This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/cfb by /u/loyalsons4evertrue on 2024-11-13 17:03:30+00:00.
We hear these quotes and see comments on social media from CFB analysts and the general casual viewer saying “xyz team would be favored on a neutral field over xyz team” or “if xyz team had to play xyz team’s schedule, they’d do better/worse” when justifying a team’s ranking.
If we’re just playing hypotheticals, then WHY DO WE PLAY THE GAMES ANYWAY?
I feel like I have to use the example every time these sort of arguments come up, but on paper, no one gave TCU any chance of beating Michigan two years ago. Michigan was by far the more talented team, thus they were “better” in the eyes of the committee.
Then TCU shocks the world and beats them. It’s why we play the games, because games are not won on paper, they’re won on the field.
And for every comment saying, “Michigan would not have gotten blown out by Georgia”, well then why didn’t Michigan beat TCU? Are they stupid?