2023 Washington was nowhere close to being in the top 20. In fact, neither were 2023 Bama or 2023 Texas. 2023 Washington would be ranked 34th overall out of 40 teams, and Texas and Bama would be somewhere in the 26-30 range. Like I said, it just wasn't a strong year.
There were several years where none of 2023 Bama/Texas/Washington would've been in the top 4 at all. 2019 and 2017 had seven teams rated higher than all 3 of them, and 2016 and 2014 had six teams rated higher than all of them. There were weaker teams to make the CFP, but those were in years where the top 2 were usually extremely highly rated.
I can't point to a bunch of lists, but it sure seemed to me that CFP was down. I know in the SEC we had some of the weakest QBs we have had in a while. When I say "down," I mean that there just wasn't that one team that you said was way better than everyone else. We've seen that in the past, but not this year.
This leads credence to the feeling that CFB was down across the board. With UM having an O not even ranked in the top 50 that tells you something. We've just not had that in the past few years.
You keep talking about how good Georgia's offense was -- now name how many defenses they faced who were ranked in the top 10, the top 20, the top 30? Don't waste your time listing FSU, as they didn't play any starters in the game.
There just weren't any truly complete teams it felt like. Teams with really good defenses either had mediocre or below average offenses, while teams with explosive offenses had horrendous defenses. Then you had teams like Texas who were fairly solid on both sides but could play really sloppy, uninspired football.
You keep answering posts that aren't being made, stating facts that aren't relevant to my post.
Michigan played the #1, #3, #6, #14, #17 and #18 ranked defense out of the top 20 defenses.
It absolutely is relevant -- you didn't make the CFP because Bama controlled the entire game against Georgia. If it had been a last second win or Bama got lucky -- I could see the discussion. Bama was up 10 points most of the game.
You had a pedestrian offense regardless of who you played. Throw out all the stats you want, that isn't going to change.
One last time for the dimwit in the back ... we were obviously one of the top 4 teams in CFB ... we didn't get in because 1 of the best 4 and one of the most deserving 4 had to be left out because of the format. As I have stated, it is what it is, and won't be that way next year. Count your blessings that you had the format this year.It absolutely is relevant -- you didn't make the CFP because Bama controlled the entire game against Georgia. If it had been a last second win or Bama got lucky -- I could see the discussion. Bama was up 10 points most of the game.
Just say TY to Michigan for doing what you couldn't.
If Michigan has a pedestrian offense -- What does that make Georgia's offense? We put up more offense and points against Bama than Georgia.
Which team were you better than? Texas, who beat the team you lost to? Or Washington who was undefeated while playing a tougher schedule than you?
We had a way better offense than UM, that's obvious to everyone other than you. You don't know a lot about CFB or sports in general if you say, as you have, "UM has a better offense than UGA because we both faced 1 common opponent and we scored more points." I mean you really aren't that dumb, are you? It's rhetorical, we know you are that dumb.
No -- Michigan faced 6 of the top 20 defenses. How many did Georgia face?
Again with the transitive property in football. It doesn't work.Which team were you better than? Texas, who beat the team you lost to? Or Washington who was undefeated while playing a tougher schedule than you?
Oh wait -- I know. You were better than Bama.
EXPLAIN HOW YOU'D BE BETTER THEN? Just because?
