They aren't--part of that is G5 should be their own separate league.
If you can't compete with the best you're not a good team. Very few teams should ever be considered "good".
Some positives
- Thread starter bdgan
- Start date
If you can't compete with the best you're not a good team. Very few teams should ever be considered "good".
I think LSU would kill Iowa. Louisville--maybe you're right.
Arizona and Oregon State probably won't fall into my "good category" at the end but Arizona has improved greatly from the start of the year--Iowa hasn't. Iowa losing relatively recently to Minnesota is a problem. And Iowa's best win is...Rutgers or Iowa State. The other teams ahead of them on my list have better wins.
This is a non-sensical statement. The best and good are not the same level. If you're merely "good" then by definition you're not competing with the best on a regular basis, if you were, you'd be better than good.
You're still arguing ~51 of 65 p5 schools aren't even good. That's just ridiculous.
It's not a nonsensical statement. To be a "good" team you must be able to be competitive with the best and occasionally beat them.
Yes, that's over 20% of the teams are good. That number is likely too high. How many teams do you think are good?
Varies by year but you're saying the average conference has fewer than 3 good (or better) teams. Since there are even fewer "best" teams, most will never even play a team in the "best" tier over the course of the season, even fewer play multiple.
Good teams aren't even occasionally beating the best teams in any given season given how rarely the best teams lose in college football. If you're going to argue occasionally means across multiple seasons that's irrelevant since we don't judge teams outside of their current season.
We haven't beaten a team in the "best" category since 2016 so we aren't good in your system, and by the looks of it, neither is Ohio State. They're not occasionally beating the best recently, been multiple seasons since they have.
Last edited:
But we have the ability to beat other teams on that list and we destroy bad teams unlike others. Yes, usually each conference has 2-4 good teams. Sometimes they 1 or none. See the Pac XII ACC and Big XII in recent years.
Good teams must have the capability of beating good teams. See WVU against us and OU. They could replay those games 50 times and WVU will never win. That's a bad team.
I dont understand the logic most or half of the league can be good. It doesn't even make sense. If that were true we need to significantly raise the bar.
The "only two good teams" are the #2 and #3 teams in the country. No team would be expected to beat them except for Georgia.
LOLOLOLOLOL. Do you work for CBS? You are ridiculous.
And why will I be dumbfounded next year? PSU will make the playoff.
How am I ridiculous? Who in the media, other than Pat McAfee who said WVU would beat us because he went to school there, considers WVU a good team or even a quality win? Anyone?
You're going to be dumbfounded watching a lot of coaches being fired for not making the playoff. Anything less at a major program isn't acceptable.
Some schools also have unrealistic expectations. That happens now (e.g. schools fire coaches who win 9 games and end up with coaches who can't win 6).
"Good" is obviously subjective. Historically, a four loss team would be ranked in the top 25 at the end of the year (e.g. last year Texas was 25 and had 5 losses; Pitt was #23 with 4 losses). Being in the top 25 mean you are in the top 20% of all schools. I would say most people (and frankly from a statistical persepective) would say that is good, but not great. Not 10% of all schools (top 12) is probably "great" and top 5 is "elite."
It's not unrealistic to improve. Did you think Georgia was wrong for firing Richt?
Top 20% including G5 which isn't top 20%
Statistically I disagree. Someone those numbers change--this year there's not 5 elite teams--most years there's not. But the goal is to be in that discussion. At least for us. We're not Northwestern or Vanderbilt or WVU where the occasional 7-8 wins season is a good thing. Nor should we accept that.
For every Kirby Smart at UGA, there are a dozen failures: Riley at USC, a Fisher at TAMU, RichRod at UM, Hawkins at CU, Herman at Texas etc, etc.
They are eligible for the playoff, so yes, they count.
PSU is getting 7 to 8 wins a year. They are getting 10 to 11.
Did you think Georgia was wrong for firing Richt?
The failures are irrelevant. You fire them and move on.
They don't count.
10...bowl games aren't a factor. Frankin has done a great job getting to this level. Hopefully he's the guy that gets them to the next level. If not, like Richt, he'll be gone
2023 TBD but let's say 10-3
2022 11-2
2021 7-6
2020 4-5
2019 11-2
2018 9-4
I wouldn't say we're averaging 10-11 wins. Maybe half the time.
Over that period it’s 8-9 on average. Throw out the COVID year and it is just under 10.
Counting the bowl game--must win 10 in the regular season moving forward to have a shot at the playoff especially with our non-conference schedule. Ideally there's 11 win regular seasons as well.
The last two years have been better--I think we all agree. But we have to build on that.
Big asterisk big 2020.
Smaller asterisk next to 2021 (most teams don't do great after their QB1 has significant injury)
So without those it's: 10, 11, 11, 9. Which is about what I said.
I don't really care. I don't follow UGA football.
That is a HORRIBLE way to run a football program.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
As we've discussed many times, they absolutely are a factor. They count in the record books. Players care, coaches care, fans care.
