|
Post by beaverintheberg on Jan 4, 2018 9:43:35 GMT -8
Oh wow....lots of things to agree and disagree with in this thread. Things I agree with:OSU probably doesn't get in to a hypothetical 2000 college football playoff. Oklahoma was undefeated and would've been the 1 seed. Florida State had the Heisman Trophy winner, averaged 42.4 points a game and their only loss was by three points on the road to 11-1 Miami the first week of October. Washington was also 11-1 and beat us head to head. Miami's only loss was to Washington, but also had wins over #1 Florida State and #2 Virginia Tech. I think you probably would've seen Oklahoma-Washington and Florida State-Miami in the semis....unless they didn't want to have a rematch. However, I think given that we've seen Alabama-Clemson three years in a row in the playoffs, that's not really an issue for the committee. Had OSU somehow got into that playoff, I think there's a very good chance we would've won the whole thing. After re-watching the Fiesta Bowl over the holidays, I had forgotten just how incredible our defense was that year. To get in now, I think Oregon State stands a good chance as a one-loss Pac-12 champion, provided you started the season as a highly ranked team. Wisconsin started the season as the AP #9 team, and never got higher than 4th. Oklahoma on the other hand started as preseason #7, but beat #2 Ohio State in week 2 to vault them into the conversation. The SEC is the anomaly here. Georgia started at #15 and didn't beat a top ten team all season until the SEC championship game. SEC is king, it's the way it is. That being said, Alabama did beat a Clemson team that nobody objected to being in the semis, and Georgia did the same to Oklahoma in what might've been the most entertaining Rose Bowl game since....well since USC-Penn State in 2017. Things I disagree with:That the playoffs this year were a turd. Did you watch that Rose Bowl? While I would've loved to see Wisconsin or UCF in the playoff, no way either of those teams give you a better game than Georgia-Oklahoma did. I'm sure Georgia and Alabama will be an entertaining game as well. I think the Georgia Alabama game will be a snoozefest.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jan 4, 2018 9:43:43 GMT -8
Obviously the chances will greatly improve if the playoffs expand to 8 teams. This, I fully expect, will happen. But what about #9? They should have been in! Blah blah blah
|
|
|
Post by sessbeav on Jan 4, 2018 9:45:48 GMT -8
If I remember correctly the Beavers were ranked behind UW and out of the top 4 before the bowls, no way they'd get in under a four team playoff with a repeat of the 2000 season. They'd have to go undefeated to ever get a chance at the current playoff setup. An 8 team playoff they'd have a shot IF they tied or better for first in the conference with a max of one loss. Wioth an 8 team playoff, two Beaver losses to STRONG teams, and a bay year for everyone else in multiple conferences there might be a shot but it would take a grand convergence of circumstances. BCS Standings 12-03-001) Oklahoma (12-0) 2) Florida State (11-1) 3) Miami, FL (10-1) 4) Washington (10-1) 5) Virginia Tech (10-1) 6) Oregon State (10-1) 7) Florida (10-2) 8) Nebraska (9-2) This has always stuck in my craw. We should never have been forced to play ND. Would love to have seen that fast D against VA tech.
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Jan 4, 2018 9:50:42 GMT -8
Any UNDEFEATED team in a Power 5 conference is going to be in, period. If you have even one loss, then your fate is up to the committee and I don't have any sympathy if you aren't chosen.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Jan 4, 2018 9:54:24 GMT -8
Playing Notre Dame was a godsend. It was as close to a guaranteed win in a major bowl game as we could've ever asked for. If we weren't going to get Purdue in the Rose Bowl and we weren't going to be in the National Championship game, This is quite literally the best case scenario. Playing a team that has national renown that isn't that good? I mean, we parlayed that victory into a PRESEASON #1 RANKING. Sure we were overrated, but the point is that people thought we were good because we blew out NOTRE DAME.
