ASU, SMU or INDIANA?

[ryoder1]

The Indiana score is just comical to me
I think all 3 should be comparable to ASU

Your opinions are absurd in some cases because you don't want to penalize a team for losing. You know you would put a 3 loss Alabama in even a 4 loss Alabama in over Indiana. At some point it is an integrity issue because actual on the field performance is ignored and you just go by a subjective eye test.

I bet you have Ole Miss, Bama, Clemson and Texas A&M all as more deserving to be in than Indiana despite two or three more losses.

 

[SheldonJoe2215]

We might score 50 against them

What about the second half?

 

[mgkpsu]

Special teams gaffes turned that game. We wouldn't be so lucky. Their coach is still one of the best. We would win because Rourke is not mobile enough but he would burn our back 7 a few times.

Indiana's offense was complete dogshit.

 

[ryoder1]

Indiana's offense was complete dogshit.

We're not Ohio State on defense.

 

[LandoComando]

Your opinions are absurd in some cases because you don't want to penalize a team for losing. You know you would put a 3 loss Alabama in even a 4 loss Alabama in over Indiana. At some point it is an integrity issue because actual on the field performance is ignored and you just go by a subjective eye test.

I bet you have Ole Miss, Bama, Clemson and Texas A&M all as more deserving to be in than Indiana despite two or three more losses.

If Auburn beat Bama they're out
What has Indiana done this year? What has Miami done? What has SMU done?
I care about wins and losses--I care that you actually play quality teams
There's no such thing as "deserving". We're determining the best teams. Of that group Bama > Ole Miss > Indiana > Clemson > A&M IMO
Integrity should be questioned by anyone who watched Indiana-Ohio State. Cignetti literally ran clock losing to try to keep the score close.

 

[LandoComando]

We're not Ohio State on defense.

We're close enough that Indiana wouldn't do anything against us
I don't understand the fear of Indiana. Michigan stopped them too.
They'd be luck to get 250 yards against us--might not crack 200

 

[87 Penn St8]

I really don't think we'll be matched up with Indiana. It is so easy for the Committee to tweak the ranking/seeds to avoid inter-conference matchups like that. There's little reason not to move the teams seeded #9-12 up or down one spot to get more interesting game.

As for opponents, I'd much prefer SMU or ASU (or whomever wins the Big 12) over facing Indiana anyway. Miami-FL is another potential opponent. I'd definitely prefer any of them over one of the 3 loss SEC teams.

To go through all of the rankings and politics to have PSU play Indiana and Georgia re- play Tennessee in the opening round seems like such a waste of time.

Hopefully someone figures out a way to mix it up....

 

[ryoder1]

If Auburn beat Bama they're out
What has Indiana done this year? What has Miami done? What has SMU done?
I care about wins and losses--I care that you actually play quality teams
There's no such thing as "deserving". We're determining the best teams. Of that group Bama > Ole Miss > Indiana > Clemson > A&M IMO
Integrity should be questioned by anyone who watched Indiana-Ohio State. Cignetti literally ran clock losing to try to keep the score close.

They have won versus B10 competition. You can't be putting 3 loss teams from the SEC in over a one loss B10 team. Especially when two of the three losses are against average teams. That is what I mean by integrity. You can't just be like well Bama is a good team they just had some off days but they are better than Indiana. My God at some point the argument is absurd. You just can't be giving these big brand name programs passes for a bunch of losses otherwise it undermines the whole system. If you do then you might as well just at the beginning of the season say certain teams are automatically in no matter what they do during the season because of their brand name, Bama. Georgia. Ohio State, Oregon, Texas? The rest of you fight for the other 7-8 spots and then we will meet up in the playoffs. I mean c'mon a loss is a loss is a loss it either carries some weight or stop the farce and just give certain teams a free pass.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

What has Indiana done this year? What has Miami done? What has SMU done?
I care about wins and losses--I care that you actually play quality teams
There's no such thing as "deserving". We're determining the best teams. Of that group Bama > Ole Miss > Indiana > Clemson > A&M IMO
Integrity should be questioned by anyone who watched Indiana-Ohio State. Cignetti literally ran clock losing to try to keep the score close.

Actually, no we are not determining the "best teams." If that were true then the committee need only turn to what the bookies would select for a post-season tournament.

