I make the choice to view these games from the perspective of somebody who's not a total and absolute homer. And nobody outside of PSU world thinks the game was unfairly officiated. Come on.
ASU, SMU or INDIANA?
- Thread starter pointingdogsrule
- Start date
Really?, this is an article from a National Publication that has zero to do with PSU or PSU fans - they seem to disagree with you:
https://saturdaytradition.com/big-ten-football/big-ten-officials-roasted-for-questionable-first-half-in-ohio-state-penn-state-game/
And they all have biases--outliers being tossed doesn't make it better. I'm not at all opposed to using Massey because they'd favor the SEC which all rankings should based on what we've seen
I'm not sure how anything is all over the place. If we aren't going to do what the Big Ten/SEC proposed (4/4/2/2 with 2 at large) then I want a committee like every other college sport but by ideal would be--here's the top 4 in the Big Ten they're in....here's the top 4 in the SEC they're in. Then eventually on allow the Big Ten and SEC in and have a second playoff for the others.
Massey isn't a solution--is just as flawed and biased as humans create the computer polls used
Imagine the outrage here with Georgia head of us and Bama at 7
No it isn't. Even what you wrote there is flawed and still has to be rule-based. What are the rules for each conference Top 4? Those would be written down before the season, just like a computer algorithm. What about the at-large? Can you make that firmly rule-based? If so, then we are good to go.
Your system is flawed as soon as the "selection" becomes subjective AFTER THE SEASON STARTS !!! Why can't you understand this basic difference? One has the flawed human bias AFTER PLAY BEGINS. The other does not. This concept is VERY, VERY SIMPLE.
The idea that other sports use committees does not mean that those systems are without the flaw of human bias, i.e., to get the solution that you want AFTER THE FACT instead of what occurred solely on the field of play BASED ON THE PRESEASON RULES !!!
A purely rule-based, algorithmic system might have teams adjust how they play in the future. But that would be fair to all. It would not reward those teams that are liked by a committee, or liked by you. Even if you or the committee are actually unbiased that does not prove it to teams that would claim that you ARE biased. Get it?
There is only one way to shut everybody up, and that is to use an algorithm that weights performance with the performance of all others, or a rule-based system that is firm at the beginning of the year.
Meyer’s comment pre-game made me laugh when I heard it live…While Urban was a great coach and is very good breaking things down on film on his BTN/Fox segments, he knew long before being on the sideline pre-game that there was a discrepancy in OSU talent vs IU’s….as does anyone who follows college football.
I believe the average star ranking between the 2 teams done the week leading up to the game was appx 4.2 stars for OSU vs 2.4 stars for IU.
Last edited:
Of course they would be written down before the season just like tiebreakers are today.
Using an algorithm isn't going to shut up anyone. Massey today would cause people demanding it be replaced.
Do explain how duhO$U was called for DPI 4 times against Indiana... they only had 2 penalties total against PSU. You're full of it that duhO$U gets away with bronco riding and tackling eligible receivers with a Neutral Crew in the Playoffs - absolutely full of it.
So you are advocating to eliminate the committee? If the rules can be written down before the start of the season then there is no biased judgment needed. You are coming around. I could go for that -- no judgments after the season starts.
Per your comment on Massey, of course there would be people who would hate it -- those who don't make the cut or don't like their seeding. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not their "hate" would have any merit. It would not.
Look at the Massey ratings right now. Are you telling me that you don't like what you see? Are you telling me that you have a way to prove that the ranking is wrong?
My bet is that you would have no argument that would be on solid ground. You would have to say that you are right and 44 mathematical algorithms that cross weight records and scores are wrong.
In short, you would be claiming that you are beyond the level of a genius.
No, I think you want it to be fuzzy. That's because you like being heard. You want the debate. You want to air your opinion on one team versus the next and then show everyone how right you are. You need the validation for some reason.
From my perspective I know that I can't do it, and I know others can't do it. For example, I can't beat a computer playing chess. This issue, of correctly ranking teams, is very similar. It only becomes flawed when a team can throw a game and convince a committee that it has either done so, or that the game was a mistake.
Indiana can absolutely beat Penn State and certainly compete with them. Their coach is better. Saying they don't belong with Penn State is incorrect. You cannot put a 3 loss Bama in over a 1 loss Indiana. That is ridiculous. Indiana loses one game to the best team in the country on the road giving up basically 14 points from special teams with Ohio State scoring in the last minute and suddenly Indiana is not in the top 12?
FWIW, per the basis that I trust, Alabama is #7 and Indiana is #10. Both get in. The team currently on the bubble would be SMU at #12, if it has to make room for a Big12 Champ.
