Penn State won the conference...end of discussion....everything else is just mental masturbation.
And the committee chose Ohio State because
- Thread starter ga.lion
- Start date
Wow you really should learn some facts before spewing your bull shit on here. There were two incidents psu was made aware of. The first was in 98 in which psu police were called by a mother about an inappropriate shower (no abuse was alleged). Psu police didn't cover it up and informed CYS and the DA. CYS didn't indicate JS and told everyone this was all no big deal, normal coach behavior. Shortly after this is when JS retired (his retirement talks were already in progress before this incident happened) and received emeritus status and the ok to bring TSM kids into psu football building (something JoePa was against btw).
The second incident happened in 2001 and the first two people told about it were the witnesses' dad and family friend (neither of whom were psu employees) and they have testified that whatever the witness reported that night (inappropriate shower that made him uncomfortable) wasn't bad/detailed enough to warrant a call to police or CYS so they told the witness to tell Joe the next day as if it was an HR issue. Psu didn't do "nothing" with this report. They contacted outside counsel, confronted Js about his inappropriate behavior, revoked his guest privileges, and informed the mandatory reporters at TSM who were in charge of both JS and the kid he was with. If you are upset get uspset with the real people who failed the kids: TSM and CYS and OAG and the media.
Last edited:
Ohio State played the #1, #3 and #5 Western Division teams with a 69.4% regular season winning percentage.
PSU played the #2, #4 and #7 Western Division teams with a 52.8% regular season winning percentage. Add #1 Wisconsin in the championship game and they played cross division teams with 59.2% winning percentage.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing a FAR tougher schedule for PSU.
You're absolutely right. Penn State won the conference and that's why they are in the Rose Bowl.
His point is, and I'm sure you're astute enough to comprehend it, is that WMU should have been in the CFP. According to your logic, record means everything and a one loss trumps a two loss team. Therefore, a zero loss D-I team trumps a one-loss D-1 team . W's and L's are all that matters. It's all D-I. That is the end of the story. 0<1!
Given the pile of dung that played last night, it is almost a certainty that WMU would have represented the CFP better than the embarrassing display put on by OSU.
Given the pile of dung that played last night, it is almost a certainty that WMU would have represented the CFP better than the embarrassing display put on by OSU.
And screwed out of the playoff for a lesser team. So Washington should have been in the Rose Bowl too.
You're an imbecile. Clemson lost to them too, when Clemson was #2. Where was Penn State ranked, fisty?
There it is right there. Check and mate to TJ8869's flawed and specious argument.
Lol. Ohio State's 11-1 record trumps Penn State's 11-2 record because they played essentially the same schedules. Western Michigan's 13-0 record means nothing because they didn't play anyone. They played absolutely zero teams that were in the Top 40. Ohio State played four Top 10 teams (three of them being prime time road games) and beat three of those four teams.
Western Michigan's undefeated record means nothing because their strength of schedule is awful. It's so simple that a child could understand it, yet you guys keep parading this point and acting like it's "check and mate".
You're not quite ready for chess, man. You should probably stick to something a little more your speed, like Connect Four or Hungry Hungry Hippos.
The committee put a team in the playoffs that didn't even play in their conference championship game, then that team gets boat raced in the playoffs, and we've got morons on here from that school (and a few others) defending that decision. What the hell did people think was going to happen when you put a second place (or third depending on how you look at it) team in the playoffs?
You should stay in your trunk monkey boy. If the rules apply to one team, they should apply to all.
Nice to see that stupidity continues to reign in 2017. Pitt, OSU, and Michigan fans all talking smack after they lost? That's rich.
I agree, 8 teams, or 6 teams where the top two teams receive a bye from the first round.
It does not matter. They all played in D-I opponents. Arguments have been made that the AZ cardinals have a better divisional record but a worse overall record so Seeattle is in the playoff...blah, blah, blah. The fact is that WMU has zero losses and OSU had one loss. Therefore, WMU deserves to be in over OSU and PSU.
