Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

We Are Penn St???

a 1-loss PSU squad with a Big Ten Title in their pocket would be hard to leave out

could easily bump OU or Texas from the XII

obviously this would come down to relative strengths of conferences and schedules

We Are Penn St???

a 1-loss PSU squad with a Big Ten Title in their pocket would be hard to leave out

could easily bump OU or Texas from the XII

obviously this would come down to relative strengths of conferences and schedules

Maybe Penn State?  But they just don't turn on as many television sets as Texas, so if it came down to it, I'd expect the Horns to go. 

you are correct, but I feel PSU's helmet is shiny enough to get the nod

unless ESPN/SEC really does hate the Big Ten as Badger believess

I think a 1-loss Texas with a decent in-conference loss and an OOC win over any of these teams on our schedule for the next 10 years: LSU, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Georgia, or Florida (which gets us through 2031), is going to get the nod over PSU.  Every time.  You can certainly disagree, but it wouldn't make much sense.

The trick, of course, is for Texas to get to that point.  We're a long way off right now.

Agreed on point one, but I don't think it is just UT or OU.  IMHO, any undefeated P5 team is getting in unless there are five or six of them (in theory there could be six counting ND) and one or more HAS to get left out. 

I am not really bothered by the BOTD that Clemson and the SEC get.  They have earned it.  The non-Bama SEC teams haven't really earned it, but any team that wins the SEC will have either beaten Bama or beaten a team that did.  I'm ok with that. 

You are probably right with regard to the PAC and non-Clemson ACC.  The PAC is 1-2 in CFP games, the win was in the very first CFP game, and the two losses were not particularly close.  The non-Clemson ACC is 0-1.  The problem is that the B12's 0-4 is also not good. 

By conference:

• 8-4 SEC about to be either 9-4 or 8-5 (6-3 Bama, 1-1 UGA, 1-0 LSU)
• 6-3 ACC about to be either 7-3 or 6-4 (6-2 Clemson, 0-1 FSU)
• 2-3 B1G (2-2 tOSU, 0-1 MSU)
• 1-2 PAC (1-1 Oregon, 0-1 Washington)
• 0-4 B12 (all OU)
• 0-1 Independent (all ND)

As you know, I don't think it is nearly as much about "helmet" as you do.  I do think that it is possible that a 12-1 OU or UT could get bumped for a 12-1 Wisconsin.  If it was only about helmet, obviously OU/UT would win that but if you look at CFP results, UW is from a conference that is 2-3 and OU/UT are from a conference that is 0-4.  The thing is that it will be hard to tell because there will always be a lot of moving parts.  How good/bad were the teams' OOC's?  How dominant/close were their wins?  How good was the rest of the league and therefore their SoS? 

Yes, we'll continue to disagree fundamentally on this one.  I'll focus specifically on Texas here, because OU is the team that keeps losing and it could be held against them.  


But over the next decade+, Texas' OOC is: LSUx1, Alabama x2, Ohio State x2, Michigan x2, Georgia x2, Florida x2.  So if Texas beats one of those teams in the OOC, and has a reasonable loss in-conference, there aren't a whole lot of scenarios where Texas is going to get bumped.

As for non-Ohio State teams in the CFP, well everyone also remembers Alabama 38, Michigan State 0.  I think you're assuming too much halo-effect for OTHER B1G teams, when it's really just Ohio State that has held its own in the CFP.

So no, I don't think Ohio State's halo effect alone, is going to be enough to put in a non-helmet B1G team over Texas, regardless of how many times OU has pooped the bed.  It'll take something beyond that, like Texas' sole loss being something REALLY bad, to make that happen.

Oh, I meant to add that if Texas went undefeated in-conference but LOST the marquee OOC game, then the situation would get way murkier.  It would depend then, on how close the loss was, and what the rest of the SOS for all teams being considered, were.

I agree.  IMHO, the most survivable losses in the CFP era are:

• A conference loss to a good team that does NOT keep you out of the CG.  
• Any conference loss that does NOT keep you out of the CG.  
• An OOC loss to a team that is good enough to be excusable but not so good that you end up compared to them H2H for a CFP spot.  
• A conference loss that keeps you out of the CG.  
• An OOC loss to a bad team.  
• An OOC loss to a team that is in contention for a CFP spot.  

