Strength of Schdule

[Obliviax]

According to "teamrankings.com", PSU comes in at #4 in SOS. We are behind Auburn, tOSU and OK. These things are subjective, of course (TX Christian is at #7).


So, we are then ranked #9. Teams ranked above us have zero or one loss; can't argue much with that. tOSU, a two loss team is ranked above us; again, hard to argue with that considering we played and lost to them. I guess I can justify Auburn above us, with three losses and the hardest schedule and three quality wins. But it is hard to figure why USC is ranked above us given two losses and a much easier schedule (#22).

So we played #s 5 (tOSU), #16 (Sparty), #21 (NW)..so that leaves NW as our "quality win". USC's quality win was Stanford who lost four games.

I really feel that Pitt cost us, again. While our SOS is really ranked high, I don't feel like we get the credit we deserve for that since out out of conference schedule was lacking (even though both GaSt and Akron are in bowls).

 

[mjh218]

The committee makes their mind up and backfills the reasoning from week to week. In fact their reasoning from week to week is inconsistent. For instance last week they said the gap between #4 and 8 was razor thin. This week after OSU best Wisc and Bama didn’t play, they said it wasn’t close between Bama and OSU. I don’t disagree with the Pick. But their reasoning is sketchy and flawed.

Also look at USC. They are not in the playoffs because they scheduled some tough games. For instance ND. The Nd loss is keeping them out of the playoffs this year.

 

[GoNavy]

The bottom line with the playoffs the way it is now, there is NO benefit from playing anyone that can beat you OOC. Washington last year, Bama this year. An extra loss hurts you more than a quality win helps you so there is no benefit.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

The committee makes their mind up and backfills the reasoning from week to week. In fact their reasoning from week to week is inconsistent. For instance last week they said the gap between #4 and 8 was razor thin. This week after OSU best Wisc and Bama didn’t play, they said it wasn’t close between Bama and OSU. I don’t disagree with the Pick. But their reasoning is sketchy and flawed.

Also look at USC. They are not in the playoffs because they scheduled some tough games. For instance ND. The Nd loss is keeping them out of the playoffs this year.

Yup. Heard someone on ESPNU Radio this morning say the same thing - if #'s 4-8 are 'razor thin' before championship weekend (#4 being Bama, #8 being OSU), what changed? The only thing that happened was that Bama sat home and did nothing while OSU went out and beat #3 Wisconsin. Suddenly they're 'not even close'? Look - I think Bama would beat OSU 9/10 times, but this isn't supposed to be a beauty contest. The games should mean something. Winning your conference should mean something. There have been 16 selections in four years and only nine teams have been represented. The system sucks and I'll do my part by only watching our game and the USC/OSU game.

 

[Woodpecker]

there is NO benefit from playing anyone that can beat you OOC.

Or, in the case of Alabama, IN conference. It turns out that they didn't need to risk actually playing in a conference championship game like those saps from Auburn. It turns out that the smart play was to lose to Auburn to get the bye into the "playoff"

 

[JWB389]

IMO, if they're going to stick with a 4 team model with some committee arbitrarily changing the rules weekly, they should concentrate on who is the 5th best conference champ. They stay home. Sorry ND. The conference champ games serve as the first round of the playoff.

 

[Ian]

It’s fixed. Precedent was set last year rendering championships games useless as they screwed PSU. The Jeanie is out of the bottle. O$U was doomed. B1G deserves a team to be in, no doubt. But it couldn’t be O$U after last year. The committee will always have an escape hatch now!

The scary part is that last years winner lost to sPitt. This yrs winner could have lost to Syracuse or Iowa State... what?

 

[dbsteel]

The bottom line with the playoffs the way it is now, there is NO benefit from playing anyone that can beat you OOC. Washington last year, Bama this year. An extra loss hurts you more than a quality win helps you so there is no benefit.

This is it to a tee. You have one loss and you have a good shot at getting in, unless its in the Title game.

 

[dbsteel]

Or, in the case of Alabama, IN conference. It turns out that they didn't need to risk actually playing in a conference championship game like those saps from Auburn. It turns out that the smart play was to lose to Auburn to get the bye into the "playoff"

This is a tough one. I don't think the conference winner should get an automatic "in" either. If we had beaten MSU and our only loss was by 1 point to OSU, I'd say we should be in without playing in the Conference Championship game.

I'm all for doing away with them and letting everyone play more conference games.

 

[Grant Green]

Look - I think Bama would beat OSU 9/10 times, but this isn't supposed to be a beauty contest. T.

The line on Bama vs OSU would probably be about -2 or -3 to Bama, which is a moneyline of -140 to -160 (vig free). That is an implied win probability of of 58-61%. Even if Bama is totally healthy and the line is like -6, that would still be a win probability of 68%.
Maybe you are right and Bama would win 90-100% of the time, but the world betting market would disagree.

