That's funny. It's apparent the only way PSU is going to get into the CFP playoffs ever is to go undefeated....and how many teams have done that in the past few years?
Regarding the snub, the truth of the matter is...
- Thread starter lionlurker
- Start date
Again I totally disagree. If they beat Pitt OR scUM they are in the play offs this year. PERIOD!!
The committee will overlook one loss if everything else is in place. They will not overlook 2 losses especially with one being by 39 points even with the injuries.
The committee will overlook one loss if everything else is in place. They will not overlook 2 losses especially with one being by 39 points even with the injuries.
I completely agree. The question is do they really want to make that blatantly obvious to the public? So far they have avoided doing it even though it has been well known. I think by not picking the conference champ of a school known for not hiding their dismay...They risk a large amount of public exposure to this.
I'm blown away that scUM, or any team for that matter, can lose 2 outta their last 3 and not fall from the top 5. Complete BS! I've never seen that happen before. Winner of Wisconsin PSU better jump scUM.
Below .500? Heck, their god was 5-12 in Bowls, a percentage of .294. Unbiased officiating can do that to you.
Why is Western Michigan being excluded? Zero losses trumps everyone except Alabama.
welp when you have beat currently ranked #6, #7 #8 you get leeway. Its about your complete resume, not a who's hot right now. If that were the case USC would be in the final 4
They don't play in a Power 5 conference hence competition is not comparable. They have not beaten any team in the top 25 so it is difficult to have an accurate comparison. Every team in the top 10 has multiple wins against top 25 teams while WMU's best win is against Northwestern by 1 point. I'd venture to say that WMU is probably the highest ranked team without a top 25 win, so they aren't being shortchanged. Should they schedule more talented teams in OCC to boost strength of schedule and continue to be undefeated, they could gain credibility like Boise State did, .
I have said previously that W-L record generally stratifies teams in Power 5 conferences. This is not an absolute rule nor does it hold for teams in lower conferences with weaker schedules.
Two words for you. "Horse shit". Take it like a man. UM blew it! UM has zero business being in the top 4, let alone the top 7. If you're so effing great how do you explain losing 2 outta the last 3. Better luck next year...
You keep bringing up last 2/3 like that matters. Once again the committee has already said they only care about your full resume. But I'll bite, Michigan has 2 losses they screwed up, you're exactly right. So which other 2 loss teams should be ahead of them???
#6 Wisconsin? Nope Michigan beat them
#7 Penn state? Nope Michigan thrashed them
#8 Colorado? What a surprise, Michigan beat them too
Michigan has the best resume of any 2 loss team that's just facts. If you didn't want to be compared with them don't lose to them by 39 and this isn't even a conversation. Most years having 2 losses doesn't even put you in the conversation so all these teams put their fate in the hands of the committee
I'll agree that momentum is on PSU side in comparison to OSU, but just because we have gained on them done the back stretch doesn't mean we are even with them or ahead.
OSU looked very good against Nebraska and Maryland after us and not so good at MSU and Mich, but we looked worse against Mich so we can't ding OSU there and then waltz away from our loss to Mtha
And it is entirely nonobjective to think that all reasonable & objective people would agree on a single outcome. If you polled informed fans not from either PSU or OSU, you probably find a near 50/50 split with a slight edge to OSU. The only place you'd find a near complete agreement is within either fanbase. I'd think PSU would have a slight edge if a rematch was at home or neutral site and probably edge to OSU in Columbus. My confidence is tempered by our OL situation as there is not much room for error or injury and that the scorned team usually brings added intensity to the rematch.
I agree, best scenario is getting snubbed and going to a major Bowl instead. JS is just the excuse. What really gets the outsiders rabid is the "doing things the right way" for forty years under St. Joe moniker. They hate it, maybe as much as the 2011 BOT did. Is what it is for many who fear and loath exceptional-ism. Let the Committee change the criteria annually to support their choices. With all of the social media today they can't manufacture justification like they used to. The public no longer marches in step. Delany's B1G Joke will be exposed and Emmert will be one big step closer to the door of insignificance. We are not ready anyway, yet! Beat Wisconsin just for the fun of the chaos it will cause. No offense to Wisky because they are not the chosen ones either.
Last edited:
If Wash & Clemson win and the current top four go to the playoffs, we aren't snubbed. That scenario has the undefeated and 1 loss teams above the two loss teams. You can argue about the championship, but all that does is show that OCC games are meaningless to the BIG's process. That doesn't mean that the playoff committee should also ignore OCC games, which would be arbitrary. If Michigan gets in or another 2 loss team gets in if we win, then we could have a gripe, but let's let that happen before we attribute it to something other that our record.
That is what is really beyond belief in this situation. It is as though the entire media talking heads have just completely eliminated the weekends of Nov 5 and Nov 12 when PSU dismantled Iowa 41-14 and then one week later Michigan loses to that same Iowa team.
Apparently, listening to everyone yap their mouths, Michigan only has one loss - the one last weekend at Columbus. I guess they either didn't play the game against Iowa or "that doesn't count".[/QUOTE]
It was a fluke! and as we know fluky wins don't count just like fluky losses!
