Yet every year the criteria will change so Bama, Clemson and OSU all get in (resumes are different but teams getting in are the same).
If Ohio State happens to win the BIG with 2 losses, both blowouts
- Thread starter walleye38
- Start date
It is absolutely a joke that Ohio St is currently ranked above us right now. Same for Notre Dame but let's compare Ohio St and Penn St for a moment.
One team has 2 losses by over 40 points including one at home and one to an unranked team. Combined W-L record of teams that beat this team is 16-6. This team also has wins over teams with a combined record of 49-50 and has not played ranked teams back to back weeks the entire year.
The other team has 2 losses by a combined 4 points, both on the road, one by a fluke blocked punt that completed a comeback that never could have occurred on a neutral field, the other on the last play during a monsoon after a 3 hour thunderstorm delay that completely changed the momentum of the game. Combined W-L record of teams that beat this team is 17-5.This team also has wins over teams with a combined record of 52-46 and had to play the #19, #6, and #24 teams back to back to back with the last 2 on the road. This team also beat the current #22 team.
Both teams beat 2 ranked teams.
Now which resume is truly better? Which team is currently ranked higher? Which team was helped to get in last year then proved that they did not belong and is getting argument to still squeeze them in this year? Which team was screwed out of their shot last year and is getting put behind teams that their resume beats again this year?
Is this not evidence of obvious bias on the BCS invite tournament committee? If this committee intends to only pick and chose favorites by personal bias and systematically delegitimatize others with better resumes, is it really a legitimate championship?
One team has 2 losses by over 40 points including one at home and one to an unranked team. Combined W-L record of teams that beat this team is 16-6. This team also has wins over teams with a combined record of 49-50 and has not played ranked teams back to back weeks the entire year.
The other team has 2 losses by a combined 4 points, both on the road, one by a fluke blocked punt that completed a comeback that never could have occurred on a neutral field, the other on the last play during a monsoon after a 3 hour thunderstorm delay that completely changed the momentum of the game. Combined W-L record of teams that beat this team is 17-5.This team also has wins over teams with a combined record of 52-46 and had to play the #19, #6, and #24 teams back to back to back with the last 2 on the road. This team also beat the current #22 team.
Both teams beat 2 ranked teams.
Now which resume is truly better? Which team is currently ranked higher? Which team was helped to get in last year then proved that they did not belong and is getting argument to still squeeze them in this year? Which team was screwed out of their shot last year and is getting put behind teams that their resume beats again this year?
Is this not evidence of obvious bias on the BCS invite tournament committee? If this committee intends to only pick and chose favorites by personal bias and systematically delegitimatize others with better resumes, is it really a legitimate championship?
Last edited:
Here’s the main reality: You’ve got a bunch of guys in a room splitting hairs and making calls on who gets to play for a national championship. These guys bring their own biases to the process. There are no hard-and-fast criteria. There is no true consistency from year to year. One year we’re told it’s the eye test. Another year it’s overall record. One year it’s conference champions. Another year – not so much. Through it all, there is constant blathering about “resumes.”
There are some good arguments in favor of Ohio State this year. And there are just as many good arguments against them. Jim Delany is a heavyweight. He has lots of influence and connections on the college football scene. He’s an Ohio State partisan. But I’m sure that has nothing in the world to do with why the Buckeyes always seem to be on the right side of the annually shifting standards of judgment used to pick the CFP teams. No. Absolutely not. It’s silly to even harbor the thought.
And don't forget OSU has their AD on the committee....that has no influence. Wait, I know...he leaves the room when they discuss OSU so there will be no bias. Give me a break...like him being on the committee will have no influence. Why not get the committee made up of D2 school AD's who have no skin in the game?
You're absolutely right. Here's a suggestion to change it: only conference champions (ND shits or gets off the pot) in the playoffs. Five teams? The two teams with the most losses have a play-in game (if there are more than two, draw lots). Seedings? Draw lots.
Playoff is short and sweet. Regular season remains relevant. No human intervention, no argument over "resumes", no "eye tests," no bullshit from the chattering classes.
Ohio State has two blow out losses this year. That alone should send them packing, no matter what they do in the Bigten title game. In one of those losses they gave up 55 points....to a team that only gain 66 total yards the next week. That should end the conversation for any team. There is definately a pro Ohio State bias on the committee. It is to easy to see.
And if the PSU and OSU roles were reversed everyone on this board would still say PSU should still be ahead because of their head to head victory despite the blowout losses. Some on this board love to cherry pick stats and facts that meet their preconceived desired outcome.
OSU undoubtedly deserved the spot last year, a blowout loss to Clemson after the decision is made doesn't change the factors that were considered beforehand. I don't even think OSU getting in last year was very controversial, they had one of the best resumes in all of college football. Last season, the big debate for PSU was vs. UW who had 1 fewer loss but also played a weak schedule. PSU likely wasn't left out because of one loss being a blowout, it was likely because the committee decided that PSU's 2 losses weren't enough to overcome UW's 1 loss despite the schedule strength difference. That's a debatable point obviously since you could argue that we'd have lost only 1 game with UW's schedule, but we ended up on the losing end.
This year the debate might result in an inclusion of a 2 loss team for the first time so that will be controversial. The criteria aren't set in stone, which is controversial. The resumes of the various competing teams is different every year, which moves the goalposts annually and is controversial. That's the system we have, like it or not. But OSU is definitely in the mix again on the backs of their quality wins. If you favor looking at quality losses then PSU looks better. The committee has shown they seem to favor looking at who you beat over who you lost to in the past, so I'm not at all surprised they like OSU again. Fortunately for OSU the resumes of other teams are such that it keeps OSU squarely in the playoff hunt again.
Oh, well great. The media says so, so that settles it. Frankly, the media is the problem today, and not to be trusted on any issue.
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
Right. But seems you’re splitting hairs in your dissent. I wrote it MAY be the year when they choose WHICH 2-loss team as opposed to WHETHER. It may or may not happen. Assuming they choose auburn over OSU, they will have chosen a 2-loss team, deeming Auburn more worthy than OSU and other also-rans, whatever their losses.
This is exactly how it should be. Exactly. Think how HUGE the conference championship games would then become.
You forgot to put next to Ohio State (2 sh*tty losses). I mean really sh*tty.
Yes, I played hockey at a high level (BCHL & NCAA) and lacrosse. Wins & losses absolutely matter. Never was on a team where one losses eliminated us from anything. That only exists in FBS football-no other sport in the world.
No one ever said record doesn't matter aside those that believe Penn State having 2 losses last year compared to 1 loss for Ohio State shouldn't have mattered.
Name another sport where a team is eliminated, as you want, by 1 loss in the regular season. Go for it
Ohio State losing to Clemson has nothing to do with the committee's review of the resumes. We all understand that happened after, right?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/college-football-2016-playoff-alabama-washington-ohio-state-clemson/
The discussion as Kirby Hocutt states was Penn State-Washington. We all should know this by now. Especially as Penn State fans. My guess is you guys were too bad about us not getting in that you didn't pay attention to anything said and created this nonsense of Ohio State getting in over us when that was a lock
It will never be a legitimate championship until it is determined on the field. All this "playoff" did was change the drama from two teams to four
FTR I'm not against the "Playoff" - just call it what its is - same as it ever was (+2)
Washington had one loss--that's my fault. Their non-conference schedule was so pathetic I should have known that. I own my mistakes unlike most here...apparently.
My belief (reality or not) is that aside from Oklahoma and Alabama there isn't a great team this year. And even those two have questions. I'd be shocked if Ohio State didn't get in if they win out, Miami wins out and Bama wins out. I won't be upset but I would be shocked.
My belief (reality or not) is that aside from Oklahoma and Alabama there isn't a great team this year. And even those two have questions. I'd be shocked if Ohio State didn't get in if they win out, Miami wins out and Bama wins out. I won't be upset but I would be shocked.
I still don't understand why anyone is against a 16-32 team playoff. Look at every other collegiate sport and every other level of football. FCS has 24, DII has 28, DII has 32. These teams can all play 9-10 regular season games and a playoff but FBS can't. 16-24 needs to happen--settle it on the field as you want.
PSU got screwed last year. Everyone knows that. The only playoff team sitting at home during conference championship week last year was OSU. They didn't win their division, didn't win their conference, and didn't beat the conference champion head-to-head. Instead of it being a negative, it was a blessing as OSU got to sit at home while the other three eventual playoff teams had to play an extra game risking injury and giving more film for OSU to study off of. It was completely the wrong decision and the results on the field against Clemson validated it. As applied to PSU, and all of those in their similar situation, 2 or more losses was unacceptable and conference championships and who you beat don't matter at that point. No playoff for you.
