2025 College Football Season

[US 89]

And what evidence do you have that Alabama would have fared better against Notre Dame?

For that matter what evidence do I have that Alcorn State would have fared better against Notre Dame? It's a broken sport with incomplete information. Conjecture will always be necessary.

The entire thing is up to a committee that is supposed to weigh this against other factors. You aren't keeping an 11-1 Big Ten team out of the playoffs anyway.

This line of thinking is part of the problem. Why not? Why is 11-1 a trump card, but say, 9-3 (Illinois' record) isn't? Is 10-2 a trump card? There just has to be more nuance than this. The sport is suffering. Two completely unwatchable games so far.

lol. The sport is not suffering. There are always playoff blowouts.

Anyway you are making my point. The committee is supposed to manage the nuance. You want to add some random minimum standard that takes the nuance away.

Just because the sport has always had blowouts doesn't mean we should be in favor of doing absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

The committee is not capable of managing the nuance. They suck at their jobs. If they were capable they would have left Indiana out. That's why there needs to be a standard.

The sport is fine. There is no logic to your statements. You just don't think Indiana is good, but have no evidence that anyone else is any better.

And the committee is incompetent because they included a 11-1 major conference team but not a 9-3 team that lost to Vanderbilt? Ok...

^this.

Indiana absolutely deserved a spot in the playoff to prove themselves. Sure, they lost in that game, but it's not like it was a bad game. If you go along with that line of thinking, it's not even worth playing the games because you just have the same SEC and Big Ten blue bloods in there every year regardless. Seeing Alabama lose three games and then actually have to miss the playoff as a result was absolutely the right call.

The point of the playoff is not to sort out which are the 12 best teams, it's to crown a national champion. Teams like Alabama did not show during the regular season that they were worthy of competing for the championship. Indiana did.

[thspfc]

And the committee is incompetent because they included a 11-1 major conference team but not a 9-3 team that lost to Vanderbilt? Ok...

There it is again, not looking beyond records. I'm confused, are you for or against critical thinking?

[Max Rockatansky]

If Alabama went 10-2 and didn't lost to Vanderbilt they were getting the nod over someone (probably SMU).  Problem is that they didn't and lost three games.  I'm not sure how Indiana being in the playoff is even a question?

[thspfc]

And what evidence do you have that Alabama would have fared better against Notre Dame?

For that matter what evidence do I have that Alcorn State would have fared better against Notre Dame? It's a broken sport with incomplete information. Conjecture will always be necessary.

The entire thing is up to a committee that is supposed to weigh this against other factors. You aren't keeping an 11-1 Big Ten team out of the playoffs anyway.

This line of thinking is part of the problem. Why not? Why is 11-1 a trump card, but say, 9-3 (Illinois' record) isn't? Is 10-2 a trump card? There just has to be more nuance than this. The sport is suffering. Two completely unwatchable games so far.

lol. The sport is not suffering. There are always playoff blowouts.

Anyway you are making my point. The committee is supposed to manage the nuance. You want to add some random minimum standard that takes the nuance away.

Just because the sport has always had blowouts doesn't mean we should be in favor of doing absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

The committee is not capable of managing the nuance. They suck at their jobs. If they were capable they would have left Indiana out. That's why there needs to be a standard.

The sport is fine. There is no logic to your statements. You just don't think Indiana is good, but have no evidence that anyone else is any better.

And the committee is incompetent because they included a 11-1 major conference team but not a 9-3 team that lost to Vanderbilt? Ok...

^this.

Indiana absolutely deserved a spot in the playoff to prove themselves. Sure, they lost in that game, but it's not like it was a bad game. If you go along with that line of thinking, it's not even worth playing the games because you just have the same SEC and Big Ten blue bloods in there every year regardless. Seeing Alabama lose three games and then actually have to miss the playoff as a result was absolutely the right call.

The point of the playoff is not to sort out which are the 12 best teams, it's to crown a national champion. Teams like Alabama did not show during the regular season that they were worthy of competing for the championship. Indiana did.

