When was the last time two 2-loss teams had a shot at the title?
OSU out due to loss to Iowa
- Thread starter SayHawkKid
- Start date
See, I don't think so. I think it would have been Bama, anyway. 2 two loss schools when there were several one-loss or 0 loss schools out there. Including UCF. Yet the 3rd best team in the SEC gets in.
I don't think so. Wisky if they'd have beaten OSU by 1 point would have gotten in. Wisky's record/resume is comparable to Alabamas. Bama's best win was against who? A down LSU team? A really down FSU team? They were ranked 3 to start the year but as we found out pre season rankings are garbage and they had no business being up there to begin with. Wisky beat Michigan Iowa and OSU under that scenario. They'd have had to get in. UCF was never getting in schedule was way too weak. Just not even close. USC wasn't even close to getting in when ESPN tried contriving that they were.
So if they don't will you come back and admit you were wrong? It is easy to throw out accusations based on hopes and wishes.
BigD
Well-Known Member
You misspelled “confederate championship” wrong. ^^^^^^^^
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
I stand corrected. I guess I counted the Clone loss twice. (I actually thought they list to Texas for some reason).
Motigerhawk
Well-Known Member
I bet tOSU is pissed they had to play 9 conference games instead of 8. Think if they could have played Mercer instead of Iowa.
SayHawkKid
Well-Known Member
The Committee Member did not say it was a bad loss to Iowa because of the score but I guess that is what he should have said (or was afraid to say?). My point is a home loss to a 7 - 5 isu team that rarely beats top ranked teams on the road is much worse than an away loss to an Iowa team that regularly beats top ranked teams in Kinnick and therefore Ok should not have been in the #2 spot.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
The problem I have with things is no one has answered what Bama did to get in. People want to point to what OSU and Wiscy and others did to find themselves on the outside looking in, but no ones really came out and made a valid argument for what Bama has done this year to deserve to work there way back in after losing to Auburn.
I guess multiple national championships, conference affiliation, reputation, rankings, and brand name means more than proving it on the field. But then again I guess 1 loss and your best win being against LSU and not playing the best team in your conference speaks for itself.
I don't care that Bama may still be favored to win it all and was arguably the best team in the county all season long. What I want to know is criteria the committee is using to put them in at #4, because it has nothing to do with strength of schedule, winning their conference (or division for that matter), or putting together a resume that says they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I guess multiple national championships, conference affiliation, reputation, rankings, and brand name means more than proving it on the field. But then again I guess 1 loss and your best win being against LSU and not playing the best team in your conference speaks for itself.
I don't care that Bama may still be favored to win it all and was arguably the best team in the county all season long. What I want to know is criteria the committee is using to put them in at #4, because it has nothing to do with strength of schedule, winning their conference (or division for that matter), or putting together a resume that says they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
This year, there is a clear Top 3, but not really a clear top 4. Alabama is the least unworthy to be in the playoffs. It would have been different if Wisconsin had won, but they didn't, so it allowed Ohio State to get back in the discussion of the "last one in" based on the criteria of winning the conference, yet still having such a "bad loss."
Ohio State, Alabama, the talking heads, and the CFP committee are so hypocritical when it comes to the importance of the 13th data point.
Ohio State, Alabama, the talking heads, and the CFP committee are so hypocritical when it comes to the importance of the 13th data point.
I agree but I do like to expect average on offense as we usually get above avg to very good on defense. If this years team could just play 4 qtrs of consistently average offense they would be 9-3 at least.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
The problem though goes well beyond that 13th data point. UCF is punished for "not playing anyone" yet Bama gets rewarded for only losing to Auburn, while not playing Georgia and having their best win be LSU. OSU gets back in to the discussion having "such a bad loss" yet Bama gets in without a marquee win and a strength of schedule similar to Wisconsin's that was "soft". The process/committee as a whole is hypocritical and I think everyone should have access to exactly what is going on behind closed doors.
judzeehawk
Well-Known Member
I think if they would of taken PSU last year instead of OSU bama wouldn't of made it this year. The committee screwed it up last year so they obligated to put bama in their.
GrandpaHawk
Well-Known Member
I Hope Bama gets beat as bad as Ohio St did last year.
I doubt they get beat that bad, they have too many players, I mean their defense should keep them in games with some pro teams
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
It's true. If the offense could just avoid being sh**** we would've finished higher. But hey, it's much more fun to lose with stubbornness than win with creativity.
Did anyone notice every time we broke our tendencies even a little bit we got big returns on our investment?
Can you imagine if we tossed in some tempo or maybe some option or wildcat with Boyle what our opponent would think? Their craniums would explode. It would be like looking directly into the sun. Or maybe we use Wadley like Harmon or lean on our TEs for the passing game. Oh my I'm getting dizzy from the possibilities.