Now here comes OSU this season with 2 losses and a chance to win the conference and I have to hear that they will get in for some reason? Let me guess, now we say a team can have a "good" loss and that, somehow, it counts for less of a loss? Like a mini loss? Only a 0.5 loss? 1.5 is less than 2.0 so it's okay? Why does Wisconsin, who will only have 1 loss (or 0.5 depending on your perspective) if it goes down to OSU in the championship, not get into the playoffs based on that math? Wiscy should be playing with house money. You can bet the farm that if OSU was undefeated, and got knocked off in the championship game by a two loss team, OSU would still go to the playoff. And that's what everyone hates about this: a non-level playing field.
Now here comes OSU this season with 2 losses and a chance to win the conference and I have to hear that they will get in for some reason? Let me guess, now we say a team can have a "good" loss and that, somehow, it counts for less of a loss? Like a mini loss? Only a 0.5 loss? 1.5 is less than 2.0 so it's okay? Why does Wisconsin, who will only have 1 loss (or 0.5 depending on your perspective) if it goes down to OSU in the championship, not get into the playoffs based on that math? Wiscy should be playing with house money. You can bet the farm that if OSU was undefeated, and got knocked off in the championship game by a two loss team, OSU would still go to the playoff. And that's what everyone hates about this: a non-level playing field.
Check out their schedules. 2016 Ohio State vs. 2017 Wisconsin. This isn't difficult. It's very level if you aren't being biased.
The decision came down to, but that doesn't mean PSU-OSU wasn't even discussed because it absolutely was.
Sorry, I heard it....it absolutely was and by the head of the committee no less. They're obviously going to discuss the merits of a non conference champion going in ahead of that conference's actual champion.
Kirby absolutely never said they were compared. He stressed the opposite especially given the criteria of comparable teams.
I did. 2016 OSU was 11-1 (the 1 was to the division and conference champion). I guess that was a "good" loss for them. 2017 Wiscy is likely 12-0 and if it looses to OSU, it will have a single "good" loss (to a two loss conference champion). Wiscy, a one loss non-conference champion, would deserve to go to the playoff over a two loss conference champion (OSU); which is what happened to PSU last year. Oh wait, now we have to look at something else because "reasons" to justify that not happening this year to OSU. Garbage.
Dude, every post I’ve seen, you’re making a strenuous argument in favor of Ohio State. Based strictly on this thread, I’d say you’re a Buckeye fan.
OK, I could be wrong. Maybe somebody has hijacked your handle. Maybe the other 300 or so posts from you were bleeding blue and white.
But in this thread you’ve spent all your energy defending Ohio State – in the face of many (and screamingly obvious) arguments to the contrary.
The reality is that Ohio State is on the right side of the politics of the equation. Penn State is not. Which explains it all. No further BS about “eye tests” and “resumes” and the rest is needed.
That said, if I were a Buckeye fan, as you apparently are, I’d be pretty worried about what the CFP committee chairman said to Herbie and the boys on national television this week – that the Iowa loss was really bad. Super bad.
Gosh, won’t you feel bad it your buddy Delany doesn’t get his way this year?
On this you are correct. They weren't comparable. PSU was better as they beat OSU on the field of play. When beating a team on the field no longer matters then it's time to call it what it is. A joke.
So then Michigan and Pitt should have ben in over us? Head to head only matters once deemed comparable. We all know the better team doesn't always win. We're better than Michigan State despite losing to them this year.
Ohio State ahead of us last year is logical if you are being honest. Just like I think us being ahead of Ohio State right now would be fair despite them beating us. If they add wins against Michigan and Wisconsin then I would understand them ahead of us.
There should be auto-bids for all conference champs but, unfortunately people seem against that including those that matter. It's insane that in a league with 130 schools only 4 make the post season with the chance to win a title. Someone please tell me any sports league in the world in which 3% of teams make the post season
If people would stop spending money to go to exhibition games we could get a legit playoff.
On the contrary, it’s very difficult to overcome one’s biases and view things objectively, whether in sports or politics or religion or life. Try it some time, and you'll see.
If you can't set aside your bias you're incapable of discussing something...that's the problem here and why idiots think I'm an Ohio State fan. I'm setting aside my bias now--who I root for has no impact on my ability to look at teams and understand why some make the playoffs and others don't
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Football Happy Valley United announces Retain The Roar NIL campaign
- Latest: NITTANYJGK
-
-
-