Started By
Message
re: Bowls prove Stanford should have been 4th playoff seed.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:18 pm to BamaScoop
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:18 pm to BamaScoop
The season said otherwise.........one game should never decide it, except the last one.
If that's the case, let's just play out the whole season, play bowl games......then throw out all records and "eye test" the best 4 based on nothing else other than who played the best at the end.
If that's the case, let's just play out the whole season, play bowl games......then throw out all records and "eye test" the best 4 based on nothing else other than who played the best at the end.
This post was edited on 1/3/16 at 4:16 pm
0
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:18 pm to JCdawg
Meh, I personally didn't think there was a worthy 4th team, but I thought Stanford was better than Oklahoma. Unfortunately, when you lose two games, you really don't have much of an argument...especially when one of those losses was to Northwestern.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:19 pm to Diamondawg
Put Oklahoma in Stanford's schedule and they have at least 4 losses.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:20 pm to JCdawg
Every year people will say thi shite about the first one or two left out.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:21 pm to JCdawg
quote:You know this how?
Put Oklahoma in Stanford's schedule and they have at least 4 losses.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:24 pm to Diamondawg
Oklahoma lost to fricking Texas. You think Stanford would have lost to Texas?
Pac-12 is vastly superior to the Big 12 top to bottom.
Pac-12 is vastly superior to the Big 12 top to bottom.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:25 pm to Diamondawg
BlOwU lost to the tea sips.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:25 pm to JCdawg
Agree and I think Stanford would have beaten Clemson.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:28 pm to VoiceofReason95
quote:
Agree and I think Stanford would have beaten Clemson.
I completely agree and I think Clemson is a pretty good team. People seem to forget Clemson's body of work. Remember then squeaking out a win to Louisville on the road, or South Carolina? Two bad to mediocre teams. I couldn't believe the love Oklahoma was getting by the end of the year after the loss to Texas and close wins over TCU and Baylor with backup quarterbacks, and then they don't even play a championship game.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:29 pm to JCdawg
quote:
Oklahoma lost to fricking Texas. You think Stanford would have lost to Texas?
No.
I also don't think Oklahoma would have been dominated by Northwestern, either.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:31 pm to The Quiet One
quote:
No.
I also don't think Oklahoma would have been dominated by Northwestern, either.
Maybe not, but neither Mayfield or McCaffery were established players that early in the season. Stanford was the better team top to bottom, and it wasn't even close.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:32 pm to JCdawg
11-2 with a stronger schedule > 11-1 with a weaker schedule and no conference championship.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:33 pm to VoiceofReason95
I don't know why everyone thinks PAC 12 is so much better than big ten. Almost everything else says otherwise. Head to head. Rankings. Bowl games. Etc
Stanford whipping Iowa is really the only good thing they've done.
Michigan st beat Oregon. Northwestern beat Stanford. Nebraska beat ucla. Wisconsin beat USC. Utah did beat Michigan
But you haven't even included Ohio state yet
Maybe Colorado is better than Purdue etc. but Oregon state sucks too. Maybe the bottom 3-4 teams are better
I don't see it that way at all. The problem with big ten is Wisconsin Iowa mich st, Michigan, Ohio state didn't all play each other so they kind of had a screwed up champ game
Stanford whipping Iowa is really the only good thing they've done.
Michigan st beat Oregon. Northwestern beat Stanford. Nebraska beat ucla. Wisconsin beat USC. Utah did beat Michigan
But you haven't even included Ohio state yet
Maybe Colorado is better than Purdue etc. but Oregon state sucks too. Maybe the bottom 3-4 teams are better
I don't see it that way at all. The problem with big ten is Wisconsin Iowa mich st, Michigan, Ohio state didn't all play each other so they kind of had a screwed up champ game
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:45 pm to RJYH
Double eliminated.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 12:58 pm to JCdawg
Both of the teams they lost to fell in the bowls. One lost to a team fielding its 17th string QB. The other got completely humiliated. Stanford's two losses no longer look quality.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 1:02 pm to JCdawg
Not that I don't agree with your overall point that Stanford is prolly the better team than OU.
But one game doesn't prove anything.
But one game doesn't prove anything.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 1:04 pm to JCdawg
Michigan St/Iowa were bigger pretenders than OU..
We probably should have been looking at
1) Clemson
2) Alabama
3) Oklahoma
4) Ohio St
We probably should have been looking at
1) Clemson
2) Alabama
3) Oklahoma
4) Ohio St
This post was edited on 1/3/16 at 1:05 pm
Posted on 1/3/16 at 1:06 pm to bmy
quote:
Michigan St/Iowa were bigger pretenders than OU..
With the exception of Bama and Clemson, who wasn't a pretender? Those two are the only teams that there's no dispute about anymore. We can insert any other team in the 3 and 4 spots and we'd still be looking at a Bama/Clemson game on the 11th.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 1:09 pm to JCdawg
Lost to Northwestern and Oregon, two Bowl losers. Shouldn't even be top ten. The most overrated top ten team this year, including Iowa.
Posted on 1/3/16 at 1:15 pm to JCdawg
In my opinion teams that deserve a shot at the national championship are teams that have played the best consistently over the year, not necessarily the team playing the best at the end of the season. So for me, record matters just as much as how well the team is playing. So for Stanford they are out simply because they have two losses. If this was a year similar to 2007...then yes they would deserve a shot.
Page 2 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News