CFB51 College Football Fan Community

The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: MaximumSam on October 16, 2017, 12:09:57 PM

Title: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MaximumSam on October 16, 2017, 12:09:57 PM
With all these losses thinning out thee ranks of undefeated teams, things are getting a lot clearer in the playoff race.  There are eight total teams.  South Florida and Central Florida play each other, aren't in the Power 5, and have almost nothing of OOC strength of schedule, so I'm throwing them out.

That leaves:
Alabama
Georgia
Wisconsin
Penn State
TCU
Miami U.

All of these teams have a clear path to the playoffs - win out and they are in.  Because Alabama/UGA and PSU/Wiscy would have to cross paths, only 4 teams can actually end up undefeated.

Of course, it is unlikely we end up with 4 undefeated teams.  Wazzu and WSU losing made a clearer path for one loss teams to make the playoffs.  For example, if OSU won out, they would still probably be behind the undefeated teams and a 1 loss Oklahoma team.  But they are probably ahead of a 1 loss Pac 12 champion.

So, IMO, the standings are looking roughly like this.

1. SEC champ (undefeated Bama is a clear #1, undefeated Georgia might be behind an undefeated PSU)
2. B1G champ (An undefeated champ not jumping Bama, but may rise to 1 is Bama loses. UM, OSU, MSU all in range)
3. ACC champ (Potentially an undefeated Miami.  More likely a 1 loss Clemson or NC State)
4. B12 Champ (TCU is undefeated, Oklahoma and Okie State with 1 loss)

- Notre Dame is a potential wild card here.  If they win out against a schedule that includes USC, Stanford, and Miami, they'll have a strong argument.  If the beat Miami and Miami wins the ACC, they are probably ahead of them.  
- Pac 12 in a tough situation, but not out of it.  They are probably last out of the conferences, but there is every possibility that 2 loss teams could win a conference, which would put a 1 loss Pac 12 champ right in the mix.  USC probably the favorite based on name brand recognition.  If they beat ND and win the conference people would probably talk about them like last year, where they ended up on a hot streak.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on October 16, 2017, 12:42:58 PM
I truly hope a Big XII team is in, then loses in their unnecessary championship game and it keeps the conference out.

I hate all CCGs, but theirs is a new level of nonsensical
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on October 16, 2017, 12:52:13 PM
Notre Dame also plays ranked NCSU, which gets forgotten in all of this stuff.

UGA at 13-0 would have a better SoS than Alabama at 13-0.  For one thing, they would have beaten Alabama.  For another, Notre Dame and Georgia Tech are tougher than FSU.  Both play Auburn away.  

Clemson plays at NCSU.  NCSU has a pretty solid team.  So does Clemson, depending on QB situation.

Ohio State seems to be coming alive on offense.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 16, 2017, 01:23:32 PM
UW has no chance. Not with the SOS they are carrying around. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on October 16, 2017, 01:26:39 PM
Badgers have a chance to win out

that will be plenty
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on October 16, 2017, 02:15:50 PM
Any 13-0 or 12-1 conference champion is likely in the Dance obviously.  B1G teams all play 9 conference games which is better than 8.  I think the Pac may be left out because of parity (and/or mediocrity).  The B12 could similarly beat up on each other and get left out.

We just had an "Upset Weekend", and could easily have another.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on October 16, 2017, 02:17:17 PM
I simply hope the committee has to make a choice and not just pick the 4 teams with the fewest losses
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 16, 2017, 02:22:05 PM
Badgers have a chance to win out

that will be plenty
But they won't. They are their own worst enemy right now. 500 yards of offense led to 17 points. 

(https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panels/2012/5-5/BtMcBTQ1Q2-2.png)
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on October 16, 2017, 02:30:18 PM
crazy game

the ISU cyclones had less than 350 yards and put 45 points on the Jay birds
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on October 16, 2017, 02:33:03 PM
Badgers have a chance to win out

that will be plenty
+1
There can be no more than four undefeated P5 teams and if the Badgers get there, they are in.  That said:
But they won't. They are their own worst enemy right now. 500 yards of offense led to 17 points. 

(https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panels/2012/5-5/BtMcBTQ1Q2-2.png)
Badge clearly has a point here.  They also kept Northwestern in the game with a lost fumble and two picks.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on October 16, 2017, 03:13:15 PM
I simply hope the committee has to make a choice and not just pick the 4 teams with the fewest losses
They will make a choice, to pick the four conference champions with the fewest losses.
They occasionally will choose an at large, but that will be rare.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on October 16, 2017, 03:49:14 PM
I simply hope the committee has to make a choice and not just pick the 4 teams with the fewest losses

this, drives me nuts. I hate the whole "well, they are a conference champion deal."

Last year if you believed Washington was one of the 4 best teams in the country, then I'm fine with that, but the schedule was very weak for a Power 5 school. And I hate to say it, but the 2017 Badgers schedule is similarily very weak. The same with 2017 Washington this year, and some other contenders as well. Penn States OOC blows, but they get the advantage of playing in the East with highly ranked teams and then a game vs Wiscy in Indy.

promoting the fewest losses just means you shouldn't schedule anyone with a pulse which is bad for college football.

I was glad to see Ohio State get in for obvious reasons, but the Buckeyes had 3 top 10 wins and a top 10 loss last year, the schedule was extremely tough.

It's why I wouldn't mind seeing someone get in with a 2 losses at some point. If you are power 5 team, say Penn St and you went out and played Oklahoma, Va Tech and Cal for instance. You go 2-1 against that, then 8-1 in the BIG and win the BIG title game then I still think that's deserving of getting in vs a team that played nobody, went 3-0 or 4-0 vs cupcakes played in the weaker division in their conference and had zero or 1 losses.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on October 16, 2017, 03:57:21 PM
Here are a few teams you might have over looked who "control their own destiny":

Virginia
NCSU (aforementioned)
Georgia Tech (only if Miami loses twice)

WVU
Texas (sort of if OU loses twice)

Arizona State and Arizona

Kentucky
Auburn - LSU - Texas A&M - sort of, well if Auburn upended Alabama and won out they'd be in, unless LSU also wins out.

What this really means is how little conference play has concluded at this point.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on October 16, 2017, 08:18:04 PM

Texas (sort of if OU loses twice)

if OU loses once and the Horns get a rematch in the CCG
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Kris61 on October 16, 2017, 09:14:19 PM
I truly hope a Big XII team is in, then loses in their unnecessary championship game and it keeps the conference out.

I hate all CCGs, but theirs is a new level of nonsensical
Amen.  Not only is it nonsensical but it also made the road tougher than it needed to be.  Not only is it the only conference with a round robin conference schedule and a CCG it is the only one that guarantees the top 2 teams in the standings will play each other.
I can totally, TOTALLY see your wish coming true.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on October 16, 2017, 09:20:51 PM
ha, I've been hoping for years that the underdogs would win ALL the CCGs.

That just might get a couple 2 loss teams in the playoffs!
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MaximumSam on October 29, 2017, 08:36:03 AM
First playoff ranking comes out this week.

Alabama and Georgia will almost certainly be 1 and 2, as they are both undefeated.  Then it gets interesting.  If I had to guess I'd go ND 3 and OSU 4, but that makes me look like a homer.  I don't know what they will do with Wisconsin and Miami.  Oklahoma could certainly be in there.  Oh and the defending champs Clemson.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on October 30, 2017, 02:44:12 PM
I believe OSU is one of the 4 best teams right now, but in good conscience I couldn't put them in yet.

My 4 as of today
1) Georgia, they look the part, and have some nice wins
2) Bama. They look the part, but don't have the nice wins
3) Clemson, probably best collection of wins
4) ND, this was a tough call, but they've played pretty well and have some nice wins. I think the USC win is getting overplayed, I think USC is pretty average this year. The NC state win looks nice though
5) I got Ohio St, I wont complain if you want Oklahoma here, but they've looked pretty crappy except against the Bucks
6) Penn St. The defense leaves lots of questions for me, I think this could be a top 4 team but they won't be able to prove it. Unfortunately no matter what happens I'm not sure I can move them much higher than this, I'd be more apt to have teams jump them, like Wisconsin, Miami, TCU, Oky St assuming they get wins.
7) Wisconsin, haven't beaten anyone good, but in a 1 game shot, they could probably play with most teams
8) OU, defense is atrocious, seemed to have lost a step after the OSU win
9) Miami, undefeated, but don't look good 
10) TCU, I'm just not sure how good they are.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TyphonInc on October 30, 2017, 03:05:06 PM
I'd go:

1 - Alabama
2 - Georgia
3 - Wisconsin
4 - Miami

These guys have to lose in order for them to move out / someone move in.

5 - ND - best loss, good wins
6 - OSU - next best loss, great win

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on October 30, 2017, 03:38:09 PM
The CFP rankings may differ from the AP and Coaches polls, but I don't think any difference will be important for now.  My take:

Teams that effectively control their own destiny:

Teams that need help but are still alive:

The above covers all 13 undefeated and 1-loss P5 teams.  The various 2-loss P5 teams may have a theoretical chance but it would require a whole bunch of upsets.  

The B12 mess:
It is exceedingly difficult to make heads or tails of the B12 because more than half of the league is either 3-2 or 4-1 and still legitimately in the title race.  Here are the six contenders and how each has done against the other five:

Beyond that:

Oklahoma is the most serious CFP threat.  They have a great OOC road win at Ohio State.  The others all have either at least two losses or a completely crap OOC.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on October 31, 2017, 08:35:04 AM
On the eve of the first rankings, this would be my playoff if the season ended right now:

#1 Alabama vs. #4 Clemson
#2 Georgia vs. #3 Miami

Next two weeks should clear up if Miami actually belongs or not, so it's a pretty pointless snapshot of them right now.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MaximumSam on October 31, 2017, 01:25:06 PM
Good article from Bill Connelly on the playoffs.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/10/31/16580214/college-football-playoff-national-championship-odds-2017-favorites-teams

It's hard to get too excited about say, Bama, Georgia, Miami, and Clemson being in the playoff, since Georgia and Bama will play and Miami and Clemson will play if they win their divisions.  These games will necessarily change the dynamics.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MaximumSam on October 31, 2017, 08:45:17 PM
1(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/southeaste/Georgia.png)University of Georgia8-0
2(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/southeaste/alabama_logo.png)University of Alabama8-0
3(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_east/NotreDame.png)University of Notre Dame7-1
4(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/atlantic_c/Clemson.png)Clemson University7-1
5(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_12/Oklahoma.png)University of Oklahoma7-1
6(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_ten/ohio_state_logo.png)Ohio State University7-1
7(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_ten/PSU.png)Penn State University7-1
8(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/mountain_w/Texas-Christian-University.png)Texas Christian University7-1
9(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_ten/Wisconsin.png)University of Wisconsin8-0
10(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/atlantic_c/Miami.png)University of Miami7-0
11(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_12/oklahoma-state.png)Oklahoma State University7-1
12(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/pac-12/University-of-Washington.png)University of Washington7-1
13(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/atlantic_c/Virginia-Tech.png)Virginia Tech7-1
14(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/southeaste/auburn_logo.png)Auburn University6-2
15(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_12/Iowa_State.png)Iowa State University6-2
16(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/southeaste/mstate_logo.png)Mississippi State University6-2
17(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/pac-12/usc-primary-200x200.png)University of Southern California7-2
18(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/conference/UCF.png)University of Central Florida7-0
19(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/southeaste/LSU.png)Louisiana State University6-2
20(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/atlantic_c/North_Carolina_State.png)North Carolina State University6-2
21(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/pac-12/stanford_logo_360.png)Stanford University6-2
22(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/pac-12/arizona_.png)University of Arizona6-2
23(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/conference/memphis_tigers.png)University of Memphis7-1
24(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_ten/Michigan-State.png)Michigan State University6-2
25(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/pac-12/WSU_Cougars.png)Washington State University7-2
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MaximumSam on October 31, 2017, 08:52:29 PM
Nothing to much to quibble there, except maybe Alabama, whose best win is...Fresno State?  I mean, they are a good team and deserve their ranking, but Georgia, Clemson, and ND seem to be there by beating good teams.  Alabama, not so much.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MarqHusker on October 31, 2017, 11:58:08 PM
Piles of games to go.  Nothing to see here.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2017, 07:55:01 AM
Ed zachery

if the season ended today the committee would have went with 4 undefeated teams
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 01, 2017, 11:50:30 AM
Ed zachery

if the season ended today the committee would have went with 4 undefeated teams


this is part of the problem with the rankings, it's almost like the committee wants to send a message, and they hold the whole "body of work thing" isn't complete until the final one, at which point they might flip it all around.

If this was the last poll, I sort of agree that wiscy and Miami would have been higher.

I wish they would rank some 2 loss teams above 1 loss, if the 2 loss team has some nice wins and the 1 loss team hasn't done squat. they do that a little bit with the 1 loss vs 0 loss but probably  not enough. if you want to get better OOC games then you have to reward teams that lost those as well, assuming they didn't get their doors blown off anyways
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 01, 2017, 12:37:53 PM
Piles of games to go.  Nothing to see here.
I know what you mean, but I do feel that I learned something relevant here, specifically:

That the B12 is in relatively better and the P12 in relatively worse shape than I thought.  

Oklahoma's #5 ranking makes it clear that the Sooner's control their own destiny (because either UGA or Bama necessarily must lose).  The Sooners have games remaining against #11 OkSU and #8 TCU and (assuming they win out) against another ranked team in a rematch in the B12CG.  

Washington's #12 ranking makes it clear that the P12 is the first P5 conference out.  The Huskies have games remaining against #21 Stanford and #25 Washington State and the best-case-scenario for their P12CG opponent would be #17 USC.  Washington is not out of the race by any means but they need help because it is pretty clear that they would be behind all of the following:

Thus the Huskies could win out and still finish ranked #6.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 01, 2017, 01:21:07 PM
That the B12 is in relatively better and the P12 in relatively worse shape than I thought.  
The Pac 12 is in trouble because it's incredibly deep with no great team, which is a killer in this format.

The other issue is we have the two bid-stealers this year in Notre Dame and a 12-1 SEC CCG loser.

You leave 3 of the 5 conferences out, and that will really get the ball rolling on an 8 team playoff with 5 auto-bids
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 01, 2017, 01:27:53 PM
Speaking of conference strength, there is more parity across the conferences than I think we've seen since it started becoming a thing.

Week to Week Conference Ranking based on Composite Computer ranking

ACC - 3 - 3 - 4 - 3 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 2
BXII - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5
B1G - 4 - 4 - 3 - 4 - 3 - 1 - 3 - 2 - 1
P12 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 3 - 3
SEC - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4

Particularly at the top among the ACC, Big Ten and Pac 12, it's almost rotated week to week.  SEC has been consistently #4 and Big XII at the bottom.  Also kind of funny that in the SECs worst year in over a decade, they are looking at getting two teams in for the first time, which was always the flaw is using NCs won as the measure of a conference.  The SEC was the best for a while, but because of its depth, not simply because their top team was the best.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2017, 02:23:52 PM
Ed zachery

if the season ended today the committee would have went with 4 undefeated teams


this is part of the problem with the rankings, it's almost like the committee wants to send a message, and they hold the whole "body of work thing" isn't complete until the final one, at which point they might flip it all around.

If this was the last poll, I sort of agree that wiscy and Miami would have been higher.

I wish they would rank some 2 loss teams above 1 loss, if the 2 loss team has some nice wins and the 1 loss team hasn't done squat. they do that a little bit with the 1 loss vs 0 loss but probably  not enough. if you want to get better OOC games then you have to reward teams that lost those as well, assuming they didn't get their doors blown off anyways
I don't know who this Ed person is, but he was wrong, clearly, as two undefeated P5 teams are well down the list.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2017, 04:35:25 PM
they wouldn't be well down the list if this was the last poll

Badgers and Canes would be in the top 4
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2017, 05:15:42 PM
Duh, any 13-0 P5 team is going to make it into the Final Four.  I don't see anyone anywhere saying otherwise.  Obviously the number of losses is a huge factor, but it isn't JUST that.  To imply otherwise is disingenuous in my opinion.

Miami has been smoke and mirrors all year and Wisconsin hasn't really been tested either.  If either go 13-0, they should obviously be "in".





Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2017, 06:20:39 PM
Obviously the number of losses is a huge factor, but it isn't JUST that.  To imply otherwise is disingenuous in my opinion.

It was JUST that last season.  And I suspect it will be JUST that again this season

yes, my argument is that if Wisconsin and Miami go undefeated they will both jump those above them this week and be in the top 4.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2017, 07:00:04 PM
You need a pretty good reason to jump a 2 loss team ahead of a one loss team into the FF, and since that has not yet happened, that good reason has not happened.

I can't point to a Final Four pick that had some egregious error in it.  I can't point to any 2 loss team that should have been included.

It is going to be the general case that a 12-1 team is ahead of an 11-2 team UNLESS there is a pretty good reason otherwise.  This is in the DUH category.

I'm sure it will happen some year.  I don't have a problem with any of this.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MarqHusker on November 01, 2017, 07:16:09 PM
Indy will host the 2022 Championship game.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2017, 07:27:19 PM
A typical schedule for a playoff contender is roughly 4 solid opponents, 4 OK opponents, and 4 pastries (which really cannot possibly win), plus ostensibly a CG against another solid opponent.  Out of the solids, you may find 1 really really good opponent (a PSU, ND type).  The 4 pastries don't count and the 4 OK opponents don't really count either unless you lose to a Syracuse, and then obviously it hurts, but perhaps at times those losses get excused more than a loss like OSU had versus OU.

It's weird to me that Penn State goes on the road to a hostile environment and loses by one point in a great comeback and drops as far as it did.  If one pass happens to be dropped late, PSU is still #2, not #7 or whatever.  In effect, PSU is almost out of the playoff, and they could very well have a top four team (IMHO).

For the Wisconsins and Miamis of the world, they have played some OK opponents and pastries, but have not played a solid opponent to date.  They are for me akin to a Houston or Memphis at 8-0 at this point.  

A playoff team can afford a close loss to a half decent opponent or solid opponent if they are 12-1, but that second loss is simply too much to traverse for most teams who rarely will have 2-3 impressive wins over very very good teams to compensate.  That second loss is too much for compensation unless you happen to have beaten 2 or 3 really good teams, and you rarely have that chance (Iowa State).
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on November 01, 2017, 07:58:43 PM
A typical schedule for a playoff contender is roughly 4 solid opponents, 4 OK opponents, and 4 pastries (which really cannot possibly win), plus ostensibly a CG against another solid opponent.  Out of the solids, you may find 1 really really good opponent (a PSU, ND type).  The 4 pastries don't count and the 4 OK opponents don't really count either unless you lose to a Syracuse, and then obviously it hurts, but perhaps at times those losses get excused more than a loss like OSU had versus OU.

It's weird to me that Penn State goes on the road to a hostile environment and loses by one point in a great comeback and drops as far as it did.  If one pass happens to be dropped late, PSU is still #2, not #7 or whatever.  In effect, PSU is almost out of the playoff, and they could very well have a top four team (IMHO).

For the Wisconsins and Miamis of the world, they have played some OK opponents and pastries, but have not played a solid opponent to date.  They are for me akin to a Houston or Memphis at 8-0 at this point.  

A playoff team can afford a close loss to a half decent opponent or solid opponent if they are 12-1, but that second loss is simply too much to traverse for most teams who rarely will have 2-3 impressive wins over very very good teams to compensate.  That second loss is too much for compensation unless you happen to have beaten 2 or 3 really good teams, and you rarely have that chance (Iowa State).
Penn State didn't drop at all in the CFP rankings because last night's rankings were the first this season, so there was no drop possible.  What PSU would have been had it beaten tOSU by 1 point instead of losing is unknowable, but almost certainly would be in the top 4.  Probably #3 behind Bama and UGA.  But that one point loss is still a loss.  Just like Notre Dame's 1-point loss to Georgia is a loss, Clemson's 3-point loss to Syracuse is a loss, and Oklahoma's 7-point loss to Iowa State is a loss.  (Granted, PSU's loss was on the road, but so was Clemson's.)  And, just like Oklahoma's defense collapsed in the 2nd half against Iowa State, Penn State's defense caved in against Ohio State in the 2nd half.  And maybe if PSU didn't get a very favorable review overturn--with which the TV guys disagreed--of what appeared to be a tOSU pick in the end zone, the final score is not as close.

Whether good, bad, or ugly, it was a loss to a team that got beaten at home by 15 points by Oklahoma.  Given that, how can Penn State not be ranked (by the committee) behind Ohio State?  And how can Ohio State not be ranked behind Oklahoma?  It seems to me that since Oklahoma is ranked as high as it could reasonably be ranked, then the same is true for Penn State.

As far as Wisconsin and Miami having played weak schedules, what about Bama?  Bama has ESPN's 51st-ranked SoS.  Wisconsin has the 78th-ranked SoS, but Miami's is 38th.  Maybe Miami fans have a gripe.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2017, 08:31:02 PM
It's not only SoS, but how you handle weaker teams.  Bama has been trouncing people consistently, other than A&M.

That counts, versus sliding by opponents like Miami has done.

Penn State dropped in the two polls and obviously dropped from wherever it would have been had it beaten OSU by a point.

Perhaps someone can point to a team they think should be ranked higher, or lower, in the CFP initial ranking.  Otherwise it's complaining about hypotheticals.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on November 01, 2017, 08:52:46 PM
I think the committee got it about right.  I agree with ranking Georgia ahead of having-beaten-no-one-yet Bama.

This is probably widely known here, but Bama has not played a team that is currently receiving votes in the AP Poll or appears in the CFP rankings.

That's about to change, of course.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2017, 08:54:38 PM
oh my thing is certainly hypothetical..........

I just think it's hypocritical to put undefeated teams such as Wisconsin and Miami down the list in the first poll, but then go by the book of number of losses in the final poll

last season's final poll looked like this..............  

1 Alabama 13-0
2 Clemson 12-1
3 Ohio State 11-1
4 Washington 12-1
5 Penn State 11-2
6 Michigan 10-2
7 Oklahoma 10-2
8 Wisconsin 10-3
9 USC 9-3
10 Colorado 10-3
11 Florida State 9-3
12 Oklahoma State 9-3
13 Louisville 9-3
14 Auburn 8-4
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2017, 08:56:15 PM

That's about to change, of course.
that's why is first poll is absolutely meaningless
absolutely
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2017, 09:27:23 PM
The first CFP polls makes great message board material, so it isn't "meaningless" in that sense.  It means more than the preseason polls obviously.

It really is not worth much notice except to divine a bit how the Committee thinks about things.

Why are Wisky and Miami so far down?  The eye test and SoS.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2017, 10:02:45 PM
no, not meaningless in the $$$ department

just meaningless in the "what 4 teams will get in" department

I just wish the final poll would give more weight to the eye test and SoS
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2017, 10:14:43 PM
The teams on the final playoff selection are likely pretty high on that list already.  I doubt anyone ranked 15th and lower will make it.  It's not meaningless.  It gives insight into their thinking, how they value things, and shows who is likely out.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2017, 11:17:03 PM
#14 and lower?  all have 2 losses

that's my point

2 losses or more, done

probably be 4 teams left standing like last season
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 02, 2017, 06:43:33 AM
Which two loss team should be higher?

The second loss is nearly always going to be an eliminator for obvious reasons.  I don't have a problem with that, at all.

We will have a crazy year at some point where there are a slew of 2 loss conference champions of course and the committee will have some decisions to make.  Otherwise, it's going to be fairly obvious, and has been, win your conference with 0 or 1 loss and you probably are in the playoff.

This year may be less clear because of the possibility of an 11-1 independent.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 02, 2017, 09:33:52 AM
#14 and lower?  all have 2 losses

that's my point

2 losses or more, done

probably be 4 teams left standing like last season

Not so sure.  We had a 2 loss team get in when there were only two teams that got in back in 2007.

That year every team but #10 Florida in the top 13 was undefeated or had 1 loss after 9 games.

Plus back then we had 6 "major" conferences instead of 5, so it was easier for teams to avoid each other, plus 3 didn't have conference championship games, avoiding an additional potential loss at the end for title contenders.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 02, 2017, 10:09:42 AM
I didn't have a problem with one loss Ohio St last year over 2 loss conference champ PSU, didn't think one-loss Washington should be left out.

Just hoping the committee earns their keep some season and doesn't get away with the "duh" pick.

and was merely pointing out that 0 loss teams are duh picks in the final poll, but not the first poll
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 02, 2017, 10:17:59 AM
Is a "duh pick" the same thing as an "obvious pick"?

What's wrong with that, if that is what you mean?

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 02, 2017, 10:20:19 AM
you sir, brought up the term "duh"

yes, I took it as a synonym for obvious
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 02, 2017, 10:21:22 AM
nothing wrong with the obvious pick, actually would be terrible if a bunch of smart folks on a committee missed the obvious pick
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 02, 2017, 10:27:23 AM
OK, I guess there is no problem here then.

I can be confused at times.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 02, 2017, 11:23:05 AM
We most times discuss things we agree about, just from different perspectives
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 02, 2017, 11:25:56 AM
they wouldn't be well down the list if this was the last poll

Badgers and Canes would be in the top 4
I think you are right, but not just because of the last poll.  The Badgers and Canes have abysmal schedules so far.  Wisconsin is 8-0 and their best victim is probably Nebraska while Miami is 7-0 with multiple too-close-for-comfort wins over questionable opponents and no win better than either FSU or GaTech.  

If the Badgers get to 13-0 they'll have wins over Iowa, Michigan, and probably Ohio State in the B1GCG.  

If the Canes get to 13-0 they'll have wins over VaTech, Notre Dame, and probably Clemson in the ACCCG.  

You are right that 13-0 would get either team in, but that isn't just because it is 13-0 it is also because they can't get there without acquiring much better wins than they have so far.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 02, 2017, 12:21:38 PM
while I agree the final schedule for the Canes and the Badgers will be stronger, I also think it would be tough for the committee to put the undefeated Canes or Badgers as #5 if there where only 1 or 2 other undefeated teams, regardless of SoS.

for example, Iowa, Ohio St. and Michigan could all lose another game or two.  Leaving the Badger's SoS looking weak.

Let's say, for sake or argument, that Iowa upsets the buckeyes, Michigan wins "the game" vs the Bucks, Nebraska beats Iowa in Lincoln, Hawks stumble vs Purdue, and Michigan losses to MAryland and then badly to Wisconsin.

an undefeated Badger team is still a lock, or a Duh pick for the committee
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 02, 2017, 01:46:09 PM
I heard this on the radio this AM, but I'm too lazy to verify it.

but Auburn who already has 2 losses, and I think is ranked around #14. They have the potential to beat #1 Georiga, then #1 Alabama then get a rematch with likely a top 5 Georgia in the SEC title game.

While I don't think Auburn will win all those games, could you imagine them beating two #1 ranked teams and then one of them for the 2nd time in a month.

In that scenario I'd vote in a 11-2 Auburn over a 12-1 Washington, maybe over an 11-1 ND. I wouldn't put them in against a 13-0 Wiscy or Miami, but that'd be a pretty stout resume for a 2 loss team.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 02, 2017, 02:17:00 PM
I heard this on the radio this AM, but I'm too lazy to verify it.

but Auburn who already has 2 losses, and I think is ranked around #14. They have the potential to beat #1 Georiga, then #1 Alabama then get a rematch with likely a top 5 Georgia in the SEC title game.

While I don't think Auburn will win all those games, could you imagine them beating two #1 ranked teams and then one of them for the 2nd time in a month.

In that scenario I'd vote in a 11-2 Auburn over a 12-1 Washington, maybe over an 11-1 ND. I wouldn't put them in against a 13-0 Wiscy or Miami, but that'd be a pretty stout resume for a 2 loss team.
Agree and I think the committee would make a spot for that team.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 02, 2017, 02:21:56 PM
while I agree the final schedule for the Canes and the Badgers will be stronger, I also think it would be tough for the committee to put the undefeated Canes or Badgers as #5 if there where only 1 or 2 other undefeated teams, regardless of SoS.

for example, Iowa, Ohio St. and Michigan could all lose another game or two.  Leaving the Badger's SoS looking weak.

Let's say, for sake or argument, that Iowa upsets the buckeyes, Michigan wins "the game" vs the Bucks, Nebraska beats Iowa in Lincoln, Hawks stumble vs Purdue, and Michigan losses to MAryland and then badly to Wisconsin.

an undefeated Badger team is still a lock, or a Duh pick for the committee
Ohio State losing those two games would not have too big of an impact on Wisconsin's SoS because in that case they would meet 12-1 Penn State in the B1GCG.  
That is the thing about CG's.  The opponent is almost certain to be at least decent.  Even if Ohio State tanks and loses to Iowa and a Michigan team that (in your example) has 4 losses that just moves PSU up.  Ohio State or Penn State or Michigan State or Michigan could completely tank but it is a lot less likely that all four of them will tank.  In part that is because of games left between them:
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 02, 2017, 03:47:48 PM
Agree and I think the committee would make a spot for that team.  
SEC SEC SEC
I don't think they'd make a spot for a 2-loss Big Ten team that accomplished that feat
it would be interesting to put the committee to the test - that's all I really want to see.
We went away from coaches and sportswriters polls and computer polls and created this braintrust committee.  Just want to see them earn their stripes some season.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 02, 2017, 04:47:04 PM
Auburn "controls" its own destiny with one conference loss (to LSU) at the moment (unless LSU somehow wins out, and then LSU would be in the SEC CG).

If Auburn beat UGA and then Bama and then UGA, it would be a something to notice.  I'd still take a one loss conference champ if available from any P5 conference.  Auburn already lost to Clemson.

As noted, LSU also "controls its own destiny" with an outside loss to Troy of all people, but they are alive in the SEC (but won't be in a couple of days).  Auburn and LSU and A&M are mystery teams to me, all three have OOC losses and all three at times have looked pretty decent.

UGA can secure the East Saturday with a win over USCe and a UK loss to Ole Miss (which might not happen of course).

Preseason, I had hoped to win the East and beat Florida and maybe get an NY6 bowl bid.  I didn't think the OL would be sufficiently better to be really good, but that unit has played pretty well overall, much better than last year.  The defense was mostly back from last year's squad which was pretty good.  The rushing attack eats clock which rests the D.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MrNubbz on November 02, 2017, 05:12:31 PM
Agree and I think the committee would make a spot for that team.  
Well Duh,I mean obviously,I mean,oh the hell with it
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 02, 2017, 05:42:11 PM
UGA can secure the East Saturday with a win over USCe and a UK loss to Ole Miss (which might not happen of course).

Preseason, I had hoped to win the East and beat Florida and maybe get an NY6 bowl bid.  I didn't think the OL would be sufficiently better to be really good, but that unit has played pretty well overall, much better than last year.  The defense was mostly back from last year's squad which was pretty good.  The rushing attack eats clock which rests the D.
Not flaming, honestly curious because I haven't seen any UGA football this year:
If you feel you can give a somewhat unbiased opinion, how good is UGA?  
I'm not completely convinced of Notre Dame's alleged greatness and obviously UGA's other two OOC opponents (so far) aren't going to impress anybody.  Then there is UGA's SEC schedule.  So far the Dawgs have played:
Coming up they have:
Then the Dawgs, of course, finish up with an OOC match against an apparently good-but-not-great GaTech.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 02, 2017, 06:19:10 PM
Good question (about UGA).  The offensive line was considered the weak spot, and they have played well overall, better than I expected.  The 2016 edition was heavily weakened by bad OL play, really bad.  They obviously have NFL caliber running backs, which is good, and a really stout defense, among the best I've seen at UGA.  They fly to the ball and mostly play disciplined.  The secondary at times has been had and could be vulnerable against a good team.  Special teams, usually a weak spot under Richt, has improved to be somewhat better than average, and that also has helped.  A lot.

UGA made a LOT of mistakes against ND and still won, so there is that.  That game might not have been close with a cleaner game.  ND had all kinds of problems on offense against that defense but got bailed out by some silly penalties at times.

The other weakness I see is that this team is so run heavy on offense.  They have not had to pass much (except against Missouri oddly enough) and they haven't.  Defenses have done the obvious and loaded up to stop the run, but if Michel or Chubb get past the LOS they are a load, and Michel made Florida pay for playing 8 in the box.  The freshman RB Swift is showing enormous promise and is ahead of two very good sophs at RB, and they have two of the three top RBs committed for next season.

So, if your secondary can handle man coverage and your LBs are smart and fast, you probably can slow their rushing attack and then force Fromm (true freshman QB) to beat you throwing it.  

In summary, they are a very solid hungry talented team that can be beaten with the right defense and an mobile QB who can pass (think Barrett for example perhaps).  Thus far, they have won most of their games early in blow outs and simply run clock effectively without much need to pass.  That won't work against elite defenses.  I wouldn't discount the win at ND though.  ND has beaten some good teams, and that was the first start by a true freshman QB (Jake Fromm State Farm is his name now) who managed the game, but obviously has far more experience now and is pretty effective throwing the ball.

I read that Alabama would be a 6 point favorite over UGA right now.  I suspect Ohio State would be 3-4 point favorites and perhaps Penn State as well and Clemson.  But they are in the hunt obviously.  Their LBs stack up well against about anyone.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 02, 2017, 06:20:55 PM
Well Duh,I mean obviously,I mean,oh the hell with it
have another drink or 3 and enjoy the games this weekend
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 02, 2017, 06:37:00 PM
Good question (about UGA).  The offensive line was considered the weak spot, and they have played well overall, better than I expected.  The 2016 edition was heavily weakened by bad OL play, really bad.  They obviously have NFL caliber running backs, which is good, and a really stout defense, among the best I've seen at UGA.  They fly to the ball and mostly play disciplined.  The secondary at times has been had and could be vulnerable against a good team.  Special teams, usually a weak spot under Richt, has improved to be somewhat better than average, and that also has helped.  A lot.

UGA made a LOT of mistakes against ND and still won, so there is that.  That game might not have been close with a cleaner game.  ND had all kinds of problems on offense against that defense but got bailed out by some silly penalties at times.

The other weakness I see is that this team is so run heavy on offense.  They have not had to pass much (except against Missouri oddly enough) and they haven't.  Defenses have done the obvious and loaded up to stop the run, but if Michel or Chubb get past the LOS they are a load, and Michel made Florida pay for playing 8 in the box.  The freshman RB Swift is showing enormous promise and is ahead of two very good sophs at RB, and they have two of the three top RBs committed for next season.

So, if your secondary can handle man coverage and your LBs are smart and fast, you probably can slow their rushing attack and then force Fromm (true freshman QB) to beat you throwing it.  

In summary, they are a very solid hungry talented team that can be beaten with the right defense and an mobile QB who can pass (think Barrett for example perhaps).  Thus far, they have won most of their games early in blow outs and simply run clock effectively without much need to pass.  That won't work against elite defenses.  I wouldn't discount the win at ND though.  ND has beaten some good teams, and that was the first start by a true freshman QB (Jake Fromm State Farm is his name now) who managed the game, but obviously has far more experience now and is pretty effective throwing the ball.

I read that Alabama would be a 6 point favorite over UGA right now.  I suspect Ohio State would be 3-4 point favorites and perhaps Penn State as well and Clemson.  But they are in the hunt obviously.  Their LBs stack up well against about anyone.
Well Georgia is obviously in if they go 13-0 and obviously out if they lose before the SECCG and then again in the SECCG.  The interesting question at this point is what happens if UGA and Bama both get to the SECCG at 12-0 and then one of them wins a reasonably close game?  
A 12-1 non-Champion UGA or Bama would obviously be behind the SEC Champion and I think they would also obviously be ranked behind any undefeated P5 Champions.  Beyond that there is an argument.  I don't *THINK* they would get in ahead of a 12-1 P5 Champion but I do *THINK* they would get in ahead of an 11-2 Champion, an 11-1 Independent, or any other non-champion.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 02, 2017, 07:26:20 PM
UGA could lose to say Auburn and beat Bama and be 12-1.  They'd be in the playoff if that happened.

