clenz wrote:
Based entirely on a tie breaker that came down to the 5th of 6 criteria. Had that not decided it the conference literally would have flipped a coin.
One can't lose by 39, to anyone, and then claim to be one of the 4 best teams in the country.
But one can not win their conference and claim that they are?
When it comes to stupid tied breakers deciding who should have even been in that game was fucking stupid.
They were legitimately about to flip a coin to decide who got to play in the game.
SDHornet wrote:
But one can not win their conference and claim that they are?
When it comes to stupid tied breakers deciding who should have even been in that game was fucking stupid.
They were legitimately about to flip a coin to decide who got to play in the game.
None of that matters. The fact of the matter is that winning your conference doesn't guarantee a playoff spot...which begs the question: Why even have a CCG if it is meaningless? Which we now know it is.
SDHornet wrote:
PSU beat OSU head to head....then won the conference title...but they're not good enough to be in the 4 team playoff?
PSU earned their way into the 4 team playoff. Period.
Bingo.
Again. SIMPLE fix. In order to make the Final 4, must make your conference title game...If that was the case this year there would be no controversy: Bama, Clempson, Washington, and PSU.
Not good enough to make the final 2 in your conference, but good enough to make the Final 4..
This is exactly what I yelled at my wife all weekend long (she went to PSU). Without a miracle, I knew PSU wasn't going to make it in.
The BCS, once again, still, always, is a joke.
clenz wrote:
When it comes to stupid tied breakers deciding who should have even been in that game was fucking stupid.
They were legitimately about to flip a coin to decide who got to play in the game.
None of that matters. The fact of the matter is that winning your conference doesn't guarantee a playoff spot...which begs the question: Why even have a CCG if it is meaningless? Which we now know it is.
Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby would like some clarity from College Football Playoff officials on the importance of conference championship games and strength of schedule, he told ESPN on Sunday after the selection committee put 11-1 Ohio State in at No. 3 despite the Buckeyes not winning the Big Ten East Division or their conference title...
"I'm just looking for clarity," Bowlsby said. "We didn't have a team that was a likely participant in the playoff, and so from that standpoint it doesn't make a lot of difference to us this year, but I'd just like to know what we're supposed to advise our members. Does the 13th data point make a difference, or does it not? Does the conference championship game make a difference, or does it not? Are they only used as tiebreakers, or is it other metrics?
"In TCU's case, they fell out of the playoff. They had a great year and had a Heisman Trophy candidate at quarterback and won by 50 points on the last day of the season, but we were told the reason they didn't get in, the reason they fell, was they didn't have a 13th data point and they didn't have a championship. Now I think it's reasonable to seek clarity on that, and when the time is right, I will ask those questions."
clenz wrote:
When it comes to stupid tied breakers deciding who should have even been in that game was **** stupid.
They were legitimately about to flip a coin to decide who got to play in the game.
None of that matters. The fact of the matter is that winning your conference doesn't guarantee a playoff spot...which begs the question: Why even have a CCG if it is meaningless? Which we now know it is.
Meaningless?? CCG's make a ton of money. Since money drives college sports, it couldn't be any more meaningful.
Again, though, why should only a subset of a team's games (the conference games) matter more than the larger resume of games (e.g. the entire schedule)? Teams play 12 or 13 games in a year - why would we only want to focus on 9 of those games?
SDHornet wrote:
None of that matters. The fact of the matter is that winning your conference doesn't guarantee a playoff spot...which begs the question: Why even have a CCG if it is meaningless? Which we now know it is.
Meaningless?? CCG's make a ton of money. Since money drives college sports, it couldn't be any more meaningful.
Again, though, why should only a subset of a team's games (the conference games) matter more than the larger resume of games (e.g. the entire schedule)? Teams play 12 or 13 games in a year - why would we only want to focus on 9 of those games?
So money grab is really the only reason they exist...now that they are meaningless as it relates to determining who the better team on the field is.
GannonFan wrote:
Meaningless?? CCG's make a ton of money. Since money drives college sports, it couldn't be any more meaningful.
