Should it be "who would win?" or "who deserves it?"

[Sheffielder]

I'm referring to playoff bids.

I detest Ohio State (it's their fans, really...) but in their playoff run, they were as impressive as any team I can ever remember seeing. In this respect, I don't know that another team was more deserving.

...but I also appreciate any arguments that they lost two conference games including to their middling rival at the end of the season (at home, no less) and did not play in or win their conference championship. And in a universe with 130 teams, should anyone (Oregon) have to play/beat anyone more than once?

And so, because it's Friday and the offseason has begun, I'm just curious about NU fanbase opinions of whether it should be about who we THINK would beat whom on the field, or who "deserves" to be there based on their body of work.

 

[hdhntr1]

I'm referring to playoff bids.

I detest Ohio State (it's their fans, really...) but in their playoff run, they were as impressive as any team I can ever remember seeing. In this respect, I don't know that another team was more deserving.

...but I also appreciate any arguments that they lost two conference games including to their middling rival at the end of the season (at home, no less) and did not play in or win their conference championship. And in a universe with 130 teams, should anyone (Oregon) have to play/beat anyone more than once?

And so, because it's Friday and the offseason has begun, I'm just curious about NU fanbase opinions of whether it should be about who we THINK would beat whom on the field, or who "deserves" to be there based on their body of work.

One thing for sure. The byes did not help anyone, They might help if a team had injuries and it there was not such a long period between end of season and playoffs but the way it is in college, did not help. Sort of like the biggest improvement in a team is between first and second game. This means to be in anyway fair probably have to go back to 8 or to 16 teams to avoid the byes

 

[rrdd2021]

I'm referring to playoff bids.

I detest Ohio State (it's their fans, really...) but in their playoff run, they were as impressive as any team I can ever remember seeing. In this respect, I don't know that another team was more deserving.
.

Agree, point blank. They - without a doubt - proved it on the field with that 4 game beatdown of 4 top ten teams. This NC was a no-doubter and anyone suggesting anything else just comes across as jealousy-hate

 

[AdamOnFirst]

IN a 12 team field, Ohio State deserved to make it at about exactly the seed they got (#8) while being obviously better than the #8 team in the county in terms of predictive quality.

You've gotta have it on resume. Football is a very small number of games, unlike basketball, so functionally what that means is you have to both be a good team AND have avoided too many upsets. In a 12 team playoff 2 losses, especially only one being an upset, obviously was no problem. But Alabama, who is almost definitely one of the 12 best teams in the country, and their 3 losses are right out.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

Agree, point blank. They - without a doubt - proved it on the field with that 4 game beatdown of 4 top ten teams. This NC was a no-doubter and anyone suggesting anything else just comes across as jealousy-hate

My biggest complaint about the playoff themselves this year was how the seeding worked out. Oregon got ****ing SCREWED getting matchup up with OSU, and Texas-OSU was by far a more interesting matchup than OSU Notre Dame. All the best teams were mostly stuffed on the same side of the bracket, doubly so with Beck injured for Georgia. Penn State in particular was very much not a team in the class of Texas, OSU, or Oregon but got a creamy path in.

 

[prez77]

I think to be the champ you need to be able to beat all comers. You can do the seeding to make it easier for the presumed better teams to get to the final, or you could do it to try to maximize the number of interesting games. At the end of the day, Oregon was going to have to get by Ohio State one more time to win the thing and it could come early or it come late but it was coming if Oregon and OSU were the best two.

 

[FeralFelidae]

IN a 12 team field, Ohio State deserved to make it at about exactly the seed they got (#8) while being obviously better than the #8 team in the county in terms of predictive quality.

You've gotta have it on resume. Football is a very small number of games, unlike basketball, so functionally what that means is you have to both be a good team AND have avoided too many upsets. In a 12 team playoff 2 losses, especially only one being an upset, obviously was no problem. But Alabama, who is almost definitely one of the 12 best teams in the country, and their 3 losses are right out.

Alabama lost to Michigan, too. Tough for anybody to try to make a case for them to make the field over the Buckeyes.

 

[wicker]

This season is an interesting study in a theory I have long considered. That is, do we evaluate someone on their worst day? I have tried it at the track without concrete results.

The arguments during the playoff were all about teams' failures. Now that is normal for CFB, recall all the times after a big game and the post game reaction was always "Loser was overrated"

I believe you must look at the team's full season and not use hypothetical matchups

Oh wait, sorry

How to pick the field?
Games won? Most talent? Losses?
Ah just add more teams