How exactly did Indiana show they were worthy?

[Max Rockatansky]

Are you an Alabama or SEC apologist?  If you were arguing against SMU I could see a somewhat reasonable.  Going after Indiana ex post facto because of how they played today makes no sense.

[CtrlAltDel]

I'm of the view that the bottom of the field doesn't really matter that much. It just needs to be big enough that everyone with a realistic chance of winning gets in. The ongoing quibbling is exactly what happens with the 16 seeds in the basketball tournament.

[Max Rockatansky]

It isn't even really mattering.  The lower seeds so far are getting smoked.

[US 89]

And what evidence do you have that Alabama would have fared better against Notre Dame?

For that matter what evidence do I have that Alcorn State would have fared better against Notre Dame? It's a broken sport with incomplete information. Conjecture will always be necessary.

The entire thing is up to a committee that is supposed to weigh this against other factors. You aren't keeping an 11-1 Big Ten team out of the playoffs anyway.

This line of thinking is part of the problem. Why not? Why is 11-1 a trump card, but say, 9-3 (Illinois' record) isn't? Is 10-2 a trump card? There just has to be more nuance than this. The sport is suffering. Two completely unwatchable games so far.

lol. The sport is not suffering. There are always playoff blowouts.

Anyway you are making my point. The committee is supposed to manage the nuance. You want to add some random minimum standard that takes the nuance away.

Just because the sport has always had blowouts doesn't mean we should be in favor of doing absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

The committee is not capable of managing the nuance. They suck at their jobs. If they were capable they would have left Indiana out. That's why there needs to be a standard.

The sport is fine. There is no logic to your statements. You just don't think Indiana is good, but have no evidence that anyone else is any better.

And the committee is incompetent because they included a 11-1 major conference team but not a 9-3 team that lost to Vanderbilt? Ok...

^this.

Indiana absolutely deserved a spot in the playoff to prove themselves. Sure, they lost in that game, but it's not like it was a bad game. If you go along with that line of thinking, it's not even worth playing the games because you just have the same SEC and Big Ten blue bloods in there every year regardless. Seeing Alabama lose three games and then actually have to miss the playoff as a result was absolutely the right call.

The point of the playoff is not to sort out which are the 12 best teams, it's to crown a national champion. Teams like Alabama did not show during the regular season that they were worthy of competing for the championship. Indiana did.

How exactly did Indiana show they were worthy?

They are a power conference team who played 12 games and won 11 of them, with their only loss coming to an even higher ranked team who is also in the playoff.

[Roadgeekteen]

Would Alabama have kept it closer against Notre Dame and Penn State? Maybe, though they only scored 3 against a 6-6 Oklahoma so maybe not. I'd say Alabama had higher highs but also lower lows this year than Indiana or SMU. It was very close between them and SMU, which was basically a coin flip. But the great thing about the 12-team playoff is that no team with an argument to best best in the nation can complain about being left out. All the bubble teams lost games they could have won so they can't complain when the bubble goes the wrong way for them.

[thspfc]

And what evidence do you have that Alabama would have fared better against Notre Dame?

For that matter what evidence do I have that Alcorn State would have fared better against Notre Dame? It's a broken sport with incomplete information. Conjecture will always be necessary.

The entire thing is up to a committee that is supposed to weigh this against other factors. You aren't keeping an 11-1 Big Ten team out of the playoffs anyway.

This line of thinking is part of the problem. Why not? Why is 11-1 a trump card, but say, 9-3 (Illinois' record) isn't? Is 10-2 a trump card? There just has to be more nuance than this. The sport is suffering. Two completely unwatchable games so far.

lol. The sport is not suffering. There are always playoff blowouts.

Anyway you are making my point. The committee is supposed to manage the nuance. You want to add some random minimum standard that takes the nuance away.

Just because the sport has always had blowouts doesn't mean we should be in favor of doing absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

The committee is not capable of managing the nuance. They suck at their jobs. If they were capable they would have left Indiana out. That's why there needs to be a standard.

The sport is fine. There is no logic to your statements. You just don't think Indiana is good, but have no evidence that anyone else is any better.

And the committee is incompetent because they included a 11-1 major conference team but not a 9-3 team that lost to Vanderbilt? Ok...

^this.

Indiana absolutely deserved a spot in the playoff to prove themselves. Sure, they lost in that game, but it's not like it was a bad game. If you go along with that line of thinking, it's not even worth playing the games because you just have the same SEC and Big Ten blue bloods in there every year regardless. Seeing Alabama lose three games and then actually have to miss the playoff as a result was absolutely the right call.

The point of the playoff is not to sort out which are the 12 best teams, it's to crown a national champion. Teams like Alabama did not show during the regular season that they were worthy of competing for the championship. Indiana did.

How exactly did Indiana show they were worthy?

They are a power conference team who played 12 games and won 11 of them, with their only loss coming to an even higher ranked team who is also in the playoff.

Okay and? Who did they beat? Which of their games made you say "yep, that's a playoff team"?

Are you an Alabama or SEC apologist?  If you were arguing against SMU I could see a somewhat reasonable.  Going after Indiana ex post facto because of how they played today makes no sense.

Not an SEC apologist. SMU shouldn't have been in either but they had more of an argument than Indiana.

[Roadgeekteen]

The committee didn't respect Indiana's schedule that much. That's why they were 10 while 11-1 Penn State was 6. As I said, all the bubble teams ranked 10-15 are very flawed in some way either by the lack of big wins or some bad loses. Nobody can complain when they get left out. And the BCS computers essentially agreed with the committee.

[Max Rockatansky]

Had SMU won the ACC championship game Alabama would have been in. Trouble is that they lost three games and put their fate in the hands of others.  There was no way a one loss Big Ten or SEC team wasn't making it in regardless of who they played.  Yes, Indiana had a weak schedule but they beat everyone in front of them except OSU.  Alabama had the Vanderbilt and Oklahoma losses which should have negated then from consideration anyways.

[thspfc]

There was no way a one loss Big Ten or SEC team wasn't making it in regardless of who they played.

And I reiterate that this is a problem.

Not saying anyone on this thread is guilty, but it's hilarious that the same people who complain about SEC bias are the ones who can't fathom leaving out a one loss B1G team, just because they are in the B1G.

If it somehow gives me more credibility, I will mention that I go to a Big Ten school.

[Max Rockatansky]

For what it's worth the Big Ten has been the better conference the last couple years.  It was bound to level off sometime form sheer SEC dominance.  It worked in Alabama's favor last year when it probably shouldn't have.   That was probably more about FSU being rendered uncompetitive by injury than conference bias.

[Roadgeekteen]

There was no way a one loss Big Ten or SEC team wasn't making it in regardless of who they played.

And I reiterate that this is a problem.

Not saying anyone on this thread is guilty, but it's hilarious that the same people who complain about SEC bias are the ones who can't fathom leaving out a one loss B1G team, just because they are in the B1G.

If it somehow gives me more credibility, I will mention that I go to a Big Ten school.

If not Indiana, then who? All the bubble teams had a lot of flaws. You also can't control your in-conference schedule.

For what it's worth the Big Ten has been the better conference the last couple years.  It was bound to level off sometime form sheer SEC dominance.  It worked in Alabama's favor last year when it probably shouldn't have. 

The SEC has been deeper than the BIG. The bottom of the BIG is very bad.

[SEWIGuy]

And what evidence do you have that Alabama would have fared better against Notre Dame?

For that matter what evidence do I have that Alcorn State would have fared better against Notre Dame? It's a broken sport with incomplete information. Conjecture will always be necessary.

The entire thing is up to a committee that is supposed to weigh this against other factors. You aren't keeping an 11-1 Big Ten team out of the playoffs anyway.

