I think Ohio State is a lock, but...

[GannonFan]

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...

Pitt's in the same conference as Clemson, Iowa is in the same conference as Michigan. They have head to head results too. Stop looking at one game or even 8 games, look at the entire body of work from late August to now. Again, Ohio St one (1) loss, Penn St two (2) losses. 1<2. Two is more than one. It really is easy math.

[SDHornet]

Not similar but are in the same conference...with a head to head result...but are not better...mmkay...

Pitt's in the same conference as Clemson, Iowa is in the same conference as Michigan. They have head to head results too. Stop looking at one game or even 8 games, look at the entire body of work from late August to now. Again, Ohio St one (1) loss, Penn St two (2) losses. 1<2. Two is more than one. It really is easy math.

We're going in circles. Winning the head to head and conference title in the 2nd toughest conference should mean something. Under your logic it does not. It's really that easy.

[GannonFan]

Pitt's in the same conference as Clemson, Iowa is in the same conference as Michigan. They have head to head results too. Stop looking at one game or even 8 games, look at the entire body of work from late August to now. Again, Ohio St one (1) loss, Penn St two (2) losses. 1<2. Two is more than one. It really is easy math.

We're going in circles. Winning the head to head and conference title in the 2nd toughest conference should mean something. Under your logic it does not. It's really that easy.

Of course it should mean something, I mean, Penn State is ranked as the highest two loss team so it clearly meant something. But again, you're focusing on the wrong argument. Focus on whether Penn St should be in over Washington - there's no argument that would put them in over Ohio St.

[SDHornet]

We're going in circles. Winning the head to head and conference title in the 2nd toughest conference should mean something. Under your logic it does not. It's really that easy.

Of course it should mean something, I mean, Penn State is ranked as the highest two loss team so it clearly meant something. But again, you're focusing on the wrong argument. Focus on whether Penn St should be in over Washington - there's no argument that would put them in over Ohio St.

Uhh..yeah...it's the head to head and B10 title...which is what I've told you for about 20 times now.

[GannonFan]

Of course it should mean something, I mean, Penn State is ranked as the highest two loss team so it clearly meant something. But again, you're focusing on the wrong argument. Focus on whether Penn St should be in over Washington - there's no argument that would put them in over Ohio St.

Uhh..yeah...it's the head to head and B10 title...which is what I've told you for about 20 times now.

Because you call them similar teams. Apparently having dis-similar records eludes you. You're using a tie-breaker type argument when no tie exists.

[SDHornet]

Uhh..yeah...it's the head to head and B10 title...which is what I've told you for about 20 times now.

Because you call them similar teams. Apparently having dis-similar records eludes you. You're using a tie-breaker type argument when no tie exists.

Playoffs don't emphasize head to head results or conference titles. Got it.

[GannonFan]

Because you call them similar teams. Apparently having dis-similar records eludes you. You're using a tie-breaker type argument when no tie exists.

Playoffs don't emphasize head to head results or conference titles. Got it.

They would if Penn St and Ohio St both had one loss, you know, if they were tied. That's where you use tie breakers. It's kinda in the word "tie" "breaker". They weren't tied, therefore weren't "similar" teams, and therefore less weight given to the head to head result and the conference title.

Just like how Pitt isn't in the playoff and Clemson is. And that's the loss that hurt Penn St - losing to Pitt while Ohio St was beating Oklahoma. At the end of the season, adding up all the conference and out of conference games, that's the difference between Ohio St and Penn St and why there wasn't a tie that needed to be broken.

[JohnStOnge]

Hopefully after this season they'll go to 8 teams as the obvious next step is to make sure that each Power 5 conference champion gets in. 3 at large berths. If it was like that this year and you went by the college football playoff rankings the Big 10 would have four teams in. You'd have the automatic bids as Alabama, Penn State, Clemson, Washington, and Oklahoma then the three at larges would be Ohio State, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

[clenz]

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.

Iowa is better than Michigan because they beat Michigan
Michigan isn't better than Penn State even though they beat them by 39...

Logic failure by those pissy about PSU not getting with their dumbass CCG win.

