AU64 10,122 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 says his team could have won a 4 team playoff last season.....and here is why. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/mark-dantonio-says-his-spartans-would-have-won-a-2013-playoff-182649773.html IMO, his thesis is correct for the future....a #4 seed will win the championship within 3 years after the system is in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keesler 5,922 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Have to see who the illustrious "committee" members choose to put in the playoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravejd 3,266 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 One cannot argue that the top four teams from last year would have made a pretty interesting playoff set up. Mich St. was on fire at the end of the season. I'll love them forever for beating OHST! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredst 9,064 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 He has a valid point but I'd argue that no team was hotter than Auburn after the SECCG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
war eagle6 0 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Their defense would have given fsu problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey 16,540 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 He has a valid point but I'd argue that no team was hotter than Auburn after the SECCG FSU? They did, unfortunately, beat us you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU64 10,122 Posted July 31, 2014 Author Share Posted July 31, 2014 Have to see who the illustrious "committee" members choose to put in the playoff. JMO but their top 4 will not look any different than the USA Today top 4 or about any other polling organization other than maybe in a slightly different order. Seeing who is on the committee, I can't imagine that any of the members will be looking to create controversy or bring attention to themselves over the playoffs. As for the Mich State comment.....he is probably correct that his team could have beaten FSU. Sparty has better defense that AU and probably a good enough defense to beat the 'noles. IMO, Jameis did nothing in the BCS game to show (me at least) that he was a Heisman Trophy player. As for Dantonio, what he did not explain was how he figured his team could have beaten the winner of the AU-Bama game....which I have great doubts about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixie1860 27 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 He has a valid point but I'd argue that no team was hotter than Auburn after the SECCG FSU? They did, unfortunately, beat us you know. What? It never happened. We beat Mizzou and the season ended. That's what the Doctors told me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerbrotha12 2,362 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 He has a valid point but I'd argue that no team was hotter than Auburn after the SECCG FSU? They did, unfortunately, beat us you know. What? It never happened. We beat Mizzou and the season ended. That's what the Doctors told me... At least that's how I remember it. 2013 SEC CHAMPS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,225 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Have to see who the illustrious "committee" members choose to put in the playoff. JMO but their top 4 will not look any different than the USA Today top 4 or about any other polling organization other than maybe in a slightly different order. Seeing who is on the committee, I can't imagine that any of the members will be looking to create controversy or bring attention to themselves over the playoffs. As for the Mich State comment.....he is probably correct that his team could have beaten FSU. Sparty has better defense that AU and probably a good enough defense to beat the 'noles. IMO, Jameis did nothing in the BCS game to show (me at least) that he was a Heisman Trophy player. As for Dantonio, what he did not explain was how he figured his team could have beaten the winner of the AU-Bama game....which I have great doubts about. I was impressed with the way MSU finished their season soundly defeating OSU in the BT Championship & then beating Stanford in the Rose Bowl. They certainly peaked at the absolute best time so ... who's to say they couldn't have beaten anyone: FSU, AU or uat? You know, that's the best argument for a playoff -- let's see who's the best by letting them show it on the field instead of arguing who has the best resume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gulftiger66 166 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Question is: Would MSU and/or Stanford been considered for a playoff spot above the SEC West runner-up...bama? What about Okie? This new system is flawed and we will see the result at the end of this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctoritas 2,826 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 He has a valid point but I'd argue that no team was hotter than Auburn after the SECCG FSU? They did, unfortunately, beat us you know. They did, but it happened after a 5 week layoff. If the game had been played the week after the SECCG, Auburn wins by 2 TDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoALtiger 3,849 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 He has a valid point but I'd argue that no team was hotter than Auburn after the SECCG FSU? They did, unfortunately, beat us you know. They did, but it happened after a 5 week layoff. If the game had been played the week after the SECCG, Auburn wins by 2 TDs. I totally agree with this. ^^ Not making any excuse for losing, but I do think if turned right around and played those guys after Atlanta, we'd have whipped them pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plaric 4 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Auburn got sloppy and cocky. Should have won by 2 tds even after the 5 week layoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle84 0 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 I wouldn't be surprised if the #4 seed wins the first playoff (especially if Auburn makes it in as #4 ). We are stuck with this for a decade, but I think the ideal will be 8 teams (and yes, the #8 seed could easily win it). That way all 5 "power" conf champs get in, with plenty of room for other deserving teams. IMO 16 would be too many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUBwins 10,046 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Auburn got sloppy and cocky. Should have won by 2 tds even after the 5 week layoff. Sloppy, yes but not cocky. We should have named our score in that game. We only played 3 quarters. We forgot where we were in the 3rd quarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey 16,540 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 He has a valid point but I'd argue that no team was hotter than Auburn after the SECCG FSU? They did, unfortunately, beat us you know. They did, but it happened after a 5 week layoff. If the game had been played the week after the SECCG, Auburn wins by 2 TDs. You know this because.....? Are you saying that with five weeks to prepare, Jumbo Fisher and his staff out-coached Malzahn and his staff by using the five weeks to better advantage? If you have a different explanation of why FSU improved more than Auburn did with five weeks to prepare, what is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredst 9,064 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 He has a valid point but I'd argue that no team was hotter than Auburn after the SECCG FSU? They did, unfortunately, beat us you know. They did, but it happened after a 5 week layoff. If the game had been played the week after the SECCG, Auburn wins by 2 TDs. He has a valid point but I'd argue that no team was hotter than Auburn after the SECCG FSU? They did, unfortunately, beat us you know. They did, but it happened after a 5 week layoff. If the game had been played the week after the SECCG, Auburn wins by 2 TDs. My point exactly. I think momentum is very important. Not saying the outcome would have been different for sure but I like our chances if we play them earlier. Your grasp of history is breathtaking, however Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctoritas 2,826 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 He has a valid point but I'd argue that no team was hotter than Auburn after the SECCG FSU? They did, unfortunately, beat us you know. They did, but it happened after a 5 week layoff. If the game had been played the week after the SECCG, Auburn wins by 2 TDs. You know this because.....? Are you saying that with five weeks to prepare, Jumbo Fisher and his staff out-coached Malzahn and his staff by using the five weeks to better advantage? If you have a different explanation of why FSU improved more than Auburn did with five weeks to prepare, what is it? Good lord, you're grumpy for someone who is a month away from football. I don't "know" it. It's my opinion, based on how hot we were at the end of the season after a miracle vs UGA, the best ending to a CFB game ever vs Bama, and an absolute offensive mauling vs Mizzou. College football is an emotional game, and I find it hard to believe that a wait of 5 weeks didn't tamp down the "feeling of destiny." The boys may have had a ton of confidence, they obviously got coached up, but it's perfectly reasonable to say that riding that emotional wave into the next week, rather than playing after waiting a month, could have changed the outcome significantly. Considering that FSU limited our total yards, total rushing yards, yards per carry, and points to levels below our season average - yes, it looks like Jimbo Fisher did outcoach CGM and staff, because they did, unfortunately, beat us you know. But that's your argument, not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.