Started By
Message
Bowls prove Stanford should have been 4th playoff seed.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:10 pm
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:10 pm
I cannot understand why analyst and the playoff committee thought Oklahoma was the fourth best team in the country. They lost to Texas and played TCU and Baylor's backup quarterbacks. Then to top it off, they didn't play a conference championship game, and the Big 12 hasn't performed well in bowl games for a while.
Meanwhile, Stanford played nine conference games, a championship game, and Northwestern and Notre Dame out of conference. So they only played one non power five or independent team, and went 10-2 with that schedule. Then proceeded to blow out Iowa in the same fashion as Alabama blew out Michigan State.
I could not believe they put Oklahoma in.
Meanwhile, Stanford played nine conference games, a championship game, and Northwestern and Notre Dame out of conference. So they only played one non power five or independent team, and went 10-2 with that schedule. Then proceeded to blow out Iowa in the same fashion as Alabama blew out Michigan State.
I could not believe they put Oklahoma in.
32
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:11 pm to JCdawg
quote:
Bowls prove Stanford should have been 4th playoff seed.
Agreed. Their 2 losses came against a much tougher schedule than the crap Big10, and they won a championship game, unlike the Big12.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:12 pm to JCdawg
The bowls didn't prove anything except that the BCS is a superior system. The playoffs are retarded.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:12 pm to JCdawg
BCS wasn't that bad was it?
Someone will always bitch and complain about the method we are using. Whether it be a 4 team, 8 team playoff or whether the committee gets it right or wrong.
Someone will always bitch and complain about the method we are using. Whether it be a 4 team, 8 team playoff or whether the committee gets it right or wrong.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:12 pm to sullivanct19a
Two losses.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:12 pm to JCdawg
They are a impressive team but let's not act like Iowa is actually good because they aren't. They benafited from a crap schedule
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:12 pm to JCdawg
You would do this 20/20 hindsight thing even with 8 teams. I agree that the hype on Oklahoma for beating everyone's backups was a bit much, but the great majority of people really thought Oklahoma deserved it more. I feel no sympathy for a two loss team.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:13 pm to JCdawg
And when they got their shite pushed in by Clemson everyone would ha e cried that OU should have been in. Remember all the the are playing better than anyone talk?
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:13 pm to JCdawg
I've been saying this since it was announced. Unfortunately the whole "two loss" thing is unforgivable, even if one was the first game of the year. It's BS.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:13 pm to JCdawg
But there has to be a cutoff and the regular season has to count. You can't have two losses and then have a valid argument for getting into the playoffs when there are undefeated and one loss teams out there, Sorry but you have to handle your business in the regular season.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:14 pm to cajunbama
Ohio state would beat Stanford. Buckeyes not winning that league screwed everything up
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:14 pm to sullivanct19a
Agree....I watched Stanford several times this season and I would have had them in there over OU.
But it was fun watching 'Big Game Bob' getting boat raced on the big stage again.
But it was fun watching 'Big Game Bob' getting boat raced on the big stage again.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:15 pm to sullivanct19a
quote:
Agreed. Their 2 losses came against a much tougher schedule than the crap Big10, and they won a championship game, unlike the Big12.
One of their two losses came against a Big Ten team.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:16 pm to JCdawg
NO i think it proves Iowa sucks
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:16 pm to gladchiefisgone
Stanford lost to Northwestern 16-6, didn't even score a touchdown and Northwester was destroyed in the bowl game by Tennessee. Stanford deserved no place in the playoffs.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:16 pm to RJYH
Two losses shouldn't matter when they played a much much tougher schedule and are clearly the better team. It is about the best four teams, and Oklahoma wasn't one of those teams. A loss to a ranked Northwestern and ranked Oregon team is less of a blemish than a loss against Texas. Not to mention they had one more quality win in the Pac12 championship, that negates one of the good losses.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:17 pm to MeatPants
quote:
Ohio state would beat Stanford. Buckeyes not winning that league screwed everything up
This I agree with. If anyone was left out that deserved a shot it was Ohio State.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:17 pm to JCdawg
No one to blame but Stanford. If you want to be in the playoffs, win your games.
Iowa was barely a top 20 team.
Iowa was barely a top 20 team.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:18 pm to cajunbama
quote:
And when they got their shite pushed in by Clemson everyone would ha e cried that OU should have been in. Remember all the the are playing better than anyone talk?
I watch as much college football as anyone and I never believed that.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:18 pm to JCdawg
If you want to base it on the bowls you are right about Stanford but wrong about who they should have replaced.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News