PSU hater Klatt has us falling to 8th ..
- Thread starter Delcolion915
- Start date
Yep, now we will have both Georgia and Texas ahead with a loss to Oregon. That also opens up the possibility that OSU could be moved ahead of PSU given that it might have a better head-to-head with the other top teams (Oregon and PSU). Then, if they do that, they must also move Notre Dame ahead of PSU.
We could easily become the #8 seed. It REALLY gets messy if SMU loses. Then Clemson goes ahead of PSU. Alabama gets knocked out, and the committee can do just about anything it wants to rank eight teams in a way that comes up with money-making matchups.
I guess this is the reason to hand it to a committee.
So this ridiculous thread did not age well. I knew we were a lock for 6 after Texas lost. No way they were moving OSU or ND ahead of us because we lose a close game to Oregon. Think about how illogical that would have been.
Now for the irresponsible journalism of Joel Klatt, never forget what this horse's rear end was spewing. How much does he get paid? These talking heads have no clue. Last night CNS was saying the same sh## that we would get jumped by OSU and ND. These incompetent buffoons need to find a new profession because they are horrible at what they do.
Finally, yes. SMU in over Bama. Again, logic, logic, logic. You can't lose a CCG by a last second FG to now have 2 losses and get jumped by a 3 loss team with two losses to average teams.
Now for the irresponsible journalism of Joel Klatt, never forget what this horse's rear end was spewing. How much does he get paid? These talking heads have no clue. Last night CNS was saying the same sh## that we would get jumped by OSU and ND. These incompetent buffoons need to find a new profession because they are horrible at what they do.
Finally, yes. SMU in over Bama. Again, logic, logic, logic. You can't lose a CCG by a last second FG to now have 2 losses and get jumped by a 3 loss team with two losses to average teams.
I wasn’t ever worried either. I firmly believe that if they were going to put ND ahead of PSU, they would have done it after the Irish beat Army or USC - once we were higher going into the CCG, I knew we’d stay there. They weren’t going to drop us for playing an extra game against an undefeated top ranked team.
You very well may be right, but unless you have a window into the actual deliberations made in the decision making process....
I believe that the product that PSU produced on the field had a positive impact on those deliberations. And made their decision to stay the course wrt their ranking significantly easier.
If the final score was 45-17 and the outcome not in doubt, I know that I would not have shared your feel on seeding regardless of CCG outcome.
Thankfully we did not get to find out.....
I agree. While I am alarmed that our defense gave up so many points, Allar, Singleton, K-tron and Warren had good games and looked compelling. At the same time, the committee has to be aware that they may invalidate CCGs so are not going to penalize a team for playing an extra game unless it is a complete blowout.
But who has SMU beat? That has to matter or why play anyone?
ND could have easily moved ahead of us or Bama ahead of SMU if the games weren't close--we see they determined not to use CCGs because they were all tight and that made their lives easier
Remember, Klatt's main argument is the byes for Conference champs are the problem--the playoff SHOULD be
12 Clemson at 5 Notre Dame (4 Penn State)
11 Arizona State at 6 Ohio State (3 Texas)
10 SMU at 7 Tennessee (2 Georgia)
9 Boise State at 8 Indiana (1 Oregon)
I don't think anyone would be upset with this. Oregon deserves and easier path than us and Texas which didn't happen.
Which explains why PSU was the 6th seed and OSU the 8th seed. Unlike you, obviously the committee understands that when both teams win close games to the #1 team and the one team’s other loss is to a Top Ten team and the other team’s other loss is to a mediocre offensively challenged team, the team losing the second game to the higher opponent has a better resume. Duh.
Like most of you posts that didn’t age well.
Well, I was wrong about most of the playoff scenarios. It appears the committee based their decisions on teams' losses rather than the quality of teams' wins, which is an odd way to go. Penn State gets more credit for close losses to Oregon and Ohio State than Ohio State gets credit for quality wins like Indiana and Penn State. SMU gets credit for a close loss to Clemson, while Alabama and Ole Miss each beat several teams better than any team SMU beat. But they each have losses which are worse. Not the way I would have done it, and not a way that makes sense, but hey, it benefits PSU!
Agree except I don't think they made much difference on CCG games. In this case, PSU played 13 games and lost the CCG. tOSU did not play a 13th game and didn't have a win or a loss. So in comparison, the 13th game didn't count or didn't count as much. As I've posted, it is hard to imagine a team would be penalized for qualifying for the CCG and then to punish them for losing versus a team that didn't even play.
Not hard to imagine at all. The previous iterations of a “playoff” or BCS did it more than once. Sitting home was better than playing in some years. Both Alabama and OSU benefitted.
Yeah, but the playoff was only 4 teams. So the impact was minimal. In our case back in 2016, we had two losses and didn't get in as B1G champion because tOSU only had one. We got bumped because of the Pitt loss. Back then, the BCS rankings matter. Today, not so much.