We may have missed out on playing a better team and finding out just how good we really were, but the long term benefits of that Fiesta Bowl shellacking (#1 ranking, recruiting, increased donations/season tickets/practice facility/Raising Reser) far outweigh the idea of a 24-22 win over VaTech.
|
|
|
Post by beaverintheberg on Jan 4, 2018 9:58:17 GMT -8
Obviously the chances will greatly improve if the playoffs expand to 8 teams. This, I fully expect, will happen. But what about #9? They should have been in! Blah blah blah I think the system has to ensure all the conference winners get in.
|
|
|
Post by beaverdude on Jan 4, 2018 10:31:46 GMT -8
BCS Standings 12-03-001) Oklahoma (12-0) 2) Florida State (11-1) 3) Miami, FL (10-1) 4) Washington (10-1) 5) Virginia Tech (10-1) 6) Oregon State (10-1) 7) Florida (10-2) 8) Nebraska (9-2) This has always stuck in my craw. We should never have been forced to play ND. Would love to have seen that fast D against VA tech. If my memory is correct the domers had a top 10 get a BCS bowl written into the agreement. The worry in Beaver Nation was that the Fiesta would take Va Tech and the Beavs would be relegated to the Holiday bowl. When we were in Tempe all the locals could talk about was how many orange clad people were in town for the game. They commented that Tennessee was in town a couple years earlier but their fan base didn't paint the place orange.
|
|
BeaverNut23
Freshman
WOOOOOO Feels dam Good to beat those Hogs! GO BEAVSSS!!
Posts: 553
|
Post by BeaverNut23 on Jan 4, 2018 10:38:40 GMT -8
Beating a couple top 15 ranked teams is a quick way to get into the top 25, just ask Stanford, Washington and Washington state
|
|
|
Post by ee1990 on Jan 4, 2018 11:31:59 GMT -8
...To make the college football playoffs. To be upfront I'm not one who really cares about that being our goal. I'd be happy with winning seasons, and mid level bowl wins. A Rose Bowl victory over the BIG 10 Champ would be my idea of a perfect season, a true dream season, but not something I expect. Anyhow, if Wisconsin who went undefeated in the regular season can't get in over a 1 loss SEC team who didn't even win their division, or UCF who won their conference and went 13-0 can't get in, what on earth would the Beavers have to do to ever get a shot at the CFP? Go undefeated, not play any FCS teams OOC.
|
|
|
Post by beavadelic on Jan 4, 2018 12:14:30 GMT -8
Obviously the chances will greatly improve if the playoffs expand to 8 teams. This, I fully expect, will happen. But what about #9? They should have been in! Blah blah blah I don’t think #9 would have a leg to stand on, but 8 teams (IMO) is the only thing that makes sense. How can you say that if a conference is deemed worthy of “equal status” with the other 4, that their champion shouldn’t automatically deserve a spot in the playoff - even when the conference has what’s perceived as a down year? They play virtually no common opponents with other conference members as very few teams in the conversation find much value in scheduling solid opponents from other Power 5 conferences in their OOC schedules. Lame excuses like “it would trivialize the regular season” are just justification from greedy bowl reprentatives and the NCAA. They have little interest in what we want, it’s all about the benjamins. I consider any argument that suggests that a system that always leaves out at least one conference champion from the playoff as not worth my energy to debate. It’s just wrong. The system is incredibly subjective, and such a joke given the love affair that exists for all things SEC. Even knowing that we have an all SEC final and the fact that the PAC 12 was horrible in bowl games doesn’t change my opinion an iota. The way the SEC did in almost every other bowl game shows that it wasn’t a deep conference - so how tough was the road they traveled to get there? Unless we want them to rate worthiness of each conference on a yearly basis, when you are judged as competitively equal - which they claim that the Power 5 are - the champion of all 5 deserve a spot. Period.