PSU has 2 losses. One is a "meh" loss at best and the other was borderline rape. They aren't a top 4 team.

[bandl]

PSU has 2 losses. One is a "meh" loss at best and the other was borderline rape. They aren't a top 4 team.

It's not that, it's the fact that a team that couldn't even make it to the CCG, let alone win their own division, is in the playoffs. That's my argument...if you can't at the very least make it to the CCG (having to win the CCG might be too restrictive if we're really only talking about the 5 power conferences...maybe? Still talking about 10 possible teams) then you shouldn't be eligible for the playoffs.

[SuperHornet]

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.

It happens every stinking year for MOST of the conference. We usually play OOC against Weber if they're out of our in-conference rotation.

[clenz]

How often are Big Sky teams playing OOC games against conference teams? I only remember it once or twice.

It happens every stinking year for MOST of the conference. We usually play OOC against Weber if they're out of our in-conference rotation.

Are you willing to put a bet on the frequency at which it happens?

You know i'll do the research

[Grizalltheway]

It happens every stinking year for MOST of the conference. We usually play OOC against Weber if they're out of our in-conference rotation.

Are you willing to put a bet on the frequency at which it happens?

You know i'll do the research

EWU and MSU have an agreement to play each other OOC in years in which they don't play a conference game.

I don't know if we have a formal agreement, but it seems like we play Cal Poly every season, be it a conference game or not.

In other words it's definitely happened more than once or twice since the Big Sky expanded.

[Mvemjsunpx]

Are you willing to put a bet on the frequency at which it happens?

You know i'll do the research

EWU and MSU have an agreement to play each other OOC in years in which they don't play a conference game.

I don't know if we have a formal agreement, but it seems like we play Cal Poly every season, be it a conference game or not.

In other words it's definitely happened more than once or twice since the Big Sky expanded.

There's been at least one every year, and this was the first season to have fewer than three.


2012: CP@EWU

• PSU@UND
  UNC@SAC

2013: UM@UND

• NAU@UCD
  PSU@UCD
  SUU@SAC

2014: PSU@CP

• EWU@MSU
  WEB@SAC

2015: CP@UM

• MSU@EWU
  SAC@WEB

2016: SAC@WEB

[BDKJMU]

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.

Yep. Clempson absolutely curb stomping Ohio State, who wasn't one of the Big 10s top 2 teams, shows just how much of a crock it was that Ohio State got in over PSU. PSU beat Ohio St in the regular season, and they would have beaten them again if they had played last night.

[JohnStOnge]

Yep. Clempson absolutely curb stomping Ohio State, who wasn't one of the Big 10s top 2 teams, shows just how much of a crock it was that Ohio State got in over PSU. PSU beat Ohio St in the regular season, and they would have beaten them again if they had played last night.

I think Ohio State was indeed the best team from the Big 10 but I don't think anybody from the Big 10 would have much of a shot against Clemson if Clemson plays like it did yesterday. That was actually the first time I've seen Clemson this year. I assumed they were down significantly from last year because of the scores in some of their games and the fact that they lost to Pitt. But they look good everywhere. They look good on both lines of scrimmage. They look good at the offensive skill positions. They look good in the secondary. They look good on special teams.

Should be an interesting final game. I'll be pulling for Clemson and I think they've got a legit shot. In watching yesterday I thought Washington had a shot even though Alabama was clearly the better team because Washington's defense was doing a noble job. But to have any shot they needed to avoid stuff like giving Alabama an easy pick 6 and they didn't do that.

Ohio State had NO shot against Clemson; which really surprised me. I didn't realize Clemson is THAT good this year.

[Vidav]

FBS.

[SDHornet]

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.

Yep. Clempson absolutely curb stomping Ohio State, who wasn't one of the Big 10s top 2 teams, shows just how much of a crock it was that Ohio State got in over PSU. PSU beat Ohio St in the regular season, and they would have beaten them again if they had played last night.

At the idiots claiming OSU deserved it. This is what the committee gets for going with a paper tiger instead of the team that earned it on the field.

My work in this thread is done.

