Two things to clarify:
In 2010, MSU earned a share of the Big Ten Championship after finishing the year in a three-way tie with Ohio State and Wisconsin. Dantonio's 2011 team won their division and appeared in the Big Ten Title Game. MSU won outright Big Ten Championships in 2013 and 2015 with victories in the 2013 and 2015 Championship Games. He had an 8–4 record against Michigan. And, of course, a playoff appearance. So, to some, Dantonio and MSU absolutely has been a better program from the standpoint of their up years, than PSU. He also had multiple 11-win regular seasons...JF hasn't done that once.
Since '16 the series is 3-3. Dantonio had his pinnacle beating PSU as we were buiding back in '14 and '15. I guess you could say they are better just based on them making the playoff and we have not although are they better than Michigan if you look back to '14 I think they have more wins over them but no one would say that now. I think you could surmise PSU and MSU are basically equal at this point although I fully expect to beat them this year which gives us a 4-3 advantage since '16.
During those years, UM was not good. Additionally, PSU was handicapped by undeserved sanctions starting in 2012.
I mean sure...there is context to everything. MSU still had a few tremendous years in a row. It's okay to acknowledge other programs successes when we compare it to what PSU has or hasn't done. The bottom line, half the teams in our division have made the playoffs. That is the context I need to know that we are close and not quite there yet. Is JF the man to take us there....nobody knows that.
They were a good team. But they were not any better than this year's PSU team. Or the 2019 PSU team. Or the 2016 PSU team.
We took advantage of our opportunity in 2016. It is absurd that OSU made the playoff that year over us.
It isn't absurd--their resume was better than us. We lost 2 games to Pitt and Michigan. The issue wasn't Ohio State getting in over us it was Washington getting in over us.
Taking a non-conference champion over the conference champion when the CC defeated the non-champion is absurd.
Well, with the expanded playoff, this situation will likely happen, which is absurd to me. What if you have a three loss conf champion and a one loss 2nd place team in that conf? Your body of work should also matter.
On a fluke play.
Seems unlikely this would happen with 12. Maybe for the PAC12 or Big12 (since they will be somewhat lesser conferences in the coming years) but a 1 loss non-champ Big Ten or SEC team will certainly get in with 12 teams.
It isn't though. Conference titles have never been defining in college football. I've said an infinite number of times that not winning the division or conference doesn't mean you can't be the best team in the nation--we see that all the time in men's basketball. We should have been #4--the top 3 were right.
But we didn't win it--which cost us a playoff spot. It was a bad loss regardless of spin.
The OSU game did not come down to a singular play (despite what people think). PSU wins that 4 out of 10 times.
Men's basketball does not crown the best team in the nation as national champion. It crowns the team that is playing the best during a 3 week period in the spring. That's all. As much as I love March Madness, it doesn't determine who the best team is.
Nor does the bowl system. The point is to be prepared and be the best team at that point of the season not months prior
You are right. Same with baseball. Phillies almost win and they were like the 12th best team. Nats a couple years ago. Even the Braves last year. Cheaters this year were one of the best but the Dodgers were better.
The playoff system does a better job because fewer teams get in and they are considering the entire body of work (not how you are playing during your conference tournament at the end of the year).
But not all CFB are equal as you know.
You can argue no college football game "means" anything. It is, after all, just a game. Whatever worth you are assigning to the playoff is your own value judgement. It is just as valid to say that the bowls "mean" something (and I think history suggests they mean a lot).
The reason that PSU didn't make the playoffs in 2016 was not so much the "fluke" Pitt loss, but the total thumping they took - 49-10 - from Michigan that year. No 2-loss team has ever made the playoffs and especially one that had that bad of blowout loss
That's fair, but if PSU had one loss on the year and was Big Ten champ, even if that one loss was bad (UM), PSU still would have made the playoff.
In the past, which you apparently still live in, bowls had some meaning because there wasn't a playoff. A bowl is like a consolation bracket in a competitive tournament. You give the kids that aren't good an extra game or two. It's a participation trophy.
We actually agree for once. Just couldn't get blown out and lose to an average/bad Pitt team
