And the committee chose Ohio State because
- Thread starter ga.lion
- Start date
clem beat the no 2 or 3 team based on the committee or the AP. that team, osu, was deemed better than the big 10 conf. winner.
Factual data presented prior to subjective conclusion is still only your opinion.
However, I am glad to see we are progressing. You are at least now attempting to argue the ohio state superior baloney.
every conf champ does not deserve a spot. what if a conf champ is not a great team? like fsu several years ago or even psu this yr. what if a conf is simply terrible and the conf champ has 2 to 4 losses in total. but other second place teams in various conferences have one less and a much more dominant record?
pick the best teams, but not necessarily the conf champs. .
I will. But how "it goes tomorrow" has no bearing on how good we are relative to Ohio State. Regardless of how it goes tomorrow, we're objectively better than Ohio State.
Again. A huge word volume to rationalize a point.
My take was very much accurate. The way this (CFP) has worked is during the first two years only conference champions were selected. This year Ohio St became the first conference also ran to be selected.
i see your point on the mich game. but sc had it own huge problems early in the season.
Michigan had two losses and you've been posting like they were a great team. And OSU had one loss and they weren't a great team. WMU had zero losses so they must have been the second best team.
Are you taking drugs?!
We're trying to take the subjectivity out of determining the national champion. Whether it's your intention or not, you're trying to make a case for the old system where it was all polls.
You just can't seem to let go of your biased "eye test" crap.
If you can't win your conference championship, you can't complain about not getting a chance to win the national championship. If you think your conference awarded its championship to a team that was better than your team, you have to take that up with your conference.
It's up to the conferences to determine their best team how they see fit (divisions, tie breakers, etc.).
There's four spots and five conferences, if one of the teams is not great then they won't beat out one of the other conference champions. I would say both PSU and Oklahoma would have had a better showing against Clemson than OSU did...so bottom line, don't take a second place team.
Hence the problem....we're going by what a handful of people think....just bring back the old AP poll and bowl system...it's no different now.
Losing your top SIX linebackers is more than just a problem.
Too funny, as if you are the ultimate judge, juror and determinor of CFB teams - listen moron, you have prattled on about number of losses incessantly, but now when the outcomes suggested would mean PSU would have a better record than daO$U, more total wins than daO$U, a head-to-head win on the field of play over daO$U, a B1G East Division Championship over daO$U, a better B1G record, a B1G Championship by record, a B1G CCG win....you've now shifted to a brand new bull$hit, completely made-up, self-supporting, non-objective, contorted-rationale as to how PSU is not the proven best B1G team....rationale that yet again CONTRADICTS your earlier argumentation on the topic. LMFAO, what an @sshole whose only purpose in continuing his absurd, twisted, contorted, self-serving arguments is to prove what a complete douche-bag @sshole they truly are...
Good job pecker-head, you've thoroughly convinced us all of what a complete disingenuous douche you truly are...
There is TWO TOP FIVE WINS in the PSU 9-game win streak - #2 daO$U and #5 Wisconsin. Meanwhile, Washington has zero impressive wins let alone being on a 9-game win-streak which includes two Top 5 wins!
It's pretty hard to argue, in my honest opinion, because we lost twice, and everyone else lost once.
That doesn't mean we aren't better, just that it is tough for me to make an argument.
But this wasn't even our year.
Next year is our year.
That doesn't mean we aren't better, just that it is tough for me to make an argument.
But this wasn't even our year.
Next year is our year.
I'll post whatever I want. If you don't like it, don't read it. There isn't a precedent. This is the first year where a non-champ had a better record than 2 of the P5 champs. The bylaws clearly say a conference championship is not required. Also keep in mind that the committee has also had two teams from one conference ranked in the top 4 at points during the last two seasons (meaning a non champ could have gotten in). Those teams just lost along the way, and made the committee's decision easy.
If you want to talk about precedents, a 2-loss team has never made the playoffs either, so then there is that.
No, it's not rationalization, and no, your take isn't accurate. The reason only champions were selected in the first 2 years was because nobody else had a better record. The committee got bailed out and didn't have to make a decision. This year, you had 2 P5 champs with 2 losses, and this year it didn't work out that the committee could avoid a decision.
