After tonight, I find it very hard to believe that the events of the last five years aren't figuring into a rating system that is totally subjective. Perhaps I'm wrong, but after what I heard tonight, it's the only conclusion I can come to because everything else I heard is pure garbage.
The Sandusky factor had to be coming into play
- Thread starter Corabi94
- Start date
All this conversation is moot if we do not win the game on Saturday. So relax till then. Go Nitts!
I agree with you. its like the committee is trying to find every excuse to exclude penn state
Exactly.... From here on out, JUST WIN BABY! Can't keep Franklin and Co. down and out forever.
Unfortunately the learning curve and all the changes were just a little to much early in the season. Look at em go now, BEAT THOSE BADGERS!
Pretty much it. You can't cry foul UNTIL you win Saturday night.
If this is true, then's what's Wisconsin's angle? They are in the same boat (i.e. possibly winning B10 and not getting top 4). The PERCEPTION is that PSU hasn't been good in the past 5 years and this year is a mirage. Same feelings you would have if Pitt was 10-2 and in our position. Once the PERCEPTION and recent (win/loss) history improves, the intangibles will come with it. There are going to be about a handful of teams left out who are going to feel snubbed. The B10 winner will probably be one of them. That is completely siloed from any scandal narrative that many people conveniently want to use as an explanation. At least that's how I see it.
The committee looks at things week by week . A win against Wisconsin changes things from this week , a lot.
Pretty much it. A win this weekend is required or it's not even a discussion. If PSU wins and so does UW and Clemson...those 2 are going. 1 loss conference champs and you cannot say boo about it. Whether you're Whisky or PSU....you have to win first and hope for a loss.
The one thing that does bother me is now it doesn't matter how you close out a season. It's totally irrelevant and this is truly a popularity contest. This whole setup is a GD ratings grab nothing more. D1 football is the only sport not truly settled on the field. At a minimum it should be a 8 team playoff. If 1aa, D2, D3 can do this, so can the big boys. The problem is people are afraid of change and the money tied to bowl games has this crap tied up.
I seriously doubt the Sandusky scandal plays a part in this. Since Ohio State this team has not played a highly ranked team. If they beat Wisky then the perspective changes.
I bring this up because the committee head essentially said, this is also how the ESPN talking heads heard it, that there is almost no chance of Penn State getting in. The margin between Michigan and Washington is very slim. On Mike and Mike this morning, the consensus was that Michigan is likely to get in over a PSU/Wisc Big 10 champ if Washington loses. The fact that Michigan "blew out" Penn State gives UM the advantage over the Nittany Lions.
I know we have to beat the Badgers and I'm not assuming we win. However, it seems that the decision has already been made that PSU can't get in even if they win. Again, this is based on the CFP Head's comments last night on ESPN.
Again, I could be wrong and likely am, but I can't help but wonder what factor the perception of Penn State (i.e. Sandusky scandal) plays into discussions where people are subjectively ranking teams.
I know we have to beat the Badgers and I'm not assuming we win. However, it seems that the decision has already been made that PSU can't get in even if they win. Again, this is based on the CFP Head's comments last night on ESPN.
Again, I could be wrong and likely am, but I can't help but wonder what factor the perception of Penn State (i.e. Sandusky scandal) plays into discussions where people are subjectively ranking teams.
Last edited:
Exactly , PSU is obviously hot right now and we know the injury issues that were present early on.
They just need to win and hope for the best .
I'm not sure why the non-football related criminal actions of an ex-employee should factor in to anything PSU football related, especially in 2016.
What does "the perception" of our having not been "good" over the last few years have to do with this year?
I'm not buying it. The real problem- same always- is that there are more than 4 teams who can make a reasonable case for being in the playoff, and there are only 4 spots. This was predicted by everyone who said it should have been 8. The committee is forced to split hairs and make up tortured logic to support impossible choices
In my opinion, the Sandusky factor is just a convenient, built in excuse to marginalize Penn State success.-- In 94' virtually nobody in the BIG voted for PSU as national champs. Why? because it would automatically make the Big 2 ( previously the Big draw) much less relevant and would have given Penn State a massive advantage in subsequent recruiting classes. The BIG wanted Penn State for it's drawing power, but wanted them " under control". It was the same way with Joe. They wanted the legend, but didn't want to give him an inch. There were those who despised Joe for doing it the right way.....because it reflected poorly on others. --I think the Penn State resentment and knee jerk protection of the big 2 remains in tact . It is not in the self interest of the BIG to marginalize either one of the Big 2......especially with a team of largely freshmen, sophomores and juniors coming of a near death sentence wrongly imposed by the NCAA and backed by the BIG 10 leadership. ---The problem will be compounded if PSU ( one of the absolute hottest teams in the country) wins the game against Wiscy. They will have to Dis the champion of the strongest conference in the country this year........So I'll be looking for some increased phantom holding calls, head scratching " upon further review" calls, and blatant ignoring of fouls. --They badly need the status quo to remain. --Sandusky just gives them emotional cover to do something they would try to do anyway.---Hope I'm wrong
Well said!!! This doesn't just describe the upcoming game, it summarizes our last 5 years perfectly.
