A 2 loss OSU over a one loss Miami in the playoff?

[swampcougar1]

I ignore what any homer talkng head says. No way a 2 loss team.goes in over a 1 loss power conference team

 

[Tad Footeball]

The idiocy of the committee is mindnumbing. If Miami loses to an average team like Virginia but beats Clemson, this would actually be better for our 1-loss playoff chances than losing a close one to Clemson. Like how the fu$$k does this make sense?

Great wins are better than "good losses".

Its pretty simple. Beating Clemson and ND proves we're a great team. Losing to them but beating some scrub team proves nothing. Its always better to win the big games, but have a loss vs a team you shouldn't have lost to than just lose all the big games, but scrape **** teams.

The Committee is correct at looking at it this way. A ****ing loss is a ****ing loss, whether it was to Bama or GTech, its still a ****ing loss. But a win bs Bama is MUCH better than a win vs GTech.

I imagine it in a way like this:

a loss to a bad team is worth $0.00
a loss to a good team is worth $0.30
a loss to a great team is worth $0.75
a win vs a bad team is worth $1.50
a win vs a good team is worth $3.00
a win vs a Great team is worth $5.00

and whoever has the most money at the end of the season is the best team. You can see how whether you lose to a bad team or a good team isn't nearly as important as winning vs a bad team to a great team

I like and agree with your formula but watch out for a lot of the use of the term "resume". It's something that idiots (and Hocutt) throw around to excuse losses and minimize wins by pretending that they're the only ones looking at the "big" picture. This narrative is then buttressed by them saying "We're tasked with finding the 4 BEST teams". If you ever have the misfortune of hearing Heather Dinich rant you'll hear these talking points over and over and over (unless Vilma is on set to shut her up).

 

[Rellyrell]

New Bulletin Board Material???

 

[Reppingtheu]

The idiocy of the committee is mindnumbing. If Miami loses to an average team like Virginia but beats Clemson, this would actually be better for our 1-loss playoff chances than losing a close one to Clemson. Like how the fu$$k does this make sense?

Great wins are better than "good losses".

Its pretty simple. Beating Clemson and ND proves we're a great team. Losing to them but beating some scrub team proves nothing. Its always better to win the big games, but have a loss vs a team you shouldn't have lost to than just lose all the big games, but scrape **** teams.

The Committee is correct at looking at it this way. A ****ing loss is a ****ing loss, whether it was to Bama or GTech, its still a ****ing loss. But a win bs Bama is MUCH better than a win vs GTech.

I imagine it in a way like this:

a loss to a bad team is worth $0.00
a loss to a good team is worth $0.30
a loss to a great team is worth $0.75
a win vs a bad team is worth $1.50
a win vs a good team is worth $3.00
a win vs a Great team is worth $5.00

and whoever has the most money at the end of the season is the best team. You can see how whether you lose to a bad team or a good team isn't nearly as important as winning vs a bad team to a great team

Getting blown out by a bad team should cost you money, maybe -$1.50

 

[monkey1371]

I ignore what any homer talkng head says. No way a 2 loss team.goes in over a 1 loss power conference team

So for ***** and giggles.....say Wisconsin loses Big 10 title game to OSU with zero wins over a team that finishes in the Top 25.....You think they would still get in over 11-2 Auburn who just beat UGA, Bama and UGA again in a 4 week stretch?

 

[AdrianP]

The idiocy of the committee is mindnumbing. If Miami loses to an average team like Virginia but beats Clemson, this would actually be better for our 1-loss playoff chances than losing a close one to Clemson. Like how the fu$$k does this make sense?

Great wins are better than "good losses".

Its pretty simple. Beating Clemson and ND proves we're a great team. Losing to them but beating some scrub team proves nothing. Its always better to win the big games, but have a loss vs a team you shouldn't have lost to than just lose all the big games, but scrape **** teams.

The Committee is correct at looking at it this way. A ****ing loss is a ****ing loss, whether it was to Bama or GTech, its still a ****ing loss. But a win bs Bama is MUCH better than a win vs GTech.

I imagine it in a way like this:

a loss to a bad team is worth $0.00
a loss to a good team is worth $0.30
a loss to a great team is worth $0.75
a win vs a bad team is worth $1.50
a win vs a good team is worth $3.00
a win vs a Great team is worth $5.00

and whoever has the most money at the end of the season is the best team. You can see how whether you lose to a bad team or a good team isn't nearly as important as winning vs a bad team to a great team

This is dumb. A team with 4 losses would get in over a team with no losses. It devalues winning.

As long as a team plays a p5 schedule with at least one credible non conference opponent, strength of schedule and quality wins should only matter if the teams in question have the same number of losses.

