobody non conference. I would probably say they should be in the playoff but I am not yet sure if they are good enough to win the national title.

The reason why Indiana should be in over bama isn’t because they’re better. We don’t know if they are. But we do know bama loses to mediocre teams and Indiana doesn’t.
Indiana deserved the spot because they might have been one of the best in the country. I already know bama isn’t.
Click to expand...
You’re kidding, right?
 

Jack jones said:
You’re kidding, right?
Click to expand...
No. Indiana isn’t a very physical team. They don’t match up well with physical teams.
They would’ve beat the gophers the first half the year. It would’ve been a pick em for me at the end of the year. And Indiana certainly would’ve been the favorite so the gophers is the smarter bet with the spread.

In the top half of the conference they were 1-1. Beat Michigan by 5 at home.

I would pick home team in most games Indiana Vs top half of the conference.
End of the year Iowa without a QB I pick Indiana at either site. I probably pick them over USC at either site. Against Penn state or Oregon I pick against Indiana either site.



But I still think Indiana should’ve made the playoff. Because that’s speculation. Based on what they actually did was beat up on average and below average teams. Which bama failed to do
 



upnorthkid said:
The point of what you’re saying is exactly what many CFB don’t want. The nfl rewards winning the postseason. It’s a get survive and advance to be playing your best at the right time. College has always been about full season results. Instead you’re encouraging an nfl lite which sounds awful
Click to expand...
I always thought using rankings and a top 2 or 4 for the playoffs was a bit of a personality contest that didn’t always produce the best team to be champion. Sure, it was close, but there were always arguments to be made.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
I don't think the 2011 Giants feel like less than true champions even though they made the playoffs by going 9-7 against a weak division and then running the table in the playoffs.

If you take advantage of the regular season schedule you have , then win your way to the title in the CFP, in my opinion, you've earned it. And if OSU, PSU, and Notre Dame get easy first round wins because SMU, Tennessee, and Indiana got in, they earned that by getting the higher seed and home games. I'm in the camp that actually thinks everything worked out the way it should (aside from some quibbles about seeding) in the inaugural year of the new format.
Click to expand...

It's true that no system is perfect, but I really despise the idea of a committee crowning a champion. I say: prove it on the field.

Anyone who is clutching their pearls in anguish because we might at some point in time see a 3-loss champion must really hate the NFL playoffs as well as March Madness.

The '87 Twins winning the World Series was one of my favorite moments as a sports fan, but there isn't a committee in history that would have crowned those Twins as champions prior to the playoffs.

The Miracle on Ice would never have occurred with a committee picking a winner, rather than playing a tournament.

I was sick to death of the same 4, 5 or six schools dominating the college football landscape year after year. The portal and the playoffs have brought us a much-needed breath of fresh air.
 

WAGopher said:
I always thought using rankings and a top 2 or 4 for the playoffs was a bit of a personality contest that didn’t always produce the best team to be champion. Sure, it was close, but there were always arguments to be made.
Click to expand...
Making this the criteria kind of defeats the season long argument of what CFB has always been. Teams upset teams all the time. Because they’re the “best” in that 3-4 game stretch they should be the champion? We should put the entire sec and b10 given we’ve seen awful teams in those leagues win games in the regular season. To me the 4-8 (5 ccs plus 3 autos) would be a much better combo of the two and I’d much rather go back to 4 than up to 16. Season long success and winning when it matters.
 

RememberMurray said:
It's true that no system is perfect, but I really despise the idea of a committee crowning a champion. I say: prove it on the field.

Anyone who is clutching their pearls in anguish because we might at some point in time see a 3-loss champion must really hate the NFL playoffs as well as March Madness.

The '87 Twins winning the World Series was one of my favorite moments as a sports fan, but there isn't a committee in history that would have crowned those Twins as champions prior to the playoffs.

The Miracle on Ice would never have occurred with a committee picking a winner, rather than playing a tournament.

I was sick to death of the same 4, 5 or six schools dominating the college football landscape year after year. The portal and the playoffs have brought us a much-needed breath of fresh air.
Click to expand...
Look at who will be left after next weekend. It will be those same 4-8 schools with possibly one upshot. The exact same as it was when it was smaller brackets. CFB has also produced its crazy classics in bowl games. The miracle on ice also wasn’t the championship that everyone heralds. The good stories in sports aren’t just because of winning championships
 



upnorthkid said:
Making this the criteria kind of defeats the season long argument of what CFB has always been. Teams upset teams all the time. Because they’re the “best” in that 3-4 game stretch they should be the champion? We should put the entire sec and b10 given we’ve seen awful teams in those leagues win games in the regular season. To me the 4-8 (5 ccs plus 3 autos) would be a much better combo of the two and I’d much rather go back to 4 than up to 16. Season long success and winning when it matters.
Click to expand...
I was a big proponent of 12 if there were going to be 9-10 autobids for the 10 conference champs (which have become 9)

With only 5 auto bids, 8 or 10 is a better number.


But at the same time, I’m okay with 12. Because 11-1 Indiana should be in if 11-2 Texas with 1 quality wins is going to be in.


