-
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 .
Louisville at Houston
- Thread starter Ackos
- Start date
I was thinking all week this might happen.
After the debate about the playoff standings and Louisville at #5 .... and wondering if the ACC or Big Ten might get two teams in the playoff ... and Houston basically forgotten, yet 8-2 heading into this game.
Boom.
Lots of game left, but Houston came out on fire tonight.
The Big Ten would love to see Louisville go down. As would a few other teams.
After the debate about the playoff standings and Louisville at #5 .... and wondering if the ACC or Big Ten might get two teams in the playoff ... and Houston basically forgotten, yet 8-2 heading into this game.
Boom.
Lots of game left, but Houston came out on fire tonight.
The Big Ten would love to see Louisville go down. As would a few other teams.
Took Houston and 17.5. I think I'm safe.
The committee can thank Houston this thins the field a little.
Last edited:
And this is why the playoffs do not need to be expanded past 4 teams. There's talk every year about all the deserving teams and by the end of the regular season most of those teams find a way to lose another game...
8 teams in all but guarantees multiple loss teams will have a shot at the national title. No thanks...
Okay. All Husker fans butt hurt from the tOSU game result can probably take a step back from the ledge. Bad games happen to good teams.
Endless argument.
But four teams suggests you could have a 1-loss Power Five conference champ left out.
It works both ways.
As I've said many times previously, my reasoning for 8 teams is to guarantee a slot for every power five conference. And honestly, I'd love to see a team like Western Michigan (10-0 currently) -- have a shot. Sure, they might get their asses handed to them, but I'm not a fan of closing the doors on these types of teams -- or you might as well not have non-Power 5 conferences in the FBS.
Certainly, there's valid arguments on both sides. And I cannot discount yours. But personally, I enjoy more meaningful games in the post-season. But I'd never go beyond 8. And I doubt it would ever happen anyhow (for many reasons).
Last edited:
I'd rather have one "deserving" team get left out than have 3 undeserving teams get in. Granted it's a small sample size, but the first year is the only time a one loss champ was left out. Play a meaningful out of conference schedule (looking at you Big 12) and it's tougher for the committee to overlook you. I'd rather see teams schedule better games during the regular season. Give the season ticket holders better games than the crap a lot of the out of conference games most colleges schedule now.
Last edited:
Well yeah they do. Still have a second half to make it respectable, but right now right they are getting killed and it is funny.
I definitely understand your argument. And it may be good enough for it to never expand beyond four. We will see. I will not complain one bit if it goes to 8 -- many will agree, many will not.
Regarding scheduling better teams during the regular season (you are suggesting non-conference games, obviously), that will never change.
What good did it do Oklahoma? Barring a bunch more upsets, they will be left out of the playoff, even having gone undefeated in the Big 12 -- but they lost to Houston and Ohio State in the non-conference, and that put them on life support before October even started. Look at Louisville .. had they not scheduled Houston as a non-conference game, they'd be in pretty good shape. And look at Washington -- who scheduled Rutgers, Portland State, and Idaho -- yet they are in better shape to make the playoff now than either Oklahoma or Louisville. There simply is more to lose than gain in the majority of instances when scheduling tough non-conference teams. In fact, if every Power Five school scheduled like Oklahoma did, you'd be going against your argument of multiple loss teams being in the playoff -- as I'd bet 1-3 teams would have two or more losses in the playoffs every season.
Last edited:
