In an 8 team playoff, yes. Put differently, would you be ok with OSU getting in if they couldn't beat Northwestern?
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
No B1G in the playoff.
- Thread starter Hville
- Start date
In an 8 team playoff, yes. Put differently, would you be ok with OSU getting in if they couldn't beat Northwestern?
But we didn’t, did we? This year’s playoff with AQs for conference champs would have been:
‘Bama
Clemson
ND
OU
Georgia
OSU
UCF
Washington
If that’s “absolutely boring, useless, bad TV” to you, I question whether you are a fan of college football outside of the Huskers.
Yeah...and i will probably hit the Powerball wednesday
I lied.....I jumped in again. Without automatic qualifiers are you telling me Michigan with 2 losses is bad TV over Washington with 3 losses? In 16 pages I haven't seen a single good argument for why there should be automatic qualifiers.
Christ...…..one poster went as far to say it would prevent Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson and OU from being in the playoffs every year. Do you realize most of the time they ARE conference champs? For some reason we have posters that believe having automatic qualifiers would have prevented the top 4 that have been in there the last 7 years from being there. This is absolute ridiculous. People want to change the system because the best teams keep getting in there and they think putting automatic undeserving qualifiers will kick out the best teams.
I have an idea....lets develop a system where we rule out Alabama, Clemson and the SEC because we don't like them. That is the jest of this last 16 pages.
Wrong. Again.
I’m not sure why you directed this at me. I literally didn’t make a single one of the arguments you are attacking.
Sorry. It wasn't meant at you.
With that type of thought process then we should have a three team playoff this year because nobody should be in the playoff that has lost because they proved they aren't the best in the country already. Welcome to my ignore list with that logic.
Ignore? Because I am trouncing you.
If you are still reading....
WHERE did I say that having a loss or two necessarily eliminates Michigan or anyone else from being considered for a playoff designed to identify the best?
Tip: I didn't.
But we DO have clear evidence that they are NOT the best team in the country. Two things prove that. 1. The aren't the best in their conference. 2. They aren't even the best in their division. They are at best 2nd best in the Big 10. We KNOW that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Obviously that won't always be a killer. We have to fill 8 spots SOMEHOW. But in this case undefeated UCF and ND obviously get in...we have no evidence either one of them is not king. And then there is UGA...they did win their division though so advantage them when it comes to consideration. A non division winner has no business in a playoff. Period.
Teams with losses are obviously not necessarily eliminated. There is not nearly enough inter-league play among the top teams to really prove a whole hell of a lot. That is why winning your conference is paramount. By doing so you are proving you are the best of a subset of college football. So we are giving that team passage into the playoffs. From there there are some rather easy qualifiers and eliminators.
The real question becomes what does one see as the purpose of a playoff. I see it as a matter of not knowing who really is the best team and doing our best to whittle the field down throughout the season by as many objective means as possible. The conference title thing is an obvious qualifier as it eliminates just about everybody. The division loser is obvious as well.
You come at it from the perspective of we already KNOW who the best teams are based on the eye test, pre-season rankings and let's just have a beauty pageant.
Tell me this. Most people would agree that UCF 2017 is better than UCF 2018. So how is it that 2018 is ranked higher than 2017? It is ENTIRELY based on the fact that they were already ranked pre-season and had some hype heading into 2018. If Michigan wasn't Michigan but instead "Rutgers" we all know they would be ranked outside of the top 8. The polls are flawed at least to a degree. Conference titles are indisputable.
Nobody who agrees with my format will argue that 8 best teams will make it. What i will say is that the 8 best teams had every opportunity to make it. No playoff system in existence gets the best 8, 16, 64 teams in the playoffs. But college football is the only one done.purely on a beauty contest that is heavily biased towards rankings that are established before a single team has played a game as far as I know. By expanding to 8 you can eliminate that craziness.
Last edited:
You can't plan for something based on the best most likely outcome ... you have to look at the downsides, the negatives and the unlikely possibilities.
So Georgia who's already lost to Alabama, UCF who's best win is Memphis, 3-loss Washington with losses to 7-5 Cal and 7-5 Auburn.
You're letting in too many teams who haven't done enough to deserve a chance at the title.
The argument against a 4-team playoff is you're keeping out tOSU, UCF and Georgia.
The argument for an 8-team playoff is you're letting in Georgia, Washington, UCF and tOSU.
In expanding the playoffs you are diluting the regular season. You're devaluing each and every game.
In creating an 8-team playoff you also create the POSSIBILITY for even worse matchups and multiple 3 and 4-loss teams being allowed to compete.
Last edited:
That would be so incredibly rare that it isnt even a consideration.
IM me with the numbers
