|
Post by GatorGrad on Dec 5, 2016 1:41:00 GMT
I tried to warn ya'll. OSU at 11-1 was going to be in. Yes PSU beat them and won the conference. They had the better resume if looking at conference play only. They rightfully earned a Big Ten Championship. The National Championship is a different competition as it includes the other 25% of the games in OOC play where PSU suffered a second loss while OSU beat Oklahoma. People seem to forget that PSU lost TWO games. Had they been 12-1 then they easily finish ahead of 11-1 Ohio State. Those three Big Ten teams all went 1-1 against each other. Ohio State beat Michigan who crushed Penn State who beat Ohio State. It was just a very unique situation with no clear-cut answer if you are going to use subjective means to determine who is "more deserving." If we want conference titles to be more meaningful and you want to reward them then you will need to grant automatic bids to all five P5 conference champs, add three at-large bids, and have an eight team playoff. You can do this without adding more games just by ditching CCG's (regular season champs with best record wins the conference bid) and having quarter-finals on campus in early December. Michigan lost TWO games in the B1G. They are not co-champs. It was a TWO -TEAM tie, with a clear winner due to Head to Head. And like Michigan, Penn State also lost TWO games...OSU only lost one game. That matters. Sure one of PSU's losses was in OOC play. As a result, PSU won the Big Ten. That loss to Pitt didn't hurt them in that race. Think of it as two separate races. In the NATIONAL race, OOC games get included. PSU lost to Pitt while OSU won AT Oklahoma. Had either of those two results been reversed, PSU would have easily been in over OSU.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Dec 5, 2016 1:49:59 GMT
Michigan lost TWO games in the B1G. They are not co-champs. It was a TWO -TEAM tie, with a clear winner due to Head to Head. And like Michigan, Penn State also lost TWO games...OSU only lost one game. That matters. Sure one of PSU's losses was in OOC play. As a result, PSU won the Big Ten. That loss to Pitt didn't hurt them in that race. Think of it as two separate races. In the NATIONAL race, OOC games get included. PSU lost to Pitt while OSU won AT Oklahoma. Had either of those two results been reversed, PSU would have easily been in over OSU. You are right. Head to head didn't count. Big 10 Championship didn't count. Things haven't changed much with the CFP Committee. Alabama has a brand so advantage Alabama.
|
|
|
Post by GatorGrad on Dec 5, 2016 2:10:47 GMT
And like Michigan, Penn State also lost TWO games...OSU only lost one game. That matters. Sure one of PSU's losses was in OOC play. As a result, PSU won the Big Ten. That loss to Pitt didn't hurt them in that race. Think of it as two separate races. In the NATIONAL race, OOC games get included. PSU lost to Pitt while OSU won AT Oklahoma. Had either of those two results been reversed, PSU would have easily been in over OSU. You are right. Head to head didn't count. Big 10 Championship didn't count. Things haven't changed much with the CFP Committee. Alabama has a brand so advantage Alabama. It counted, good enough for finishing as the highest ranked two-loss team...#5 overall. What about head to head for Michigan who destroyed PSU but finished behind them? What matters more, head to head or the conference crown? What I think this shows us is that those are more "tiebreakers" whereas in this case there was no tie to break because the committee thought that OSU had a better overall resume. Even better than P12 Champ Washington.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Dec 5, 2016 2:14:38 GMT
You are right. Head to head didn't count. Big 10 Championship didn't count. Things haven't changed much with the CFP Committee. Alabama has a brand so advantage Alabama. It counted, good enough for finishing as the highest ranked two-loss team...#5 overall. What about head to head for Michigan who destroyed PSU but finished behind them? What matters more, head to head or the conference crown? What I think this shows us is that those are more "tiebreakers" whereas in this case there was no tie to break because the committee thought that OSU had a better overall resume. Even better than P12 Champ Washington. Which matters most? Neither mattered at all. I am willing to bet there aren't many "we are number 5" parties tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 5, 2016 3:03:49 GMT
You are right. Head to head didn't count. Big 10 Championship didn't count. Things haven't changed much with the CFP Committee. Alabama has a brand so advantage Alabama. It counted, good enough for finishing as the highest ranked two-loss team...#5 overall. What about head to head for Michigan who destroyed PSU but finished behind them? What matters more, head to head or the conference crown? What I think this shows us is that those are more "tiebreakers" whereas in this case there was no tie to break because the committee thought that OSU had a better overall resume. Even better than P12 Champ Washington. So... 11-1 ALWAYS beats 11-2?? Even when 11-2 has BEATEN 11-1 on the field? Assuming 11-1 also has a decent OOC win? Sorry.. I don't buy that crap. PLAY ON THE FIELD matters...especially when trying to decide between TWO teams. That has ALWAYS been the case in conference play. There's a reason for that. This result is SICKENING. I think it's noteworthy that our resident Ohio State fans have gone silent. I think, somewhere... deep down, they KNOW they don't deserve this. The sport is pissing on the BEST MARKETING STORY of the year: The resurgence of Penn State. Why? For the BRAND NAME APPEAL of a freaking big school. Well... that will help Texas, one day... eventually.... But, I pray the sport has found a better way before then...
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 5, 2016 5:15:19 GMT
All good arguments as to why a playoff limited to 4 teams is inadequate.
There is a long history at all levels of football that playoffs of 16 or more teams are best. It took the dunderheads at the power conferences an eternity to establish a 2-team playoff, and another eternity to expand it to 4 teams.
The need for an expansion to 8 teams is evident. However, it will probably take the power conferences another eternity to recognize the obvious.
A 16-team FBS playoff system is inevitable, but not likely in my lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Dec 5, 2016 6:07:47 GMT
All good arguments as to why a playoff limited to 4 teams is inadequate. Exactly
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 5, 2016 11:25:10 GMT
Ppeople want 8 teams now because #‘s 5 and 6 are always bitching… but going to 8 teams will just end up with #’s 9 and 10 bitching.
It’s college football people… it’s inherently flawed because of the shear number of teams and other variables.
6 would be fine - take the 5 P5 champs and one at-large. 1 and 2 get byes, 3 hosts 6 and 4 hosts 5 on campus.
Frankly, I think it’s ridiculous that a team that finishes at or slightly over .500 in the regular season should somehow compete for the title of champion. A playoff should only be big enough to incorporate most of the best teams, most of the time. In 2014 and 2015, 4 slots was enough. This year, it probably should have been 6. I think 8 is going to be too many in the vast majority of the years because rarely do 8 teams ever have a claim at being the best.
I think it should expand to six slots, with the top two getting first round byes. So this year Clemson would play the winner of OSU/Mich and Alabama would play the winner of Washington/Penn State.
I don't want CFB to emulate the NFL where the Giants or Redskins can go 7-9 and make the SuperBowl. The larger the field, the more each individual game is diminished.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 5, 2016 13:04:32 GMT
Ppeople want 8 teams now because #‘s 5 and 6 are always bitching… but going to 8 teams will just end up with #’s 9 and 10 bitching.
It’s college football people… it’s inherently flawed because of the shear number of teams and other variables.
6 would be fine - take the 5 P5 champs and one at-large. 1 and 2 get byes, 3 hosts 6 and 4 hosts 5 on campus.
Frankly, I think it’s ridiculous that a team that finishes at or slightly over .500 in the regular season should somehow compete for the title of champion. A playoff should only be big enough to incorporate most of the best teams, most of the time. In 2014 and 2015, 4 slots was enough. This year, it probably should have been 6. I think 8 is going to be too many in the vast majority of the years because rarely do 8 teams ever have a claim at being the best.
I think it should expand to six slots, with the top two getting first round byes. So this year Clemson would play the winner of OSU/Mich and Alabama would play the winner of Washington/Penn State.
I don't want CFB to emulate the NFL where the Giants or Redskins can go 7-9 and make the SuperBowl. The larger the field, the more each individual game is diminished.
Except in reality, your fears have not come to pass. The NCAA has had 16-team and larger football playoffs in all divisions and subdivisions except FBS for decades, and the playoffs have worked well. I haven't seen any movements in any of the NCAA football division aimed at reducing the size of playoff fields. A playoff limited to 8 teams must exclude at least 2 conference champions. If all conference champions are included, that alone requires a 4-round playoff and, hence, a 16-team playoff. This season there are several teams that failed to win their conference championship, yet would be among the top-16 teams: Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio State from the Big Ten, Oklahoma State, Florida State, USC, Colorado, West Virginia, Auburn and Louisville. All of these teams would be worthy of an opportunity to compete, yet 2 would have to be excluded. In other words, even a field of 16 teams wouldn't be quite large enough to include all deserving teams this season.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 5, 2016 15:52:54 GMT
Ppeople want 8 teams now because #‘s 5 and 6 are always bitching… but going to 8 teams will just end up with #’s 9 and 10 bitching.
It’s college football people… it’s inherently flawed because of the shear number of teams and other variables.
6 would be fine - take the 5 P5 champs and one at-large. 1 and 2 get byes, 3 hosts 6 and 4 hosts 5 on campus.
Frankly, I think it’s ridiculous that a team that finishes at or slightly over .500 in the regular season should somehow compete for the title of champion. A playoff should only be big enough to incorporate most of the best teams, most of the time. In 2014 and 2015, 4 slots was enough. This year, it probably should have been 6. I think 8 is going to be too many in the vast majority of the years because rarely do 8 teams ever have a claim at being the best.
I think it should expand to six slots, with the top two getting first round byes. So this year Clemson would play the winner of OSU/Mich and Alabama would play the winner of Washington/Penn State.
I don't want CFB to emulate the NFL where the Giants or Redskins can go 7-9 and make the SuperBowl. The larger the field, the more each individual game is diminished.
Except in reality, your fears have not come to pass. The NCAA has had 16-team and larger football playoffs in all divisions and subdivisions except FBS for decades, and the playoffs have worked well. I haven't seen any movements in any of the NCAA football division aimed at reducing the size of playoff fields. A playoff limited to 8 teams must exclude at least 2 conference champions. If all conference champions are included, that alone requires a 4-round playoff and, hence, a 16-team playoff. This season there are several teams that failed to win their conference championship, yet would be among the top-16 teams: Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio State from the Big Ten, Oklahoma State, Florida State, USC, Colorado, West Virginia, Auburn and Louisville. All of these teams would be worthy of an opportunity to compete, yet 2 would have to be excluded. In other words, even a field of 16 teams wouldn't be quite large enough to include all deserving teams this season. The premise of 16 is flawed, imo. should the 16th team even be considered as one of the "best" -seems to be a reach - the number of teams that separate themselves in any year is much smaller than 16.
|
|
|
Post by GatorGrad on Dec 5, 2016 16:05:52 GMT
It counted, good enough for finishing as the highest ranked two-loss team...#5 overall. What about head to head for Michigan who destroyed PSU but finished behind them? What matters more, head to head or the conference crown? What I think this shows us is that those are more "tiebreakers" whereas in this case there was no tie to break because the committee thought that OSU had a better overall resume. Even better than P12 Champ Washington. So... 11-1 ALWAYS beats 11-2?? Even when 11-2 has BEATEN 11-1 on the field? Assuming 11-1 also has a decent OOC win? Sorry.. I don't buy that crap. PLAY ON THE FIELD matters...especially when trying to decide between TWO teams. That has ALWAYS been the case in conference play. There's a reason for that. This result is SICKENING. I think it's noteworthy that our resident Ohio State fans have gone silent. I think, somewhere... deep down, they KNOW they don't deserve this. The sport is pissing on the BEST MARKETING STORY of the year: The resurgence of Penn State. Why? For the BRAND NAME APPEAL of a freaking big school. Well... that will help Texas, one day... eventually.... But, I pray the sport has found a better way before then... Not "always" but apparently in this case they found OSU's one-loss season with a blowout win AT the Big 12 Champ and single close loss on the road to be a better overall resume than PSU's two-loss season that included a loss to 8-4 Pitt and a blowout loss to Michigan. The argument in the end wasn't even between OSU and PSU...it was between Washington and PSU. Washington didn't play anyone OOC and the committee easily could have punished them for it.