Last edited:
You are aware one of those Florida Gator BCS champions had 2 losses. Bitch slapped Ohio State (who else) all over the field. It is damn possible to be a great team with 2 losses.
Dude, elementary. 2 + 2 = 4. Only conference champions taken first two years is a fact. Ohio State first non champion taken. Fact. All of your words past that are opinion with supportive rationalization. Not that complicated.
Now, based upon last night's results they selected a team that was not good enough. My take on that is "No kidding, why would anybody expect a conference also ran to be good enough to compete against the best teams from across the country."
It is also a FACT that the committee is not required to take conference champs. You want to leave out that important fact.
You are also using an opinion, not a fact. You think that just because conference champs made the playoffs in the first two years, it was some sort of mandate. It wasn't.
Taking a team with a better record is also not a mandate.
Just a final thought.
Last night Ohio State pretty much proved the committee selected poorly when they stretched to the Buckeyes and they would look less silly if they had stuck with "4 best teams" and selected Penn State.
The funniest part of this whole mess was when they moved away from "4 best teams" to "4 best resumes".
Last night Ohio State pretty much proved the committee selected poorly when they stretched to the Buckeyes and they would look less silly if they had stuck with "4 best teams" and selected Penn State.
The funniest part of this whole mess was when they moved away from "4 best teams" to "4 best resumes".
You're right, it's not. However, conference champs are not a mandate either. You are acting like it is.
You really do not know how to play this do you?
I personally think as long as the teams involved are limited to 4 then a minimum requirement should be that all 4 must be conference champions. How in the hell can you possibly be the best when you were not good enough to b the best from your conference? However that is my opinion.
I am not arguing the stipulations require a team to be a conference champion, I am saying the first two years all participants were conference champions. Ohio state was the first exception. Turns out that was a poor exception.
The first year Ohio State jumped the Big12 co-champion because of championship game and Big12 co-champion status. The committiee's behavior led the Big12 commissioner to ask for clarity on the importance of OOC scheduling and conference championships.
Let's not pretend the Committee did not place emphasis of that championship game and outcome in the first year.
In every sport in the world, those that win the championship are the "best team".
Why play the games. Let's all feed data in to an agorithm before the season and end the chaos on labor day.
If Vegas were perfect, we'd all be trillionaires. But, their's only an opinion, too
Not a mandate, just the only normal thing to do in the history of all sports.
You are factually wrong - if you go back and re-read the first part of the "Protocol", it specifically states that this standard only applies when the team being compared is "UNEQUIVOCALLY" better than other deserving candidates. Furthermore, it immediately goes on to discuss the specific COMPARATIVE CRITERIA to be used directly after the "qualification" of the statement above it (i.e., unequivocal would only apply if none of comparative criteria applied). Anyone with a functional grasp of the English language understands that it is impossible for a team that both loses on the field of play and their Conference Division to the same team to be "unequivocally better than" that same team - to say otherwise is moronic and demonstrative of pure ignorance of what "unequivocally" OBJECTIVELY means! Here is the definition of the term according to Merriam-Webster - it is very short and easy to understand even for a moron such as yourself:
Here is the operative section:
The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.
When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:
Championships won
Strength of schedule
Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)
When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:
Championships won
Strength of schedule
Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)
Note also that the section specifically identifies that the "non-champion" must be "unequivocal" (i.e., the criteria just don't really apply to them - for instance, a comparison of "non-champion" 1-loss team to a 1-loss team from another conference who may, or may not, be a champion - they may have wholly different schedules, not played each other and have zero opponents in common).
Your notion that two teams that played in the same Conference Division and played each other on the field of play have no basis for comparison under the criteria listed is beyond nonsensical and absurd garbage!
IOW, you're completely full of $hit that the Protocol doesn't list the specific criteria to be used when comparing two teams like PSU and daO$U who not only played each other, but played in the same freaking Conference Division! And the criteria listed absolutely do SPECIFICALLY list Conference Division Championships, Conference Championships and head-to-head result as operative comparative criteria your bull$hit claims to the CONTRARY notwithstanding!
Then why are you fighting for OSU?
All we have heard for years is how great the SEC is compared to other conferences. Frankly tired of all the politics of these same teams year after year ranked top 10 w/o having played a game. Whole ranking system is a joke. So why shouldn't we buy this years hype???
