Because they should have to prove they can win 4 playoff games as well. Teams improve as the year goes on--see Oregon for example
Don't reply to this guy. Ignore him. Not a PSU fan. On here to annoy real fans with his negative propoganda that is always clueless and agenda driven.
Tennessee beat LSU by 27--it could be interesting because Georgia still gets in. It's going to come down to if they get 3 teams....
Like he has any clue. He would have and probably did say the same thing about Saquon Barkley. Complete and utter nonsense is what he spews.
They only play 2
Jury is out on that one. It just may be they had their most difficult game first.
Is Oregon really better? They beat UCLA but what does that mean? I don't think they are very good. We'll see where this stand at the end of the season.
Yes, they're better--not saying elite but they're better now than they were week one. Nix is more comfortable in the offense, etc.
Not trying to be argumentative but why is it a joke? Has there been a year in the playoff era when you think the best team in the country wasn't in the playoffs? Or for that matter, didn't make the championship game? I could be wrong, but I think the only time a team that wasn't 1 or 2 won the championship was OSU in 2014.
I agree with your point - although it certainly not ideal when 5 and 6 are so close to 4. This year is def the year more than ever that someone outside the top 2 could win it. But more importantly I think only having 4 has had a huge impact on recruiting. If more teams made the playoff I think the spread between one and 12 would be very different than it is right now with only 4 making the playoff. If I’m osu I tell recruits if you want to make the playoff come here. We even made it when psu beat us and we didn’t even win the division - but regardless we almost always win the conference let alone the division!
Because it's four team in a league with 131. Until all conference champs are included it's not a legit system. It's more difficult to win 4-5 straight games in a playoff setting than 2. It's why FCS has 24 teams. Until FBS gets to 24, or at least 16 with all conference winners, it's not a legit playoff.
They aren’t expanding out of some noble idea to ensure the most successful team is deemed champion.
They're expanding because of money and they finally felt enough pressure to do so. And, yes, keeping more teams in the race is good for the sport. See MLB and the NFL expanding their playoffs. See March Madness going to 68. Anything short of the NBA's nonsense is good for the game. You want more teams to have meaningful games throughout the season as opposed to some who they only meaningful game they have is trying to upset someone to ruin their season.
I don't disagree with you often but this is your worst take
That’s opinion. In this day and age of participation trophy views, that is what the majority wants.
I agree with you. The issue has been that the Bowls fought this for years. They wanted to continue with the series of bowl games where they make tons of money. The compromise has been that these bowls get the playoff series so they are made whole. Everyone is happy. Now, four teams is not enough and that has been recognized. Anyone who is not in the top 12 really has no shot. For example, teams 13 ~ 20 include PSU, Utah, NC, NC state, Tulane Tex, Liberty, ND....None of those schools has a realistic shot to win a MNC.
They'll just change which games are meaningful. This year, UT/Bama, UT/GA and Bama/LSU were meaningful. Once we go to 12, not so much. Those teams are all in win or lose. Maybe they mean a little because of homefield advantage in the playoffs but that's about it.
I think home field will be big. If we have 12, the top 4 will get a bye week. the other 8 play in.
No it wasn't. The outcome is most games didn't matter. Now it will matter in far more
I have never made this claim, so provide one quote of mine that supports this statement. Heck, teams within the same conference don’t even play similar schedules.
I never claimed they played the same schedules. Teams with 1-loss or more can certainly be compared. Undefeated teams make things a little more difficult because no matter what one thinks, one doesn’t know for sure what it takes for said unbeaten team to lose until they do. Being a PSU fan, also I have a soft spot for unbeaten teams.
You want to talk facts? Quit making unfounded and incorrect accusations. Nowhere have a stated that only unbeaten teams should be included, or that 1-loss teams should be excluded. Provide a quote of mine that states this or quit making the accusations.
You're saying the President's Trophy means more than the Stanley Cup?
Every team had games that mattered until their failure meant that they didn't matter in regards to being the most successful team. You tell me the team, I will tell you where they failed.
As a very successful coach once said (paraphrased) - we don’t need a President to tell us we were undefeated.
No it can't mean as much.
But we weren't considered the national champs...which is why that "very successful coach" wanted one