Strength of Schedule, Teams Peaking, Teams Tanking, Teams who got beat convincingly head to head, Teams who won by flukes, Teams whose QB looks like a deer in the headlights scanning the defense, Teams who lost three of their last four, 75% of the season, 100% of the season, ...all of it is immaterial.
You want to use that WMU played nobody because it supports your point of view. You discount everything else. OSU stunk at the end of the year. Last night showed how much they stunk.
PSU was the better team than OSU at the end of the season. But, PSU had two losses. OK. Fair point. WMU had zero losses. That means that nobody beat them. Nobody! They deserved the CFP over OSU.
Your argument loses all value with that simple fact. Zero is less than one.
Three 1-loss teams got in over a no loss team moron. I guess you flunked your number line class there scUM-boy! BTW, can you explain to us all why a 1-loss aTm team was ranked #4 in the inaugural Selection Committee Ranking this year over multiple NO LOSS TEAMS? This definitively DISPROVES your claims as to overall record being the primary determinant of their Rankings, but you clearly flunked your logic, cognitive thought and proof theory classes as well...LMFAO at what a freaking moron and jack@ss you are. Your arguments have zero objective intellectual underpinning - diametric opposite IN FACT- you continually regurgitate bull$hit subjective rhetoric that you change and morph to suit your needs depending upon any specific point you wish to argue, but CONTRADICT earlier arguments you've made! LMFAO, in other words, the diametric opposite of intellectual honesty or objectivity.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
One of the best, most concise breakdowns of the situation I have read. Very straightforward. If any opposing fan or other ignoramous out there wants to continue to live in la la land (pun intended) ... so be it
Spot on with this. Anyone watching these teams play knew who was peaking at the time and it wasn't osu. Just like peppers winning awards....all hype.
This guy is such an @sshat and clown, it isn't even funny - he routinely CONTRADICTS and SELF-INVALIDATES his own argumentation and then starts lecturing others on the intellectual-superiority of his completely anti-intellectual, non-objective, purely subjective and self-serving bull$hit argumentation! Class example, out of one side of his doofus, slack-jaw, b1g shizhole homer mouth he says WMU's record should be ignored because they had no impressive victories that prove they belong in the Top 4...but than out of the other side of idiot-boy's mouth were told that Washington should go in front of PSU because they both had Conference Championships but Washington had a better record (IOW, in this case we should pay attention solely to overall record despite the fact Washington played absolutely no one, and didn't record a victory over a team even in the area-code of a playoff-worthy team, but in this case we should ignore the fact that they had zero wins over anyone of significance and only pay attention to overall record...huh? WTF? Which criteria are we using again - objective absolute record or subjective "quality-adjusted record"?).
This guy is a classic b1g shizhole douche like this $hitbag conference's commissioner - he likes to talk out of both sides of his mouth regarding the importance of winning the B1G Division, regular season title and CCG to suit their biased, bull$hit, completely subjective, utterly non-objective & anti-intellectual arguments.
Last edited:
Ugh. Why are so many people so stupid? Penn State lost to Michigan in week FOUR, with about half of its D starters out, and (literally) about 2/3 of its LBs on its roster.
After that game, Penn State beat Ohio State, and then went on to win every other game (several in convincing manner against teams that Ohio State squeaked by) -- Including an extra game against the then #5 Wisconsin Badgers.
Yeah, with some unusual injury circumstances, we lost two games early, but, with any objectivity, what we did over the final eight weeks more than erased that.
Penn State beat Ohio State, THEN improved considerably. Ohio State lost to Penn State, and then tread water at best (I would say they got worse) the rest of the season.
Again, sure, we lost two games early, but it's quite obvious that at the end of the regular season, Penn State was (is) a much better team. All you need is a little objectivity and you can see it too.
You r arguing with a person possessing the intelligence level that provides them zero intellectual curiosity or critical thinking skills.
Your prerogative, but just saying.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Penn State was an unranked 18.5 underdog in that game too. Given the injuries on defense, it's not difficult to see how things spiraled out of control in that game. But, we still ended up ranked in the Top 5, won the conference championship, and beat two top ten teams en route.
