|
Post by Hero on Dec 6, 2016 0:17:43 GMT
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? If your point is only polls should count, I can live with that. I have my entire life...almost. Is it "the brand" that counts? As a Bama fan, I can certainly live with that. Just be up front with it. I told Bevo playing fantasy football...make any set of rules you think you can live with, give me a copy and I will beat you down with them. I simply must have the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Dec 6, 2016 0:18:53 GMT
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? TTUN is easier to type than *ichigan! As for USPM - I have no idea! The Turds Up North?
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Dec 6, 2016 1:11:42 GMT
Again, the debate is pointless. If there were established rules, there would be no complaining even if the adopted rules were not everyone's first choice. If it was a rule based system it wouldn't stir up all the controversy and debating.....which sells ! I hate to say I agree with you 100%. The only reason for the Committee to make more than one ranking.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 6, 2016 1:39:17 GMT
Just read this. I won't vouch for its accuracy, but it seems plausible. The last 5 years recruiting rankings: ALA (1,1,1,1,1) CLEM (11,9,17,15,15) OHIO ST (4,7,3,2,5) WASH (29,27,37,18,23) Haven't looked at the actual numbers, but the sentiment is correct, it's been Bama, OSU, and then everybody else.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 6, 2016 3:02:43 GMT
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?
Under the current system, no. 11-1 >>> 9-3.
I actually would PREFER that Conference Champs be REQUIRED to be selected higher. Maybe, that would get the Conferences to abandon these stupid CCG's with unbalanced scheduling.
The difference between 11-2 and 11-1 is not that much... in this case, I think Head to Head matters much more. But, to me, it's not JUST record. PSU has actually played better down the stretch.. and, better against many of the common opponents. The two losses for PSU were a LONG time ago. like, 9 games ago.
I see the arguments..... No one will ever convince me this was right decision. I'll never believe it was made for ANY reason other than "max hype" for the CFP.
The entire fiasco just turns me AWAY from the game. I don't want to invest emotional capital in a system this screwed up. I will NOT be watching either game on New Year's Eve. In fact, we have a dinner reservation at 7.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 6, 2016 3:29:21 GMT
It was the talking heads that keep throwing out that head to head and conference championships should trump all but that is something that was merely fabricated by the talking heads like May, Kannel, and Pollack. .. This crazy logic pretty much explains why you can't use head to head in this situation. Please somebody on this board take a look at the resumes that I provide and explain to me how Penn St deserved to be in over Ohio State. I don't even know who Pollack or Kannel are? It's not just talking heads that think Head to Head and Conference Championships matter. NO ONE is saying they should "Trump All"... But, it should matter in a decision between two teams that are CLOSE... Head to Head doesn't matter in a three-way tie, with a round robin of losses. That is NOT what we're talking about. Michigan did NOT have the same record... and they lost two conference games, and lost RECENTLY... like their last game. PSU losses were NINE games ago. They've played BETTER than Ohio State downs the stretch. Frankly.. I don't care about "resumes" when we're talking about two teams that are 11-1 and 11-2 and actually PLAYED against each other just a few weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by GatorGrad on Dec 6, 2016 3:54:15 GMT
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?
Under the current system, no. 11-1 >>> 9-3.
I actually would PREFER that Conference Champs be REQUIRED to be selected higher. Maybe, that would get the Conferences to abandon these stupid CCG's with unbalanced scheduling.
The difference between 11-2 and 11-1 is not that much... in this case, I think Head to Head matters much more. But, to me, it's not JUST record. PSU has actually played better down the stretch.. and, better against many of the common opponents. The two losses for PSU were a LONG time ago. like, 9 games ago.
I see the arguments..... No one will ever convince me this was right decision. I'll never believe it was made for ANY reason other than "max hype" for the CFP.
The entire fiasco just turns me AWAY from the game. I don't want to invest emotional capital in a system this screwed up. I will NOT be watching either game on New Year's Eve. In fact, we have a dinner reservation at 7.