[andy7171]

tOSU really shit the bed. Proving Penn State deserved to play Clemson. Win or lose vs Clemson, PSU was the better team.

[SDHornet]

Logic failure by those pissy about PSU not getting with their dumbass CCG win.

Whoops.

[JohnStOnge]

tOSU really **** the bed. Proving Penn State deserved to play Clemson. Win or lose vs Clemson, PSU was the better team.

I don't think they were and I don't think they'd have had any shot against Clemson either. As we all know the best team doesn't always win head to head. Upsets happen. And I think Ohio State losing to Penn State was an upset. Ohio State outgained Penn State 413 to 276. They were able to move the ball better, etc. Penn State did a great job of playing hard and hanging in then they got a TD on a blocked field goal return at the end. The only thing that counts in terms of winning or losing is the scoreboard and they won.

But If you were picking who the best football team was in the Big 10 this past season it was Ohio State with Michigan a very close second. It wasn't Penn State.

[JohnStOnge]

Having said all that I still think that there is a serious problem with a playoff system designed so that the champion of a major conference doesn't get into the tournament while one of their conference mates who they beat during the regular season does get in. They really do need to expand it so that at the least all five of the Power 5 conference champs get in.

[bandl]

Having said all that I still think that there is a serious problem with a playoff system designed so that the champion of a major conference doesn't get into the tournament while one of their conference mates who they beat during the regular season does get in. They really do need to expand it so that at the least all five of the Power 5 conference champs get in.

As I said earlier in this thread (or maybe it was another one, I ain't looking it up)...
they need to change the criteria so that at the very least a team has to make it to the CCG in order to qualify for the playoffs. Which would still leave at least 10 teams (assuming the big 5 conferences) for the committee to choose from.

[GannonFan]

What are we complaining about? Clemson played so much better than people have given them credit for all year that even Vegas, which once had a Clemson/Bama game as a double digit line for Bama has brought the line down to 6 (now up to 7 in most places) for the game on Monday. It didn't matter if it was Ohio St or Penn State or Michigan in that game - any of those teams would've been curb stomped. Heck, Michigan couldn't hang with Florida State and Penn St coughed up a 14 point lead in the 4th quarter to a 3-loss USC team. None of those teams were going to beat Clemson. All three top Big Ten teams lost their bowl games and Clemson was by leaps and bounds the best of the teams they played.

And for people complaining about FBS and how they determine their champion, I'm not sure this is the year to complain about it - is there any doubt that Alabama and Clemson are far and away the best two teams out there? Why do we need to add 4 more teams to the playoff to prove that?

[clenz]

What are we complaining about? Clemson played so much better than people have given them credit for all year that even Vegas, which once had a Clemson/Bama game as a double digit line for Bama has brought the line down to 6 (now up to 7 in most places) for the game on Monday. It didn't matter if it was Ohio St or Penn State or Michigan in that game - any of those teams would've been curb stomped. Heck, Michigan couldn't hang with Florida State and Penn St coughed up a 14 point lead in the 4th quarter to a 3-loss USC team. None of those teams were going to beat Clemson. All three top Big Ten teams lost their bowl games and Clemson was by leaps and bounds the best of the teams they played.

And for people complaining about FBS and how they determine their champion, I'm not sure this is the year to complain about it - is there any doubt that Alabama and Clemson are far and away the best two teams out there? Why do we need to add 4 more teams to the playoff to prove that?

Couldn't hang?

Bitch, outside of a disasterous first quarter Michigan won the other 3 quarters...the first quarter was just that bad. Hell, outside of 2 plays Michigan dominated that game - a 91 yard TD pass (completely blown coverage and FSU took advantage of it) and a 3rd and 22 drawish play that had horrid arm tackling that went for 71 yards and set up a TD.

Can't take those plays out and blah blah blah. The reality is, outside of those 2 plays Michigan "won" the game. Outside those two plays Florida State had 130 yards passing and 78 yards rushing (2.2 ypc). They had just 13 first downs. Held the ball for less than 25 minutes.

Yes, Florida State won the game by 1, but to say Michigan couldn't handle them? Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit.