CFB Playoffs | Peach Bowl | #4 Oklahoma vs #1 LSU

[viper952]

Expanding the playoffs would be so dumb.

 

4 teams is enough

[naptownskinsfan]

12 minutes ago, bucsfan333 said:

We should definitely expand the playoffs. We need more games like this one...

Memphis and Penn State could've been a potential matchup in an 8 game field and they had a close game until the 4th quarter and was still a 14 point deficit, and that's with Norvell and others not coaching in the game.  

[Small Town Values]

Damn, LSU made a statement. A completely different class to the Sooners this season. 

[bucsfan333]

3 minutes ago, ninjapirate said:

meh no one thought oklahoma even belonged this year. there were 3 good teams in college football this year and then the field.

That's probably true most years.

[Texansfan713]

4 minutes ago, viper952 said:

Who's better, burrrow or Lawrence?

lawrence

[PAW]

Just now, bucsfan333 said:

That's probably true most years.

Based on the games, there are two elite teams per year. The playoff is nice because the #1 and #2 ranked teams have rarely been the top two. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

5 minutes ago, ninjapirate said:

meh no one thought oklahoma even belonged this year. there were 3 good teams in college football this year and then the field.

4, including Bama with Tua.

[viper952]

No sane person wants to expand the playoffs

[naptownskinsfan]

1 minute ago, viper952 said:

No sane person wants to expand the playoffs

I've heard a lot of good arguments for 8 teams which I agree with.  It includes all Power Five conference champions, a Group of Five representative and two wild card selections.  We already have most of this with the NY6 grouping, so at some point they are going to slap "playoffs" onto more games so they can make more money.  I don't think you can take it past 8 teams though.

[ronjon1990]

19 minutes ago, viper952 said:

No sane person wants to expand the playoffs

Why not? 

I think most people would argue that Oklahoma was lucky to be there in the first place, and for all the wrong reasons. 

LSU was almost assuredly going to win today, regardless of who they played. But LSU also faced some competition along the way that showed much better than Oklahoma did, yet finished well outside of the playoffs. 

That's not to say that "everyone deserves a shot", but I can't imagine a scenario where Wisconsin, Penn St, Utah, Oregon, and arguably a handful of other teams look THAT bad.

Oklahoma should have never been in that situation in the first place. They got there because we're obsessed with having only 4 and having to split weird hairs over a 4-seed, which favored an Oklahoma team that wasn't all that impressive against their "best" competition through the regular season. 

 

[viper952]

Oklahoma shouldn't have been there, and you want to expand?

 

Oklahoma is a really bad example to expand

[ronjon1990]

9 hours ago, viper952 said:

Oklahoma shouldn't have been there, and you want to expand?

 

Oklahoma is a really bad example to expand

🤦🏼‍♂️ 

I swear, sometimes you just have to literally spell everything out for people. 

It's not so much that Oklahoma shouldn't have been there, it's that there were arguably 5 or 6 teams that should have been. 

Oklahoma got there solely because they play in a conference that has spent the last decade riding coattails of days long since past. The Big12 has been garbage for ages now in big games. 

2 loss conference champions and objectively good teams such as Penn St, Wisconsin, Utah, Georgia, Alabama, hell even Auburn showed every bit as well as Oklahoma did during the regular season, and often against superior competition. An argument could be made for any of LSU's possible SEC rematches being much more competitive than this game. 

What, honestly, did Oklahoma do all year to garner the nod? One of their "toughest" opponents was already curb stomped by LSU and another of their "tough" opponents just got their teeth kicked in by Notre Dame. Not to go all homer, but Oregon's close loss to Auburn while missing their entire receiving corps and loss to USC with a win over Utah looks much better than Oklahoma's loss to Kansas St, shellacking by LSU and wins over....Baylor?

Go with 8, give the teams with better overall work a shot at redemption rather than cucking the "playoff" with a 4 seed that gets in because they happen to be the last 1-loss conference champion standing. But trying to shoehorn 4 teams in a landscape with 5 major conferences, a troubling love affair with Notre Dame, and an almost yearly proxy 6th "conference champ" in the SEC's 2nd place team or SECW2 Alabama is absolutely retarded. 

[CWood21]

22 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

That's not to say that "everyone deserves a shot", but I can't imagine a scenario where Wisconsin, Penn St, Utah, Oregon, and arguably a handful of other teams look THAT bad.

Oklahoma should have never been in that situation in the first place. They got there because we're obsessed with having only 4 and having to split weird hairs over a 4-seed, which favored an Oklahoma team that wasn't all that impressive against their "best" competition through the regular season. 

You can slice it whichever way you want, the only team who didn't crap the bed at the end of the season was Oklahoma.  This was going to be the result whether it be Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, Oregon, etc.  There were 3 elite teams this year.  Every team had an inexplicable loss on their resume.  Oklahoma lost to Kansas State, Georgia lost to South Carolina, Oregon lost to Arizona State, etc.

[CWood21]

12 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

It's not so much that Oklahoma shouldn't have been there, it's that there were arguably 5 or 6 teams that should have been. 

If you want to argue that Oklahoma shouldn't have been there, I wouldn't have argued too hard against that.  But if you wanna make the argument that anyone other had a better resume, you're completely off base.  This was a 3-team playoff to begin with.

[ronjon1990]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

You can slice it whichever way you want, the only team who didn't crap the bed at the end of the season was Oklahoma.

Except they did, spectacularly. Or does performance in the "playoff" not count because it's inconvenient? 

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

This was going to be the result whether it be Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, Oregon, etc. 

Bold, yet somewhat unfounded. Alabama played LSU close enough to fall within any statistical margin of error for a rematch. Georgia is no slouch. LSU didn't play Oregon, so we can't definitively say either way on that. It's conjecture at best, not authoritative reasoning 

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

 There were 3 elite teams this year. 

How do you know this? What are you basing it off of? Clemson played an easy schedule, and one of Ohio St's toughest opponents just went wire to wire with MEMPHIS. If LSU doormats Clemson, there would have been only 1 elite team this year- in which case why even have a playoff ever again? You're claiming 3 elite teams via speculation while creating a logical fallacy. 

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

But if you wanna make the argument that anyone other had a better resume, you're completely off base.

Again, how so? Through your speculation? Claims of 3 "elite" teams as authority, when the possibility exists that only 1 will have existed?  That's a poor counterpoint. 

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

This was a 3-team playoff to begin with.

Yet again, we still don't even know that. In trying to argue against playoff expansion, you're also setting up an argument for doing away with the playoff completely.