The 4 Conference Champ rule is what I don't like. After the B1G and SEC, the ACC can be considered 2nd tier and the rest are hardly worth being in the same division. The SEC and B1G pillaging of the PAC12 and Big12 really hurt those conferences.
your evidence for the refs favoring OSU over Penn State is........DPIs called AGAINST OSU vs. Indiana?
The tortured logic here......some of you go to ridiculous lengths to suggest conspiracies that are designed to keep us down.
Man. We'd be undefeated every single year if not for these conspiring, cheating refs!
Their hate would have merit because using Massey can be debated the same as the committee's decision can be debated. I like the Massey ratings for the most part but I'm in the minority.
There's many other things to debate if it was fixed. I want a 48 team league with 4 divisions of 12 and the top 4 from each to make the playoff. 11 games all divisional. Won't happen but that's my ideal scenario.
Alabama can get in I guess with 3 losses but not at the expense of Indiana. They are better than SMU and Miami. Where do you draw the line on losses, though? Let's say Alabama loses their rivalry game vs Auburn on a Hail Mary. Now they have 4 losses. Are they still in over a 2 loss SMU? What
if they have 5 losses? At 5 losses they would still be favored over SMU. At some point the number of losses needs to matter.
The top 4 seeds should be the top 4 teans in the country not the 4 conference champs. We should be the 4th seed in the playoff now not the 6th.
Why is it ridiculous? Ohio State should have been up 28-7 at the half. Probably 35-7. Ohio State dominated in every aspect. The game wasn't competitive. If you think Indiana can beat then, IMO, you're undervaluing Penn State.
People here are still mad a 2 loss Penn State was left out of a 4 team playoff but now some of those same people don't think a 3 loss team should be in a 12 team playoff.
Indiana's schedule is trash like many others that will get in the playoff. You want to reward that. I want to reward teams that actually play a tough schedule. Look at the top third of the Big Ten. Indiana played one of those teams. One. I don't think they beat Illinois...I'd ask you if you think they'd beat Illinois but you think they can beat us so....
I think it's ridiculous to believe someone that thinks Bama should be in is ridiculous. He rankings support they're far from out.
I don't want to give Indiana too much credit, but this game reminded me a little of our 1982 loss to Alabama where we gave up 14 points off the kicking game alone plus threw a pick six in a Top 5 matchup to lose 42-21. That game was closer than this one (27-21 with 5 minutes left), but I still think this score isn't indicative of how good Indiana is when it doesn't make self-inflicted mistakes. They would be a tough opponent and would require a strong effort to beat.
No, Massey cannot be debated in the same way as the committee approach. One is set in stone before the competition begins. The rules don't change during the game. The other presents not only inherent human biases (favoritism), but also blatant corruption DURING THE COMPETITION (season). Why can't you understand this? What is it with you?
We would all like your solution. That is NFL-like. But this is college -- limited complex, disparate data that, due to the inability to form a true league, some sort of systemic approach to identifying a champion must be in place. (Or we can agree that there can be no "champion.")
Consider the World Golf Rankings -- a system that blends disparate tours and leagues from all over the world. A committee might have made up the rules to rank the players, but it doesn't sit down each year and by discussion decide who is #1, #2, #3, and so on. It decides the system and then lets the system take its course. The World Golf Rankings then play a role in some tournaments. Same with Fed Ex Cup points. A committee doesn't decide who gets into the golf post season. A committee decided beforehand what the system would be. They don't decide who deserves a playoff spot each year. The system decides it.
So it must be for a problem like College Football, if we truly want to be fair and honest about it.
It can and would be debated. People would complain about the flaws with it that they believe exist and then talk about better ways to do it. The rules aren't changing now. It's their opinion.
Many would hate my solution but that's where we're headed.
This is done with almost all college sports. You get that right?
What flaws? All of what you have actually stated as your basis for selection is already imbedded within the ranking system.
People can complain all they want with either approach, but only one removes any bias once the games begin. That is inarguable. It's a fact.
No valid playoff system changes its rules during the season, but that is effectively what happens when the selection becomes a matter of opinion. That invites corruption. Would corrupt people be unhappy when they lose power? Of course. That doesn't make it right or fair. In fact we've seen massive corruption in other areas. It is wrong. Very wrong. For some reason you advocate for the approach with the most serious of flaws.
If you want to remove all human bias then eliminate people from even being involved. Yes, people need to set up some kind of algorithm with key stats....something like 2 offensive and two defensive metrics then some sort of calculation for wins and losses and strenth of schedule. People could figure this out and then it is left to the computer to tell us the answer. Whatever the computer spits out are your top 12. Regardless of whether you are Army or Bama.
That is what I have been advocating. It already exists. Just a matter of adoption. But then people that like having power would have to give up their power.
