Article on 12 team college playoff....Delaney could be a problem...

[NittanyIllinois]

Further to the point: the committee also rewarded OSU for NOT playing in a conf championship game and Not risking losing. In that scenario. OSU had one loss, sure, but they also had one less game in which to lose. It was clearly far better to sit home and not play for a championship as a way to get into the playoff.

and funny that we focus on OSU didnt win their conference. They didn’t even win their division. Sheesh. Hard to imagine how that’s a good criteria for inclusion over actual champions.

Alabama in 2017 didn't win their division, either. But they were selected for the CFP and won the whole thing.

For those on here arguing for why a conference championship SHOULD be required.......that's a valid argument. I don't personally agree with it, because sometimes a conference is so loaded that two teams from the same conference (or even division) are truly worthy. But it's a valid argument.

I do offer this hypothetical, though, to test the board's attitude toward the championship requirement.

What if we beat Michigan State in 2017?

Who would get preference among fans on this board? 11-1 non-champion PSU, or 11-2 champion OSU? OSU won the head-to-head, but (1) they got blown out by Iowa, and (2) they had two losses.

I personally would have made the argument for why PSU deserved it. Lost a nailbiter on the road against OSU, but took care of business everywhere else. You cannot expect to go to the CFP if you get blown out by 40 points and drop an additional game.

I truly believe PSU was the better team that year, regardless of the 1-point loss in Columbus.

 

[NittanyIllinois]

Do you think this was a clever one liner? So tOSU got whooped by the champs by 31. That is so bad in comparison to PSU losing a nailbiter to Michigan by 39, or just losing to Pitt that year.

Or, would you prefer to thump you chest about a game our boys lost when scoring 49 points against a 3-loss team that had earlier lost by 46 to the season's #2 team.

The "OSU losing by 31 to Clemson proved they didn't belong" argument is really sketchy for exactly the reason you stated.

I personally don't believe in using bowl game results as after-the-fact evidence for why a team did or didn't belong in the playoff. However......if you're going to play that game, you better make sure that your team is on rock solid ground. Losing to a 3-loss team in the Rose Bowl doesn't help make the case for why we were deserving.

 

[Mufasa94]

However......if you're going to play that game, you better make sure that your team is on rock solid ground. Losing to a 3-loss team in the Rose Bowl doesn't help make the case for why we were deserving.

This is the most mind boggling part of it to me. They weren’t going to win. It’s like some people desire to just have a participation trophy.

There are enough seasons for us to complain about. Maybe the younger people hear about the other years enough from the older people and they want to think they’ve experienced the same thing?

I just don’t understand.

 

[AWS1022]

The "OSU losing by 31 to Clemson proved they didn't belong" argument is really sketchy for exactly the reason you stated.

I personally don't believe in using bowl game results as after-the-fact evidence for why a team did or didn't belong in the playoff. However......if you're going to play that game, you better make sure that your team is on rock solid ground. Losing to a 3-loss team in the Rose Bowl doesn't help make the case for why we were deserving.

You don’t believe in using that argument so you’re going to use that argument. Got it.

 

[AWS1022]

This is the most mind boggling part of it to me. They weren’t going to win. It’s like some people desire to just have a participation trophy.

There are enough seasons for us to complain about. Maybe the younger people hear about the other years enough from the older people and they want to think they’ve experienced the same thing?

I just don’t understand.

Apparently OSU and Washington weren’t going to win either, so they should have just went with two teams based on your theory.

 

[Mufasa94]

If you can’t win your conference, then you’re not one of the four best teams in the country, period.

Such a definitive statement about teams and conferences cannot be made.

 

[lazydave841]

Alabama in 2017 didn't win their division, either. But they were selected for the CFP and won the whole thing.

For those on here arguing for why a conference championship SHOULD be required.......that's a valid argument. I don't personally agree with it, because sometimes a conference is so loaded that two teams from the same conference (or even division) are truly worthy. But it's a valid argument.