Regular season results would not matter. Just make sure that your squad is loaded, injury-free, and rested, so that it would be favored. Might as well use your practice squad until the playoffs start. The best teams can decide to not show up for regular season games. They could preserve their 1's and 2's. Maybe let them play a quarter or two each game.

Your basis for selection could theoretically turn the regular season into what the NFL preseason has become. You would develop your team so that it ends the season as "best" in the same way that the NFL uses the preseason to be ready for the regular season. You would certainly not schedule tough inter-conference games. You would have an incentive to schedule only cupcakes.

 

[LandoComando]

They have won versus B10 competition. You can't be putting 3 loss teams from the SEC in over a one loss B10 team. Especially when two of the three losses are against average teams. That is what I mean by integrity. You can't just be like well Bama is a good team they just had some off days but they are better than Indiana. My God at some point the argument is absurd. You just can't be giving these big brand name programs passes for a bunch of losses otherwise it undermines the whole system. If you do then you might as well just at the beginning of the season say certain teams are automatically in no matter what they do during the season because of their brand name, Bama. Georgia. Ohio State, Oregon, Texas? The rest of you fight for the other 7-8 spots and then we will meet up in the playoffs. I mean c'mon a loss is a loss is a loss it either carries some weight or stop the farce and just give certain teams a free pass.

Bottom tier Big Ten competition. They didn't play Oregon, Penn State, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota or USC. This isn't a typical Big Ten schedule.
And, yes, i absolutely can put a 3-loss Bama over a 1-loss Indiana who has played the equivalent of an ACC or Big XII schedule
Bama has bad losses--they also have wins over 4-6 teams better than Michigan or Washington. Let's say 4 to be safe.
It's not brand. Ole Miss isn't a big brand. Put add Penn State to that list. Bama, Georgia, Ohio State, Oregon, Texas and Penn State should have basically been in regardless this year with 9 wins. That's my opinion.
Losses carry weight--not enough that we should be pretending Navy with 1 loss is good.

 

[LandoComando]

Actually, no we are not determining the "best teams." If that were true then the committee need only turn to what the bookies would select for a post-season tournament.

Regular season results would not matter. Just make sure that your squad is loaded, injury-free, and rested, so that it would be favored. Might as well use your practice squad until the playoffs start. The best teams can decide to not show up for regular season games. They could preserve their 1's and 2's. Maybe let them play a quarter or two each game.

Your basis for selection could theoretically turn the regular season into what the NFL preseason has become. You would develop your team so that it ends the season as "best" in the same way that the NFL uses the preseason to be ready for the regular season. You would certainly not schedule tough inter-conference games. You would have an incentive to schedule only cupcakes.

We are determining the best teams--that's the stated goal of the committee. Never once said deserving.
Your approach where we're pretending Indiana, Miami, SMU, etc are more qualified than Bama is the incentive to schedule only cupcakes
You get that right--you're all rewarding teams that don't play anyone
This is a two conference league--that's the reality--everyone else is included for as long as those two want to be charitable.
If neither Bama or USCe (with a win over Clemson) get in this year that would be awesome because FBS is basically dead at that point

 

[ryoder1]

Bottom tier Big Ten competition. They didn't play Oregon, Penn State, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota or USC. This isn't a typical Big Ten schedule.
And, yes, i absolutely can put a 3-loss Bama over a 1-loss Indiana who has played the equivalent of an ACC or Big XII schedule
Bama has bad losses--they also have wins over 4-6 teams better than Michigan or Washington. Let's say 4 to be safe.
It's not brand. Ole Miss isn't a big brand. Put add Penn State to that list. Bama, Georgia, Ohio State, Oregon, Texas and Penn State should have basically been in regardless this year with 9 wins. That's my opinion.
Losses carry weight--not enough that we should be pretending Navy with 1 loss is good.

Your opinion is a joke. No clue. You don't get it. Alabama just lost to a bad Oklahoma team. Ole Miss just lost to a bad Florida team. Losses have to carry consequences otherwise you undermine the whole system. You are non sensical. You are on a slippery slope and don't know how to get off. Bama could have lost a close one to Georgia, a close one to LSU and you would put a 7-5 Bama team in. Heck you would put a 5-7 Bama in and I have no doubt. It is all about brand names and yes Ole Miss is a brand compared to an Indiana. You can't do that unless you say wins and losses is not the main criteria it is who bookies think are the better team. So hey Bama had some bad games but a 5-7 Bama,would still be favored over an 11-1 Indiana so they get in the playoff over Indiana.