You keep claiming the rules are changing. What is that belief based on. You're dislike of the people making decisions doesn't mean they're cgnakng rules. You're obsessed with the nonsensical belief that an algorithm created is biased free. It's not. It weighs things based on bias that created it. Massive corruption is where you lost any credibility
Yeah college football has been riddled with human bias for years. The fact that it took until the 1998 season to get a championship game between the top 2 teams is a travesty. Now we are in 2024 and we have a 12 team playoff for the first time but it is riddled with biases, subjectivity and inane rules.
These conference commissioners and TV executives have way too much power and they are not about to give it up any time soon as you suggest.
His plan has the following playoff
12 Boise State (25) at 5 Ohio State (2) then 1 Oregon (1)
11 Ole Miss (9) at 6 Texas (4) then 2 Georgia (3)
10 Tennessee (8) at 7 Penn State (5) then 3 Miami (11)
9 Alabama (7) at 8 Notre Dame (6) then 4 Iowa State (14)
Indiana at 2 is out and we have 5 SEC teams--but you think this is less biased and a better way?
In regard to SoS, and feel free to correct me if this information is inaccurate, but every P4 program played at least 9 P4 games, many had 10 (including PSU), and some had 11. EXCEPT the Domers. Now, every P4 program has to accept their conference schedule, and their OOC is in their own hands. EXCEPT the Domers, who make their own schedule. And the Domers ONLY PLAYED 8 P4 teams. AGAIN, ONLY 8. And they have, by far and away, the WORST LOSS of any team under consideration. Their only quality win is AtM, who may have four losses Saturday night (or, in fairness, may win the SEC).
Knowing all this, why are the Domers getting any consideration, much less consideration to HOST a game, when they plotted the simplest possible course?
Knowing all this, why are the Domers getting any consideration, much less consideration to HOST a game, when they plotted the simplest possible course?
All great points--the ACC agreement hurts them more than it helps them because that's definitely not helping their SOS
First, if I am the person being referenced here, you have it wrong in the base case. I don't advocate for the conference championship rule. The reason I don't is that nothing balances the conferences. It's not like the NFL which has a constant mechanism to rebalance teams. There is a draft and a way to limit what can be spent on the players.
Second, when I say the "rules are changing during the season" I am referring to the fact that there really are not any rules (other than the one I actually disagree with). The "rules" are in the minds of the committee, which are completely unstructured and subjective. They make them up as the season unfolds. It's completely wrong.
Call it an invitational if you want, but it isn't a "playoff" as long as some committee gets to decide who participates after the start of the season. Every approach has flaws, but the worst flaw is to allow personal bias to become in play after the season starts. That's corruption.
It's like playing a game against someone and then someone else makes up the rules for the game after the game has started.
Try to think a little deeper. I'm referring to the "logic" in a person's head as the substitute for "rules." The point I'm actually making is that there are no rules when using a committee -- just feelings. That's a terrible way to determine a league "champion" if that is what is really intended here.
What is your evidence that their "logic" changed?
There logic can 100% be consistent throughout--you just don't like it
And, to your point, if the conference champs aren't in the Massey rankings would cause a riot because they clearly only value the Big Ten/SEC--I have no problem with that but that's bias created by their formula
Their logic is subjective, pretty much by definition. A person cannot do all of the weighted calculations of a computer algorithm, so it becomes about feelings, which are inconsistent. A rule is consistent.
So, in other words, the "rules" applied in a person's head really are not rules at all, at least not for something like this that requires complex calculations. A person may think they have rules, but not feasible here.
They absolutely can review data and set aside feelings
You have to determine if there's rules or not
Set criteria metrics at beginning of season before any games are played. Then never have a committee or any humans meet. No need. A computer does the rankings every week based on the algorithm developed. No conference championship games. When all the regular season games are over the computer spits out the top 12. Could be all B10 and SEC schools, could be 3 ACC schools, so what. No horse's a##es sitting in a room spewing their biased bs.
So--now you're all for all Big Ten and SEC schools if a computer program (created by humans with their own biases) create it?
Whatever the computer says I'm all in. Not some middle aged clown deciding. The only supposed biases would be deciding metrics but that can be agreed by all. Just get rid of the clown show committee.
A computer program generated by people with their own biases is better than a group of people made up of all the conferences included?
Who do you have agreeing to the metrics used? The people that are focused on the money
It's the same thing--just using a computer to generate the info they want
Agreeing on metrics could be as simple as the top metrics used now from various computer polls. It can be done without a lot if any biases. Offensive metrics, defensive metrics, sos, won loss record. Maybe have it AI generated? Anyway there are standard metrics that everyone who is rational can agree on. Agree to everything up front before the season starts.
My overall point is to get rid of the humans watching games then deciding.
I'm fine with a set "top 4 Big Ten/SEC make the playoff" and continuing down but not a computer program created by humans which is just as biased.