I doubt it. His buyout is such that he isn't leaving against his will any time soon.
I don't think you follow football outside of Penn State which is why you don't understand
It's not a horrible way to run a program--it's the correct way
Bowl game do not count for anything as we discussed many times
The buyout is less of a factor every year
I probably watch part of all of 100 CFB games per year, so I definitely follow CFB, and I'm guessing more closely than you do.
You can entitled to your opinion about how to run a program, but I strongly disagree.
Your insistence that bowl games don't matter is the most absurd of your many absurd opinions.
While the buyout decreases each year, it is still quite large. PSU has never paid a buyout for football. I do not think they have the appetite to start now.
Yet you had zero opinion of Georgia firing Richt? And, no, you don't follow more closely than me but I give you credit you do follow it--you just lied about not having an opinion.
You're allowed to disagree--hopefully you understand your view is antiquated and the decisions being made in FBS show that.
Ask the players who sit out of the bowl games. Again, bowls existed trying to avoid a playoff. A playoff was created making the bowls pointless. Hopefully soon fans see what they really are and stop wasting money on them
When would Penn State have even had the opportunity to pay a buyout for football? We've had 3 HCs since 1966. Paterno was fired due to the Sandusky allegations and O'Brien left for the NFL. So, this is the first opportunity. What indicates they aren't willing to?
You are adamant that all games from 2020 and 2021 don't count either. They are in the record books. You don't get it both ways.
I only threw out the 4-5 season and I did so for two reasons - 1) I knew the apologists would likely make that argument and 2) It was impossible to win 10 games that year only playing 9 (maybe they would have decided not to opt out of the bowl game if they were 8-1 or 9-0)
But they aren't concerned about Iowa being ranked 16? Give me a break. 41-0. Louisville is ranked 10 and lost to Pitt, and they're only win is a close one against #21 ND.When you say "all" I can only assume you don't count CBS.
College Football Playoff Rankings reactions: Penn State overrated, Ole Miss underrated in new top 25
There was very little controversy at the top, but the selection committee made a few errors beyond the top 10www.cbssports.com
Overrated: No. 12 Penn State
What more do we need to see from Penn State to confirm that it's a one-dimensional team by necessity? The passing attack under Drew Allar is depressing, and it has been that way since the beginning of the season. It ranks No. 130 in the nation in plays of 20 or more yards (25), which is fourth-worst in the FBS. The committee thinks that a two-loss team that has shown a massive limitation on one side of the ball all season should be ranked No. 12? Come on. Sure, the losses to No. 2 Ohio State and No. 3 Michigan are considered "good losses" by the rankings alone, but they are far from good to anybody who watched those games. The Nittany Lions have looked dreadful all season.
Well, there's 133 teams, and as per you, only 14 are "good", so maybe you should check your math.
So you're only counting P5 schools. I just can't keep up with all of your rules. Did you write a book?
Very rarely is a G5 team truly competitive. And as teams like Cincy and Houston join P5 teams they become weaker and weaker. Look at who is fighting for the G5 spot in the NY6. Let's be real once in a while. P5/G5 are labeled that for a reason. They're two different levels of football. We all know it.
You said in April they wouldn't win 5 games. If they won 6 games you said you would discuss them being a decent team. After they did that, you said they were still horrible, but I'd they won 8 games tou would admit you were wrong. NOW, even if they win 8 games, they are still horrible. I just can't keep up.
Find that quote about 5 wins
We've had the discussion about them being a decent team and the conclusion is no. Look at the wins. I discussed it as I said I would.
They're horrible
If they win 8 I was wrong because I said they wouldn't win 8. Never said them winning 8 makes them good.
You realize they haven't won 8 yet, right?
PSU ranking is difficult. We have no quality wins unless you count Iowa which IMO is a stretch. But our two losses were only 8-9 points to teams ranked in the top 3.
There were two long runs and neither of them were between the tackles. The largest run came as a result of a DE gap cover mistake. DE are not DTs. The DTs did there job in that game.
Those 2 long runs made all the difference. Without them PSU actually rushed for more yards than Michigan. Give Michigan credit. They overloaded one side with 2 additional DL and overpowered PSU on the edge (Not a DT problem). Diaz adjusted but not until the damage was done.
Michigan had 227 rushing yds vs 164 yds for PSU. Corum had the biggest run for 44 yds and Edwards had one for 22 yds. Michigan didn't dominate the statistics. In fact PSU had more first downs. The difference was 2 big runs, a PSU turnover, and some questionable play calling by PSU.
Spot on.
It is remarkable that UM only got 227 yards with 7 OL that were seniors or grad transfers.
Sadly, the questionable play calling was most likely the back breaker. Defense literally collapsed after the decision of desperation at the 4-1/2 minute mark resulting in one of the TD runs.
They absolutely count, there is just important context to understand.
Clearly you cannot think 2020 was a normal season, correct?
Similar threads