When you lose in conference, as long as it doesn't keep you out of the CG, you can still "prove" that you are the better team.  Last year's tOSU loss to PU is a great example.  It wasn't even close, 49-20 but by season's end they had five common opponents:

• Northwestern:  tOSU won 45-24, PU lost 31-27
• Minnesota:  tOSU won 30-14, PU lost 41-10
• Nebraska:  tOSU won 36-31, PU won 42-28
• Indiana:  tOSU won 49-26, PU won 28-21
• Michigan State:  tOSU won 26-6, PU lost 23-13

Not only did tOSU go 5-0 to PU's 2-3 but one of PU's two wins (IU) was substantially smaller than tOSU's win against the same team.  As it turned out, that was NOT survivable for tOSU THAT year, but that is close to the best loss you could have.  The only things that would make it better would be if it had been closer and if PU had finished with a more respectable record (instead of 6-6 on selection day).  

When you lose OOC the problem is that a lot of people are going to wonder if you really are worse than that team and then obviously worse than whoever wins their conference if they don't.  Ie, if Texas had finished 12-1 after the loss to LSU this year but say Bama won the SEC at 12-1 while LSU finished 11-1 there is little or no chance that Texas would have gotten in over an 11-1 LSU team that beat them and lost only to Bama.  

I'd love for Texas to be good enough to test your theories against mine.

It is always going to be difficult to test theories because there are a slew of potential reasons including:

• Helmetosity
• SoS
• Dominance of wins
• Quality wins
• Closeness (or lack of closeness) of loss
• Quality (or lack of quality) of loss
• Recent history of team (or conference) in CFP/NY6 games
• Conference Title

It is always going to be impossible to hold seven of those constant and compare solely based on the other one.  Furthermore, in any case in which it is debatable each team is going to have an advantage on at least one of those categories and it is usually going to be more like 4-3 or 5-2.  

Ohio State has been involved in enough of these controversies that they are a decent comparison.  
2014 on those characteristics tOSU vs Baylor:

• Helmetosity:  Big advantage to tOSU
• SoS:  Big advantage to tOSU (don't pick SMU, Buffalo, and a bad FCS team as your OOC)
• Dominance of wins:  Fairly close, advantage to Baylor earlier in the season, tOSU later.  
• Quality wins:  Baylor beat #6 TCU, #11 KSU; tOSU beat #8 MSU, #18 UW, #25 MN.  You can argue this either way, Baylor's are higher ranked but tOSU has more.  
• Closeness of loss:  Both lost by 14
• Quality of loss:  Baylor lost on the road to a WVU team that was 7-5 on selection day, tOSU lost at home to a VaTech team that was 6-6 on selection day.  Advantage Baylor but it is close.  
• Recent history of team (or conference) in CFP/NY6 games:  Slight advantage to tOSU, they had lost close to Clemson the previous year in the Orange Bowl, Baylor had lost to UCF in the Fiesta.  
• Conference Title:  tOSU was and I think the committee treated Baylor as one as well.  

I get two big advantages for tOSU and six that are pretty close to toss-ups.  If the comparison had been between tOSU and TCU I think it would have been closer because TCU's SoS was better than Baylor's and their loss was MUCH better than either tOSU's or Baylor's.  While tOSU and Baylor both lost by two TD's to a ~.500 team, TCU lost by a FG to a 12-1 team.  I think the committee picked Baylor over TCU based on H2H then picked tOSU over Baylor based on SoS and 59-0.  

As you know, I believe their decision was far, far simpler than that.

But the Buckeyes did make it easy on the Committee by obliterating their B1G CCG opponent.  And tOSU was certainly deserving, I'd never claim they weren't.  I believed that even without them ultimately winning the CFP championship.

As I said above, I think it would have been a MUCH tougher call if it had been between tOSU and TCU but I think in the committee's mind it was between B12 Champion Baylor (because they had the H2H over TCU) and B1G Champion tOSU.  Looked at that way, after the B1GCG it really wasn't very close in my mind.  If you ignore helmet completely tOSU still was roughly even with TCU in every other category except SoS where tOSU was WAY better.  

I appreciate your comment about "even without them ultimately winning".  A while back we had someone on here claiming that tOSU got all kinds of breaks that they didn't deserve and he used tOSU's 31-0 loss to Clemson in the 2016 CFP to "prove" that they didn't belong but tried to claim that tOSU's NC in 2014 was not valid evidence that they DID belong in 2014 and similarly that Baylor's 2014 Bowl loss was not valid evidence either.  

IMHO, what happens in the CFP doesn't prove or disprove anything either way.  The decision is made on selection day without knowing what will happen and that is that.  I can see an argument that it is valid but I can't stand when someone tries to cherry-pick and say that it counts when it supports their argument but doesn't count when it doesn't.  CFP results either are evidence or they are not.  If they are then 2014's results "prove" that tOSU deserved their shot and 2016's results suggest that they did not.  If they are not then neither are relevant.  You just can't have it both ways and I'm glad that at least you aren't trying to but plenty of people do.