Western MIchigan has ZERO losses.
And, given the horrific display last night, they surely would have played a better game than Ohio State again Clemson.
And the committee chose Ohio State because
- Thread starter ga.lion
- Start date
And, given the horrific display last night, they surely would have played a better game than Ohio State again Clemson.
Remind this knowledgeable fan that we were playing UM having lost our top 7 linebackers, and ask him how well his team would do in that exact same situation? Maybe they could sit them in the bowl game just to find out!
Certainly points to the fact that they DID pick two wrong teams sir.
not true. you can win your conf and not be the best team. that team(osu) can still be ranked higher and be thought of as a better team nationally. because the committee and the ap look at the whole season. not just how did in the conf. and they thought that osu is better than psu. they feel that on a neutral field osu would win more often than not. i feel osu is better too. i saw the game and felt osu outplayed psu. i felt usc outplayed utah too. but we lost. who is to say that psu would not lose big against clem? in hindsight it is easy to pick psu over osu. after monday you will have more or less of a claim. it should be a good game. i cant address every post. you guys know my feelings. i dont hate psu. good luck.
There is the flaw in your thought process... "Ranking". On the field, PSU was better than OSU. Decisively better.
I don't know. Explain yourself. You wanted to hang your hat on what "Vegas thinks".
They play the games for a reason.
sec has been the best conf for many years. followed by the pac 12. although i would say the 2nd best conference can vary from year to year. pac 12 has done pretty well during the bowl season the the last 10 or 15 years overall. they had the leading bowl record once or or twice and were second quite a bit. the big 10 has not be good for awhile. downright bad in bowls. but the big 10 was good last yr. probably the best conf. i just think they are overrated this yr. their bowls seem to be showing that too.
agree. it is an advantage for usc and the sec. but if you want to prove your are the best, sometimes you must do it in in their house.
What is a certainty is that a zero loss D-I team should have been in the playoff over a one-loss D-I team. After all, the argument from many is that a one-loss team (albeit they didn't have the chance to lose a second game in a conference championship) was a better selection to the CFP than a two-loss team, despite the two loss team spanking the one-loss team.
yes. for that one game. but it does not mean you are a better team. it means you outplayed them or got lucky on time. there are plenty of times when a weaker team beats a much stronger team. okla st lost to to a mac team this year. which team is a better team? okla st had an off day, but would beat that team 9 out of 10 times. that is how i feel about psu and osu. i just feel osu is better. i feel uw is better than usc too.
vegas a is probably the most valid opinion of all. they are as to close to experts as anyone. i like Vegas because they are not biased. it is about money.
Both teams played Wisconsin. Minnesota destroyed Northwestern, and Iowa massacred Nebraska. Purdue was a 4th Western Division road data point that Ohio State didn't have to deal with.
I was re-thinking a point made by our Iowa poster. He used to root for us until the sandusky scandal. My argument had to do with him not being aware of what really happened blah blah.
In truth, I can see his point. For ME (for most of us), that the idiots in charge of things s program have done everything in their power to kill the FB program
Are you directing this to me or another poster? I'm 100% on board with all you posted and have always been.. so just checking.
In truth, I can see his point. For ME (for most of us), that the idiots in charge of things s program have done everything in their power to kill the FB program
Are you directing this to me or another poster? I'm 100% on board with all you posted and have always been.. so just checking.
Good to see that on-field results mean so much to you.
By the way, do the undefeated Patriots have that Super Bowl trophy on display this year? After all, Vegas favored them in a very big way and they were the best team of all time.
It's not a system. It's a beauty pageant. In fact, "it" has regressed from the days of the BCS.
So just to be confirm. You trust Vegas as experts who set the line based on how good the teams are? LOL
of course on the field results mean something. penn st lost twice on the field of play. they don't deserve a shot at the playoff. the playoff committee, the AP and vegas dont think they psu belongs in the playoff. but psu fans do. would you agree with that?
You mean an Indiana team that took mighty #19 Utah to the wire. A Utah team which beat the Trojenz.
Well, I think the Indians are better than the Cubs, therefore the Indians should get the trophy because I feel they are better. That's how it works in the college football world. What one thinks shouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
Just to help you out a bit. Vegas sets a line where they believe the betting will be balanced. They read the betting public and set their line accordingly. If they realize they goofed they move it to move the betting. In the perfect Vegas sports book world 100 million is wagered, 50 on each side, every time.
And Ohio State and Michigan sucked at the end of the regular season and before the bowl games. Would you agree with that?
Change the names on the front of the jerseys from Ohio State to Penn State, and there is no way Penn State gets into the final four with Ohio State's 2016 resume. They (OSU) stunk up the joint 5 of their last 7 regular season games.
and yet the ap, the playoff committee sand vegas still thought that osu should be in. after the whole season is done we will know for sure who should have been in. to me, it looks like big 10 does not belong in the playoff at all. after monday we will have more clarity.
Evidently, the committee changes the criteria as they see fit to best serve Ohio State.
You're the one that doesn't understand my point. I'm not telling you taking Ohio St was the right thing to do.
You said you personally think all 4 teams must be conference champions. That's the problem. The system is not set up how you think it is. The playoffs system is inherently flawed, because there is no set criteria. The playoff system is basically set up so the committee can take whichever teams they want, and they have an out to justify each selection.
You keep bringing up that fact that for the past two years, only conference champions have made it. That's true, but you keep ignoring two important points. 1) There were only two years of playoffs before this. That's not a big enough sample size. 2) You are failing to acknowledge the fact that in the last two years, the non-champions didn't have better records than the 4 champs who got in. In 2014 & 2015, the conference champs all had just 1 loss, so nobody could jump over them with a better record. If Penn St or Oklahoma had been 11-1 this year, then they would have gotten, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. That fact that they both had 2 losses gave the committee an opening to pick Ohio St.
Here's the thing. I agree with you. I'm not arguing that the system is right. I'm just telling you how the system really is. From the beginning, it has never worked the way you think it does/should. The problem is that the system is inherently flawed.
No, sorry, you are the one who is factually incorrect. Go back and read the protocol again. Here is exactly what it says:
Ranking football teams is an art, not a science. Football is popular in some measure because the outcome of a game between reasonably matched teams is so often decided by emotional commitment, momentum, injuries and the "unexpected bounce of the ball." In any ranking system, perfection or consensus is not possible and the physical impact of the game on student athletes prevents elaborate playoff systems of multiple games. For purposes of any four team playoff, the process will inevitably need to select the four best teams from among several with legitimate claims to participate.
Proposed Selection Process:
Establish a committee that will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength of schedule and head-to-head competition when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree (treat final determination like a tie-breaker; apply specific guidelines).
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)
Your statement is the one that is factually incorrect. The categories you listed, conference championship, head to head, strength of schedule, are jus tie-breakers. It specifically says that in the protocol. They only use those tiebreakers if they consider two teams comparable.
That leads into the next part. You went on a rant about the word "unequivocal." The problem is, your definition of unequivocal and the committee's definition are two different things. Kirby Hocutt was asked point blank on television if the committee considered Penn St and Ohio St comparable. He said no, they didn't.
Now here's the thing you don't understand. I'm not agreeing with that. I believe Penn ST and Ohio St are comparable. The problem is, it doesn't matter what you think or I think. The committee didn't think they were, and theirs is the only opinion that matters.
I'm also not trying to defend the selection of Ohio St. What I'm telling you is, this problem is bigger than the committee or Ohio St. The entire premise of the playoffs is flawed from the outset. The problem this year is just a ticking time bomb that has always been inherent in the playoff structure.
It really doesn't mean sh!t what you think. I don't think the PAC 12 deserved to be in it at all....but that too doesn't mean sh!t.
You should check your "facts" before you post. Dumbassery undermines your credibility.
Florida was BCS champs in 2006 and 2008. Both teams finished 13-1.
nice use of profanity. this is just football. not sure why you take it personally.
Because the butthurt runs very deep. Very common ailment among this lunatic fringe you have been engaging.
Anybody over the age of 15 who uses the term butthurt has no credibility whatsoever.
You are right. My mistake. It was not Florida it was a 2 loss LSU team that bitch slapped a 1 loss Ohio State around to become the first 2 time and 2 loss BCS champion.
Since you took the time to look up the Florida records, did you miss the LSU record or did you just not think the LSU example was applicable?
Anyhow, my memory might lack some credibility, but my point is still spot on credible. Thanks for playing.
Nice "creation" of bull$hit citations....that is not "my definition" of UNEQUIVOCAL" idiot, that is MERRIAM-WEBSTER's definition of "unequivocal" - you know, the Merriam-Webster that write English Language Reference Dictionaries! Your notion that the definition of "unequivocal" is fungible to whatever you and the comical Selection Committee want it to be is BULL$HIT!.....otherwise known as being FACTUALLY WRONG!