As far as Ohio State being outclassed. WhY would anybody expect anything different. The Big10's best team was sent to the Rose Bowl and instead the CFP committee selected what was somewhere between the 2nd to 5th best team from the Big10 to play a very good conference championship team.
yes. i played college football. 3rd or 4th string. you can win your conf and be weaker team than a team that loses their conf. you are changing the rules/criteria of the playoff committee to suit you,. head to head matters with osu even though they onlu one close loss? and psu had 2 including a blowout loss. but according to to you, head to head does not matter with mich.? even though they blew psu out and their other loss is a better loss than your other loss. you say non conf is important. well osu had a better non conf win than you. mich killed psu and had a solid non conf. win against col. they lost to iowa which is similar to your pitt loss. but they beat psu badly head to head. you should have no issue with not getting in.
what if you were 10-3(2 non conf, losses), won your conf, beat a 12-1 mich team. so should you get in that time as well. you won your conf and mich did not as they lost head to head with psu. thios is why conf. champ does not mean that much. you can win your conf and still not be as good as the second place team. your resume is weaker than psu and mich. 2 loss teams should never get in unless all the top teams have two losses. one yr the two best teams were bama and lsu. but one of those teams lost their division and conference championship-bama. but those were the two best teams. it should be the 4 best teams regardless of who wins the conf. and psu tied for first in the conf. t hey won a 2 way tie for first place. they were not really outright champions. they have to pick one team. psu won a tie breaker to play in the champ. game. it was a tie for first place that they had to solve in some way. psu did not really win it outright. you did beat wiskly, but so did osu and mich.
Last edited:
but clem only had one total loss. psu had two including a blowout loss. usc was the hottest team in the country at the end of the yr. we are favored against psu. but there is no way we should be in the playoffs. even if we had won our conf champ we should not be allowed in. our resume is not great. we have proven we are beatable more than once. we got blown out once. wait a second, this sounds just like psu. interesting.
Let me try to state this as simply as possible, because some of our visitors seem to have trouble with what seems obvious to us, but might be nuance to them.
Ok, here we go...
No team that did not win its conference should get in the playoff unless the the team that won said conference also got in.
So, under your hypothetical, maybe/probably Penn State would not be in. BUT, if not, neither should anyone else from that conference.
If it is determined that the winner of a particular conference isn't worthy of the playoff, then neither is any team that couldn't even win that conference.
Get it now?
Have you ever heard of capital letters, paragraphs and complete sentences? I have a hard time believing you went to any college, much less USC. Its very difficult to read the poorly written blurbs you put out.
When their fan base buys shirts that read, "keep calm and beat Penn" maybe this troll's posts are representative of the fans. Not sure but seems that way.
Wow. Anybody ever notice it takes a huge volume of words to rationalize a bullshit position?
Big Ten Champion - Penn State
East Division Champion - Penn State
Penn State 24 Ohio State 21
No rationalization necessary. Facts are facts, Penn State is the Big10's best football team.
i think the big 10 looked great early on. but now they are showing that they are just an an average big conf. the acc has come on as of late with bottom feeder teams like wake and nc having decent teams. then you some solid to good teams like gt, nc, lville, pitt, miami. and by the end of the year you had 3 teams that were playing really good/great football in vt, fsu and clem. that is a very impressive conf from top to bottom. on any given day most of those teams can beat just about anyone in the country. and the acc just took out your two big traditional powerhouses. acc is great this yr.
Just to be clear, ACC #1 took out B1G #2/3, and ACC #2 took out B1G #3/4.
where did i say the pac 12 was better than the big 10? pac 12 is probably lower than the big 10.
Nobody is defending the decision. This is a classic case of people talking past each other. You are arguing from the point of how the committee should work. The "defenders" are explaining how the committee actually works.
If the argument is simply how the committee should work, then I agree with you. However, that's not reality. The reality is that we have a system that is flawed from its conception. It's the old saying: garbage in, garbage out.
not the big ten's best team. they are simply the conf champs. it does not mean you are the best team in your conference when you win it. vegas and the playoff committee felt osu was the better team.