I do offer this hypothetical, though, to test the board's attitude toward the championship requirement.

What if we beat Michigan State in 2017?

Who would get preference among fans on this board? 11-1 non-champion PSU, or 11-2 champion OSU? OSU won the head-to-head, but (1) they got blown out by Iowa, and (2) they had two losses.

I personally would have made the argument for why PSU deserved it. Lost a nailbiter on the road against OSU, but took care of business everywhere else. You cannot expect to go to the CFP if you get blown out by 40 points and drop an additional game.

I truly believe PSU was the better team that year, regardless of the 1-point loss in Columbus.

Do you see the committee taking a 1-loss Penn State that didn't win it's conference over the one loss Crimson Tide?

The beloved Buckeyes couldn't overcome that juju; we'd have been ranked 6th or 7th at best I'm afraid.

 

[AWS1022]

Such a definitive statement about teams and conferences cannot be made.

Sure it can unless you’re basing your argument on the eye test. I guess after the playoffs is over or the NCAA basketball tournament is over, we should then decide if the winner is actually the best team before we award the trophy. They did what they had to to win the tournament or playoffs and earn the right to be called the best team in the country. You subjectively might not agree that they’re the best team in the country, but it doesn’t matter what you or anyone else thinks, they won. Same with the conference champions.

 

[Mufasa94]

Apparently OSU and Washington weren’t going to win either, so they should have just went with two teams based on your theory.

Many years even 4 is too many, but you can’t adjust formats mid-season from season to season.

More importantly, the post you replied to had nothing to do with either of those teams. It had to do with our fellow fans retroactively complaining about an opportunity not provided that our team would have failed at anyways.

it is one thing if this was December 2016, I’d just politely disagree. But, you have the benefit of hindsight now, the yearning for the participation trophy looks pathetic.

 

[Mufasa94]

Sure it can unless you’re basing your argument on the eye test. I guess after the playoffs is over or the NCAA basketball tournament is over, we should then decide if the winner is actually the best team before we award the trophy. They did what they had to to win the tournament or playoffs and earn the right to be called the best team in the country. You subjectively might not agree that they’re the best team in the country, but it doesn’t matter what you or anyone else thinks, they won. Same with the conference champions.

Nothing in this long ramble addressed what I wrote, but I’ll play along anyways.

Your NCAA tournament has many times had two teams from the same conference make the final four, so the support you provided refutes your earlier statement.

You make this easy sometimes, thank you.

 

[wentzel25]

It needs to change from the current system - otherwise people just lose interest when its the same teams every year.

Already have ... Haven't watched a playoff game in several years

 

[psuro]

Just as a different view point on this....

Let's say the NFL had the same system as CFB - a ranking system by third parties and independent group deciding who gets into the playoff system and who doesn't.

Last year, the WFT, who won their division, with a losing record, and made the playoffs - because even with a losing record, they were better than the rest of the teams in their division.

That would have not happened with a CFP type of committee. Would that have been the correct approach? Who knows.

But, the WFT did what they had to on the field vs. their division. So, they earned their spot on the playoffs based on their performance on the field vs. their division rivals - which is how the NFL system is set up.

No real resolution to this, but just offering a thought.

 

[PSUFBFAN]

What was the extra game equivalent, maybe Purdue or Pitt? if so, PSU deserved what they got by losing it.

PSU completely blew their real opportunity in '17 at MSU.

2017 is the one year that will truly haunt Penn State fans "forever". That team was better than the 2016 team and definitely had the talent to be a legit playoff team. They would have been a playoff team if they had only "blown" one game. Instead, they blew two games they never should have lost.

Barkley, McSorley, and Gesicki were arguably the best players at their positions in Penn State football history. Daesean Hamilton played at a level comparable to any of the greats at his position. It is unlikely in my lifetime that I will ever see a team where 3 or 4 of the greatest players to ever play at their positions are on the same team and side of the ball at the same time.