I am not saying a one loss Navy is good but with your logic you don't even give certain teams a shot. If SMU only has one loss they go in versus a Bama. In your world it would simply be the blue blood football invitational. No Indianas or SMUs of the world should apply because you are not invited.

 

[LandoComando]

Your opinion is a joke. No clue. You don't get it. Alabama just lost to a bad Oklahoma team. Ole Miss just lost to a bad Florida team. Losses have to carry consequences otherwise you undermine the whole system. You are non sensical. You are on a slippery slope and don't know how to get off. Bama could have lost a close one to Georgia, a close one to LSU and you would put a 7-5 Bama team in. Heck you would put a 5-7 Bama in and I have no doubt. It is all about brand names and yes Ole Miss is a brand compared to an Indiana. You can't do that unless you say wins and losses is not the main criteria it is who bookies think are the better team. So hey Bama had some bad games but a 5-7 Bama,would still be favored over an 11-1 Indiana so they get in the playoff over Indiana.

I am not saying a one loss Navy is good but with your logic you don't even give certain teams a shot. If SMU only has one loss they go in versus a Bama. In your world it would simply be the blue blood football invitational. No Indianas or SMUs of the world should apply because you are not invited.

My head hurts. What has Indiana done? Name it. SMU can get an autobid if they win out. Indiana had their chance against Ohio State to show they could be competitive. They weren't. They'll lose by 3 score in the playoff. Dealing with reality here. Join me please.

 

[mgkpsu]

We're not Ohio State on defense.

They are #1 in Total Defense. We are #5.

 

[IANit]

With one game left in the season… it appears that we would play ASU, Indiana or SMU.
Which would you rather be matched up with?

I think we win any of them. But I'd kind of like to see SMU.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

We are determining the best teams--that's the stated goal of the committee. Never once said deserving.
Your approach where we're pretending Indiana, Miami, SMU, etc are more qualified than Bama is the incentive to schedule only cupcakes
You get that right--you're all rewarding teams that don't play anyone
This is a two conference league--that's the reality--everyone else is included for as long as those two want to be charitable.
If neither Bama or USCe (with a win over Clemson) get in this year that would be awesome because FBS is basically dead at that point

Nope. We are not rewarding teams with weak schedules. (At least I am not suggesting this.)

The computer rankings take into account strength of schedule. Latest Massey Composite has five SEC teams in the Top 9. B1G has four teams in the Top 10. Notre Dame is the only non-SEC/B1G team to make the Top 10, and Georgia is #3 with two losses, because it has played the 2nd toughest schedule.

Indiana, Miami, and SMU round out #10, #11, and #12.

If Georgia decided to lose a couple more games during the regular season it would probably not make the playoffs based on the computer composite, but that would not change the quality of its team.

How are you defining "best team?" That's the real question. It has to be based on both performance and opponents. I am arguing that in no way are you or any committee going to get that right, or at least be consistent each year, without using some sort of algorithm. It would become a beauty contest comprised of schools that can field a loaded team that doesn't have to show up each week.

 

[IANit]

Indiana's offense was complete dogshit.

Rourke looked terrified in the second half against Michigan. I think we would be about the same on defense with a better offense. I don't see us losing to them.

 

[87 Penn St8]

I think we win any of them. But I'd kind of like to see SMU.

Battle of the two most severely penalized college football programs!

Both teams are "just lucky to be playing!"

 

[LandoComando]

Nope. We are not rewarding teams with weak schedules. (At least I am not suggesting this.)

The computer rankings take into account strength of schedule. Latest Massey Composite has five SEC teams in the Top 9. B1G has four teams in the Top 10. Notre Dame is the only non-SEC/B1G team to make the Top 10, and Georgia is #3 with two losses, because it has played the 2nd toughest schedule.

Indiana, Miami, and SMU round out #10, #11, and #12.

If Georgia decided to lose a couple more games during the regular season it would probably not make the playoffs based on the computer composite, but that would not change the quality of its team.

How are you defining "best team?" That's the real question. It has to be based on both performance and opponents. I am arguing that in no way are you or any committee going to get that right, or at least be consistent each year, without using some sort of algorithm. It would become a beauty contest comprised of schools that can field a loaded team that doesn't have to show up each week.

You keep talking about Massey--it's no different than the opinion of the committee. It's an algorithm created by people.
I'm defining "best" as the one that have demonstrated on the field that they're capable of contending. Indiana, SMU and Miami are not.

