Show me where I said OSU sucked. I'll wait while you find that. I'm giving you a chance to get something right.
Klatt calls Playoff Committee Corrupt
- Thread starter dailybuck77
- Start date
Show me where I said OSU sucked. I'll wait while you find that. I'm giving you a chance to get something right.
You did not gripe last year. You ought to have the decency to STFU now. The corruption is not of recent vintage.
The first quote clearly implies that OSU sucked. If that wasn't your meaning, we have no argument on this point.
You don't get to claim where a team was ranked when you beat them. You get the end result of what they were as a whole. By your logic, Alabama beat a top 3 Florida State. Nobody sane is crediting them that way.
What did I say that was silly? You are labelling things purely to an OSU slant and I'm calling you out for it. When you can give other teams credit consistent with your praise of the Buckeyes, maybe you will be a good poster. You are the silly one, preaching Buckeyes on a Lions board relentlessly.
So you think Ohio State didn't suck against Oklahoma and Iowa? You think they played well?
Even Urban Meyer doesn't agree with you.
OK final rankings. Okla (3 or 5 depending on poll). Wisc. 9. Mich. 10. What victory does Alabama have that compares to these. Your point is plainly silly either way. I am done for tonight.
Once more, you conveniently leave Nebraska out when it doesn't benefit your argument after trying to claim them as a great win. Were you on the committee? You are as consistent as they are.
What it all comes down to is either you support winning your conference as being meaningful or not. If you do, then we got screwed in '16 and you all did this year. If you don't, then the committee got it right both years by taking the 1-loss team AND your entire reason for starting this thread is FLAWED.
You can't have it both ways. The Buckeyes is not the correct answer both years.
There are rules/guidelines, they just don 't follow them. Last year PSU should have been in over OSU and this year OSU or USC should be in over Alabama.
I guess I will waste my time with one more post. I have never argued that winning the conference mattered much in either 2016 or 2017 --or that it should have mattered much. (I have posted many times. I will challenge you to find any such quote by me.) I think the committee ultimately got it right both years -- but by accident.
Will add with respect to Nebraska it doesn't matter whether OSU had 3 good wins or 4 good wins. In either event, Alabama this year has had none.
The point I have made (and is being ignored by many here) is that even if the committee got lucky and got the ultimate right decisions it was by accident and that as Klatt says their procedures are very flawed and arbitrary. You can attack the process and still agree with the results. In the future, the committee may not be so lucky.
31-0 is very indicative that perhaps there were two or three other suitable choices last year.
I never said you argued for or against a conference championship meaning anything. I said either you are for it meaning something or you aren't AKA pick a side. I don't feel like the committee got it right either year. Alabama getting pushed in coming off their loss to Auburn is absurd. I can only hope Clemson repeats the 31-0 on them, but since Saban hasn't lost by more than 14 since 2008 or longer 31-17 will have to suffice.
And you repeatedly have downed Alabama. "What victory does Alabama have compared to these?" "Alabama hasn't beat anyone this year." Yet the committee got it right? That's backhanded. If they got it, there is no need for those comments.
I never said you argued for or against a conference championship meaning anything. I said either you are for it meaning something or you aren't AKA pick a side. I don't feel like the committee got it right either year. Alabama getting pushed in coming off their loss to Auburn is absurd. I can only hope Clemson repeats the 31-0 on them, but since Saban hasn't lost by more than 14 since 2008 or longer 31-17 will have to suffice.
And you repeatedly have downed Alabama. "What victory does Alabama have compared to these?" "Alabama hasn't beat anyone this year." Yet the committee got it right? That's backhanded. If they got it, there is no need for those comments.
Everyone here arguing about made up bullshit by some "committee" that "chooses" who gets in and who doesn't. S.O.S., "eye test", "quality wins". What a load of bullshit. Win your friggin games and win your conference and you should be in. This subjective bullshit criteria needs to go and objective criteria should trump all (wins, win division, win conference). This is nothing more than parasites trying to keep feeding off the host (Bowl Games, media, advertisers). It's easy. Power 5 conference champs and 3 wild cards. That is it! The only bitching then will be about the three wild cards. It would be way better if 8 teams with using mostly objective criteria. Then I could support a true "legitimate" champ because you actually won it on the field.
I think the Committee shot themselves in the foot or head..last year with the tOsu decision and to be consistent this year had to go with Bama, which further proves the Delaney is a Jacka$$ for what he said last year in not supporting the conference champion, therefore marginalizing the BIG. Had they done the right thing last year and put in PSU , then this year would have been much easier to put in tOSU and would have made the playoffs overall better in both years, IMO.
Anyone could see PSU was playing far better than OSU at the end of last season and the head to head should have bee the trump card for that decision.
