Re: Anyone listen to that idiot Braden Gall last night?

not he's an idiot, but i do agree that there can be a distinction between better and more deserving. Right now we are more deserving than Louisville, but it is also possible that they could be the better team. I'm not saying they are - we could certainly be better AND more deserving - but i do think there's a difference.

For the purpose of championships and playoff bids, i believe the more deserving team should get the nod. There are others though that think it should just be the 4 best teams, period.

2014 FSU is probably a good example. If you remember anything about that team, you can probably recall them narrowly escaping virtually every game en route to a 13-0 season. The record didn't impress the advanced metrics (or me) as they finished the season 15th in the F/+ combined on FO (not sure where they were before the playoff loss to Oregon, but not top 10).

Would anyone really feel comfortable leaving that 13-0 FSU team out of the playoff. On one hand they were clearly deserving based on hardware and resume. On the other hand, it was also pretty clear from watching them that they weren't a top 4 team. But in order to leave them out you would have to completely ignore actual W/L records and championships, and that's not something I'm willing to do. Winning games has to mean something.

apextiger

All-TigerNet [11934]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 16363

Joined: 11/30/98

I prefaced it by saying "All things being equal" so ...

Oct 26, 2016, 4:32 PM

... of course it would depend on both teams continuing to win after the head-to-head matchup.

For example, I would never say Ole Miss was better than Bama last year even though they beat The Tide head-to-head. Alabama won out and Ole Miss lost more games, so the head-to-head argument was not valid anymore.

But, when teams like Clemson and Louisville are compared ... and Clemson is undefeated and Louisville still has that one loss to Clemson, then saying Louisville is better is a totally unsupportable statement.

In that case, head-to-head is all that counts regardless of what else Louisville did before or does after the loss to Clemson. If both win out, there is no way to seriously argue that Louisville is better than Clemson.

Still, there are those who will try. They will want to say Louisville is better because of what happened in other games. They'll say something like "Louisville hung 63 on Florida State, and Clemson struggled to win." But, because of the head-to-head loss to Clemson, their argument just doesn't stand up.

PS: You mentioned that certain teams that lost in upsets would be favored in a re-match. I won't argue that point, because being "favored" is a matter of someone's opinion, but if in the re-match, the favored team won (once again, head-to-head) then it can be legitimately said that they were the better team, because they won the game.

Trying to debate the issue can become difficult and convoluted, but I still think things clear up rapidly when you just look strictly at the head-to-head match-up to gauge superiority between teams that are equal otherwise.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Anyone listen to that idiot Braden Gall last night?

Yeah.... the Ohio State was funny as well.

I've never listed to him and therefore can't say whether or

Re: I've never listed to him and therefore can't say whether or

Everything he says is flawed.

Yes, I heard him. Wish the offense would just "click"

Never give credibility to anyone who discounts head-to-head

In terms of being more deserving for a playoff bid, yes.

MSU was better on the day they played OSU and Michigan and

That's not really true. We have ~14 games worth of

I prefaced it by saying "All things being equal" so ...

Re: that 'idiot' Braden Gall...

TigerBoard POTD