Media hates us, we get no respect, keep the chip on our shoulder thread

[ChiComCat]

Alabama opened at about an 85% chance to win and Oklahoma controlled the second half - Not all that close when OU was never worse 2 to 1 to win in the 4th.

[XocolateThundarr]

My favorite media talking point is when they start debating the best loss of the one-loss teams. 

['taterblast]

[CHONGS]

wrong thread I think 'tater

[XocolateThundarr]

['taterblast]

wrong thread I think 'tater

i'm assuming in that picture that it means we won out and finished unbeaten in the big 12 winning @OU, @TCU, @WVU, and @BU. if that happens and we are the second OUT of the playoff, i will burn everything down.

[sak]

wrong thread I think 'tater

i'm assuming in that picture that it means we won out and finished unbeaten in the big 12 winning @OU, @TCU, @WVU, and @BU. if that happens and we are the second OUT of the playoff, i will burn everything down.

no that picture is how things stand if the season were to end today in the opinion of Brad Edwards.

For what it is worth, if Auburn, Mississippi State, and Florida State all win out, Kansas State vs. Oregon will be an interesting debate for the last spot (if they were to both win out as well). The odds of all those teams winning out is almost zero, but still...

[CNS]

Auburn better hope we get left out.  We aren't missing fg's these days.

[sak]

Auburn better hope we get left out.  We aren't missing fg's these days.

and auburn isn't dropping long touchdown passes?

do you think auburn would have taken a knee on the 20 yard line as time expired if they had been trailing?

[Cire]

If you have 2 losses and one of them is to a team that is definitely IN then you are out.  No rematches.

[sak]

If you have 2 losses and one of them is to a team that is definitely IN then you are out.  No rematches.

so you are saying it is better to lose to teams outside the top 4 than inside the top 4?

LOL, okay.

it's too bad weight is given to conference champions when conferences can vary so much in strength. it should be the 4 best teams. if all 4 of them are from the pacific northwest, then so be it. if all 4 happen to be from alabama and mississippi, then so be it. if all 4 are from the upper midwest, then so be it.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think it should be limited to conference champions because if you can't even win your own conference, then you clearly aren't the best team in the country. You might be better than some other school that did win their conference, but how can you really know that without actually putting that other team on the field to play a game?

[DOD Take 2]

Big LOL to anyone who thinks there are 4 SEC teams better than anything in the Big 12. Mississippi is the only team for sure better until further notice. Auburn might be better, hard to say, but I'd put them above at this point. Alabama and Ole Miss have shown nothing to put them above anyone of the top 3 in the Big 12. They should be mixed in with BU, TCU, and KSU.

[sunny_cat]

Big LOL to anyone who thinks there are 4 SEC teams better than anything in the Big 12. Mississippi State is the only team for sure better until further notice. Auburn might be better, hard to say, but I'd put them above at this point. Alabama and Ole Miss have shown nothing to put them above anyone of the top 3 in the Big 12. They should be mixed in with BU, TCU, and KSU.

fyp

[Rage Against the McKee]

If you have 2 losses and one of them is to a team that is definitely IN then you are out.  No rematches.

so you are saying it is better to lose to teams outside the top 4 than inside the top 4?

LOL, okay.

it's too bad weight is given to conference champions when conferences can vary so much in strength. it should be the 4 best teams. if all 4 of them are from the pacific northwest, then so be it. if all 4 happen to be from alabama and mississippi, then so be it. if all 4 are from the upper midwest, then so be it.

I think a top 4 loss is equally as bad as a loss to a bad team, but then again, I don't like rewarding teams for losing football games. Your ranking should be based upon who you beat, not who you lose to. Auburn should get a big bump for beating Kansas State. Kansas State should be given no credit for losing to Auburn. That is the way it should be.

[DOD Take 2]

 

Big LOL to anyone who thinks there are 4 SEC teams better than anything in the Big 12. Mississippi State is the only team for sure better until further notice. Auburn might be better, hard to say, but I'd put them above at this point. Alabama and Ole Miss have shown nothing to put them above anyone of the top 3 in the Big 12. They should be mixed in with BU, TCU, and KSU.

fyp

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

wrong thread I think 'tater

i'm assuming in that picture that it means we won out and finished unbeaten in the big 12 winning @OU, @TCU, @WVU, and @BU. if that happens and we are the second OUT of the playoff, i will burn everything down.

no that picture is how things stand if the season were to end today in the opinion of Brad Edwards.

For what it is worth, if Auburn, Mississippi State, and Florida State all win out, Kansas State vs. Oregon will be an interesting debate for the last spot (if they were to both win out as well). The odds of all those teams winning out is almost zero, but still...

I'm still not sure why anyone is making playoff predictions "if the season ended today" other than to fill some airtime. What a jerkoff excercise.

[RickRampus]

If you have 2 losses and one of them is to a team that is definitely IN then you are out.  No rematches.

so you are saying it is better to lose to teams outside the top 4 than inside the top 4?

LOL, okay.

it's too bad weight is given to conference champions when conferences can vary so much in strength. it should be the 4 best teams. if all 4 of them are from the pacific northwest, then so be it. if all 4 happen to be from alabama and mississippi, then so be it. if all 4 are from the upper midwest, then so be it.