At least the last 2 years the committee has been consistent. As long as they are consistent going forward we know that they use the following guideline over all others:
Do not lose two games.
Strength of schedule does not matter, conference championships do not matter, all that matters is do not lose 2 games.
Lot of talk about Auburn would have gotten in this year with two losses had they beaten Georgia, well they did not beat Georgia and did not get in. Don't lose 2 games. Don't lose 2 games is the guideline until its not.
Do not lose two games.
Strength of schedule does not matter, conference championships do not matter, all that matters is do not lose 2 games.
Lot of talk about Auburn would have gotten in this year with two losses had they beaten Georgia, well they did not beat Georgia and did not get in. Don't lose 2 games. Don't lose 2 games is the guideline until its not.
If this is true, the true corruption lies in the conferences protecting Bama and Ohio St. 1 Loss should eliminate them next year.
Meanwhile, Penn St had Northwestern, Michigan, Ohio St, Mich St back to back to back to back this year!
Talk about engineering a preferred selection. That is the real corruption!
Alabama beat FSU who at the time was #3. Their season fell apart after their starting QB was injured/
another Pitt fan masquerading as a Buck fan..... I guess they have nothing to look forward to during the Holiday season. 3-2-1..... "I REALLY am a Buck fan. REALLY."
Ummmmm.....FSU was ranked #2 AT THE TIME Alabama beat them This year. So if you're going to use the "at the time" qualifier, then Alabama has indeed beaten a quality opponent this year. Not only that they destroyed them for the year.
And he would be right. Its a problem when you have someone like Gene Smith on the committee and he's just one of many that would have a rooting interest in regards to his team and conf.
I absolutely agree Bama does not deserve to be in but they set the precedent last season so there it is.
At the start of the season. For someone who "doesn't have an issue" with the selection you sure seem to making a lot of posts about it.
Last edited:
Well when your off season starts with the opening kick off of the first game of the year, pitt fans have nothing to look forward to at all.
I have never seen someone trying so hard to prove they don’t care - seems like a trend with these Bucknut fans.At the start of the season. For someone who "doesn't have an issue" with the selection you sure seem to making a lot of posts about it.
LOL, I was thinking the same thing. And really? He thinks he's going to win that argument by continually posting about it on this board. Not going to happen.
I absolutely agree that Bama does not deserve to be in but its not my fault that they set the precedent last year.
If conf. championships don't matter than don't have them and well go to an 8 game playoff system.
ALMOST everyone agrees that the four best teams are in. That's really all that matters.
This loser has 111 posts and every one of them is on the Penn State McAndrew Board. Does the Rivals counter only count posts on the board that the post occurs?
I come to this board looking to read comments about Penn State and it makes me feel like I am back living in that cesspool of CFB fandom Columbus where I was stuck in for 18 years. These idiot Suckeye fans still are miffed that the process isn’t fair. They may have had one loss last year, but that loss was a head to head loss to the conference champ. That should have disqualified them from being one of the 4. Their fate was sealed by that decision last year, so at least the committee is consistent.
If they want to talk about unfair treatment, how about when their players and coach commit NCAA infractions, they still get to play in their major bowl game and get a slap on the wrist. But Penn State gets pilloried when their coach did the right thing and the football team had nothing to do with what happenend. Not only does PSU have to pay a major fine but the B10 takes away their share of bowl money, not to mention the unprecedented sanctions. The NCAA and B10 are corrupt beyond comparison with clear favoritism shown toward the duhOSU “I didn’t come here to play school” football program.
If they want to talk about unfair treatment, how about when their players and coach commit NCAA infractions, they still get to play in their major bowl game and get a slap on the wrist. But Penn State gets pilloried when their coach did the right thing and the football team had nothing to do with what happenend. Not only does PSU have to pay a major fine but the B10 takes away their share of bowl money, not to mention the unprecedented sanctions. The NCAA and B10 are corrupt beyond comparison with clear favoritism shown toward the duhOSU “I didn’t come here to play school” football program.
Using Auburn as an example doesn't help your case. They lost 3 games. As you said, had they won the SECCG they would have been in with 2 losses. So we're no closer to knowing the standard the committee uses. They're just making it up as they go.
These OSU dip$hits get themselves easily confused. But the main thing to remember is that they are fine that they aren’t in the playoffs, and they care very deeply that everyone knows that. Got it?
Boy, You all really hijacked this thread and got your panties in a bunch about OSU and missed the point. Screw OSU they should be out and I'm glad the BIG got left out. At least OSU won't make the conference look bad by choking in the playoffs this year and I hope USC boatraces them.....
Back to the real point......