|
|
|
Post by GatorGrad on Dec 5, 2016 16:07:50 GMT
It counted, good enough for finishing as the highest ranked two-loss team...#5 overall. What about head to head for Michigan who destroyed PSU but finished behind them? What matters more, head to head or the conference crown? What I think this shows us is that those are more "tiebreakers" whereas in this case there was no tie to break because the committee thought that OSU had a better overall resume. Even better than P12 Champ Washington. Which matters most? Neither mattered at all. I am willing to bet there aren't many "we are number 5" parties tonight. Hypothetical, what if Florida would have upset Alabama in the SECCG. Should they be in the playoff over Alabama given their head to head and conference title advantage?
|
|
|
Post by doc on Dec 5, 2016 16:16:31 GMT
A subtle move by the committee in the final rankings. Penn State moved ahead of TTUN despite losing by 39 when they played. They both had two losses. Was this done to counter the, well we beat Ohio State head 2 head argument by PSU - I guess we'll never know. It would have really been interesting had Washington lost - then it would have come down to PSU or TTUN, Harbaugh would have had an absolute melt down in that scenario.
I feel for Penn State, they had a great year and I wish them well in the Rose Bowl. Quite frankly I hope FSU pounds Harbaugh, Peppers and the rest of TTUN. OSU has been on the other side of these close rankings and I know how much it hurts.
I did hear an interesting conversation yesterday. It is it OSU and TTUN's best interests to play 'The Game' on the final day of the regular season? The loser is virtually out of any playoff discussion when you can recover from a loss earlier in the year. I hope it doesn't change but it is a valid point.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 5, 2016 16:43:21 GMT
Except in reality, your fears have not come to pass. The NCAA has had 16-team and larger football playoffs in all divisions and subdivisions except FBS for decades, and the playoffs have worked well. I haven't seen any movements in any of the NCAA football division aimed at reducing the size of playoff fields. A playoff limited to 8 teams must exclude at least 2 conference champions. If all conference champions are included, that alone requires a 4-round playoff and, hence, a 16-team playoff. This season there are several teams that failed to win their conference championship, yet would be among the top-16 teams: Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio State from the Big Ten, Oklahoma State, Florida State, USC, Colorado, West Virginia, Auburn and Louisville. All of these teams would be worthy of an opportunity to compete, yet 2 would have to be excluded. In other words, even a field of 16 teams wouldn't be quite large enough to include all deserving teams this season. The premise of 16 is flawed, imo. should the 16th team even be considered as one of the "best" -seems to be a reach - the number of teams that separate themselves in any year is much smaller than 16. The #16 team might be Louisville, which defeated FSU and lost a close game to Clemson. We know that a playoff field size of 16 (or larger) is not flawed because it has worked for decades in all divisions, other than FBS, of NCAA football, NAIA football and high school football.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 5, 2016 16:47:58 GMT
A subtle move by the committee in the final rankings. Penn State moved ahead of TTUN despite losing by 39 when they played. They both had two losses. Was this done to counter the, well we beat Ohio State head 2 head argument by PSU - I guess we'll never know. It would have really been interesting had Washington lost - then it would have come down to PSU or TTUN, Harbaugh would have had an absolute melt down in that scenario. I feel for Penn State, they had a great year and I wish them well in the Rose Bowl. Quite frankly I hope FSU pounds Harbaugh, Peppers and the rest of TTUN. OSU has been on the other side of these close rankings and I know how much it hurts. I did hear an interesting conversation yesterday. It is it OSU and TTUN's best interests to play 'The Game' on the final day of the regular season? The loser is virtually out of any playoff discussion when you can recover from a loss earlier in the year. I hope it doesn't change but it is a valid point. I try to keep up with the cute codes, but I gave up on TTUN. I was finally able to figure out that that it is Alcorn State. What if I used USPM? Would you know which school this common acronym in my circles refers to?
|
|