 

[ryoder1]

You keep talking about Massey--it's no different than the opinion of the committee. It's an algorithm created by people.
I'm defining "best" as the one that have demonstrated on the field that they're capable of contending. Indiana, SMU and Miami are not.

Again a completely pull it out your a$$ opinion. No facts. In your world it would be all blue bloods. Hell Penn State has shown no ability to really compete with OSU because we always lose. We have not beaten anyone that good. Why should Penn State get in? Ohio State dominated the lines of scrimmage. Do you really think Penn State could beat OSU and be capable of contending? Most likely no so why put them in?

Texas seemed outclassed by Georgia and hasn't played a great schedule so knock them out.

It really is OSU, Oregon, Bama, Georgia and throw in Ole Miss and Tennessee because they beat Georgia and Bama respectively. Don't need anyone else. Just those 6 teams dook it out in your world because those are the 6 best teams based on the bs eye test of capable of contending that you have.

 

[LandoComando]

Again a completely pull it out your a$$ opinion. No facts. In your world it would be all blue bloods. Hell Penn State has shown no ability to really compete with OSU because we always lose. We have not beaten anyone that good. Why should Penn State get in? Ohio State dominated the lines of scrimmage. Do you really think Penn State could beat OSU and be capable of contending? Most likely no so why put them in?

Texas seemed outclassed by Georgia and hasn't played a great schedule so knock them out.

It really is OSU, Oregon, Bama, Georgia and throw in Ole Miss and Tennessee because they beat Georgia and Bama respectively. Don't need anyone else. Just those 6 teams dook it out in your world because those are the 6 best teams based on the bs eye test of capable of contending that you have.

We lost by 7 to Ohio State with a dropped TD resulting in a pick and the worst play cling ever
You watched us and Indiana play Ohio State and you're saying we're comparable to Indiana?
We should get in based on resume (SOR and SOS) plus talent--and the fact we were competitive with Ohio State
Yes, I think we can beat them--if we stop the gimmicks
Texas still has A&M and look at the SOR and SOS
I want the best 12 teams given the set up. 1 ACC, 1 Big XII, Boise and ND if they win. 8 teams from the P2

 

[ryoder1]

We lost by 7 to Ohio State with a dropped TD resulting in a pick and the worst play cling ever
You watched us and Indiana play Ohio State and you're saying we're comparable to Indiana?
We should get in based on resume (SOR and SOS) plus talent--and the fact we were competitive with Ohio State
Yes, I think we can beat them--if we stop the gimmicks
Texas still has A&M and look at the SOR and SOS
I want the best 12 teams given the set up. 1 ACC, 1 Big XII, Boise and ND if they win. 8 teams from the P2

Nope the way you look at it you only need those 6. And probably just 4....Bama, Georgia, OSU and Oregon. You said it....who can compete for a NC. We are not realistically beating OSU with our atrocious WRs no Winston no Ford no Donkah. They will dominate us on the lines of scrimmage. We got a pick 6 and fumble at the goal line but still not good enough to win. We don't qualify also with our lousy schedule. Can't talk out of both sides of your mouth.

But your beloved Bama gets in because they pass your eye test along with your beloved Georgia for the same reason. Heck just have those 4, no reason for anyone else. Heck let a 7 loss Bama in who cares. We know they would be favored over probably everyone not named OSU, Oregon and Georgia.

 

[LandoComando]

Nope the way you look at it you only need those 6. And probably just 4....Bama, Georgia, OSU and Oregon. You said it....who can compete for a NC. We are not realistically beating OSU with our atrocious WRs no Winston no Ford no Donkah. They will dominate us on the lines of scrimmage. We got a pick 6 and fumble at the goal line but still not good enough to win. We don't qualify also with our lousy schedule. Can't talk out of both sides of your mouth.

But your beloved Bama gets in because they pass your eye test along with your beloved Georgia for the same reason. Heck just have those 4, no reason for anyone else. Heck let a 7 loss Bama in who cares. We know they would be favored over probably everyone not named OSU, Oregon and Georgia.