 

[canes732]

I would say yes bc the committee love the Buckeyes. Dumb af tho

 

[canechemist]

How is that really disrespect? If we lose the ACC championship, then we have no reason to complain. A two loss conference champion will have legitimate claim to a playoff bid over one loss teams who lost their championships. I obviously want us in it, but our conference championship will be a playoff game if both teams take care of business the next two weeks.

 

[The Owl]

How is that really disrespect? If we lose the ACC championship, then we have no reason to complain. A two loss conference champion will have legitimate claim to a playoff bid over one loss teams who lost their championships. I obviously want us in it, but our conference championship will be a playoff game if both teams take care of business the next two weeks.

So if UM happened to lose twice this season but beat Clemson in the ACCG you think the committee would rank us ahead of Ohio Taint if they went undefeated but lost to Wisco in their conference championship? here's a hint for you: We wouldn't be ranked ahead of those clowns.

 

[skillydoo]

After the challenging start we had to the season, the fact that we are having this conversation right now is amazing.

 

[monkey1371]

How is that really disrespect? If we lose the ACC championship, then we have no reason to complain. A two loss conference champion will have legitimate claim to a playoff bid over one loss teams who lost their championships. I obviously want us in it, but our conference championship will be a playoff game if both teams take care of business the next two weeks.

I think the issue is the discrepancy of paths teams have to take to get in. Not a far fetched idea that Bama loses to Auburn. Doesn't win division, but gets into the playoffs with an 11-1 record with only 2 wins over bottom top 25 teams. While Wisconsin has to go undefeated and beat #20 , #19 and #8 on consecutive weeks to get in. Basically UGA, based on beating ND earlier only has to beat Auburn 1 out of 2 times or Bama once to get in now.....But Miami has to beat both ND and Clemson and stay undefeated. OSU is allowed to get blown out twice and still be in the conversation while other teams are not allowed to lose 1 close game.

Just the inherent unfairness of a system that is 100% subjective.

 

[caneaddict]

with this logic we're better off losing to virginia or pitt and beating clemson, its like losses don't matter as long as you beat the good teams

 

[AdrianP]

with this logic we're better off losing to virginia or pitt and beating clemson, its like losses don't matter as long as you beat the good teams

Yep. The retardedness of the system means that you can go 7-5 but if your wins are against top 20 teams and your losses are against the cupcakes, you will get a playoff spot. Any system that discounts losses is idiotic.

****, I'd just schedule the hardest schedule I could, treat every easy game as a sctimmage or a time to rest starters not caring if you win or lose, and only go full throttle against the best teams. ****, why not just forfeit the easy games, and play a 6 game season.

 

[canechemist]

How is that really disrespect? If we lose the ACC championship, then we have no reason to complain. A two loss conference champion will have legitimate claim to a playoff bid over one loss teams who lost their championships. I obviously want us in it, but our conference championship will be a playoff game if both teams take care of business the next two weeks.

So if UM happened to lose twice this season but beat Clemson in the ACCG you think the committee would rank us ahead of Ohio Taint if they went undefeated but lost to Wisco in their conference championship? here's a hint for you: We wouldn't be ranked ahead of those clowns.

So if we lose the ACC championship and Ohio State gets in the playoffs over us we should feel disrespected because of the imagined outcome of your hypothetical season?

All I'm saying is that a two loss conference champion over a one loss team who lost their conference isn't exactly disrespect. I want us in it, but I'm not stoked about conferences getting more than one team in it. I didn't want to see the SEC championship loser in it, so my preference is just to win the **** game.

 

[AdrianP]

How is that really disrespect? If we lose the ACC championship, then we have no reason to complain. A two loss conference champion will have legitimate claim to a playoff bid over one loss teams who lost their championships. I obviously want us in it, but our conference championship will be a playoff game if both teams take care of business the next two weeks.

So if UM happened to lose twice this season but beat Clemson in the ACCG you think the committee would rank us ahead of Ohio Taint if they went undefeated but lost to Wisco in their conference championship? here's a hint for you: We wouldn't be ranked ahead of those clowns.

So if we lose the ACC championship and Ohio State gets in the playoffs over us we should feel disrespected because of the imagined outcome of your hypothetical season?

All I'm saying is that a two loss conference champion over a one loss team who lost their conference isn't exactly disrespect. I want us in it, but I'm not stoked about conferences getting more than one team in it. I didn't want to see the SEC championship loser in it, so my preference is just to win the **** game.

This means that if we lose to Pitt and uva but beat Clemson, we're in. See how stupid you sound?