I recognized it in 2017, I recognize it today, and I will recognize it in 10 years - that 2017 team blew a great opportunity to put PSU into the "elite" category.

 

[NittanyIllinois]

You don’t believe in using that argument so you’re going to use that argument. Got it.

Read more closely next time.

I think it's a poor line of argumentation -- to use results after-the-fact in that manner. But IF you choose to use it, might want to ensure your side of the argument is air tight. In our case, it's not.

 

[NittanyIllinois]

Do you see the committee taking a 1-loss Penn State that didn't win it's conference over the one loss Crimson Tide?

The beloved Buckeyes couldn't overcome that juju; we'd have been ranked 6th or 7th at best I'm afraid.

No. Alabama would have still gotten in.

But PSU very likely would have been next in line ahead of OSU. In fact, there's almost no doubt about it.

The week after the PSU-OSU game, we fell to #7 against MSU, and OSU rose up to #3 against Iowa.

OSU lost big, and then fell down to #11. Had we defeated MSU, we probably would have moved up to #5/6. Very much doubt OSU would have been able to make up that much ground in only a few weeks to get ahead of us.

The moral of the story in the playoff committee's eyes is that 1 loss in a great conference trumps 2 losses even if that team is a conference champion. So far, that model has held up when tested.

 

[NittanyIllinois]

2017 is the one year that will truly haunt Penn State fans "forever". That team was better than the 2016 team and definitely had the talent to be a legit playoff team. They would have been a playoff team if they had only "blown" one game. Instead, they blew two games they never should have lost.

Barkley, McSorley, and Gesicki were arguably the best players at their positions in Penn State football history. Daesean Hamilton played at a level comparable to any of the greats at his position. It is unlikely in my lifetime that I will ever see a team where 3 or 4 of the greatest players to ever play at their positions are on the same team and side of the ball at the same time.

I recognized it in 2017, I recognize it today, and I will recognize it in 10 years - that 2017 team blew a great opportunity to put PSU into the "elite" category.

Absolutely true.

As much as people grumble about 2016 and our CFP chances, the 2017 season was our shot. That team was simply a better team than 2016, and had a very, very real shot to get into the CFP until our late season 4th quarter woes.

 

[psuro]

2017 is the one year that will truly haunt Penn State fans "forever". That team was better than the 2016 team and definitely had the talent to be a legit playoff team. They would have been a playoff team if they had only "blown" one game. Instead, they blew two games they never should have lost.

Barkley, McSorley, and Gesicki were arguably the best players at their positions in Penn State football history. Daesean Hamilton played at a level comparable to any of the greats at his position. It is unlikely in my lifetime that I will ever see a team where 3 or 4 of the greatest players to ever play at their positions are on the same team and side of the ball at the same time.

I recognized it in 2017, I recognize it today, and I will recognize it in 10 years - that 2017 team blew a great opportunity to put PSU into the "elite" category.

The 1977 team says "hello".

 

[Mufasa94]

Do you see the committee taking a 1-loss Penn State that didn't win it's conference over the one loss Crimson Tide?

Not addressed to me, but I’ll add a reply that while I wouldn’t place a bet on it, I will add that:
- Bama also didn’t win its conference
- SEC was already getting a representative
- Bama loss was in their final game
- PSU had more tough road games ( although MSU might not have been ranked with a loss to PSU)
- If there was ever a year PSU was going to get the sympathy vote, this was it

 

[AWS1022]

Many years even 4 is too many, but you can’t adjust formats mid-season from season to season.

More importantly, the post you replied to had nothing to do with either of those teams. It had to do with our fellow fans retroactively complaining about an opportunity not provided that our team would have failed at anyways.

it is one thing if this was December 2016, I’d just politely disagree. But, you have the benefit of hindsight now, the yearning for the participation trophy looks pathetic.

But you can’t use hindsight to say Team A would have lost to Team B because they lost to Team C….sports don’t work that way.

