In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1871
Online now 2289 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I have heard one of the guys on College Football Live (ESPN) and more recently Jack Arute mention that the selection committee should take into account who was injured if a team loses a game. Should a loss to a lesser team be excused just because a key player is injured? Isn't that where depth comes into play?
I say no. A loss is a loss.
thats idiotic. you play with who youve got. if we sustained no injuries, FSU most likely goes undefeated. injuries are part of the game. thats why you develop depth
a loss is a loss no matter how you cut it. thats like missing a last minute field goal, losing the game, then saying it didnt count because of "bad luck"
FSU Ambassador to the masses
Am I the only one that thinks a "Selection Committee" sounds like turrible idea for college football?
I agree. I think they are looking to build-in enough factors (excuses) to put in whoever they want to put in, despite what happens on the field.
im with you man. this sounds horrible
I'm with you. Anyone who honestly thinks the media won't heavily influence the selection is kidding themselves. There is no way that ESPN/ABC will put their bottom line in someone elses hands.
Heck, I have even heard Tim Brando openly admitt that ratings influence how he votes. This was in 2010 when Auburn was making the run. He said on his radio show that Auburn didnt bring the national ratings that the bigger state schools did (Alabama, Texas, Michigan, etc).
This post was edited by AUoutlaw 21 months ago
I think there are instances in which injuries should be accounted for, but they are few and far between. I'll give you a "for instance" from Iowa's recent past. In 2009, Iowa went 11-2 with an Orange Bowl win over Georgia Tech. Iowa's two losses were at home to Northwestern and at Ohio State, in overtime. QB Ricky Stanzi had the Hawkeyes 9-0 and ahead of NW when he got injured and missed the rest of the regular season. The loss to OSU was an OT loss to a Rose Bowl champion in their stadium. In a playoff scenario, if Iowa had been able to hold on and beat NW and then still gone into Ohio Stadium and taken a Rose Bowl caliber team to OT before falling, AND there was an assurance that their starting QB would be back at full strength for the playoff (Stanzi was back and played great in the Rose Bowl), AND it was a debate about who would go to the playoff (there was in '09, 13-0 Alabama, 13-0 Texas, 12-0 Cincinnati, 12-1 Florida, 12-0 Boise St, and 12-0 TCU were all worthy), then maybe a team would have their injury ignored.
That was probably convoluted. To summarize-yes, the occasional injury should be taken into account, but those situations are few and far between.
No, you're not. Because of egos, most of the good ideas were tossed out and instead we ended up with a bunch of crappy compromises. And the selection committee is one of the worst.
No. A selection committee isn't a bad idea when you're trying to pick 68 teams. It is a terrible idea when you're trying to pick 4 teams.
In that instance, I would have to say that Iowa should have had a stronger 2nd string QB to come into the game.
So would most people. Heck, if Iowa had taken care of business against Northern Iowa or Arkansas State, the backup would have had more experience. Still, if there's a situation to excuse a loss because of injury, that's the type of situation.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports