LSU bowl scenarios / projections / guesses

[Nutriaitch]

1 hour ago, Nutriaitch said:

my official prediction:

1. UGA
2. Michigan
3. TCU
4. tOSU

nailed it

[houtiger]

2 hours ago, dachsie said:

1. UGA

2. Michigan

3. OSU

4. TCU

It went this way in the actual rankings: Georgia, Michigan, TCU, Ohio State

The reason is that in the playoff, it 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3, and nobody wanted to see a repeat of Michigan - Ohio St.  So they put TCO at 3 and Ohio St. will play Ga.

But, this is the reason to expand the playoff.  Alabama is probably a better team than TCU.  Gumps lost on a last second field goal to a hot Tenn. team, and they lost in overtime to a good LSU team.  Heck #14 Kansas St. just knocked off TCU.

If you want to identify the best team in the nation, expand the playoff.  Skip the conf. championship games.  When you play a bowl game you don't get much for it beside a trip.  If you had a shot at the natty, much more to play for.

[Nutriaitch]

12 minutes ago, houtiger said:

It went this way in the actual rankings: Georgia, Michigan, TCU, Ohio State

The reason is that in the playoff, it 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3, and nobody wanted to see a repeat of Michigan - Ohio St.  So they put TCO at 3 and Ohio St. will play Ga.

But, this is the reason to expand the playoff.  Alabama is probably a better team than TCU.  Gumps lost on a last second field goal to a hot Tenn. team, and they lost in overtime to a good LSU team.  Heck #14 Kansas St. just knocked off TCU.

If you want to identify the best team in the nation, expand the playoff.  Skip the conf. championship games.  When you play a bowl game you don't get much for it beside a trip.  If you had a shot at the natty, much more to play for.

i remember when we went to 4, literally everyone said “#5 team has no argument”. 

now because a media darling gets left out “oh, we gotta go to 12”

 

Alabama has no good wins. 

sorry. shouldn’t have lost 2 fornicating games if you wanted to get in. 

[houtiger]

There has always been controversy over the #5 and #6 teams being left out, and with good reason.  Below is an article from 2013, before the first selection, controversy.

https://www.espn.com.au/college-football/story/_/id/9970317/using-team-metrics-select-college-football-playoff

As far as Gumps vs TCU this year, let's see.

TCU has wins over #11 Kansas St (regular season) and #21 Texas, and those are the only 2 ranked teams they played.  They have a last second win over unranked Baylor.  Then TCU lost to #11 Kansas St. in the conf. championship.

Gumps had wins over #20 Arkansas, #24 Miss. St. and #11 Ole Miss.  They lost to #6 Tenn. on a last second field goal, and #10 LSU in OT.

TCU played 2 ranked opponents in the regular season, but neither was in the top 10.

Gumps played 5 ranked opponents, 2 in the top ten. 

If strength of schedule counts for anything, Gumps should be in the playoff, not TCU.  Heck, USC is probably a better team than TCU.

Expanding the playoff eliminates those frequent controversies, and they happen almost every year.

 

[Herb]

 

[LSUDad]

Football 12/4/2022 3:28:00 PM

Orlando Bound: Purdue Accepts Cheez-It Citrus Bowl Invite

Boilermakers to face LSU on Monday, Jan. 2, at Camping World Stadium in Orlando

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. (Sunday, Dec. 4) - For the first time since 2006, Purdue Football's bowl destination resides within the Sunshine State. Head coach Jeff Brohm's Boilermakers (8-5) have accepted an invitation to play in the Cheez-It Citrus Bowl on Monday, Jan. 2 (1 p.m. ET), facing off against No. 17 LSU (9-4).
 
The latest bowl bid for the Old Gold & Black will be the 21st bowl game in Purdue history, including the fourth in six seasons under Brohm's leadership. Purdue has an all-time bowl record of 11-9, with Brohm going 2-1 with the Boilers and 4-1 in his career. The Boilermakers are appearing in the Citrus Bowl for the second time in school history.
 
"We're fortunate to have terrific momentum within our football program, and are extremely proud that Coach Jeff Brohm and our Boilermakers have been selected to represent Purdue University and the Big Ten Conference in the Cheez-It Citrus Bowl," said vice president and director of athletics Mike Bobinski. "Our students and fans have enthusiastically supported our Boilermakers all season long, and they now have the opportunity to join the team in Orlando for a first-class bowl game and experience. We are very appreciative of the Florida Citrus Sports organization for extending this invitation, and we look forward to an exciting game against LSU."
 
Purdue will arrive in Orlando with an 8-5 record and an opportunity to attain back-to-back nine-win seasons for the first time since the 1997 and 1998 seasons. Brohm also joins legendary head coach Joe Tiller as the only two coaches in Purdue history to make four bowl appearances in their first six years guiding the program.

[Nutriaitch]

52 minutes ago, houtiger said:

There has always been controversy over the #5 and #6 teams being left out, and with good reason.  Below is an article from 2013, before the first selection, controversy.

https://www.espn.com.au/college-football/story/_/id/9970317/using-team-metrics-select-college-football-playoff

As far as Gumps vs TCU this year, let's see.

TCU has wins over #11 Kansas St (regular season) and #21 Texas, and those are the only 2 ranked teams they played.  They have a last second win over unranked Baylor.  Then TCU lost to #11 Kansas St. in the conf. championship.

Gumps had wins over #20 Arkansas, #24 Miss. St. and #11 Ole Miss.  They lost to #6 Tenn. on a last second field goal, and #10 LSU in OT.

TCU played 2 ranked opponents in the regular season, but neither was in the top 10.

Gumps played 5 ranked opponents, 2 in the top ten. 

If strength of schedule counts for anything, Gumps should be in the playoff, not TCU.  Heck, USC is probably a better team than TCU.

Expanding the playoff eliminates those frequent controversies, and they happen almost every year.

 

want to know how not to get left out?

 

don’t lose. 

[Nutriaitch]

58 minutes ago, houtiger said:

There has always been controversy over the #5 and #6 teams being left out, and with good reason.  Below is an article from 2013, before the first selection, controversy.

https://www.espn.com.au/college-football/story/_/id/9970317/using-team-metrics-select-college-football-playoff

As far as Gumps vs TCU this year, let's see.

TCU has wins over #11 Kansas St (regular season) and #21 Texas, and those are the only 2 ranked teams they played.  They have a last second win over unranked Baylor.  Then TCU lost to #11 Kansas St. in the conf. championship.

Gumps had wins over #20 Arkansas, #24 Miss. St. and #11 Ole Miss.  They lost to #6 Tenn. on a last second field goal, and #10 LSU in OT.

TCU played 2 ranked opponents in the regular season, but neither was in the top 10.

Gumps played 5 ranked opponents, 2 in the top ten. 

If strength of schedule counts for anything, Gumps should be in the playoff, not TCU.  Heck, USC is probably a better team than TCU.

Expanding the playoff eliminates those frequent controversies, and they happen almost every year.

 

the fact that you’re advocating for a 2 loss team simply because of conference affiliation is what’s wrong with the entire system

 

want to go with “like opponents”?
TCU wins that argument. 

want to go with “best season”?
TCU wins that argument. 

meant to go rankings at time of game?
TCU is 5-1 vs top 25 and Alabama in 3-2  

 

want to go with literally any argument that doesn’t rely on “but they’re Alabama” or “they’re SEC”?
TCU wins that one too. 

 

only way Alabama deserves a shot is if you ignore losing games. 

the moment you start ignoring losses (or losses don’t eliminate you), you have too many teams. 

[Nutriaitch]

want to go with rankings at end of year?

 

Alabama lost to a team that got ass raped by USCe, and a team that got spanked by 5-7 A&M. 

 

[Nutriaitch]

hell anything more than 2 teams this year is too many. 

 

if you advocating for 12, then you are literally saying that fornicating Tulane deserves a shot at the title this year. 

Tulane!
seriously?!!?

[houtiger]

56 minutes ago, Nutriaitch said:

want to know how not to get left out?

 

don’t lose. 

should an undefeated UCF have gone to the playoff  a few years back?  That year a one loss Gumps team beat a one loss Ga. team in the championship game.

It's not just about the record, it never has been.  Strength of schedule counts, a lot.  In the BCS era, it was calculated by the computers and if it was not for strength of schedule, LSU would not have played Oklahoma for the championship in 2003. 

[houtiger]

1 hour ago, Nutriaitch said:

hell anything more than 2 teams this year is too many. 

 

if you advocating for 12, then you are literally saying that fornicating Tulane deserves a shot at the title this year. 

Tulane!
seriously?!!?

Actually, no.

Here's the CFP rankings today:

1	Georgia	13-0		-
2	Michigan	13-0		-
3	TCU	12-1		-
4	Ohio State	11-1
5	Alabama	10-2
6	Tennessee	10-2
7	Clemson	11-2
8	Utah	10-3
9	Kansas State	10-3
10	USC	11-2
11	Penn State	10-2
12	Washington	10-2

[Nutriaitch]

17 minutes ago, houtiger said:

Actually, no.

Here's the CFP rankings today:

1	Georgia	13-0		-
2	Michigan	13-0		-
3	TCU	12-1		-
4	Ohio State	11-1
5	Alabama	10-2
6	Tennessee	10-2
7	Clemson	11-2
8	Utah	10-3
9	Kansas State	10-3
10	USC	11-2
11	Penn State	10-2
12	Washington	10-2

so the power 5 teams with the fewest losses get in?

 

i.n other words: 

DON’T LOSE

 

[Nutriaitch]

any system that forgives losses is a crap system. 

[houtiger]

1 hour ago, Nutriaitch said:

meant to go rankings at time of game?
TCU is 5-1 vs top 25 and Alabama in 3-2  

TCU only played on top 10 team when they played, OK St., and they proved to be an imposter.  OK and Kansas are both unranked now.

Tenn. without Hendon Hooker got beat by S. Carolina the day Spencer Rattler set an SEC record for TD passes in a game.  Tenn. with Hooker was an excellent team.

But the discussion illustrates why they should expand the playoff.

If you asked the players, would you rather play a meaningless conf. championship game (and for most, no shot at the natty) and after that a meaningless bowl game, or would you rather suit up with a chance to move forward and play for the national championship, I think every one would vote to play for the natty.  Instead of some disinterested bowl games, there would be something of value, and the fans and players would get more out of it.  Players opt out of the bowl games before they go into the draft because the bowl games are meaningless to the players.  If you were playing for the natty, more of them would stay and play.  You don't see players tell Saban they are not playing in the natty game because they don't want to possibly get injured before the draft.  They play for that natty because it means something.

 

[Nutriaitch]

19 minutes ago, houtiger said:

Actually, no.

Here's the CFP rankings today:

1	Georgia	13-0		-
2	Michigan	13-0		-
3	TCU	12-1		-
4	Ohio State	11-1
5	Alabama	10-2
6	Tennessee	10-2
7	Clemson	11-2
8	Utah	10-3
9	Kansas State	10-3
10	USC	11-2
11	Penn State	10-2
12	Washington	10-2

seriously, teams ranked 3- are not worthy of the playoffs. 

 

 

[houtiger]

2 minutes ago, Nutriaitch said:

so the power 5 teams with the fewest losses get in?

 

i.n other words: 

DON’T LOSE

 

Here's the bottom line, they are changing the system in order to do a better job identifying the best team in the nation, on the field, not in somebody's imagination.  I like that.