Again, though, why should only a subset of a team's games (the conference games) matter more than the larger resume of games (e.g. the entire schedule)? Teams play 12 or 13 games in a year - why would we only want to focus on 9 of those games?
So money grab is really the only reason they exist...now that they are meaningless as it relates to determining who the better team on the field is.
Why is this a shock? Have you been watching college football at any point in the past 50 years? And why would you ever think that unbalanced conference schedules that don't even include every team in the conference and don't take into account OOC games would always yield the "best" teams on the field? You could have a team go winless in OOC play and sweep conference play - no one is going to say a 3 loss team is the best team on the field just because you happen to throw out the 3 games they lost because they were OOC games. Again, taking away games from the schedule and looking at fewer games seldom improves the ability to get the best team.
SDHornet wrote:
So money grab is really the only reason they exist...now that they are meaningless as it relates to determining who the better team on the field is.
Why is this a shock? Have you been watching college football at any point in the past 50 years? And why would you ever think that unbalanced conference schedules that don't even include every team in the conference and don't take into account OOC games would always yield the "best" teams on the field? You could have a team go winless in OOC play and sweep conference play - no one is going to say a 3 loss team is the best team on the field just because you happen to throw out the 3 games they lost because they were OOC games. Again, taking away games from the schedule and looking at fewer games seldom improves the ability to get the best team.
Huh? Shocked? No, far from it. The point of the CCG is (supposedly) to determine the best team in the conference…hence why the playoff selection committee uses it as a data point in determining who gets a bid (well at least they claimed they did, we now know that was complete BS). Conference titles are supposed to be meaningful because they are earned; we now know that they don’t mean a thing. In fact they are meaningless if you know the right people, win a decent OOC game and have the right name on your jersey.
The PSU snub proves that this new playoff is just a reformation and repackaging of the same good ole boy club that determines who plays for a championship. Once all the BS is sorted, nothing has really changed. I’ve always felt this playoff was just a way to keep the haves (P5) and the have-nots (G5) separated after the have-nots crashed the party in the old system. Looks like I was right.
GannonFan wrote:
Why is this a shock? Have you been watching college football at any point in the past 50 years? And why would you ever think that unbalanced conference schedules that don't even include every team in the conference and don't take into account OOC games would always yield the "best" teams on the field? You could have a team go winless in OOC play and sweep conference play - no one is going to say a 3 loss team is the best team on the field just because you happen to throw out the 3 games they lost because they were OOC games. Again, taking away games from the schedule and looking at fewer games seldom improves the ability to get the best team.
Huh? Shocked? No, far from it. The point of the CCG is (supposedly) to determine the best team in the conference…hence why the playoff selection committee uses it as a data point in determining who gets a bid (well at least they claimed they did, we now know that was complete BS). Conference titles are supposed to be meaningful because they are earned; we now know that they don’t mean a thing. In fact they are meaningless if you know the right people, win a decent OOC game and have the right name on your jersey.
The PSU snub proves that this new playoff is just a reformation and repackaging of the same good ole boy club that determines who plays for a championship. Once all the BS is sorted, nothing has really changed. I’ve always felt this playoff was just a way to keep the haves (P5) and the have-nots (G5) separated after the have-nots crashed the party in the old system. Looks like I was right.
A CCG was to determine the bids for bowl tie ins when they were first developed.
SDHornet wrote:
Huh? Shocked? No, far from it. The point of the CCG is (supposedly) to determine the best team in the conference…hence why the playoff selection committee uses it as a data point in determining who gets a bid (well at least they claimed they did, we now know that was complete BS). Conference titles are supposed to be meaningful because they are earned; we now know that they don’t mean a thing. In fact they are meaningless if you know the right people, win a decent OOC game and have the right name on your jersey.
The PSU snub proves that this new playoff is just a reformation and repackaging of the same good ole boy club that determines who plays for a championship. Once all the BS is sorted, nothing has really changed. I’ve always felt this playoff was just a way to keep the haves (P5) and the have-nots (G5) separated after the have-nots crashed the party in the old system. Looks like I was right.