Thank you for answering my question. So we agree that a 3 loss team should not go over the 1 loss team, even if the 3 loss team beat the 1 loss team head to head and the 3 loss team won the conference title that the 1 loss team did not. So with a 2 game difference, H2H and the conference crown didn't make up the difference but with a 1 game difference it should...correct? So there's the problem. It's completely a matter of opinion whether the H2H and conference crown should be a tiebreaker (as the committee seemed to go with) or if it should be able to make up for 1 game as you seem to believe or if it should be able to make up for 2 games, etc. There's no right or wrong answer here because there are no rules. There are good arguments that can be made on both sides. Surely you can see the reasoning for an 11-1 team that scheduled and won AT Oklahoma, beat Michigan, beat Wisconsin, etc and lost one single close road game at night at top five PSU on a blocked FG return for a TD would be deserving of a playoff spot. Ohio State's resume was simply too good for the committee to exclude. If anything, I think the argument should be between Washington (who played nobody in OOC play) and Penn State.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Dec 6, 2016 4:24:43 GMT
Under the current system, no. 11-1 >>> 9-3.
I actually would PREFER that Conference Champs be REQUIRED to be selected higher. Maybe, that would get the Conferences to abandon these stupid CCG's with unbalanced scheduling.
The difference between 11-2 and 11-1 is not that much... in this case, I think Head to Head matters much more. But, to me, it's not JUST record. PSU has actually played better down the stretch.. and, better against many of the common opponents. The two losses for PSU were a LONG time ago. like, 9 games ago.
I see the arguments..... No one will ever convince me this was right decision. I'll never believe it was made for ANY reason other than "max hype" for the CFP.
The entire fiasco just turns me AWAY from the game. I don't want to invest emotional capital in a system this screwed up. I will NOT be watching either game on New Year's Eve. In fact, we have a dinner reservation at 7.
Thank you for answering my question. So we agree that a 3 loss team should not go over the 1 loss team, even if the 3 loss team beat the 1 loss team head to head and the 3 loss team won the conference title that the 1 loss team did not. So with a 2 game difference, H2H and the conference crown didn't make up the difference but with a 1 game difference it should...correct? So there's the problem. It's completely a matter of opinion whether the H2H and conference crown should be a tiebreaker (as the committee seemed to go with) or if it should be able to make up for 1 game as you seem to believe or if it should be able to make up for 2 games, etc. There's no right or wrong answer here because there are no rules. There are good arguments that can be made on both sides. Surely you can see the reasoning for an 11-1 team that scheduled and won AT Oklahoma, beat Michigan, beat Wisconsin, etc and lost one single close road game at night at top five PSU on a blocked FG return for a TD would be deserving of a playoff spot. Ohio State's resume was simply too good for the committee to exclude. If anything, I think the argument should be between Washington (who played nobody in OOC play) and Penn State. In the absence of rules, your argument is a clear winner. I think head to head, division champ and playing the extra game to win the conference championship should mean something. I'm pretty sure there is a reason to have no rules. I'm also pretty sure I am happier not knowing why.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 6, 2016 4:43:48 GMT
No team other than Alabama deserves to be in the playoff.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 6, 2016 4:54:58 GMT
Under the current system, no. 11-1 >>> 9-3.
I actually would PREFER that Conference Champs be REQUIRED to be selected higher. Maybe, that would get the Conferences to abandon these stupid CCG's with unbalanced scheduling.
The difference between 11-2 and 11-1 is not that much... in this case, I think Head to Head matters much more. But, to me, it's not JUST record. PSU has actually played better down the stretch.. and, better against many of the common opponents. The two losses for PSU were a LONG time ago. like, 9 games ago.
I see the arguments..... No one will ever convince me this was right decision. I'll never believe it was made for ANY reason other than "max hype" for the CFP.
The entire fiasco just turns me AWAY from the game. I don't want to invest emotional capital in a system this screwed up. I will NOT be watching either game on New Year's Eve. In fact, we have a dinner reservation at 7.