[Nutriaitch]

Just now, houtiger said:

TCU only played on top 10 team when they played, OK St., and they proved to be an imposter.  OK and Kansas are both unranked now.

Tenn. without Hendon Hooker got beat by S. Carolina the day Spencer Rattler set an SEC record for TD passes in a game.  Tenn. with Hooker was an excellent team.

But the discussion illustrates why they should expand the playoff.

If you asked the players, would you rather play a meaningless conf. championship game (and for most, no shot at the natty) and after that a meaningless bowl game, or would you rather suit up with a chance to move forward and play for the national championship, I think every one would vote to play for the natty.  Instead of some disinterested bowl games, there would be something of value, and the fans and players would get more out of it.  Players opt out of the bowl games before they go into the draft because the bowl games are meaningless to the players.  If you were playing for the natty, more of them would stay and play.  You don't see players tell Saban they are not playing in the natty game because they don't want to possibly get injured before the draft.  They play for that natty because it means something.

 

A. “when they played is stupid. tOSU played against top 5 Notre Dame is you go by “when they played”.  But that fucks up your narrative, so you won’t mention it  

B.  Tenn was down by 4 TDs before hooker got hurt.  But that fucks up your narrative, so you won’t mention it. 

C. if you go by rankings “when game was played”, then tOSU is 5-1, Alabama in 3-2.  If you go by end of year rankings, the. TCU’s only loss is to a top 10 team in overtime. Alabam lost to a team that got ass raped by USCe and a 4 loss LSU

[Nutriaitch]

1 minute ago, houtiger said:

Here's the bottom line, they are changing the system in order to do a better job identifying the best team in the nation, on the field, not in somebody's imagination.  I like that.

they are changing the system to make more money. 

 

NOTIING about it is “better”

[Nutriaitch]

3 minutes ago, houtiger said:

Here's the bottom line, they are changing the system in order to do a better job identifying the best team in the nation, on the field, not in somebody's imagination.  I like that.

the argument was always “let’s make sure #1 is in”

 

well, #1 is absolutely in. 

why the fornicate does #12 have to be there?

 

oh, they don’t. we just want to make money and could give two fucks what the actual fans want. 

[houtiger]

3 minutes ago, Nutriaitch said:

they are changing the system to make more money. 

 

NOTIING about it is “better”

We'll see.  As Hatcher said, we don't want to see these college kids playing an NFL schedule.  To me, the conf. championship games have to go if you do a bigger playoff.  Then it may not be just about money.

If Gumps was in the playoff this year, they would be a sight more motivated than the team that was so disinterested they lost to the Rainbow Warriors in the Sugar Bowl a few years ago.  That is disinterest.

[Nutriaitch]

4 minutes ago, houtiger said:

We'll see.  As Hatcher said, we don't want to see these college kids playing an NFL schedule.  To me, the conf. championship games have to go if you do a bigger playoff.  Then it may not be just about money.

If Gumps was in the playoff this year, they would be a sight more motivated than the team that was so disinterested they lost to the Rainbow Warriors in the Sugar Bowl a few years ago.  That is disinterest.

ok, here is a very simple solution for you and every other Alabama fan that is pissed they didn’t get in. 

 

DO NOT LOSE THE 2 BIGGEST GAMES ON YOUR SCHEDULE. 

 

 

period.  

 

if you lose TWO fornicating games and still femaledog, then you have a vagina. 

[Nutriaitch]

against only 2 teams worth a fornicate Alabama played, they lost. 

 

period. 

 

end of discussion. 

 

want to go to playoffs?

don’t lose to everybody with a pulse on your schedule. 

[Nutriaitch]

oh, and before you give the same didley-poo Saban gave us about “favored to win”…, Alabama was favored to beat LSU by more than 2 TDs. 

 

how did that work out?

 

 

[Nutriaitch]

if you have a system that ignore actual

on field results to allow teams with multiple losses in, then you have too many teams in