At 12. We are like 2-3 results away from 11-1 Indiana being left out.
At 8, 11-1 Indiana would be out.

11-1 Indiana needs to be in, in my opinion. Or the playoff has the same problems as the 4 team playoff.
 

upnorthkid said:
The point of what you’re saying is exactly what many CFB don’t want. The nfl rewards winning the postseason. It’s a get survive and advance to be playing your best at the right time. College has always been about full season results. Instead you’re encouraging an nfl lite which sounds awful
Click to expand...
How much did Florida States full regular season (plus conference championship) matter last year?
 

Nick Saban looked really, really cold... and I don't think he appreciated the humor here:

 


upnorthkid said:
Making this the criteria kind of defeats the season long argument of what CFB has always been. Teams upset teams all the time. Because they’re the “best” in that 3-4 game stretch they should be the champion? We should put the entire sec and b10 given we’ve seen awful teams in those leagues win games in the regular season. To me the 4-8 (5 ccs plus 3 autos) would be a much better combo of the two and I’d much rather go back to 4 than up to 16. Season long success and winning when it matters.
Click to expand...
I understand your point of view, but I prefer the more objective approach. Plus this weekend’s games were very fun to watch. 🥳
 


Catechol said:
Even if some team had 3 L’s which were all to top 5 teams, they shouldn’t get in. Why? They’ve already had 3 chances to beat playoff caliber teams and couldn’t do it so they’re unlikely to be able to in the playoff either.
Click to expand...
I can understand 3 losses vs 2 losses but if it's three vs a one loss team where that loss was on the road to a top five team then no chance. Indiana was better in Columbus than my Tennessee was
 


Strongazzoffer said:
I can understand 3 losses vs 2 losses but if it's three vs a one loss team where that loss was on the road to a top five team then no chance. Indiana was better in Columbus than my Tennessee was
Click to expand...
Strength of schedule is a much better argument if you only lost to good teams.

“Bama beat 3 top 20 teams and beat Georgia…they’d have gone at least 11-1 vs Indiana’s schedule”
Is true if bama didn’t lose to mediocre teams. But they lost to two 6-6 teams. So like those dogs Indiana played may have beat bama.
 

upnorthkid said:
The point of what you’re saying is exactly what many CFB don’t want. The nfl rewards winning the postseason. It’s a get survive and advance to be playing your best at the right time. College has always been about full season results. Instead you’re encouraging an nfl lite which sounds awful
Click to expand...
Exactly, regular season doesn’t mean much more than make money and - now - make more money by creating betting opportunities. Then Postseason is about - oh - making more money.
 

Some guy said:
Strength of schedule is a much better argument if you only lost to good teams.

“Bama beat 3 top 20 teams and beat Georgia…they’d have gone at least 11-1 vs Indiana’s schedule”
Is true if bama didn’t lose to mediocre teams. But they lost to two 6-6 teams. So like those dogs Indiana played may have beat bama.
Click to expand...

Indiana's best wins were against 6-6 teams....exactly two of them.
 

MilosRevenge said:
Indiana's best wins were against 6-6 teams....exactly two of them.
Click to expand...
Yup. But Indiana beat them

Alabama was 2-2 against teams that finished 6-6 or worse.
Pro rate that they’d have been 10-2 or 11-1 vs Indiana’s schedule depending on if they beat Ohio state
 


btowngopher said:
I’d put South Carolina in before Ole Miss too.
Click to expand...
I agree. South Carolina was one of the hottest teams in the country in 2nd half of the season. It's too bad the Gamecocks didn't play Tennesee this year. How a team does late in the season should be a consideration in my opinion.
 

btowngopher said:
The one time ever four wasn’t enough. Make it 6-8 teams and you’ll never run into that rare occurrence again.
Click to expand...
2014 four wasn’t enough.
I agree. 8 would be a good number with 5 auto bids.

Although this year we had an 11 win conference champ left out.


At 6 12-1 Boise state whose only loss is by 3 @ the only unbeaten team would be out in favor of 2 loss Georgia, 2 loss Ohio state, 2 loss Texas, and a notre dame team who lost to northern Illinois. And they’d be left out at 8 too if there were no auto bids

Boise state probably going to lose to Penn state. But a system that leaves them out is stupid. If they don’t deserve to be there they’ll simply lose.
 
Last edited:


bleedsmaroonandgold said:
How much did Florida States full regular season (plus conference championship) matter last year?
Click to expand...
You mean because they lost to Georgia in a game that almost half their starting lineup opted out of?

Per ESPN: “The Seminoles played without their top two quarterbacks, top two running backs, top two receivers, starting tight end, three starting defensive linemen, two of three starting linebackers and three starting defensive backs. They were down 29 scholarship players in all.”

Probably not a playoff team without their top two QBs, same as OSU wasn’t when they trotted the SD kid out against mizzou or literally any of the teams this year wouldn’t be.

But they would’ve been in in the system we just drew up. Probably would’ve showed better given less opt outs. You’re picking a very odd circumstance of losing your top two QBs and then getting trashed after over half your starting lineup opts out to try justify what exactly?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom