#9 in the poll
- Thread starter 88ND
- Start date
It's still pathetic that OSU is ahead of ND. They were wiped by OU and have beaten no one.
I just hope politics don't get in the way of ND doing something special this season. The big ten is the weakest major conference in the nation.
I agree. Something will give though next week. Either OSU or PSU will be eliminated.
There's that reputation thing again with Meyer. He's deserved it and unfortunately we've deserved the skepticism under Kelly.
We once had it. Hopefully last night was a step toward years of getting that back.
Next week if we make another statement then we'll leap frog more. We'll be ahead of PSU/OSU loser as long as we take care of business after next week.
Now I'm going go pretend I didn't say that as I do believe in a jinx.
Think OSU gets the Urban Meyer factor and the benefit of being highly ranked when they lost. The playoff committee should wipe that away.
I agree but that pesky human element comes into play. That's why Clemson worries me. Defending champ that wins ACC again...that will hold water with that committee again.
This needs 8 spots.
I will root for PSU to beat OSU and then lose to MSU
That's why there should be no rankings till week 6 of season, complete joke
yep its a no brainer, 4 teams is a fricking joke. I t will happen eventually just hope I see it in my life time. 8 is perfect, 5 tops from big 5 and three wild cards, makes perfect sense
I despise penn state even worse, the fans think they are amazing and ND is and always will be irrelevant
#5 in FPI and total efficiency against the #11 SOS means a 100 times more than the poll rankings.
Win out and we’re in.
Win out and we’re in.
All ND can do is take care of business. Win out and see what happens.
Let’s not get out over our skis, Forget all the damn polling ... next focus is the next game. Nothing more. Go Irish beat Wolfpack. Do that and the rankings will take care of itself
Bodizephax
I've posted how many times?
When the playoff committe meets next week after we dominate another rankled team we are going to jump Ohio State and Clemson.
Here is my problem with the 8 teams argument:
-It will only be a matter of time before those who were shafted clamor for a 16 team playoff. Don't believe me? Even 64 teams weren't enough for basketball! There will always, and I mean always, be teams who believe they were snubbed.
-If you are not a top 4 team, you don't deserve a chance, or are not going to be worthy. How many semi-final games have been blow outs? What makes one think that the 8th best team in the country can run the table? There has not been enough parity in the upper-echelon.
In 2014, Oregon destroyed FSU 59-20. Ohio State proceeded to handle Oregon with ease the next week in the championship game 42-20.
In 2015, Alabama wrecked MSU 38-0 in a laugher and Clemson had no issue disposing of Oklahoma by 3 touchdowns that same day.
In 2016, both semifinal games again were a snoozefest with Clemson pitching a 31-0 shutout against OSU and Alabama making mincemeat out of what was thought to be a highly impressive Washington team, 24-7
-Expanding the playoffs only dilutes the regular season. One of the reasons I always loved College Football is because of the intensity and passion. Every game is like a playoff game where the margin for error is close to nil. Allowing 3 loss teams into the playoffs only waters down the meaning of a win or loss.
-At some point there becomes an issue with grueling schedules that are highly demanding on what we forget are STUDENT-athletes. Some teams play 15 games now. Are we really going to go from what was once an 11 to 12 game schedule into potentially an NFL, 16 game schedule in the span of just a couple decades?
Four teams is the best playoff system.
-It will only be a matter of time before those who were shafted clamor for a 16 team playoff. Don't believe me? Even 64 teams weren't enough for basketball! There will always, and I mean always, be teams who believe they were snubbed.
-If you are not a top 4 team, you don't deserve a chance, or are not going to be worthy. How many semi-final games have been blow outs? What makes one think that the 8th best team in the country can run the table? There has not been enough parity in the upper-echelon.
In 2014, Oregon destroyed FSU 59-20. Ohio State proceeded to handle Oregon with ease the next week in the championship game 42-20.
