Playing top 10 teams

[summitlion1]

Penn State has played three teams currently ranked in the top ten and are about to play a fourth. Has Penn State ever played this many top ten teams in one season before?

It's also interesting to think that if OSU beats Clemson, they will have played six teams ranked in the top ten in one season.

 

[Woodpecker]

And another 2 in the Top 25. Yet the Lions didn't make the "playoff" because of a weak schedule.

 

[kijana]

Penn State has played three teams currently ranked in the top ten and are about to play a fourth. Has Penn State ever played this many top ten teams in one season before?

It's also interesting to think that if OSU beats Clemson, they will have played six teams ranked in the top ten in one season.

Perhaps the 1981 team! They played Pitt, Miami, and Nebraska who all finished top 10. USC was top 10 until PSU beat them in the Fiesta.

 

[TJ8869]

And another 2 in the Top 25. Yet the Lions didn't make the "playoff" because of a weak schedule.

I don't recall anyone criticizing Penn State's schedule. They played a very strong schedule. SOS isn't the reason they got left out. The fact that they lost twice is the reason they got left out.

 

[NittanyLogan'11]

And another 2 in the Top 25. Yet the Lions didn't make the "playoff" because of a weak schedule.

That..... that is just 10000% inaccurate.

 

[kijana]

Perhaps the 1981 team! They played Pitt, Miami, and Nebraska who all finished top 10. USC was top 10 until PSU beat them in the Fiesta.

Just looked at the final AP Poll. Alabama finished in the top 10 but Nebraska finished #11. So, they played 4 of the top 11 teams- 3 of which were on the road.

 

[bdgan]

Forgive me for this being somewhat unrelated but you struck a nerve when talking about the rarity of playing 3 top 10 teams in a year. It's a pet peeve of mine is when the media quotes stats like "This is the first time a given team has defeated a top 2 team on the road since 1995". How many times does a given team even get to play a #1 or #2 team? Adding at home or on the road cuts that slim chance in half. Just dumb stats IMO. I think the media used that this year when we beat OSU.

Another PSU stat I hated was when the media said this was PSU's first outright B1G title since 1994. I guess 2005 and 2009 were ruled out because we won on a tiebreaker.

This stuff happens to all schools, not just PSU. It seems that the media goes out of their way to create a story to be bigger than it is.

But yes, it's extremely rare to play 3 top 10 teams in a single year, especially if your team is taking up one of the spots.

 

[Woodpecker]

I don't recall anyone criticizing Penn State's schedule. They played a very strong schedule. SOS isn't the reason they got left out. The fact that they lost twice is the reason they got left out.

So you're saying that if they had scheduled and beaten a team like, say Delaware instead of #23 Pitt, they would have made the playoff?

 

[kijanalives]

Just looked at the final AP Poll. Alabama finished in the top 10 but Nebraska finished #11. So, they played 4 of the top 11 teams- 3 of which were on the road.

They were all top ten at the time we played them. We don't say we lost to the (now) #6 team in the country (scUM), we lost at the #3 team's house.
Rank them as u play them. Can Akron say they lost to the #5 team in the country? Sure, but it's factually incorrect b/c we weren't ranked when we beat them. Two totally different teams from Sep to now.

 

[uhlerlion]

Forgive me for this being somewhat unrelated but you struck a nerve when talking about the rarity of playing 3 top 10 teams in a year. It's a pet peeve of mine is when the media quotes stats like "This is the first time a given team has defeated a top 2 team on the road since 1995". How many times does a given team even get to play a #1 or #2 team? Adding at home or on the road cuts that slim chance in half. Just dumb stats IMO. I think the media used that this year when we beat OSU.

Another PSU stat I hated was when the media said this was PSU's first outright B1G title since 1994. I guess 2005 and 2009 were ruled out because we won on a tiebreaker.

This stuff happens to all schools, not just PSU. It seems that the media goes out of their way to create a story to be bigger than it is.

But yes, it's extremely rare to play 3 top 10 teams in a single year, especially if your team is taking up one of the spots.

You know what was annoying at the Championship Game?? If anyone that was there noticed on the video board they did a Team History compare, before the game, and listed Wisky with like 12 Big Ten championships with the last one in 2012. Penn State had none??!!!!!!!!!!!! I count 3 at the time.

Second annoying thing,the greatest big ten moments video slice------ Highlighting the 1986 championship for Penn State against Miami.

Hmm so PSU doesnt get credit for Big Ten Championships won but the Big Ten takes credit for PSU's National Championship won and not a member of the Big Ten at the time??? in fact if I recall, people like Bo always decried PSU's success because they do not play in a conference. As if the big two and the 8 little sisters of the poor schedule was so demanding back then for them.

