Started By
Message
re: Did playoffs get it right?
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:05 pm to PepaSpray
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:05 pm to PepaSpray
I questioned OU from the start. I think they played two conference teams without their QB's and maybe played one with their 3rd team QB with a schedule that wasn't very tough anyway to begin with.
Biggest thing was that UGLY, UGLY loss to Texas.
I said before they played Clemson that they would get run and nobody believed me. ESPN made it sound like they were a legitimate title contender. I didn't believe they were legitimate top 10 material. We saw what happened.
I guess Ohio St. should have been there but didn't take care of MSU and I believe MSU beat them with a backup QB.
Biggest thing was that UGLY, UGLY loss to Texas.
I said before they played Clemson that they would get run and nobody believed me. ESPN made it sound like they were a legitimate title contender. I didn't believe they were legitimate top 10 material. We saw what happened.
I guess Ohio St. should have been there but didn't take care of MSU and I believe MSU beat them with a backup QB.
1
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:07 pm to Roses of Crimson
It is hard to judge, like you said.
I think the panel who decides lacks some balls. Someone should have pointed out OU lost to Texas and like you said beat good teams that were missing the starting qb.
Again it worked out this time, but I do not think it will consistently.
I think the panel who decides lacks some balls. Someone should have pointed out OU lost to Texas and like you said beat good teams that were missing the starting qb.
Again it worked out this time, but I do not think it will consistently.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:08 pm to BamaScoop
They got it right and the best TEAM won! 
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:12 pm to BamaScoop
Signed - Ole Miss con Laremy Tunsil
This post was edited on 1/12/16 at 1:13 pm
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:12 pm to BamaScoop
Ohio State would have been a more dangerous team than Michigan State and prob Oklahoma but they didn't deserve it based on how they played and the ultimate results, which should be all that matters.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:13 pm to BamaScoop
I don't think Oklahoma should have been jumped by Michigan State.
But other than that, yeah.
But other than that, yeah.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:16 pm to RandySavage
quote:
Ohio State would have been a more dangerous team than Michigan State and prob Oklahoma but they didn't deserve it based on how they played and the ultimate results, which should be all that matters.
also with the way college football plays out, Stanford was extremely hot at the end of the year... but they were never going to be in the playoffs because they started off slow. This isn't the NFL, to get to the dance you have to have a full year of "good"
If they only lose to Oregon during the year, and not also Iowa at the very beginning, and if OSU doesn't win the NCG last year, I think we have Stanford in the playoffs and not MSU.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:18 pm to BaddestAndvari
when you have more teams in the playoffs, the selection committee will get more cover.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:19 pm to BamaScoop
The BCS would have gotten it right this year. In retrospect the semifinal round was pretty much unnecessary.
This post was edited on 1/12/16 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:22 pm to BamaScoop
Of course they got it right. The two best teams played for the title and the only major conference champion left out of the playoff had multiple losses. While there are two or three teams out there who COULD beat Bama or Clemson, there were none who earned the opportunity to try. Easy call this year.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:24 pm to higgs_boson
I dunno, I like the competition in college football better. And the rivalries. And the fact that EVERY game is important. I don't get the same excitement from NFL football. I'll watch it, but I'm not nearly as invested as I am with college football. It's just more thrilling to me.
I don't think we really need to tweak the playoff system as much any more. (A lot are going to disagree with me on that, I'm sure, though.) But, it makes regular season games less important. I don't want to get to a day where 4-5 loss teams are competing for the national championship, and it's all watered down and everybody has a shot. I like the exclusiveness, and the way the set up is.
I don't think we really need to tweak the playoff system as much any more. (A lot are going to disagree with me on that, I'm sure, though.) But, it makes regular season games less important. I don't want to get to a day where 4-5 loss teams are competing for the national championship, and it's all watered down and everybody has a shot. I like the exclusiveness, and the way the set up is.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:26 pm to VivaZapata27
I think they got it right this year. Think most rational people knew that as long as Kiffin didn't get too crazy, Bama was the best team in the nation. That front 7 is historically good and the offense did what they needed to. As much as I hate them, Ohio State is the 3rd best team in the nation, followed by Stanford. I never thought Oklahoma or Mich State was that good but based on their records, they deserved to be in the playoff.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:29 pm to TouchdownAlabama
quote:
I don't think we really need to tweak the playoff system as much any more. (A lot are going to disagree with me on that, I'm sure, though.
I see your point. It is not as important this year anyway, since it worked out.
I would just like to see eight teams. It just seems screwed up that you have five power conferences the non power five and only four spots. They are really just not enough decent OOC games to judge it fairly to be sure you are getting the correct final four.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:34 pm to BamaScoop
Stanford was a better team than MSU, so if the committee is going to stick by their claim that it's about the best teams and not resumes, they did not get all 4 right.
That said, Bama would have mollywopped Stanford just like they did to MSU, so the championship game was correct.
Funny thing is, the BCS would have had........
Bama vs. Clemson.
That said, Bama would have mollywopped Stanford just like they did to MSU, so the championship game was correct.
Funny thing is, the BCS would have had........
Bama vs. Clemson.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:37 pm to RB10
The playoffs suck. Any expansion to them would further erode the regular season and bowl system.
No going back now of course, but we could of had Bama and Clemson without the two semifinal games
No going back now of course, but we could of had Bama and Clemson without the two semifinal games
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:38 pm to BamaScoop
quote:
Did playoffs get it right?
Yes but I'm not convinced that Bama is really better than Clemson.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 1:46 pm to GurleyGirl
quote:
Yes but I'm not convinced that Bama is really better than Clemson.
Wtf does that have to do with anything regarding the playoff committee?
Posted on 1/13/16 at 11:30 am to GurleyGirl
quote:
Yes but I'm not convinced that Bama is really better than Clemson.
Wait, wait, wait. You're not?
Well shite.
Somebody better tell em to hold the truck.
PLEASE let us know your verdict the SECOND you've decided. We're holding our breath on whether or not we can bring the trophy on in.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 11:31 am to BamaScoop
Clemson and Alabama were by far the top two teams. 3 and 4 could generate discussion, but it didn't matter in the end
Posted on 1/13/16 at 11:40 am to BaddestAndvari
quote:
If they [Stanford] only lose to Oregon during the year, and not also Iowa at the very beginning
They didn't lose to Iowa...they lost to Northwestern, 16-6...
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News