In 2015, Alabama wrecked MSU 38-0 in a laugher and Clemson had no issue disposing of Oklahoma by 3 touchdowns that same day.
In 2016, both semifinal games again were a snoozefest with Clemson pitching a 31-0 shutout against OSU and Alabama making mincemeat out of what was thought to be a highly impressive Washington team, 24-7
-Expanding the playoffs only dilutes the regular season. One of the reasons I always loved College Football is because of the intensity and passion. Every game is like a playoff game where the margin for error is close to nil. Allowing 3 loss teams into the playoffs only waters down the meaning of a win or loss.
-At some point there becomes an issue with grueling schedules that are highly demanding on what we forget are STUDENT-athletes. Some teams play 15 games now. Are we really going to go from what was once an 11 to 12 game schedule into potentially an NFL, 16 game schedule in the span of just a couple decades?
Four teams is the best playoff system.
Last edited:
Does that imply that the conference champs get autobids? That could potentially allow 4 loss teams into the mix. Seems a little silly to reduce the playoffs to the best team in a certain conference division who happens to win their last game. One year FSU went 8-5 and won the ACC.
I don't agree with this whatsoever. You sound like one of the old codgers thst were on the board of the rose bowl and refused forever to allow the pac 10 and big ten to compete elsewhere for a title.
Eight teams is perfect. Yes team number nine will be pissy but it's much more fair than four.
It does not dilute the regular season. It adds to it.
Think about it...
Losing once doesn't eliminate you. Yet you still have to jockey to get in. Can your school get in? You don't know...so you're tuning in more to see how the other guy with a loss did. How's your resume stack against theirs, etc etc ....
More playoff is more money. It's also another possible spot for a team outside the power 5...which every few years one of those teams surprises us and is really really good.
Boise state teams..Houston...BK's cinci Teams.
That's all good stuff to include them if possible. With four spots those type of teams will never get in.
That's wrong!
As long as the SEC has the espn contract, they will do what's best for the SEC. They are setting up the Alabama/Georgia game one in the sec champ. game, then will set up game two in the ncaa champ. game.
There should be no such things as an "autobid". There are way too many factors to just reduce a selection down to fulfilling one criteria. We might as well predetermine teams based on a formula and do away with the human committee.
Don't care for the personal attack, so I will just deal with the points you are raising.
Losing once does not eliminate a team even now. Actually a two loss team still has an outside shot of getting in. Very unlikely but not impossible. A team that loses say three games has no business vying for a championship. They had plenty of opportunities to show their worth and blew it. Nobody wants to see some 3-loss team play Bama and get smoked in the opening round. That is boring TV.
I still don't even see what in principle would prevent the field from getting larger and larger. You could have a logjam for that 8th spot and fans would get angry. The 8, 9, and 10 teams could all be equal, so why only choose one?
Your "more playoffs equals more money" argument could be applied once again in advocating an expansion. I think the Bowl System is a nice consolation for the teams excluded from the playoffs. There is still a lot of pride in those games and the New Year's games net solid ratings. Would be better to be the Rose Bowl champ than the first round playoffs loser.
The lesser teams have a chance to get in, they just need to have a resume that stacks up. If they play nothing but creampuffs, they don't deserve a shot. A very strong out of conference schedule and dominating run through the remaining schedule would be key to making the playoffs.
I like the idea of actual humans evaluating all the teams and making an overall assessment of the deserving teams. Not on one criteria, but in analyzing all relevant factors, including intangibles that a computer could not possibly detect.
understand but that is what would most likely be done. the 3 at large would be by committee. at large would more than likely grant a non-power 5 team a seat and of course if Notre Dame is good that year and a quality 2nd place finisher. I am saying this is a possibility if they go down that track
But you have to agree to an extent that it's silly to say "if you were the best team in your conference division, and win the last game, you are automatically in."
While ignoring other factors worth considering like SOS, margin of victory, improvement over the course of the season, quality of losses, team health as it relates to the outcome of games, etc...
