teachercd
Active member
Well, that is a good point...I do think that the line was only -3.5 thoughMichigan St lost a game they shouldn't have and were selected to the CFP. If that is the trade off, then I don't have a problem with a loss.
Well, that is a good point...I do think that the line was only -3.5 thoughMichigan St lost a game they shouldn't have and were selected to the CFP. If that is the trade off, then I don't have a problem with a loss.
So do we need to break down Nebraska's hypothetical betting lines to determine which 1 or 2 losses are okay?Well, that is a good point...I do think that the line was only -3.5 thoughMichigan St lost a game they shouldn't have and were selected to the CFP. If that is the trade off, then I don't have a problem with a loss.
I would say the 4 loss standard, that was what we set out to overcome first under the new regime no? A division title and hopefully a conference title before 2019, that's kind of my mark they need to hit.Considerable improvement from what frame of reference?Well, you see, that would be why we fired the guy who had become stagnant. If by 2018 we haven't seen a considerable improvement to our state of the program I'll be shocked.
I think the betting line has/plays a part...So do we need to break down Nebraska's hypothetical betting lines to determine which 1 or 2 losses are okay?Well, that is a good point...I do think that the line was only -3.5 thoughMichigan St lost a game they shouldn't have and were selected to the CFP. If that is the trade off, then I don't have a problem with a loss.
Or can we just say that the goal is to get to the CFP regardless of the record?
The betting line had zero impact on the selection committee picking MSU for the playoffs.I think the betting line has/plays a part...So do we need to break down Nebraska's hypothetical betting lines to determine which 1 or 2 losses are okay?Well, that is a good point...I do think that the line was only -3.5 thoughMichigan St lost a game they shouldn't have and were selected to the CFP. If that is the trade off, then I don't have a problem with a loss.
Or can we just say that the goal is to get to the CFP regardless of the record?
But yes the goal is to make the CFP
Why would anyone want a big win for and even bigger lose? That just doesn't even make sense. You don't become champions by losing games like that.. just plain silly!
Kinda my thought, I just think I was wording my opinion in a way not corectly expressing my feelings.They'd be pretty stupid to answer the way almost everyone in this thread is answering.
This. Granted, there are times when a bad team will play out of their a$$ and give us a challenge, like colorado always did in the late 90's, but purdon't didn't just beat us, they manhandled us for most of the game.If we're good enough to beat MSU or OSU then we damn well shouldn't lose to Turdue.
Okay...not what I am talking about though...I just mean from my/fan perspectiveThe betting line had zero impact on the selection committee picking MSU for the playoffs.I think the betting line has/plays a part...So do we need to break down Nebraska's hypothetical betting lines to determine which 1 or 2 losses are okay?Well, that is a good point...I do think that the line was only -3.5 thoughMichigan St lost a game they shouldn't have and were selected to the CFP. If that is the trade off, then I don't have a problem with a loss.
Or can we just say that the goal is to get to the CFP regardless of the record?
But yes the goal is to make the CFP
Not necessarily. It depends on how good you are - or think you are - in the first place. If you're a back-end-of-the-Top 25 team, beating a Top 5 team is a great win but you are a lot closer to them than you would be a hasn't-beaten-a-B1G-team-in-three-years team so the "absolute value" would skewed the other way. If you're a 5-7 team, you're probably right.Because in the scenario pointed out by the OP, the big win has a larger absolute value than the loss does. You beat a top 5 ranked OSU, and then you lose a close game to an Illinois/Maryland, with all the rest of the games on the schedule going the way they 'should' go on paper, that is a net positive gain by a long shot.
Generally agree with this and what StPaulHusker has been saying. If it's one loss but you still win a conference championship and/or get a Playoff invite, I'm sure that's right. But if it's the difference between a 9/10 win season, that changes how much the victory is worth.Ohio State lost to Virginia Tech in 2014. I'm wondering how in the hell they became champions? If this question were posed to them, without guarantee of the playoffs, what do you think their answer would be? "Would you be okay with losing to sh**ty Virginia Tech but then beating #7 MSU, or #11 Wisc, or #1 Bama, or #2 Oregon, with all the rest of the games going the way they should go?" They'd be pretty stupid to answer the way almost everyone in this thread is answering.
I don't know if there are too many variables. There just needs to be the question of, "What's the end result of the season?"So we can agree that the original question is too loaded to answer correctly/incorrectly because there are far too many variables?