The best 12 to compete for a title
Wallace catches the perfect throw or we pound the ball with Warren in the red zone we may win
What is our SOS/SOR? What is Indiana's? They're not the same.
My "beloved Bama" and "beloved Georgia"--lose the emotion and just talk football.
You're upset about the reality that a 3-loss team can get in when history proves that a 3 loss team would have made the playoff most years
Accept there's really 2 conferences and 7 that those 2 are charitable to
Accept Indiana isn't Penn State
Accept what is--stop talking about what you want--once you do that you'll stop being angry and attacking common sense

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

You keep talking about Massey--it's no different than the opinion of the committee. It's an algorithm created by people.
I'm defining "best" as the one that have demonstrated on the field that they're capable of contending. Indiana, SMU and Miami are not.

Once it's created (by humans), it doesn't change. It's like the rules for tie-breakers in the NFL playoff system. That is firm at the beginning. The rules -- the "algorithm" -- are no longer about opinion.

It is VERY DIFFERENT than the fleeting "opinion of the committee." If you can't see the difference then you are illogical.

What you wrote above -- your "judgments" about Indiana, SMU, and Miami -- are just opinion. Now in this case that opinion agrees with Massey, but it might not if YOU happen to make an error in judgment. That would not be fair if someone gets left out because of YOUR error. Further, your errors, when combined with the errors of others, do nothing more than create a debatable mess.

What's fair is to have the rules -- the algorithm -- the basis for selection -- to be firmly in place before the start of the season.

This is the only way to progress from an "invitational" to a "playoff" system.

 

[LandoComando]

Once it's created (by humans), it doesn't change. It's like the rules for tie-breakers in the NFL playoff system. That is firm at the beginning. The rules -- the "algorithm" -- are no longer about opinion.

It is VERY DIFFERENT than the fleeting "opinion of the committee." If you can't see the difference then you are illogical.

What you wrote above -- your "judgments" about Indiana, SMU, and Miami -- are just opinion. Now in this case that opinion agrees with Massey, but it might not if YOU happen to make an error in judgment. That would not be fair if someone gets left out because of YOUR error. Further, your errors, when combined with the errors of others, do nothing more than create a debatable mess.

What's fair is to have the rules -- the algorithm -- the basis for selection -- to be firmly in place before the start of the season.

This is the only way to progress from an "invitational" to a "playoff" system.

And algorithm has always determined what someone or a group determined carried more weight. There's still bias on what they value. Its still not fair.

The only "fair" is the top 4 of the Big Ten get in. Then it's the top 4. Anything else...committee, voting, computer polls, etc is still an opinion on what is valued and by how much

 

[BBHorn86]

I really don't think we'll be matched up with Indiana. It is so easy for the Committee to tweak the ranking/seeds to avoid inter-conference matchups like that. There's little reason not to move the teams seeded #9-12 up or down one spot to get more interesting game.

As for opponents, I'd much prefer SMU or ASU (or whomever wins the Big 12) over facing Indiana anyway. Miami-FL is another potential opponent. I'd definitely prefer any of them over one of the 3 loss SEC teams.

Unless the Committee wants to limit the chance of the final four having more than one team from a conference. What better way than to have the same conference games in the opening round to eliminate one of the two. Do you really think the big money media would like a final four of all Big Ten teams. The bracket needs to have the best chance of getting four different conferences represented. Whether we like it or agree with it no final four without a SEC representative will ever be considered as legitmate.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Unless the Committee wants to limit the chance of the final four having more than one team from a conference. What better way than to have the same conference games in the opening round to eliminate one of the two. Do you really think the big money media would like a final four of all Big Ten teams. The bracket needs to have the best chance of getting four different conferences represented. Whether we like it or agree with it no final four without a SEC representative will ever be considered as legitmate.

This post is illogical to the extreme.... Basketball has had one Conference dominate the Final 4 Bracket quite regularly - and it does not tarnish or diminish the Championship. Furthermore, if the SEC teams can't play their way, on the field, into the Final Four (i.e., they lose in 1st or 2nd round of Playoffs), they clearly don't deserve to be in the Final 4, nor increase the legitimacy by being there if they can't win a 1st RD or Quarterfinal game.

 

[NittanyIllinois]

Indiana's offense was complete dogshit.

And everybody says the same about us when we played Ohio State.

Our offense scored 1 TD in the last 8 quarters against Ohio State. We looked like total ass offensively. But at least we played Ohio State at home. IU had to travel to Columbus.

 

[Ward Hog]

I think committee will want 1st round games at blueblood big stadiums with great environments and huge fanbases to push high ticket prices and TV revenue. OSU, PSU, ND & GA or Texas would be great group of places for 1st round games. Oregon as well, but in a smaller package. I'm not sure but I believe the NCAA gets a lot of this money. Not sure of school or conference revenue from hosting a playoff game.