 

[Ranger Dan]

Strongly disagree. Pitt somehow beat two of the top 5 best teams in the country and still lost 5 games..

How does a 5 loss Pitt team refute my point? I’m saying the larger the playoff size, the greater chance that lesser teams would win. Did Pitt beat the national champion that year?

 

[BlueLion]

Even with an expanded number of teams in the playoffs, will the elite players continue to "skip or sit out" the games because they don't want to risk injury for their NFL career? The past few years have seen a dramatic increase in the number of elite players, (or not so elite), sitting out because of not wanting to get hurt. If that trend continues, would it matter how many teams are allowed a spot in the play-offs, knowing that you are probably not getting the "best" team at that time.

Alabama in 2017 didn't win their division, either. But they were selected for the CFP and won the whole thing.

For those on here arguing for why a conference championship SHOULD be required.......that's a valid argument. I don't personally agree with it, because sometimes a conference is so loaded that two teams from the same conference (or even division) are truly worthy. But it's a valid argument.

I do offer this hypothetical, though, to test the board's attitude toward the championship requirement.

What if we beat Michigan State in 2017?

Who would get preference among fans on this board? 11-1 non-champion PSU, or 11-2 champion OSU? OSU won the head-to-head, but (1) they got blown out by Iowa, and (2) they had two losses.

I personally would have made the argument for why PSU deserved it. Lost a nailbiter on the road against OSU, but took care of business everywhere else. You cannot expect to go to the CFP if you get blown out by 40 points and drop an additional game.

I truly believe PSU was the better team that year, regardless of the 1-point loss in Columbus.

Conference champ games are a waste of time. You don't need them to crown a conf champ. Who cares it you have conf co-champs. Conf champ games are just as likely to cause a team to miss the playoffs as they are to get a team into the playoffs. Skip these games and just have two teams from each power 5 conference get auto bids to the 16 team playoff.

If Penn State and Wisconsin both had one loss at the end of the season, I'd much rather watch them match up against other conferences in a playoff game than in the big ten champ game.

 

[lazydave841]

Just as a different view point on this....

Let's say the NFL had the same system as CFB - a ranking system by third parties and independent group deciding who gets into the playoff system and who doesn't.

Last year, the WFT, who won their division, with a losing record, and made the playoffs - because even with a losing record, they were better than the rest of the teams in their division.

That would have not happened with a CFP type of committee. Would that have been the correct approach? Who knows.

But, the WFT did what they had to on the field vs. their division. So, they earned their spot on the playoffs based on their performance on the field vs. their division rivals - which is how the NFL system is set up.

No real resolution to this, but just offering a thought.

Nobody really complains about this because they know from day 1, win your division and you go to the playoffs. So it works.

 

[psuro]

A 12 team playoff would be good for Penn State

An expanded College Football Playoff could be very good for Penn State

Penn State would likely be among the teams that could benefit the most from expanded opportunities to play in a College Football Playoff.

www.yahoo.com

 

[psuro]

Nobody really complains about this because they know from day 1, win your division and you go to the playoffs. So it works.

And why do they know that? Because that is how it always has been done. College Football has always had the human factor be part of it, dating back to Walter Camp. It's time for a significant change to the way CFB manages it's post season, and one that limits the human involvement. But that is just my thought.

 

[AWS1022]

Nothing in this long ramble addressed what I wrote, but I’ll play along anyways.

Your NCAA tournament has many times had two teams from the same conference make the final four, so the support you provided refutes your earlier statement.

You make this easy sometimes, thank you.

Reading comprehension eludes you. The eye test doesn’t prove who is the best team….doing what you have to do to win the conference, tournament, league, whatever makes you the best in that particular conference, tournament, or league. PSU did what they had to do to be the best in the Big 10 in 2016 by all metrics except the eye test. The “best” team according to the eye test doesn’t always win.

