CFP strong messages

[dbsteel]

As hard as it is to understand, unless it expands to 8 where you can let in all 5 conference winners and 3 wildcards, it will be nothing more than an eye test. One conference winner still can't get in under this setup. And you will also have the occasional lesser team popping up and winning the conference with an upset. Certain teams like Bama and OSU will still get the benefit of the doubt more than others.

I think head to head should matter some but not that much. We beat OSU, OSU beat Michigan, Michigan beat us. Should be the overall body of work.

The best thing is to probably get rid of the conference title games. It really doesn't make sense that OSU sits home and gets a bye and still gets in, Unless they go to 8 teams, why bother scheduling anyone tough out of conference because that is clearly what hurt us.

With all that said, the thing that hurt us more than anything was clearly the second loss. We'd have been better off not playing Pitt and playing the Citadel and winning. Or- just beat Pitt. Either case would have gotten us in.

 

[22buck]

1. Head to head doesn't really matter.
(e.g., 4 OSU, 5 PSU, 6 UM) --PSU beat OSU, UM beat PSU) reverse order of ranking would make sense if head to head results mattered..
2. No 2-loss teams need apply (PSU & UM)
3. Winning division and conference doesn't mean that much (e.g. Oklahoma, PSU, OSU)
4. Not much consideration for strength of schedule (e.g., Washington)

What if:

OSU gets beaten badly by Clemson, AL wipes out Washington, PSU wipes out Rose Bowl opponent (USC or Colorado)

Are post game final CFP rankings adjusted to AL, Clemson, PSU?
Does anyone wonder at that point if the wrong number 3 and 4 teams were picked by CFB?

1. OSU beat UM who beat PSU. But the committee bumped PSU above UM.
2. If additional losses don't matter, should a 3 loss USC get in? What about a 4 loss Pitt who beat PSU and Clemson head to head?
3. OSU beat Big 12 champ Oklahoma by 3 TDs. In Norman.
4. Washington's out of conference schedule was terrible. I agree with you that should be considered. But when you consider out of conference games you open the door to evaluating the total body of work, not just conference.

Finally, to your point on whether 3 and 4 were the right picks. OSU was #6 in the committee's final rankings last year. Behind #4 MSU and #5 Iowa, who were "more deserving". Each of them was blown out in humiliating fashion while OSU won big in the post-season. OSU finished #4 in the final polls. So, yeah, the committee got it wrong and OSU got screwed and missed the playoff with a team that sent 14 guys to the NFL.

 

[BuckeyeLegion]

So how about this...UM had the best win of the three then PSU then OSU...so there's your order based on head to head.

Or, they're considering 3 teams who all went 1-1 against each other. They all won at home and lost on the road. Probably gets that criteria thrown out. Or at least put at the bottom of the priority list.

 

[jjsocrates]

I didn't even know there was an Eastern Washington. I guess it's somewhere in the Eastern part of the State.

There is an Eastern Washington - its called Idaho.

 

[jjsocrates]

Committee chose to value win-loss record. Seems reasonable.

So did the polls. So the committee is pretty much useless...except for flipping #2 with #3 in the "rankings" which means zilch.

 

[Nittany18]

View embedded media

He has fought for PSU after our B1G win. I can't understand how OSU is in and we are out. I'm sick of hearing our win was a "fluke", we were better that day. We continued to win. We won our conference championship and they still put OSU in?!?!? Eff these guys!!!!

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

He has fought for PSU after our B1G win. I can't understand how OSU is in and we are out. I'm sick of hearing our win was a "fluke", we were better that day. We continued to win. We won our conference championship and they still put OSU in?!?!? Eff these guys!!!!

Bro, so with you on this. But, moving on like Jabrill Peppers....

 

[jjsocrates]

Context is everything.

Washington's OOC SOS was 127th. Penn State's was 12th. They should damn well have a better record.

I think the argument here is: THEORETICALLY, if Penn State played Washington's schedule and if Washington played Penn State's schedule - would they have the same records? Probably not. Washington might have 3 losses and Penn State might have 1.

In which case, strength of schedule doesn't really mean anything - and the "committee" doesn't really DO anything except pick names based on a smell test. There IS no objective way of picking these teams - its pretty much entirely subjective. Otherwise - why would the four teams picked essentially mirror the polls?

Let's be honest - the only criteria was - did you have one loss or fewer and did you play in a major conference. Sorry W. Mich.

 

[Obliviax]

Personally, I think its GREAT that PSU screwed up the NCAA's whole CFP system. That's just great. Any way we can make this cabal's seats hotter is fine by me.

 

[Thus Spake Mainer]

1. Head to head doesn't really matter.
(e.g., 4 OSU, 5 PSU, 6 UM) --PSU beat OSU, UM beat PSU) reverse order of ranking would make sense if head to head results mattered..
2. No 2-loss teams need apply (PSU & UM)
3. Winning division and conference doesn't mean that much (e.g. Oklahoma, PSU, OSU)
4. Not much consideration for strength of schedule (e.g., Washington)

What if:

OSU gets beaten badly by Clemson, AL wipes out Washington, PSU wipes out Rose Bowl opponent (USC or Colorado)

Are post game final CFP rankings adjusted to AL, Clemson, PSU?
Does anyone wonder at that point if the wrong number 3 and 4 teams were picked by CFB?

+1

 

[Upperrwestsidetrojan]

Context is everything.

Washington's OOC SOS was 127th. Penn State's was 12th. They should damn well have a better record.

Colorado sucks. I lived in CO for quite a few years and used to follow them, but they are one of the slowest and least athletic teams I've watched this year.

As for the blowout loss to Michigan, we had 11 starters out and were using third team and walkon players at many of those positions.

I will buy the 11 players out vs. mich. valid point. but col. is a good team. they went into mich(very tough place to play and were leading for a lot of that game wit supposed slow palyers. mich pulled away at the end, but it was a very close game. if that game was in col, could have easily been a col win. but col lost a close game to mich and psu was beaten badly bu mich. so I dont think you can say that col. is terrible. there is evidence to the contrary.

uw-using the number 127 is irrelevant for ooc sos. i check three mains sites and they had uw overall sos at 16 to 60. sagarin had it 41. 41 is a solid overall sos. it is decent. they did not play the 127th best schedule in the nation. they played the 37.5 best schedule if you average the 3. or 41st if you use sagarin. and they blew that schedule out. uw crushed rutgers and was up 34-3 to 3 at the half. psu was up 9-0. uw could have scored 70 or 80 in that game. psu was not cruising against Rutgers until the 4th. but there is not a lot of head to head between the two programs. just surprised that you somehow think that psu is a better than uw. i guess the fact that chris petersen is their coach holds no weight for you. it does for me. he puts out outrageous football teams.

but we can settle on the field. see you in pasadena.