 

[Lion78]

So you're saying that if they had scheduled and beaten a team like, say Delaware instead of #23 Pitt, they would have made the playoff?

yep. Or if we had played Washington's out of conference schedule.

 

[PSUArnie]

So you're saying that if they had scheduled and beaten a team like, say Delaware instead of #23 Pitt, they would have made the playoff?

Yep, probably. We would have had 1 loss just like OSU but would have beat them head to head so it would be a safe assumption that we would have been in instead of them. Would have pissed off Delaney I'm sure, which would have made it even more enjoyable.

 

[BuckeyeLegion]

Another PSU stat I hated was when the media said this was PSU's first outright B1G title since 1994. I guess 2005 and 2009 were ruled out because we won on a tiebreaker.

Hence the qualifier "outright". No, those were not outright B1G titles.

So you're saying that if they had scheduled and beaten a team like, say Delaware instead of #23 Pitt, they would have made the playoff?

Yes.

Yep, probably. We would have had 1 lose just like OSU but would have beat them head to head so it would be a safe assumption that we would have been in instead of them. Would have pissed off Delaney I'm sure, which would have made it even more enjoyable.

Penn State would be in. Ohio State would be in. Washington would be out.

 

[PSUArnie]

Hence the qualifier "outright". No, those were not outright B1G titles.

Yes.

Penn State would be in. Ohio State would be in. Washington would be out.

Possibly. But serious question, how do you buckeye fans do this.......do you guys lurk here 24/7 and as soon as the Buckeyes are mentioned here in a post, you're here like flies on you know what? True gift.

 

[BuckeyeLegion]

They were all top ten at the time we played them. We don't say we lost to the (now) #6 team in the country (scUM), we lost at the #3 team's house.
Rank them as u play them. Can Akron say they lost to the #5 team in the country? Sure, but it's factually incorrect b/c we weren't ranked when we beat them. Two totally different teams from Sep to now.

I think this depends on the context. You can say, for instance, Wisconsin has 3 top 10 wins this year...but when you're looking at the resume for the playoff, two of those teams are unranked and one is #20 at 7-4.

 

[nittanydave1]

I always thought the "82 team's schedule was one of the toughest ever for a NC winner. Four teams with future NFL statring QBs. Pitt(Marino), BC(Flutie), Maryland(Esiason), ND(Burlein), plus Alabama, Nebraska and Georgia

 

[bdgan]

Hence the qualifier "outright". No, those were not outright B1G titles.

PSU and OSU might have shared those titles but PSU got the BCS bowl based on head to head. Leaving those out and suggesting that PSU hadn't won the B1G since 1994 was an insult. A convenient way of twisting the info.

 

[BuckeyeLegion]

Possibly. But serious question, how do you buckeye fans do this.......do you guys lurk here 24/7 and as soon as the Buckeyes are mentioned here in a post, you're here like flies on you know what? True gift.

I average a little over 3 posts per day. Not sure that qualifies as hanging out here 24/7.

PSU and OSU might have shared those titles but PSU got the BCS bowl based on head to head. Leaving those out and suggesting that PSU hadn't won the B1G since 1994 was an insult. A convenient way of twisting the info.

It's actually just a fact. It is the first outright title since 1994.

 

[Woodpecker]

Yes.

So strength of schedule really isn't important in determining playoff teams. And head-to-head and conference championships aren't important. So what matters most is not the number of wins but the number of losses. Except when WMU is involved. Do I have this right? It's difficult because the rules keep changing depending on who you're talking about. I guess what frustrates me is that arguments can be made for or against any team (OK, maybe not Alabama) but, despite that, the conclusion is always that Penn State doesn't qualify. I have problems understanding why that set of weighting criteria is the right one.

 

[CLWBT]

So you're saying that if they had scheduled and beaten a team like, say Delaware instead of #23 Pitt, they would have made the playoff?

Yes, probably so.

 

[TJ8869]

So you're saying that if they had scheduled and beaten a team like, say Delaware instead of #23 Pitt, they would have made the playoff?

Possibly. That's why I've said several times that I think you guys have a legitimate argument when compared to Washington. But I don't think you do against Ohio State because while you guys lost to Pitt, they went to Oklahoma and soundly beat a good Sooners team on their own field.

 

[BuckeyeLegion]

So strength of schedule really isn't important in determining playoff teams. And head-to-head and conference championships aren't important. So what matters most is not the number of wins but the number of losses. Except when WMU is involved. Do I have this right? It's difficult because the rules keep changing depending on who you're talking about. I guess what frustrates me is that arguments can be made for or against any team (OK, maybe not Alabama) but, despite that, the conclusion is always that Penn State doesn't qualify. I have problems understanding why that set of weighting criteria is the right one.