I think the new format, the 12 teams, is a game-changer.
Correct--all the other projections were reasonable--I'm glad it worked out the way it did but this belief that this was always going to happen is insane. That's why many (if not most) had ND as high as 5 and us as low as 9.
We'll see what changes are made because we know the SEC isn't happy nor the networks. They lost out on Bama at Penn State in December for SMU at Penn State
I have advocated for that for years. If 11 conferences are considered to be Division I (FBS in today's verbage), then their champions should be part of the playoff. Alternatively, if you are going to say that only 5 or 6 conferences are Division I, then the Division I teams should only be allowed to schedule teams from those 5 or 6 conferences.
The current model tries to have it both ways. So SEC teams can schedule Mercer in November and BIG teams can schedule Villanova in September, but Mercer and Villanova cannot compete for the championship. This results in fewer data points by which teams from different Division I conferences can be compared for limited at-large playoff spots.
Cheer up for God's sake, are you even a fan? You seem annoyed that OSU didn't jump us. Weird.
Doesn't make sense? Again, based on what? Losses matter and they were saying that the whole time these rankings came out. Look at the logic and the trend. That is what pisses me off about some talking heads like Klatt or Brian Jones on CBS who spews nonsense either because they are completely clueless or just want to drum up content on their little twitter account.
Once ND and OSU were behind Penn State in the penultimate rankings what reasonable person would then think they could jump us simply because of a CCG loss? Admittedly if we had gotten blown out then there was the possibility but the line was 3 and we were not going to get blown out. So my issue is these morons like Klatt thought we would be jumped even AFTER a close game. How, how can you possibly think this? Just boggles my mind. Why would they ever harshly punish a CCG loser like this? Don't you think there would be serious backlash from CCG participants if they ever pulled such a maneuver. The logic is idiotic......a week ago we feel you are better than OSU and we rank you above them. Now a week later you play a close game with the best team in the country in a championship game while OSU sat at home and we now think you are worse?? Oh and OSU lost to this same team. All this bs of head to head and OSU has better wins, okay, that would have been factored into the penultimate rankings. They were not important enough. Read the room from the penultimate rankings and get a clue. If that was so critical then OSU would have stayed ahead of Penn State. People need to think through it and see what the trends were telling us. Just annoys me that these supposed know it alls try to spew this doom and gloom about PSU when the fact of the matter is they are ignorant as hell. Just be quiet if you don't know what you are talking about. Irresponsible, lazy journalism.
The conference championship games should be treated as another data point in evaluating the teams. Especially is today's environment where conference schedules are so imbalanced. Penn State was in the conference championship game because OSU played Oregon during the regular season, and PSU didn't. And say what you will about OSU's loss to Michigan, but PSU's Big Ten schedule was made easier by Michigan not being on it.
I understand it is a data point but you cannot treat the CCG like a regular season game. PSU earned the right to be there. OSU blew it. If it is a competitive game you cannot penalize them.
What if Penn State was not in the CCG and Ohio State was. Then Ohio State loses to Oregon. Is OSU then behind PSU? No. Clearly the committee thinks the way I do about these ccg. SMU another data point. It is simple logic. A team earns a spot that the other team does not. That team plays in a championship game and loses. The other team does nothing but sit there. Why are you rewarding a team that was not good enough to play in a CCG? Now that the imbalanced divisions are gone there is no way you can bump up non CCG participant over a CCG participant. Not logical. Think about it logically. And again, why would Klatt claim this after the penultimate rankings? The committee had spoken. They had a chance to bump OSU over PSU. I am not saying it would have been totally unreasonable (albeit a huge reach) at that time to keep OSU over PSU at that point based on head to head or whatever but they did not because the Mich loss was too damaging. The real issue is AFTER these rankings come out Klatt then still thinks OSU will jump PSU. Just idiotic to think that when the committee already showed its hand. This is lazy and irresponsible journalism. What a dumb a##.
It won't be this way next the money, sorry the SEC and TV execs, are pissed about SMU being in over Bama
I'm not sure how CCGs will impact thinks but SOS is going to be WAY more important
As far as Penn State and Ohio State go....Penn State's SOR is 2 spots better, Ohio State's SOS is 1 spot better. Ohio State has better wins--Penn State has better losses--the difference is the extra win for Penn State--this year or in the future. If we were both 10-2 they'd be ahead of us.
What an odd way of framing it. I'd agree that they looked at the losses closely (as well as overall record) but more in the context of bad losses being detrimental. a loss to a good team wasn't that harmful but losses to poorer teams (Northern Illinois, Michigan, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Oklahoma, etc) would hurt a school more than good wins helps.
I think that's actually a pretty reasonable consideration. Great teams - the ones vying for a national championship - shouldn't lose to bad teams.
Klatt's point, and I'm not saying that I agree with it, is that top 10 teams dropped an average of 6 places after incurring a regular season loss. Teams that lost the CCG's this past weekend dropped about 1 place. As I said, I don't necessarily agree with this take, as some of those regular season losses were to unranked teams, rather than to top-ranked teams.
Klatt's other point, which I have more agreement with, is that the seedings in the CFP are artificially boosting teams like SMU and Boise State. This is making a team like Oregon's path to the championship (potentially OSU/Tenn, Texas, UGA) tougher than Penn State's path (SMU/ Boise, UGA, Oregon), despite Oregon winning the CCG. It would make a lot more sense to reseed the bracket after the first round, or to seed the bracket based on ranking rather than giving a top 4 seed to Boise and ASU.
It is interesting how they finagled SMU in, Bama out, though. They left Alabama @#11 (same as prior week) in Final CFP Rankings and moved SMU down 2 to 10 and only moved Clemson up 1 to #16, 5 positions behind Alabama. I think most see it's rather ridiculous to only move Clemson up 1 position after winning the ACC Championship and having SMU 6 positions higher than the team they just lost the ACC Championship to (again, SMU only dropped 2 spots for losing to the team that was ranked #17). However, it does accomplish some optics that the committee is likely interested in accomplishing.... it leaves Alabama unchanged @ #11, but outside looking in because of the ACC Champion autobid to #16 Clemson in the Final CFP Rankings. Had they try to keep ASU in front of the ACC and move Clemson in front of SMU AND not punish SMU for losing ACC CCG by knocking them out of Playoff.... they would have had to move ASU to #10, Clemson #11, SMU #12 and drop Alabama 2 spots despite not playing to #13. To avoid this, they probably put SMU higher than they really deserve after playing nobody in reg season and losing the ACC CCG and Clemson lower than they should be (I think most would agree that ACC Champion Clemson is the tougher draw of the two ACC teams). But again, doing it the way they did, leaves Alabama unchanged @ #11 inside the top 12, but also keeps SMU in the Playoff and puts the ACC Champion in as the 5th Conference autobid.
It works out great for PSU as they really get the draw of the 5-Seed as the 6th Seed imho (way rather play SMU than Clemson and Boise as the #3. Texas has a tougher draw in Clemson then ASU imho - both Clemson and ASU played better schedules and are more proven teams than SMU and Boise).
Good points. But here is the issue: How can you drop a team for playing a very good opponent below a team that didn't play at all? Is a very good to great opponent easier than no opponent at all?
PSU, for example, beat tOSU because we only had one loss to their two losses. We played a 13th game. How do you know tOSU would win a 13th game no matter who they played? you don't.
The same thing that kept UGA as the highest rated 1, then 2 loss team all year (Smart, recency bias) is what hurt Bama (no Saban).
Additionally, the 3rd loss was a kiss of death. Much like Indiana couldn't afford a 2nd loss, the SEC teams couldn't afford 3. Not with the way the ACC fell (3 loss Clemson upsetting 1 loss SMU).
Of course, the optics of it is bad. You probably could find 7 SEC teams who would be betting favorites over SMU, but at some point winning and losing has to matter and in the case of uneven conferences, either the SEC can split off or suck it up and realize that you aren't getting 6 spots in the 12. This year, they only got 3.
Just how it is. Go to 24 and they will want 7 or 8, if not 9.
Additionally, the 3rd loss was a kiss of death. Much like Indiana couldn't afford a 2nd loss, the SEC teams couldn't afford 3. Not with the way the ACC fell (3 loss Clemson upsetting 1 loss SMU).
Of course, the optics of it is bad. You probably could find 7 SEC teams who would be betting favorites over SMU, but at some point winning and losing has to matter and in the case of uneven conferences, either the SEC can split off or suck it up and realize that you aren't getting 6 spots in the 12. This year, they only got 3.
Just how it is. Go to 24 and they will want 7 or 8, if not 9.
Let him hate. The seeding is the problem. If it were done correctly, we'd have a bye.
Best part is we don’t have to watch any more games this season with him and Gus announcing. That’s the best part of the playoffs
Yes, Klatt is shell shocked from having Gus yelling in his ear the last 10 years in the broadcasting booth .....
The difference is Penn State made the CCG and OSU did not. Once this happened and OSU slid behind us they were not jumping us unless we got embarassed in the ccg.
And I think "embarrassed" is playing a big role here. I think it would have had to have been at least a 4 score loss to bring that about - and even then I'm skeptical we would have fallen behind tOSU/Tenn or even Notre Dame. The Committee made a very sensible choice to treat CCG losers as that game having little impact especially if playing a team ranked higher/favored where the extra data point doesn't tell you anything. I mean, PSU losing to Oregon basically puts PSU in the exact same level of perception as they were going in.
Because all 3 lost by a score--one in OT, one on a last second FG and our game where we had a chance to tie late.
If any of those games are even 14 points it changes things IMO but I also still can't believe SMU is in so....