It was a fluke! and as we know fluky wins don't count just like fluky losses![/QUOTE]
The hypocrisy is mind boggling. This morning they were saying if Colorado wins Michigan should get in because of the controversial ending to the UM-OSU game. Where was that discussion two years ago when OSU got in based on a more than controversial win over PSU? In fact, it wasn't just controversial, it was downright criminal.
Ooh.... I can play too.
Let's compare two loss teams and some of their recent opponents (i.e. not ancient history from September)
How did Michigan do against Indiana?... 10 point win at home, PSU beat them by 14 on the road.
How did Michigan do against Iowa?...Lost. PSU trashed them
How did Michigan do against OSU?... Lost. (If not for missed FGs, OSU wins easily in regulation.) PSU beat them.
It's pretty clear who is currently the better team.
So, a 10-2 team and a 10-2 team are not comparable, but a 10-2 team and an 11-1 team are comparable. Got it.
They are comparable. I compared them. You (Michigan) win head to head but lose everything else. You lost.
Look, it all boils down to the most elementary numbers. All sports keep standings, right? All standings in all sports are respected as being the final arbiter, right? If the Cubs won 100 games this year, and the Cardinals won 95, then the Cubs are in first place. And they are always in first place, even if their season record against the Cardinals was 0-10. Isn't that correct? If the Steelers are 11-5 and the Ravens are 10-6, the Steelers still win the division even if they are 0-2 against the Ravens. Isn't that correct? Do we really need an eye test in MLB or the NFL?
It's the way it always has been, in every sport. Until now. Otherwise, why bother to have standings, divisions, conferences, etc? If the shoe was on the other foot for UM or tOSU people, and someday it could, I can't wait to hear the whining.
It's the way it always has been, in every sport. Until now. Otherwise, why bother to have standings, divisions, conferences, etc? If the shoe was on the other foot for UM or tOSU people, and someday it could, I can't wait to hear the whining.
So then Ohio State should be in ahead of Penn State right now, if they're comparable? Penn State wins head-to-head, but Ohio State wins common opponents and strength of schedule.
Yeah, if you leave out conference championship. OSU has no sniff of that. Tiebreaker. Go ahead and look up the Protocol these jackwagons pretend to be employing.
That's exactly what I'm using. Head to head, strength of schedule, outcome vs. common opponents and conference championships. There is not weighting and no priority to any of them. And no one has a conference championship today, so that criteria is moot until Saturday.
ETA: When comparing Penn State to Ohio State, it's also important to remember these criteria are also only used when the committee sees teams with comparable resumes, which they have repeatedly said is not the case. They have not seen Ohio State and Penn State as close enough to use these as tiebreakers.
I already explained what the point is. Money. It's a made for TV event to get another fat stack of cash from the TV networks. If it were about a TRUE champion, how would Wisconsin, who has lost to Ohio State and Michigan and would have finished no better than 3rd in the Eastern Division, have a claim? Aside from their geographic location put them in the weaker division.
Eh, you really don't believe that. A month ago you'd have been perfectly happy with the old system of respecting rules and standings. It would never have occurred to you that a group of old guys would be trying to tell the world that a 3rd place team is actually a more worthy competitor than a 1st place team, because a) it's never ever happened before, and b) it goes against everything in American sports, and c) it's a ridiculous concept that opens the door for cronyism and corruption.
Let me know when the NFL and MLB sanction the eye test to determine post-season eligibility.
Let me know when the NFL and MLB sanction the eye test to determine post-season eligibility.
Or the NBA, NHL, Every other college sport at every level including football. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ will also lead to the 8 team playoff sooner rather than later.
Agree and disagree. The problem is the bowls. They LOVE the NYD exposure and are tied up in contracts. The only path is four games on NYD being the first round of playoffs (Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta pitting 1 ~ 8) But that starts the playoffs in January. You then have four teams the week after, and two after that. We are looking at having a championship game at the end of January and a team, potentially, playing 16 games. For example, this year PSU will play 12 regular season games and the B1G title game. That's 13 games before playoff. If they had 8 teams, and won the championship, they'd be looking at three more games. That's 16 games. I am not sure that is tenable in college ball at this level. There would have to be a lot of adjustments: Less regular season games (do teams really want to hurt their revenue stream in places like NW, UCLA, and Ole Miss? Eliminate the conf championship games (good luck convincing the conferences in giving up that money)? Screw the NYD bowls (tough sell to long time partners and tradition)?
Bottom line, would an 8 team playoff really bring more money?
It would if they charged the networks more to televise the two other games.
You'd have to think that the viewership would be higher for a Cotton Bowl that actually meant something, for example. The price would reflect that.
You'd have to think that the viewership would be higher for a Cotton Bowl that actually meant something, for example. The price would reflect that.
I absolutely believe that conference title games are only about TV money, as they're constructed today. Even discounting Ohio State and Penn State being ineligible, Wisconsin was still the 4th best team in the conference in 2012 (if you count OSU and PSU, they were 6th). But, because they got hot for one game, they're the Big Ten Champs for the year. In what world does that make sense?
Do I believe Michigan is more worthy than Penn State? I think it's worth the conversation. And I think there's a lot of selective criteria here being used to boost Penn State (as, head to head seems to matter against Ohio State, but not matter against Michigan).
And you can't compare to the NFL or MLB or NBA or any pro sport when looking at this. The NCAA basketball tournament uses a selection committee that determines who gets at large bids. The FCS level uses a selection committee to determine who gets at large bids. Essentially, the CFP is 4 at large bids being determined by a selection committee.
Yeah, you actually can compare. When CFB is now apparently the only major sport that has decided that conference and division championships mean less than subjective opinion, I think it's pretty fair to compare.
Dude, you seem like a good guy. Six months ago you'd never be saying what you're saying now, and we both know it. This is a shitshow that everybody in charge is scrambling to justify. And we all know it.
Dude, you seem like a good guy. Six months ago you'd never be saying what you're saying now, and we both know it. This is a shitshow that everybody in charge is scrambling to justify. And we all know it.
Yes from a TV standpoint it most certainly would bring in more money. Do the ratings go up in the playoffs in other sports? This is going to happen sooner or later.
I think the ratings would go up for the three payoff games (8-4, 4-2 and 2-1) but would invalidate all of the other bowls. I mean, using this year, it would be fun to watch Iowa play Pitt, but outside of die hards, who really cares about the poinsetta bowl, mienike bowl, pinstripe bowl? These bowls get little TV time.
But who knows...I don't disagree...just stating the assumption of more revenue isn't a slam dunk.
Why
It's not a 4 team playoff ----- it's just another worthless "beauty pageant" just like all of the others that preceded it! The CFP Committee is the BCS BS with a "different colored coat" on it! Division I deserves a REAL Football Championship Tournament, not this hooie!
It's not a 4 team playoff ----- it's just another worthless "beauty pageant" just like all of the others that preceded it! The CFP Committee is the BCS BS with a "different colored coat" on it! Division I deserves a REAL Football Championship Tournament, not this hooie!
We can agree to disagree on the comparisons between sports. I don't think they're 100% right either, BTW. Because Seattle managed to win the worst division in history a few years ago, they get a home game at 7-9? Really? Ultimately, it needs to be 8, with 5 automatic bids and 3 at-large with early rounds at home stadiums. But we're not there yet.
6 months ago I never would have imagined there'd be 4 deserving B1G teams either. Some of what I'm saying is Devil's Advocate stuff because I think it's worth the discussion. Ultimately, I think Ohio State and Penn State have a better claim to stake than Michigan and Wisconsin. Naturally, I'm biased towards Ohio State, but I'm trying to be objective. I think Ohio State objectively has more good wins. Ohio State has 1 loss vs. 2 losses. Ohio State performed better than Penn State against 4 of their 5 common opponents.
Penn State has the head to head win. And that one win may end up giving them two trump cards, the head to head and the conference title, because of division tiebreakers.
I honestly don't know if there's a right answer (or a wrong answer). I'll be okay with whatever happens, once Ohio State lost, it lost control over it's own destiny, so there's no where to point fingers except at ourselves.
Well, yeah, some head-to-heads mean more than others. Here is why the Penn State vs Ohio State head to head matters:
Teams get better and worse throughout the season. That's why you can't just point to games all through the season and apply their results to right now.
After PSU beat Ohio State, Ohio State was still ranked higher than Penn State, and I was ok with that. At that point, it was still quite possible that Penn State's win over OSU was an "any given saturday" kinda thing, and Ohio State was generally better than Penn State (just not on that night).
However, as time has passed since then, Penn State has shown that the outcome of the game that night probably wasn't just an "any given saturday" kinda thing -- Especially when you factor in that their two losses prior to that night were while they were decimated with injuries at the LB position (playing walk-on back ups of walk-on back ups).
Then, if Penn State passes one final test this weekend, Penn State adds another win vs a top-6 opponent, further solidifying that OSU and PSU are at least approximate equals.
AT THAT POINT, because Ohio State was (going into this upcoming weekend) ranked ahead of Penn State, that head-to-head event is very relevant in these discussions.
The head-to-head between Michigan and Penn State was between two teams (especially Penn State) that are quite different than they were at the time of that game. That is why that head-to-head is not quite at relevant.
It's not "selective criteria." It's using all the data around the criteria to weigh it's applicability/relevance. You shouldn't just blindly apply all data points equally. That would lead to an uninformed, and potentially incorrect, decision.
That's the part that bugs me more than tOSU. Yes, they beat us. But they also lost two out of their last three--and had a tough time with Indiana. Current results should count for something.
"Right now" Michigan is not playing good ball. Key words "right now". Lost two of their last three. That *has* to be taken into account--somewhere.
When it comes to the playoffs, they're evaluating body of work. Maybe Penn State is much better than they were early in the season (they are), but they both put themselves in a hole early in the season by losing games, and the fact that the Michigan game was an absolute drubbing does matter. The fact that Pitt is 8-4 despite beating Penn State and Clemson, arguably the best two win resume of any team in the country, matters. And that's why Penn State and Ohio State haven't been evaluated as equals, and may not even if Penn State beats Wisconsin.
As opposed to Penn State's blowout of Indiana?
