And the committee chose Ohio State because

[Royal_Coaster]

Regardless of who you think they should have beaten, Indiana lost 7 games. And Bloomington isn't exactly a hostile environment. The crowds at Memorial Stadium tend to be split 50/50 depending on who the opponent is.

You beat a 3-9 team by 1 point because their coach decided to go for the win instead of the tie.
3-9.
3-9
3-9

 

[Royal_Coaster]

If by "you guys" you mean Ohio State, I would say it went decidedly better than your games with Pitt and Michigan, and about the same as your game with Minnesota.

You mean 9-4 Minnesota that won a bowl game vs. 3-9 MSU that barely beat Rutgers? Too bad Clemson didn't put another TD on the board.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

That's because Clemson didn't also have a 39-point loss on their resume in addition to losing to Pitt.

So you're saying teams that lose by 30 points have no business being in the playoff?

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Or Hockey, where the Penguins have the better division and conference record, but are 2nd in the division because it goes by points from overall record.

How about you go away and come back with that argument when the Penguins get to set 25% of their schedule themselves and fill it with AHL and ECHL teams?

 

[Royal_Coaster]

I'm not fighting for OSU. I'm explaining to you guys why Penn State didn't make the playoffs.

The title of the thread is "And the committee chose Ohio State because..." You haven't been able to come up with a single reason why OSU deserved to be there. All you can do is argue PSU game results from September.
0 points
9 first downs
215 total yards

Let me ask you a question- if PSU and OSU played last night, who do you believe would have won?

 

[nitlion6]

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.

Large word volume.
My opinion is 4 teams from 5 conferences. You should have had to win your conference. Conference champion eliminates so much of the eye test bull.
Ohio State being so completely over matched against Clemson just adds validity to the point.
I acknowledged at the very first post about 2 years and all were conference champion that the sample size was small, yet factual. So yeah I get the point you are attempting to make. Still, the point you are attempting to make takes a ton of rationalization. My point not so much.

IMO
The CFP's sole responsibility is to give the best team in the country the opportunity to identify itself. That's it. No more, no less.
This is fairly easy to do if you recognize the significance of a conference championship. Then you are left with one point of subjectivity. Which conference Champion is the 5th best.

For the first 2 years it was explained the committee's job was to identify the 4 best teams and get them into the playoff. A whole lot of subjectivity involved in that definition, but there was a ton of credence given to championships and strength of schedule.

This year as it became apparent Ohio State was not going to easily fit into the "4 best teams" definition it became the "4 best resumes" which now makes it almost all subjective and puts us back to the days of polls.

 

[nitlion6]

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.

Dude, to argue Ohio State was a better team than Penn State is a factless argument.
You can twist things, you can turn things but in the end all you have is a fact less rationalization.
Best team in Big10 Penn State
Best team in Big10 East Division Penn State
Best team on the field in head to head competition Penn State.
All this was determined by playing similar 9 or 10 game schedules.

Your entire argument goes like this. Ohio State had a better non conference 3 game record than Penn State.

So the minute non conference data that has little in similarity trumps the huge conference data result?

 

[nitlion6]

On top of that, the Fiesta Bowl result proved Ohio State's inclusion was a reach and wrong minded.

 

[Upperrwestsidetrojan]

Dude, to argue Ohio State was a better team than Penn State is a factless argument.
You can twist things, you can turn things but in the end all you have is a fact less rationalization.
Best team in Big10 Penn State
Best team in Big10 East Division Penn State
Best team on the field in head to head competition Penn State.
All this was determined by playing similar 9 or 10 game schedules.

Your entire argument goes like this. Ohio State had a better non conference 3 game record than Penn State.

So the minute non conference data that has little in similarity trumps the huge conference data result?

i hate to say it, but the ap, vegas and playoff committe felt osu was better. i still think they are better than you. mich too. wisc is below psu. just opinion. none of this can be proven. but as far as osu goes, consensus said they were better than psu. bye bye

 

[nitlion6]

i hate to say it, but the ap, vegas and playoff committe felt osu was better. i still think they are better than you. mich too. wisc is below psu. just opinion. none of this can be proven. but as far as osu goes, consensus said they were better than psu. bye bye

Good lord. Finally, you concede the point that all objective measuring units measure Penn State the superior team to Ohio State. See that wasn't that hard. Since you have left the building.
Thanks for playing and bye.

 

[pandaczar12]

Good lord. Finally, you concede the point that all objective measuring units measure Penn State the superior team to Ohio State. See that wasn't that hard. Since you have left the building.
Thanks for playing and bye.

It's really too bad that PSU and OSU couldn't have settled this in the field. Then we could have proof as to who was the better team!

I propose that we set up the two teams in a situation where they play essentially the same schedule and then award the best team with a championship, much like the NFL does. The NFL doesn't have OOC games, everyone plays the same schedule in each division... so to compare apples to apples in CFB as much as possible, only conference records should matter.

 

[Upperrwestsidetrojan]

Good lord. Finally, you concede the point that all objective measuring units measure Penn State the superior team to Ohio State. See that wasn't that hard. Since you have left the building.
Thanks for playing and bye.

read the entire thread. i concede a lot of points. here is a proven stat, i conceded a lot more points than anyone on this board. i am very fair in my assessment. i would say that most of the country agrees with my points. so my ideas are not crazy or outlandish.

 

[littleton tiger]

No flame, honest question. Do you think the Sandusky situation was part of the reason PSU was passed over in favor of OSU?

 

[dclionsfan]

Possibly

 

[AvgUser]

No flame, honest question. Do you think the Sandusky situation was part of the reason PSU was passed over in favor of OSU?

Definitely

 

[pandaczar12]

No flame, honest question. Do you think the Sandusky situation was part of the reason PSU was passed over in favor of OSU?

The "Sandusky situation" was criminal matter involving an ex-employee that had almost nothing to do with Penn State. The media's reaction to the situation in search of ratings was surely part of the reason PSU was passed over.

 

[pandaczar12]

read the entire thread. i concede a lot of points. here is a proven stat, i conceded a lot more points than anyone on this board. i am very fair in my assessment. i would say that most of the country agrees with my points. so my ideas are not crazy or outlandish.

Assuming you are even correct in your opinion that most of the country agrees with your points... being part of the majority doesn't automatically mean you are right. Look at recent presidential elections. Look at how many people drink miller lite over craft beer. Etc.

 

[Upperrwestsidetrojan]

Assuming you are even correct in your opinion that most of the country agrees with your points... being part of the majority doesn't automatically mean you are right. Look at recent presidential elections. Look at how many people drink miller lite over craft beer. Etc.

 

[Upperrwestsidetrojan]

Assuming you are even correct in your opinion that most of the country agrees with your points... being part of the majority doesn't automatically mean you are right. Look at recent presidential elections. Look at how many people drink miller lite over craft beer. Etc.

agree. nobody knows. just my opinion based on all the info I see.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

The CFP has basically made it so they can use whatever criteria they want to select their top four teams. They're not bound to any set of polls or computer rankings. Thus, when it comes time to pick teams, they can one year say 'Sorry TCU and Baylor, you're out because your conference doesn't have a 'true' conference championship,' and another say, 'Sorry Penn State, even though you won your conference and beat Ohio State, you're out because you have one more loss than Ohio State.' When they actually mean, 'Ohio State - after Notre Dame and maybe USC - has more subway alums than any other school in the country and we want the best ratings we can get, so they're in.' Hate to say but seems like the BCS was better (and certainly more transparent).