Thank you for answering my question. So we agree that a 3 loss team should not go over the 1 loss team, even if the 3 loss team beat the 1 loss team head to head and the 3 loss team won the conference title that the 1 loss team did not. So with a 2 game difference, H2H and the conference crown didn't make up the difference but with a 1 game difference it should...correct? So there's the problem. It's completely a matter of opinion whether the H2H and conference crown should be a tiebreaker (as the committee seemed to go with) or if it should be able to make up for 1 game as you seem to believe or if it should be able to make up for 2 games, etc. There's no right or wrong answer here because there are no rules. There are good arguments that can be made on both sides. Surely you can see the reasoning for an 11-1 team that scheduled and won AT Oklahoma, beat Michigan, beat Wisconsin, etc and lost one single close road game at night at top five PSU on a blocked FG return for a TD would be deserving of a playoff spot. Ohio State's resume was simply too good for the committee to exclude. If anything, I think the argument should be between Washington (who played nobody in OOC play) and Penn State. The question is not "does OSU deserve a spot". It is, "does OSU deserve a spot MORE THAN PSU"? watching the two teams play in the past several weeks, including the game against each other? I don't think so. IMO, too much weight is being given to the OU win. Oklahoma's star WR didn't play in that game. OU was struggling earlier. Heck, Houston beat them too. PSU beat Wisconsin by MORE than OSU did.... They beat MSU by a LOT more than OSU did. I don't think any team, outside of Alabama is playing better than PSU right now.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Dec 6, 2016 5:02:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 6, 2016 5:45:46 GMT
Wasn't Alabama a prohibitive favorite when Auburn ran the missed FG attempt back 109 yards for the winning score?
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Dec 6, 2016 6:00:44 GMT
Wasn't Alabama a prohibitive favorite when Auburn ran the missed FG attempt back 109 yards for the winning score? Are you talking about the 2013 Iron Bowl?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 6, 2016 14:35:05 GMT
So we agree that a 3 loss team should not go over the 1 loss team, even if the 3 loss team beat the 1 loss team head to head and the 3 loss team won the conference title I just wanted to clarify this statement: I agree that, under the CURRENT system as it is loosely defined, that a 3-loss team should not be elevated over a 1 loss team. However, I DO NOT AGREE that this is the way it SHOULD be. Especially not, if we start expanding the playoff field. FBS is nearing a turning point in the way we think about how to determine a "Champion". When you start actually PLAYING for titles, instead of voting for them, you have to live with the fact that SOMETIMES, the "Best Team" doesn't win. Playoffs DO NOT DETERMINE who the "Best Team" is... it's just a WAY of choosing a winner in a game of chance and probability. If you HAD to bet on a roll of the dice, which is the "Best Number" to bet on? I'll take the 7. But, it doesn't always win. Football teams/games are much the same way. The term "Conference Champion" needs to have meaning. The WINNER of a Conference Championship, in my opinion, should be the FIRST team selected to any National Championship playoff. If people don't like what that brings? Then, we should change the method of determining Conference Champs and/or figuring out how many teams to invite to the Natty playoff.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Dec 6, 2016 14:49:17 GMT
Thank you for answering my question. So we agree that a 3 loss team should not go over the 1 loss team, even if the 3 loss team beat the 1 loss team head to head and the 3 loss team won the conference title that the 1 loss team did not. So with a 2 game difference, H2H and the conference crown didn't make up the difference but with a 1 game difference it should...correct? So there's the problem. It's completely a matter of opinion whether the H2H and conference crown should be a tiebreaker (as the committee seemed to go with) or if it should be able to make up for 1 game as you seem to believe or if it should be able to make up for 2 games, etc. There's no right or wrong answer here because there are no rules. There are good arguments that can be made on both sides. Surely you can see the reasoning for an 11-1 team that scheduled and won AT Oklahoma, beat Michigan, beat Wisconsin, etc and lost one single close road game at night at top five PSU on a blocked FG return for a TD would be deserving of a playoff spot. Ohio State's resume was simply too good for the committee to exclude. If anything, I think the argument should be between Washington (who played nobody in OOC play) and Penn State. The question is not "does OSU deserve a spot". It is, "does OSU deserve a spot MORE THAN PSU"? watching the two teams play in the past several weeks, including the game against each other? I don't think so. PSU beat Wisconsin by MORE than OSU did.... Actually, OSU beat Wisconsin by the same amount - 7 points - it just went to OT. And they played in Madison - in a night game - in horrible weather. PSU would not have been slinging bombs in the weather they played in at Madison on October 15, they certainly didn't in similar weather the following week at Happy Valley against Ohio State.
|
|