 

[NittanyIllinois]

I'm surprised people still see Indiana as a strong team after the Ohio State. I think Minnesota Wisconsin and USC are comparable.

This is laughable.

I remember a few years ago, OSU embarrassed a top-10 Michigan State team in Columbus. they were up 50 at halftime. Everybody pointed to that Michigan State team and said "yep, overrated". And yet they still beat us in East Lansing the next week and went on to win the Peach Bowl.

Granted, this Penn State team isn't the 2021 Penn State team. But writing off a team because they got shelled in Columbus is silly.

Comparing this Indiana team to Minnesota, Wisconsin, or USC is ridiculous. Indiana got humbled by an OSU team that was fired up and clicking on all cylinders. But Indiana is a very good football team. And while people shit on their resume (fairly, I might add), we hardly have the big wins to flex in this conversation. Losing by 7 at home to OSU is our claim to fame here.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

I think committee will want 1st round games at blueblood big stadiums with great environments and huge fanbases to push high ticket prices and TV revenue. OSU, PSU, ND & GA or Texas would be great group of places for 1st round games. Oregon as well, but in a smaller package. I'm not sure but I believe the NCAA gets a lot of this money. Not sure of school or conference revenue from hosting a playoff game.

The CFP gets the gate revenues and money from broadcast rights (CFP is not part of NCAA - the games they put together, and participating teams, are however governed by the NCAA and NCAA rules and regulations). The host school keeps revenues from Concessions. Would assume that the CFP also has to pay the host school a rental fee for the use of the Stadium and all the costs associated with operating a Gameday venue.

 

[LandoComando]

This is laughable.

I remember a few years ago, OSU embarrassed a top-10 Michigan State team in Columbus. they were up 50 at halftime. Everybody pointed to that Michigan State team and said "yep, overrated". And yet they still beat us in East Lansing the next week and went on to win the Peach Bowl.

Granted, this Penn State team isn't the 2021 Penn State team. But writing off a team because they got shelled in Columbus is silly.

Comparing this Indiana team to Minnesota, Wisconsin, or USC is ridiculous. Indiana got humbled by an OSU team that was fired up and clicking on all cylinders. But Indiana is a very good football team. And while people shit on their resume (fairly, I might add), we hardly have the big wins to flex in this conversation. Losing by 7 at home to OSU is our claim to fame here.

Read your granted sentence. Indiana hasn't done anything this year. When your coach is running clock to keep a game close when you're down 3 scores that's all you need to know.

Do you think Indiana beats Minnesota Wisconsin or USC if they played them tomorrow? Maybe Wisconsin. No chance on the other 2.

I disagree on them being very good. I think they'll lose by 3 scores in the playoff. Hopefully we get them.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

I think committee will want 1st round games at blueblood big stadiums with great environments and huge fanbases to push high ticket prices and TV revenue. OSU, PSU, ND & GA or Texas would be great group of places for 1st round games. Oregon as well, but in a smaller package. I'm not sure but I believe the NCAA gets a lot of this money. Not sure of school or conference revenue from hosting a playoff game.

Agree with you that they will want to host 1st RD Games at the largest venues - this will maximize revenues both at the gate and broadcast-wise as you have a large TV draw on half of all the matchups.

 

[NittanyIllinois]

Read your granted sentence. Indiana hasn't done anything this year. When your coach is running clock to keep a game close when you're down 3 scores that's all you need to know.

Do you think Indiana beats Minnesota Wisconsin or USC if they played them tomorrow? Maybe Wisconsin. No chance on the other 2.

I disagree on them being very good. I think they'll lose by 3 scores in the playoff. Hopefully we get them.

You are vastly overestimating Minnesota and USC. Minnesota lost to Rutgers and North Carolina, among others. USC lost to Maryland and Washington -- two teams Indiana dominated.

Saying IU would have "no chance" to beat 6-5 Minnesota or 6-5 USC is simply laughable. You're looking at the name on the front of the jersey and not watching the way they execute.

The story on this board after our Minnesota win was "we didn't play well, and Minnesota played well. It happens".

Yet nobody is willing to consider that perhaps IU didn't play well against a Buckeye juggernaut that played their best and most complete game of the season.