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Jan 4, 2018 13:18:39 GMT -8
But what about #9? They should have been in! Blah blah blah I don’t think #9 would have a leg to stand on, but 8 teams (IMO) is the only thing that makes sense. How can you say that if a conference is deemed worthy of “equal status” with the other 4, that their champion shouldn’t automatically deserve a spot in the playoff - even when the conference has what’s perceived as a down year? They play virtually no common opponents with other conference members as very few teams in the conversation find much value in scheduling solid opponents from other Power 5 conferences in their OOC schedules. Lame excuses like “it would trivialize the regular season” are just justification from greedy bowl reprentatives and the NCAA. They have little interest in what we want, it’s all about the benjamins. I consider any argument that suggests that a system that always leaves out at least one conference champion from the playoff as not worth my energy to debate. It’s just wrong. The system is incredibly subjective, and such a joke given the love affair that exists for all things SEC. Even knowing that we have an all SEC final and the fact that the PAC 12 was horrible in bowl games doesn’t change my opinion an iota. The way the SEC did in almost every other bowl game shows that it wasn’t a deep conference - so how tough was the road they traveled to get there? Unless we want them to rate worthiness of each conference on a yearly basis, when you are judged as competitively equal - which they claim that the Power 5 are - the champion of all 5 deserve a spot. Period. I heard a great retort to the notion that the playoffs include the regular season, which eliminates a lot of teams: The person arguing against that position brought up Central Florida. He said that if the regular season is supposed to eliminate all but four teams then there was no way that Central Florida should have been eliminated because they got through the regular season undefeated and should have still been in the championship picture at that point. I thought it was a good point and one of a few good arguments why 4 teams is not good enough, another being that not all 5 Power conferences are represented.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jan 4, 2018 13:28:57 GMT -8
But what about #9? They should have been in! Blah blah blah I don’t think #9 would have a leg to stand on, but 8 teams (IMO) is the only thing that makes sense. How can you say that if a conference is deemed worthy of “equal status” with the other 4, that their champion shouldn’t automatically deserve a spot in the playoff - even when the conference has what’s perceived as a down year? They play virtually no common opponents with other conference members as very few teams in the conversation find much value in scheduling solid opponents from other Power 5 conferences in their OOC schedules. Lame excuses like “it would trivialize the regular season” are just justification from greedy bowl reprentatives and the NCAA. They have little interest in what we want, it’s all about the benjamins. I consider any argument that suggests that a system that always leaves out at least one conference champion from the playoff as not worth my energy to debate. It’s just wrong. The system is incredibly subjective, and such a joke given the love affair that exists for all things SEC. Even knowing that we have an all SEC final and the fact that the PAC 12 was horrible in bowl games doesn’t change my opinion an iota. The way the SEC did in almost every other bowl game shows that it wasn’t a deep conference - so how tough was the road they traveled to get there? Unless we want them to rate worthiness of each conference on a yearly basis, when you are judged as competitively equal - which they claim that the Power 5 are - the champion of all 5 deserve a spot. Period. "Lame excuses like “it would trivialize the regular season” are just justification from greedy bowl reprentatives and the NCAA. They have little interest in what we want, it’s all about the benjamins."
Yeah, because moving to an 8 team playoff wouldn't be about the money, only to give fans what they want. Ha ha ha!!
|
|
|
Post by bennyorange on Jan 4, 2018 13:52:32 GMT -8
I'd love to see an eight team playoff but ONLY if they mandate minimum conference games so the SEC can't load up the Incarnate Word's of the world while we're beating the crap out of each other in the PAC12.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 4, 2018 14:10:15 GMT -8
I'll go completely the other direction... no playoff!
What has it truly accomplished? Realistically it's created another layer of elitism. Now a fairly secretive "committee" that answers to no one uses "polls" of statistics and their own opinions to determine the 4 playoff teams. No matter if 4 or 8 teams the entire playoff situation is just bogus.
At least with multiple computers/ stats/polls and a algorithm to compile them there was no BULLs%#tE committee of 13. Even the AP/UPI days were better. Just have the 40 bowls create their selection process, play em and take it out of the committee's hands!
You can tell exactly how big the $$ are when an organization like the NCAA abdicates control of its major sport's championship. Most don't even realize the D1, now FBS, football title isn't even an NCAA sponsored "title".
I'm ok with unbiased computer geeks who know s%#te about the actual game creating a system to take it out of the hands of these clowns.
But, to me unless OSU is in a game, the bowl season is meaningless, and basically worthy of watching highlights on SC.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jan 4, 2018 14:11:35 GMT -8
64 team 6 day playoffs! A manly schedule for a manly game. 3pm games every day until one team is left standing! Better than Shark Week.
|
|