 

[PSUSignore]

The bottom line with the playoffs the way it is now, there is NO benefit from playing anyone that can beat you OOC. Washington last year, Bama this year. An extra loss hurts you more than a quality win helps you so there is no benefit.

Bingo. The CFB has shown, through their actions and not their words, that P5 conference championships and strength of schedule are not as important as a W-L record. Therefore teams should start scheduling the easiest possible schedule if they want to make the playoffs. I have little doubt that had PSU played UW's OOC schedule last year they would have had only 1 loss and would have been in the playoff. Bama played an easier schedule than tOSU, yet they got in. Had tOSU played a similar schedule it's likely they would only have 1 loss as well. The committee has spoken and I expect that scheduling will change as a result.

The B1G East is really at a disadvantage with such a philosophy because the good teams cannibalize themselves and knock each other out of contention. It's ironic that when the SEC West had similar strength all we heard was how good the SEC is and they'd routinely have 2 teams ranked very highly (prior to CFP era). Now the B1G has multiple contenders and the committee instead leaves all of them out. The B1G being excluded is likely going to motivate Delaney to try to change things, since it hurts perception of the conference. Like him or not, this is likely to get him to take some sort of action.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

The line on Bama vs OSU would probably be about -2 or -3 to Bama, which is a moneyline of -140 to -160 (vig free). That is an implied win probability of of 58-61%. Even if Bama is totally healthy and the line is like -6, that would still be a win probability of 68%.
Maybe you are right and Bama would win 90-100% of the time, but the world betting market would disagree.

The second they knock Barrett out of the game it's a gimme.

 

[Grant Green]

The second they knock Barrett out of the game it's a gimme.

OSU beat Bama a few years ago with a third string QB. Not to mention, Haskins looked really good and led the comeback vs UM.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

OSU beat Bama a few years ago with a third string QB. Not to mention, Haskins looked really good and led the comeback vs UM.

I was being facetious, but yeah - true.

 

[sdwcpa]

There is no question that PSU has the right idea with OOC scheduling. If they finish the job against either OSU nor MSU they are in the playoffs either as a 1 loss conference champion or in the exact position as OSU was in last year. By scheduling a soft OOC schedule a team can lose a conference game and still get into the playoffs as long as they sweep the OOC games.

Scheduling the tough early season OOC game is great if you win it as in OSU last year but if puts a team in a position where they have to run the table in its conference to get into the play offs if you lose .

After seeing the reward that Bama got for their OOC schedule and seeing that PSU with their OOC schedule would have been in if they won either of the 2 games that they lost , if I am Gene Smith I am calling TCU. Texas and ND( OSU OOC games in the next few years) and saying never mind. My next calls are to Mercer, Citadel and UL Monroe to bribe them to come north in September.

 

[78SweetRevenge]

I agree with the OP. I knew USC would jump us but it wasn't justified. We should be 8

 

[Nitwit97]

This is it to a tee. You have one loss and you have a good shot at getting in, unless its in the Title game.

Correct me if I am wrong (like you have to ask for that here), but the one precedent that has held for all four playoff fields is that there have been no two-loss participants. That is disheartening. Teams should be encouraged and rewarded for racking up quality wins. Not going their best to skate through unscathed. But, it seems to be the case. Keep scheduling the cupcakes, and if you can, get them in the middle or late in the season to give your team a “non” bye week. Worked for Bama.

 

[djr4rebs]

I agree with the OP. I knew USC would jump us but it wasn't justified. We should be 8

They should eliminate all committee rankings until after CCG week. That way, it's truly the committee getting together at the end and picking four teams. The previous rankings are just window dressing week to week for advertising purposes. Otherwise, they would have had Alabama #1 from the beginning and no lower than 4 after the Auburn loss.

 

[PennState_one]

The bottom line with the playoffs the way it is now, there is NO benefit from playing anyone that can beat you OOC. Washington last year, Bama this year. An extra loss hurts you more than a quality win helps you so there is no benefit.

Yep, that's why I still think the easiest path to the playoffs is a WEAK schedule and have 1 loss at the most to even be considered.

 

[PSUSignore]

Correct me if I am wrong (like you have to ask for that here), but the one precedent that has held for all four playoff fields is that there have been no two-loss participants. That is disheartening. Teams should be encouraged and rewarded for racking up quality wins. Not going their best to skate through unscathed. But, it seems to be the case. Keep scheduling the cupcakes, and if you can, get them in the middle or late in the season to give your team a “non” bye week. Worked for Bama.

The CFP has shown that they reward for quality wins. However on the flipside, they are still punishing teams for quality losses. The margin for error is pretty thin. If teams schedule tough and win, it works out great like it did for tOSU last year. But if you lose, even if the schedule is harder than teams you are jockeying for position with, it's keeping you out of the playoff. So the message the committee is sending is that it's better to schedule easier opponents to ensure you get the wins than it is to schedule tough opponents due to the increased chances of losing.