In my opinion, Ohio State would have gotten in over Washington on strength of schedule. Penn State would have gotten in over Washington based on strength of schedule and likely, due to the conference title, been in the 2/3 game while Ohio State heads to Atlanta to play 'Bama.

It seems pretty obvious to me how it works so far. They're going to take 0-loss teams and 1-loss teams before 2-loss teams.

If there's more than four 0 and 1-loss teams, the teams with the tougher strength of schedule and/or head-to-head wins and/or conference titles go to the front of the line. If we have fewer than four 0 and 1-loss teams, the 2-loss teams with the tougher strength of schedule and/or head-to-head wins and/or conference titles would go to the front of that line.

 

[crazytoadie]

So strength of schedule really isn't important in determining playoff teams. And head-to-head and conference championships aren't important. So what matters most is not the number of wins but the number of losses. Except when WMU is involved. Do I have this right? It's difficult because the rules keep changing depending on who you're talking about. I guess what frustrates me is that arguments can be made for or against any team (OK, maybe not Alabama) but, despite that, the conclusion is always that Penn State doesn't qualify. I have problems understanding why that set of weighting criteria is the right one.

All metrics are not equal...the order of importance general goes, # of losses > head to head > strength of schedule > performance against common opponents.

Obviously, W-L are related, so less losses is correlated to more wins. In the case, of conference champions, who have played an extra game, they have an extra win so this could differentiate them from teams with same losses. However, for the majority of teams they play 12 games, so the team with less losses has more wins.

Head to head, SOS, common opponents are more likely used as tiebreakers. Head to head is more valuable because it is a direct result on the field of play. Common opponents is less valuable because it is an inference based on comparison. Strength of schedule is probably more useful than common opponents, because this considers everyone on your schedule and common opponents is limited more to conference play as OOC opponents are less often common opponents. Conference championship is valuable but isn't a trump card over losses.

These aren't ironclad rules as there are exceptions in every case. For example, WMU is the exception because there schedule is so incomparable to others that it is hard make an honest comparison.

 

[bdgan]

I average a little over 3 posts per day. Not sure that qualifies as hanging out here 24/7.

It's actually just a fact. It is the first outright title since 1994.

By your logic this year's title isn't outright since PSU won the east based on a tiebreaker.

My point is that while you can argue it's technically true, the way the information was presented makes it appear like PSU hasn't been relevant in the B1G in 22 years. That's baloney and I think you know it.

 

[BuckeyeLegion]

By your logic this year's title isn't outright since PSU won the east based on a tiebreaker.

My point is that while you can argue it's technically true, the way the information was presented makes it appear like PSU hasn't been relevant in the B1G in 22 years. That's baloney and I think you know it.

Technically, they're not the outright division champs, Ohio State can claim Big Ten East Division Champions if they wish. But Penn State wins the tiebreaker so they go to the title game and be outright Big Ten Champions. Fun quirk in the current conference setup we have.

I didn't see how it was presented, however that doesn't make it any less true. Prior to the Big Ten title game, less than half of all Big Ten titles were outright. There's gonna be a good one someday when Purdue puts it together for a season and wins their first outright conference title since 1929.

 

[Bob78]

Here is my prediction for the 2017 season final four: a 2-loss team will be included in the final four going to the semis.
When the apparent hypocrisy and absolute inconsistency is pointed out by us PSU fans, we will be told 'different season, different circumstances, nothing set in stone from one season to another'. Also, I think there are 3 new Selection Committee Members who will be joining, so different points of view could bring a different outcome allowing a 2-loss team to get in.
And then we'll hear from some outgoing member, 'well, yeah, looking back, we probably could have made a stronger case for PSU in 2016.'
Hopefully someone will drag this out in early December 2017 and either say 'hmmm' or 'look at what the moron predicted! ha!'

 

[LafayetteBear]

Rank them as u play them.

That is certainly one way of looking at it. But I prefer to look at it at the end of the season. At that point, you have a better picture of how good each opponent actually was. Should Wisconsin's win over LSU mean very much at this point, given that LSU had four losses? What about wins over Notre Dame? They were both highly ranked before the season began, and even after the first few games.

 

[FLMike]

You tell em Bdgan! That bugs the hell out of me too!

 

[AvgUser]

It seems pretty obvious to me how it works so far. They're going to take 0-loss teams and 1-loss teams before 2-loss teams.

Who gets bumped to allow WMU in? Lets see.
Clemson..conf champ they're in.
UW...Conf champ; they're in too
OSU...doormat. Goodbye.

Oh wait...you don't like the rules now?

