Week 10 College Football Thread: WE'VE GOT MACTION (oh and #1 and #2 play)

[beekay414]

By the measure that Oregon shouldn't get in as a one loss champion due to CoNfErEnCe StReNgTh then Clemson should never get in if they lose a game since the ACC is a cosmic joke. They should've never had a chance to win the title in 2016 since they lost, at home, to Pittsburgh.

Edited November 7, 2022 by beekay414

[swoosh]

40 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

You: "It's not fair that you think undefeated TCU should get in because they didn't schedule UGA. I guess Oregon should have scheduled Tarleton instead!"

Me: "Well, technically, TCU scheduled Colorado that week. And you did play a FCS team in Eastern Wash, so it's disingenuous to compare Tarleton to the UGA game."

I pointed out why Tarleton was a dishonest comparison, not the relative strength of their OOC schedule. Nobody is disputing that Oregon's was better. Yet, when you have a one-loss Tennessee and a one-loss Oregon, I'm picking the team I think is better. Now, if Tennessee loses another game, Oregon obviously deserves to go in above them.

Swap Tarleton with SMU or Colorado. Point is the same. I was making the point of not punishing teams for strong out of conference scheduling, not strictly referring to week one scheduling. I couldn't care less the order of Colorado, SMU, and Tarleton. Any way you dice it, it's weak scheduling. You're asking teams to schedule cupcakes by doing that. 

For the record, this is not what I'm saying in the slightest: "It's not fair that you think undefeated TCU should get in because they didn't schedule UGA." TCU should and will get in should they win out. I brought up TCU to drive in the hypocrisy with what you have said your criteria is. You initially said things like conference championships are irrelevant and that the four best teams should get in. That's all that matters. You then said Alabama is (probably) better than TCU, but Alabama doesn't deserve to get in because TCU is undefeated. 

[jrry32]

11 minutes ago, swoosh said:

Swap Tarleton with SMU or Colorado. Point is the same. I was making the point of not punishing teams for strong out of conference scheduling, not strictly referring to week one scheduling. I couldn't care less the order of Colorado, SMU, and Tarleton. Any way you dice it, it's weak scheduling. You're asking teams to schedule cupcakes by doing that. 

For the record, this is not what I'm saying in the slightest: "It's not fair that you think undefeated TCU should get in because they didn't schedule UGA." TCU should and will get in should they win out. I brought up TCU to drive in the hypocrisy with what you have said your criteria is. You initially said things like conference championships are irrelevant and that the four best teams should get in. That's all that matters. You then said Alabama is (probably) better than TCU, but Alabama doesn't deserve to get in because TCU is undefeated. 

An undefeated P5 team is an undefeated P5 team. I can't honestly say X is better than Y with certainty when one team has 0 losses and the other has 2. In that scenario, the undefeated team should get in. All you can do is win all of your games. Now, if we ever have 5 undefeated P5 teams, we'll be forced to choose. But that's not an issue this year. I'm talking about comparing two one-loss teams.

[jrry32]

41 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

By the measure that Oregon shouldn't get in as a one loss champion due to CoNfErEnCe StReNgTh then Clemson should never get in if they lose a game since the ACC is a cosmic joke. They should've never had a chance to win the title in 2016 since they lost, at home, to Pittsburgh.

Assuming there's a better one-loss team, correct.

[beekay414]

13 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Assuming there's a better one-loss team, correct.

And exactly how is that determined? Do we just get to arbitrarily say that any 1 loss SEC team, no matter who it is, is automatically better than another 1 loss team around the country? If Ole Miss wins out and is 11-1, how do we determine that they aren't better than Tennessee? They'd have both beaten Alabama, who then becomes a 3 loss team as their best wins unless you then believe LSU becomes Tennessee's best win. But we get to forgive the fact that LSU lost to Florida State opening weekend but can't forgive Oregon for losing to the best team in the country. Meanwhile, Oregon is 12-1, with equal or even better wins at that point than either and then, too boot, won their conference.

Just because Oregon lost in early September to the best team in football doesn't nor shouldn't automatically take them out of the race to a team that also lost to said team, while at their absolute best point in the season (8 game win streak), later in the season. The score may not have been as poor as the Oregon-UGA game but, at no point did Tennessee look even remotely good in that game. If the UGA loss is disqualifying for Oregon, it's equally disqualifying for Tennessee.

Edited November 7, 2022 by beekay414

[beekay414]

I mean, LSU lost to a bad Florida State team to start the year but beat Ole Miss and Bama back-to-back games. By the measure of a bad opening season loss determining Oregon's talent level or championship worthiness, that shouldn't be possible since they should be the exact same team that lost to Florida State.

Edited November 7, 2022 by beekay414

[beekay414]

This entire conversation is exactly why CFP expansion was needed. Let them settle it on the field and not in some conference room.

[jrry32]

7 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

And exactly how is that determined? Do we just get to arbitrarily say that any 1 loss SEC team, no matter who it is, is automatically better than another 1 loss team around the country? If Ole Miss wins out and is 11-1, how do we determine that they aren't better than Tennessee? They'd have both beaten Alabama, who then becomes a 3 loss team as their best wins unless you then believe LSU becomes Tennessee's best win. But we get to forgive the fact that LSU lost to Florida State opening weekend but can't forgive Oregon for losing to the best team in the country. Meanwhile, Oregon is 12-1, with equal or even better wins at that point than either and then, too boot, won their conference.