That seems arbitrary and unjust towards other teams who could easily be more deserving based on their overall body of work.
I can't believe Wisconsin is ranked as highly as they are, and as I've said before, I like Wisconsin because I grew up there. But every year they line up four scrimmages to start the season and then play in the weak division of the Big 10.
I do think Penn State is for real, unlike many on this board.
I would agree with what you state. I am thinking the power 5 conferences who run it would want this way
Well I don't necessarily disagree that that's what *would* happen. I guess if you are trying to have a wider market appeal, that might be the way to do it.
To me though, that's akin to Affirmative Action done College Football Playoff style. It's like:
"Well you aren't necessarily one of the most deserving candidate, but we need to hire someone of your pigmentation."
"Well you aren't necessarily one of the most deserving teams, but we need to select someone from your conference."
I believe in a meritocracy, which seems very uncontroversial to me. If you are one of the 4 most deserving teams, you should be in (or however many teams comprise the playoffs).
Well that sidetracked quickly...
I don't have much of a problem with anOSU getting helmet cred. They have walked the walk for many years.
If a one loss team wins the BUG they are going to be in the playoff and it does not matter what helmet they wear.
I don't have much of a problem with anOSU getting helmet cred. They have walked the walk for many years.
If a one loss team wins the BUG they are going to be in the playoff and it does not matter what helmet they wear.
First of all the old codger reference was in jest...
Secondly what you say cant even be hypothesized. Sure if we ask teams AFTER the fact you already know the answers. Gee....if you told them you will be Rose Bowl champs or lose the first round of playoff....yep we know the answer.
How about this...
Would you like a shot for the rose bowl championship or get into the playoffs and have THE shot??? With no result known. It's up to you to make the results.
Bet you get different answers then.
8 teams would generate great things. Plus anytime you could have a spot for one of the teams potentially from a secondary conference is not just a good thing but a great thing for college football.
The point is that there is not much suspense in an 8 playing a 1. Even the first round of the 4 team playoffs have been largely non-competitive. If you are not in the final 4, chances are you are out of your league playing with the top dogs.
It doesn't have to be championship or bust, the bowls are a great consolation. There can still be achievement for a team to win a big bowl game and gain momentum for the program going into the next season.
With all due respect to Clemson and Ohio State, there is no logical argument to them being ranked ahead of ND when you compare results from this season. None.
That's exactly my point for me....
There are teams that get left out that would have put up a much better game.
Example...USC and Penn State last year would have given clemson and Bama fits. Nobody knows if they'd win but you can bet they would have made those games much more competituve. In an 8 team format they would have been in. Deservedly so.
Thank you
Alabama annihilated USC 52-6 last season. They had no business playing for a championship.
To me it's obvious, the top tier of college football usually ranges from either 1 team or maybe 4 teams max. I never see the top tier extend to 8 teams or more, where they are all pretty much interchangeable.
I would argue that the second tier often times is much wider though, ranging from 5-16 or so. Given that, it makes no sense why you wouldn't just open the playing field to 16 teams rather than 8.
I see absolutely no reason why the 8th ranked team on December 1st should be complaining about not having a chance to play for a championship. They had 3 months to make their case and they blew it. Play in a big bowl game and try again next year.
Whatever...its like that same old story of old yellow blazers and absolutely not...the big ten must play the rose bowl.
USC and Penn State weren't playing some of the best football at seasons end? Yes they were. In hindsight you better believe the committee wouod have put them in.
PSU got trounced by Michigan yet they won the big ten..yet got snubbed on the playoff in favor of OSU...
Eight teams no more snubbing.
Latest posts
-
Recruiting Four-star WR Brayden Robinson sets three official visits
- Latest: Fighting Irish
-
CFL NEWS: Jarious Jackson Just Named Interim HC of Edmonton Elks
- Latest: Fighting Irish
-
Recruiting First Rivals250 for 2027 class shows work to do for Notre Dame
- Latest: Fighting Irish
