re: Quarterfinals Predictions

I do think this year’s playoff will be more telling.

Boise State, ASU and Oregon all seem to come to life in the 2nd half last year.

Oregon vs Tech will be the most telling because on paper it’s a pick’em.

quote:

---

Northwestern is 7-5 (and favored to end up 8-5) and doesn’t belong in the list with Oregon State, Okie State and FCS programs.

---

Had to double check. northwestern is 6-6, and they play Central Michigan in their Bowl game. They try to get as even a matchup as they can for Bowls, so them being paired with central Michigan tells you all you need to know about Northwestern.

They lost to:
Tulane 23-3
Oregon 34-14
Nebraska 28-21
USC 38-17
Michigan 24-22
Illinois 20-13

Not sure where you saw them at 7-5. And yes...they were not good. They may not be 2-10 or 1-11, but they are a bad team. Maybe not horrible, but they certainly are bad.

Yes, they’re 6-6.

They don’t belong in the same list as the OP.

West Virginia, UCF and Kansas are lower on Sagarin’s than Northwestern. If you think they’re “bad” than sure

Again, the list was Okie State, Montana St, Oregon State and Northwestern:

One wasn’t like the other. That was the context. Okie State had one win and Oregon State 2 wins.

Half of Tech’s schedule is worse than Northwestern.

I also don’t think all 6-6 teams are equal. Penn State probably hit the floor if they play that schedule a 100 times.

A lot of the analytics love Penn St

quote:

---

Suprised posters picking Oregon to beat Texas Tech. Oregon's schedule was softer than Notre Dames and Texas A&M's. The only hard team they played was Indiana and USC....and they lost to Indiana. Texas Tech played a team ranked in the top 12 in the playoff in BYU and beat them twice and Texas Tech's defense is no joke.

---

Playoffs is about talent more than how "good" people perceive a team's schedule to be.

Last year in the final four, the teams had talent composites of 3 (OSU), 4 (Texas), 9 (ND) and 11 (PSU).

I'm not sure exactly where the "line" is for having enough talent to win the national title, but it's somewhere between 15th and 25th I think.

This year we have Oregon (5th) vs TT (29th), Bama (2nd) vs Indiana (72nd), UGA (1st) vs Ole Miss (21st) and OSU (3rd) vs Miami (15th).

I'm picking the more talented team in each game, but wouldn't be shocked if Miami or Ole Miss advanced. I'll be more surprised if Indiana or Texas Tech moves on. Miami beating OSU would be similar to Notre Dame beating UGA last year (9th in talent beating 2nd). In both those games both teams have enough talent to win a national title. They're not playing an untalented opponent. Last year that was Boise State, Arizona State and Indiana, all of whom lost the first game they played.

Tennessee was similar to Ole Miss (UT was 17th in talent last year, OM is 21st this year). Borderline talent levels. They might be able to pull it off but they're not definitely a contender.

quote:

---

Again, the list was Okie State, Montana St, Oregon State and Northwestern:

---

And again, I made it clear when I posted that I was referring to this post:

quote:

---

Notthwestern wasn’t a bad team.

---

I get it. Northwestern was not as bad as the other teams mentioned, but they were/are still a bad team. They beat two G5 teams and lost to another one. Against any decent competition they won 4 games. That is not good no matter how you slice it.

The other teams mentioned were horrible. But that still does not make Northwestern a good team. They were bad. now, if you still disagree, that's ok. Make your case for them to not be considered bad.

quote:

---

Just because a team isn't good, doesn't mean they're bad. This isn't difficult to understand.

---

So...meh?

Give me the parameters of a good and a bad team, then.

Do you consider:
Schedule
win/loss record


Let me put it to you this way. Northwestern did not beat a single ranked team. They lost to one team that lost 5 games and one from G5. They beat one team that lost 9 games by 3 points.

What did Northwestern do that you believe qualified them to NOT be considered bad? What was their big accomplishment that lifted them from bad to meh?

Their best wins were against 7-5 Minnesota and 6-6 Penn State.

quote:

---

I get it. Northwestern was not as bad as the other teams mentioned, but they were/are still a bad team. They beat two G5 teams and lost to another one. Against any decent competition they won 4 games. That is not good no matter how you slice it.

The other teams mentioned were horrible. But that still does not make Northwestern a good team. They were bad. now, if you still disagree, that's ok. Make your case for them to not be considered bad.

---

I don't know about Northwestern, but you are in many ways describing Auburn. Who in reality was probably about the 25th best team in football this year.

And when you look at their schedule and the results, it's not a surprise. They played a tough schedule and barely lost to multiple highly ranked teams.

Win loss records are a poor way to judge teams strength wise.

Northwestern ranked #50 in FEI with a score of .26, so they are barely above average. Not good, not bad.

At this point...KD is as inconsistent as a coach can be, and IU coach is Saban like in his ability to consistently win games..and never lays an egg.

Bama got the Jimmy's and Joes to win it, but in a game like this I trust IU coach 100X more than Bama coach.

So gut tells me IU controls the game from start to finish and never trails.

But, wouldn't be shocked if Bama came out on fire and lit them and won the game.