Just because Oregon lost in early September to the best team in football doesn't nor shouldn't automatically take them out of the race to a team that also lost to said team, while at their absolute best point in the season (8 game win streak), later in the season? The score may not have been as poor as the Oregon-UGA game but, at no point did Tennessee look even remotely good in that game. If the UGA loss is disqualifying for Oregon, it's equally disqualifying for Tennessee.

No. As for Ole Miss, we can cross that bridge if we get to it. It's not the fact that Oregon lost to UGA. It's the fact that they lost 49-3 to UGA in what was technically a neutral-site game (although, the site did favor UGA). Does it automatically take them out of the race? No.

And the irony of all this is that I despise Tennessee and have nothing against Oregon. So the people trying to imply I have something against Oregon are wildly off base.

[beekay414]

Just now, jrry32 said:

No. As for Ole Miss, we can cross that bridge if we get to it. It's not the fact that Oregon lost to UGA. It's the fact that they lost 49-3 to UGA in what was technically a neutral-site game (although, the site did favor UGA). Does it automatically take them out of the race? No.

And the irony of all this is that I despise Tennessee and have nothing against Oregon. So the people trying to imply I have something against Oregon are wildly off base.

Nobody is implying anything. We're trying to figure out the logic. Neither Oregon nor Tennessee looked like they belonged on the same field as Georgia. One did it in their first game, the other did it while they were at peak performance. Why does one automatically merit the consideration over the other in your eyes? Why is Tennessee more deserving than Oregon? 

[beekay414]

And LOL at calling a game in Atlanta, Georgia a neutral site game for a team from the PNW.

[jrry32]

4 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

Nobody is implying anything. We're trying to figure out the logic. Neither Oregon nor Tennessee looked like they belonged on the same field as Georgia. One did it in their first game, the other did it while they were at peak performance. Why does one automatically merit the consideration over the other in your eyes? Why is Tennessee more deserving than Oregon? 

Tennessee has a better resume. Oregon's best win as of now is a 42-32 win over UCLA. Their second best win, if they win out, will be over Utah. Tennessee's best win is either smoking LSU 40-13 or beating Bama. They also dismantled Kentucky. Both teams lost to UGA. Tennessee lost in Athens 27-13. (Yes, the final score is closer than the actual game was.) Oregon lost in Atlanta 49-3. I think Tennessee is better. But we have a lot of football left. We shall see.

Just now, beekay414 said:

And LOL at calling a game in Atlanta, Georgia a neutral site game for a team from the PNW.

UGA's home stadium is in Athens. Atlanta is not Athens. I said it was "technically" a neutral-site game before noting that it did favor UGA. I'm not sure how you can disagree with any of that.

[beekay414]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

Tennessee has a better resume. Oregon's best win as of now is a 42-32 win over UCLA. Their second best win, if they win out, will be over Utah. Tennessee's best win is either smoking LSU 40-13 or beating Bama. They also dismantled Kentucky. Both teams lost to UGA. Tennessee lost in Athens 27-13. (Yes, the final score is closer than the actual game was.) Oregon lost in Atlanta 49-3. I think Tennessee is better. But we have a lot of football left. We shall see.

Convenient to leave off USC. 

But, again, if LSU is your best win, how is that possible? They lost opening week to a bad team so there's no way that should be their best win since it's totally disqualifying to Oregon since they're the same team as they were week 1.

Kentucky sucks, my dude. 

[beekay414]

5 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

UGA's home stadium is in Athens. Atlanta is not Athens. I said it was "technically" a neutral-site game before noting that it did favor UGA. I'm not sure how you can disagree with any of that.

Semantics. There was nothing neutral about that game.

72 miles from Athens, 2600 miles from Eugene. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by beekay414

[jrry32]

58 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

Semantics. There was nothing neutral about that game.

72 miles from Athens, 2600 miles from Eugene. 

It is not semantics. It is a literal fact. The game wasn't in Athens. It would have been even harder for Oregon in Athens. I didn't claim the site didn't favor UGA.

59 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

Convenient to leave off USC. 

But, again, if LSU is your best win, how is that possible? They lost opening week to a bad team so there's no way that should be their best win since it's totally disqualifying to Oregon since they're the same team as they were week 1.

Kentucky sucks, my dude. 

How is it convenient to leave off USC? They aren't guaranteed to play USC. How is it possible for LSU to be their best win? LSU is ranked #7, and Bama is ranked #10. LSU is currently ranked above Oregon's best win, UCLA. And Tennessee beat LSU 40-13.

If Kentucky sucks, the vast majority of the Pac-12 sucks.

[beekay414]

7 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

How is it convenient to leave off USC? They aren't guaranteed to play USC. How is it possible for LSU to be their best win? LSU is ranked #7, and Bama is ranked #10. LSU is currently ranked above Oregon's best win, UCLA. And Tennessee beat LSU 40-13.

Yeah, you're missing the point entirely or you're just conveniently ignoring it. LSU lost week 1 to a mediocre team. How is it possible that they were able to beat Ole Miss and Alabama back to back games when that week 1 loss defines them as a team the entire year? Or does that only apply to Oregon?

And IRT USC, whatever, make it UCLA again or Utah/Washington or whoever. Doesn't matter, they're going to have another quality win on their schedule while Tennessee is walking to an 11-1 finish unless I'm supposed to believe Missouri and South Carolina are part of a gauntlet currently.

7 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

If Kentucky sucks, the vast majority of the Pac-12 sucks.

That's not how it works lol. What makes Kentucky worth any ******* merit when comparing resumes? They're 6-3 and haven't beaten a team worth a lick either. Spare me Mississippi State being good as their best win. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by beekay414