Tnobes wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 7:17 pm
thepostman wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 1:36 pm
He still didn't say he would rather lose than win. So thanks for proving my point.
PH can fight is own battles well enough without me.
So now I ask, what is your point in all of this? If we just schedule low end teams and go unbeaten we should get into the CFP as it is currently constructed? I really don't know what your point is but if you're willing to make one, feel free! I am all ears.
Ok. One more time for the kids on the short bus.
"A 3 pt LOSS to Oregon IS BETTER THAN A WIN against western kentucky"
So yes he likes losing. My point is very easy, schedule teams and beat them whether you play alabama or you play UMass, beat them. A loss to Alabama by 3 is still a loss and makes your season a failure, just ask ohio state after they lose to Alabama if they like their moral victory or would they rather be holding the trophy?
Where did I say I like losing?
If you lose to Oregon by 3 you’re probably good enough to beat Western Kentucky pretty handily. Just because you beat Western Kentucky doesn’t mean you can compete with Oregon. Since the discussion has to do with how we can determine who is a better football team and that all games and teams are not created equal that gives, what grown ups call “context” to the comment. You take LU’s schedule this year and replace one of the FCS wins with a 3 point loss to Clemson or Alabama the media respect and exposure would have been off the charts.
Now, before you get your pampers in a powder, yes it’s great to win every game you play. And scheduling out of your lane resulting in multiple losses against Power 5 power schools is going to have a detrimental effect up and down your program. But in the context in which we adults were discussing scenarios, yes a 3 point loss to Oregon would look better than a 14 point win against WKU.