 

[Poptimus]

with this logic we're better off losing to virginia or pitt and beating clemson, its like losses don't matter as long as you beat the good teams

That is true, but it also has to do with when your loss is. The last thing we want is the committee to remember a loss to Clemson. It's infinitely better if we must lose a game that it be a squeaker to Virginia and then a resounding win over Pitt and any type of win over Clemson, as opposed to losing to Clemson.

Not saying that's fair, it's just the way it is.

 

[calinative umstudent]

The idiocy of the committee is mindnumbing. If Miami loses to an average team like Virginia but beats Clemson, this would actually be better for our 1-loss playoff chances than losing a close one to Clemson. Like how the fu$$k does this make sense?

Great wins are better than "good losses".

Its pretty simple. Beating Clemson and ND proves we're a great team. Losing to them but beating some scrub team proves nothing. Its always better to win the big games, but have a loss vs a team you shouldn't have lost to than just lose all the big games, but scrape **** teams.

The Committee is correct at looking at it this way. A ****ing loss is a ****ing loss, whether it was to Bama or GTech, its still a ****ing loss. But a win bs Bama is MUCH better than a win vs GTech.

I imagine it in a way like this:

a loss to a bad team is worth $0.00
a loss to a good team is worth $0.30
a loss to a great team is worth $0.75
a win vs a bad team is worth $1.50
a win vs a good team is worth $3.00
a win vs a Great team is worth $5.00

and whoever has the most money at the end of the season is the best team. You can see how whether you lose to a bad team or a good team isn't nearly as important as winning vs a bad team to a great team

This is dumb. A team with 4 losses would get in over a team with no losses. It devalues winning.

As long as a team plays a p5 schedule with at least one credible non conference opponent, strength of schedule and quality wins should only matter if the teams in question have the same number of losses.

are you ******* stupid?

literally just using the numbers I posted, which honestly I just pulled out of my *** to give an example:

Four losses to a great team = 4*$0.75 = $3.00
Four wins vs a bad team = 4*$1.50 = $6.00

So what the **** are you talking about?

This literally shows that four wins vs bad teams are twice as good as four losses vs great teams.

 

[calinative umstudent]

The idiocy of the committee is mindnumbing. If Miami loses to an average team like Virginia but beats Clemson, this would actually be better for our 1-loss playoff chances than losing a close one to Clemson. Like how the fu$$k does this make sense?

Great wins are better than "good losses".

Its pretty simple. Beating Clemson and ND proves we're a great team. Losing to them but beating some scrub team proves nothing. Its always better to win the big games, but have a loss vs a team you shouldn't have lost to than just lose all the big games, but scrape **** teams.

The Committee is correct at looking at it this way. A ****ing loss is a ****ing loss, whether it was to Bama or GTech, its still a ****ing loss. But a win bs Bama is MUCH better than a win vs GTech.

I imagine it in a way like this:

a loss to a bad team is worth $0.00
a loss to a good team is worth $0.30
a loss to a great team is worth $0.75
a win vs a bad team is worth $1.50
a win vs a good team is worth $3.00
a win vs a Great team is worth $5.00

and whoever has the most money at the end of the season is the best team. You can see how whether you lose to a bad team or a good team isn't nearly as important as winning vs a bad team to a great team

Getting blown out by a bad team should cost you money, maybe -$1.50

the numbers are all relative though, so it wouldn't actually change anything; meaning if losing to bad team loses you $1.50, that would mean winning vs a great team would give you like $3.50. I guess it would better fit the analogy i'm making though.

 

[canechemist]

How is that really disrespect? If we lose the ACC championship, then we have no reason to complain. A two loss conference champion will have legitimate claim to a playoff bid over one loss teams who lost their championships. I obviously want us in it, but our conference championship will be a playoff game if both teams take care of business the next two weeks.

So if UM happened to lose twice this season but beat Clemson in the ACCG you think the committee would rank us ahead of Ohio Taint if they went undefeated but lost to Wisco in their conference championship? here's a hint for you: We wouldn't be ranked ahead of those clowns.

So if we lose the ACC championship and Ohio State gets in the playoffs over us we should feel disrespected because of the imagined outcome of your hypothetical season?

All I'm saying is that a two loss conference champion over a one loss team who lost their conference isn't exactly disrespect. I want us in it, but I'm not stoked about conferences getting more than one team in it. I didn't want to see the SEC championship loser in it, so my preference is just to win the **** game.

This means that if we lose to Pitt and uva but beat Clemson, we're in. See how stupid you sound?

Yeah we could be in. But it depends on what else happens. I rather be stupid than whine about disrespect after losing a big game.

 

[Cash]

..is this guy insane?! wow, unbelievable lack of respect for us here.
go CANEs!!


https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-in-college-football-playoff-field/857894001/

We’d beat the brakes off Ohio State