Very well said. Not only do games early in the season matter, with the expanded playoffs, more games, for more teams will matter at the end of the season than ever before.
-
1
On 9/4/2024 at 3:16 PM, Solar said:I totally agree. I rolled my eyes every time Josh Pate brought this up.
The only thing we gave up was having your season not matter half way through because you lost a second game.
I think some people associate more teams as watering down the field. But why did Alabama deserve a second shot when they already lost a game? Because they beat Georgia? If that's the case then Georgia should've been in if they were considered the deciding factor. It was already established by Alabama and Ohio State in previous years that winning your conference wasn't a necessity.
So FSU was playing meaningless games because they had no chance to get in anyhow. Washington almost lost to Washington State and Alabama needed a fourth and forever to beat Auburn.
On 9/4/2024 at 3:30 PM, 30Duck said:Very well said. Not only do games early in the season matter, with the expanded playoffs, more games, for more teams will matter at the end of the season than ever before.
Exactly. FSU was basically told that whatever they did wouldn't have mattered because of a projection. They lost their starting QB so their body of work meant nothing. Meanwhile Texas got in because they were healthy but the Big 12 wasn't much better than the ACC and they had a loss on their profile.
Neither Alabama or Texas proved they were the right choices because they lost in the playoffs. At least Alabama and Ohio State backed up their controversial inclusions in years past because they ended up winning the whole things in those years. But those were just projections. In a twelve team playoff it's much harder to say the 13th rated team got unfairly passed up. Last year you had Missouri, Georgia and Ohio State as viable inclusions based off whatever guidelines the committee chose to enforce. Heck Oregon only lost twice and it was razor thin both times to the squad that beat Texas by two scores.
So now it's not about opinions, that means the only question is at large considerations and that means we get to see it played out on the field, not in a closed boardroom with people in suits.
The basic test to qualify for a playoff spot is whether the team has a chance to win the game. FSU failed that test when their stating QB went down and the backup QB performed poorly the next week. If the committee had chosen FSU and they stunk up the field as they did in their bowl game there would have been a much bigger flap than there was for leaving them out. The committee guidelines called for leaving out a team with an injury to a critical player.
-
1
On 9/4/2024 at 9:06 PM, Grandpa Duck said:The basic test to qualify for a playoff spot is whether the team has a chance to win the game. FSU failed that test when their stating QB went down and the backup QB performed poorly the next week. If the committee had chosen FSU and they stunk up the field as they did in their bowl game there would have been a much bigger flap than there was for leaving them out. The committee guidelines called for leaving out a team with an injury to a critical player.
We've been told the parameters include strength of schedule..FSU at least played and defeated LSU and Florida(even if they weren't very good). They beat Miami and Clemson along with Louisville in the ACC Title game going undefeated. Had they lost a game then I get the QB projection. But they did everything they could but got passed up because Alabama beat Georgia and Texas beat Alabama.
A projection should be used as a tiebreaker, not the dominating factor. Had Oregon gone undefeated but lost Nix and still won the PAC -12 in a game where the backup QB struggled, we would all lose our minds. I'm still salty over 2001. Perhaps that's what is driving my opinion. All I can say is FSU won a P5 conference, went undefeated and played two SEC opponents. One was considered a big reason Alabama got in.
In retrospect Alabama almost beat Michigan. FSU likely wouldn't, but they never got a shot. They gave up after that and we got a terrible Orange Bowl because of it.
That is one of the reasons we needed at least an 8 team playoff from jump. Five Power conferences and Notre Dame equals 6..What if Notre Dame, Oregon, Michigan, Clemson, Georgia and Texas all went undefeated and did it impressively while staying healthy?
Unlikely yes, but why draw yourself into that corner. Why diminish the importance of the NY6 bowls? The solution was always so simple. Five conference champions get in, Notre Dame gets in and you have two at large teams get in.
I totally agree. I rolled my eyes every time Josh Pate brought this up.
The only thing we gave up was having your season not matter half way through because you lost a second game.