Next National Champ.
- Thread starter joeaubie21
- Start date
The eye test still matters and that is something that is not currently an issue for us--thankfully--see us being ranked #3
Could be a 3 loss Georgia at #11. Gulp. Could be a 1 loss Miami. Not bad. Could be Notre Dame. Not bad. Could be LSU or Ole Miss or Tennessee.
If we lose close to OSU, and then they get beat convincingly by Oregon in the CCG, then I could definitely see us at 11-1 being #5 and OSU at 11-2 being #6 or #7, depending on who else is worthy.
That said, I'm not sold on Oregon yet. OSU's first big test on the road in one of the top home venues in the country...and they just fell short. On a neutral field, I think OSU handles them.
Oregon has been quite average until the OSU game. Average, for a top 5 ranked team, I mean. Not dominant at all.
I would love OSU to lose at Michigan...and then we--whether we win or lose on Nov. 2--play 11-1 or 12-0 Oregon for the Big Ten title. I like our chances.
OSU is home vs Michigan and they will win that one. Heck, I think Michigan could lose to Illinois this week on the road, Indiana on the road, Oregon at home and OSU on the road. I hope that happens but they probably get one or two of those but still are staring at 4 losses.
OSU will beat Oregon in a rematch. Things could work out for us to be #5 but I think it is unlikely.
I find all this discussion of where all the lucky losers, you know the ones who didn't win there conference, get seeded for the national championship "playoff". It's just a nice, entertaining, money producing tournament.
Why should team A who beat team B to win there conference have to play and beat team B again?
I'll watch it and enjoy the games but I'll never think the lucky losers should ever get the opportunity to win a championship.
Case in point, the NY Mets this year who came in third but could advance to the WS. Not likely but possible they could beat LA who had the best record in the NL.
Why should team A who beat team B to win there conference have to play and beat team B again?
I'll watch it and enjoy the games but I'll never think the lucky losers should ever get the opportunity to win a championship.
Case in point, the NY Mets this year who came in third but could advance to the WS. Not likely but possible they could beat LA who had the best record in the NL.
In no American sport is a team required to win a division or sport to make the playoff.
MLB is the only sport I'd ever get on-board with that because they play 162 games.
If it was just about winning a conference teams should join weaker conferences to make life easier. You're actually rewarding teams for playing weaker schedules
Also, one game means nothing. Say Oregon losses to Ohio State in the CCG. They split. Why would they be out?
I've yet to hear even a decent argument for only conference winners. I think it's just nonsense from people being angry an 11-1 Ohio State was correctly picked over us at 11-2.
One game doesn't prove a team is better. Oregon won by a point at home. A point at home. There's no definitive answer there.
You don't need to pit the exact two teams versus each other again in a CCG, though. Sure OSU should get in but I don't like the fact that because of these CCGs they can be the B10 champ despite Oregon being undefeated in the reg season and already beating them. It's like a 2 game series and the winner of game 2 takes all. Stupid.
Eliminate CCGs. I'm 100% on board with that.
I also like the 14 team format with 4 auto bids for the SEC and Big Ten because you know what you need to do.
Unlike you, I think WINNING in sport should matter more than money.
Now you make some inane comment to prove you can get the last word. LOL
LOL--so you can comment but I can't
WINNING does matter--you're suggesting going 11-1 should eliminate you from a post-season
The inane comment was your comment. Not all conferences are comparable. Winning the ACC is not more impressive than finishing 3rd in the Big Ten. That's reality--that why NO SPORT IN AMERICA does what you want
So you can claim anything you want but you don't have a valid argument and you know it--that's why you went on the offensive early
Make a better argument next time
No sport in America does what I want because of MONEY. The more fans you keep thinking their team has a chance the more money you generate. If you believe otherwise, you are more delusional than I thought.
So--all college sports have larger playoffs for MONEY? Interesting
No one said that money isn't a factor but your plan makes absolutely no sense--you value winning the MAC more than 11-1 in the Big Ten. It's just stupid but think others are delusional.
Thankfully what you want will never happen--not just because of money but because of logic
The more teams in the playoffs the better in my opinion.
