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

[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.

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.

My hypothetical season was in response to your post...I didn't say i was going to feel disrespected. I was simply flipping your scenario around so you could see how it looks from the opposite view. The fact that you are against two teams from one conference getting in the playoffs tells me all i need to know. Who gives a flying **** if two teams from the same conference get in if they deserve to be in. Newsflash there can be conferences who have two or three very good teams. This isn't some foreign concept. Simply saying oh two teams from the same conference shouldn't get in because they play in the same conference is dumb.

 

[ajkreider]

Good god. Three games to play before this is an issue an people losing sleep. Take it out of their hands.

UVA is next.

 

[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.

are you ****ing 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.

Wtf are you ranting about? According to your dumb chart, a team would be better off forfeiting their easy games and just winning against their best opponents to get into the playoffs. Once you discount losses, you end up with 6-6 teams claiming that they're playoff teams. Plain Jane RETARDED.

 

[Kn[]_[]ckles3o5]

The problem is there are only 4 spots. If our only loss is to Clemson in a squeaker for the ACC title they get a bid and now the committee has to make an argument for a second ACC team over conference champs from the B1G and Big12, not to mention a similar sitch with Wisky if they lose in their title game. There's also the SEC runner up with a legit gripe.

1. Bama/UGA/AUB
2. OU
3. Clemson

4. 1 loss Conf runner ups vs 2 loss conf winners

Personally I don't like the precedent set by taking two teams from a conference and unfortunately the B1G Champ will get the nod over a Pac12 representative.

Best case would be for OU to drop another game so the Big12 representative has 2 losses as well. Then the powers that be could flirt with the idea of an all SEC/ACC playoff with presumably Bama Vs Miami and Clemson vs UGA.

That would really **** off the rest of the country.

 

[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.

My hypothetical season was in response to your post...I didn't say i was going to feel disrespected. I was simply flipping your scenario around so you could see how it looks from the opposite view. The fact that you are against two teams from one conference getting in the playoffs tells me all i need to know. Who gives a flying **** if two teams from the same conference get in if they deserve to be in. Newsflash there can be conferences who have two or three very good teams. This isn't some foreign concept. Simply saying oh two teams from the same conference shouldn't get in because they play in the same conference is dumb.

It won't seem dumb if and when we ever get stuck with 2 SEC teams and 2 big ten teams just because they are perceived as the best 4 teams.

 

[skillydoo]

We win out, we're in. We lose a game, we out.

 

[NYCCANE]

One thing I have not seen mentioned is the possibility of OU losing. Everyone is treating it like a forgone conclusion that they will be one of the 4 teams. But they still have to play a decent WVU team and then have to rematch TCU. I know they just stomped TCU, but it is a real possibility that they could lose one of those games. I see a lot of scenarios in which a one loss, non conference winning Miami team gets in the playoffs.

My biggest fear would be Alabama losing to Auburn. If that happens I think the committee will put a one Alabama team in over a Miami team that loses its conference championship.

 

[terdferguson]

We need to root hard for OU and/or OSU to lose another game. And it's very possible.

 

[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 ****ing 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.

Wtf are you ranting about? According to your dumb chart, a team would be better off forfeiting their easy games and just winning against their best opponents to get into the playoffs. Once you discount losses, you end up with 6-6 teams claiming that they're playoff teams. Plain Jane RETARDED.

how the **** does a 6-6 team get in with the ******* chart i provided? Literally you have to just be some dumb troll to honestly act like that situation is even possible. theres no ******* way a team beats 6 top10 teams, but loses 6 other games, that has literally never even come close to happening. Secondly that would also require 4 teams with the best records to not have any good wins, again not happening.

Looking at this at a per game level (since some teams have played more than others) according to AP poll:
1 Alabama 10-0: 8 bad wins, 2 good wins = $18.00 ....= $1.80 per game
4 Oklahoma 9-1: 6 bad wins, 2 great wins, 1 good win, 1 good loss = $22.3 ....=$2.23 per game
3 Clemson 9-1: 5 bad wins, 3 good wins, 1 great win, 1 bad loss = $21.50 ....= $2.15 per game.
5 Wisconsin 10-0: 8 bad wins, 2 good wins = $18.00 ...= $1.80 per game
6 Auburn 8-2: 6 bad wins, 1 good win, 1 great win, 1 great loss, 1 good loss = $18.05 ....=$1.805 per game
7 Georgia 9-1: 6 bad wins, 1 great win, 2 good wins, 1 great loss = $20.75 ....= $2.075 per game
8 tOSU 8-2: 5 bad wins, 3 good wins, 1 great loss, 1 good loss = $17.55 ....= $1.755 per game
9 Notre dame 8-2: 5 bad wins, 3 good wins, 2 great losses = $17.06 ....= $1.706 per game
10 oklahoma st 8-2: 6 bad wins, 2 good wins, 1 great loss, 1 good loss = $16.05 ....=$1.605 per game
11. TCU 8-2: 6 bad wins, 1 great win, 1 good win, 1 great loss, 1 good loss = $18.05 ...= $1.805 per game
12 USC 9-2: 7 bad wins, 2 good wins, 1 great loss, 1 good loss = $17.55 ....= $1.60 per game
25 NC St 6-3: 7 bad wins, 2 great losses, 1 good loss = $12.30 .....= $1.37 per game
Unranked GTech 5-4: 4 bad wins, 1 good win, 2 great losses, 2 bad loss = $10.5 .....= $1.16 per game

Ranking them:
1. Oklahoma
2. Miami
3. Clemson
4. Georgia
T5. Auburn & TCU
T7. Bama & Wisconsin
9. Ohio St
10. Notre Dame
11. USC
then NCSt and GTech are way below.

So actually I think my system actually works really well, especially at rewarding teams that have the best wins. By the end of the season this would also look much clearer, since a lot of these teams will be playing eachother. This honestly isn't any different than just valuing teams that have a tough Strength of Schedule and win.

 

[UMFarArcher]

Auburn is going to beat Bama.

So there's that . . .

 

[Mnhurricane]

would be weird to have a team in the playoff that got KILLED by iowa

 

[NJshoreCane]

We beat Clemson.
That's a given.

Does a 2 loss Clemson get in over 2-loss SEC champ Auburn?

 

[HighSeas]

This site needs an embargo on threads that suggest or speculate about losing. You can tell which fans haven't experienced winning football or have forgotten what winning is like.

 

[drifters1234]

We beat Clemson.
That's a given.

Does a 2 loss Clemson get in over 2-loss SEC champ Auburn?

Great question, especially considering that Clemson beat Auburn head-to-head. But I'd bet they'd go with Auburn, bc of the conference championship, and the run of big wins late in the season.