 

[AWS1022]

And why do they know that? Because that is how it always has been done. College Football has always had the human factor be part of it, dating back to Walter Camp. It's time for a significant change to the way CFB manages it's post season, and one that limits the human involvement. But that is just my thought.

Agree completely….they have to eliminate human involvement, but unfortunately I don’t see how they can do it with the way it’s set up. A 12 team playoff invites even more human factor as certain teams will be even more guaranteed a spot than currently.

 

[PSUSignore]

I still think 6 is the sweet spot. P5 conference champs with 1 at large. top 2 teams ranking wise get first round byes. 3-6/4-5. lowest seeded winner gets 1, highest gets 2

This has been my preference since the beginning. 2 byes, in first round the higher seed hosts a game at home. In second round follow the seeding you suggested and use the existing playoff bowls as the venues. Get rid of the committee for rankings and bring back a more quantifiable system such as the BCS to do the rankings. Adding as many as 12 teams devalues the regular season too much in my opinion.

 

[PSUSignore]

It needs to change from the current system - otherwise people just lose interest when its the same teams every year.

Uniform scheduling rules across conferences would help with that somewhat. This is the single biggest thing the sport needs to change. It's impossible to know if you have chosen the top 4 teams appropriately when the selection criteria is subjective, changes weekly, and none of the teams follow similar scheduling requirements.

 

[AWS1022]

This has been my preference since the beginning. 2 byes, in first round the higher seed hosts a game at home. In second round follow the seeding you suggested and use the existing playoff bowls as the venues. Get rid of the committee for rankings and bring back a more quantifiable system such as the BCS to do the rankings. Adding as many as 12 teams devalues the regular season too much in my opinion.

How about the division winners in each of the four P5 conferences that have divisions, the top 2 teams from the Big 12, and the top 2 G5 teams make it. That’s 12 teams and they all had to win something to get in (except for the G5 teams). I would love to expand the playoffs, but avoid at large picks.

 

[Art]

Just as a different view point on this....

Let's say the NFL had the same system as CFB - a ranking system by third parties and independent group deciding who gets into the playoff system and who doesn't.

Last year, the WFT, who won their division, with a losing record, and made the playoffs - because even with a losing record, they were better than the rest of the teams in their division.

That would have not happened with a CFP type of committee. Would that have been the correct approach? Who knows.

But, the WFT did what they had to on the field vs. their division. So, they earned their spot on the playoffs based on their performance on the field vs. their division rivals - which is how the NFL system is set up.

No real resolution to this, but just offering a thought.

What I like about the NFL "system" is that the criteria for making the playoffs is established in advance and you don't wind uo with a bunch of dickheads sitting around the table deciding which teams are worthy. Wouldn't work in college football.

 

[PSUSignore]

I know an unpopular opinion here, but PSU did not deserve in over tOSU.

You're right. PSU deserved in over Washington.

 

[Art]

How about the division winners in each of the four P5 conferences that have divisions, the top 2 teams from the Big 12, and the top 2 G5 teams make it. That’s 12 teams and they all had to win something to get in (except for the G5 teams). I would love to expand the playoffs, but avoid at large picks.

The problem with that approach is that four of your teams have lost their last game (to four other teams in the playoff). Not a great look going in, particularly if any of those games weren't competitive.

 

[lazydave841]

Very much doubt OSU would have been able to make up that much ground in only a few weeks to get ahead of us

Perhaps not, but in your scenario Alabama was going to hold us out AND for a second year in a row, the conference was going to seem its own title worthless over an OOC loss.

I'd have been more comfortable sending us in '16 and vouching for the Buckeyes in '17. Just my preference.

Not addressed to me, but I’ll add a reply that while I wouldn’t place a bet on it, I will add that:
- Bama also didn’t win its conference
- SEC was already getting a representative
- Bama loss was in their final game
- PSU had more tough road games ( although MSU might not have been ranked with a loss to PSU)
- If there was ever a year PSU was going to get the sympathy vote, this was it

Alabama's loss was also to a team that lost its next game.