A CCG was to determine the bids for bowl tie ins when they were first developed.
And currently (supposedly) used as a metric by the playoff committee.
GannonFan wrote:Conference championship games, and overly focusing on them, ignores the non-conference games. Placing too much value on the conference games only is where people who think Penn St got screwed miss the point. Stop taking a subset of the games - Penn St had two losses on their schedule, Ohio St had one. When two teams aren't tied (one loss is still better than two losses) then the head to head doesn't come into place as some tiebreaker because there isn't a tie. Ohio St beat Michigan and Oklahoma while losing to Penn St - Penn St lost to Michigan and Pitt while beating Ohio St. In the end just too many losses.
If one loss is still better than two losses, the why isn't zero losses still better than one loss?
SOS?
See SHSU. See Alabama. See NDSU/JSU/JMU/EWU. See OSU.
See NCA&T.
These committees are making excuses to get their favorite teams in. That is all it is.
SDHornet wrote:
Huh? Shocked? No, far from it. The point of the CCG is (supposedly) to determine the best team in the conference…hence why the playoff selection committee uses it as a data point in determining who gets a bid (well at least they claimed they did, we now know that was complete BS). Conference titles are supposed to be meaningful because they are earned; we now know that they don’t mean a thing. In fact they are meaningless if you know the right people, win a decent OOC game and have the right name on your jersey.
The PSU snub proves that this new playoff is just a reformation and repackaging of the same good ole boy club that determines who plays for a championship. Once all the BS is sorted, nothing has really changed. I’ve always felt this playoff was just a way to keep the haves (P5) and the have-nots (G5) separated after the have-nots crashed the party in the old system. Looks like I was right.
A CCG was to determine the bids for bowl tie ins when they were first developed.
That's a pretty pathetic BS "reasoning" on their part
GannonFan wrote:Conference championship games, and overly focusing on them, ignores the non-conference games. Placing too much value on the conference games only is where people who think Penn St got screwed miss the point. Stop taking a subset of the games - Penn St had two losses on their schedule, Ohio St had one. When two teams aren't tied (one loss is still better than two losses) then the head to head doesn't come into place as some tiebreaker because there isn't a tie. Ohio St beat Michigan and Oklahoma while losing to Penn St - Penn St lost to Michigan and Pitt while beating Ohio St. In the end just too many losses.
If one loss is still better than two losses, the why isn't zero losses still better than one loss?
SOS?
See SHSU. See Alabama. See NDSU/JSU/JMU/EWU. See OSU.
See NCA&T.
These committees are making excuses to get their favorite teams in. That is all it is.
I don't know who you're complaining about? Are you advocating for Western Michigan? Sure, the college playoff system, barring something really odd, is really only confined to the P5 schools and Notre Dame (and I'd argue BYU as well). But if a G5 school wants to really schedule an OOC that only includes good P5 schools and they go undefeated, I think you could see a G5 school get in, but that would take a lot of things aligning all at the same time.
But I still don't see a valid argument for a two loss Penn St team to get in over a one loss Ohio St team. As I said, head to head is a great tiebreaker...when there's a tie.
SDHornet wrote:
And currently (supposedly) used as a metric by the playoff committee.
They are being used. As "a" metric, not "the" metric. CCG is just one more line on a resume, not the overwhelming line on the resume.
Correct, here is the selection protocol when comparing “similar” teams:
*Championships won - PSU
*SOS – OSU 1, PSU 11
*Head to Head - PSU
*Outcome against common opponents – One would think head to head would be more meaningful, but PSU lost to Michigan and a Pitt team that beat Clemson (a playoff team)
So really the only argument is OSU had 1 less loss and are still in because they were always pegged as being in (BCS mindset). Nothing should trump the B10 title and the head to head. If SOS was so meaningful, why is UDUb in? They have a SOS of 15. And Michigan has a SOS of 2 with 2 losses, would they get the nod over PSU since head to head and B10 title doesn't matter?