It is absolutely a factor, especially when the teams are this close. Thanks to our BOT we are pariahs. The Committee does not want their "little dance" soiled by people talking about Sandusky unless they have no other choice. This year they do. Even if we win, and Clemson and Washington lose, it will be Bama, OSU, Colorado (because they beat Washington), and Michigan. The Committee will say they took Michigan because we both have 2 losses and they beat us by 39.
OK, but who has Michigan beaten since then? And Ohio State beat MSU by one point and maybe only because MSU elected not to tie that game and send it into OT. Let's put it this way (and again predicated on us beating Wisconsin): The winner of the strongest conference in football this year doesn't get selected, yet a team it beat and possibly another conference member gets selected instead? Yeah, no bias there.
Photo of Nittany Lion outside the Committee Mansion on Selection Sunday after Final Four are announced and they are granted admittance to the dance.
Last edited:
Yeah, take a look at these computer predictors/power rankings and their bias. Their algorithms must have "if children molested by previous defensive coordinator then drop team's rank 4 spots"
http://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
http://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
If Western Michigan came into the season ranked #1, based on performance last year they would be in the playoff right now.
Last years performance matters.
LdN
well its only the DIII who actually, you know, pay for their educations, that can afford to miss all that class time!!! (yes of course I am joking)
cart and horse situation, imo. The reason a top team comes in ranked high 2 years in a row, is not based on last year performance, but rather on who is returning from last years team. So If WMU has like 18 of 22 starters ( and I don't know the numbers) coming back in '17, then I would expect them to be highly ranked especially if they win their last 2 games. So while it is somewhat based on last years performance, it is more based on who is back.
No, you wouldn't. With 8 there would be no issue with leaving any major conference champ out. Rather than excluding teams with very similar resumes, you'd probably just be reaching a bit for the last two- that's ok, too.
Voting polls screwed Penn State long before it was known that Sandusky was a pedophile.
1968
1969
1973
1994
1968
1969
1973
1994
Then why was Ohio State ranked high coming into this year when they lost almost everybody? If you don't think this whole thing is a popularity contest, watch and see the preseason rankings for next year...they will be almost the same as this year's preseason rankings. They always are.
Nope. Kirk Herbstreit and Paul Finebaum want to make that certain.
But hey, Herbie "loves us".
AMEN....This post should be required reading for anyone who cares at all about college football.
It concisely points out how the B1G and College Football in general has been debased into nothing but a money pit for Sports organizations - operating ONLY for their own internally defined and hidden purposes.
The B1G (and the NCAA both) operate in ways that are in direct opposition to the core reasons for each organization's existence. Both organizations act to CREATE/PROMOTE un-level playing fields and these organizationally driven, hand-selected advantages insure maintaining "privileged" teams and results.
Additionally, this post also points out the favorite methods of creating "privileged team" results.... illegal manipulation of football games by directed and coordinated "poor" officiating.
PSU's publicly accepted negative "story" ("emotional cover") just makes all this deception easier...that all!
Washington
2011 7-6
2012 7-6
2013 9-4
2014 8-6
2015 7-6
2016 11-1
How different is this from Penn State?
2011 9-4
2012 8-4
2013 7-5
2014 7-6
2015 7-6
2016 10-2
Strength of schedule screwed Penn State in 68, 69 and 73. The polls just reflected that.
However many playoff teams there are there will be teams left out.
There are more than 5 conferences. Sure the major conferences would be in with their champs but the SAME conversation would be going on with regards to the smaller conferences. Western Michigan? Boise State (as an example)
And what if we have a ranking like we have now... and say a major conference champ DOES get left out?
Adding teams does not respolve the problems.
LdN