 

[BuckeyeLegion]

Who gets bumped to allow WMU in? Lets see.
Clemson..conf champ they're in.
UW...Conf champ; they're in too
OSU...doormat. Goodbye.

Oh wait...you don't like the rules now?

 

[PennState_one]

So you're saying that if they had scheduled and beaten a team like, say Delaware instead of #23 Pitt, they would have made the playoff?

DING DING DING DING DING....That would be 100% correct. It doesn't matter who you played. Wins and losses is all that mattered particularly this year. That's why you will see cake OOC schedules in the future. Alabama had it right all along, the conference games can be hard enough, why schedule tough OOC games???

 

[PennState_one]

So strength of schedule really isn't important in determining playoff teams. And head-to-head and conference championships aren't important. So what matters most is not the number of wins but the number of losses. Except when WMU is involved. Do I have this right? It's difficult because the rules keep changing depending on who you're talking about. I guess what frustrates me is that arguments can be made for or against any team (OK, maybe not Alabama) but, despite that, the conclusion is always that Penn State doesn't qualify. I have problems understanding why that set of weighting criteria is the right one.

WMU is not a "Power 5" team. They are pretty good tho, but I guess if Wisky isn't down in the dumps for losing the BIG Championship team, we'll see what the difference is between a top tier power 5 team vs a top-tier MAC team

 

[Woodpecker]

WMU is not a "Power 5" team.

My bad. I didn't realize that only Power 5 teams could compete in the "playoff". Seems they should have a seperate division then.

 

[PennState_one]

My bad. I didn't realize that only Power 5 teams could compete in the "playoff". Seems they should have a seperate division then.

I agree , but I don't think it's that they do not necessarily qualify, I just believe if any non-power 5 team had the opportunity it would have been them this year.

 

[john4psu]

I average a little over 3 posts per day. Not sure that qualifies as hanging out here 24/7.

It's actually just a fact. It is the first outright title since 1994.

And as many Big 10 Championship Game victories as Ohio State and Michigan COMBINED! That's also a fact.

 

[BuckeyeLegion]

And as many Big 10 Championship Game victories as Ohio State and Michigan COMBINED! That's also a fact.

It is, congratulations. Though how that supports any argument or relates to the discussion, I'm not entirely sure.

So, uhhh...burn?

 

[crm114psu]

DING DING DING DING DING....That would be 100% correct. It doesn't matter who you played. Wins and losses is all that mattered particularly this year. That's why you will see cake OOC schedules in the future. Alabama had it right all along, the conference games can be hard enough, why schedule tough OOC games???

Alabama scheduled USC as their first game this season. You know, PSU's Rose Bowl opponent? There are a lot of teams that schedule weak OOC but you are barking up the wrong tree if you want to use Bama as an example. In fact, you may want to look at another conference, as the SEC played some pretty strong OOC the opening week of the season.

 

[PennState_one]

Alabama scheduled USC as their first game this season. You know, PSU's Rose Bowl opponent? There are a lot of teams that schedule weak OOC but you are barking up the wrong tree if you want to use Bama as an example. In fact, you may want to look at another conference, as the SEC played some pretty strong OOC the opening week of the season.

The point is, now, tough ooc opponents do not help your cause, I.e. Washington... I didn't think this way until this year tho, honestly.

 

[mmp121]

Forgive me for this being somewhat unrelated but you struck a nerve when talking about the rarity of playing 3 top 10 teams in a year. It's a pet peeve of mine is when the media quotes stats like "This is the first time a given team has defeated a top 2 team on the road since 1995". How many times does a given team even get to play a #1 or #2 team? Adding at home or on the road cuts that slim chance in half. Just dumb stats IMO. I think the media used that this year when we beat OSU.

Another PSU stat I hated was when the media said this was PSU's first outright B1G title since 1994. I guess 2005 and 2009 were ruled out because we won on a tiebreaker.

This stuff happens to all schools, not just PSU. It seems that the media goes out of their way to create a story to be bigger than it is.

But yes, it's extremely rare to play 3 top 10 teams in a single year, especially if your team is taking up one of the spots.

I don't know why everyone seems to think that PSU won the B1G in 2009 (co-champions). I see several times that people just keep perpetuating that incorrect theory.

PSU won the B1G (co-champions) in 2008 and 2005.

I guess people get confused in that the 2008 squad played in the 2009 Rose Bowl (against USC) and associate it that way.

I sure hope you all don't forget in 8 years that this 2016 TEAM won the B1G, and don't associate it with the 2017 team, who will also win the B1G!

 

[crm114psu]

The point is, now, tough ooc opponents do not help your cause, I.e. Washington... I didn't think this way until this year tho, honestly.

A win against a tough ooc could mean the difference in getting in when compared to a team with the same record.