Any committee that includes stakeholders on the committee will ALWAYS be biased because they will always be looking out for #1. Delany didn't give a rats a$$ about PSU last year because he knew OSU was getting in. Klatt's point, IMHO, was that no matter what happened Bama was going to be in...didn't matter what happened in the SEC championship game or any other championship game, there were always going to be 2 SEC teams in the playoff. Wisconsin losing just made it easier for the committee because they were never getting in, no matter if they won...if they would have won that game they would not have passed the "looks" test. They were slow, Hornibrook is a terrible qb with weaker arm strength than post injury Zack Mills. They are completely overrated.
Bama was always getting in, the winner of the SEC champ was ALWAYS getting in, the Winner of the ACC title game was ALWAYS getting in...the only question was if Oklahoma lost would TCU, BIG 10, or PAC 12 get screwed over.
Back to the real point......
Any committee that includes stakeholders on the committee will ALWAYS be biased because they will always be looking out for #1. Delany didn't give a rats a$$ about PSU last year because he knew OSU was getting in. Klatt's point, IMHO, was that no matter what happened Bama was going to be in...didn't matter what happened in the SEC championship game or any other championship game, there were always going to be 2 SEC teams in the playoff. Wisconsin losing just made it easier for the committee because they were never getting in, no matter if they won...if they would have won that game they would not have passed the "looks" test. They were slow, Hornibrook is a terrible qb with weaker arm strength than post injury Zack Mills. They are completely overrated.
Bama was always getting in, the winner of the SEC champ was ALWAYS getting in, the Winner of the ACC title game was ALWAYS getting in...the only question was if Oklahoma lost would TCU, BIG 10, or PAC 12 get screwed over.
Nothing to do with last year, goofball, and everything to do with draconian BS sanctions. Try again.
I agree they are making it up as they go, no doubt there and there is no way they want to have definitive rules/criteria/guidelines for who gets in and who does not. TV sets are probably a factor too. I have a hunch that Ohio State losing 31-0 last year to Clemson did not help them this year.
Regarding Auburn, I should have said, everyone believed that Auburn was in if they beat Georgia even with 2 losses. I believe the committee would have put them in had they beat Georgia, but since they didn't we will never know. Had they gotten in, it would have been based on beating Alabama by 12 in late November.
Contoversy, controversy, controversy. It all plays into the hands of the greedy.
Television networks are drooling and quietly looking at options for bid packages for an expanded playoff format. The apparel companies are downright giddy. Hell, make it 64 teams like basketball. Might as well share the wealth with the hardware companies. Six thousand or so participation trophies should provide a boost to the economy as well.
Television networks are drooling and quietly looking at options for bid packages for an expanded playoff format. The apparel companies are downright giddy. Hell, make it 64 teams like basketball. Might as well share the wealth with the hardware companies. Six thousand or so participation trophies should provide a boost to the economy as well.
Yep. Scrap all the conferences and just go with a 14 game schedule with the final 7 games being play in games. TIC....well sort of.
The whole system is a mess. Advocates of the 4 playoff format tout the importance of the regular season and the "every game counts" aspect. I think the committee got it completely wrong, 2 years in a row, by allowing in teams that didn't even play in their conference championship game. Those should be treated as play-in games. If OSU wanted to get in last year, they should have beaten Penn State. If Alabama wanted to get in this year, they should have beaten Auburn. The committee has now rendered conference championships ... if not meaningless ... then at least substantially devalued. (of course, Wiscy could have been heroes of the CFB world by keeping out OSU and Alabama...sigh...) IMO, USC was more deserving than OSU or Alabama.
Will the Big 10 and the Pac 10 stand for getting stiffed? 2 SEC schools? Really? One of which has a single quality win? I'm hoping for a major shake-up. Obvious solution is to take winners of the power 5 conf's, + 3 at large.
Will the Big 10 and the Pac 10 stand for getting stiffed? 2 SEC schools? Really? One of which has a single quality win? I'm hoping for a major shake-up. Obvious solution is to take winners of the power 5 conf's, + 3 at large.
Maybe the evolution of CFB to 4 Super conferences each with say 16 teams resolves this issue. 4 super conference winners make playoffs. Is this where it’s going?
Something that I haven't heard yet, is any mention of Alabama's injuries. When discussing Clemson's loss to Syracuse they mention that the QB was injured and would factor that in. Isn't Bama missing a bunch of defensive starters? They are expected to get some of them back for the playoffs. If those players were not injured they may have beaten Auburn and that was probably considered by the committee. Just another factor most people are overlooking.
I wouldn't doubt if mean Gene didn't help to convince the committee against penn state last year if favor of Washington because he knew exactly how dangerous a team that we were.
Latest posts
-
-
FB Recruiting Penn State 2025 Big Board Update: Offense- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-