GannonFan wrote:
They are being used. As "a" metric, not "the" metric. CCG is just one more line on a resume, not the overwhelming line on the resume.
Correct, here is the selection protocol when comparing “similar” teams:
*Championships won - PSU
*SOS – OSU 1, PSU 11
*Head to Head - PSU
*Outcome against common opponents – One would think head to head would be more meaningful, but PSU lost to Michigan and a Pitt team that beat Clemson (a playoff team)
So really the only argument is OSU had 1 less loss and are still in because they were always pegged as being in (BCS mindset). Nothing should trump the B10 title and the head to head. If SOS was so meaningful, why is UDUb in? They have a SOS of 15. And Michigan has a SOS of 2 with 2 losses, would they get the nod over PSU since head to head and B10 title doesn't matter?
The bold is all you need to know. Like you said, pretty similar SOS, so Ohio St gets through theirs with one loss and Penn St gets through theirs with two losses and it's not even a discussion. Again, why would you want to look at a subset of the games (conference games) and use less data when the whole schedule is there for you to look at? You trying to argue that Penn St should be in before Ohio St is just lunacy on your part, frankly.
Now, you want to say that Penn St should be in over Washington, well then we do have a decent argument. Which of course, you'd know by now if you weren't obsessing over the silly idea that Penn St was more worthy than Ohio St.
SDHornet wrote:
Correct, here is the selection protocol when comparing “similar” teams:
*Championships won - PSU
*SOS – OSU 1, PSU 11
*Head to Head - PSU
*Outcome against common opponents – One would think head to head would be more meaningful, but PSU lost to Michigan and a Pitt team that beat Clemson (a playoff team)
So really the only argument is OSU had 1 less loss and are still in because they were always pegged as being in (BCS mindset). Nothing should trump the B10 title and the head to head. If SOS was so meaningful, why is UDUb in? They have a SOS of 15. And Michigan has a SOS of 2 with 2 losses, would they get the nod over PSU since head to head and B10 title doesn't matter?
The bold is all you need to know. Like you said, pretty similar SOS, so Ohio St gets through theirs with one loss and Penn St gets through theirs with two losses and it's not even a discussion. Again, why would you want to look at a subset of the games (conference games) and use less data* when the whole schedule is there for you to look at? You trying to argue that Penn St should be in before Ohio St is just lunacy on your part, frankly.
Now, you want to say that Penn St should be in over Washington, well then we do have a decent argument. Which of course, you'd know by now if you weren't obsessing over the silly idea that Penn St was more worthy than Ohio St.
You forgot to add this disclaimer:
* while willfully ignoring the conference championship and head to head results
I'm no Pedo State fan, but letting committees ignore significant on the field accomplishments such as CCG and head to head makes a mockery of the whole process.
GannonFan wrote:
The bold is all you need to know. Like you said, pretty similar SOS, so Ohio St gets through theirs with one loss and Penn St gets through theirs with two losses and it's not even a discussion. Again, why would you want to look at a subset of the games (conference games) and use less data* when the whole schedule is there for you to look at? You trying to argue that Penn St should be in before Ohio St is just lunacy on your part, frankly.
Now, you want to say that Penn St should be in over Washington, well then we do have a decent argument. Which of course, you'd know by now if you weren't obsessing over the silly idea that Penn St was more worthy than Ohio St.
You forgot to add this disclaimer:
* while willfully ignoring the conference championship and head to head results
I'm no Pedo State fan, but letting committees ignore significant on the field accomplishments such as CCG and head to head makes a mockery of the whole process.
Ohio St - 1 loss with a better schedule
Penn St - 2 losses with not as good of a schedule
It's really that easy. Move on to arguing that Penn St should be in rather than Washington, because that one actually could have merits.
clenz wrote:
When it comes to stupid tied breakers deciding who should have even been in that game was fucking stupid.