I think a top 4 loss is equally as bad as a loss to a bad team, but then again, I don't like rewarding teams for losing football games. Your ranking should be based upon who you beat, not who you lose to. Auburn should get a big bump for beating Kansas State. Kansas State should be given no credit for losing to Auburn. That is the way it should be.

if you don't mind I'd like to rehash this so that some others can understand.  You are basically saying the Auburn loss should rank equally to a theoretical loss to the University of Kansas.  Is this what you are saying?

[Rage Against the McKee]

If you have 2 losses and one of them is to a team that is definitely IN then you are out.  No rematches.

so you are saying it is better to lose to teams outside the top 4 than inside the top 4?

LOL, okay.

it's too bad weight is given to conference champions when conferences can vary so much in strength. it should be the 4 best teams. if all 4 of them are from the pacific northwest, then so be it. if all 4 happen to be from alabama and mississippi, then so be it. if all 4 are from the upper midwest, then so be it.

I think a top 4 loss is equally as bad as a loss to a bad team, but then again, I don't like rewarding teams for losing football games. Your ranking should be based upon who you beat, not who you lose to. Auburn should get a big bump for beating Kansas State. Kansas State should be given no credit for losing to Auburn. That is the way it should be.

if you don't mind I'd like to rehash this so that some others can understand.  You are basically saying the Auburn loss should rank equally to a theoretical loss to the University of Kansas.  Is this what you are saying?

Yes, absolutely. Both are worth nothing. An Auburn win should be huge, though. Say team A plays our 2014 schedule and finishes 7-5 with wins over SFA, ISU, UTEP, Tech, OSU, and Kansas. Team B plays our schedule and finishes 5-7 with wins over Auburn, Oklahoma, TCU, West Virginia, and Baylor. Which team would you rather face? I would be far more worried about the 5-7 school with wins over good teams than the 7-5 school that can't beat anybody with a pulse.

[RickRampus]

If you have 2 losses and one of them is to a team that is definitely IN then you are out.  No rematches.

so you are saying it is better to lose to teams outside the top 4 than inside the top 4?

LOL, okay.

it's too bad weight is given to conference champions when conferences can vary so much in strength. it should be the 4 best teams. if all 4 of them are from the pacific northwest, then so be it. if all 4 happen to be from alabama and mississippi, then so be it. if all 4 are from the upper midwest, then so be it.

I think a top 4 loss is equally as bad as a loss to a bad team, but then again, I don't like rewarding teams for losing football games. Your ranking should be based upon who you beat, not who you lose to. Auburn should get a big bump for beating Kansas State. Kansas State should be given no credit for losing to Auburn. That is the way it should be.

if you don't mind I'd like to rehash this so that some others can understand.  You are basically saying the Auburn loss should rank equally to a theoretical loss to the University of Kansas.  Is this what you are saying?

Yes, absolutely. Both are worth nothing. An Auburn win should be huge, though. Say team A plays our 2014 schedule and finishes 7-5 with wins over SFA, ISU, UTEP, Tech, OSU, and Kansas. Team B plays our schedule and finishes 5-7 with wins over Auburn, Oklahoma, TCU, West Virginia, and Baylor. Which team would you rather face? I would be far more worried about the 5-7 school with wins over good teams than the 7-5 school that can't beat anybody with a pulse.

are we still talking about rankings that affect the playoffs?  That is what I thought we were talking about. 

['taterblast]

"manhattan, ks has about five people in it'

-paul finebaum's side kick guy

[Tobias]

[The Big Train]

now this is what i am talking about

[Rage Against the McKee]

If you have 2 losses and one of them is to a team that is definitely IN then you are out.  No rematches.

so you are saying it is better to lose to teams outside the top 4 than inside the top 4?

LOL, okay.

it's too bad weight is given to conference champions when conferences can vary so much in strength. it should be the 4 best teams. if all 4 of them are from the pacific northwest, then so be it. if all 4 happen to be from alabama and mississippi, then so be it. if all 4 are from the upper midwest, then so be it.

I think a top 4 loss is equally as bad as a loss to a bad team, but then again, I don't like rewarding teams for losing football games. Your ranking should be based upon who you beat, not who you lose to. Auburn should get a big bump for beating Kansas State. Kansas State should be given no credit for losing to Auburn. That is the way it should be.

if you don't mind I'd like to rehash this so that some others can understand.  You are basically saying the Auburn loss should rank equally to a theoretical loss to the University of Kansas.  Is this what you are saying?

Yes, absolutely. Both are worth nothing. An Auburn win should be huge, though. Say team A plays our 2014 schedule and finishes 7-5 with wins over SFA, ISU, UTEP, Tech, OSU, and Kansas. Team B plays our schedule and finishes 5-7 with wins over Auburn, Oklahoma, TCU, West Virginia, and Baylor. Which team would you rather face? I would be far more worried about the 5-7 school with wins over good teams than the 7-5 school that can't beat anybody with a pulse.

are we still talking about rankings that affect the playoffs?  That is what I thought we were talking about.

Yes. You should be rewarded for beating good teams. You should not be rewarded for losing to them. You should get next to no credit for beating a school like Kansas, and 0 credit for losing to them. Basically, having them on the schedule should be treated as a lost opportunity. I would say a team that loses to them but beats Auburn is probably better than a team that loses to Auburn and beats Kansas.

[Cire]

Nobody is losing to ks. The playoff should not have a rematch. There are no good losses