The same arguments you're using against Indiana are the arguments that people outside of Penn State's fanbase use against us. Who have we beaten? Ultimately, if you actually watch the games, you see that Penn State is a very good football team......despite no big wins. The same is true for Indiana.

 

[LandoComando]

You are vastly overestimating Minnesota and USC. Minnesota lost to Rutgers and North Carolina, among others. USC lost to Maryland and Washington -- two teams Indiana dominated.

Saying IU would have "no chance" to beat 6-5 Minnesota or 6-5 USC is simply laughable. You're looking at the name on the front of the jersey and not watching the way they execute.

The story on this board after our Minnesota win was "we didn't play well, and Minnesota played well. It happens".

Yet nobody is willing to consider that perhaps IU didn't play well against a Buckeye juggernaut that played their best and most complete game of the season.

The same arguments you're using against Indiana are the arguments that people outside of Penn State's fanbase use against us. Who have we beaten? Ultimately, if you actually watch the games, you see that Penn State is a very good football team......despite no big wins. The same is true for Indiana.

Just like Bama lost to bad teams but I'd pick them to beat Indiana easily.
It's not "laughable"--you're just putting too much into records as proven by saying 6-5. What would Indiana's record be with USC's schedule? At best, 7-4?
We didn't play well against Minnesota and they played their A game--kind of like USC. But we found a way to win.
When you play one decent team all year--see Army--and you get destroyed in every aspect of the game that's telling
What our SOS? What is Indiana's?
I also argue we don't have a good win but Indiana's non-conference slate then getting the easiest Big Ten schedule of all time is a problem. Just reality.
Do you think Indiana beats anyone in the playoff? They're going to play one of Texas, Georgia, Oregon, Ohio State, Penn State or Notre Dame. Who do they stay within a touchdown of? No one. Hence they shouldn't be in over Bama or Ole Miss or USCe who could upset any of those teams.
The goal is "the best 12 "not "well, let's include someone because they're 11-1 and didn't play anyone"--why aren't you arguing to Army?

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

And algorithm has always determined what someone or a group determined carried more weight. There's still bias on what they value. Its still not fair.

The only "fair" is the top 4 of the Big Ten get in. Then it's the top 4. Anything else...committee, voting, computer polls, etc is still an opinion on what is valued and by how much

You still keep skipping over the main point. The problem with your approach is that it is like a loop -- the solution then invites the biases that then feed back into the solution. The rule-based approach, again, just like the tie-breaker rules in the NFL, do not have that flaw.

You still have nothing but the fact that humans are involved (or were involved) in both approaches, but you can never defeat the point that I just made above, and yet you continue to argue around it as if you have defeated it, where in fact you are just ignoring it. You can't defeat it. It's that simple.

 

[mgkpsu]

And everybody says the same about us when we played Ohio State.

Our offense scored 1 TD in the last 8 quarters against Ohio State. We looked like total ass offensively. But at least we played Ohio State at home. IU had to travel to Columbus.

If you feel that the game was fairly officiated, then that's... a choice.

 

[LandoComando]

You still keep skipping over the main point. The problem with your approach is that it is like a loop -- the solution then invites the biases that then feed back into the solution. The rule-based approach, again, just like the tie-breaker rules in the NFL, do not have that flaw.

You still have nothing but the fact that humans are involved (or were involved) in both approaches, but you can never defeat the point that I just made above, and yet you continue to argue around it as if you have defeated it, where in fact you are just ignoring it. You can't defeat it. It's that simple.

I'd love a rule based as a I explained above but a computer poll is no better than a committee.
You use the standings and top take 2/4 of those conferences--rule based with tiebreakers
I'm arguing the nonsense that Massey is a solution

 

[LandoComando]

If you feel that the game was fairly officiated, then that's... a choice.

We got away with everything they got away with
The refs were consistent for sure even if you (or most) don't like how they call the game
Which--is fine--no one has to like how it was called but it wasn't called differently for the two teames

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

I'd love a rule based as a I explained above but a computer poll is no better than a committee.

^^^^^
That right there is the value-judgment flaw in your argument.

Massey is actually a composite of a large number of computer models, with outliers tossed. When you look at the solution of the composite it makes total sense. Accepting something that makes sense is far different than trying to generate the same from a committee.

Your solutions are all over the place. Be very very specific if you want to tie in a rules-based solution. Then stick to it regardless of the results. See what you get. You will probably find that you won't like the solution and will then adjust it, which is the human-biased feedback loop flaw that I have been trying to get you to recognize.