When has Penn State ever gotten the sympathy vote? When you can provide an example, I'll entertain the thought that we were winning a beauty pageant with St Nick and the SEC media.

 

[BlueLion]

Uniform scheduling rules across conferences would help with that somewhat. This is the single biggest thing the sport needs to change. It's impossible to know if you have chosen the top 4 teams appropriately when the selection criteria is subjective, changes weekly, and none of the teams follow similar scheduling requirements.

A 16 team playoff with no conference champ games would also eliminate the stupid conf divisions. 8 conference games in a 14 team league is enough to determine the top two teams from that conference. If you have to go to tiebreakers, so be it. If you somehow end up with 3 teams with only one loss, two get an autobid and the third would qualify for one of the 6 at large births.

I guess some people are happy seeing Wisconsin in 6 of the last 10 BIG champ games. I'd much rather see our top two teams matched up every year against the best teams from around the country.

 

[Art]

A 16 team playoff with no conference champ games would also eliminate the stupid conf divisions. 8 conference games in a 14 team league is enough to determine the top two teams from that conference. If you have to go to tiebreakers, so be it. If you somehow end up with 3 teams with only one loss, two get an autobid and the third would qualify for one of the 6 at large births.

I guess some people are happy seeing Wisconsin in 6 of the last 10 BIG champ games. I'd much rather see our top two teams matched up every year against the best teams from around the country.

Elimination of conference championship games isn't going to happen. Too much revenue lost.

 

[AWS1022]

The problem with that approach is that four of your teams have lost their last game (to four other teams in the playoff). Not a great look going in, particularly if any of those games weren't competitive.

I should have stated no conference championship game. My bad.

 

[PSUSignore]

How about the division winners in each of the four P5 conferences that have divisions, the top 2 teams from the Big 12, and the top 2 G5 teams make it. That’s 12 teams and they all had to win something to get in (except for the G5 teams). I would love to expand the playoffs, but avoid at large picks.

I agree the subjective crap needs to go and the criteria to make a playoff need to be defined and then the power is in the team's hands to meet that criteria. The problem I see is conference autonomy. Letting the conferences do what they want directly conflicts with a goal of eliminating subjectivity and establishing a better defined system and criteria. Until the NCAA steps in and forces conferences to do things in a uniform manner the subjectivity will forever remain. I favor strong arming the conferences into a more uniform structure but I doubt it will ever happen so instead we're going to be stuck with this annual "eye-test" crap instead of settling things on the field as it should be.

 

[Mufasa94]

Osu benefitted from skipping the ccg specifically so let’s say a rematch with Wisconsin a week after the emotional win against michigan.

tOSU benefitted from one fewer game by playing more teams that finished ranked and they had a better overall record.

Your cure to fix the inequities of the comparison is to say they should have had a theoretical game against another ranked opponent?

 

[fastlax16]

tOSU benefitted from one fewer game by playing more teams that finished ranked and they had a better overall record.

Your cure to fix the inequities of the comparison is to say they should have had a theoretical game against another ranked opponent?

osu benefitted specifically from not playing in the big ten championship game one week after an emotional ot game against their rival. It's not just any game, we know exactly who they didn't play and when. there is no cure, but with the benefit of hindsight its clear that OSU benefitted by not winning the division and not having to play wisconsin in the championship game. do you disagree?

If PSU drops their final game against michigan state and OSU goes to the big ten champ game and loses what happens to OSU?

 

[Mufasa94]

Reading comprehension eludes you. The eye test doesn’t prove who is the best team…

What are you talking about? Follow those replies back. It goes back to my questioning the absoluteness of this statement:

If you can’t win your conference, then you’re not one of the four best teams in the country, period.

Your use of the NCAA basketball tournament refutes this statement. For example, 1985: 3 of final 4 teams from same conference.