They were legitimately about to flip a coin to decide who got to play in the game.
None of that matters. The fact of the matter is that winning your conference doesn't guarantee a playoff spot...which begs the question: Why even have a CCG if it is meaningless? Which we now know it is.
Which is EXACTLY why the entire concept of a "superconference" came out of the pit of Hell. Get a 9-team conference, play everybody, and the overall conference record determines the league champion, no CCG required. Nobody gets a top-four playoff spot without having won their conference. Plus, with smaller conferences, it's MUCH easier to schedule OOC games. The Big Sky's in-conference "OOC games" are stupid, but forced because there isn't a second FCS conference in the area, and it's too expensive to get interregional OOC games on a regular basis.
SuperHornet's Athletics Hall of Fame includes Jacksonville State kicker Ashley Martin, the first girl to score in a Division I football game. She kicked 3 PATs in a 2001 game for J-State.
SDHornet wrote:
None of that matters. The fact of the matter is that winning your conference doesn't guarantee a playoff spot...which begs the question: Why even have a CCG if it is meaningless? Which we now know it is.
Which is EXACTLY why the entire concept of a "superconference" came out of the pit of Hell. Get a 9-team conference, play everybody, and the overall conference record determines the league champion, no CCG required. Nobody gets a top-four playoff spot without having won their conference. Plus, with smaller conferences, it's MUCH easier to schedule OOC games. The Big Sky's in-conference "OOC games" are stupid, but forced because there isn't a second FCS conference in the area, and it's too expensive to get interregional OOC games on a regular basis.
How often are Big Sky teams playing OOC games against conference teams? I only remember it once or twice.
9 team conferences are great....if you're a football only league. That is hell on earth if you are an all sports conference as 10 teams is the ideal set up for basketball, baseball, softball, soccer, and volleyball.
SDHornet wrote:
You forgot to add this disclaimer:
* while willfully ignoring the conference championship and head to head results
I'm no Pedo State fan, but letting committees ignore significant on the field accomplishments such as CCG and head to head makes a mockery of the whole process.
Ohio St - 1 loss with a better schedule
Penn St - 2 losses with not as good of a schedule
It's really that easy. Move on to arguing that Penn St should be in rather than Washington, because that one actually could have merits.
Except there are head to head results and a B10 title in play in this comparison...which are metric supposedly used by the committee when comparing "similar" teams. PSU proved on the field that they are the better team, it's really that easy.
GannonFan wrote:
Ohio St - 1 loss with a better schedule
Penn St - 2 losses with not as good of a schedule
It's really that easy. Move on to arguing that Penn St should be in rather than Washington, because that one actually could have merits.
Except there are head to head results and a B10 title in play in this comparison...which are metric supposedly used by the committee when comparing "similar" teams. PSU proved on the field that they are the better team, it's really that easy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Iowa proved on the field that they are the better team than Michigan. Pitt proved on the field that they are the better team than Penn St. Pitt proved on the field that they are the better team than Clemson. USC proved on the field that they are the better team than Washington. Why are those teams not ranked above the teams they beat on the field? Because they aren't "similar" teams. "Similar" teams don't have dis-similar records. Again, Ohio St had one (1) loss - Penn State had two (2) losses - they are not "similar", hence why the other metrics don't come into play as much.
SDHornet wrote:
Except there are head to head results and a B10 title in play in this comparison...which are metric supposedly used by the committee when comparing "similar" teams. PSU proved on the field that they are the better team, it's really that easy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Iowa proved on the field that they are the better team than Michigan. Pitt proved on the field that they are the better team than Penn St. Pitt proved on the field that they are the better team than Clemson. USC proved on the field that they are the better team than Washington. Why are those teams not ranked above the teams they beat on the field? Because they aren't "similar" teams. "Similar" teams don't have dis-similar records. Again, Ohio St had one (1) loss - Penn State had two (2) losses - they are not "similar", hence why the other metrics don't come into play as much.
Not similar but are in the same conference...with a head to head result...but are not better...mmkay...