This line of thinking is part of the problem. Why not? Why is 11-1 a trump card, but say, 9-3 (Illinois' record) isn't? Is 10-2 a trump card? There just has to be more nuance than this. The sport is suffering. Two completely unwatchable games so far.

lol. The sport is not suffering. There are always playoff blowouts.

Anyway you are making my point. The committee is supposed to manage the nuance. You want to add some random minimum standard that takes the nuance away.

Just because the sport has always had blowouts doesn't mean we should be in favor of doing absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

The committee is not capable of managing the nuance. They suck at their jobs. If they were capable they would have left Indiana out. That's why there needs to be a standard.

The sport is fine. There is no logic to your statements. You just don't think Indiana is good, but have no evidence that anyone else is any better.

And the committee is incompetent because they included a 11-1 major conference team but not a 9-3 team that lost to Vanderbilt? Ok...

^this.

Indiana absolutely deserved a spot in the playoff to prove themselves. Sure, they lost in that game, but it's not like it was a bad game. If you go along with that line of thinking, it's not even worth playing the games because you just have the same SEC and Big Ten blue bloods in there every year regardless. Seeing Alabama lose three games and then actually have to miss the playoff as a result was absolutely the right call.

The point of the playoff is not to sort out which are the 12 best teams, it's to crown a national champion. Teams like Alabama did not show during the regular season that they were worthy of competing for the championship. Indiana did.

How exactly did Indiana show they were worthy?

They went 11-1  in a power conference and their only loss was to Ohio state. Very simple.

[SEWIGuy]

There was no way a one loss Big Ten or SEC team wasn't making it in regardless of who they played.

And I reiterate that this is a problem.

Not saying anyone on this thread is guilty, but it's hilarious that the same people who complain about SEC bias are the ones who can't fathom leaving out a one loss B1G team, just because they are in the B1G.

If it somehow gives me more credibility, I will mention that I go to a Big Ten school.

It doesn't.

[SEWIGuy]

And the committee is incompetent because they included a 11-1 major conference team but not a 9-3 team that lost to Vanderbilt? Ok...

There it is again, not looking beyond records. I'm confused, are you for or against critical thinking?

Says the dude who brought Alcorn State into the conversation. 🙄🙄🙄

[thspfc]

There was no way a one loss Big Ten or SEC team wasn't making it in regardless of who they played.

And I reiterate that this is a problem.

Not saying anyone on this thread is guilty, but it's hilarious that the same people who complain about SEC bias are the ones who can't fathom leaving out a one loss B1G team, just because they are in the B1G.

If it somehow gives me more credibility, I will mention that I go to a Big Ten school.

It doesn't.

I agree. But some people are kinda dumb.

[Roadgeekteen]

Well now Tennessee is getting blown out. I think blowouts are just common in college football especially in home stadiums.

[hotdogPi]

27-17 is not a blowout. I have no idea what the railing against Indiana was about.

[Max Rockatansky]

Well now Tennessee is getting blown out. I think blowouts are just common in college football especially in home stadiums.

These aren't pro teams.  Home field in college on big conference levels is a huge advantage.

[Roadgeekteen]

Well Tennessee is beginning to climb out of the hole.

[JayhawkCO]

And the committee is incompetent because they included a 11-1 major conference team but not a 9-3 team that lost to Vanderbilt? Ok...

There it is again, not looking beyond records. I'm confused, are you for or against critical thinking?

Says the dude who brought Alcorn State into the conversation. 🙄🙄🙄

RIP Steve McNair.

[gonealookin]

27-17 is not a blowout. I have no idea what the railing against Indiana was about.

17-3 at halftime, then 27-3 with 4:50 to go in the fourth quarter.  That's a "blowout" by any definition.  Indiana did score a TD, get the 2-point conversion, recover an onside kick and score another TD with 0:25 remaining to make it 27-17, but when the 2-point try after that one failed it was over.