Personally, I don't think a CG loser should be included barring unusual circumstances.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 02, 2017, 07:48:57 PM
hah, if a one-loss team that lost a CCG gets in ahead of a one-loss independent that wears a gold helmet, it would cause some upheaval!
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MrNubbz on November 02, 2017, 08:03:24 PM
I say let the Gold Helmet in ensuring them an ass beating.Thus having to join a conference - works for me
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 02, 2017, 08:41:15 PM
careful what y'all ask for

the Domers could end up in the Big Ten with a total of 16 teams
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MrNubbz on November 02, 2017, 08:46:44 PM
No worries one of the Big Red's will thrash 'em.Get Coach Frost off on the right foot
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 02, 2017, 09:07:02 PM
pretty sure the fish eaters would wind up in the east with their buddies, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, and the Hoosiers

the west would be forced to take Iowa State, Mizzou, Kansas, or the Sooners
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TyphonInc on November 02, 2017, 09:18:37 PM
pretty sure the fish eaters would wind up in the east with their buddies, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, and the Hoosiers

the west would be forced to take Iowa State, Mizzou, Kansas, or the Sooners
Careful about saying Mizzou to the B1G west, that seems to ruffle feathers. (I think they would be an apt addition.)
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 02, 2017, 09:23:28 PM
well, Mizzou would love it
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 03, 2017, 12:12:59 AM
Announced CFP championship sites through 2024, including Indy in 2022
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 03, 2017, 07:18:18 AM
Mizzou still seems like an outsider to me, but then, so does South Carolina.

I'm not as young as I used to be.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 03, 2017, 07:31:41 AM
I find it a bit interesting that the CFP committee releases preliminary "polls" (or rankings).  It obviously is fodder for discussion, fine, but the BBall folks don't do this obviously.  They COULD wait until all the data are in to release anything.

"We" enjoy dissecting all their decisions and flip this team and that, but this first poll, or second or third, doesn't mean a whole lot beyond shedding a tiny bit of light on how they think (which can change with time).

I think 5 of the 12 previous top fours in this ranking finally made it, not even half obviously, so being in it is a potential distraction unless your team can handle it and no guarantee of anything at all, you still have to win.  The two top undefeated teams have a margin of error, one noncritical loss, if they win the CG.

But if the ranking had Clemson and Ohio State flipped in order, it really wouldn't matter.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 03, 2017, 08:04:33 AM
I say let the Gold Helmet in ensuring them an ass beating.Thus having to join a conference - works for me
I do not think it would do that.  If they get in, without being in a conference, then they have no reason to join a conference.  What would give them a reason to join a conference is if they went 11-1 but got passed on CCG weekend by a couple of teams that won CCG to finish 12-1.  THAT would make it obvious to them that they needed to be in a conference.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 03, 2017, 08:08:59 AM
What are the possibilities that Notre Dame negotiates some kind of deal with the ACC to be included in their CG event under some circumstances without being in the conference?

They already are quasi-members in football.  That would be weird.  Money talks.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 03, 2017, 08:20:50 AM
pretty sure the fish eaters would wind up in the east with their buddies, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, and the Hoosiers

the west would be forced to take Iowa State, Mizzou, Kansas, or the Sooners
Careful about saying Mizzou to the B1G west, that seems to ruffle feathers. (I think they would be an apt addition.)
ISU is never going to get a B1G invite.  The conference is really a TV network masquerading as a conference and they want to expand viewership.  Iowa State is from a small-population State and they aren't even the main team in that state.  

Kansas is more likely because at least they are #1 in their state but Kansas has a very small population (2.9M, 35th state).  

The Sooners are more likely because Oklahoma has a larger population (3.9M, 28th state) and because OU is an obviously much bigger brand than Kansas.  

Mizzou seems to make sense.  Missouri is adjacent to three current B1G states (IL, IA, NE) and has a much larger population then Kansas/Oklahoma/Iowa (6.1M, 18th state).  The thing that makes Mizzou seem unlikely is that they practically begged for an invite before they joined the SEC and the current B1G leadership completely ignored them.  

I still think that the Conference would rather expand East.  If they had any interest in expanding to the West then it would seem that Mizzou would have been invited when they begged for it a few years ago.  I still think it will be UNC and one of the VA schools (UVA or VaTech) but I could see them taking ND instead of UNC.  

Ultimately, I don't think ND makes any sense.  They have a certain brand/draw football wise but they don't "own" any media markets the way that most of our schools do.  Additionally, I do not think that ND has the academics to help the B1G's academic arm.  Now, any ND fans reading this will be astounded by that statement or perhaps think that I am nuts but hear me out:

Notre Dame is a great undergraduate school but the BIG money in academics (bigger than the sports/TV money even) isn't in being a good undergrad school.  The B1G money in academics is in graduate programs and research.  As an undergraduate school, Notre Dame would be one of the best in the B1G.  As a graduate/research institution Notre Dame would be dead last by a significant margin in the B1G.  I don't mean this to pick on ND, that just isn't their focus.  If the B1G wants to improve graduate/research academics (and they do) there is absolutely no contest between ND and any of the following:  UVA, VaTech, UNC, or even OU or Mizzou.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 03, 2017, 08:32:05 AM
What are the possibilities that Notre Dame negotiates some kind of deal with the ACC to be included in their CG event under some circumstances without being in the conference?

They already are quasi-members in football.  That would be weird.  Money talks.
Currently the ACC plays eight conference games.  Notre Dame plays five ACC schools this year:
Last year they played five:
Next year they play five:
I'm pretty sure that part of their deal with the ACC is that they have to play five.  Maybe the ACC would allow them to be a "member" while only playing six or seven?  That seems to me to be the most likely possibility.  I'm not sure how it would work though because it would screw up some other teams schedules as well.  

Also, I'm not sure that ND would like that anyway because in that scenario a 1-loss ND would ALWAYS lose to a 1-loss anybody else because 7-1>6-1>5-1 (like Ohio State's loss to Michigan in 1982 despite both teams having one loss and Ohio State winning the H2H - because Michigan played nine games and went 8-1 while Ohio State played eight and went 7-1 and 8-1>7-1).  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Badger1969 on November 03, 2017, 10:36:52 AM
No, I think they would but Notre Dame and Oklahoma in the West an move Purdue to the East.  This would make the two divisions more competitive. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 03, 2017, 10:44:55 AM
So, if UNC was invited along with ND, ND would obviously be a west team!
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 03, 2017, 10:45:39 AM
No, I think they would but Notre Dame and Oklahoma in the West an move Purdue to the East.  This would make the two divisions more competitive.
As a Husker, I like this even better!
Boomer Sooner
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 03, 2017, 10:57:07 AM
I find it a bit interesting that the CFP committee releases preliminary "polls" (or rankings).  It obviously is fodder for discussion, fine, but the BBall folks don't do this obviously.  They COULD wait until all the data are in to release anything.

They did last year for the first time.  They released a top 16 in like mid-February.  I'd expect them to expand it this year since it gets people talking.
The weirder part to me isn't that they release pre-rankings, but that they release a top 25.  I don't get the purpose of that.  It would be like if the NCAA Basketball committee didn't just release a partial mock bracket beforehand, but they decided to go ahead and rank a top 200 teams.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 03, 2017, 11:25:20 AM
UNC probably is a pair with UVA, just as OU is a pair with Oklahoma State, one won't go without the other, and the UNC/UVA pair think they run the ACC historically.  League expansions always surprise me so I can't predict what might happen obviously.

Imagine ND worked a "deal  deal" with the ACC where their games against say Stanford/USC/Navy "count" as ACC games, and if they are 7-1 or 8-0, they can play in the ACC CG if the other contender is 6-2 or lower, etc.  In return, the ACC gets some more dough, s slice of the NBC TV pie.

I don't think that is likely, but it is vaguely possible if ND wants access to a CG.

And that COULD in some years make the ACC CG rather more exciting, and perhaps even sell tickets.  It never seems to sell out.  Imagine this year having Clemson-ND for example.  Sold out.  I kinda like it.

I wish I had ponied up for ND-UGA tickets (now) but that $700 on SH was a bit of a bite.  I took the wife out to dinner instead.  A few times.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 03, 2017, 11:28:46 AM
UNC probably is a pair with UVA, just as OU is a pair with Oklahoma State, one won't go without the other, and the UNC/UVA pair think they run the ACC historically.  League expansions always surprise me so I can't predict what might happen obviously.

Imagine ND worked a "deal  deal" with the ACC where their games against say Stanford/USC/Navy "count" as ACC games, and if they are 7-1 or 8-0, they can play in the ACC CG if the other contender is 6-2 or lower, etc.  In return, the ACC gets some more dough, s slice of the NBC TV pie.

I don't think that is likely, but it is vaguely possible if ND wants access to a CG.

And that COULD in some years make the ACC CG rather more exciting, and perhaps even sell tickets.  It never seems to sell out.  Imagine this year having Clemson-ND for example.  Sold out.  I kinda like it.

I wish I had ponied up for ND-UGA tickets (now) but that $700 on SH was a bit of a bite.  I took the wife out to dinner instead.  A few times.
Are ticket sales a problem for the ACC?
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_SO8Y3MIsoP8%2FR2FbXLjIwdI%2FAAAAAAAABvQ%2Fesk7MY4jnbw%2Fs400%2Facc%2Bchampionship%2Bgame%2Bcrowd%2Bview%2B2007%2Bempty%2Bstadium%2Bjacksonville%2Baltel%2Bacc%2Bsucks%2Bsux.jpg&hash=1e0ed1b261d2c2f402309c6f6b3063bc)
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TyphonInc on November 03, 2017, 12:09:16 PM
HA! More expansion talk!

1) When Missouri begged for entrance, B1G was looking for 1 team only, and when the slam dunk Huskers came along Mizzo got regulated to bridesmaid.  Missouri showed their hand, felt they needed to make a move, and felt very fortunate to land in the SEC (thinking the B12 was gonna implode.)  

I think Missouri will make the decision that is best for them, I don't think they would actively campaign to leave the SEC like they did the B12. But if an offer is there from the B1G it would merit strong strong conversation.

Athletically, B1G is tops again in revenue (B1G 41-50 million depending on source, SEC is 34-40 million depending on source, so even best estimates for SEC and worse for B1G; the B1G still has a slight advantage.) and Nebraska and Illinois offer better rivals than anything they are getting in the SEC now.

Academically, B1G is head and shoulders above any other conference in Graduate Research, Missouri as an AAU member have shown graduate research is very important to them.

Logistically, Missouri would be the easiest to move. No long standing rivals, and no loss of media rights.


2) Now for Notre Dame, IF and only IF an 11-1 ND gets passed over for a 12-1 conference champ would the Domers discuss increasing conference participation (not join just increase.) I would guess ND would compromise a 6th game to the ACC with the huge caveat that if they have the same or less losses and a higher CFP ranking than one of the other participants in the ACC title game they would replace that lower ranked team. ACC title game suddenly just got a lot more interesting. ND would have the chance to have a marquee win at the end of the season, ACC would reduce the chance of having a lame duck champion, there would be a lot of hype.


3) Virginia Tech and Nebraska find themselves in a similar boat. AAU with the stroke of a pen declared Agriculture research to not be "competitive research" and didn't count towards AAU status. In the same year they also declared that research held "off site" would not count. UNL was including the medical research held at UN of Omaha as part of their total research portfolio. In one year, the 2 biggest forms of Academic research Nebraska did was not longer counted towards AAU membership, they lost membership and declared they are not interested in being part of the "prestigious group" any more. Along comes Va Tech, they applied to AAU and requested to have their medical research facility in Roanoke included. If it's incuded I think Nebraska has a legitimate complaint, if it's not included Virginia Tech is probably not granted acceptance. I think Big Ten Big Wigs are watching this closely on 2 fronts, they would love to have Nebraska back in the fold, and if Tech gets accepted they become a much more palatable candidate for expansion. I also believe that Va Tech, is the lowest hanging fruit in the ACC, and alot easier to get than say Delany's alma mater North Carolina would be.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 03, 2017, 12:40:38 PM
I think Missouri will make the decision that is best for them, I don't think they would actively campaign to leave the SEC like they did the B12. But if an offer is there from the B1G it would merit strong strong conversation.


 and Nebraska and Illinois offer better rivals than anything they are getting in the SEC now.

 
#1 - slam dunk, wouldn't even be a conversation
#2 - don't forget that Iowa would also make a great rival for Mizzou
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 04, 2017, 09:51:57 PM
Well, wiscy is the BIGs only chance now. 

Maybe the BIG overall will win some bowl games with it looking unlikely anyone is slated too high right now. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 04, 2017, 09:55:46 PM
About the time "we" think we have it figured out, upsets happen and turn it upside down.

A 13-0 Wisconsin would be in the playoff, but that could be the only team.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TyphonInc on November 04, 2017, 11:17:19 PM
#1 - slam dunk, wouldn't even be a conversation
#2 - don't forget that Iowa would also make a great rival for Mizzou
Is there anything historical between Iowa and Missouri? Of course one would think border states in the same conference would develop a rivalry, but not sure it would be immediate. Nebraska and Illinois would Instant.
While in the B12, Kansas was Mizzo's biggest rival, but not sure that can be restored.

SEC has manufactured Arkansas, and South Carolina as their rivals. Having trouble buying the second one.
I think Nebraska was their 2nd biggest rival, and Illinois has been playing them in basketball for almost 40 years. It makes a lot of sense ot me if we are adding 2 teams that the Tigers get a call.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 04, 2017, 11:24:15 PM
About the time "we" think we have it figured out, upsets happen and turn it upside down.

A 13-0 Wisconsin would be in the playoff, but that could be the only team.
That's why undefeated is undefeated.  Even if you lack impressive wins, and even if we may not buy it, there is something to going 13 games without tripping up.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TyphonInc on November 04, 2017, 11:28:46 PM
About the time "we" think we have it figured out, upsets happen and turn it upside down.

A 13-0 Wisconsin would be in the playoff, but that could be the only team.
I almost want to say Go Big Red, but I would rather have OSU in the next 4 games, and have the B1G miss out on the playoffs. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on November 05, 2017, 12:22:36 AM
UNC probably is a pair with UVA, just as OU is a pair with Oklahoma State, one won't go without the other, and the UNC/UVA pair think they run the ACC historically.  League expansions always surprise me so I can't predict what might happen obviously.

Imagine ND worked a "deal  deal" with the ACC where their games against say Stanford/USC/Navy "count" as ACC games, and if they are 7-1 or 8-0, they can play in the ACC CG if the other contender is 6-2 or lower, etc.  In return, the ACC gets some more dough, s slice of the NBC TV pie.

I don't think that is likely, but it is vaguely possible if ND wants access to a CG.

And that COULD in some years make the ACC CG rather more exciting, and perhaps even sell tickets.  It never seems to sell out.  Imagine this year having Clemson-ND for example.  Sold out.  I kinda like it.

I wish I had ponied up for ND-UGA tickets (now) but that $700 on SH was a bit of a bite.  I took the wife out to dinner instead.  A few times.
I don't think that OU is necessarily tied to Oklahoma State.  I think that if Oklahoma State stands to find a home in a power conference in the next round of realignment, then OU has a relatively free hand.  Many Sooner fans want to see OU in the SEC.  I don't.  I think I join the President of the University of Oklahoma in hoping that our future home is in the Big Ten, for academic reasons more than anything else.  The Sooner fans who want to see us in the SEC counter that if OU were to end up in the Big Ten, Oklahoma State might wind up in the SEC, and then use the cachet of being in the greatest conference in the history of the universe to become the dominant football program in the state.

My response to that is to ask how could anyone think that Oklahoma State could compete in the SEC.  Heck, they only managed to score 52 points on us today.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 05, 2017, 06:18:06 AM
I don't think that OU is necessarily tied to Oklahoma State.  I think that if Oklahoma State stands to find a home in a power conference in the next round of realignment, then OU has a relatively free hand.  Many Sooner fans want to see OU in the SEC.  I don't.  I think I join the President of the University of Oklahoma in hoping that our future home is in the Big Ten, for academic reasons more than anything else.  The Sooner fans who want to see us in the SEC counter that if OU were to end up in the Big Ten, Oklahoma State might wind up in the SEC, and then use the cachet of being in the greatest conference in the history of the universe to become the dominant football program in the state.

My response to that is to ask how could anyone think that Oklahoma State could compete in the SEC.  Heck, they only managed to score 52 points on us today.
Howdy CW. Really glad to see you posting with us again.

If we have to see another round of expansion...

As for OU in the Big Ten, I'd be all for it for a lot of reasons, not the least of which would be the renewal of a yearly game with the Huskers to end the season. That would be incredible.

Would OU want to bring Texas with?
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Temp430 on November 05, 2017, 07:11:30 AM
If Wisconsin wins out they’re in the playoffs. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 05, 2017, 07:31:51 AM
I don't believe that and here is why:

They need a lot of help, being #9 right now and not likely to get above 8 this week. Miami will probably pass them this week.

If Bama and Georgia win out until the Dr. Pepper SEC championship and the game is close, they both get in before UW. The winner of the ACC is going to get in before UW. If ND wins out they will get in before UW. TCU or OU gets in before UW if they win out.

The PAC is probably out right now because they only real chance for them is Washington, and they still play at Stanford and at WSU. The should beat Utah.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MrNubbz on November 05, 2017, 08:20:10 AM
Makes sense but it's CFB - Cyclones tripping up the Sooners,Hawks waterboarding the Bucks :'(.More to come just hope it doesn't come to Madison
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 05, 2017, 08:31:22 AM
A 13-0 P5 Conference Champ is a lock IMHO to make it, in all cases.  A 12-1 champ PROBABLY makes it every time.

UGA plays at Auburn next week and the line on that game was close last time I looked.  UGA has clinched the SEC East, but their playoff shot hinges on winning the CG with one loss (or 0).  They play UK and GT after Auburn, either might be a trip also of course.

Alabama just sort of leans on you constantly until you give out.  I think you have to be able to lean back and have great QB play to beat them, with no miscues.

Upsets happen, obviously.  TCU is looking solid again.  The OU-TCU game is pivotal of course along with their CG, which they have again, and MIGHT knock a one loss team out.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on November 05, 2017, 07:09:03 PM
I don't believe that and here is why:

They need a lot of help, being #9 right now and not likely to get above 8 this week. Miami will probably pass them this week.

If Bama and Georgia win out until the Dr. Pepper SEC championship and the game is close, they both get in before UW. The winner of the ACC is going to get in before UW. If ND wins out they will get in before UW. TCU or OU gets in before UW if they win out.

The PAC is probably out right now because they only real chance for them is Washington, and they still play at Stanford and at WSU. The should beat Utah.


If Wisconsin were to win out, they will have beaten Iowa, a top 25 team now, Michigan, a top 25 team, and either Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State or Michigan.
An undefeated Wisconsin would be no worse than 3rd in the final rankings, and a mortal lock for the playoff over ANY one loss team including SEC loser.  
I heard some smart people talking about this on the national radio show, and recognizing that up to now, BAma and Wisconsin have similar resumes.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 05, 2017, 07:14:08 PM
UW dropped from #4 to #6 in the AP poll today.

The 45-17 road win against IU was not good enough compared to ND's 48-37 home win against Wake Me Up or OU's 378-375 road win against osu2.

 ~???
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MrNubbz on November 05, 2017, 07:57:12 PM
UW dropped from #4 to #6 in the AP poll today.

The 45-17 road win against IU was not good enough compared to ND's 48-37 home win against Wake Me Up or OU's 378-375 road win against OSU1.

 ~???
FIFY
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: utee94 on November 05, 2017, 10:54:45 PM
I don't believe that and here is why:

They need a lot of help, being #9 right now and not likely to get above 8 this week. Miami will probably pass them this week.

If Bama and Georgia win out until the Dr. Pepper SEC championship and the game is close, they both get in before UW. The winner of the ACC is going to get in before UW. If ND wins out they will get in before UW. TCU or OU gets in before UW if they win out.

The PAC is probably out right now because they only real chance for them is Washington, and they still play at Stanford and at WSU. The should beat Utah.


I understand the paranoia, I really do.


Even so, an undefeated Wisconsin B1G champ is in the CFP.  And deservedly so.


Of course, getting to 13-0 is the trick and I wish your Badgers the best in getting there!
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Hawkinole on November 06, 2017, 12:31:38 AM
A one-loss Wisconsin team that doesn't get beat by 31-points to a rival, would get into the CFP, too.

Our Eastern Division is so tough, and Iowa has play all the toughest, and battled them 2 times out of 3 to defeats.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on November 06, 2017, 12:51:06 AM
Howdy CW. Really glad to see you posting with us again.

If we have to see another round of expansion...

As for OU in the Big Ten, I'd be all for it for a lot of reasons, not the least of which would be the renewal of a yearly game with the Huskers to end the season. That would be incredible.

Would OU want to bring Texas with?
Badge:

I'll try to answer while having no idea what the powers-that-be at OU would prefer, and no idea of what Texas intends to do or would intend to do if the Big Ten were to expand again.  Also, on the perhaps unwarranted assumption that OU could be a candidate for Big Ten membership without being part of a package deal with Texas.

I think that for OU there would be advantages and disadvantages.

Hypothetically, it would be an advantage for OU to have Texas join it in moving to the Big Ten.  It would make OU not a geographical outlier in the conference; Texas would fill that role for the southwestern corner.  Big, overrunning-with-money Texas would be a better anchor for that corner than OU would.  It would maintain our traditional game with Texas without having to see if it would work as an OOC game (as it was for most of the 20th century).  And, financially, Texas would bring a much bigger measurable audience to the conference than OU alone would.

As for disadvantages, all the ones I can think of would be subjective.  But I got the impression as the dust was settling after the last round of realignment, that there was some "Texas fatigue" around Norman.  The Longhorn Network certainly complicated things, even as it probably played a role in keeping the Big 12 from further disintegration.  I think that some people with some influence would like to go back to the inter-conference relationship with Texas that existed prior to the formation of the Big 12.  But I really don't know.

I would love to see the OU-Nebraska series renewed.  I am very happy that we have home-and-home series scheduled with the Huskers in '21-22 and '29-30.  I'd also like to see the Huskers pick up their game.  For me, something's wrong with college football when Nebraska isn't relevant.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 06, 2017, 06:44:24 AM
Interesting thoughts. I too have no idea what the future holds. I figured UNL and Maryland would get added years before they actually were (Rutgers came out of left field for me) but at this time I have no feel.

I suppose much will have to do with what happens with TV, and even with the sport itself. If TV goes away, having schools like Rutgers and Maryland makes no geographic sense. Even Penn State and UNL, to a degree, but they were added for more than just TV.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 06, 2017, 08:06:00 AM
A one-loss Wisconsin team that doesn't get beat by 31-points to a rival, would get into the CFP, too.

Our Eastern Division is so tough, and Iowa has play all the toughest, and battled them 2 times out of 3 to defeats.
The should have won the other one too. They had PSU beat.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 06, 2017, 08:07:03 AM
I understand the paranoia, I really do.


Even so, an undefeated Wisconsin B1G champ is in the CFP.  And deservedly so.


Of course, getting to 13-0 is the trick and I wish your Badgers the best in getting there!

I don't think they will get there. I think they will lose this weekend to Iowa if the injury list is what I think it will be.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 06, 2017, 09:38:01 AM
I don't think they will get there. I think they will lose this weekend to Iowa if the injury list is what I think it will be

nothing against Iowa but I hope that's not the case, the BIG 10 title game will be a big dud if it's 1 loss and probably 10-12 ranked Wisconsin vs a 2 loss and probably 13-15 ranked OSU, MSU, PSU whoever
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 06, 2017, 09:52:17 AM
I hate how the narrative, due to the CFP, is what a "disaster" of a weekend this was for the Big Ten.  What we got was chaos and upsets, and a setup for a crazy finish, the stuff that makes college football great.

And because we've embraced a system that rewards the opposite, this is "terrible" for the Big Ten, instead of an exciting four week race to the Rose Bowl.

Will it be an even bigger disaster for the conference if a 12-0 Wisconsin loses in Indianapolis?  Nobody tell the conference employees in striped shirts how financially detrimental to their employer a Wisconsin loss at this point would be I suppose.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 06, 2017, 10:01:01 AM
On the eve of the first rankings, this would be my playoff if the season ended right now:

#1 Alabama vs. #4 Clemson
#2 Georgia vs. #3 Miami

Next two weeks should clear up if Miami actually belongs or not, so it's a pretty pointless snapshot of them right now.
Slight change this week...
#1 Georgia vs. #4 Clemson
#2 Miami vs. #3 Alabama
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Temp430 on November 06, 2017, 10:37:10 AM
Looking forward to the Notre Dame @Miami game this weekend. Guessing Clemson and Miami will play in the ACC championship and Georgia and Alabama in the SEC's.  Hoping to see some new faces in the playoffs.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 06, 2017, 10:59:00 AM
Auburn has a say in all of this and is favored this weekend over UGA.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 06, 2017, 11:13:51 AM
Auburn has a say in all of this and is favored this weekend over UGA.
Auburn winning out would make things interesting.  It would obviously knock Georgia out as Auburn would have to beat them twice to win out but could leave an 11-1 non-Champion Bama in the mix.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 06, 2017, 11:20:48 AM
I wonder what the headlines on the ESecPN and CBSec sites would be if the SEC had a weekend like the Big Ten did this past weekend.

SEC Tumbles?

SEC playoff hopes in big trouble?

I bet not...
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 06, 2017, 11:44:20 AM
And because we've embraced a system that rewards the opposite, this is "terrible" for the Big Ten, instead of an exciting four week race to the Rose Bowl.

I understand what you're saying, but I'd still rather see a 12-0 Wisconsin vs a 1 loss OSU, PSU, MSU or whoever, even if we weren't in the BCS/playoffs era.

wouldn't you rather see 2 heavyweights slug it out vs a pair of "good" but not "great teams"?

The Iowa/MSU BIG 10 game was phenomenal, but part of what made that game BIG was the entire nation was watching knowing it was a play-in/elimination game whatever you want to call it.

I'll still watch it as a BIG 10 fan, but I want my conference champion to distinguish itself, I don't want to see a potential 4 way tie in the EAST with 4 7-2 teams vs a 1 or 2 loss wisconsion. now that doesn't mean other years I wouldn't mind seeing a UM, PSU, OSU, MSU all 7-2 if they were all truly great. but I think all 4 of those schools are just good this year, nothing spectacular.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 06, 2017, 01:27:29 PM
If LSU had beaten Bama and USCe beat UGA and A&M beat Auburn, I'm pretty sure it would be obvious that the SEC's playoff shot took a hit.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 06, 2017, 02:19:44 PM
I'm saying it right now, there will be a 2 loss team in the playoff this year. It won't be Ohio State FYI, you can lose by 30 to Iowa and expect to get in. You can't lose to anyone by 30 for that matter and get in.

I think both Bama/UGA get in as well. so we'll have undefeated Bama/UGA, 1 loss BAMA/UGA, and 1 or 2 teams with 2 losses.

Big 12 gonna screw itself with a 2 loss champ, ND gonna lose to somebody, PAC 12 champ is gonna have 2 losses (please don't let Washington in again by playing NO ONE but yet only having 1 loss). I don't mind Washington, but it would justify playing no one.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 06, 2017, 02:27:52 PM
If LSU had beaten Bama and USCe beat UGA and A&M beat Auburn, I'm pretty sure it would be obvious that the SEC's playoff shot took a hit.


Obvious to whom?
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 06, 2017, 02:29:15 PM
There are enough one loss candidates (and undefeateds) to suggest we'll have four 1 loss or better teams in I think.

I think you can count on two from the SEC and ACC, possibly ND, TCU-OU, and U-Dubb, plus a 13-0 Wisky.

ND has some work cut out for it obviously.  UDubb has a reasonable remaining slate.  Clemson-Miami look like one lock.  TCU-OU might play each other twice, which would be IRONIC if they were 1-1 and knocked each other off.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MrNubbz on November 06, 2017, 02:40:05 PM

I hate how the narrative, due to the CFP, is what a "disaster" of a weekend this was for the Big Ten.  What we got was chaos and upsets, and a setup for a crazy finish, the stuff that makes college football great.

And because we've embraced a system that rewards the opposite, this is "terrible" for the Big Ten, instead of an exciting four week race to the Rose Bowl.
I agree nice to have a conf.rep in the CFBP but mayhem is fine & riveting.....now that the Buckeyes have been pansed.4 weeks left lets have the chaos it's a long off season
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 06, 2017, 02:43:09 PM
And because we've embraced a system that rewards the opposite, this is "terrible" for the Big Ten, instead of an exciting four week race to the Rose Bowl.

I understand what you're saying, but I'd still rather see a 12-0 Wisconsin vs a 1 loss OSU, PSU, MSU or whoever, even if we weren't in the BCS/playoffs era.

wouldn't you rather see 2 heavyweights slug it out vs a pair of "good" but not "great teams"?

The Iowa/MSU BIG 10 game was phenomenal, but part of what made that game BIG was the entire nation was watching knowing it was a play-in/elimination game whatever you want to call it.

I'll still watch it as a BIG 10 fan, but I want my conference champion to distinguish itself, I don't want to see a potential 4 way tie in the EAST with 4 7-2 teams vs a 1 or 2 loss wisconsion. now that doesn't mean other years I wouldn't mind seeing a UM, PSU, OSU, MSU all 7-2 if they were all truly great. but I think all 4 of those schools are just good this year, nothing spectacular.
Yes, I agree.  I'm just saying I don't like the incentives it sets up to call last wee "disastrous" for the Big Ten.  Basically we are saying that these big businesses/conferences stand to lose a lot of money, if their likely CFP teams suffer losses at the end of the year.

Iowa/MSU is immune to that because it was, as you said, a play in game.  No matter who won, the Big Ten was getting a CFP rep.

Now, from Delany's office, it is bad for business for Wisconsin to lose, and I don't like that having to be the mentality.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 06, 2017, 02:54:26 PM
I'm hoping for more crazy upsets this coming weekend
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 06, 2017, 04:32:32 PM
Yes, I agree.  I'm just saying I don't like the incentives it sets up to call last wee "disastrous" for the Big Ten.  Basically we are saying that these big businesses/conferences stand to lose a lot of money, if their likely CFP teams suffer losses at the end of the year.

Iowa/MSU is immune to that because it was, as you said, a play in game.  No matter who won, the Big Ten was getting a CFP rep.

Now, from Delany's office, it is bad for business for Wisconsin to lose, and I don't like that having to be the mentality.
Pfft. Delany's office is closed now that M and O are out of the picture. He couldn't give a shit less about the rest of the schools.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 06, 2017, 05:57:35 PM
Pfft. Delany's office is closed now that M and O are out of the picture. He couldn't give a shit less about the rest of the schools.
He (and it's his job to) certainly likes more money for the conference.  And the last hope for getting a team in from the Big Ten rests on Wisconsin winning out.  I'm not sure what the answer is (and it's not just a Big Ten problem obviously), but you reach this point of the season, particularly in a year where all but one conference team has multiple losses, and the conference has a vested interest in protecting that remaining undefeated team.  It's not an ideal system in that regard.  Hell, the Big Ten could have avoided "negative" headlines if chalk had held this past weekend, like it did in the SEC when South Carolina and LSU both looked a lot more ho-hum than Michigan State and Iowa did.  Somehow having a nice soft middle to your conference is best for national perception.
Worked out well for the Big Ten last year when they conference went 4 deep followed by trash, and we got our CFP team (that didn't even reach Indy) and got all 4 into the NY6.  Doesn't lead to favorable results, but leads to favorable selections, and favorable $$$
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 06, 2017, 06:47:35 PM
Big Jim is a badger fan tonight
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MaximumSam on November 12, 2017, 08:37:34 AM
Thar's a shakeup!  The way things are looking, here's what I think.

SEC: I think Bama, Auburn, and UGA can all play their way in.  Bama and Georgia is obvious, but Auburn would have wins over Bama and two wins over Georgia, and I think they are in if they win out.  The interesting thing is if Auburn does beat Bama, Bama would be the most likely non-conference winner to get in.

ACC: Clemson and Miami can win their way in.  No one else worth mentioning.  If Miami loses in the championship game, could they still sneak in?

B12: Oklahoma can win their way in.  TCU and Okie State can still win the conference, though not sure where that would leave them

B1G: Wisconsin can win their way in.  Everyone else on shaky ground. 

Pac12: Washington, Wazzu, and USC still in the mix, though they seem somewhat forgotten.

Notre Dame is probably out absent some crazy stuff, and Central Florida is still undefeated but not loved by the committee. (Though honestly, they might have an argument)

So, there is any easy path, where the playoff is the SEC winner, the ACC winner, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin.  But nothing about this season says easy.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 12, 2017, 09:25:25 AM
very interesting

7 undefeated or 1 loss teams if you count UCF

more football to come
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 12, 2017, 01:16:27 PM
Prediction for this week...

1. Bama
2. Clemson
3. Oklahoma
4. Miami

5. Auburn
6. Wisconsin
7. Georgia
8. Southern California
9. Ohio State
10. Notre Dame
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: WhiskeyM on November 12, 2017, 01:24:37 PM
Wisconsin needs to be in the top 4.  I think QB and helmet factor are what's holding them back.  People want to talk about schedules.  Take a look at Bamas, seriously, mighty similar to Wisconsin.  I think Bama is the best team, it's just idiotic the same standard doesn't apply to them.  Clemson, while a good team, lost to Syracuse.  Enough said, they have no business ahead of Miami or Wisconsin at this point.

My top 4 would be Alabama, Miami, Oklahoma, Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 12, 2017, 01:26:24 PM
The glaring difference is that Bama scheduled Florida St as their big out of Conference game instead of BYU. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: WhiskeyM on November 12, 2017, 02:11:39 PM
Yes, but BYU is usually a tough contest too.  Both ended up terrible.  Bama only plays 8 conference games as well.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 12, 2017, 02:25:25 PM
The glaring difference is that Bama scheduled Florida St as their big out of Conference game instead of BYU.
Neither is very good. Bama played FSU on a "neutral" in Atlanta. UW went to Provo.

Bama and UW would beat BYU and FSU, respectively. It's a wash in my mind.

UW's other OOC are FAU and Utah State. Not much different than Fresno and Colorado State.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Kris61 on November 12, 2017, 03:01:31 PM
Wisconsin needs to be in the top 4.  I think QB and helmet factor are what's holding them back.  People want to talk about schedules.  Take a look at Bamas, seriously, mighty similar to Wisconsin.  I think Bama is the best team, it's just idiotic the same standard doesn't apply to them.  Clemson, while a good team, lost to Syracuse.  Enough said, they have no business ahead of Miami or Wisconsin at this point.

My top 4 would be Alabama, Miami, Oklahoma, Wisconsin.
The flip side of Clemson is they have 6 wins over teams with winning records.  Wisconsin has three and one of those is FAU.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: WhiskeyM on November 12, 2017, 07:10:57 PM
Auburn is the most important win for Clemson, and Wisconsin doesn't have one of those.  That Syracuse loss just can't be written off so easily, they are a 4-6 team.  Wisconsin has dominated every Syracuse they've played.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 12, 2017, 07:13:32 PM
Auburn is the most important win for Clemson, and Wisconsin doesn't have one of those.  That Syracuse loss just can't be written off so easily, they are a 4-6 team.  Wisconsin has dominated every Syracuse they've played.
I'd like to see Auburn go into the Iowa City Hornet Nest for a night game. Just to see what would happen.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 12, 2017, 07:35:24 PM
I said it a week ago, and I'll say it again. A 2 loss team is getting in. Possibly PAC 12 winner, could be Clemson if they get upset then knock off Miami. Maybe it's auburn. 

Ohio st is out, the loss to Iowa in itself is not the killer, but losing by 31 to an unranked squad is.

Worse case for a 2 loss team is Bama losing to auburn or in sec title game, because they still might get in.

Miami/Clemson loser is out. Winner in.

Big 12 needs OU to win out, I don't see okie St or tcu getting in. A 2 loss OU that loses big 12 title game? Tough call but I'd say out and they take 2 sec teams.

Wisconsin is in if they win out.  1 loss and it's over. Prob not fair but committee hates their schedule. Maybe if they lose to UM and beat a top 10 OSU they might get in. 

I think PAC 12 is out. Washing tons schedule is baaaad, USC is ok, but got drilled by ND. 

My prediction of who gets in, auburn beats Bama, loses rematch to Georgia and UGA and Bama both in with Clemson and OU
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: WhiskeyM on November 12, 2017, 07:37:05 PM
Auburn has been impressive in their wins. But they did lose to LSU, a fringe top 25 team, so yea, it's absolutely possible that a road trip to Iowa would result in a loss.  Northwestern too.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 12, 2017, 07:57:23 PM
if Wisconsin wins out, they are in

the top 4 this week is simply an exercise to spark discussion
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Kris61 on November 12, 2017, 08:07:00 PM
Auburn is the most important win for Clemson, and Wisconsin doesn't have one of those.  That Syracuse loss just can't be written off so easily, they are a 4-6 team.  Wisconsin has dominated every Syracuse they've played.
No they haven't.  Wisconsin beat Purdue 17-9.  They snoozed through a lackluster 24-10 effort over a terrible Illinois team.  The Nebraska game was a 7 point game headed to the 4th.  Even the FAU was a 10 point game basically the entire second half until UW added a TD with about a minute left.
I'm not saying Wisconsin shouldn't be allowed those efforts because everyone has them but there are some valid reasons they aren't getting the same respect as some other teams in the mix.  
Alabama, Clemson, and Miami all have more wins over teams with winning records and pending the committee's top 25 on Tuesday will probably all have more ranked wins than Wisconsin.  Oklahoma will probably have 3 top 15 wins come Tuesday night.
I totally get the pro-Wisconsin argument and if I were a fan I would be on the highest mountain making those arguments.  I think there is an argument to put them in the top 4 right now but I think there is also one to put them 5th.  I personally have them 5th but admit I went back and forth slotting them there.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 12, 2017, 08:35:51 PM
Yeah, Wisconsin is playing their best games down the stretch, and could benefit from those games being the most recent in the memory of the selection committee come playoff selection time. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 13, 2017, 08:08:50 AM
Slight change this week...
#1 Georgia vs. #4 Clemson
#2 Miami vs. #3 Alabama
Georgia out...Oklahoma in...
#1 Miami vs. #4 Oklahoma
#2 Alabama vs. #3 Clemson

Committee says conference titles are an important factor, but they don't project them, so neither am I.  So even without upsets, only one of Miami and Clemson could win one.  Not having one, and Wisconsin having one would be enough for me to leap Bucky in.

My overall top 10 right now:
1. Miami
2. Alabama
3. Clemson
4. Oklahoma
5. Georgia
6. Wisconsin
7. Auburn
8. Notre Dame
9. USC
10. Oklahoma State
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 13, 2017, 09:23:21 AM
My overall top 10 right now:
1. Miami
2. Alabama
3. Clemson
4. Oklahoma
5. Georgia
6. Wisconsin
7. Auburn
8. Notre Dame
9. USC
10. Oklahoma State


No love for the Buckeyes? I guess your still stinging from Saturday.

I don't have any major beefs, with the exception of Oklahoma St. Their OOC was awful, their best wins are Iowa St and West Virginia, good wins, but they didn't play "great" in either of those games in my opinion. I think Ohio St with better wins against Penn St and MSU should be #10, maybe #9. I'm not sold on USC yet.

I think the Buckeyes ceiling is probably going to be around 5, if they win out. They'd definitely pass ND, Okie St, Wisconsin (head to head win and conf title and badgers weaker schedule), Georgia (assuming they don't win SEC), probably (Clemson/Miami loser) although not guaranteed, Auburn (assuming it loses again).

they won't pass Alabama even with 1 loss (with or without a conference title), they won't pass OU even with 2 losses (with or without conference title), they won't pass the Clemson/Miami winner, they won't pass a Georgia SEC title winner, a USC PAC 12 title winner would be interesting, both got housed in 1 game, both have some decent wins. it might come down to who they get in their respected title games and how they look.  not sure of tiebreakers, but looks like Wash St, Standford or Washington for USC. I'm guessing they'd prefer Washington as they'd be higher ranked. Bucks need Badgers to win out almost as bad as Badgers need Bucks to win out. then they could add a top 10 win, maybe top 6-7 to end the year.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 13, 2017, 09:39:09 AM
The Badgers need to get healthy. That is critical for this home stretch.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 13, 2017, 09:57:26 AM
My overall top 10 right now:
1. Miami
2. Alabama
3. Clemson
4. Oklahoma
5. Georgia
6. Wisconsin
7. Auburn
8. Notre Dame
9. USC
10. Oklahoma State


No love for the Buckeyes? I guess your still stinging from Saturday.

I don't have any major beefs, with the exception of Oklahoma St. Their OOC was awful, their best wins are Iowa St and West Virginia, good wins, but they didn't play "great" in either of those games in my opinion. I think Ohio St with better wins against Penn St and MSU should be #10, maybe #9. I'm not sold on USC yet.

I think the Buckeyes ceiling is probably going to be around 5, if they win out. They'd definitely pass ND, Okie St, Wisconsin (head to head win and conf title and badgers weaker schedule), Georgia (assuming they don't win SEC), probably (Clemson/Miami loser) although not guaranteed, Auburn (assuming it loses again).

they won't pass Alabama even with 1 loss (with or without a conference title), they won't pass OU even with 2 losses (with or without conference title), they won't pass the Clemson/Miami winner, they won't pass a Georgia SEC title winner, a USC PAC 12 title winner would be interesting, both got housed in 1 game, both have some decent wins. it might come down to who they get in their respected title games and how they look.  not sure of tiebreakers, but looks like Wash St, Standford or Washington for USC. I'm guessing they'd prefer Washington as they'd be higher ranked. Bucks need Badgers to win out almost as bad as Badgers need Bucks to win out. then they could add a top 10 win, maybe top 6-7 to end the year.
I've said before, I'm a sucker for SOR.  I think this is actually relatively close to exactly what those rankings are, which I believe has OSU #15.  I can quite assure you it has nothing to do with "stinging" from Saturday.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 13, 2017, 11:48:31 AM
I've said before, I'm a sucker for SOR.

I'm always curious about all of these metrics, I think some of it's good, some bad. for instance, I would reward Alabama and Clemson etc for beating 4-6 FSU more than I would say Ohio St for beating 8-2 Army. But there's probably metrics out there that say Army is better.

I'm guessing it's weighted toward helmet schools as well. Alabama is probably getting a ton of love for beating a 7-3 Miss St. Meanwhile I bet Wisconsin would not get near as much love if it beat a then 8-3 UM this weekend.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 15, 2017, 09:00:03 AM
well, from a Holy Buckeye chance of making the playoffs, the rankings were about as good as an Ohio State fan could hope for. Good for Wisconsin as well.

Wisconsin wins out, they're in. maybe even slight hope if they lose a heartbreaker to UM they could still get in.

Ohio St being ranked ahead of USC and TCU was huge.

ND at 8 is not a concern, Bucks can jump them "if" they win out. Auburn, UGA and BAMA, 2 of those 3 are gonna get stuck with a loss. Ideally, Bama wins out which would eliminate both Auburn and UGA. This virtually moves OSU up to 6th place if just that happens. And they get to play Wisconsin to move to 5th.

I think this is the biggest piece of the puzzle, if Alabama loses either against Auburn or UGA I think a 1 loss Bama is going to get in over Ohio State, barring Alabama losing to Auburn by 30 points, which I think most would agree is highly unlikely.

The next biggest piece of the puzzle would be rooting for an epic Miami choke in the next 2 weeks. If Miami meets Clemson in the ACC title and they both have a loss, then the loser is out and that let's Ohio State move to 4th. Sign seal delivered the Bucks are in the playoff.

 If Miami lost to Clemson in the ACC title, and it was a great game, then I think it's razor thin whether you take a 1 loss Miami or a 2 loss BIG 10 champion Ohio State. This could go either way, and might depend on how both squads looks the next 3 weeks.

Finally, ideally, I don't think this has to happen, but you want OU to win out. You don't want to see a TCU or someone upset OU and then you have a 2 loss OU being compared to Ohio St when Ohio St lost to them. I think Ohio St might be ahead of OU if that happened, but I think this also opens the scenario for the committee to then say "well, we think USC is better than both" and then puts USC in to avoid the OU/OSU controversy.

Pretty amazing, after the Iowa loss I put Ohio State's chance of making the playoff at 2%. Now, they're still on life support, but it's maybe a 20% chance to make it. Gotta win 3 games though, 2 which are pretty tough and this teams been pretty schizophrenic so who knows if they can even do that.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 15, 2017, 09:27:08 AM
ND is going to lose to Stanford.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Temp430 on November 15, 2017, 09:31:48 AM
Having been blown out twice I think it's fair to say Ohio State is not going to the playoffs no matter what happens over the next few weeks.  Wisconsin is it for the Big Ten if they win out.  If Wisconsin does not win out I think the Big Ten gets shut out this year.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: BuckeyeAvenger on November 15, 2017, 10:19:09 AM
Top 25, Top 10 and Top 5 by conference for the most recent playoff rankings...

Top 25
B1G   6
SEC   5
Pac12 4
Big12 3
ACC   3
G5    3
Ind.  1

Top10
B1G   3
SEC   3
ACC   2
Big12 1
Ind   1

Top 5
ACC   2
B1G   1
SEC   1
Big12 1
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 15, 2017, 11:14:09 AM
Having been blown out twice I think it's fair to say Ohio State is not going to the playoffs no matter what happens over the next few weeks.

Normally I would probably agree. I don't think the Oklahoma loss is that bad, we were winning in the 3rd quarter. factor in they are currently a playoff team with the leading Heisman candidate and I don't think that's a killer.

now, the Iowa loss, yup, that might be the deathblow. but if it was, the committee wouldn't have just ranked us in the 9 slot. they wouldn't have ranked ND in the 8 slot who just got taken to the woodshed, and they wouldn't have ranked Georgia in the 7 slot that got blown out as well. USC got blown out by ND and they are at 11. TCU got blown out by Oklahoma they are at 12.

that's the other factor, a lot of top teams have been blown out this year, so that helps.

plus, if Wisconsin, Penn St, MSU keep winning, Ohio State will probably have 2 top 10 wins in PSU and Wiscy, and a top 15 win in MSU. one of their losses will be to a possible top 3 team. so would the committee overlook 1 bad loss to Iowa? I dunno, but they'd have overlook blowouts from the above mentioned teams if any of them were to get in the playoffs as well.

it's a lot of "if's" but I don't think it's impossible. if Clemson is the #2 team in the country right now after a lot of mediocre peformances same with Miami, and Oklahoma who gives up almost 40 points per game, then college football isn't loaded with great teams this year.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 15, 2017, 11:23:28 AM

Normally I would probably agree. I don't think the Oklahoma loss is that bad, we were winning in the 3rd quarter. factor in they are currently a playoff team with the leading Heisman candidate and I don't think that's a killer.

now, the Iowa loss, yup, that might be the deathblow. but if it was, the committee wouldn't have just ranked us in the 9 slot. they wouldn't have ranked ND in the 8 slot who just got taken to the woodshed, and they wouldn't have ranked Georgia in the 7 slot that got blown out as well. USC got blown out by ND and they are at 11. TCU got blown out by Oklahoma they are at 12.

that's the other factor, a lot of top teams have been blown out this year, so that helps.

plus, if Wisconsin, Penn St, MSU keep winning, Ohio State will probably have 2 top 10 wins in PSU and Wiscy, and a top 15 win in MSU. one of their losses will be to a possible top 3 team. so would the committee overlook 1 bad loss to Iowa? I dunno, but they'd have overlook blowouts from the above mentioned teams if any of them were to get in the playoffs as well.

it's a lot of "if's" but I don't think it's impossible. if Clemson is the #2 team in the country right now after a lot of mediocre peformances same with Miami, and Oklahoma who gives up almost 40 points per game, then college football isn't loaded with great teams this year.
You are forgetting about the helmet factor. The most important of all factors.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 15, 2017, 12:53:54 PM
Having been blown out twice I think it's fair to say Ohio State is not going to the playoffs no matter what happens over the next few weeks.  Wisconsin is it for the Big Ten if they win out.  If Wisconsin does not win out I think the Big Ten gets shut out this year.
I strongly disagree in part because of the bolded/underlined portion of your statement.  
There are not entirely unlikely scenarios that get Ohio State at least into the mix and "no matter what" is just too open-ended.  It is still mathematically possible for Ohio State to essentially become a playoff lock.  
At this point I don't think Ohio State is going to the playoffs but if they win out, I think there is a better than 50/50 chance that they would get in because they would likely be ahead of:
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 15, 2017, 12:55:35 PM
The playoff has changed cfb in an interesting way.  It has fundamentally changed rooting interests into something much more similar to the CBB model than the old CFB model.  Allow me to explain:

In CBB if your team is a bubble team your rooting interest is generally to always root for the favories/higher ranked teams because upsets by fellow bubble teams are bad for your teams chances.  

Pre-playoff in CFB if your team was on the BCSNCG or NC "bubble" your rooting interest was always to root for upsets because you needed highly-ranked teams to lose in order to clear a path.  

Looking at Ohio State right now, they are basically a playoff "bubble team".  They aren't in, and obviously would not be in the CFP if the season ended today.  However, they aren't completely out because there is at least a theoretical chance that they could make the top-4.  If you are a fan of a bubble team and you want them in the playoff then your rooting interest is for:

My thoughts on the field at this point:

IMHO, the following teams all control their own destiny:

Teams that need help but are still theoretically alive:

There is almost no scenario in which any team outside of those 16 could make the playoff.  

The teams that need help and Auburn are all basically facing elimination each game from here on out because a 3-loss team is extremely unlikely to make it.  

Each of the six teams that control their own destiny and are not named Auburn could lose a game and still get back into the mix with enough upsets elsewhere.  
(https://www.cfb51.com/Themes/bellacitta/images/icons/modify_inline.gif)
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MaximumSam on November 15, 2017, 12:56:38 PM
Buckeyes would be rooting for Alabama, Miami, and Oklahoma to win out.  That would make the top three very easy, and leave OSU's competitors as a 2 loss non champ Clemson team, a 2 loss Notre Dame team, and the Pac 12 champ (along with 2 loss Georgia and 1 loss Wisconsin, neither I find very likely).
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 15, 2017, 12:57:58 PM
You are forgetting about the helmet factor. The most important of all factors.
I disagree.  Besides, if the Buckeyes end up as an 11-2 B1G Champion they are likely to be up against Notre Dame for a CFP spot and it doesn't get any more helmet than that.  Actually it could be between 11-2 B1G Champion Ohio State, 11-2 P12 Champion USC, and 10-2 Notre Dame.  Ohio State isn't going to win that based on helmet.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: utee94 on November 15, 2017, 01:03:31 PM
Helmet factor IS the most important of all factors, but I do agree with medina that in many possible scenarios, Ohio State would be going up against similarly helmety teams like USC and ND.  They're not going to get the benefit of a helmet bump in those scenarios.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 15, 2017, 01:04:27 PM
Buckeyes would be rooting for Alabama, Miami, and Oklahoma to win out.  That would make the top three very easy, and leave OSU's competitors as a 2 loss non champ Clemson team, a 2 loss Notre Dame team, and the Pac 12 champ (along with 2 loss Georgia and 1 loss Wisconsin, neither I find very likely).
2-loss non-Champion Clemson isn't getting in.  Ohio State got in as a 1-loss non-Champion but that only happened because:

Clemson couldn't match that unless:
#1 is unlikely.  
#2 is extremely unlikely.  
#3 is impossible.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 15, 2017, 01:12:43 PM
Buckeyes would be rooting for Alabama, Miami, and Oklahoma to win out.

we actually want Miami to lose to virgina or Pitt. that would guarantee a 2 loss ACC champ. a potential bad scenario is Clemson beating Miami, then you have an 11-1 Miami vs a 2 loss Ohio State. hard to say what the committee would do there. Miami would have a possible Top 10 win against ND if ND beats Standford. They might have a top 25 ranked win vs Va Tech. Ohio State would theoretically have better wins, 2 TOP 10 wins PSU and Wiscy, 1 Top 15 win MSU. but they also have the horrible Iowa loss. so do better wins get you in with the committee or does the worse loss knock you out?

but assuming Miami wins their next 2, then yes, we want Miami to beat Clemson.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 15, 2017, 01:14:21 PM
Helmet factor IS the most important of all factors, but I do agree with medina that in many possible scenarios, Ohio State would be going up against similarly helmety teams like USC and ND.  They're not going to get the benefit of a helmet bump in those scenarios.

Helmet factor is why Ohio State is ranked ahead of, say, TCU, for example.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: utee94 on November 15, 2017, 01:18:24 PM
Helmet factor is why Ohio State is ranked ahead of, say, TCU, for example.
Agree.
I think ESPN's selection committee's rankings are also already reflecting a bit of an assumed loss for TCU in the presumed B12 CCG rematch.  They don't do this for all teams, but TCU is a decidedly non-helmet and gets far less BOTD as a result.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MaximumSam on November 15, 2017, 01:25:53 PM
They seem to like the B1G - 6 teams in the top 25
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 15, 2017, 01:28:03 PM
Agree.
I think ESPN's selection committee's rankings are also already reflecting a bit of an assumed loss for TCU in the presumed B12 CCG rematch.  They don't do this for all teams, but TCU is a decidedly non-helmet and gets far less BOTD as a result.

TCU has a similar resume to Ohio State, but also has a very good road win - something Ohio State does not have yet.

Both lost to OU, but Ohio State accomplished that feat at home while TCU's was on the road.

I'm not convinced that TCU wouldn't beat OU in a "neutral" game near its home.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 15, 2017, 01:29:17 PM
Agree.
I think ESPN's selection committee's rankings are also already reflecting a bit of an assumed loss for TCU in the presumed B12 CCG rematch.  They don't do this for all teams, but TCU is a decidedly non-helmet and gets far less BOTD as a result.
I disagree.  TCU's OOC opponents were:
They made their bed.  When you schedule that OOC you just have to accept the fact that you aren't going to get the BOTD against a team with the same record.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 15, 2017, 01:46:43 PM
I disagree.  TCU's OOC opponents were:
  • FCS Jackson State
  • 4-6 Arkansas
  • 6-4 (in the AAC) SMU
They made their bed.  When you schedule that OOC you just have to accept the fact that you aren't going to get the BOTD against a team with the same record.  
Arky was probably very good when they scheduled that game - which was on the road by the way. Not much you can do about that, and it should not be penalized.

The strength of their conference foes has to be considered as well. Like I said, they have some really good wins to go with their two road losses.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: utee94 on November 15, 2017, 01:53:45 PM
Arky was probably very good when they scheduled that game - which was on the road by the way. Not much you can do about that, and it should not be penalized.

The strength of their conference foes has to be considered as well. Like I said, they have some really good wins to go with their two road losses.
Yeah, Arkansas is about the best tier of P5 opponents that's going to bother with scheduling TCU for a home-and-home.  Prior to that, they had a 2-game series with Minnesota, and before that, Virginia.  That's exactly the tier of P5 opponents that are going to be willing to schedule TCU for home-and-home series.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: PSUinNC on November 15, 2017, 02:12:45 PM
Arky was probably very good when they scheduled that game - which was on the road by the way. Not much you can do about that, and it should not be penalized.

The strength of their conference foes has to be considered as well. Like I said, they have some really good wins to go with their two road losses.
Weren't we discussing just a few pages ago that Penn St needs to stop scheduling Pitt for this exact reason?  Pitt was actually playing Top 25 football when the series was announced, and PSU had to deal with the pending sanctions.  So, PSU shouldn't be penalized either then right?  PSU lost two gut wrenchers, on the road, against Top 20 teams.  Would you put TCU ahead of PSU?
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 15, 2017, 02:53:19 PM
Weren't we discussing just a few pages ago that Penn St needs to stop scheduling Pitt for this exact reason?  Pitt was actually playing Top 25 football when the series was announced, and PSU had to deal with the pending sanctions.  So, PSU shouldn't be penalized either then right?  PSU lost two gut wrenchers, on the road, against Top 20 teams.  Would you put TCU ahead of PSU?
I disagree with badge on this.  I've seen the same thing happen to my team.  Ohio State played a horrible Washington team in 2007 but when that was scheduled, Washington was good.  

For me, I don't care if your opponents are "helmets" or not and I don't care how good they were last year or five years ago.  I believe that every schedule should be assessed based on how good the teams on it are THIS year.  I think this idea that we should give Bama, Michigan, TCU, Wisconsin, and PSU "bonus points" because they probably thought that FSU, Florida, Arkansas, BYU, and Pitt would be better is ludicrous.  I've said it before and I still believe that this isn't 3rd grade T-ball and we shouldn't grade based on effort.  
Next year the Buckeyes' OOC consists of Oregon State, atTCU, and Tulane.  When we scheduled Oregon State they were pretty good but that shouldn't matter.  If Oregon State, TCU, and Tulane all suck next year then the Buckeyes should take a hit for that.  

That said, I obviously think that PSU should be "penalized" for Pitt sucking but it isn't anything against PSU it is simply that I think every team should be assessed based on the actual strength of their schedule not based on what it looked like on paper.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 15, 2017, 03:46:31 PM
Weren't we discussing just a few pages ago that Penn St needs to stop scheduling Pitt for this exact reason?  Pitt was actually playing Top 25 football when the series was announced, and PSU had to deal with the pending sanctions.  So, PSU shouldn't be penalized either then right?  PSU lost two gut wrenchers, on the road, against Top 20 teams.  Would you put TCU ahead of PSU?
Correct.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 15, 2017, 04:00:53 PM
I disagree with badge on this.  I've seen the same thing happen to my team.  Ohio State played a horrible Washington team in 2007 but when that was scheduled, Washington was good.    
??

I don't disagree at all. I'm looking at it this year with BYU. BYU was winning 10 games per season when the series was announced. It happened to UW way back too, with North Carolina and Arizona. They both sucked by the time the games rolled around. WVU not as bad, but not like they were.

I'd love to see series with the best teams. It's not gonna happen because UW is very good, but it's not a helmet.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 15, 2017, 04:06:45 PM
I don't think teams should be criticized for bad scheduling when the opponents aren't as good as they were when they are signed.  But I don't think your CFP resume should be based on intentions.  No, Wisconsin didn't know BYU was going to suck when they scheduled it, so I'm not going to criticize their OOC schedule, or TCU for scheduling Arkansas.  But I'm going to evalute Wisconsin and TCU's resumes based on the teams they played, not the teams they thought they were playing.

I'm not giving Alabama much credit for beating Florida State either.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 15, 2017, 04:22:48 PM
Agree 100 percent.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 15, 2017, 04:33:36 PM
I think that is an important distinction.  I'm not criticizing Wisconsin.  I understand that BYU was a good team when scheduled so I'm not saying "Wisconsin schedules creampuffs".  They didn't intend to schedule a creampuff.  When Wisconsin scheduled BYU they thought they were getting a quality OOC opponent.  

Similarly, when Michigan and Alabama scheduled Florida and Florida State they thought they were scheduling CFP contenders.  

That said, I am in agreement with ELA that those teams' schedules should be evaluated based on what actually happened not the intentions of their AD's.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 15, 2017, 04:38:01 PM
That's exactly the tier of P5 opponents that are going to be willing to schedule TCU for home-and-home series.

Ohio State has a home and home with TCU starting next year, maybe some ADs need to just try harder.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: utee94 on November 15, 2017, 04:44:42 PM
I disagree.  TCU's OOC opponents were:
  • FCS Jackson State
  • 4-6 Arkansas
  • 6-4 (in the AAC) SMU
They made their bed.  When you schedule that OOC you just have to accept the fact that you aren't going to get the BOTD against a team with the same record.  
medina, you're the one that criticized the scheduling itself, not the current quality of the team.



I agree that current quality should be used to measure current season's standings.



But your statement above appears to be criticizing the nature of the scheduling.  I don't fault TCU for scheduling Arkansas and a couple of scrubs any more than I fault Ohio State afor scheduling OU and a couple of scrubs.  This year's on-field results should be all that matters when comparing the two teams and, when you take the entire OOC plus in-conference schedule to date, I believe TCU's and tOSU's results to be quite similar.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: utee94 on November 15, 2017, 04:51:11 PM
That's exactly the tier of P5 opponents that are going to be willing to schedule TCU for home-and-home series.

Ohio State has a home and home with TCU starting next year, maybe some ADs need to just try harder.
That's cool, TCU is clearly trying to get marquee helmets on the schedule by agreeing to the series, and they've clearly not had a lot of takers since their typical OOC teams have been Arkansas/Minnesota/Virginia level opponents.  



It's a pretty well known and understood occurrence that many helmets don't want to risk playing good but non-helmet teams like TCU, or Wisconsin.  tOSU is obviously willing to do it which is good, and Texas has recently played Ole Miss, UCLA, BYU, Cal-Berkeley, and Maryland, so Texas has shown some willingness to do it as well.  (Just not against Wisconsin ;)).  But for the most part, helmets aren't going around granting a lot of home-and-home series to non-helmet P5 teams.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 15, 2017, 04:58:34 PM
OSU will be in the same boat as Wisconsin in 2019, when Cincinnati is their "big" non-Conference game. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 15, 2017, 05:01:42 PM
OSU will be in the same boat as Wisconsin in 2019, when Cincinnati is their "big" non-Conference game.
Eh, you never know.  You could go schedule Florida, and still have Cincinnati wind up as your marquee game.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 15, 2017, 05:12:38 PM
That's cool, TCU is clearly trying to get marquee helmets on the schedule by agreeing to the series, and they've clearly not had a lot of takers since their typical OOC teams have been Arkansas/Minnesota/Virginia level opponents.  



It's a pretty well known and understood occurrence that many helmets don't want to risk playing good but non-helmet teams like TCU, or Wisconsin.  tOSU is obviously willing to do it which is good, and Texas has recently played Ole Miss, UCLA, BYU, Cal-Berkeley, and Maryland, so Texas has shown some willingness to do it as well.  (Just not against Wisconsin ;)).  But for the most part, helmets aren't going around granting a lot of home-and-home series to non-helmet P5 teams.
Playing TCU is good for Texas recruiting. "Giving" them a return game I good business on OSU's part.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 15, 2017, 05:34:42 PM
medina, you're the one that criticized the scheduling itself, not the current quality of the team.



I agree that current quality should be used to measure current season's standings.



But your statement above appears to be criticizing the nature of the scheduling.  I don't fault TCU for scheduling Arkansas and a couple of scrubs any more than I fault Ohio State afor scheduling OU and a couple of scrubs.  This year's on-field results should be all that matters when comparing the two teams and, when you take the entire OOC plus in-conference schedule to date, I believe TCU's and tOSU's results to be quite similar.

That is a fair point.  I shouldn't criticize TCU as harshly as I did because Arkansas was intended to be a good OOC game.  
I do think, however, that just generically OU and two scrubs is going to be a tougher slate most years than Arkansas and two scrubs.  
Regardless of whether or not they deserve to be criticized for it, TCU ended up with a weak OOC schedule this year.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MrNubbz on November 15, 2017, 05:36:59 PM
Having been blown out twice I think it's fair to say Ohio State is not going to the playoffs no matter what happens over the next few weeks.  Wisconsin is it for the Big Ten if they win out.  If Wisconsin does not win out I think the Big Ten gets shut out this year.

Sorta of agree but clemson losing to Cuse is worse than losing to Iowa.Of course Dabo would have to lay another egg
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 15, 2017, 05:39:47 PM
Sorta of agree but clemson losing to Cuse is worse than losing to Iowa.Of course Dabo would have to lay another egg
They keep discussing how Bryant was hurt for that game, and I hate that.  I'm sorry but staying healthy or playing through injuries is part of winning a title.  Is it crap luck?  Sure.  But what's the downside to injuries then if we basically just discount any games impacted by them.  Do we ding Clemson because they needed a couple TDs late to pull away from Florida State playing without Francois?  Your resume is your resume, and Clemson getting a pass for that loss because a guy was hurt is BS.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MrNubbz on November 15, 2017, 05:47:46 PM
Exactly ELA.Not a biggie but if I'm a voter The Sooners are ahead of Dabo.Not because of tOSU game but ISU has proved a much better squad than originally thought.Same can't be said for Cuse and FSU is a non factor in sos
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 15, 2017, 07:23:12 PM
Yeah, I had those as my 4, but Miami-Oklahoma-Clemson, in that order 2-4
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 15, 2017, 07:55:32 PM
They keep discussing how Bryant was hurt for that game, and I hate that.  I'm sorry but staying healthy or playing through injuries is part of winning a title.  Is it crap luck?  Sure.  But what's the downside to injuries then if we basically just discount any games impacted by them.  Do we ding Clemson because they needed a couple TDs late to pull away from Florida State playing without Francois?  Your resume is your resume, and Clemson getting a pass for that loss because a guy was hurt is BS.
No kidding. Injuries are a part of football.

Besides. I seem to recall a team winning a Natti with their third string QB. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 15, 2017, 08:06:41 PM
OSU will be in the same boat as Wisconsin in 2019, when Cincinnati is their "big" non-Conference game.
2019 does suck, but if you look at the next 8-9 years they have some very difficult OOC, I would argue the best in the country. Back to back years we will play both Texas and ND in the same years, and I think one of those years we have Boston college as well. I don't know many programs willing to do that. The unfortunate thing is it will backfire,until the committee puts in a 2 loss team over 1 loss there's no benefit to schedule this way.

This is also why I think intent of who you schedule has to matter. There's no way going 3-0 against FCS school, Florida international and Oregon st should be treated the same as playing Texas ND and Boston college and going 2-1. The team that goes 2-1 has to be ranked ahead of the 3-0 team playing no one, and that's true even if say Texas is 5-7, Boston college 3-9 and ND 7-5. Why? Because the rosters of Texas and ND have enough talent that they can beat anyone on a given night,  where an FCS school has 0.2% shot of beating a top 10 team. That's why intent to schedule has to matter. It's why I'd give Bama the nod over TCU 10 times out of 10 for having the guts to play FSU vs the crap I see Washington play for instance, or TCU this year.

And don't tell me "well Arkansas was good when we scheduled it." Arkansas has in the last 20 years been at best a middle of the pack SEC team. I'm not saying it's a terrible game, but if that's what your hanging your hat on then that's not saying much.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 15, 2017, 08:17:38 PM
Yeah, OSU always has at least one marquee opponent. 

I don't know what's up with 2019.

I don't mind Cincinnati and Miami(OH) being on the non-conference schedule, but not as the main course.

Hopefully they replace the Florida Atlantic game with, at the very least, a P5 team. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 15, 2017, 08:29:46 PM
If FAU can hang on to Kiffin they will pose a challenge. Kiffin now is not Kiffin 2009. He's got that team playing really well.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: bayareabadger on November 15, 2017, 08:35:56 PM
They keep discussing how Bryant was hurt for that game, and I hate that.  I'm sorry but staying healthy or playing through injuries is part of winning a title.  Is it crap luck?  Sure.  But what's the downside to injuries then if we basically just discount any games impacted by them.  Do we ding Clemson because they needed a couple TDs late to pull away from Florida State playing without Francois?  Your resume is your resume, and Clemson getting a pass for that loss because a guy was hurt is BS.
Here's my issue there: if it was someone like Watson who just missed a game, and the team looked awesome most of the rest of the way, I could see it as a tiebreaker of sorts. 
But Kelly Bryant is just and OK QB. And he's running and offense that has just been OK most of the year. And they were playing like trash when he was in. Shoot, if injuries count, UW can just rest easy because the next three losses will be excused. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 16, 2017, 09:48:12 AM
I'm curious how the committee will view big losses as compared to big wins.  Biggest losses by CFP top-25 teams:

Ohio State's 45 point win over MSU is the biggest MoV over a top-25 team all year.  However, Ohio State's 31 point loss to Iowa is the 4th largest loss by a top-25 team all year.  Do those offset?  

Based on history, my impression is that the committee puts more emphasis on wins than losses so I *think* that the huge win over MSU helps more than the huge loss to Iowa hurts but that is speculative, who knows.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 16, 2017, 09:51:17 AM
Based on history, my impression is that the committee puts more emphasis on wins than losses so I *think* that the huge win over MSU helps more than the huge loss to Iowa hurts but that is speculative, who knows.  
I believe they have said this, at least as far as quality of win vs. loss.  We were so ingrained to compare losses.  If you had two 12-1 teams, the pollsters generally favored the team with the better loss, even if the team with the worse loss had many more good wins.  I'm not sure how they view it as far as margin of win vs. margin of loss.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: PSUinNC on November 16, 2017, 10:20:43 AM
No kidding. Injuries are a part of football.

Besides. I seem to recall a team winning a Natti with their third string QB.
Yes, Pitt did in 1976.  ANYONE could have handed off to Dorsett that year ;-)
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: PSUinNC on November 16, 2017, 10:23:54 AM
I'm curious how the committee will view big losses as compared to big wins.  Biggest losses by CFP top-25 teams:
  • Bama, n/a
  • Clemson:  by 3 at Syracuse
  • Miami, n/a
  • Oklahoma, by 7 vs ISU
  • Wisconsin, n/a
  • Auburn, by 8 at Clemson
  • Georgia, by 23 at Auburn
  • Notre Dame, by 33 at Miami
  • Ohio State, by 31 at Iowa
  • Penn State, by 3 at Michigan State
  • USC, by 35 at Notre Dame
  • TCU, by 18 at Oklahoma
  • OkSU, by 13 vs TCU
  • WSU, by 34 at Cal
  • UCF, n/a
  • MissSt, by 29 at Auburn
  • Michigan State, by 45 at Ohio State
  • Washington, by 8 at Stanford
  • NCST, by 21 at Notre Dame
  • LSU, by 30 at MissSt
  • Memphis, by 27 at UCF
  • Stanford, by 18 at USC
  • Northwestern, (tie) by 24 vs PSU and at Dook
  • Michigan, by 29 at PSU
  • Boise State, by 19 vs UVA

Ohio State's 45 point win over MSU is the biggest MoV over a top-25 team all year.  However, Ohio State's 31 point loss to Iowa is the 4th largest loss by a top-25 team all year.  Do those offset?  

Based on history, my impression is that the committee puts more emphasis on wins than losses so I *think* that the huge win over MSU helps more than the huge loss to Iowa hurts but that is speculative, who knows.  
Maybe it's just me, but I think teams 5-13 are all very, very, very close in terms of how good they are.  I just don't see a lot of separation in that group of 8 teams.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 16, 2017, 10:35:44 AM
Iowa will likely win out and finished ranked so that loss, despite the margin, will probably be viewed differently than losing to a Syracuse, for example.

Iowa will also be viewed as a good win for any team that beat them.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on November 16, 2017, 12:19:31 PM
I believe they have said this, at least as far as quality of win vs. loss.  We were so ingrained to compare losses.  If you had two 12-1 teams, the pollsters generally favored the team with the better loss, even if the team with the worse loss had many more good wins.  I'm not sure how they view it as far as margin of win vs. margin of loss.
a good win helps you more than a 'good' loss doesn't hurt you. or rather, a good win vs an average win is a big boost, while a 'good' loss vs an 'average' loss are both similarly detrimental. so, a loss is a loss, but a win isn't just a win, it can be a WIN.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on November 16, 2017, 12:22:48 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I think teams 5-13 are all very, very, very close in terms of how good they are.  I just don't see a lot of separation in that group of 8 teams.
i'd go ahead and throw in 1-4 as well. not a whole lot of separation this year, imo.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 16, 2017, 12:57:19 PM
a good win helps you more than a 'good' loss doesn't hurt you. or rather, a good win vs an average win is a big boost, while a 'good' loss vs an 'average' loss are both similarly detrimental. so, a loss is a loss, but a win isn't just a win, it can be a WIN.
Which I don't like.  I agree we focused TOO much on bad losses, without looking a wins before, but not all losses are even close to equal.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on November 16, 2017, 01:22:11 PM
agreed
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on November 16, 2017, 01:37:19 PM
It appears that the Committee regards Clemson has having less than one loss.  Maybe half of a loss.  Otherwise, why is Clemson ahead of undefeated Miami?  Clemson's one big win at home over an Auburn squad that wasn't playing well at the time.  Miami's one big win was at home over Notre Dame.  But Clemson has a loss, to stinkin' Syracuse, so why are the Tigers ranked ahead of the Hurricanes?
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 16, 2017, 01:51:48 PM
I'm pretty sure they've directly said as much, due to Bryant's injury
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on November 16, 2017, 02:49:24 PM
I'm pretty sure they've directly said as much, due to Bryant's injury
Yes.  But how much forgiveness should they get because their so-so QB went out with an injury?

I don't agree with the principle of taking injuries into account in the first place.  But, even granting the principle, Clemson's QB wasn't exactly a Mayfield, Darnold, or Rosen.

Clemson is getting the benefit of the doubt because they were last year's champs.

Similarly, Alabama has been pretty much ranked #1 (in the polls) all year and is now ranked #1 by the Committee because of past successes, without actually beating anyone very good THIS YEAR.  Bama's biggest win is the comeback over Mississippi State in its most recent game.  It was not nothing, and it was on the road, but it wasn't as good a win as Miami's over Notre Dame.

The Committee consistently violates the very rationales that it offers in explanation of its rankings.

I'd rank the top 4 this way:

1. Miami
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma
4. Clemson
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: utee94 on November 16, 2017, 03:01:00 PM
ESPN's selection committee knows that the ACC championship game will effectively be an elimination game for the 4-team CFP.  So it doesn't really matter in what order they rank them today.  Their only intent in delivering rankings today, is to generate controversy which they believe will result in heightened interest in their weekly show and ultimately more advertising dollars.  That is the sole purpose of releasing any ranking at all prior to the final one.


Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 16, 2017, 03:12:48 PM
Yes.  But how much forgiveness should they get because their so-so QB went out with an injury?

I don't agree with the principle of taking injuries into account in the first place.  But, even granting the principle, Clemson's QB wasn't exactly a Mayfield, Darnold, or Rosen.

Clemson is getting the benefit of the doubt because they were last year's champs.

Similarly, Alabama has been pretty much ranked #1 (in the polls) all year and is now ranked #1 by the Committee because of past successes, without actually beating anyone very good THIS YEAR.  Bama's biggest win is the comeback over Mississippi State in its most recent game.  It was not nothing, and it was on the road, but it wasn't as good a win as Miami's over Notre Dame.

The Committee consistently violates the very rationales that it offers in explanation of its rankings.

I'd rank the top 4 this way:

1. Miami
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma
4. Clemson
I agree with you.  I said the same thing above.  I'm just saying what they've said.  My top 4 was Alabama-Miami-Oklahoma-Clemson.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on November 16, 2017, 04:47:06 PM
Yes.  But how much forgiveness should they get because their so-so QB went out with an injury?

I don't agree with the principle of taking injuries into account in the first place.  But, even granting the principle, Clemson's QB wasn't exactly a Mayfield, Darnold, or Rosen.

Clemson is getting the benefit of the doubt because they were last year's champs.

Similarly, Alabama has been pretty much ranked #1 (in the polls) all year and is now ranked #1 by the Committee because of past successes, without actually beating anyone very good THIS YEAR.  Bama's biggest win is the comeback over Mississippi State in its most recent game.  It was not nothing, and it was on the road, but it wasn't as good a win as Miami's over Notre Dame.

The Committee consistently violates the very rationales that it offers in explanation of its rankings.

I'd rank the top 4 this way:

1. Miami
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma
4. Clemson
i'd have no problem with that ranking.
i'd like to point out, though, that msu has 3 losses because they've played 3 top 10 teams (uga, au, bama). lots of really good teams would have 3 losses from that.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 16, 2017, 05:04:23 PM
ESPN's selection committee knows that the ACC championship game will effectively be an elimination game for the 4-team CFP.  So it doesn't really matter in what order they rank them today.  Their only intent in delivering rankings today, is to generate controversy which they believe will result in heightened interest in their weekly show and ultimately more advertising dollars.  That is the sole purpose of releasing any ranking at all prior to the final one.



Ed Zachery, because if the season ended today, undefeated Wisconsin would be in the top 4
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 16, 2017, 05:28:05 PM
Ed Zachery, because if the season ended today, undefeated Wisconsin would be in the top 4
Over who?

Helmet schools Bama and OU are in.

Miami is undefeated too, and has a (supposedly) awesome win over ND.

Clemson gets defending champion love.

If the season were to end today, Wisconsin would be #5.

End of story.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 16, 2017, 05:31:30 PM
the Sooners would be left out for the sinful home loss to the Cyclones

and they should
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on November 16, 2017, 05:31:36 PM
I agree with you.  I said the same thing above.  I'm just saying what they've said.  My top 4 was Alabama-Miami-Oklahoma-Clemson.
Yeah, I saw your earlier post after I made mine.  Sorry for any implication that I was correcting your point.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: utee94 on November 16, 2017, 05:47:59 PM
Over who?

Helmet schools Bama and OU are in.

Miami is undefeated too, and has a (supposedly) awesome win over ND.

Clemson gets defending champion love.

If the season were to end today, Wisconsin would be #5.

End of story.
Yeah, it's a tough one to call.  I think you might be right on that.
However, assuming both Miami and Clemson win out, they will still have to play one another, and that will result in elimination.  If Wisconsin wins out, they're certainly in.  If they take a loss, well then all bets are off, of course.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on November 16, 2017, 05:49:44 PM
the Sooners would be left out for the sinful home loss to the Cyclones

and they should
Maybe so.  But then so should Clemson for its road loss to a much-worse-than-Iowa-State Syracuse team.

I'm not going to pull a Lou Holtz on Iowa State, but that is not a bad team.  The Clones have lost by 3 to Iowa, by by 4 at West Virginia, and by 7 to oSu on a last-play pick in the end zone.  Their only bad loss is by 10 to Texas.  They will probably finish 8-4.

If we want to make allowances for injuries, ISU could be the dictionary illustration.  I believe that they were using their pre-season 4th-string QB against Oklahoma State.

Meanwhile, Clemson gets a pass because their QB who has thrown almost as many picks as TDs went down against Syracuse.

To the other point under discussion here, the rankings should reflect how the Committee sees the teams RIGHT NOW, not how they will be after their CCGs, or after they play their hated rivals, or whatnot.  It would be misleading if the Committee were to project Clemson (for example) to beat Miami in the ACC CG and rank them accordingly.  I don't think that they are doing that.  I think that, in this respect, they are doing the right thing.

So I agree with Badge that, if the season were to end today, Wisconsin--rightly or wrongly--would be left out.  If Wisconsin wins out, the Badgers will properly be in the top 4.  No way a 13-0 P5 conference champ gets left out unless all 5 P5 champs are undefeated.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 16, 2017, 05:58:46 PM
Yeah, it's a tough one to call.  I think you might be right on that.
However, assuming both Miami and Clemson win out, they will still have to play one another, and that will result in elimination.  If Wisconsin wins out, they're certainly in.  If they take a loss, well then all bets are off, of course.
My guess is that they could lose to either Michigan or Minnesota and still be almost certainly in if they win the B1GCG to finish 12-1.  However, 12-1 with a loss in the B1GCG would almost certainly keep the Badgers out.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 16, 2017, 06:19:57 PM
Over who?

Helmet schools Bama and OU are in.

Miami is undefeated too, and has a (supposedly) awesome win over ND.

Clemson gets defending champion love.

If the season were to end today, Wisconsin would be #5.

End of story.
In a way I think you are both right.  If there was some horrific calamity that prevented the last two weeks of the season and the CCG's from being played and the CFP committee had to create a ranking based only on what has already transpired I think what we see now would be it.  The CFP would be:

On the other hand, fearless has a point because "undefeated Wisconsin" would be in at the end of the season.  That, however, assumes that Wisconsin:
If those things happen then there is absolutely zero chance that "undefeated Wisconsin" will miss the CFP.  

I also believe that the Michigan game is probably irrelevant to Wisconsin's playoff chances because a 12-1 B1G Champion would be ranked ahead of:
Thus, 12-1 B1G Champion Wisconsin would only be potentially behind the Champions of the SEC, ACC, and B12.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 16, 2017, 06:47:08 PM
Maybe so.  But then so should Clemson for its road loss to a much-worse-than-Iowa-State Syracuse team.


you're right
I would leave out Clemson instead of Oklahoma - regardless of what Clemson did last season
Oklahoma's loss is better and Oklahoma's win over Ohio St is better
sorry, just using Oklahoma as an example
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 16, 2017, 06:56:47 PM
In a way I think you are both right.  If there was some horrific calamity that prevented the last two weeks of the season and the CCG's from being played and the CFP committee had to create a ranking based only on what has already transpired I think what we see now would be it.  The CFP would be:
  • #1 Bama vs #4 Oklahoma
  • #3 Clemson vs #3 Miami


my argument is based on the committee simply ranking by the loss column.  If the season ended today and they put the committee in a room and forced them to come up with the final 4, Wisconsin with NO losses would get the #4 seed if not the #3 seed.
I could be wrong, the committee changes a few members each season and I don't know what they are thinking, but.....  pretty hard to put in an OU or Clemson with a loss over an undefeated Badger team
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on November 16, 2017, 07:47:18 PM
you're right
I would leave out Clemson instead of Oklahoma - regardless of what Clemson did last season
Oklahoma's loss is better and Oklahoma's win over Ohio St is better
sorry, just using Oklahoma as an example
No offense taken, Fearless.

To go back to the ridiculousness of "taking injuries into account," if the Committee REALLY wants to do that, then it should look at OU in the Iowa State game.  6 Sooner starters--including 2 OL, the best WR, and the best DB--missed all or most of that game due to injuries.

Of course, ISU was on its 3rd-string QB in that game, so maybe everything sort of evened out.  Just like everything maybe sorta evened out in Clemson @ Syracuse.

I wonder when the Committee will start "taking poor officiating into account."  Or "boneheaded coaching decisions."
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 16, 2017, 08:03:52 PM
I think, the only time the committee should take injuries into account if the final pool is very close for #4 and #5

for example:  say Baker Mayfield is injured as the Sooners win the Big 12 champ game.  Not available to play in the playoff

Only if it was already a very close vote between OU and Clemson, then I think you can give a healthy Clemson squad the nod for the #4 seed

otherwise, it's a team sport.  Base the votes on how the team performs on the field of play
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Kris61 on November 17, 2017, 06:01:41 AM
It appears that the Committee regards Clemson has having less than one loss.  Maybe half of a loss.  Otherwise, why is Clemson ahead of undefeated Miami?  Clemson's one big win at home over an Auburn squad that wasn't playing well at the time.  Miami's one big win was at home over Notre Dame.  But Clemson has a loss, to stinkin' Syracuse, so why are the Tigers ranked ahead of the Hurricanes?
Clemson also has six wins over P5 teams with winning records.  No one else is close to that.  There is a really good chance they will have  eight heading into the ACC CCG.  That's why I mentioned earlier that even if Clemson loses to Miami they would at least have an argument over an 11-2 conference champ Ohio St (or any 11-2 champ for that matter).
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 17, 2017, 07:49:00 AM
my argument is based on the committee simply ranking by the loss column.  If the season ended today and they put the committee in a room and forced them to come up with the final 4, Wisconsin with NO losses would get the #4 seed if not the #3 seed.
I could be wrong, the committee changes a few members each season and I don't know what they are thinking, but.....  pretty hard to put in an OU or Clemson with a loss over an undefeated Badger team
Yeah, I agree with this.  They know Clemson and Miami still have to play each other, so the spot is there if Wisconsin wins out, so they aren't overly worried about it, but if they had to end it now, I think Bucky would be in, whether or not you feel like they deserve it.
That said, if you are ending it right now, you are ending it after 10 games.  The reason undefeateds get a bump at the end is because they did it for 13 games, not 10, and they have a conference title.  This is 3 less games, and no title.  After 1 week, we don't overly care if someone is undefeated.  That sole fact matters increasingly with each week, particularly when you add a conference title.  Does 10 weeks and to conference title make it mean enough to overcome a SOS gap?  Not sure.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: utee94 on November 17, 2017, 09:44:38 AM
Clemson also has six wins over P5 teams with winning records.  No one else is close to that.  There is a really good chance they will have  eight heading into the ACC CCG.  That's why I mentioned earlier that even if Clemson loses to Miami they would at least have an argument over an 11-2 conference champ Ohio St (or any 11-2 champ for that matter).
I mean, yeah, Clemson would have an argument.  But not a particularly good one IMO, since they already had a shot at presumed playoff participant Miami and lost.  



And beyond that, ESPN's selection committee is always going to favor a helmet when it can, and it's always going to look for geographic diversity in the 4 playoff teams when it can, because their sole objective is to turn on as many TV sets as possible.  This is why I asserted last year, and will continue to assert, that it's going to take some catastrophic situation of multiple 3-loss (or worse) P5 conference champs before ESPN is going to put two teams in from the same conference.  They're in pretty dire financial straits right now and really can't afford to piss off half (or more) of the entire country.





Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 17, 2017, 11:10:35 AM
yup, the Committee will be watching the Wisconsin-Michigan game with high interest

but, they can and will do whatever they like in the final poll 

if that means dropping a one-loss #2 team to #5 to make room for an undefeated to get in, they will do it
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: utee94 on November 17, 2017, 11:30:12 AM
yup, the Committee will be watching the Wisconsin-Michigan game with high interest

but, they can and will do whatever they like in the final poll

if that means dropping a one-loss #2 team to #5 to make room for an undefeated to get in, they will do it
For sure.  Which is precisely why they've positioned Miami and Clemson where they have.  There's zero risk for doing so, the games will play out, and then they can craft whatever narrative they like to explain their final selections.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 17, 2017, 11:59:37 AM
UW just needs to win. That is all the kids can control.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on November 17, 2017, 12:03:17 PM
playoff contenders at this moment (no particular order)

1 - sec champ (bama, au, uga)
2 - acc champ (clemson, miami)
3 - bigxii champ (ou, tcu)
4 - b1g champ (wisk, osu)

should any of these teams lose unexpectedly, we will reevaluate. but as it stands, these teams all have games vs each other with little else standing in their way (except mich for osu/wisk).

p12 would need an epic collapse from about 7 teams above to get back in.
nd might sneak in with the normal fallout and a couple of collapses.
bama might sneak back in with a loss if others collapse similar to nd scenario.

otherwise it's fairly straight forward to me.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 17, 2017, 12:26:24 PM
I could see the Big 12 champ being left out if it is TCU, the B1G and ACC champs are unbeaten, and the SEC champ is Auburn. I think they would opt for Bama over TCU in that case.

Helmet law.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: BuckeyeAvenger on November 17, 2017, 12:41:48 PM
Step 1 of the Buckeyes search for a playoff spot - this weekend...
Wisconsin defeats Michigan
Ohio State wins convincingly over Illinois.

Step 2 - Alabama wins out

Step 3 - Oklahoma wins out

Step 4 - Miami wins out.

Step 5 - Ohio State wins out convincingly.

The Buckeyes will then get the 4th playoff spot. I don’t see anything that could interfere, given the above.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 17, 2017, 12:48:26 PM
I could see the Big 12 champ being left out if it is TCU, the B1G and ACC champs are unbeaten, and the SEC champ is Auburn. I think they would opt for Bama over TCU in that case.

Helmet law.
I think you guys put too much on helmet status.  IMHO, the committee will always and forever select:

Thus far in the CFP era:
2014
2015:
2016:

To the extent that "helmet" plays a role at all, it will ONLY play a role in the selection of teams within group-3 (ie, teams that lose twice and/or do not win their Conference).  If you win your conference with one or less losses you are in barring five or more such teams.  Note, however, that in 2016 the issue was between three helmet teams.  It will frequently be like that.  There are potential scenarios this year, for example, in which the fourth spot would be between Ohio State, Notre Dame, and USC.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 17, 2017, 01:19:33 PM
pretty hard to put in an OU or Clemson with a loss over an undefeated Badger team

I don't think so. Are you putting an undefeated UCF in the playoff then?

Why not? Because they haven't beaten anyone of note. OU has beaten both OSU's on the road and TCU at home. Wisconsin has no wins better than any of those 3, as of right now their best win is an unranked Iowa squad that probably finishes 8-4.

Clemson beat Auburn, Va Tech was probably a little too hyped up, but still a huge quality win vs the Tigers.

If I'm on the committee, I would have no issue voting OU or Clemson in as of right now. Now if Wisconsin goes on to beat UM and OSU, it'd get closer, but Clemson would have wins over Auburn and Miami (FL), OU would have wins over 2 OSU's, TCU twice, Wisconsin still can't touch that.

losses are overblown, they gotta count yes, but a team that challenges itself OOC should be rewarded for BIG wins, not overly penalized if they lose a game somewhere if they secure those BIG wins. How many teams would be undefeated with Wisconsin's current 10 game schedule? I'm guessing at least 10.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 17, 2017, 01:23:47 PM
Wisconsin has no wins better than any of those 3, as of right now their best win is an unranked Iowa squad that probably finishes 8-4. 
Northwestern is ranked and will likely finish 9-3.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 17, 2017, 01:51:16 PM
I think you guys put too much on helmet status.  IMHO, the committee will always and forever select:
  • All the undefeated P5 Champions
  • all the 1-loss P5 Champions
  • Other teams as necessary to fill in the four spots.  
the truth
always and forever
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 17, 2017, 01:54:56 PM
pretty hard to put in an OU or Clemson with a loss over an undefeated Badger team

I don't think so. Are you putting an undefeated UCF in the playoff then?

Why not?
only because they are not in the ACC, Big Ten, SEC., Big 12, or the PAC
the Badgers are in one of the P5 conferences, therefore, they are in if undefeated
end of story - the committee either thinks an undefeated P5 team is that good or they don't have the nads to pass one over for a one-loss or 2-loss team they feel is better
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 17, 2017, 03:26:58 PM
Northwestern is ranked and will likely finish 9-3.

Northwestern 9-3 > Iowa 8-4. Sure I guess, but if that's all you got to hang your hat on, it ain't much.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 17, 2017, 03:53:58 PM
There will be plenty more to hang the hat on if UW takes care of business.

If blowing out Iowa is just an OK win, what does it mean when a team gets absolutely trucked by Iowa?

Just curious.

I'll hang up and listen for my answer.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 17, 2017, 04:22:28 PM
If blowing out Iowa is just an OK win, what does it mean when a team gets absolutely trucked by Iowa?

Just curious.

I'll hang up and listen for my answer.


it means your team is pathetic, and I would say in 90% of the years it would disqualify you from any consideration from playing in the playoffs.

the only saving grace for OSU is about 6 teams in the top 12 have all been blown out this year, which seems odd to me. but if someone wants to say OSU doesn't deserve to get in b/c they lost by 31 to Iowa, I can't defend it. I would say it's a valid argument, and it's still quite possible that could keep them out vs say an 11-1 Miami.

I'm not saying Iowa is a bad team, but there's at least 50 teams in college football that can tout a win that is equal or better than Iowa or Northwestern.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 17, 2017, 04:26:46 PM
the Badgers are in one of the P5 conferences, therefore, they are in if undefeated
end of story - the committee either thinks an undefeated P5 team is that good or they don't have the nads to pass one over for a one-loss or 2-loss team they feel is better


I'm willing to agree this year sure, but I don't think you can simply dismiss a non power 5 team. if last year's Houston team, that had a win over a power 5 champion Oklahoma, and I think Louisville too (I might be wrong on that) would have gone undefeated.

The Houston 2016 schedule, assuming undefeated,  would have gotten them in over a 13-0 Wisconsin. Because the Badgers schedule is that bad. It's not their fault in conference they just happened to miss the 3 best teams in the BIG not named Wisconsin in Penn St, OSU and MSU. But it is their fault OOC
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 17, 2017, 05:29:20 PM
It's not UW's fault that BYU went in the shitter and no big schools will schedule them other than for "neutral" games. It is what it is.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 17, 2017, 05:49:48 PM
the Badgers are in one of the P5 conferences, therefore, they are in if undefeated
end of story - the committee either thinks an undefeated P5 team is that good or they don't have the nads to pass one over for a one-loss or 2-loss team they feel is better


I'm willing to agree this year sure, but I don't think you can simply dismiss a non power 5 team. if last year's Houston team, that had a win over a power 5 champion Oklahoma, and I think Louisville too (I might be wrong on that) would have gone undefeated.

The Houston 2016 schedule, assuming undefeated,  would have gotten them in over a 13-0 Wisconsin. Because the Badgers schedule is that bad. It's not their fault in conference they just happened to miss the 3 best teams in the BIG not named Wisconsin in Penn St, OSU and MSU. But it is their fault OOC
I'm not dismissing UCF or other non-P5 undefeateds
I'm merely saying an undefeated P5 conference team )Wisconsin is this season's example) will be in the top 4, unless there are more than 4 undefeated teams.  Then of course someone has to be left out.   but, as you know.... not much chance of 5 or 6 undefeated teams in December
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 17, 2017, 05:58:53 PM

the only saving grace for OSU is about 6 teams in the top 12 have all been blown out this year, which seems odd to me. but if someone wants to say OSU doesn't deserve to get in b/c they lost by 31 to Iowa, I can't defend it. I would say it's a valid argument, and it's still quite possible that could keep them out vs say an 11-1 Miami.
yup, it's a different time and with 4 spots in the playoff instead of 2, but we still hear about the injustice of a one loss Husker team playing for the crystal football in 2001 after losing by 26 to, at the time #14 ranked, CU. and CU finished 10-3 ranked #9 in the final poll.
Howling as you know....  I didn't and won't defend it.  But, as you stated that about 6 teams have been blown out this season, there really wasn't a more deserving team back in 2001.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 17, 2017, 06:02:28 PM
It's not UW's fault that BYU went in the shitter and no big schools will schedule them other than for "neutral" games. It is what it is.
you are certainly correct, Sir
but, then it's no fault of any other program in the top 10 hoping to sway the committee into putting them in the top 4.
seems a bit ironic that a few seasons ago Barry didn't like the idea of a murder's row schedule and this season the schedule is too soft
I think we will see in the end, that playing a soft schedule is the best way into the playoff.  Just win them all and you're in.  Soft schedule or not.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 17, 2017, 06:40:40 PM
With the Pac Champion guaranteed to have at least two losses I think the most important question right now is what would the committee do with a 1-loss non-Champion?  

Last year, of course, Ohio State got in as a 1-loss non-Champion but Ohio State last year had some things going for it that are not everyday occurrences:

There might not be any 1-loss non-Champions:

There are not a lot of potential 1-loss non-Champions left.  They are:

That is it.  There are no other potential 1-loss P5 non-Champions.  Where would those teams be ranked relative to potential 2-loss Champions:
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 17, 2017, 07:25:21 PM
1-loss non-champ vs 2-loss champ would be interesting and put pressure on the committee

1-loss Bama is probably in,  1-loss Miami and 1-loss Wisconsin probably out
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 17, 2017, 09:27:17 PM
It's not UW's fault that BYU went in the shitter and no big schools will schedule them other than for "neutral" games. It is what it is.
Yes it is. BYU the last 10 years is an avg 8 win program. That's not bad, but BYU is getting most of their wins against Idaho, San Jose st, Utah st uconns of the world. Who did you think you were scheduling? Alabama? BYU would be a middling BIG 10 team at best. BYU, FAU, UTAH st. That's a murderers row. 

I'm tired of hearing no one will do a home and home with Wisconsin, it's a total BS excuse. Ohio st did a home and home with Toledo, Michigan st has played at MAC schools, get off your high horse and quit asking for 2-for-1 games against "perceived" lesser teams and tell Barrie to man up and play power 5 schools. Wisconsin can't get a home and home with: Missouri, South Carolina, TCU, Iowa st, cal, Oregon, wash st, ucla, Texas am, Arkansas, ga tech, Pitt, west va etc?

Come on now, pick up the phone
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MaximumSam on November 27, 2017, 08:10:06 PM
I'm really not sure what to think.

The obvious is a lineup of Auburn/Georgia, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and Miami/Clemson, and if Wiscy or OU loses we don't know what will happen.

I've soured on Bama's chances.  I could be wrong, but was thinking back to the LSU/Bama BCs game and how much of a debacle that was.  It was completely unsatisfying to everyone not rooting for Bama or LSU.  The committee is not a bunch of SEC fans, and I'm not sure they will feel very motivated to get two SEC teams in there (especially with as poor as much of the SEC was this year).

Bama is not OSU from last year.  OSU last year had some really strong wins (over Oklahoma, over Michigan, over Wisconsin).  Bama this year has pretty mediocre wins, and nothing really knocks your socks off except for their jerseys.  I would be surprised if the committee works hard to get them in.  But I'm also not sure who they would lean towards - USC or TCU might be a surprise choice.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 27, 2017, 09:56:00 PM
Yes it is. BYU the last 10 years is an avg 8 win program. That's not bad, but BYU is getting most of their wins against Idaho, San Jose st, Utah st uconns of the world. Who did you think you were scheduling? Alabama? BYU would be a middling BIG 10 team at best. BYU, FAU, UTAH st. That's a murderers row.

I'm tired of hearing no one will do a home and home with Wisconsin, it's a total BS excuse. Ohio st did a home and home with Toledo, Michigan st has played at MAC schools, get off your high horse and quit asking for 2-for-1 games against "perceived" lesser teams and tell Barrie to man up and play power 5 schools. Wisconsin can't get a home and home with: Missouri, South Carolina, TCU, Iowa st, cal, Oregon, wash st, ucla, Texas am, Arkansas, ga tech, Pitt, west va etc?

Come on now, pick up the phone
Me? I didn't schedule Bama. King Barry did.

Who do I think I could get? Nobody. I'm just an Engineer and former booster.

I should pick up the phone? Sure. Let's do a conference call with me, you, King Barry and all of the schools you mentioned.

I'm sure the all of those schools would all LOVE to schedule a sure loss. But yeah, since YOU have them all on speed dial, I'll get King Barry on a conference call.

You can call 847-KMA-STFU.

Password is CLUELESS.

I bid you good evening.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 27, 2017, 10:10:11 PM
hah, I always wondered about the 847

perhaps I asked and was told before
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MaximumSam on November 29, 2017, 07:02:20 AM
1(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/atlantic_c/Clemson.png)Clemson University11-1
2(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/southeaste/auburn_logo.png)Auburn University10-2
3(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_12/Oklahoma.png)University of Oklahoma11-1
4(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_ten/Wisconsin.png)University of Wisconsin12-0
5(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/southeaste/alabama_logo.png)University of Alabama11-1
6(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/southeaste/Georgia.png)University of Georgia11-1
7(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/atlantic_c/Miami.png)University of Miami10-1
8(https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_ten/ohio_state_logo.png)Ohio State University10-2
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MaximumSam on November 29, 2017, 07:04:06 AM
The comments from the committee made it seem like these were the only teams that mattered, though I think TCU could jump up there and maybe USC.  Still, some interesting comments along the lines of "teams 5-8 are super close and a conference championship might settle it" which seems like a big hint on what they are thinking.  But since this is all about what people are thinking, who knows
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on November 29, 2017, 10:22:58 AM
i didn't get to watch all of it, but from what i caught from the cfp spokesman, seemed like they would lean osu over bama in that scenario. 

all bama fans are talking about bama/osu, but i've been saying best scenario for bama is ou losing to tcu. that pretty much guarantees bama is in. at least i think it does.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Entropy on November 29, 2017, 11:12:40 AM
Not suggesting that is how I feel it should happen, but rather what I think will happen.  

ACC champ
SEC Champ
Wisky
OU

If either Wisky or OU loses, bama is in.   If both lose, then the committee will most likely chose OSU.   Again, I think that is what would happen regardless of personal feelings. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on November 29, 2017, 11:31:47 AM
if both lose, the argument is picking 2 from the 4:
2 loss b1g champ osu
1 loss non-champ bama
2 loss bigxii champ tcu
and potentially 2 loss pac champ usc

edit: could also throw in 1 loss non champ wisk in there, but, rightly or wrongly, they aren't going to get the same love bama is getting in all likelyhood.

i think bama and osu are both in if that happens.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 29, 2017, 12:01:10 PM
I think that Max's list includes all the contenders.  The committee only moved Ohio State, Penn State, USC, and TCU up one spot each from 9-12 to 8-11.  They all passed former #8 Notre Dame which lost to Stanford.  Stanford moved up nine spots to #12 but it does not matter.  They have three losses so even if the beat USC to be P12 Champion they'll be 10-3 and a 3-loss team is not going to the playoffs.  

Here is what we know:
That covers the top-12 and nobody behind that is even relevant to the discussion.  

For each team:
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Kris61 on November 29, 2017, 07:40:55 PM
i didn't get to watch all of it, but from what i caught from the cfp spokesman, seemed like they would lean osu over bama in that scenario.

all bama fans are talking about bama/osu, but i've been saying best scenario for bama is ou losing to tcu. that pretty much guarantees bama is in. at least i think it does.
I agree.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 30, 2017, 06:46:26 AM
There is a clean path of course and then there is mayhem with a couple upsets/outcomes.

The mayhem would persist, and perhaps worsen, if we had 8 teams involved.

Ohio State has that one really ugly loss, which is obviously a knock, and Bama as noted has no particularly impressive wins, LSU and Miss State are "so-so" wins I suppose, but the MSU outcome was close of course.  FSU was probably a decent team when they played.  I don't see a real clear choice is OSU is 11-2 and Bama is 11-1 for the final slot.

And of course IF OSU is selected and does poorly in the first round Bama fans will claim the usual.

My hope for the Dawgs this year was to win the East and make an NY6 bowl while beating Florida.  That looks assured at this point, so yay, gravy time.

If UGA can clean up their mistakes with Auburn they should compete, as they did last time early until their mistakes got the best of them in a hurry.  They also need to pass on first down.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 30, 2017, 10:35:18 AM
Ohio State has that one really ugly loss, which is obviously a knock, and Bama as noted has no particularly impressive wins, LSU and Miss State are "so-so" wins I suppose, but the MSU outcome was close of course.  FSU was probably a decent team when they played.  I don't see a real clear choice is OSU is 11-2 and Bama is 11-1 for the final slot.
I think a lot of the Bama/tOSU decision (if that is relevant) will come down to how the committee views Bama's FSU win.  
If the committee views FSU as a 5-6 team that also lost to NCST, Miami, L'Ville, Boston College, and Clemson then Bama's schedule is pretty weak.  However, if the committee views FSU as the CFP contender that they were viewed as when that game was played then Bama's schedule looks a lot better.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 30, 2017, 10:43:56 AM
I see tickets for the SEC CG start at $468 on the secondary market right now.  My guess is Dawg fans will represent as they knew they would be there for weeks now.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 30, 2017, 10:44:54 AM
Here is something I'm really on the fence about:

What is Ohio State's best case scenario for getting into the CFP?  

Originally I thought it was for both tOSU and TCU to win but now I'm starting to question that.  If both the Buckeyes and Horned Frogs win that would leave Oklahoma at 11-2.  That hurts Ohio State two ways:

The other side of it is that if TCU wins the committee doesn't have to decide between 11-1 Bama and 11-2 Ohio State.  The committee can take both.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 30, 2017, 11:25:41 AM
A Clemson LOSS still leaves them 11-2 and in the discussion against 11-1 Bama and 11-2 Ohio State (and 11-2 OU and TCU perhaps).

There are still quite a few strange scenarios.



Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 30, 2017, 11:38:34 AM
A Clemson LOSS still leaves them 11-2 and in the discussion against 11-1 Bama and 11-2 Ohio State (and 11-2 OU and TCU perhaps).

There are still quite a few strange scenarios.
I just don't think that a 2-loss non-Champion is a serious factor.  I know Clemson has a stout schedule but the other contenders are all going to pick up MAJOR wins and Conference Championships this weekend.  
In the CFP history they have always taken teams in this order:

If you just continue that pattern, the next groups should be:
4:  All 2-loss P5 Champions.  
5:  Other 2-loss P5 teams*.  

* the one and only time so far that a non-Champion got in several things were relevant:
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 30, 2017, 01:25:36 PM
I doubt 11-2 Clemson is a "serious factor" also.  But we could have two slots open, right?

I think we'd all agree that the SEC and ACC champs are in, no matter what.  TCU beats OU and OSU beats Wisconsin and there are two slots open now.  

Alabama 11-1
Ohio State 11-2  conference champ
Clemson 11-2
TCU  11-2 conference champ (but unlikely to jump from #11 to #4)
USC 11-2 conference champ (but unlikely to jump from #10 to #4)

UCF undefeated conference champ but not P5.

My GUESS is they would choose Bama and OSU, but it could get interesting of course which is why we talk about it.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 30, 2017, 01:41:01 PM
It diminishes Ohio State's loss to the Sooners.  If the Sooners are a 12-1 CFP team then losing to them isn't so bad.  It is worse if they are an 11-2 non-Champion that probably isn't going to the playoffs.  

I don't think the committee cares about losses that much, otherwise Clemson wouldn't be #1 with a loss to a 4 win Cuse team, Ohio State wouldn't have gotten in with it's bad loss to a 6-6 Va Tech team.

I think they care about how many times you lost, but not necessarily who you lost too.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 30, 2017, 01:45:10 PM
I disagree, WHO beat you is VERY important.

Oddly enough, a loss to a bad team is often excused as a "bad day" while a loss to a good team is evidence of something.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on November 30, 2017, 01:51:32 PM
I disagree, WHO beat you is VERY important.

Oddly enough, a loss to a bad team is often excused as a "bad day" while a loss to a good team is evidence of something.
I agree with you, but the committee has said it's WAY down their list.  They look at WHO you beat and how MANY TIMES you lost, not so much who you lost to.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 30, 2017, 01:55:20 PM
It diminishes Ohio State's loss to the Sooners.  If the Sooners are a 12-1 CFP team then losing to them isn't so bad.  It is worse if they are an 11-2 non-Champion that probably isn't going to the playoffs.  

I don't think the committee cares about losses that much, otherwise Clemson wouldn't be #1 with a loss to a 4 win Cuse team, Ohio State wouldn't have gotten in with it's bad loss to a 6-6 Va Tech team.

I think they care about how many times you lost, but not necessarily who you lost too.
It certainly seems that way.  I posted in one of these threads a while ago that Ohio State getting in with a bad loss to VaTech is not the only example.  MSU got in with a loss to Nebraska and Oklahoma got in with a loss to Texas both when UNL/UT were pretty weak.  

The ultimate effect is that I think you are better off to lose to a bad team (ie, Clemson/Cuse) than to a fellow contender because at least Clemson doesn't have to worry about Cuse getting in ahead of them based on H2H. 
 
Same goes for Ohio State.  If you traded results for the Oklahoma and Indiana games, the Buckeyes would be in MUCH better shape.  They'd be 7-2/10-2 instead of 8-1/10-2 but they'd still be heading to Indianapolis because they'd be co-Champs with PSU and MSU and they won both of those games H2H.  They would have two really bad losses (to 7-5 Iowa by 31 and to 6-6 IU by 15) but they'd also have a win over B12CG participant OU along with PSU and MSU.  With a B1GCG win, that would likely be three top-10 and four top-15 wins and the bad losses would be forgiven.  

At that point the B1GCG winner would be a lock for the CFP just like the ACC and SEC winners.  The fourth spot would almost certainly be Bama because the other potential contenders would be:
I think that 11-1 non-Champion Bama wins easily over any of those.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on November 30, 2017, 02:03:26 PM
It diminishes Ohio State's loss to the Sooners.  If the Sooners are a 12-1 CFP team then losing to them isn't so bad.  It is worse if they are an 11-2 non-Champion that probably isn't going to the playoffs.  

I don't think the committee cares about losses that much, otherwise Clemson wouldn't be #1 with a loss to a 4 win Cuse team, Ohio State wouldn't have gotten in with it's bad loss to a 6-6 Va Tech team.

I think they care about how many times you lost, but not necessarily who you lost too.
Kirby Hocutt, the Committee chairman, has almost directly said that the Committee does not look on that Clemson loss as a real loss.  It's sort of half a loss.  Because the Clemson QB--he of 7 TDs and 5 picks at the time--got hurt.

Baloney!

Oklahoma had 6 starters either out for the Iowa State game or who left the game hurt, but nobody mentions that each Tuesday night.  And rightly so.  Injuries are part of the game, and the Committee is wrong to give teams with injuries special consideration, much less to pick one team above all others to receive said consideration.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 30, 2017, 02:33:03 PM
There is no need to "excuse" the OU loss really with injuries.  They are in if they win, as is Clemson.  Placement is rather unimportant.  A 12-1 conference champ will be in every year except the very very odd one.

You can start looking at an 11-2 Clemson if they lose and TCU beats OU perhaps, but probably not.  I think the most likely choice is going to be between Ohio State and Alabama.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on November 30, 2017, 02:39:27 PM
Here is something I'm really on the fence about:

What is Ohio State's best case scenario for getting into the CFP?  

Originally I thought it was for both tOSU and TCU to win but now I'm starting to question that.  If both the Buckeyes and Horned Frogs win that would leave Oklahoma at 11-2.  That hurts Ohio State two ways:
  • It diminishes Ohio State's loss to the Sooners.  If the Sooners are a 12-1 CFP team then losing to them isn't so bad.  It is worse if they are an 11-2 non-Champion that probably isn't going to the playoffs.  
  • It might theoretically put Oklahoma in the mix even as a non-Champion.  That is bad for Ohio State due to the H2H loss.  

The other side of it is that if TCU wins the committee doesn't have to decide between 11-1 Bama and 11-2 Ohio State.  The committee can take both.  
I just don't think that a 2-loss non-Champion is a serious factor.
you already answered this.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 30, 2017, 02:42:02 PM
Kirby Hocutt, the Committee chairman, has almost directly said that the Committee does not look on that Clemson loss as a real loss.  It's sort of half a loss.  Because the Clemson QB--he of 7 TDs and 5 picks at the time--got hurt.

Baloney!

Oklahoma had 6 starters either out for the Iowa State game or who left the game hurt, but nobody mentions that each Tuesday night.  And rightly so.  Injuries are part of the game, and the Committee is wrong to give teams with injuries special consideration, much less to pick one team above all others to receive said consideration.
I agree with you and find it odd that Clemson's loss seems to be more "excused" than any others.  
At this point, however, I really don't think it matters other than for seeding because:

Seeding DOES matter, but at least this year, I'm not sure that it matters in the way that it normally would.  First off, there is no significant difference between #2 and #3.  Thus, the only real differences are between #1/2 and between #3/4.  If we all thought that #1 was substantially stronger than the others or that #4 was substantially weaker then either the 1/2 or the 3/4 difference would be VERY important.  As I see it this year, neither of those things are the case.  As I see it, the top-10 are all about the same and it depends more on how your specific team matches up with them and/or how good of a day your/their team has.  

I strongly believe that any of the CFP contenders on their best day could run any of the others off the field on their worst day.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on November 30, 2017, 02:42:51 PM
I think a lot of the Bama/tOSU decision (if that is relevant) will come down to how the committee views Bama's FSU win.  
If the committee views FSU as a 5-6 team that also lost to NCST, Miami, L'Ville, Boston College, and Clemson then Bama's schedule is pretty weak.  However, if the committee views FSU as the CFP contender that they were viewed as when that game was played then Bama's schedule looks a lot better.  
the reality is likely somewhere in between. francois could have made a difference in some of those game, but not all. they're likely similar to lsu or msu, imo.

the lsu loss to troy hurt bama more imo. if they don't lose that game, they're 10-2 and around #10 with a win over au and close loss vs bama.then bama has their signature win.

blaming you mdt.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on November 30, 2017, 04:05:01 PM
Penn State I think is top-4 but they have no CFP chance

Really? I really like their skill players a lot, but I thought their offensive line was just OK, and I thought their defense was a bit overrated. Very good team, but top 4? eh. The real problem is they had 2 chances to prove it OSU/MSU and they didn't. Nothing OOC to show how good they were. The UM win was by far their best, dominant effort, but UM is an 8-4 squad.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 30, 2017, 04:22:09 PM
Penn State I think is top-4 but they have no CFP chance

Really? I really like their skill players a lot, but I thought their offensive line was just OK, and I thought their defense was a bit overrated. Very good team, but top 4? eh. The real problem is they had 2 chances to prove it OSU/MSU and they didn't. Nothing OOC to show how good they were. The UM win was by far their best, dominant effort, but UM is an 8-4 squad. 
Yes, although I think "top-4" should perhaps have been phrased as "playoff caliber".  I frankly think that any of the top-10 could win it all and none of them really stand out.  
The strength of Penn State is that their worst isn't that bad.  Their worst is losing in Columbus by a point and losing in East Lansing by three.  That is obviously MUCH better than Ohio State's worst but it is also clearly better than Clemson's, Oklahoma's, Georgia's, Miami's, and USC's.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: JWilly86 on November 30, 2017, 04:59:54 PM
I'm tired of hearing no one will do a home and home with Wisconsin, it's a total BS excuse. Ohio st did a home and home with Toledo, Michigan st has played at MAC schools, get off your high horse and quit asking for 2-for-1 games against "perceived" lesser teams and tell Barrie to man up and play power 5 schools. Wisconsin can't get a home and home with: Missouri, South Carolina, TCU, Iowa st, cal, Oregon, wash st, ucla, Texas am, Arkansas, ga tech, Pitt, west va etc?
The MSU vs CMU/WMU games were 3-for-1s.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on November 30, 2017, 08:07:45 PM
I agree with you and find it odd that Clemson's loss seems to be more "excused" than any others.  
At this point, however, I really don't think it matters other than for seeding because:
  • I think that Clemson is in with a win and out with a loss.  
  • I think that OU is in with a win and out with a loss.  
  • I think that Auburn is in with a win and out with a loss.  
  • I think that Wisconsin is in with a win and out with a loss.  

Seeding DOES matter, but at least this year, I'm not sure that it matters in the way that it normally would.  First off, there is no significant difference between #2 and #3.  Thus, the only real differences are between #1/2 and between #3/4.  If we all thought that #1 was substantially stronger than the others or that #4 was substantially weaker then either the 1/2 or the 3/4 difference would be VERY important.  As I see it this year, neither of those things are the case.  As I see it, the top-10 are all about the same and it depends more on how your specific team matches up with them and/or how good of a day your/their team has.  
  • Clemson has a bunch of wins over .500+ teams (as discussed ad nauseam) but they also lost to Cuse.  
  • Auburn has some great wins but they also lost to LSU and Clemson.  
  • OU has some great wins but they also lost to ISU.  
  • Wisconsin looks great but their only ranked victim is #21 Northwestern and their best win outside of their home stadium was Nebraska.  
  • Bama looked great until Auburn but their best wins are #17 and#23.  
  • UGA has some great wins but they also got run off the field by Auburn.  
  • Miami has a great win over ND but they lost to Pitt and struggled with a bunch of mediocre teams.  
  • Ohio State has some great wins but their loss to OU wasn't terribly close and their loss to Iowa was a catastrophe.  
  • Penn State I think is top-4 but they have no CFP chance.  
  • USC could be an 11-2 P5 Champion but they got run off the field by ND and lost to WSU.  

I strongly believe that any of the CFP contenders on their best day could run any of the others off the field on their worst day.  
I may be picking at nits here, but I'm just tired of hearing that same old excuse for Clemson every week.  I've never heard this "QB got hurt" rationale in the three previous iterations of the CFP-selection process.  It seems probable to me that the Committee wants to rank Clemson #1 for some reason, but it doesn't want to say that reason, so it offers up this lame substitute reason.

Which is not to say that Clemson is not the most-deserving team.  I think if you weigh resume and eye test about equally, Clemson looks the best.  I have no problem with Clemson's #1 ranking.  I'm just sick of the Committee's "reasoning" for that ranking.  Does the Committee give extra credit for a win with the #1 QB sitting out with an injury, such as TCU has?  No, per Kirby Hocutt, it does not.

What chaps me more than that, though, is Auburn at #2.  Auburn is probably the team nobody wants to play.  They've beaten the teams currently ranked #5 and #6 over the past three games.  But Auburn has TWO stinkin' losses.  That should knock the Tigers down to the #4 spot.  At least.  If you go on resume alone, Miami (which I regard as Satan-spawn) has a better one than Auburn does.  So do Bama and Georgia, but H2H with Auburn counts for something in those two cases.

By that same reasoning, I could make a case for Wisconsin being #1.

What I really think the rankings should be:
1. Clemson
2. Oklahoma
3. Wisconsin
4T. Auburn
4T. Miami
6. Alabama
7. Georgia
8. Ohio State (Division championship outweighs several other factors that would favor Penn State.)
9. Penn State
10. USC

I hope that the one-loss teams hold serve in the CCGs so that the Committee doesn't have to establish the precedent of putting 2-loss teams into the top four.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Kris61 on November 30, 2017, 08:11:11 PM
I think a lot of the Bama/tOSU decision (if that is relevant) will come down to how the committee views Bama's FSU win.  
If the committee views FSU as a 5-6 team that also lost to NCST, Miami, L'Ville, Boston College, and Clemson then Bama's schedule is pretty weak.  However, if the committee views FSU as the CFP contender that they were viewed as when that game was played then Bama's schedule looks a lot better.  
I think it's hard to view FSU as anymore than they were.  We just didn't get to see FSU with Francois this year.  If the committee considers FSU a contender based on preaseason rankings of other polls then they are going against everything they claim to be.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 30, 2017, 08:21:47 PM
yup, the beauty of the final poll is that everyone voting knows as much as possible regarding the quality of the game vs FSU or any other team on anyone's schedule
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TyphonInc on November 30, 2017, 08:40:26 PM
All this "will OSU make the playoffs" talk is leaving a quesy feeling for me. There is a really good Wisconsin team waiting in Indianapolis, just lickin' their chops and ready to open a can.

Ohio State's focus needs to be solely on trying to beat this really good Badger team. 

Last year Penn State got embarrassed by *ich, and that was the ammo used to keep them out of the playoffs, even after winning the B1G. This year OSU got embarrassed by OU and Iowa, don't worry about the playoffs, just beat Wisconsin, and letting the beauty pageant folks do their beauty pageant thing and send the Bucks where they see fit. 

Phase 1 - beat *ich. *Check*
Phase 2 - Win the Big Ten. Chance for that on Saturday.
Phase 3 - Play in the Rose bowl, well that no longer goes to the Pac and Big Ten champs, so ... GET OFF MY LAWN!
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 30, 2017, 08:55:01 PM
The MSU vs CMU/WMU games were 3-for-1s.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good (bad) narrative.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on November 30, 2017, 09:07:33 PM
I don't worry about who is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 since it confers no advantage.  Obviously finishing at Five is the "almost" position for whiners.  Win your conference with one or zero losses and you're almost certainly in the Dance.  Get two losses or don't win your conference and you are simply at the whims of the committee.  Too bad.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on November 30, 2017, 09:10:24 PM
no sense having 8 spots for the 4 whiners
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MrNubbz on November 30, 2017, 09:11:13 PM
Exactly CD at the mercy of the court and it could be Judge Parker presiding 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 30, 2017, 09:11:43 PM
I don't worry about who is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 since it confers no advantage.  Obviously finishing at Five is the "almost" position for whiners.  Win your conference with one or zero losses and you're almost certainly in the Dance.  Get two losses or don't win your conference and you are simply at the whims of the committee.  Too bad.
I disagree. Where a team is sent makes a big difference.

If a B1G school is sent to the Sugar to play an SEC team it's advantage SEC. If a B1G school is sent to the Rose to play an SEC team, it's advantage B1G.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TyphonInc on December 01, 2017, 07:39:47 AM
no sense having 8 spots for the 4 whiners
love this.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 01, 2017, 10:31:57 AM
All this "will OSU make the playoffs" talk is leaving a quesy feeling for me. There is a really good Wisconsin team waiting in Indianapolis, just lickin' their chops and ready to open a can.
I've engaged in a lot of "will OSU make the playoffs" talk and I want to clarify something here:
It isn't because I think OSU will win, or even because I'm an OSU fan.  It is simply because the Bama/tOSU topic is the most interesting topic in the nation in CFB right now.  If Wisconsin wins there is nothing to talk about.  The Badgers are in with a win, no debate, no discussion.  
The same is true of the SECCG.  Unless you are an Auburn or Georgia fan there just isn't anything to discuss.  The winner is going to the playoffs and the loser isn't.  End of story, no debate, no discussion.  
The two most interesting topics in national CFB right now are:

I think that #2 is substantially less interesting than #1 because the committee's statement that "5-8 are very close" includes #8 Ohio State but explicitly excludes #11 TCU.  Thus, I'm fairly certain that TCU is simply playing for a spot for Bama.  If TCU wins, Bama goes.  

With #8 Ohio State it is, or at least might be, different.  If 5-8 are very close then there is at least a chance that #8 could leap-frog #5 by acquiring a major win (over #4) and a Conference Championship while #5 sits idle at home watching television.  

This is quite obviously the most interesting topic in national CFB right now.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 01, 2017, 10:53:45 AM
the reality is likely somewhere in between. francois could have made a difference in some of those game, but not all. they're likely similar to lsu or msu, imo.
I agree with you but that really doesn't clarify anything and I don't know what the committee will do.  
If you just flat viewed FSU as a contender when they played Bama then Bama's schedule is at least comparable to Ohio State's and Bama has a better record, less losses, no REALLY bad loss, and a signature win and probably gets in over Ohio State no problem.  
If you just flat view FSU as a 6-6 ACC also-ran then Ohio State's SoS is substantially better and the Buckeyes have better wins and a Conference Championship and a much better signature win (if they beat Wisconsin and none of this is relevant if they don't) compared against more losses and a REALLY bad loss.  I think the Buckeyes probably win that.  
If you view FSU as something in between then who knows.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Mdot21 on December 01, 2017, 11:05:43 AM
why are y'all arguing where FSU is-isn't without Francois? Like Parcells said...you are what your record says you are. At the end of the day- they are a 6-6 team.

Michigan limped to an 8-4 record with John O'Korn starting most of their games. Don't hear anyone making excuses for Harbaugh/Michigan like they are with Jimbo/FSU. FSU doesn't have 3 wins if John O'Korn is their QB.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 01, 2017, 11:14:29 AM
Yes, I flat view FSU as a 6-6 ACC also-ran

I didn't watch all of their games or even all 6 losses, butif you did watch those games, how else could you see them?

as a top 10 team with a few bad breaks?
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Mdot21 on December 01, 2017, 11:23:21 AM
Yes, I flat view FSU as a 6-6 ACC also-ran

I didn't watch all of their games or even all 6 losses, butif you did watch those games, how else could you see them?

as a top 10 team with a few bad breaks?
QB is so important, by far most important position on the entire team. Francois was really good, but he wouldn't have made them a top 10 team. He was a good notch below JT Barrett or Trace McSorley. JT is like an A college QB, McSorley an A-. Francois a really good QB, but not a truly great one. He's not a transcendent college QB, program elevator like a Baker Mayfield or Tebow- those guys are like A++. Francois is just not anywhere close to that. I'd say he's a really good B+ college QB.
FSU was a lot like Michigan to start the season- way overrated. Michigan and FSU both should've been rated 18-25 range pre-season based on what they lost the year before.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on December 01, 2017, 11:23:36 AM
The MSU vs CMU/WMU games were 3-for-1s.

Then I'm looking forward to Wisconsin play at a MAC school. I never said MSU had a home and home, I said they were willing to give a MAC school a home game. Wisconsin's "too good" to do something like that. They're "too good" that no one in division 1 is willing to scheduled a "guaranteed loss" in camp randall. They're "too good" that no one, in any of the other power 4 conferences will play them.

But I'm really looking forward to Western KY, New Mexico and BYU next year. I'm sure season ticket holders are as well.

2019 Kent St, South Florida, Central Michigan Yipee!

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 01, 2017, 12:24:49 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_thumb/936644999562723330/pu/img/DToXWs5akF4Z8xhi.jpg)
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 01, 2017, 12:25:40 PM
The MSU vs CMU/WMU games were 3-for-1s.

Then I'm looking forward to Wisconsin play at a MAC school. I never said MSU had a home and home, I said they were willing to give a MAC school a home game. Wisconsin's "too good" to do something like that. They're "too good" that no one in division 1 is willing to scheduled a "guaranteed loss" in camp randall. They're "too good" that no one, in any of the other power 4 conferences will play them.

But I'm really looking forward to Western KY, New Mexico and BYU next year. I'm sure season ticket holders are as well.

2019 Kent St, South Florida, Central Michigan Yipee!


Just look backward. And not too far backward either.

Try again?
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 01, 2017, 12:42:34 PM
2019 (2017 record shown below)


AT South Florida, 9-2, could be a tough road game in Tampa if Strong sticks around
Central Michigan, 8-4, a good MAC team
Kent St 2-10, gimme game

Doesn't look all that bad from here.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on December 01, 2017, 12:50:06 PM
you know, I should really apologize.

I really give credit to Barrie, it's amazing how he gets a 12 game schedule, since everyone he's scheduling is guaranteed a loss. he must be quite the salesman
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on December 01, 2017, 12:51:23 PM
Just look backward. And not too far backward either.

Try again?


I went back to 2012 and can't find Wisconsin playing a road game at a MAC school, so I guess you'll have to enlighten me on this one
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on December 01, 2017, 12:53:36 PM
AT South Florida, 9-2, could be a tough road game in Tampa if Strong sticks around
Central Michigan, 8-4, a good MAC team
Kent St 2-10, gimme game


if you have hopes for the Natty next year, you'll need to be 13-0 again, or 12-1 and hope for UM, PSU to be ranked high.

any time you have to say a "good mac team" that's not saying much
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 01, 2017, 12:54:49 PM
2019 (2017 record shown below)


AT South Florida, 9-2, could be a tough road game in Tampa if Strong sticks around
Central Michigan, 8-4, a good MAC team
Kent St 2-10, gimme game

Doesn't look all that bad from here.
it will certainly look good enough if the Badgers are undefeated in December
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 01, 2017, 12:55:40 PM
QB is so important, by far most important position on the entire team. Francois was really good, but he wouldn't have made them a top 10 team. He was a good notch below JT Barrett or Trace McSorley. JT is like an A college QB, McSorley an A-. Francois a really good QB, but not a truly great one. He's not a transcendent college QB, program elevator like a Baker Mayfield or Tebow- those guys are like A++. Francois is just not anywhere close to that. I'd say he's a really good B+ college QB.
FSU was a lot like Michigan to start the season- way overrated. Michigan and FSU both should've been rated 18-25 range pre-season based on what they lost the year before.
this was my point. not that fsu would be top 10 with francois. and not that they should be viewed as a great team when bama beat them.
IF you are going to ask what type of team was fsu with francios, the answer isn't #3 team, it's lsu/msu type team (8-9 wins and maybe ranked). the answer without francois is obviously 5-6 also ran. but that's also not the team bama played, so...
should that be considered? imo yes. but it's not a drastic change like some bama fans clamor about. they weren't a top 5 team even fully healthy. but fully healthy they wouldn't be this bad either. basically, its a good win, but not great and certainly not ground breaking. shouldn't be determining factor, imo.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on December 01, 2017, 01:05:45 PM
IF you are going to ask what type of team was fsu with francios, the answer isn't #3 team, it's lsu/msu type team (8-9 wins and maybe ranked). the answer without francois is obviously 5-6 also ran. but that's also not the team bama played, so...
should that be considered?


in my opinion, absolutely. I've said it before, even without Francios, FSU has the talent to beat anyone in the nation on a given night. Utah St, BYU, FAU don't if your comparing Wisconsin. The crap that Washington usually schedules doesn't have that ability. TCU's schedule of Jacksonville st, Arkansas, SMU is crap. USC and Miami both played ND, Clemson played Auburn, OU played Ohio State, Georgia played ND and Ga Tech.

You can't control you conference schedule, but you can control your OOC schedule. Every team has the ability to schedule, if you can't get a top 15 program, you can at least get 2 if not 3 power 5 schools, or 2 power 5 and legitimate school from a non power 5 like Houston, Navy, ND, Memphis, Cincinnati (not this year), UCF, etc

I don't write off the win vs FSU, I would consider it a quality win.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 01, 2017, 01:10:22 PM
Just look backward. And not too far backward either.

Try again?


I went back to 2012 and can't find Wisconsin playing a road game at a MAC school, so I guess you'll have to enlighten me on this one
If you were to go back just one more year you'd see that UW played a return game against NIU. NIU chose to move it to Soldier Field to accommodate where most of its fans are located.

They also played a return game at Bowling Green, which chose to move it to Cleveland. I think that was in 2006.

They have played away against Hawaii, Fresno, UNLV, BYU and P5 schools over the past 10 seasons, along with "neutrals" in recent years against the "big boys" from the SEC.

Not sure what you'd like them to do, aside from keep trying to convince the helmets to come to Madison, as they are continuously.

Central Michigan is on the schedule as an away game in the future, by the way. Not sure when as this has not been published yet.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 01, 2017, 01:14:45 PM

any time you have to say a "good mac team" that's not saying much
OK, then why the F do you keep pushing that UW should play them home and away?

Get your story straight.

2019 OSU... Florida Atlantic, Cincy and Miami (not FL), all in Columbus. Shiver me timbers!! Better hope PSU and M are highly ranked that year...

Find something else to do today man. Really. I'll give to a recipe to make or something.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Mdot21 on December 01, 2017, 01:29:59 PM
WAY too many teams in this entire mess. They should cut it down to 64 teams in 4 major conferences. Winner of each conference goes to the playoff. P5 teams should only schedule P5 teams, no "Group of 5" or FCS. Group of 5 should go start their own playoff, because they're never getting into the one that is there now. Never.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 01, 2017, 01:32:46 PM
WAY too many teams in this entire mess. They should cut it down to 64 teams in 4 major conferences. Winner of each conference goes to the playoff. P5 teams should only schedule P5 teams, no "Group of 5" or FCS. Group of 5 should go start their own playoff, because they're never getting into the one that is there now. Never.


Sounds reasonable to me, except that P5 schools with G5 schools in-state like to throw bones around.

I'd rather go 10 conference games with 2 OOC games. One P5 and one G5. No FCS under any circumstances.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Mdot21 on December 01, 2017, 01:35:49 PM
Sounds reasonable to me, except that P5 schools with G5 schools in-state like to throw bones around.

I'd rather go 10 conference games with 2 OOC games. One P5 and one G5. No FCS under any circumstances.
I love that idea as well. I'm not crazy about G5 and I absolutely loathe playing FCS teams. I hate that some conferences only play 8 conference games. What's the point of a conference if you don't play each other? Looking at you SEC. Moving to 10 conference games and 2 OOC's games with 1 P5 OOC and 1 "throw a bone and fat check to the in-state" G5 sounds more than reasonable.
They need to get this done. Asap.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 01, 2017, 01:41:34 PM
RTF:
I'm curious, what do you think *SHOULD* happen if Oklahoma and Ohio State win?  

I'm assuming, in that case, that the first three spots will be:
I am further assuming that the 2-loss non-Champions and the P12 Champion will be a non-factor so that the final spot will come down to:

The answer for me:
I want my team to go, of course, but to be honest I'm on the fence about what *SHOULD* happen in this case.  If Bama's schedule was a tad weaker I'd have no problem arguing that Ohio State should go due to a Championship but Bama's schedule isn't horrible.  

If Ohio State's schedule was weaker I'd have no problem arguing that Bama should go.  I thought the committee got it right last year but the difference (at least to me) was that Washington's and PSU's schedules were REALLY bad.  

I see this as a genuinely close call.  Some minor things that might matter:
According to SBNATION (https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/11/3/16556844/college-football-strength-of-schedule-rankings-2017-sos), Bama's SoS is currently better than Ohio State's but it is close (#31 vs #35) so it seems safe to assume that once Ohio State adds Wisconsin to their list of opponents the Buckeye's SoS will be better.  Additionally, the Buckeyes will have more high-end opponents and high-end wins as they will have:
This is Bama's weakness:
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 01, 2017, 02:52:45 PM
Sounds reasonable to me, except that P5 schools with G5 schools in-state like to throw bones around.

I'd rather go 10 conference games with 2 OOC games. One P5 and one G5. No FCS under any circumstances.
9 conf games. 4 divisions of 4 teams. play all 3 in div (3 games), have 1 lock from each other div (3 games), and 1 rotate from other div (3 games).
3 ooc games (1 each vs other confs)
preserves rivalries.
if you do rotation right, allows games vs all conf schools at least 1 every 4 years.
and provides enough cross over between conferences to judge them against each other. (only needed if wildcards are involved in cfp, which more than likely will be)
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 01, 2017, 03:02:49 PM
66 teams. 6 conferences. 11 teams each. 10 conference games. No CCG's. No playoffs.


I know. I echo in here.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on December 01, 2017, 03:58:56 PM
OK, then why the F do you keep pushing that UW should play them home and away?

never said you should, was just pointing out I think it's ridiculous to say you're too good to do that for less than 2-for-1 when schools bigger or equal than you have done it for less.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on December 01, 2017, 04:04:02 PM
2019 OSU... Florida Atlantic, Cincy and Miami (not FL), all in Columbus. Shiver me timbers!! Better hope PSU and M are highly ranked that year...

ive already said, I'm not sure if it was this thread or not, that our 2019 is complete crap. I can at least admit that. it's a horrific scheduling job done by our AD for that year.

but sure was convenient of you to gloss over every other OOC we have over the next decade lol, including next year when we play TCU in Texas. I'd love to see Wiscy play Texas, ND and Boston college OOC like we are, all in the same season FYI. But I guess Texas, ND and BC probably don't want to schedule that "guaranteed loss" against you guys.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 01, 2017, 04:20:33 PM
OK, then why the F do you keep pushing that UW should play them home and away?

never said you should, was just pointing out I think it's ridiculous to say you're too good to do that for less than 2-for-1 when schools bigger or equal than you have done it for less.
Bigger than UW (me)? Which schools have given MAC schools a 1-1? I'd like to know.

And why should any P5 school give a MAC school a 1-1 anyway? Nobody does that unless they are desperate. UW is far from that. 2-1 is a minimum. Anything less is not happening.

Finally, if you're going to call out UW's 2019 OOC schedule (Remember? Yipee??), you'd better be prepared to have OSU's called out. UW's is better.

As for the past few seasons of non-conference, and looking forward, were LSU (twice) and Bama not good enough? The years before that they had ASU and OrSU. Not good enough. How about having both Syracuse and Notre Dame in 2020 and 2021? Not good enough? Appy State in 2020? Army in 2021? I know. Not good enough.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 01, 2017, 04:31:22 PM
But I guess Texas, ND and BC probably don't want to schedule that "guaranteed loss" against you guys.
I keep giving you opportunities to stop. But you just won't...

Texas had its chance. They turned it down in a very public way when ESPN tried to put the series together. Texas said it would play Wisconsin, but only in Austin. End of conversation.

I'd like to see Wisconsin kick Texas' ass too, trust me.

BC = Good MAC team.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on December 01, 2017, 05:56:57 PM
Yes, I flat view FSU as a 6-6 ACC also-ran

I didn't watch all of their games or even all 6 losses, butif you did watch those games, how else could you see them?

as a top 10 team with a few bad breaks?
Fearless: FWIW, FSU is 5-6 with a game Saturday against UL-Monroe.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Mdot21 on December 01, 2017, 07:22:42 PM
Fearless: FWIW, FSU is 5-6 with a game Saturday against UL-Monroe.
a 5-6 team without a coach. Might just finish 5-7. What a disaster of a season for FSU. Feel bad for their fans.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 01, 2017, 07:41:45 PM
I'm rooting for 5-6

probably mostly because the Huskers are 4-8

shoot fire, that was tough to type!
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rook119 on December 01, 2017, 07:54:19 PM
I have a great idea. Lets go ahead and schedule our conference's championship game at no one's home field during rush hour in one of the most congested places in the country. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 01, 2017, 08:27:00 PM
PAC 12?
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on December 02, 2017, 12:34:09 AM
Lot of empty seats.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: DevilFroggy on December 02, 2017, 12:46:39 AM
The Pac was stupid to move their CCG away from the home stadium of the higher seeded or ranked team, especially since they insist on playing their CCG on a Friday.

Hopefully when they most likely move it to Vegas in a few years attendance will improve.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MrNubbz on December 02, 2017, 02:11:10 AM
a 5-6 team without a coach. Might just finish 5-7. What a disaster of a season for FSU. Feel bad for their fans.
Both  5*s Cam Akers(RB) & Marvin Wilson(DL) came down to The Seminoles & Buckeyes.Wonder if they'd flip now if they could.One good look at Jimbo Fisher should have told them something ain't just right
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 02, 2017, 06:21:38 AM
Back on "topic" (I know).  Check out my math here on possibilities as I think there are few barring something unexpected:

1.  SEC champ is in (not at 1, not meant to be ranked)
2.  ACC champ is in.
3.  OU is in if they win.
4.  Wisconsin is in if they win.

Those two "ifs" loom large, especially as Ohio State is favored.  So, if OU loses, a slot opens up.  If Wisconsin loses a slot opens up.  The only two teams that look viable appear to me to be Bama and Ohio State.

TCU won't jump from 11th to 4th and USC won't jump from 10th to 4th, right?

The CG losers would seem to be out.  Penn State is out.  So, the most probable thing is an OU win and OSU win according to the betting, and that means OSU OR Alabama, which is entertaining.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 02, 2017, 06:23:26 AM
CGs for the Pac and ACC are not going to be well attended MOST of the time for obvious reasons.  There is no fix except for rigging the teams to be Clemson and FSU each year.  Maybe NCSU fans would show up in numbers.

Meanwhile, tickets for the SEC CG are $500 for the cheapest seats.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 02, 2017, 09:02:34 AM
Back on "topic" (I know).  
What?
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 02, 2017, 09:03:43 AM
I have a great idea. Lets go ahead and schedule our conference's championship game at no one's home field during rush hour in one of the most congested places in the country.
I was thinking the same thing.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 02, 2017, 09:04:24 AM
Lot of empty seats.
missed a very good game
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 02, 2017, 09:08:53 AM
The CG losers would seem to be out.  Penn State is out.  So, the most probable thing is an OU win and OSU win according to the betting, and that means OSU OR Alabama, which is entertaining.
yes, entertaining
I would guess Bammer is the pick.  If not, it shows the clout of Big Jim Delany, and the Big Ten.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 02, 2017, 10:45:28 AM
I don't see a clear distinction between OSU and Alabama if that plays out.  Whoever is selected will be a controversy (especially if they then get beat say 31-0).
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on December 02, 2017, 10:47:42 AM
The Pac was stupid to move their CCG away from the home stadium of the higher seeded or ranked team, especially since they insist on playing their CCG on a Friday.

Hopefully when they most likely move it to Vegas in a few years attendance will improve.
I think that the perception is that a CCG at one of the teams' home field is somewhat rinky-dink for a P5 conference.  Maybe Levi's Field wasn't the best venue, though.  Also, the winner of the Pac-12's CCG isn't going to the playoff, which has become the be-all and end-all.

But California's relatively low level of passion for college football might explain the many thousands of empty seats as much as anything.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 02, 2017, 10:53:10 AM
I should have said I see distinctions of course, but don't know how they will weight them.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on December 02, 2017, 11:05:14 AM
missed a very good game
Yep.  Can't ask for more than the trailing team having possession with a decent shot to win or tie as time winds down.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 02, 2017, 12:30:45 PM
If Ohio State wins tonight and things break right (and maybe even if they don't), the committee will find a way to get them in. It's what they do.

Lots of watchful eyeballs to satisfy up in these parts.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 03, 2017, 08:08:27 AM
The B1G CG win likely will outweigh the Iowa loss versus Alabama (I think).

1.  Clemson - no reason to drop them not that it matters
2.  Oklahoma - my pick to win the playoff
3.  UGA
4.  Ohio State

I don't think UGA can slow down Mayfield enough to outscore them unfortunately.  He could call his on plays, make them up in the huddle, and do well.  UGA has not seen a QB of his ilk in a while.

Their best chance would be to have long clock soaking drives ending in TDs to keep him on the bench.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CatsbyAZ on December 03, 2017, 09:22:30 AM
If Ohio State wins tonight and things break right (and maybe even if they don't), the committee will find a way to get them in. It's what they do.

Lots of watchful eyeballs to satisfy up in these parts.
If there was ever a team the committee would give deference to at the expense of their beloved Ohio State, it's Alabama. And they'll have the "blowout at Iowa" excuse to use. We'll be hearing about that Iowa game all day - more so than the games yesterday.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 03, 2017, 09:30:29 AM
They should hold off on releasing the final standings, until after the Army-Navy game. 

Build the suspense. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Kris61 on December 03, 2017, 09:40:35 AM
If Ohio State wins tonight and things break right (and maybe even if they don't), the committee will find a way to get them in. It's what they do.

Lots of watchful eyeballs to satisfy up in these parts.
Barry Alvarez was on that committee at one time.  You have probably met him a few times and maybe even know him.  Do you think he was taking marching orders from ESPN when he served?
I ask because it seems like a lot of people have that attitude, including you.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 03, 2017, 09:52:56 AM
I don't think thus eyeballs thing means anything to the CFPC, at all, zero.

Nor does geography.

I think they will go with Ohio State but it will be close.

I also think Clemson and OU are at a different level and it won't much matter, and that CG if it happens should be epic.

I liken Mayfield to Vince Young, even though I dislike the former's antics.

I think OU wins this thing.  Clemson is also very good and possibly could shellack OSU if they play, again, which won't be good for the Buckeye's perception down the road.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 03, 2017, 09:54:01 AM
Barry Alvarez was on that committee at one time.  You have probably met him a few times and maybe even know him.  Do you think he was taking marching orders from ESPN when he served?
I ask because it seems like a lot of people have that attitude, including you.
He resigned from the committee for some reason. He was asked to chair it, and refused.

I'm guessing he took orders from nobody.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 03, 2017, 09:59:11 AM
If there was ever a team the committee would give deference to at the expense of their beloved Ohio State, it's Alabama. And they'll have the "blowout at Iowa" excuse to use. We'll be hearing about that Iowa game all day - more so than the games yesterday.
Probably true. And it's probably OK too. That is a major blemish.

Bama lost another ranked team they best last night when Boise beat Fresno, by the way.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall in that room right now.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 10:10:06 AM
does the committee reward SOS and conference championship?

or

fewer losses and the "bama" factor

I'm guessing, just like the past seasons, they simply take the 4 one-loss teams that did not lose yesterday.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 03, 2017, 10:18:46 AM
Obviously, the criteria to be considered include conference championships and SOS.  We KNOW that.

What we don't know is how those get weighted relative to an additional loss.  That Iowa loss wasn't close obviously, and that plays a role as well.

My understanding is that anyone with Bama or OSU ties leave the room when this is decided, and 4 or so have Bama ties and will not be participating, so we'd be down to about 8 people.

My guess is OSU gets the nod.  I also think that could end up being a bad thing for OSU.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 03, 2017, 10:19:47 AM
does the committee reward SOS and conference championship?

or

fewer losses and the "bama" factor

I'm guessing, just like the past seasons, they simply take the 4 one-loss teams that did not lose yesterday.
This will very interesting. OSU is falling back on the conference champion thing this year. But last year it wasn't. Last year Saban was quoted as saying conference championships matter. But not this year.

Hehe. Should be fun over the next month or so.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TyphonInc on December 03, 2017, 10:21:56 AM
It won't happen this way, but I would be ecstatic to beat Clemson in the Semi's and OU for the title.

Hush up 2 of those 3 embarrassing losses OSU recently has.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 03, 2017, 10:34:00 AM
On healthy legs, I'm thinking JT could do it. Who knows.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: NorthernOhioBuckeye on December 03, 2017, 10:37:41 AM
I'm all for putting USC as #4 with tOSU and Bama being 5 & 6 (in either order). Then put those 2 teams in a bowl game. That would be fun to watch.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 03, 2017, 10:50:24 AM
This will very interesting. OSU is falling back on the conference champion thing this year. But last year it wasn't. Last year Saban was quoted as saying conference championships matter. But not this year.

Hehe. Should be fun over the next month or so.
Weird situation. Neither of those teams truly deserves it. And both look very flawed. Ironically, I think OSU has the better defense right now, and Bama the better Offense. BUt who is next after those two?   USC?  Maybe.  
My hope is that it is Bama.
But the arguments all over the Netz and by the talking heads are kind of funny when it comes to Ohio State.  They have been in it twice, and have a 50% success rate- same as Clemson and better than anyone else.
Everyone keeps talking about last year, but what they forget is that the debate for the committee was between PSU and Washington for that last spot.  OHio State was 3rd, and could have been second with their resume. It was super strong with wins overOklahoma on the road, Wisconsin on the road at night, and- this is what everyone forgets- a win on the last day of the regular season in a #2 versus #3 game (OSU v Michigan). Their only loss was a tight game , on the road at night, for the second week in a row against a top 10 team.  Keeping them out would have been ridiculous. Bama has NOTHING close to that.  Didn't even play a top ten team until the end of the season, and got handled.
The better comparison would be Ohio State 2015, with Zeke and Bosa etc.  they lost one game, to a top 15 team, on a last second FG, in A 40 degree, 35 mph wind driving rain storm.  They were widely viewed as the best team by all the talking heads and proved it by dismantling a really good UM team on the road the last game of season. And they were left out.  Bama again, has nothing close to that that they can hang their hat on.
Lastly, why is everyone discounting last night's win..." Oh it was only Wisconsin" ??
It 'twas a slugfest for sure at the end, but that was a really good offense they shut down last night, and a REALLY good defense they put those yards and points on.  I saw a graphic I didn't realize: the only team in the nation that is top ten in both total offense and total defense, is Ohio State.  
So from an analysis standpoint, the choice should be pretty easy.
But I truly hope it is Bama, who would be favored according to Vegas oddsmakers against any of the other teams in it. Ironically, they would be favored by the least amount of points (1) over Ohio State versus the rest of them.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 12:05:32 PM
I hope it's the Bucks

mostly for the good of the B1G, but also just to cause Saban, Bama and SEC fans to go crazy!

B1G, B1G, B1G!
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MrNubbz on December 03, 2017, 12:17:16 PM
Bama will get it after listening to the Panel going back and forth.Pawl brought up a legit point that if Bama got white washed by 31 in conference this convo isn't even on the table.That and 2 of the 3 injured Bama LB's will be healthy by play off time.And losing by 16 to the no 2 team,tOSU being not consistent and I can't argue with that
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 03, 2017, 12:28:33 PM
Yep, the boys at ESecPN REALLY want Bama in.

They keep talking about Iowa and OSU, but they don't talk about Auburn/Bama. And that Auburn team just got trucked last night.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 12:36:45 PM
and Bamma didn't even win their division

the most damning thing for Bama is their schedule or lack of schedule

not one good win
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 03, 2017, 12:37:52 PM
Bama it is.

What a crock of shit.

I guess they will put OSU against USC now too. Not a good day for the B1G.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 03, 2017, 12:42:13 PM
So, three teams from three states in the Deep South, and Oklahoma, not really a media center.

This worry about who may watch is clearly not a factor.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Kris61 on December 03, 2017, 12:42:39 PM
Tough call but I agreed with Bama.  The Iowa loss was an anchor.  If they lose that by a FG I think the committee forgives it but they got trucked by a 7-5 team.  I do like Ohio St's wins better though.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 03, 2017, 12:43:52 PM
Tough call but I agreed with Bama.  The Iowa loss was an anchor.  If they lose that by a FG I think the committee forgives it but they got trucked by a 7-5 team.  I do like Ohio St's wins better though.


That is exactly what I thought would put Ohio State in.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Mdot21 on December 03, 2017, 12:44:18 PM
IOhio State didn't get in for the same reason Penn State didn't last year. They lost a game by 30+. 

If they had lost to Iowa by 1 or 2 points on a last second FG, they are in.

Won't matter because Oklahoma is winning it all. Baker Mayfield is playing some of the best QB we've ever seen. His efficieny numbers and QBR is through the damn roof. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 03, 2017, 12:52:50 PM


Bama is going to wind up winning this damn thing, too. 

Take it to the bank! 




(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cy8FBVHVEAEGoW1.jpg)
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Kris61 on December 03, 2017, 12:54:43 PM
IOhio State didn't get in for the same reason Penn State didn't last year. They lost a game by 30+.

If they had lost to Iowa by 1 or 2 points on a last second FG, they are in.

Won't matter because Oklahoma is winning it all. Baker Mayfield is playing some of the best QB we've ever seen. His efficieny numbers and QBR is through the damn roof.
I agree.  If Ohio St loses a close game they get in, IMO.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 03, 2017, 12:54:59 PM
The OU offense against the UGA defense will be interesting.

As I said earlier, I think UGA has to keep OU off the field as much as possible.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on December 03, 2017, 12:57:10 PM
If the Big Ten is serious about the CFP, the path is clear...

1.) Move back to 8 conference games
2.) No more road OOC games
3.) Bring back FCS opponents.

For all the talk, the committee clearly still looks at just how many losses you have.  Alabama doesn't have anything resembling a good win.  Hell, MSU has better wins than Bama does.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: NorthernOhioBuckeye on December 03, 2017, 12:58:36 PM
Herbie said that the committee made a statement. They sure did; the statement was don't schedule anyone in the non conference if you are in the SEC because being in the SEC is the tie breaker. 

Now, I'm happy tOSU is not going to face Clemson, but the look of this thing is bad. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 03, 2017, 01:03:27 PM
Alabama scheduled a name program this year.  

The scheduling was not the issue.  

Wow, the opening line is Alabama -1 and Sooners favored by 2.5.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MaximumSam on December 03, 2017, 01:04:41 PM
Kind of disappointing. Not much to complain about, but I do think if you let a nonchamp in, they should have a Hell of an argument, like OSU did last year. Alabama getting in because of their helmets, not anything they did on the field.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 03, 2017, 01:05:40 PM
UGA and OU have never played.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 03, 2017, 01:09:04 PM
IOhio State didn't get in for the same reason Penn State didn't last year. They lost a game by 30+.

If they had lost to Iowa by 1 or 2 points on a last second FG, they are in.

Won't matter because Oklahoma is winning it all. Baker Mayfield is playing some of the best QB we've ever seen. His efficieny numbers and QBR is through the damn roof.
Agree with this. 
Only thing I’d argue against ou is long layoffs seem to effect offenses more than d. Not saying it will, but could. 
Uga and ou meeting for first time in the rose bowl. That’s awesome. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 03, 2017, 01:10:03 PM
Bama also scheduled Mercer (so did Auburn!) and they only played 8 conference games.

Ohio State beat two teams in the final top 10 in UW and PSU. MSU will be ranked and Michigan is a very good road win too.

Bama does not have wins of the caliber. They just don't. Their best win is over an LSU team that lost to Troy.

ELA is right.

The playing field is not level right now. It is tilted toward the SEC because the SEC schedules FCS teams and is the only conference playing 8 conference games.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 03, 2017, 01:11:01 PM
I have no problem with Ohio State not being in, as a standalone issue.  They had their opportunity and failed to capitalize.  

I do feel bad though that the big ten is not included when I feel like it is a really strong group of defenses especially.

That, plus, I think the committee is wildly inconsistent, looking back at OSU 2015.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 03, 2017, 01:13:12 PM
So, three teams from three states in the Deep South, and Oklahoma, not really a media center.

This worry about who may watch is clearly not a factor.
I disagree. Bama is a helmet school with a national following. Same goes for Oklahoma.

I think OSU is paying for the B1G goose eggs the past two years too.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 03, 2017, 01:20:30 PM
I disagree. Bama is a helmet school with a national following. Same goes for Oklahoma.

I think OSU is paying for the B1G goose eggs the past two years too.
And the fault of losing terribly to a bad team. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on December 03, 2017, 01:21:34 PM
Wait.  And Alabama, not Georgia, got the Sugar Bowl?
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Drew4UTk on December 03, 2017, 01:21:53 PM
there should be little doubt that Bama is at least one of the best four teams in the nation.   but... they didn't perform when they most needed to- and should have lost their position because of that one game.
however, they would destroy tOSU, and anyone else from the B10... PSU would stand the greatest chance against Bama, and they don't have an argument to play... Clemson is worthy, regardless of their terribly foul loss, and OU is playing as good as any of the other three.  
honestly, once folks get over their redasses, this is going to be the best playoff so far.... there isn't a team there that clearly stands out from the others.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on December 03, 2017, 01:22:32 PM
IOhio State didn't get in for the same reason Penn State didn't last year. They lost a game by 30+.

If they had lost to Iowa by 1 or 2 points on a last second FG, they are in.

Won't matter because Oklahoma is winning it all. Baker Mayfield is playing some of the best QB we've ever seen. His efficieny numbers and QBR is through the damn roof.
I agree.  That 31-point loss to Iowa is the killer.

I'd like to see winning your conference be a pre-requisite for making the playoff, but nobody asked me.

I hope you're right on that last part.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on December 03, 2017, 01:25:45 PM
Wait.  And Alabama, not Georgia, got the Sugar Bowl?
Clemson got the Sugar Bowl.
Dabo Swinney said they'd rather play in the Sugar Bowl, even against Alabama, than travel to California for the Rose Bowl.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MaximumSam on December 03, 2017, 01:27:12 PM
Alabama struggled to defend Auburn and Miss St. No clue why anyone would think they would destroy OSU.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 03, 2017, 01:29:39 PM
there should be little doubt that Bama is at least one of the best four teams in the nation.   but... they didn't perform when they most needed to- and should have lost their position because of that one game.
however, they would destroy tOSU, and anyone else from the B10... PSU would stand the greatest chance against Bama, and they don't have an argument to play... Clemson is worthy, regardless of their terribly foul loss, and OU is playing as good as any of the other three.  
  • Georgia is going to be hard to stop.  their backfield is the best in the nation.  their starting 11 on D is the best starting 11 in the nation.  they're likely the team to beat by my reckoning.  
  • Clemson plays to whatever level they are required to play to... they lost to 'cuse, yeah- but it wasn't the rupture tOSU endured to both OU AND Iowa.  Their D is STOUT, and they have likely the best starting lines in the nation.
  • OU is playing as well as anyone on O, and have proven it's not a 'conference' thing by lighting up both TCU (x2) and tOSU's nationally ranked D's.  Their D is serviceable and enough to keep them in the game with the other three.
  • Bama may not have the best starting lines, nor the best starting O or D in the nation, but they are better than anyone below the top 6.   but to state the obvious, you could rotate three players on either side of the ball and they'd still have a better starting O or D than anyone but the top six... attrition wins.  they'll be fresh when the games begin, and.... they'll be favored throughout the playoffs.
honestly, once folks get over their redasses, this is going to be the best playoff so far.... there isn't a team there that clearly stands out from the others.


While I completely agree with Bama getting in, your take that they would kill OSU is hilarious,  given that's what they all said last time they played.
Bama struggles to run against good defensive lines, much like Wisconsin did last night.
Is JH a good enough passer to beat great defenses?   So far, the evidence is no.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Drew4UTk on December 03, 2017, 01:30:36 PM
Alabama struggled to defend Auburn and Miss St. No clue why anyone would think they would destroy OSU.
because both those teams picked on bama's weakness (at the time) which was LB corps.. they'll be healthy by NYD, and the team they were for the season prior to those two games... 
and.... they didn't lose to iowa by 40points.  :)
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MaximumSam on December 03, 2017, 01:31:58 PM
because both those teams picked on bama's weakness (at the time) which was LB corps.. they'll be healthy by NYD, and the team they were for the season prior to those two games...
and.... they didn't lose to iowa by 40points.  :)
Yeah they just couldn't compete against the only strong team they played :57:
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Drew4UTk on December 03, 2017, 01:33:27 PM
@Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) and @MaximumSam (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1572) 

tOSU struggles with teams capable of RPO (Gawd i HATE typing/saying that)... Bama can run, they can pass, and they can option... the bama Oline against tOSU D line is a push at best- and the quality of the Bama backfield is deeper than Wiscy's.  by the third or early fourth, it would be a three possession lead. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 03, 2017, 01:38:47 PM
While I completely agree with Bama getting in, your take that they would kill OSU is hilarious,  given that's what they all said last time they played.
Bama struggles to run against good defensive lines, much like Wisconsin did last night.
Is JH a good enough passer to beat great defenses?   So far, the evidence is no.
The first part I agree with. 
The second not really. We had plenty of running success vs au and msu. 200+ for 5.5+ ypc. LSU is only one we struggled with. 
And to your 3rd point hurts won that game with his arm. And MSU late. And against Clemson last year he put up plenty of points and scored the go ahead late in game. It was the d that failed that game. 
He is capable and that’s demonstrable. It’s also demonstrable he can struggle vs those teams as well. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MaximumSam on December 03, 2017, 01:40:35 PM
@Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) and @MaximumSam (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1572)

tOSU struggles with teams capable of RPO (Gawd i HATE typing/saying that)... Bama can run, they can pass, and they can option... the bama Oline against tOSU D line is a push at best- and the quality of the Bama backfield is deeper than Wiscy's.  by the third or early fourth, it would be a three possession lead.
For OSU? Buckeyes far superior to any offense Bama has played, and far from their best this year. Seems likely a repeat of 2014 if they played this year. OSU does make mistakes and let other teams hang around though, which would be Bama's best shot.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 03, 2017, 01:49:54 PM
@Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) and @MaximumSam (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1572)

tOSU struggles with teams capable of RPO (Gawd i HATE typing/saying that)... Bama can run, they can pass, and they can option... the bama Oline against tOSU D line is a push at best- and the quality of the Bama backfield is deeper than Wiscy's.  by the third or early fourth, it would be a three possession lead.
Sure.  I am sure you believed that last time they played, where Bama was a huge favorite and the game was in their backyard lol.  
Look, I agree with Bama getting in. But it was a back door.  OSU eliminated themselves by laying and egg.  But don't come in here and talk trash about something that can never be proven, especially when the factual evidence in every way, says your wrong.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Drew4UTk on December 03, 2017, 01:53:25 PM
factual evidence says tOSU lost a game by 40 points, and wasn't even their only loss. 

factual evidence demonstrates Bama lost to a surging Auburn team, that was playing red hot and capable of beating anyone in the land with a healthy backfield, but had to play arguably the best two teams in the nation three times this season.  

you are the one finding solace there will be no means to prove these possibilities... not me.. unlike you, i don't have a dog in the fight. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 03, 2017, 01:55:28 PM
Whether you play Mercer or Georgia Southern or Troy is irrelevant.

Well, strike Troy from that group.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: NorthernOhioBuckeye on December 03, 2017, 01:58:21 PM
Alabama is a great team and I agree that tOSU should not be in. However, going by the committees own criteria, Bama should not have made it. The did so because they are in the SEC and they have the talking heads at ESPN politicking for them. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 01:58:52 PM

For all the talk, the committee clearly still looks at just how many losses you have.  Alabama doesn't have anything resembling a good win.  Hell, MSU has better wins than Bama does.
there you go
since the inception of the committee
this and Utee's helmet theory
very weak and expected
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Drew4UTk on December 03, 2017, 02:00:39 PM
and... it WAS 'backdoor'... they lost when it was most important for them to win (which would have diminished the next game and THAT would be when it was most important), but.... lose they did, and because they didn't seal their CC.

i'm torn over the entire thing- i think they got it right from the perspective 'four best teams' (caveat: body of work; NOT right now).... but i also subscribe that ONLY CC's should be considered, else move the playoff to six or eight teams.  I like eight.. that's 5 CC's and 3 at large- which could include a G5 team like UCF to be an offering for the overall #1 (hopefully deserving)... 

I believe Bama handles tOSU in a hypothetical game... my opinion.. doesn't matter because it isn't going to happen- and there is no sense getting heated about something that's not possible... 

or... you guys can take it to twitter... that seems to work... :) 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 02:06:55 PM

however, they would destroy tOSU, and anyone else from the B10... PSU would stand the greatest chance against Bama, and they don't have an argument to play... 
how can you be so sure?
just wondering
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 02:09:59 PM
Alabama scheduled a name program this year.  

The scheduling was not the issue.  

the scheduling is the issue
FSU sucked this season
Should a one loss Badger team get credit for BYU and Nebraska (a name program)?
they scheduled Mercer for crying out loud, that's not defensible 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 03, 2017, 02:11:23 PM
and... it WAS 'backdoor'... they lost when it was most important for them to win (which would have diminished the next game and THAT would be when it was most important), but.... lose they did, and because they didn't seal their CC.

i'm torn over the entire thing- i think they got it right from the perspective 'four best teams' (caveat: body of work; NOT right now).... but i also subscribe that ONLY CC's should be considered, else move the playoff to six or eight teams.  I like eight.. that's 5 CC's and 3 at large- which could include a G5 team like UCF to be an offering for the overall #1 (hopefully deserving)...

I believe Bama handles tOSU in a hypothetical game... my opinion.. doesn't matter because it isn't going to happen- and there is no sense getting heated about something that's not possible...

or... you guys can take it to twitter... that seems to work... :)
Facts say Ohio State has proven capable of beating a team that finished in the top 15 and the top ten. 
Facts say Alabama has not.  
Your entitled to your OPINION.   The facts work against you.  The bookies do to...they say Bama by one.  Same as the margin in the Clemson line right now.
What has Alabama done to make you so cocky about them?   Not seeing it..
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 02:14:35 PM
I'm not saying the committee is wrong about Bama over tOSU, but I don't think there's anyway we will know for sure if Bama was better than the Bucks

Bama has proven and earned the respect over the past 5 or more seasons, but Urban's Bucks have been just as talented and well coached for 5 seasons

if you want to point to a couple blow out losses for the Bucks the past couple years (Clemson and Iowa) I can understand that.  But on any given day the Bucks can play a great game and take care of business.

see MSU, Michigan, and Badgers this season
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: NorthernOhioBuckeye on December 03, 2017, 02:16:45 PM
however, they would destroy tOSU, and anyone else from the B10... PSU would stand the greatest chance against Bama, and they don't have an argument to play... Clemson is worthy, regardless of their terribly foul loss, and OU is playing as good as any of the other three.  
I don't know about Bama destroying tOSU, but I'm pretty sure that Clemson would. I think Bama and tOSU would be a good game. I would have loved to seem both of them paired up in a bowl game.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on December 03, 2017, 02:19:26 PM
UGA and OU have never played.  
Right.  And, as RTF posted right after your post, it's going to be awesome to see them meeting for the first time in the Rose Bowl.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 03, 2017, 02:19:50 PM
Also, Alabama is th first team to jump into the top 4 coming off an off week, and a loss too.  Chew on that.   
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MaximumSam on December 03, 2017, 02:20:01 PM
factual evidence says tOSU lost a game by 40 points, and wasn't even their only loss.

factual evidence demonstrates Bama lost to a surging Auburn team, that was playing red hot and capable of beating anyone in the land with a healthy backfield, but had to play arguably the best two teams in the nation three times this season.  

you are the one finding solace there will be no means to prove these possibilities... not me.. unlike you, i don't have a dog in the fight.
Auburn was so hot they lost by 21 their next game
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 03, 2017, 02:39:19 PM
There are a lot of ways to compare OSU and Alabama obviously.  Folks who prefer one just argue ways that favor their choice.  Few lay out the entire picture as it becomes more confusing.

I personally would have chosen Ohio State.

Had Bama beaten Auburn, they might well have lost to Georgia and be out of it, at 12-1 (or would they still have gotten in?).

USC's position surprises me a bit also.  I know they lost at ND.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on December 03, 2017, 02:43:37 PM
This is the MICHIGAN beat writer

https://twitter.com/nickbaumgardner/status/937394118577156097
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Mdot21 on December 03, 2017, 02:50:36 PM
This is the MICHIGAN beat writer

https://twitter.com/nickbaumgardner/status/937394118577156097
Lmao.
Saban is such a weasel.
I wish someone would call him out on his BS.

The MSU series was called off because Nick didn't want to play a return game in East Lansing.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 02:52:35 PM
Lmao.
Saban is such a weasel.
I wish someone would call him out on his BS.

The MSU series was called off because Nick didn't want to play a return game in East Lansing.
he should have called King Barry
both programs wouldn't have to defend their weak schedules this season
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on December 03, 2017, 02:57:54 PM
he should have called King Barry
both programs wouldn't have to defend their weak schedules this season
Wouldn't help, he won't play true road games.  Wisconsin already played them in Jerry World a couple years ago.  Hollis told him if he didn't want a home and home he could shove it and pay up back out of it
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Mdot21 on December 03, 2017, 03:00:45 PM
Wouldn't help, he won't play true road games.  Wisconsin already played them in Jerry World a couple years ago.  Hollis told him if he didn't want a home and home he could shove it and pay up back out of it
good for Hollis.
That is how it should be. Neutral site games in Dallas and Atlanta are lame. Michigan has done them as well, and I hate it.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: mcwterps1 on December 03, 2017, 04:19:44 PM
Wait! What?!? 

BS explanation by the committee. 

When the SEC plays nine conference games, get back to the rest of the college football world.

So Ohio State lost to Iowa at Iowa? Isn't this the same Iowa team that beat Iowa State? The same Iowa State team that beat Oklahoma?

GTFOOH
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 03, 2017, 04:23:37 PM
And the fault of losing terribly to a bad team.
It's that 9th conference game thing as opposed to, I dunno, maybe Mercer?
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 03, 2017, 04:24:55 PM
he should have called King Barry
both programs wouldn't have to defend their weak schedules this season
Saban wouldn't come to Madison either. Only "neutral" site games in the South work for them.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 04:30:12 PM
I know, just saying... there were games out there to be played

Saban is full of shit

and he should be called out
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 04:31:34 PM
Nick Saban just said Alabama had to play Mercer because it couldn't find a game with anyone else. 

Coach, with all due respect:  You are full of SHIT!!!
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 04:32:14 PM
sh!t = crap

nice work
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 03, 2017, 05:28:46 PM
sh!t = crap

nice work
Yeah. I guess Drewbie Doo has started to put these things in. Probably my own shit fault.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Drew4UTk on December 03, 2017, 05:31:02 PM
fuck, i curse worse than any of you shit heads... just thought i'd toy with the setting, and maybe plant an easter egg or two for those not expecting to stumble across them. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 03, 2017, 05:56:12 PM
EFF, i curse worse than any of you crap heads... just thought i'd toy with the setting, and maybe plant an easter egg or two for those not expecting to stumble across them.
Sneaky bastage.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 03, 2017, 06:18:30 PM
There was some crappy sketch comedy show in the 90s that had an skit featuring an automated censor machine. 

It was clearly a robotic voice that would be dubbed over the dialogue with comically cheesy substitutions for curse words. 

"Buttocks" was one such correction that was frequently implemented. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on December 03, 2017, 07:06:03 PM
If the Big Ten is serious about the CFP, the path is clear...

1.) Move back to 8 conference games
2.) No more road OOC games
3.) Bring back FCS opponents.

For all the talk, the committee clearly still looks at just how many losses you have.  Alabama doesn't have anything resembling a good win.  Hell, MSU has better wins than 

 does.

Bingo, although it unfortunately hurts the fans. But the committee needs to quit touting scheduling as its BS.

I have no issue with OSU being out, they were up and down, got housed by an average Iowa team, they were a very good team, but not great team. 

But, if you are going to let Bama in this year how did 2015 Ohio state get left out with very similar details. That team was hands down better than this Alabama team, it lost 1 game in a rain storm on a last second field goal.

Last years penn st team should have gotten in over Washington as well.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 03, 2017, 07:31:20 PM
The SEC has a lower bar to clear than the rest of the P5. 

If you lower your standards to theirs, it will only be used against you. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 03, 2017, 08:38:46 PM
If the Big Ten is serious about the CFP, the path is clear...

1.) Move back to 8 conference games
2.) No more road OOC games
3.) Bring back FCS opponents.

For all the talk, the committee clearly still looks at just how many losses you have.  Alabama doesn't have anything resembling a good win.  Hell, MSU has better wins than

does.

Bingo, although it unfortunately hurts the fans. But the committee needs to quit touting scheduling as its BS.

I have no issue with OSU being out, they were up and down, got housed by an average Iowa team, they were a very good team, but not great team.

But, if you are going to let Bama in this year how did 2015 Ohio state get left out with very similar details. That team was hands down better than this Alabama team, it lost 1 game in a rain storm on a last second field goal.

Last years penn st team should have gotten in over Washington as well.
Preach it.  No team should benefit from not playing.  If the committee thought Auburn was unequivocally better than Bama and Georgia after stomping them both, and thought Wisconsin was better than Bama, how do you make Wisconisn and Auburn take the risk of that 13th game, and then reward the team that didn't have to?
It would be different if Bama was already in the top 4 like OSU was last year and got into the top 4 with a big win, but they lost their ass in the last game, were out of the top 4, and got rewarded for it.   It makes no sense..
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2017, 08:59:18 PM
a committee of smart folks obviously isn't needed

anyone of us could total up the numbers in the loss column at the end of the year 

and then toss out the Badgers for not being a helmet
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Kris61 on December 03, 2017, 09:51:21 PM
Preach it.  No team should benefit from not playing.  If the committee thought Auburn was unequivocally better than Bama and Georgia after stomping them both, and thought Wisconsin was better than Bama, how do you make Wisconisn and Auburn take the risk of that 13th game, and then reward the team that didn't have to?
It would be different if Bama was already in the top 4 like OSU was last year and got into the top 4 with a big win, but they lost their ass in the last game, were out of the top 4, and got rewarded for it.   It makes no sense..
CCG's are high risk/high reward games.  I can't disagree with anything you said but if the CCG's are going to be played then the results have to be taken into account. And yeah, sometimes just sitting at home and watching other teams play themselves out is a benefit. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 03, 2017, 09:59:36 PM
a committee of smart folks obviously isn't needed

anyone of us could total up the numbers in the loss column at the end of the year

and then toss out the Badgers for not being a helmet
Any group of fancy-pants people is going to yield head-scratchers.  The poll voters were intellectually lazy and so, too, is the committee.  Shrug.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ALA2262 on December 03, 2017, 10:01:59 PM
Nick Saban just said Alabama had to play Mercer because it couldn't find a game with anyone else.

Coach, with all due respect:  You are full of crap!!!

On. The. Next. To. Last. Weekend. Of. The. Season.

There is a reason Bama continues to schedule FCS schools on the weekend in question. I didn't research it this year because I'm sure the results would have been similar. But, FWIW, in 2016 on the weekend in question, 100 of the other 127 FBS schools were playing conference games and were unavailable even if they were willing to play Bama. They weren't! Thirteen of the remaining 27 were SEC teams and were unavailable even if they had been willing to play an OOC game against Bama. They weren't! The 14 remaining FBS schools all have ADs with more than half a brain who would consider Tuscaloosa, Alabama as the last place on Earth where they would have their football team playing on the next to last weekend of the football season. Might need two wins to become Bowl eligible!
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Kris61 on December 03, 2017, 10:08:59 PM
On. The. Next. To. Last. Weekend. Of. The. Season.

There is a reason Bama continues to schedule FCS schools on the weekend in question. I didn't research it this year because I'm sure the results would have been similar. But, FWIW, in 2016 on the weekend in question, 100 of the other 127 FBS schools were playing conference games and were unavailable even if they were willing to play Bama. They weren't! Thirteen of the remaining 27 were SEC teams and were unavailable even if they had been willing to play an OOC game against Bama. They weren't! The 14 remaining FBS schools all have ADs with more than half a brain who would consider Tuscaloosa, Alabama as the last place on Earth where they would have their football team playing on the next to last weekend of the football season. Might need two wins to become Bowl eligible!
Yeah, but the response to that is play your 4 OOC games at the beginning of the season and you will have more teams available to play.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 03, 2017, 10:13:05 PM
It's that 9th conference game thing as opposed to, I dunno, maybe Mercer?
Bama (not just saban) doesn’t lose that bad to bad teams. We haven’t lost by 30+ to an unranked team since 1916 or something. Haven’t lost to Ann unranked team at all since 2007. 
If osu is just close in that game they’re in. Or if Bama loses to anyone like that they’re out. 
And all you guys acting like saban/Bama are scared to play good teams are laughable. Need to step back and calm down. FSU shit the bed this season but there is no way in hell Bama/saban knew that would happen. The neutral site games, while tiresome as a fan, are financially huge for Bama. That is why they do it. Not from fear lol. Most of you guys are brilliant but sometimes you guys lose your minds on this stuff. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 03, 2017, 10:17:11 PM
Yeah, but the response to that is play your 4 OOC games at the beginning of the season and you will have more teams available to play.
Sec sets schedule and leaves 2 open dates in mid and late season. It’s either mid-late oct (heart of conf games) or 2nd to last weekend. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Kris61 on December 03, 2017, 10:22:44 PM
Sec sets schedule and leaves 2 open dates in mid and late season. It’s either mid-late oct (heart of conf games) or 2nd to last weekend.
Yeah, I get it but the perception is that it looks like the SEC does that when the other P5 conferences are into conference play so they can:
1. Play terrible OOC teams
2. Then say no one else was available.
And I'm with you, I don't think Bama/Saban is scared to play anyone but they are strategic about it too.  It's not an "anytime, anyplace" mentality.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 03, 2017, 10:29:36 PM
Yeah, I get it but the perception is that it looks like the SEC does that when the other P5 conferences are into conference play so they can:
1. Play terrible OOC teams
2. Then say no one else was available.
And I'm with you, I don't think Bama/Saban is scared to play anyone but they are strategic about it too.  It's not an "anytime, anyplace" mentality.
But that’s not Bama fault sec sets it like that. 
And saban has been outspoken proponent of 9 conf games. So...
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 03, 2017, 10:56:04 PM
C'mon Tide fans, get real, Bama should've agreed to play Georgia or Florida or Auburn again as a non-conference game.  Obviously!!!
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on December 03, 2017, 11:04:09 PM
Sec sets schedule and leaves 2 open dates in mid and late season. It’s either mid-late oct (heart of conf games) or 2nd to last weekend.
Don't the member institutions of the SEC run the SEC?  One would think that if the schools wanted to play their 4 (four) OOC games at the start of the season, the SEC would build its schedule to accommodate that.
It would seem that the majority of SEC schools favor playing OOC cupcakes in October and November, rather than it being the case that the conference HQ sets the schedule and the member schools are helpless to do anything about it.
By itself, it's not a stupid scheduling philosophy, but in the context of how the other P5 conferences schedule OOC games, it sort of drives SEC schools to schedule teams like Mercer.  Again, I imagine that if a majority of SEC schools wanted to do it the way that the other P5 conferences do it, with the result that more, better OOC opponents would be available, it would be done.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 04, 2017, 12:29:36 AM
The SEC isn’t going to change until it’s incentivized to do so.  Bama getting in over Osu is another reason to not change.  

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MrNubbz on December 04, 2017, 05:06:24 AM
I don't have a problem with Bama or any one else sliding in to the 4th spot - Iowa.It was dicey losing at home to the Sooners by 15,there was little wiggle room and tOSU wiggled.Saban spins with the best of them however.We recognize it - UFM makes a practice of it
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 04, 2017, 06:36:27 AM
Bama (not just saban) doesn’t lose that bad to bad teams. We haven’t lost by 30+ to an unranked team since 1916 or something. Haven’t lost to Ann unranked team at all since 2007.
If osu is just close in that game they’re in. Or if Bama loses to anyone like that they’re out.
And all you guys acting like saban/Bama are scared to play good teams are laughable. Need to step back and calm down. FSU crap the bed this season but there is no way in hell Bama/saban knew that would happen. The neutral site games, while tiresome as a fan, are financially huge for Bama. That is why they do it. Not from fear lol. Most of you guys are brilliant but sometimes you guys lose your minds on this stuff.
Sorry, that's not going to fly here.  This has nothing to do with OSU- hell, rank then 10th...nobody cares because they got creamed.
It is a huge deal to reward the ONLY conference that allows 4 non conference games ( 4 scheduled wins in most cases, because they also won't travel in those rare cases the team they are playing is more than FCS)- with TWO spots in the playoff.
They should never let a team into the top 4 AFTER getting spanked in their last game. NEVER.   It is completely biased.  Like so many are saying( Joel Klatt, Tom Fornelli, etc)
The committee lost all credibility this time....its just 13 personal opinions.
And I am sorry, the " eye test " is BS.  Think about it...what factual evidence supports it?  NONE.
I could always make sense of what they did, even when they left what was generally thought to be a team as good or better then Bama out in 2015- (OSU), but this year,
A team kiss/assed their way in on a bad loss and a bye week for recruiting, and a pussified schedule.  

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/what-we-learned-dont-listen-to-the-cfp-heres-why-alabama-is-in-over-ohio-state/     
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 04, 2017, 08:26:59 AM
If you lose twice, you need to have a really compelling story with wins, really compelling.

That's my take.

Every one loss conference champion has been selected.  We've had now two at large one loss teams get in over 2 loss champs.  There is the sign.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ALA2262 on December 04, 2017, 08:54:59 AM
Yeah, but the response to that is play your 4 OOC games at the beginning of the season and you will have more teams available to play.
If Auburn would do that also, then Bama would. I would prefer the SEC use that week for conference games and not leave it open for OOC. And I suspect Saban does also. Especially since he is the only coach in the conference in favor of a 9th conference game. Play the additional game on that weekend.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: BuckeyeAvenger on December 04, 2017, 09:40:50 AM

How did the third best SEC team make the playoffs? By staying home and doing nothing, while other teams worked hard and won Championships. Alabama didn’t win a division title, a conference title and lost the only tough game they played to their rival Auburn (the second best SEC team). The message from the committee? Play a nothing schedule (best win was at Mississippi State) that includes the likes of mighty Mercer, and we will only look at the losses of other teams, rather than the Tide’s own criminal lack of accomplishment. It was supposed to be about who your team beat and the Championships that were won. It turned out to be about accomplishments in prior seasons (should be immaterial), and membership the SEC conference. It would have been easier to accept Auburn, since they beat both Alabama and Georgia. Disgusted with the committee, for taking a national playoff and turning it into a regional one.   

:c002:
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TyphonInc on December 04, 2017, 09:41:48 AM
We all can suspect a lot of things, but when your suspicions don't match reality your gonna get challenged on it.

ESPN/'bama trying to claim FSU as a top 5 team is laughable. Never scheduling a P5 team on the road is laughable. Only playing 8 conference games and claim it's comparable to conferences who play 9 is laughable. [Tangent: 2 of the conferences that play 9 games got snubbed this year, do they back off?] Saban changing his tune yearly to get his team to the playoffs is laughable (smart on his part, but laughable to the rest of us.) 

Last year I was in the camp of PSU to the playoff, they won head to head with OSU, and the B1G Championship, the committee came back with "body of work" and could support since they had several common opponents; this year the same "body of work" is just a beauty pageant. Whoever got skipped has a legitimate complaint, and who got picked should feel fortunate. 

I really hope that 'bama gets embarrassed this year, not because I'm against them, but I want to nip the non-conference champ in the playoff selection. I really want OSU to pound USC, not just because I'm a fan, but I want conference champs to be in the playoff, unless there is a clear cut better team, and I don't think anyone can really say clear cut 'bama is better than OSU. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on December 04, 2017, 10:01:05 AM
If you lose twice, you need to have a really compelling story with wins, really compelling.

That's my take.

Every one loss conference champion has been selected.  We've had now two at large one loss teams get in over 2 loss champs.  There is the sign.


I agree, but I don't think it's right.

The signs are obvious there will not be a 2 loss team in over a 1 loss team. which means the PAC, BIG, BIG12 playing 9 conference games is only hurting themselves. Schools like USC, OSU, Oklahoma, Clemson and many others that play big OOC games are only hurting themselves. and that is a shame for the sport. when fans are being asked to pay higher and higher costs to attend games, then the teams and conferences should be required to put better matchups on the field. this needs to start with every conference playing 9 games (I'm sorry SEC, but when you're firing 5 coaches in the offseason, that means your conference isn't very good). or everyone goes back to 8 (which means less entertaining games, not my preference)

if we could at least start with this, I'd be happy.

but I think everyone should be playing 2 power 5 teams or a top independent and or military school OOC as well.

I think Ohio State having 2 top 10 wins and another top 17 win is a very compelling argument. I'm not losing my mind because they didn't get in, they got in last year as a non conference champion, but that was with 3 top 10 wins plus another top 25 if I remember correctly. this years OSU team was not great. it was pretty good.

I'm more upset about 2015 OSU getting left out, that team was great, but didn't get the benefit of the doubt like this Alabama team. and I don't think this years Alabama team is great, but very good. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: BuckeyeAvenger on December 04, 2017, 10:15:46 AM
Last year I was in the camp of PSU to the playoff, they won head to head with OSU, and the B1G Championship, the committee came back with "body of work" and could support since they had several common opponents; this year the same "body of work" is just a beauty pageant. Whoever got skipped has a legitimate complaint, and who got picked should feel fortunate.

I really hope that 'bama gets embarrassed this year, not because I'm against them, but I want to nip the non-conference champ in the playoff selection. I really want OSU to pound USC, not just because I'm a fan, but I want conference champs to be in the playoff, unless there is a clear cut better team, and I don't think anyone can really say clear cut 'bama is better than OSU.


I believe that Clemson will pound Alabama, since they actually deserve their number one ranking. Alabama got in on name recognition, the desire by ESPN to have a Clemson-Alabama rematch and past achievements (none of that is supposed to count). I hope that TV ratings on the West Coast and in The Midwest will predictably suffer.
I don’t like the precedent of two teams from one conference, for the first time. If it was based on something concrete, rather than subjective assumptions, Then I could accept the decision by the committee more easily. We have 5 power conferences with Championship games that produce Conference Champions. Leaving out one conference each year is unavoidable, leaving out two by choice, in order to favor an individual team or conference (non champion),  based on scant evidence, seems inherently wrong.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: JWilly86 on December 04, 2017, 10:30:57 AM
The P5 conference champions should be in the playoffs, period.

There aren't enough games to give any real or meaningful comparisons across conferences, there aren't enough data points to say that the top of the SEC is unarguably better than the top of the B10 or P12.

The group of 5 should have a seat at the table too, what is the point of a tournament and crowning a champion if half the sport is excluded before the season begins. If you don't give them a seat at the table the bring back 1AA, in reality it's what we've created.

I don't care if people want to argue for 6 teams or 8 or whatever parameters surround the games, the simplest point is that they should exist.

"Congrats on winning your conference and being one of the best teams in the country, but we've artificially limited the number of playoff spots and arbitrarily decided you don't get one" shouldn't be an acceptable answer. 

Everyone involved in the process deserves better.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 04, 2017, 10:37:37 AM
Sorry, that's not going to fly here.  This has nothing to do with OSU- hell, rank then 10th...nobody cares because they got creamed.
   
the conversation i was having was directly related to why osu didn't get in and bama did. so it therefore has everything to do with osu.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ALA2262 on December 04, 2017, 11:07:01 AM
I believe that Clemson will pound Alabama, since they actually deserve their number one ranking. Alabama got in on name recognition, the desire by ESPN to have a Clemson-Alabama rematch and past achievements (none of that is supposed to count). I hope that TV ratings on the West Coast and in The Midwest will predictably suffer.
I don’t like the precedent of two teams from one conference, for the first time. If it was based on something concrete, rather than subjective assumptions, Then I could accept the decision by the committee more easily. We have 5 power conferences with Championship games that produce Conference Champions. Leaving out one conference each year is unavoidable, leaving out two by choice, in order to favor an individual team or conference (non champion),  based on scant evidence, seems inherently wrong.
Clemson and Alabama each lost one game. Clemson to 4-8 Syracuse and Bama to 10-3 Auburn. Therefore Clemson deserves their number one ranking and Bama got in on name recognition!? :smiley_confused1:
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on December 04, 2017, 11:13:37 AM
Clemson and Alabama each lost one game. Clemson to 4-8 Syracuse and Bama to 10-3 Auburn. Therefore Clemson deserves their number one ranking and Bama got in on name recognition

if you're going by who ya beat, then yeah. Clemson beat 3 teams in the top 15 in September alone, won their conference title with a 38-3 drubbing of a top 10 team. Clemson also beat the team that beat you. so yeah, I'd say Clemson deserved the #1 spot.

Dabo pulls this one out, and I think there might be a new pecking order in top coaches in the country. not greatest of all time talk, but current top coach would be Dabo in my opinion.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ALA2262 on December 04, 2017, 11:28:12 AM
This is a list of losses by CFP teams, by point margin, to unranked teams during the season in which they were in the CFP.

2015 Michigan State - 1 point
2016 Clemson - 1 point
2016 Ohio State - 3 points
2017 Clemson - 3 points
2014 Oregon - 7 points
2015 Oklahoma - 7 points
2017 Oklahoma - 7 points
2014 Ohio State - 14 points


Did you really want to add

2017 Ohio State - 31 points

to this list?
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: JWilly86 on December 04, 2017, 11:33:17 AM
This is a list of losses by CFP teams, by point margin, to unranked teams during the season in which they were in the CFP.

2015 Michigan State - 1 point
2016 Clemson - 1 point
2016 Ohio State - 3 points
2017 Clemson - 3 points
2014 Oregon - 7 points
2015 Oklahoma - 7 points
2017 Oklahoma - 7 points
2014 Ohio State - 14 points


Did you really want to add

2017 Ohio State - 31 points

to this list?
I'd genuinely be interested to see top 25 wins w/win margin for each team in the CFP as well. Just if you have some time and nothing to do :)
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 04, 2017, 11:33:36 AM
A simple rule for me would be to mandate that all P5 teams play ten P5 teams a year, perhaps liberally defining P5 at times.

Most B1G teams would not need to do anything.

It's fine to schedule an FSU, but when they are bad the game means little.  Then three pastries OOC.  A third of the season with no challenge.  Then it happens much of your division is bad and you get to play Vandy and Tennessee from the East.

You end up with 3 games against somewhat competitive teams, maybe we can add A&M, and you lose one of them.

You are 3-1 in games you could plausibly have lost.  Yay.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Mdot21 on December 04, 2017, 11:33:45 AM
if OSU in 2015 didn't get in, hard for me to see why 2017 Alabama should've gotten in.

that OSU 2015 team was freaking loaded. Who is the best RB in the NFL? Zeke Elliot. Who is one of the top 5 DE's and maybe the best pass rusher in the NFL? Joey Bosa. They were experienced vets on that team.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 04, 2017, 11:34:45 AM
Clemson and Alabama each lost one game. Clemson to 4-8 Syracuse and Bama to 10-3 Auburn. Therefore Clemson deserves their number one ranking and Bama got in on name recognition

if you're going by who ya beat, then yeah. Clemson beat 3 teams in the top 15 in September alone, won their conference title with a 38-3 drubbing of a top 10 team. Clemson also beat the team that beat you. so yeah, I'd say Clemson deserved the #1 spot.

Dabo pulls this one out, and I think there might be a new pecking order in top coaches in the country. not greatest of all time talk, but current top coach would be Dabo in my opinion.
"best coaches" is never quantifiable immediately. too many moving parts. but yes, dabo is already strongly in the discussion for top current coach, imo. regardless of cfp outcome.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on December 04, 2017, 11:38:57 AM
if OSU in 2015 didn't get in, hard for me to see why 2017 Alabama should've gotten in.

that OSU 2015 team was freaking loaded. Who is the best RB in the NFL? Zeke Elliot. Who is one of the top 5 DE's and maybe the best pass rusher in the NFL? Joey Bosa. They were experienced vets on that team.
Plus their lone loss was a close loss on the final play of the game, to a CFP participant.  Alabama played one top 15 opponent and got trucked.
I put Alabama above OSU in my rankings, but if I was selecting a playoff field, I'd have had OSU in.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 04, 2017, 11:39:37 AM
if OSU in 2015 didn't get in, hard for me to see why 2017 Alabama should've gotten in.

that OSU 2015 team was freaking loaded. Who is the best RB in the NFL? Zeke Elliot. Who is one of the top 5 DE's and maybe the best pass rusher in the NFL? Joey Bosa. They were experienced vets on that team.
but who was that 15 osu going against? certainly not a 2 loss (1 blowout to unranked team) conf champ team. can't compare teams from different years without also considering the circumstances. if the '15 osu team was going vs this years bama, no brainer osu gets in.

if this years osu team has 1 loss, or even not blowout loss, they're in.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on December 04, 2017, 11:40:49 AM
but who was that 15 osu going against? certainly not a 2 loss (1 blowout to unranked team) conf champ team. can't compare teams from different years without also considering the circumstances. if the '15 osu team was going vs this years bama, no brainer osu gets in.

if this years osu team has 1 loss, or even not blowout loss, they're in.
This.  Obviously 2015 OSU has a stronger case than 2017 Alabama, but they were being compared to nothing but undefeated and one loss conference champs.  If that's what we had this year, Alabama would be out.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 04, 2017, 11:41:27 AM
Georgia for example with a 9 game conference slate would have either to drop Georgia Tech or not play another P5 school that year (they usually play Tech and one more) OR play 11 P5 schools, which is unlikely (though they did it one year).

USCe and UK and UF are in the same boat.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on December 04, 2017, 11:43:52 AM
Georgia for example with a 9 game conference slate would have either to drop Georgia Tech or not play another P5 school that year (they usually play Tech and one more) OR play 11 P5 schools, which is unlikely (though they did it one year).

USCe and UK and UF are in the same boat.
USC did it this year.  The only non P5 school they played was in the NY6 last year.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 04, 2017, 11:46:10 AM
I like this idea as well. 9-conference game schedules should be mandated. Big 12 has 10 teams and they play a round robin so they are fine. B1G and Pac both went to 9 conference game schedules. ACC and SEC are still holding out. Gee, I wonder why.
I like the idea of going to 6 team play-off, with the 5 conference champs getting auto-bids. That last spot will be a wild-card. Take the top two teams that finished just outside and make them play each other for that 6th spot in the playoff. You get rewarded for winning your conference with a spot in the playoff and a first round bye. Winning your conference should matter. Right now the CFP is saying it doesn't. If you were the next two highest rated teams but were "oh so close" you get a chance to play your way in. I don't see why anybody should have a problem with that.

fwiw, sec has mandate to play 9 p5 schools. i think it's worded different, something like must play 1 p5 ooc, but with the conf slate makes 9 so no difference. EDIT: i misread the first part, thought it said 9 p5 games not 9 conf games. fwiw, i agree sec should do 9 conf games.
also, there is no way in hell bama or anyone could have forseen fsu droping like they did. that was thought of before season to be one of, if not THE best opening games in CFB HISTORY. you can't go back in hindsight and say the scheduling was weak intentionally. that's reaching at best.
i don't like the idea of conf champs getting auto bids cause we will end up with a 3-4 loss team eventually, especially if we're including all p5 confs.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: JWilly86 on December 04, 2017, 12:07:13 PM
i don't like the idea of conf champs getting auto bids cause we will end up with a 3-4 loss team eventually, especially if we're including all p5 confs.
People seem ok with a 7 loss super bowl champ. There should be a defined way in, not arbitrary selection.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 04, 2017, 12:24:48 PM
People seem ok with a 7 loss super bowl champ. There should be a defined way in, not arbitrary selection.
i wasn't. that was a ridiculous year, imo. 
but it also wasn't including a 7 loss team in over a 1 loss team just because of a division championship.
if we go to 8 teams, then i don't have a problem with p5 champs auto bids. but i don't really think we need 8 team playoff either. (though i think we're heading that way and fast)
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 04, 2017, 12:32:52 PM
but who was that 15 osu going against? certainly not a 2 loss (1 blowout to unranked team) conf champ team. can't compare teams from different years without also considering the circumstances. if the '15 osu team was going vs this years bama, no brainer osu gets in.

if this years osu team has 1 loss, or even not blowout loss, they're in.
 That 2015 buckeye team lost a game on a last-second play in a rainstorm but followed that up with an impressive Road victory by kicking the hell out of a 10 win Michigan team. 
 They did not get beat by their arrival soundly and have that be the last game they played - like Bama. 
 So if Wisconsin was above Bama before this weekend and so was Auburn, and according to Hocutt separation between number five and number eight was minimal, what happened over the weekend to make  Alabama "unequivocally better" than Ohio State?    Was it the team that beat Bama getting blasted? Was it Wisconsin getting beat by Ohio State?    What suddenly made Alabama on equivocally better than Ohio State?   
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: utee94 on December 04, 2017, 12:53:16 PM
USC did it this year.  The only non P5 school they played was in the NY6 last year.
Texas has played 11 P5 schools every year since 2012 (I'm counting Notre Dame and BYU as P5 schools here).
Of course, Texas has also suffered severely from playing a more challenging schedule.  Losses to Maryland and USC this year, would have been wins against a school like Mercer.    But I'd rather see my team play the more interesting schedule, to be honest.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Mdot21 on December 04, 2017, 12:54:25 PM
People seem ok with a 7 loss super bowl champ. There should be a defined way in, not arbitrary selection.
This. 
Winning your conference should matter. CFP committee two years in a row saying it doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 04, 2017, 01:20:57 PM
That 2015 buckeye team lost a game on a last-second play in a rainstorm but followed that up with an impressive Road victory by kicking the hell out of a 10 win Michigan team.
 They did not get beat by their arrival soundly and have that be the last game they played - like Bama.
 So if Wisconsin was above Bama before this weekend and so was Auburn, and according to Hocutt separation between number five and number eight was minimal, what happened over the weekend to make  Alabama "unequivocally better" than Ohio State?    Was it the team that beat Bama getting blasted? Was it Wisconsin getting beat by Ohio State?    What suddenly made Alabama on equivocally better than Ohio State?  
i don't know what changed and agree with what you're saying. i said after those rankings were released i thought it'd be osu based on the 'minimal separation' from 5-8 from the committee spokesman, bringing sos/conf champs/etc into play, which osu would be in better position than bama is. and i don't know what changed (more likely they were bs-ing for ratings, imo).
as for the '15 osu vs '17 bama, again the competition to get in the cfp in '15 was much greater than in '17. if '15 osu replaced '17 osu, it's a no brainer and osu is in easily. you can't just compare 15 osu to 17 bama. you have to compare the entire circumstances, which aren't the same 15 osu had much better teams to compete with to get in cfp than the 17 counterparts.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 04, 2017, 01:54:44 PM
i don't know what changed and agree with what you're saying. i said after those rankings were released i thought it'd be osu based on the 'minimal separation' from 5-8 from the committee spokesman, bringing sos/conf champs/etc into play, which osu would be in better position than bama is. and i don't know what changed (more likely they were bs-ing for ratings, imo).
as for the '15 osu vs '17 bama, again the competition to get in the cfp in '15 was much greater than in '17. if '15 osu replaced '17 osu, it's a no brainer and osu is in easily. you can't just compare 15 osu to 17 bama. you have to compare the entire circumstances, which aren't the same 15 osu had much better teams to compete with to get in cfp than the 17 counterparts.
I agree with this entirely.  Part of the nature of things is that you compete in a particular year.  I've always said, for example, that Ohio State and Michigan both had possibly their best ever teams in 1973.  Neither won an NC though because they tied each other.  Ohio State got the Rose Bowl (on a vote of conference AD's) and smoked USC in the Rose Bowl.  They didn't finish #1 because they had a "blemish" in the tie with Michigan.  1973 Ohio State would easily have won the NC in 1972 or 1974 (as would 1973 Michigan) but you don't get to do that.  
2015 Ohio State got left out because the ACC, SEC, B1G, and B12 all produced undefeated or 1-loss Champions.  If Wisconsin had defeated Ohio State this year, Bama would have been left out.  That didn't happen so it left room because there were only three P5 Champions with one or less losses.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 04, 2017, 01:56:28 PM
So, three teams from three states in the Deep South, and Oklahoma, not really a media center.

This worry about who may watch is clearly not a factor.
This.  
For all of you who have been arguing that Helmet Factor and/or ratings override everything, this decision proves that to be untrue.  If you were making the decision based on ratings you wouldn't have taken three Deep South teams and Oklahoma.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 04, 2017, 01:57:35 PM
That is exactly what I thought would put Ohio State in.
Up until this year the Committee has been MUCH more interested in who you beat and losses have been a lesser issue.  Bama got in despite lacking quality wins.  They have changed their tune.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 04, 2017, 02:00:11 PM
Up until this year the Committee has been MUCH more interested in who you beat and losses have been a lesser issue.  Bama got in despite lacking quality wins.  They have changed their tune.  
It'll change back when it's convenient to change it back...

This year the committee "valued" Ohio State's losses more than it valued quality wins.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 04, 2017, 02:00:24 PM
If the Big Ten is serious about the CFP, the path is clear...

1.) Move back to 8 conference games
2.) No more road OOC games
3.) Bring back FCS opponents.

For all the talk, the committee clearly still looks at just how many losses you have.  Alabama doesn't have anything resembling a good win.  Hell, MSU has better wins than Bama does.
My objection to the Bama selection is exactly this.  The message it sends it that scheduling for a strong SoS is a fool's errand because the primary consideration by the committee is:
Everything else comes after that.  Conference Championships, SoS, and quality wins are tiebreakers to be used when deciding among teams with the same number of losses only.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 04, 2017, 02:06:37 PM
It'll change back when it's convenient to change it back...
because the primary consideration by the committee is:
Number of Losses.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 04, 2017, 03:22:11 PM
Folks criticize Bama's scheduling, but scheduling FSU was a stout move.

I disagree with their neutral site thing and also think they should play 10 P5 teams, but scheduling FSU was not a problem in my mind.  Whether they played Mercer or Ga Southern wouldn't have mattered.  They could have scheduled Duke or UNC and it wouldn't have mattered either, but it would look better.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 04, 2017, 03:45:34 PM
Maybe the committee simply decided that the wrath of the Ohio State fan base wouldn't be as bad as the wrath from the Bama fan base.

I mean, why not that reason? 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 04, 2017, 04:04:31 PM
Folks criticize Bama's scheduling, but scheduling FSU was a stout move.

I disagree with their neutral site thing and also think they should play 10 P5 teams, but scheduling FSU was not a problem in my mind.  Whether they played Mercer or Ga Southern wouldn't have mattered.  They could have scheduled Duke or UNC and it wouldn't have mattered either, but it would look better.
I've said this repeatedly in this thread and I stand by it:
This isn't 4 year old T-ball.  You should not be rewarded for effort.  
I agree that SCHEDULING FSU was a stout move.  However, it did NOT turn out to be a game against a quality opponent.  The same is true for Wisconsin with BYU.  

Neither Bama nor Wisconsin should be judged based on what they tried to accomplish.  They should be judged based on what actually happened.  What actually happened was that Bama played a mediocre (6-6) FSU team and Wisconsin played a terrible (4-9) BYU team.  

In 2018 Ohio State's OOC is OrSU, TCU, and Tulane.  If TCU sucks, Ohio State should not get "credit" for effort for scheduling a TCU team that has been pretty good.  Also, Ohio State should not get "credit" for the fact that when they scheduled OrSU, the Beavers were pretty good.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: PSUinNC on December 04, 2017, 04:14:41 PM
"How did the third best B1G team make the playoffs? By staying home and doing nothing, while other teams worked hard and won Championships. Ohio State didn’t win a division title, a conference title...."
Changed it around so you could time warp back a year ago today.  
It's kinda humorous to me to to hear all of this a year later, now that the shoe's on the other foot.  OSU's resume yesterday essentially mirrored Penn State's last year and frankly was weaker in my opinion (at least PSU got whitewashed by by a Top 15 team, not a 5 loss team).  Wasn't much crying/whining for the Nits as I recall.  
Suck it up, this is how it goes.  PSU has been screwed out of 5 MNC's that I can count, and that doesn't include the right to try and play for one last year.  This is CFB, these are the politics.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: PSUinNC on December 04, 2017, 04:16:21 PM
because the primary consideration by the committee is:
Number of Losses.  
It's simple:  1)  Don't lose 2 games.  2)  Don't lose one of them being run off the field.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MrNubbz on December 04, 2017, 04:18:32 PM
Maybe the committee simply decided that the wrath of the Ohio State fan base wouldn't be as bad as the wrath from the Bama fan base.

I mean, why not that reason?
Iowa - the way they lost,close game there may be an argument  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 04, 2017, 04:21:48 PM
I've said this repeatedly in this thread and I stand by it:
This isn't 4 year old T-ball.  You should not be rewarded for effort.  
I agree that SCHEDULING FSU was a stout move.  However, it did NOT turn out to be a game against a quality opponent.  The same is true for Wisconsin with BYU.  
  • Wisconsin scheduled a BYU team that has been decent almost every year recently.  
  • Bama scheduled an FSU team that was expected to be a playoff contender.  

Neither Bama nor Wisconsin should be judged based on what they tried to accomplish.  They should be judged based on what actually happened.  What actually happened was that Bama played a mediocre (6-6) FSU team and Wisconsin played a terrible (4-9) BYU team.  

In 2018 Ohio State's OOC is OrSU, TCU, and Tulane.  If TCU sucks, Ohio State should not get "credit" for effort for scheduling a TCU team that has been pretty good.  Also, Ohio State should not get "credit" for the fact that when they scheduled OrSU, the Beavers were pretty good.  
that's fine and i don't disagree.
but what it does mean is anyone saying bama is scared or tried to get an edge by not playing anyone tough is full of it. bama went out and scheduled what it thought was a really tough opponent. it didn't turn out that way, but it's not a result of trying to find easy opponents.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 04, 2017, 04:57:58 PM
that's fine and i don't disagree.
but what it does mean is anyone saying bama is scared or tried to get an edge by not playing anyone tough is full of it. bama went out and scheduled what it thought was a really tough opponent. it didn't turn out that way, but it's not a result of trying to find easy opponents.
And I agree with you.  Bama did try to schedule a strong OOC opponent.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 04, 2017, 05:10:44 PM
Changed it around so you could time warp back a year ago today.  
It's kinda humorous to me to to hear all of this a year later, now that the shoe's on the other foot.  OSU's resume yesterday essentially mirrored Penn State's last year and frankly was weaker in my opinion (at least PSU got whitewashed by by a Top 15 team, not a 5 loss team).  Wasn't much crying/whining for the Nits as I recall.  
Suck it up, this is how it goes.  PSU has been screwed out of 5 MNC's that I can count, and that doesn't include the right to try and play for one last year.  This is CFB, these are the politics.  
Last year PSU against ranked (final CFP) opponents:
Last year Ohio State:
Bama this year:

Penn State has a better argument this year than they did last year.  Last year Penn State's best road win was . . . Indiana?  

Ohio State had a ridiculously tough schedule last year that included three road games against top-10 opponents.  

Bama this year doesn't have a signature win to rival either Ohio State or Penn State in either 2016 or 2017.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 04, 2017, 05:11:46 PM
Bama's scheduling was good regarding the FSU game

Bama's schedule was poor regarding it's combined strength - including FSU which unfortunately stunk

every season some usually decent team (BYU, FSU) goes in the tank and causes trouble

as I told the Badger fans, it's not their fault that BYU stunk, but it's also not the fault of any other program competing with the Badgers for a spot

your schedule is what it is.  the scheduling needs to have sufficient weight to overcome clunkers like BYU and FSU - Mercer doesn't help, neither does Utah State

the nice thing is...... the committee really doesn't care about schedule strength
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 04, 2017, 06:32:03 PM
Last year PSU against ranked (final CFP) opponents:
  • #3 Ohio State:  Won by 3, home
  • #6 Michigan:  Lost by 39, road
  • #8 Wisconsin:  Won by 7, neutral
  • #23 Pitt:  Lost by 3, road
Last year Ohio State:
  • #5 Penn State:  Lost by 3, road
  • #6 Michigan:  Won in 2OT, home
  • #7 Oklahoma:  Won by 21, road
  • #8 Wisconsin:  Won in OT, road
Bama this year:
  • #7 Auburn:  Lost by 12, road
  • #17 LSU:  Won by 14, home.  
  • #23 MissSt:  Won by 7, home

Penn State has a better argument this year than they did last year.  Last year Penn State's best road win was . . . Indiana?  

Ohio State had a ridiculously tough schedule last year that included three road games against top-10 opponents.  

Bama this year doesn't have a signature win to rival either Ohio State or Penn State in either 2016 or 2017.  
Add to that, Ohio State last year had a play in game. Number 2 versus# 3, on the last day of the regular season.    They won and went into the final championship weekend ALREADY in the top 4.  Bama got manhandled on their last week end and went into the final weekend OUT of the top 4.  No comparison.
And comparing PSU last year to OSU this year is nothing short of humorous.  People forget, the debate was Penn State or Washington for that 4th spot.  The committee said they didn't even consider it (OSU or PSU)       But the committee didn't want 2 teams from the same conference ( funny- how that changes this year for the conference that only schedules 8 conference games ). 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on December 04, 2017, 09:47:22 PM
Last year PSU against ranked (final CFP) opponents:
  • #3 Ohio State:  Won by 3, home
  • #6 Michigan:  Lost by 39, road
  • #8 Wisconsin:  Won by 7, neutral
  • #23 Pitt:  Lost by 3, road
Last year Ohio State:
  • #5 Penn State:  Lost by 3, road
  • #6 Michigan:  Won in 2OT, home
  • #7 Oklahoma:  Won by 21, road
  • #8 Wisconsin:  Won in OT, road
Bama this year:
  • #7 Auburn:  Lost by 12, road
  • #17 LSU:  Won by 14, home.  
  • #23 MissSt:  Won by 7, home

Penn State has a better argument this year than they did last year.  Last year Penn State's best road win was . . . Indiana?  

Ohio State had a ridiculously tough schedule last year that included three road games against top-10 opponents.  

Bama this year doesn't have a signature win to rival either Ohio State or Penn State in either 2016 or 2017.  
It doesn't affect your argument much, but Bama played Mississippi State in Starkville.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on December 04, 2017, 09:55:46 PM
we're focusing a lot on Ohio State obviously, but lets not forget. if USC plays Akron instead of ND, then USC is in the playoff as well. 

this is what sucks, teams that challenge themselves, with "true" road games, with multiple tough OOC games or play a 9 league schedule will always be at a disadvantage until the committee has the stones to put a 2 loss team (with a good resume like USC or Ohio State this year) over a 1 loss team and cite specifically it's the 8 game conference schedule and lack of OOC opponents. until then, Bama's doing what's right for Bama. I think it sucks, I think it leads to less a less exciting regular season, I don't think it's particularly fair, but it is what it is. so the PAC, BIG, BIG 12 have to decide, do we all go back to 8 games, scheduling FCS etc? I wouldn't blame anyone for doing so, because the committee's stance on scheduling tough for the last 4 years is pretty BS. 

now, if you're not a helmet, if you're northwestern or something, you're probably in a particular bind, because you gotta go 13-0 if you play a weaker schedule. not fair either, but that's what the committee is saying. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Kris61 on December 05, 2017, 06:10:49 AM
In the committee's defense I don't think they were just counting losses in regards to Bama/OhioSt.  I really believe it was the way Ohio St lost that kept them out.  I do my own rankings every year because I like to get an idea of just how difficult it is to do what the CFP does every year.

I usually lean more on resume and pay more attention to who you beat than who you lose to but the Iowa loss was just so unusual it was hard to gloss over it.  If Ohio St loses on a FG at the gun I'd probably have been more forgiving.  I have to think maybe the CFP would have too.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 05, 2017, 07:58:29 AM
we're focusing a lot on Ohio State obviously, but lets not forget. if USC plays Akron instead of ND, then USC is in the playoff as well. 
This is exactly what is wrong with what the committee did.  Every AD in the nation now knows two things:

The committee sent a message loud and clear and that message is that SoS is merely a tiebreaker while number of losses is the #1 consideration.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: ELA on December 05, 2017, 08:10:27 AM
In the committee's defense I don't think they were just counting losses in regards to Bama/OhioSt.  I really believe it was the way Ohio St lost that kept them out.  I do my own rankings every year because I like to get an idea of just how difficult it is to do what the CFP does every year.

I usually lean more on resume and pay more attention to who you beat than who you lose to but the Iowa loss was just so unusual it was hard to gloss over it.  If Ohio St loses on a FG at the gun I'd probably have been more forgiving.  I have to think maybe the CFP would have too.
They did the same in putting Washington in last year though too.  They aren't putting a 2 loss team in as long as there are at least 4 undefeated or 1 loss teams.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: LittlePig on December 05, 2017, 08:23:53 AM
This is exactly what is wrong with what the committee did.  Every AD in the nation now knows two things:
  • If USC had hosted Akron instead of travelling to Notre Dame, the Trojans would be a 12-1 P5 Champion in the CFP.  
  • If Ohio State had hosted Tulsa instead of playing Oklahoma, the Buckeyes would be a 12-1 P5 Champion in the CFP.  

The committee sent a message loud and clear and that message is that SoS is merely a tiebreaker while number of losses is the #1 consideration.  
Interesting in this scenerio, the choices would have been
1.  12-1 Clemson (did not play S Car or Auburn)
2.  12-1 Georgia (did not play ND or GT)
3.  12-1 Oklahoma (did not play ohio st)
4.  12-1 USC (did not play ND or Tex)
5.  12-1 Ohio St (did not play Okie)
6.  11-1 Bama (did not play FSU)
Who does the committe pick?  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 05, 2017, 08:44:03 AM
Interesting in this scenerio, the choices would have been
1.  12-1 Clemson (did not play S Car or Auburn)
2.  12-1 Georgia (did not play ND or GT)
3.  12-1 Oklahoma (did not play ohio st)
4.  12-1 USC (did not play ND or Tex)
5.  12-1 Ohio St (did not play Okie)
6.  11-1 Bama (did not play FSU)
Who does the committe pick?  
Easy, SoS and Championships are effectively tiebreakers so the four P5 Champions with the best SoS. In this example, Bama and USC are out. Bana because they aren't a Champion and USC because they had the weakest (by far) CG opponent. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TyphonInc on December 05, 2017, 09:29:06 AM
Changed it around so you could time warp back a year ago today.  
It's kinda humorous to me to to hear all of this a year later, now that the shoe's on the other foot.  OSU's resume yesterday essentially mirrored Penn State's last year and frankly was weaker in my opinion (at least PSU got whitewashed by by a Top 15 team, not a 5 loss team).  Wasn't much crying/whining for the Nits as I recall.  
Suck it up, this is how it goes.  PSU has been screwed out of 5 MNC's that I can count, and that doesn't include the right to try and play for one last year.  This is CFB, these are the politics.  
hmm... I do recall lots of nittany tears last year. I think they were justified. Last year the committee claimed quality wins, better wins vs. same competition, and 1 loss; trumped head to head and conference title.
This year they are claiming weaker schedule, only 1 loss trumps tougher schedule and conference title. 
Both cases PSU last year, and OSU this year they had an embarrassing loss. I think the committee is saying what Saban said, championship caliber teams don't get embarrassed when they stub their toe. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Kris61 on December 05, 2017, 09:31:38 AM
They did the same in putting Washington in last year though too.  They aren't putting a 2 loss team in as long as there are at least 4 undefeated or 1 loss teams.
Washington had 3 ranked wins compared to Penn St's two plus one less loss.  That wasn't just counting losses.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Kris61 on December 05, 2017, 09:32:47 AM
hmm... I do recall lots of nittany tears last year. I think they were justified. Last year the committee claimed quality wins, better wins vs. same competition, and 1 loss; trumped head to head and conference title.
This year they are claiming weaker schedule, only 1 loss trumps tougher schedule and conference title.
Both cases PSU last year, and OSU this year they had an embarrassing loss. I think the committee is saying what Saban said, championship caliber teams don't get embarrassed when they stub their toe.
I agree. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 05, 2017, 09:54:59 AM
Interesting in this scenerio, the choices would have been
1.  12-1 Clemson (did not play S Car or Auburn)
2.  12-1 Georgia (did not play ND or GT)
3.  12-1 Oklahoma (did not play ohio st)
4.  12-1 USC (did not play ND or Tex)
5.  12-1 Ohio St (did not play Okie)
6.  11-1 Bama (did not play FSU)
Who does the committe pick?  
If Clemson didn't play Auburn, then Auburn didn't play Clemson, which means...

1. Clemson
2. Georgia
3. Auburn
4. Alabama
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Temp430 on December 05, 2017, 10:46:08 AM
Given the results of last Saturday's games I like the four teams in the playoffs.  Not surprised the Big Ten was locked out.  The Big Ten has always been kind of a circular firing squad.  Adding a conference championship game has not helped.  I would prefer to see the Big Ten go to 10 conference games and drop the championship game.  And adding more cupcakes or FCS teams to the schedule is not the answer.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: utee94 on December 05, 2017, 11:15:56 AM
Given the results of last Saturday's games I like the four teams in the playoffs.  Not surprised the Big Ten was locked out.  The Big Ten has always been kind of a circular firing squad.  Adding a conference championship game has not helped.  I would prefer to see the Big Ten go to 10 conference games and drop the championship game.  And adding more cupcakes or FCS teams to the schedule is not the answer.
Depends on the question.  If the question is, what's the best way to maximize the B1G's chances at making the CFP every year, then the answer is drop to 8 conference games, add more FCS and gimmes, don't jeopardize your top teams with home-and-homes against good competition but rather schedule them as 1-off neutral site games in stadiums that are likely to be friendly toward you, and carefully tailor the x-division opponents to protect the best teams in each division from one another.
If the question is, what would make better and more entertaining football for the fans of all B1G teams, then sure, ditch the cupcakes and play great opponents in home-and-home series.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 05, 2017, 11:25:08 AM
Just get rid of the SEC CCG, and make this the annual National Semifinals:

SEC East #1 vs SEC West #2

SEC West #1 vs SEC East #2
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Cincydawg on December 05, 2017, 11:56:04 AM
A 2 loss team has to have a very compelling story to get in (or no competition for the slot).

Auburn would have had that compelling story according to the CFPC had they won the CG.

Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 05, 2017, 12:34:00 PM
 I would say the opposite. If you're going to keep a conference champion out there needs to be  either a better conference champion, or a compelling, compelling argument for a nine conference champion like there was last year with Ohio State     Their resume last year was as good or maybe better than anybody's     After that one narrow loss at the last second they went out the next week on the road against a 10 win team and annihilated them     Voss you have the debate between Penn State and Washington 

 What they're saying this year is that not that they think Alabama has a compelling argument, but that they are the "best" team 

 The problem in the "best versus deserving and "debate is that one can be backed up with data and the other one is completely an opinion 

 If Bama have been ranked number four going into the final weekend and Wisconsin number five, this would probably make sense although you would have to question why Wisconsin was being under rated 

 The conversation is infuriating. I hear people talking about the fact that the last two big 10 appearances they did not score a point 

 If the committee acted like they did this year back in 2015 the best team in the country to most people, Ohio State, would have been in the playoffs in addition to Michigan State 

 Also, if you're allowed to go back and use prior years then why stop it two years. Why not go to three years and then ask who won the last time Alabama played Ohio State? 

 Let's be honest about this – the committee just used their opinion and no data or fax and they've never done that before 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 05, 2017, 12:36:24 PM
 What they should do is stop posting the CFP rankings at all and just announce the invitational results at the end by saying who they think the best for teams are   

 That's what they half did this year    
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TresselownsUM on December 05, 2017, 01:11:46 PM
Washington had 3 ranked wins compared to Penn St's two plus one less loss.  That wasn't just counting losses.

but do we want to reward teams for scheduling Portland St, Idaho and Rutgers? that was my biggest problem with it
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Mdot21 on December 05, 2017, 01:15:03 PM
The Pirate on the playoff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_nuMEtwUW4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_nuMEtwUW4)

I love that guy man.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 05, 2017, 01:18:30 PM
From Tom Fornelli at CBSec Sports. I found this mildly amusing. And truth.

*********************************************************

"Alabama was clearly the No. 4 ranked team as a non-champion," said Hocutt when asked why the committee went with the Tide over the Buckeyes.

Clearly?! Really?!

Let's go back to last week -- five days, in fact -- when the committee released its penultimate CFP Rankings on Tuesday night. In those rankings, Alabama was No. 5 and Ohio State was No. 8. Here's what Hocutt said while answering questions about the debate between Alabama and Ohio State less than a week ago.

"Reflecting on the discussions over the last two days," said Hocutt, "obviously there's three spots that separate [Alabama and Ohio State] right there, but it's close separation from team No. 5, Alabama, [with] No. 6 Georgia, No. 7 Miami, No. 8 Ohio State. Those teams are close. Very little separation in the committee's eyes between teams five through eight."

So what happened to take us from having "very little separation" between Ohio State and Alabama to "Alabama was clearly the No. 4-ranked team?"

Was it Ohio State winning a Big Ten title against No. 4 Wisconsin (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/WISC/wisconsin-badgers) that proved Alabama was clearly better than it? Was it Auburn (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/AUBURN/auburn-tigers), the team that beat Alabama, losing to Georgia that proved Alabama was better?

Or is the committee just talking out its you-know-what to explain its rankings on a weekly basis?

Only one of those three questions has an obvious answer.


https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/what-we-learned-dont-listen-to-the-cfp-heres-why-alabama-is-in-over-ohio-state/



Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 05, 2017, 01:33:07 PM
The Pirate on the playoff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_nuMEtwUW4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_nuMEtwUW4)

I love that guy man.
PURE GOLD!!!!!   LMAO.   MADE MY DAY.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 05, 2017, 01:34:10 PM
From Tom Fornelli at CBSec Sports. I found this mildly amusing. And truth.

*********************************************************

"Alabama was clearly the No. 4 ranked team as a non-champion," said Hocutt when asked why the committee went with the Tide over the Buckeyes.

Clearly?! Really?!

Let's go back to last week -- five days, in fact -- when the committee released its penultimate CFP Rankings on Tuesday night. In those rankings, Alabama was No. 5 and Ohio State was No. 8. Here's what Hocutt said while answering questions about the debate between Alabama and Ohio State less than a week ago.

"Reflecting on the discussions over the last two days," said Hocutt, "obviously there's three spots that separate [Alabama and Ohio State] right there, but it's close separation from team No. 5, Alabama, [with] No. 6 Georgia, No. 7 Miami, No. 8 Ohio State. Those teams are close. Very little separation in the committee's eyes between teams five through eight."

So what happened to take us from having "very little separation" between Ohio State and Alabama to "Alabama was clearly the No. 4-ranked team?"

Was it Ohio State winning a Big Ten title against No. 4 Wisconsin (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/WISC/wisconsin-badgers) that proved Alabama was clearly better than it? Was it Auburn (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/AUBURN/auburn-tigers), the team that beat Alabama, losing to Georgia that proved Alabama was better?

Or is the committee just talking out its you-know-what to explain its rankings on a weekly basis?

Only one of those three questions has an obvious answer.


https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/what-we-learned-dont-listen-to-the-cfp-heres-why-alabama-is-in-over-ohio-state/




HAHA. I actually posted a link to that way earlier in this thread- but since I didn't embed it- I doubt anyone read it.
Great stuff.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 05, 2017, 02:10:25 PM
I think if tOSU won by 3+ scores, they'd have gotten in.  I bet a big part of Bama getting in is that the committee thinks the Tide would beat Wisconsin by more than 6 points....
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: PSUinNC on December 05, 2017, 04:00:31 PM
hmm... I do recall lots of nittany tears last year. I think they were justified. Last year the committee claimed quality wins, better wins vs. same competition, and 1 loss; trumped head to head and conference title.
This year they are claiming weaker schedule, only 1 loss trumps tougher schedule and conference title.
Both cases PSU last year, and OSU this year they had an embarrassing loss. I think the committee is saying what Saban said, championship caliber teams don't get embarrassed when they stub their toe.
I actually for one had no issue with a 1-loss OSU team making the playoff last year despite the circumstances.  I obviously wanted Penn State in, but I understood why they weren't as well.  
I said it in another post, I'll say it again - Don't.  Lose.  Bad.  The committee two years in a row has obviously made this a point.  
And Ohio State had a really bad loss at Iowa this year, as did Penn State did to Michigan last year (albeit, a MUCH better Michigan team last year than Iowa was this year).  It wasn't the Pitt loss that did PSU in last year; it was being blown out by Michigan.  Am I the only one who remembers the massive uproar when 2001 Nebraska made the MNC title game that year after being whitewashed by Colorado?
My point is (and not directed at you Typhon, just in general) you can't take the result from last year with OSU getting in over Penn State and flip it to not getting in this year over Bama regardless of how many 'good' wins you think you have and the other doesn't.  OSU fans in general seem to be failing to grasp that, like they are enduring some massive injustice.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: PSUinNC on December 05, 2017, 04:03:50 PM
I think if tOSU won by 3+ scores, they'd have gotten in.  I bet a big part of Bama getting in is that the committee thinks the Tide would beat Wisconsin by more than 6 points....
I also think that had Ohio State lost on a last second field goal at Kinnick they would have gotten in too.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: EastAthens on December 05, 2017, 04:17:50 PM
If I was a Buckeye, I would be furious with my coaches.  How in the hell do you get off the bus at Iowa with that many big, fast, 4 and 5 star guys and get destroyed?  Poor focus and preparation, that's how, which is to say poor coaching. Like it or not that is why you are out. 

I can not imagine any Saban coached team losing by 30 to anyone, much less an unranked mid-level team.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 05, 2017, 04:53:35 PM
It's kind of interesting then, if margin of victory (or defeat) is so valued by the committee, and way back when the computers were part of the BCS, they required MOV to be removed from their formulas.....

We're a fickle species.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 05, 2017, 05:00:40 PM
HAHA. I actually posted a link to that way earlier in this thread- but since I didn't embed it- I doubt anyone read it.
Great stuff.
I actually read it when you posted it and it really highlights something that has been bothering me.  
Last week he said that there was "very little separation" between 5-8.  RTF made the comment that based on that he thought Ohio State would be in if they beat Wisconsin.  
Really, if his statement had been true then Ohio State should have been in.  If there was "very little separation" last week and the only thing that happened since then is that #8 won a conference championship by beating the #4 team then how is it possible that that didn't make up for "very little separation"?  
It bugs me mostly because I listened.  Prior to that comment I didn't think Ohio State could get in without a win AND a TCU win.  Once he said that there was "very little separation" between #8 Ohio State and #5 Bama I thought he was basically saying that Ohio State was in with a win.  Why would you say that if not?  The committee should have been smart enough to realize that there was a nonzero chance that the CG's would play out exactly as they did and that they would end up with a binary tOSU/Bama decision to make.  They shouldn't have painted themselves into a box where their prior statement became OBVIOUSLY false.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 05, 2017, 05:04:24 PM
I actually for one had no issue with a 1-loss OSU team making the playoff last year despite the circumstances.  I obviously wanted Penn State in, but I understood why they weren't as well.  
I said it in another post, I'll say it again - Don't.  Lose.  Bad.  The committee two years in a row has obviously made this a point.  
And Ohio State had a really bad loss at Iowa this year, as did Penn State did to Michigan last year (albeit, a MUCH better Michigan team last year than Iowa was this year).  It wasn't the Pitt loss that did PSU in last year; it was being blown out by Michigan.  Am I the only one who remembers the massive uproar when 2001 Nebraska made the MNC title game that year after being whitewashed by Colorado?
My point is (and not directed at you Typhon, just in general) you can't take the result from last year with OSU getting in over Penn State and flip it to not getting in this year over Bama regardless of how many 'good' wins you think you have and the other doesn't.  OSU fans in general seem to be failing to grasp that, like they are enduring some massive injustice.  
FWIW:  I do not think that Ohio State getting snubbed is a "massive injustice".  I look at it a lot like you described your view of PSU getting snubbed last year.  I want my team in and it sucks but I can see why.  I've said that if I were on the committee I would see this (tOSU/Bama) as a REALLY tough call.  I think it was MUCH closer than tOSU/TCU/Baylor a few years ago because Ohio State had an obviously better SoS and that HUGE win over Wisconsin that TCU/Baylor couldn't match so that seemed pretty obvious to me.  

I do not think that you can say that the blowout loss to Michigan and not the Pitt loss did in PSU last year.  I think it was both.  You might be right, but I think a 12-1 PSU last year with a close win over Pitt and the same blowout loss to Michigan is in.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 05, 2017, 05:07:16 PM
I also think that had Ohio State lost on a last second field goal at Kinnick they would have gotten in too.  
That is an interesting hypothetical but we are not going to know until somebody has two losses with neither being blowouts.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 05, 2017, 05:11:38 PM
It's kind of interesting then, if margin of victory (or defeat) is so valued by the committee, and way back when the computers were part of the BCS, they required MOV to be removed from their formulas.....

We're a fickle species.  
I do not want MoV to be an unlimited factor.  I just don't think that beating the crap out of horrible teams by 50+ proves anything.  
I like the way the committee always talked about "game control".  My proposal was and remains to include MoV but to calculate it by:
Subject to the following restrictions:
I do NOT think that a team should be able to completely make up for a weak opponent by drilling them and the 63 point maximum limits that.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 05, 2017, 05:57:32 PM
I hated the insistence on the removal of MOV back in the BCS days.  Why?  Because with or without it, the Penn States of the world still beat the Montana Techs 72-3.  Blowout destructions happen all the time, so why would including MOV change that either way?
Not to mention, the biggie - these computer guys took years and years to perfect their formulas and then the BCS just says "take out this important chunk" - it rendered every single computer poll statistically invalid.  

Putting a limit on MOV is fine, but I don't think it matters.  A group of people (AP voters back in the day, the committee now) aren't smart enough AS A COLLECTIVE to take game control into consideration.  Whether it's 1994 and Indiana tacks on 2 meaningless TDs vs Penn State's backups or whatever, EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW THE CONTEXT, they act as if the final score is the final arbiter of truth.

Ask each individual?  Oh sure, I agree that Team X shouldn't be penalized, they were never in danger of losing, blah blah...nuance....game control....blah blah...and yet AS A COLLECTIVE, they're basically retarded.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: PSUinNC on December 05, 2017, 06:05:40 PM
FWIW:  I do not think that Ohio State getting snubbed is a "massive injustice".  I look at it a lot like you described your view of PSU getting snubbed last year.  I want my team in and it sucks but I can see why.  I've said that if I were on the committee I would see this (tOSU/Bama) as a REALLY tough call.  I think it was MUCH closer than tOSU/TCU/Baylor a few years ago because Ohio State had an obviously better SoS and that HUGE win over Wisconsin that TCU/Baylor couldn't match so that seemed pretty obvious to me.  

I do not think that you can say that the blowout loss to Michigan and not the Pitt loss did in PSU last year.  I think it was both.  You might be right, but I think a 12-1 PSU last year with a close win over Pitt and the same blowout loss to Michigan is in.  
Medina, you typically are an outlier to the OSU rhetoric (at least, the very vocal minority of OSU fans; same can be said for Nittany Lions as well, I know).  
That said, I agree with your second statement that 1) it was a tough call and 2) was way closer than the 2015 debate. 
I'll agree that a 12-1 PSU team is in last year no doubt, but I also think a 11-2 PSU team with a much closer loss to Michigan also gets in over OSU.  Just one man's opinion in that regard.  
I also think that had PSU finished off the OSU win AND wont the B1G, they too were in over Bama this year even with the loss to MSU.  That's a harder pill for me to swallow than last year even, b/c a road win at the Shoe was in grasp and Barrett played the best quarter he'll ever play in football while PSU's coaches clammed up.  What coulda been.....(and again, no guarantees they beat Wisky either, but still....).
What would have been incredible turmoil is PSU goes 11-1 with their only loss on the road late to OSU.....who would've gotten in THEN?
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 05, 2017, 08:34:24 PM


We're a fickle species.  
most of us are
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 06, 2017, 11:09:19 AM
Medina, you typically are an outlier to the OSU rhetoric (at least, the very vocal minority of OSU fans; same can be said for Nittany Lions as well, I know).  
That said, I agree with your second statement that 1) it was a tough call and 2) was way closer than the 2015 debate.
I'll agree that a 12-1 PSU team is in last year no doubt, but I also think a 11-2 PSU team with a much closer loss to Michigan also gets in over OSU.  Just one man's opinion in that regard.  
I also think that had PSU finished off the OSU win AND wont the B1G, they too were in over Bama this year even with the loss to MSU.  That's a harder pill for me to swallow than last year even, b/c a road win at the Shoe was in grasp and Barrett played the best quarter he'll ever play in football while PSU's coaches clammed up.  What coulda been.....(and again, no guarantees they beat Wisky either, but still....).
What would have been incredible turmoil is PSU goes 11-1 with their only loss on the road late to OSU.....who would've gotten in THEN?
That would be a really interesting question.  I honestly believe that PSU is better this year than last.  Last year the win over tOSU was at home, at night, and in a close game as opposed to losing this year on the road in a close game.  That is pretty close.  PSU's two losses last year were, IMHO, both bad:
This year PSU's losses were both close and both on the road and both to very good teams.  

If PSU had gone 11-1 this year with the loss to Ohio State and a close win over MSU, who knows.  The problem for them, as compared to Ohio State last year is that:
Of course, none of that really matters because PSU this year wouldn't have been compared to tOSU last year, they would have been compared to tOSU and Bama THIS year.  

I frankly think that PSU with a close loss in Columbus and otherwise undefeated would have had a better argument than Bama or Ohio State.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TyphonInc on December 06, 2017, 01:14:04 PM
So this will prolly be my last comment on OSU and the Playoffs:

4 straight years OSU has been a top 6 team.
2 times the narrative has been changed to include them in the playoff and 2 times the narrative has been changed to keep them out. It's frustrating.

'14 OSU jumped 2 teams who also had convincing wins in the final week to be included. Previously winning big didn't move you down. OSU in the playoff, TCU and Baylor frustrated.
'15 OSU "looked" like the best team in the nation, and had a 3 point snafu that kept them out of the CCG. We were told CCG matter; MSU to the playoff and OSU sat out, fans for the most part accepted the committee's rational.
'16 OSU again looked really good, and again lost to the 1 team they couldn't lose to, suddenly we were told that the "body of work" trumped the CCG. OSU in the playoffs and PSU is frustrated and confused.
'17 OSU has a couple of warts, but crushes almost everyone. Alabama loses the 1 games they can't afford to lose. And now we are told CCG and "body of work" don't matter, it's to not have a bad loss. Alabama to the playoff, OSU fans questioning the whole process.

Last week we are told by the committee the line between Alabama and OSU is razor thin. OSU goes out and beats a top 4 team, wins the conference title, has their strength of schedule substantially increased over 'bama, Nationally has a top 10 offense and a top 10 defense, has 2 wins over top 10 teams, all the "advanced metrics" love the Buckeyes. While Alabama is wearing maroon suit campaigning, and their nemesis gets beat handily making everything about Bama seem a step worse. But the committee comes out and says Alabama is definitely better.

The whole process is frustrating.

I for one am happy with the team I cheer for. I want them to beat ttun - check; win the B1G - check, play in the rose bowl - kinda. We got the Rose bowl matchup, it's sitting in the middle of Tejas instead of Pasadena.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 06, 2017, 01:20:44 PM
I'll agree that a 12-1 PSU team is in last year no doubt, but I also think a 11-2 PSU team with a much closer loss to Michigan also gets in over OSU.  Just one man's opinion in that regard.  
This really is the main remaining question.  The two two-loss champions that got left out both had at least one REALLY bad loss.  
You have said that you believe that it was the bad loss that kept them out.  Fearless has said that they simply count up losses.  I'm not sure.  
Last year I thought (hoped) that the committee was rewarding SoS.  Ohio State's last year was clearly better than PSU's with the OOC blowout road win over a P5 Champion along with a road win over UW, a road loss at PSU, etc.  
This year made clear that it isn't simply SoS.  Bama's SoS was not better than Ohio State's.  That leaves two possibilities:
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 06, 2017, 01:32:27 PM
Since they didn't allow anyone outside of the old Confederacy to participate, perhaps the Union should hold a playoff of its own. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: PSUinNC on December 06, 2017, 02:26:13 PM
Since they didn't allow anyone outside of the old Confederacy to participate, perhaps the Union should hold a playoff of its own.
If they ever go to 8 teams, you should do north bracket and south bracket then the winners just meet in DC.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 06, 2017, 03:45:01 PM
Since they didn't allow anyone outside of the old Confederacy to participate, perhaps the Union should hold a playoff of its own.
Not true.  Oklahoma was NOT in the Confederacy.  It didn't become a state until 1900.  
I know this because I was driving through Oklahoma once and noticed a GAR (Grand Army of the Republic) cemetery.  I thought that was odd because you most definitely would NEVER see that in neighboring Texas.  A lot of Oklahoma's early settlers were Union veterans from the Civil War.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 06, 2017, 04:48:52 PM
Well.....lessee......pre-playoffs, we had champions from:
confederacy for 9 years
CA (no side)
1 confederacy
1 union
1 confederacy
OK (no side)
2 confederacy

So that's 13 for the south, 1 for the north, and 2 johnny-come-latelies......so let's not poo-poo the playoff selections.  Seems like more of the same, if anything a'tall.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: utee94 on December 06, 2017, 05:11:43 PM
Not true.  Oklahoma was NOT in the Confederacy.  It didn't become a state until 1900.  
I know this because I was driving through Oklahoma once and noticed a GAR (Grand Army of the Republic) cemetery.  I thought that was odd because you most definitely would NEVER see that in neighboring Texas.  A lot of Oklahoma's early settlers were Union veterans from the Civil War.  
You know this from driving through the state, and not from the (at least) two years of American History you took in junior high and high school?  ;)


Anyway, yeah, Oklahoma was not part of the confederacy and most certainly is not a Southern state in culture, either.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 06, 2017, 05:19:09 PM
Not true.  Oklahoma was NOT in the Confederacy.  It didn't become a state until 1900.  
I know this because I was driving through Oklahoma once and noticed a GAR (Grand Army of the Republic) cemetery.  I thought that was odd because you most definitely would NEVER see that in neighboring Texas.  A lot of Oklahoma's early settlers were Union veterans from the Civil War.  
It may not have been a State, but it was in the CSA. 
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Map_of_CSA_4.png/550px-Map_of_CSA_4.png)
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 06, 2017, 05:20:09 PM
Well.....lessee......pre-playoffs, we had champions from:
confederacy for 9 years
CA (no side)
1 confederacy
1 union
1 confederacy
OK (no side)
2 confederacy

So that's 13 for the south, 1 for the north, and 2 johnny-come-latelies......so let's not poo-poo the playoff selections.  Seems like more of the same, if anything a'tall.
California was a Union State.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 06, 2017, 05:21:37 PM
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.scholastic.com%2Fcontent%2Fimages%2Farticles%2Fsn_ts%2Fsn_ts_030411_map.jpg&hash=c1d83d160e09b43596021dcf171a488f)
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 06, 2017, 05:29:26 PM
This really is the main remaining question.  The two two-loss champions that got left out both had at least one REALLY bad loss.  
You have said that you believe that it was the bad loss that kept them out.  Fearless has said that they simply count up losses.  I'm not sure.  
Last year I thought (hoped) that the committee was rewarding SoS.  Ohio State's last year was clearly better than PSU's with the OOC blowout road win over a P5 Champion along with a road win over UW, a road loss at PSU, etc.  
This year made clear that it isn't simply SoS.  Bama's SoS was not better than Ohio State's.  That leaves two possibilities:
  • They simply count up losses.  Bama-17 and tOSU-16 got in because they had less losses.  
  • That bad losses are fatal.  PSU-16 and tOSU-17 both had big losses and both got excluded.  

Oh- PSU would probably have gotten in at 12-1- over WASHINGTON!!
it cracks me up that people keep saying OSU got in over them.  NO_ as the committee said 1000 times, the last spot was a debate between those two.
here is what your missing PSU- and are almost all of the talking heads and fans who are reacting:
last year, OSU had arguably THE BEST RESUME OUT THERE. It ended with what was openly referred to as a play in game on the last day of the regular season between two of the CFP top 4- a game OSU won.  They went into the Championship game Weekend already SOLIDLY in the top 4. They were 3 if I recall.
The committee considered putting PSU- a 2 loss Champ, at 4 over a 1 loss champ with a less impressive schedule.
This year- Bama had no such resume. went into the last game against a good team and got beaten convincingly,  and went into the championship weekend NOT IN THE TOP 4.   They moved up by losing their last game soundly, and by not playing at all.
TWO THINGS THAT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE- a team losing last game and getting in, and a team not in top 4, not playing id jumping into top 4.
By the way- that's no great injustice to OSU. If Bama was ranked 4 going in- half this noise would go away.
But lie Typhonic- this is the first year you cant follow what they did and support it with facts, and it does not match what they said- or their rankings on the penultimate weekend.
They never thought Wisky was number 4 - which I also don't understand because they had the least LOSSES  (hello- you said that was it right committee), and gave OSU no credit for winning.
anyway-- different perspective below...
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2017/12/89018/travelers-and-thieves (https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2017/12/89018/travelers-and-thieves)
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: utee94 on December 06, 2017, 07:11:26 PM
It may not have been a State, but it was in the CSA.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Map_of_CSA_4.png/550px-Map_of_CSA_4.png)
Perhaps the Civil War Sooner will appear and enlighten us on the true nature of Oklahoma's involvement in the Civil War.  Pretty sure he'd know the details of it.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 06, 2017, 07:24:25 PM
most recruits can't remember Scott Frost as a player

the Civil War is REALLY going to be a stretch
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on December 06, 2017, 11:30:45 PM
Quote
Perhaps the Civil War Sooner will appear and enlighten us on the true nature of Oklahoma's involvement in the Civil War.  Pretty sure he'd know the details of it.
Speak of the devil . . . .

Oklahoma history is not really my subject, but Oklahoma was Indian Territory at the time.  The only federal officials prior to the war were just there to oversee the various Plains Indian tribes that had been relocated there, other than the "Five Civilized Tribes" relocated from what is now called the Southeastern U.S.

The Confederacy gained the loyalty of most of the tribes by granting them representation in the C.S. Congress, and because the Civilized Tribes were slaveholders, like their former white neighbors back in the South.  The Cherokees were notably split.  The more assimilated, more intermarried-with-whites faction, led by former chief John Ross (7/8 Scotch-Irish, IIRC) stuck with the Union.  The less-assimilated, more pure-blood faction, led by principal chief Stand Watie, went with the Confederates.  Stand Watie would go on to be the last Confederate general to surrender in 1865.

There were a fair number of small battles fought in Indian Territory.  Several of them were inter-tribal Cherokee fights.  Indian Territory was more or less secured for the Union with the Battle of Honey Springs, near modern-day Checotah, in July 1863, same month as Gettysburg.  There is a re-enactment held there every year.  Even though it was the biggest battle fought in the territory, it was still a small affair, with fewer than 10,000 total troops involved.  The losing Confederates were the larger force.  Both sides contained mostly black and Indian troops.

After the war, the Indians lost more of their land for having sided with the Confederates.  The Cherokees got no break for having been split.  The western part of Indian Territory was opened to white settlement with a series of land runs beginning in 1889 and ending in 1895.  This part of the state was designated Oklahoma Territory, while the eastern part, where the 5 Civilized Tribes and Osages lived, remained Indian Territory.  The two sections merged into the State of Oklahoma, the 46th state, in 1907.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 07, 2017, 11:25:18 AM
Oh- PSU would probably have gotten in at 12-1- over WASHINGTON!!
it cracks me up that people keep saying OSU got in over them.  NO_ as the committee said 1000 times, the last spot was a debate between those two.
here is what your missing PSU- and are almost all of the talking heads and fans who are reacting:
last year, OSU had arguably THE BEST RESUME OUT THERE. It ended with what was openly referred to as a play in game on the last day of the regular season between two of the CFP top 4- a game OSU won.  They went into the Championship game Weekend already SOLIDLY in the top 4. They were 3 if I recall.
The committee considered putting PSU- a 2 loss Champ, at 4 over a 1 loss champ with a less impressive schedule.
This year- Bama had no such resume. went into the last game against a good team and got beaten convincingly,  and went into the championship weekend NOT IN THE TOP 4.   They moved up by losing their last game soundly, and by not playing at all.
TWO THINGS THAT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE- a team losing last game and getting in, and a team not in top 4, not playing id jumping into top 4.
By the way- that's no great injustice to OSU. If Bama was ranked 4 going in- half this noise would go away.
But lie Typhonic- this is the first year you cant follow what they did and support it with facts, and it does not match what they said- or their rankings on the penultimate weekend.
They never thought Wisky was number 4 - which I also don't understand because they had the least LOSSES  (hello- you said that was it right committee), and gave OSU no credit for winning.
anyway-- different perspective below...
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2017/12/89018/travelers-and-thieves (https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2017/12/89018/travelers-and-thieves)

first, i won't pretend to know or understand what the committee was thinking when the said it was really close 1 week before ccgames and then not really all that close the week after. i would suggest it was simply a lie to garner ratings, cause saying 'it's the winners of seccg, acccg, ou and wisk if they win, bama if one loses' won't build suspense.
based on what they said prior to ccgames, i said i suspected osu was in with a win. if what they said was true, then osu should have been in. but apparently it wasn't true and they though bama was simply clearly better. simply, they lied prior to the ccgame, imo.
i also don't disagree with the thought of how bama could possibly move up having not played. but to counter argue, teams move up and down all the time having not played due to results of those around them. that's how bama moved up. agree with that movement or not, matters not (and i won't argue with either sentiment), it's the simple truth of why/how.
having said that, i don't put much stock into "NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE" things. this cfp is in its infancy and every year there will be a 'never happened before'. with osu this year, there'd be at least 2 never happened before's with the 2 losses and a blow out loss. last year they had a big one with the non-champ thing (maybe paving the way for bama to oust them this year, in some form of irony). i said all along there would eventually be 2 from same conf, and we hit that this year as well. the only thing i'm not sure will eventually happen that is commonly discussed is a g5 team getting in. i think it's possible, and last year there was a chance had houston not crapped themselves. but unless it's expanded i won't say it will happen for sure. but everything else (2 loss team, team blown out, teams from same state, repeat champ, rematch from reg season, etc.) will eventually happen. many sooner than we likely think.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 07, 2017, 11:52:36 AM
Speak of the devil . . . .

Oklahoma history is not really my subject, but Oklahoma was Indian Territory at the time.  The only federal officials prior to the war were just there to oversee the various Plains Indian tribes that had been relocated there, other than the "Five Civilized Tribes" relocated from what is now called the Southeastern U.S.

The Confederacy gained the loyalty of most of the tribes by granting them representation in the C.S. Congress, and because the Civilized Tribes were slaveholders, like their former white neighbors back in the South.  The Cherokees were notably split.  The more assimilated, more intermarried-with-whites faction, led by former chief John Ross (7/8 Scotch-Irish, IIRC) stuck with the Union.  The less-assimilated, more pure-blood faction, led by principal chief Stand Watie, went with the Confederates.  Stand Watie would go on to be the last Confederate general to surrender in 1865.

There were a fair number of small battles fought in Indian Territory.  Several of them were inter-tribal Cherokee fights.  Indian Territory was more or less secured for the Union with the Battle of Honey Springs, near modern-day Checotah, in July 1863, same month as Gettysburg.  There is a re-enactment held there every year.  Even though it was the biggest battle fought in the territory, it was still a small affair, with fewer than 10,000 total troops involved.  The losing Confederates were the larger force.  Both sides contained mostly black and Indian troops.

After the war, the Indians lost more of their land for having sided with the Confederates.  The Cherokees got no break for having been split.  The western part of Indian Territory was opened to white settlement with a series of land runs beginning in 1889 and ending in 1895.  This part of the state was designated Oklahoma Territory, while the eastern part, where the 5 Civilized Tribes and Osages lived, remained Indian Territory.  The two sections merged into the State of Oklahoma, the 46th state, in 1907.
Thank you for this, CW. Fascinating stuff.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on December 07, 2017, 02:24:45 PM
No sweat, Badge.  This "Civil War of College Football" is sort of an interesting distraction.

Territorial governments were creations of the U.S. government.  They had no standing to announce secession.  The most secessionist thing that could happen would be for them to be occupied by Confederate forces and a brand-new pro-Confederate "territorial government" installed. But that would be because of military conquest, not because the lawful territorial government chose to side with the Confederacy.

Maybe this map will provide additional clarification.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/US_Secession_map_1863_%28BlankMap_derived%29.png/250px-US_Secession_map_1863_%28BlankMap_derived%29.png)
The legend won't post as an image, but what it says is:
US Secession map 1863.
The Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_(American_Civil_War)) vs. the Confederacy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America)
[dark blue] Union states
[light blue] Union territories prohibiting slavery
[yellow] Border union states permitting slavery
[tan] Union territories permitting slavery
[brown] Union territories permitting slavery (claimed by Confederacy)
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 07, 2017, 02:31:56 PM
No sweat, Badge.  This "Civil War of College Football" is sort of an interesting distraction.

Territorial governments were creations of the U.S. government.  They had no standing to announce secession.  The most secessionist thing that could happen would be for them to be occupied by Confederate forces and a brand-new pro-Confederate "territorial government" installed. But that would be because of military conquest, not because the lawful territorial government chose to side with the Confederacy.

Maybe this map will provide additional clarification.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/US_Secession_map_1863_%28BlankMap_derived%29.png/250px-US_Secession_map_1863_%28BlankMap_derived%29.png)
The legend won't post as an image, but what it says is:
US Secession map 1863.
The Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_(American_Civil_War)) vs. the Confederacy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America)
[dark blue] Union states
[light blue] Union territories prohibiting slavery
[yellow] Border union states permitting slavery
[tan] Union territories permitting slavery
[brown] Union territories permitting slavery (claimed by Confederacy)
I just want to add/clarify that both Nevada and obviously West Virginia became states during the War.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on December 07, 2017, 02:51:26 PM
Yep.  One of Nevada's nicknames is "the battle-born state."
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 07, 2017, 03:01:48 PM
We went to Nashville this past Spring and spent some time in Franklin. There was a lot to learn and see in Franklin.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: SFBadger96 on December 07, 2017, 03:16:06 PM
Is it possible that Alabama just out-helmeted Ohio State? Doesn't happen much, but it may have happened here.

Still, Alabama has some quality wins and one quality loss (in the sense that Auburn is very good). Ohio State wasn't that competitive in its loss to Oklahoma (similar to Alabama's loss to Auburn), but was embarrassed by a mediocre Iowa. I don't think the decision was that hard for the committee. The biggest helmet of them all (currently) with one loss to a good team, versus a top tier helmet with two losses, including one bad one. 

Yes, the two-loss team was a conference champion, but be honest: the committee doesn't really like Wisconsin that much, and Penn State's two consecutive losses took the luster off the Ohio State win there. The committee just wasn't that impressed with the Big Ten championship. A one- or no-loss team would have been in, but not a two-loss team over Alabama.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 07, 2017, 03:39:43 PM
Here is an interesting hypothetical:

If PSU had defeated MSU, would tOSU have gotten into the playoffs?

In that case the three main contenders would have been:

In a straight up PSU vs Bama contest I can't see how Bama wins.  Bama's loss was worse and they didn't have as good of wins.  Might the committee have avoided all of that by just putting Ohio State in and saying "Championships matter".  

I honestly think that part of the committee's motivation is to avoid controversy.  I think that helped Ohio State in 2014 because I think that pretty much everybody outside of Waco thought that TCU was better than Baylor despite Baylor's H2H win over TCU.  I did for the simple reason that Baylor's loss was by two TD's to a 7-5 WVU team while TCU's loss was by a FG to an 11-1 Baylor team.  Other than that the resumes were similar except that TCU had an OOC win over Minnesota while Baylor's three OOC victims were awful.  

Picking Ohio State avoided the necessity to choose between Baylor and TCU.  That might have happened again this year if picking Ohio State had gotten the committee out of having to choose between PSU and Bama.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 07, 2017, 03:43:34 PM
We went to Nashville this past Spring and spent some time in Franklin. There was a lot to learn and see in Franklin.
My great-great grandfather visited Franklin in 1864 as part of an all-expense-paid trip provided by President Lincoln and the Federal Government via the Grand Army of the Republic and the 97th Ohio Volunteer Infantry Regiment.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on December 07, 2017, 03:47:30 PM
first, i won't pretend to know or understand what the committee was thinking when the said it was really close 1 week before ccgames and then not really all that close the week after. i would suggest it was simply a lie to garner ratings, cause saying 'it's the winners of seccg, acccg, ou and wisk if they win, bama if one loses' won't build suspense.
based on what they said prior to ccgames, i said i suspected osu was in with a win. if what they said was true, then osu should have been in. but apparently it wasn't true and they though bama was simply clearly better. simply, they lied prior to the ccgame, imo.
i also don't disagree with the thought of how bama could possibly move up having not played. but to counter argue, teams move up and down all the time having not played due to results of those around them. that's how bama moved up. agree with that movement or not, matters not (and i won't argue with either sentiment), it's the simple truth of why/how.
having said that, i don't put much stock into "NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE" things. this cfp is in its infancy and every year there will be a 'never happened before'. with osu this year, there'd be at least 2 never happened before's with the 2 losses and a blow out loss. last year they had a big one with the non-champ thing (maybe paving the way for bama to oust them this year, in some form of irony). i said all along there would eventually be 2 from same conf, and we hit that this year as well. the only thing i'm not sure will eventually happen that is commonly discussed is a g5 team getting in. i think it's possible, and last year there was a chance had houston not crapped themselves. but unless it's expanded i won't say it will happen for sure. but everything else (2 loss team, team blown out, teams from same state, repeat champ, rematch from reg season, etc.) will eventually happen. many sooner than we likely think.
I agree with this post.  Most of those "never happened" things will happen.  I don't have a major beef with the ultimate decision.  I said myself that I thought it was a close call that could go either way.  
My major beef is what you illustrated with your post.  Their statement a week before the final rankings was obviously a lie and that just bothers me.  If there truly was "very little separation" between Bama and Ohio State before the CCG's, then I think we can all agree that once Ohio State picked up a quality win and a conference championship they should have been ahead.  
What really baffles me is that I just think it was incredibly stupid for the committee to create that situation.  None of the CCG results were terribly shocking.  How did they fail to foresee that their lie would be exposed a week later?  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: rolltidefan on December 07, 2017, 03:57:51 PM
I agree with this post.  Most of those "never happened" things will happen.  I don't have a major beef with the ultimate decision.  I said myself that I thought it was a close call that could go either way.  
My major beef is what you illustrated with your post.  Their statement a week before the final rankings was obviously a lie and that just bothers me.  If there truly was "very little separation" between Bama and Ohio State before the CCG's, then I think we can all agree that once Ohio State picked up a quality win and a conference championship they should have been ahead.  
What really baffles me is that I just think it was incredibly stupid for the committee to create that situation.  None of the CCG results were terribly shocking.  How did they fail to foresee that their lie would be exposed a week later?  
i don't think they cared, tbh. what are we gonna do with that lie? complain for a few weeks? but if it was predetermined before the ccg then they lose money from viewership. maybe i'm missing something or to cynical, but that seems the easy answer to me.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 07, 2017, 04:05:14 PM
I just want to add/clarify that both Nevada and obviously West Virginia became states during the War.  
And Nevada was initially much smaller than it is today. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 07, 2017, 08:17:28 PM
And Nevada was initially much smaller than it is today.
Probably because there was not water. Not that this changed much. Different thread most likely.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 08, 2017, 04:46:23 AM
Wait, I thought the Civil War happened in Oregon.  Ugh.  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 08, 2017, 07:05:35 AM
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyPov2.gif&hash=688ff02814ef7ac8c731ed424b49025c)
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 08, 2017, 11:38:17 AM
Their statement a week before the final rankings was obviously a lie and that just bothers me.  
the only poll that matters is the final poll
the first poll and the poll the week before the final poll have the same value - zero
I don't think of those polls as lies, I just think of them as hot air escaping - blah, blah, blah - to incite discussion and interest
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 08, 2017, 08:23:13 PM
the only poll that matters is the final poll
the first poll and the poll the week before the final poll have the same value - zero
I don't think of those polls as lies, I just think of them as hot air escaping - blah, blah, blah - to incite discussion and interest
Totally agree.  
Best summary I have heard yet...it is a great listen if you have a few minutes.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wey_zwwncJ8
  
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 08, 2017, 09:17:16 PM
tardy to the party

sounds like Ralphie

I agree, resumes were flawed for USC, tOSU, and Bama

so, the better choice would be a bye for the #1 seed and #2 and #3 play the first week

USC, BAma, and tOSU are NOT worthy

no lies, it's just that each year is different and each committee is different and they simply wait until the final poll and pick their best 4
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 08, 2017, 09:17:53 PM
and I just can't listen to Klatt for 18 minutes
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: TyphonInc on December 09, 2017, 09:11:33 AM
and I just can't listen to Klatt for 18 minutes
maybe not, but he sounded like the inner monologue I had running in my head about what occurred.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: CWSooner on December 09, 2017, 02:44:25 PM
and I just can't listen to Klatt for 18 minutes
You just hate him because he's a Buff.
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 09, 2017, 07:28:17 PM


Army beat Navy, and won the Commander in Chief Trophy; boosting OSU's strength of schedule. 

Mt Union won their Final Four game, and will play in the Stagg Bowl for the National Championship. 
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: FearlessF on December 10, 2017, 09:19:31 AM
You just hate him because he's a Buff.
I think that's justified
Title: Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
Post by: MrNubbz on December 10, 2017, 10:22:57 AM
Army-Navy great game in football weather.Throw in some defense - I liked it