I think Notre Dame gets beat convincingly by Alabama or Clemson while Michigan would likely beat them in the rematch BUT I think they would've earned their spot in the field if they go 12-0.
Notre Dame shouldn't be in the playoffs.
- Thread starter Chechem
- Start date
They play Syracuse in Yankee Stadium in two weeks. Syracuse is playing pretty good right now. I wouldn’t be surprised if ND loses that game.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
People keep talking about expanding the playoffs. I don't get it. I think it is a struggle to find, at most, six worthy teams most years. Seriously, how big of an underdog is every team on the list to Alabama and Clemson right now?
Undefeated ND gets in, and should. And will get whipped like a third-place Derby horse. Those squeaker wins like yesterday and against Vandy aren't flukes.
Undefeated ND gets in, and should. And will get whipped like a third-place Derby horse. Those squeaker wins like yesterday and against Vandy aren't flukes.
You can’t keep Notre Dame out just because they would get killed in the playoffs. If they go 12-0, they would have earned it. LSU might be better (they’re not) but they lost two games. At some point, winning matters, and Notre Dame would have beaten 12 FBS opponents, 10 of them power 5.
At this point it looks like Alabama vs Michigan in the Cotton Bowl, and Clemson vs Notre Dame in the Orange Bowl and yet another Alabama vs Clemson NC game. But let them play it out. I don’t even take our position for granted as we are starting to really get beat up with injuries.
At this point it looks like Alabama vs Michigan in the Cotton Bowl, and Clemson vs Notre Dame in the Orange Bowl and yet another Alabama vs Clemson NC game. But let them play it out. I don’t even take our position for granted as we are starting to really get beat up with injuries.
Some of y'all are comparing things that have absolutely NOTHING in common.
Wisconsin last year and Iowa in 2015 were not top four teams, but if they had completed unbeaten seasons, they most certainly would have deserved to go.
Wisconsin was NOT better than us last year, but if they had beaten Ohio State, we would have stayed home. And that's how it should be.
2) In 2011, the beef was over the fact the BCS only had two teams meeting and there were a BUNCH of one-loss teams in the mix.
It is known up front that Notre Dame is not a member of a conference. That mandates they schedule tough games, and they do. It's not their fault that FSU, USC, and Stanford are not very good this year.
2) Nebraska wound up in the game because Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, and Tennessee all botched their own chances to get there. Nebraska benefited from Tennessee and Texas having extra games.
Using 2001 as any kind of argument is not good, though, because as I've pointed out, the 9/11 tragedy and cancellation of the Washington State- Colorado game is the only reason Nebraska made it.
3)
That may be so, but it doesn't matter. College football has ALWAYS had the tension of "best team vs most deserving."
Wisconsin last year and Iowa in 2015 were not top four teams, but if they had completed unbeaten seasons, they most certainly would have deserved to go.
Wisconsin was NOT better than us last year, but if they had beaten Ohio State, we would have stayed home. And that's how it should be.
Notre Dame is trying to schedule quality opponents. It's not their fault Stanford, Florida State, or USC are not any good this year. Syracuse almost beat Clemson. Notre Dame is not trying to game the system like UCF is. I'll guarantee you that schedule looked imposing five years ago when they put it together.
1) Notre Dame was undefeated, neither Alabama team was.
2) In 2011, the beef was over the fact the BCS only had two teams meeting and there were a BUNCH of one-loss teams in the mix.
But in both instances, Alabama LOST to a team that played in the conference championship game (and in 2011 won). There's simply not a comparison to be made here.
It is known up front that Notre Dame is not a member of a conference. That mandates they schedule tough games, and they do. It's not their fault that FSU, USC, and Stanford are not very good this year.
1) The anger over Nebraska was because they not only lost a game, they got pulverized, 62-36, by the eventual conference champion. And that game wasn't even that close, it was 35-3 in the first half.
2) Nebraska wound up in the game because Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, and Tennessee all botched their own chances to get there. Nebraska benefited from Tennessee and Texas having extra games.
Using 2001 as any kind of argument is not good, though, because as I've pointed out, the 9/11 tragedy and cancellation of the Washington State- Colorado game is the only reason Nebraska made it.
3)
Notre Dame is trying to schedule quality opponents. It's not their fault Stanford, Florida State, or USC are not any good this year. Syracuse almost beat Clemson. Notre Dame is not trying to game the system like UCF is. I'll guarantee you that schedule looked imposing five years ago when they put it together.
Come on man when was ball state navy and half of the teams they play GOOD. 80% have not been ranked in last 30 yrs. No way that schedule was ever near a bad SEC schedule or any other conference. IT is their fault they have avoided a conference for ONE reason, they like scheduling who they do, to win more games. Put them in any power 5 and they lose 3-4 a yr with the teams they have had last 30 yrs and you know it. They know it, that is why they refuse to join a conference, well if you do not want to play that extra game in a conference title go play some where else. It is totally their fault, they refuse to join all other teams in a conference, yet want to play in OUR playoff. That schedule on its best day is still not that impressive, and if those teams let you down, join a conference and play by the rules all others play by.
Come on man when was ball state navy and half of the teams they play GOOD. 80% have not been ranked in last 30 yrs. No way that schedule was ever near a bad SEC schedule or any other conference. IT is their fault they have avoided a conference for ONE reason, they like scheduling who they do, to win more games. Put them in any power 5 and they lose 3-4 a yr with the teams they have had last 30 yrs and you know it. They know it, that is why they refuse to join a conference, well if you do not want to play that extra game in a conference title go play some where else. It is totally their fault, they refuse to join all other teams in a conference, yet want to play in OUR playoff. That schedule on its best day is still not that impressive, and if those teams let you down, join a conference and play by the rules all others play by.
There are advantages to expanding playoff to 8 teams - it settles the conference champ vs more deserving team debate, the group of 5 complaints, & the ND not being in a conference issue.
If they take the five Power 5 conf champs (but only if ranked in top 15), take best group of 5 team (but only if ranked in top 15), and take two at-large teams they have a very good field. If a Power 5 champ or the best group of 5 team is not in top 15 then another at-large team is selected.
Last year this would’ve meant Clemson, Southern Cal, OSU, Georgia, Oklahoma (Conference Champs); UCF (Group of 5); and Alabama & Wisconsin (at-large). That represents the top 7 of final poll before selection plus #12 UCF.
From a fan standpoint this would likely result in better early OOC games as a top team could afford a good loss and still make the cfp. How much fun would an early Bama-Clemson or Bama-Oklahoma or Bama-Ohio or even Bama-UCF game be?
The big losers would be the already dying lower-tier bowls and possibly the small FBS & FCS teams who run their athletic departments on the big paydays from the top teams (because of fewer of these games). The big winners would be…well everyone else.
But if you start listing the teams who'd be favored over them on a neutral field, it'd be...
Alabama
Clemson
Oklahoma
Georgia
prolly Michigan
maybe Washington State
But today being undefeated means more than quality.
Notre Dame gets the nod, just like they did for the Natty in 1966, without playing in a bowl game.
It's time they play in a conference. Otherwise, they sit out.
:biga2:
And that's why expanding to 8 makes sense. A 4-team playoff where you don't take the 4 best teams is not really much better than the BCS or even the old bowl system. To only fair way to have a playoff where the 4 best teams get in plus a few of the "political" arguments are settled (ND, group of 5, conf champs) is to expand to 8. Leaving it at 4 AND allowing politics and such to trump quality when selecting is a bad idea. So far it's been refreshing that committee has avoided this and mostly picked the 4 best teams.
I think you just don't understand championship discussion.
Was Florida better than Texas in 2009? Yes
Was Bama and LSU both better than Oregon in 2010? Yes
Was UGA better than ND in 2012? Yes
Was Bama better than FSU in 2013? Yes
Point is when one team falls, another rises up in their place. If we are honest the 4 best teams are UA, Clemson, LSU, and UGA, but is LSU deserving with 2 losses??? NO!!! This isn't the NFL where you get an infinite amount of mulligans.
Notre Dame is an understood P5 team, and an undefeated ND gets in automatically if they are 12-0 with less than 4 undefeated P5 schools remaining. Yeah it seems like they benefit from only playing 12 games, but its also a curse too because they cant make up ground for a stumble.
Last year:
1st CFP ranking had them 3rd with a loss to UGA. They were ahead of two clearly overrated undefeateds and 3 teams with horrid losses. Once they lost they plummeted 5 spots. They don't get near as much leeway with losing is the point.
for those advocating for an 8 team playoff ask yourself " When has a #8 ever deserved a national championship?". Ive seen a #5 and a #6 on weird years, but never a 7 or 8.
Yeah and I bet Florida in 09 was a heavy favorite over Texas on a neutral site, but why does it matter?
Reality check, stay in the present arguing yrs back is just ridiculous. By the end of the season any moron with eys and a brain can see the top 4. By then it wil be apparent to most sane NON BIAS people who has EARNED the right to play. expanding it to 8 means more games for no reason. Right now, this year we will be lucky if any one challenges Bama and Clemson, now add 4 more unworthies to make more games? WHY? Look at the past CFP top 4's showme one year a 5,6,7,8th place team would have made any difference. Is it perfect NO nothing is. add 4 more you add more games and for what? Right now there is Bama clemson and all the rest, be honest. ND MICH neither one right now could play with either of us in a playoff. They do not have the talent, coaching or depth to hang 4 qrts with either of us and you know it. SO this is my last word on this whole thing, we can barely field 4 worthy teams, and ND no way no how is a CFP worthy team. Join a conference and shut up. Last time you talked ND smack we killed you. And you are no better than that ND team Bama is much much better team now.
You just want to say what Saban did last Thursday; "Just hope we elect to kick a--". LOL
You avoided the point and went right to other teams.
When was Citadel ever good?
When was ULL ever good?
Arkansas State?
The very same arguments you're making can be used against us.
Actually, this isn't true at all.
30 years goes back to 1988.
80% of 12 games is 9.
So you're saying 9 of Notre Dame's 12 opponents "have not been ranked in the last 30 years."
TEAMS RANKED THE LAST 30 YEARS ON NOTRE DAME SCHEDULE
Michigan
Ball St (ranked in 08 for 10 weeks)
Vandy (ranked in 08, 12, and 13)
Wake Forest (ranked in 03, 06, 07, 08)
Stanford
Va Tech
Pitt
Navy (ranked in 15, 16, and 17)
Northwestern
FSU
Syracuse (ranked this year and in 01)
USC
You said 80% of teams they played haven't been ranked in the last 30 years; in fact, every opponent on their schedule INCLUDING Ball State has been ranked at some point in the last ten. MOST have been ranked in the last 2-3.
Notre Dame would have no more than one loss if they played Clemson's schedule (and I think they'd win that one), and they'd be undefeated with Michigan's schedule. They would probably be unbeaten against OUR schedule to this point.
Notre Dame tried to become a member of the Big Ten way, way back when it was called the Western Conference. The B1G didn't want them.
Your statements here are - to be kind - absolutely ridiculous and at variance with every scrap of evidence that exists.
I'm guessing this is why Notre Dame agreed to a home/home with Alabama, right?
Notre Dame cancelled its series with Michigan to - wait for it - "accommodate its new arrangement with the ACC." They also scheduled a series with Ohio State. Yeah, definitely ducking the tough ones there.
Notre Dame - MOST YEARS - plays one of the toughest schedules in the country.
They played USC every single year when the Trojans were the Alabama of the Aughts.
So I "don't know" what isn't true any more than your previous comment about them playing terrible teams.
Sagarin ranks Notre Dame's schedule 46th, two behind Alabama (44) and four ahead of Clemson.
You mean right in the middle of the season?
I've never seen a five or six deserving.
1977 N Dame and 1983 Miami were two of the most undeserving national champions in history.
I'm either arguing with someone that is too consumed by sauce or too consumed about 66 and 72... or perhaps both. But either way I'm done going back and forth with you on this because there isn't much left to discuss.
Last edited:
Latest threads
-
A huge win today at my doctor's office...- Started by uafan4life
- Replies: 2
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
