CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on December 02, 2018, 12:36:32 PM
-
1 Alabama
2 Clemson
3 Notre Dame
4 Oklahoma
5 Georgia
6 Ohio State
----------------------
Orange Bowl
Alabama vs Oklahoma
Cotton Bowl
Clemson vs Notre Dame
-
Delany needs to DO something
-
This is why I'm a proponent of 50% resume/50% eye test. The committee just needs to say that's their criterion, and not lie about "4 best teams". Their top 4, I have no problem with, but resume does matter and should matter. It's not just eye test, or ND wouldn't be in the top 4.
And if OU lost to Texas, Georgia would be in over OSU. That means resume doesn't matter to the committee if they'd include a 2-loss non-champ over a 1-loss B10 champ. I guess that's okay, if they were honest about it.
-
also means conference champions don't matter a lick
2 years straight
-
Well no, but they aren't a trump card. Nor should they be.
-
Well, I think they got the top 4 correct.
-
Well, I think they got the top 4 correct.
I do too but I still feel legitimately bad for Ohio St fans. I cried in my Coke yesterday because WVU wasn’t in the Big 12 CCG and had no one to blame but themselves. Ohio St has won conferences titles the last two years in an excellent conference and been left out. That would be incredibly frustrating.
-
also means conference champions don't matter a lick
2 years straight
Since there is no single conference sending two teams, this is nothing like last year. ND certainly belongs more than OU or OSU in my mind, and that final battle was decided between conference champions.
This is not a year where the system failed. And unless you want to make it literally impossible for ND to make the Playoff, this also is a year where conference championship respect was as maximal as could be realistic.
-
I do too but I still feel legitimately bad for Ohio St fans. I cried in my Coke yesterday because WVU wasn’t in the Big 12 CCG and had no one to blame but themselves. Ohio St has won conferences titles the last two years in an excellent conference and been left out. That would be incredibly frustrating.
There has still never been:
-a 2 loss participant
-a participant with a blowout loss
OSU missed on both grounds last year and on the second this year. So we might as well (a) treat those as written CFP rules and (b) feel 100.000000% confident that a Big Ten champion who violates neither rule will *always* get in.
-
also means conference champions don't matter a lick
2 years straight
3 years straight
-
Georgia was blown out 40-17 last year and still made it
-
Since there is no single conference sending two teams, this is nothing like last year. ND certainly belongs more than OU or OSU in my mind, and that final battle was decided between conference champions.
seems the final slot was decided between a one-loss conference champ and a two-loss non champ
-
Well no, but they aren't a trump card. Nor should they be.
I feel a one-loss big ten champ should trump a 2-loss SEC non champ
if you are going to give lip service to conference champs
it really didn't mean anything at all since Georgia and Ohio St. didn't get in, so why not send the message regarding your lip service?
-
along that line...... conference championship means something (which it obviously does not)
why not put Big 12 champ OU at #3 over Notre Dame?
-
Georgia was blown out 40-17 last year and still made it
Exactly. Politics tends to write the narrative. I heard one of those knuckleheads counting NW as a quality win for ND, but yesterday OSUs far more convincing win over NW was not impressive.
How many power 5 teams did Georgia actually beat? Clemson and OSU?
-
This dis-respect for Big Ten conference champions all started when the Big Ten did not stick up for PSU in 2016.
They should have insisted back then, if our champion does not get in, then nobody from our conference gets in. Which I know would be tricky in some years when an 8-4 team upsets a 12-0 team in the CCG, but so be it, how often does that happen anyway?
-
Georgia was blown out 40-17 last year and still made it
Ah, to Auburn. That's right. So we ammend:
- zero 2 loss participants
- zero participants with a blowout loss to an unranked team
-
along that line...... conference championship means something (which it obviously does not)
why not put Big 12 champ OU at #3 over Notre Dame?
It's not comfortable for either of us to argue for our rivals, but do you really think OU deserves to be higher? I think -- because its defense is trash whereas ND is well-rounded -- that the Sooners are pretty obviously inferior to ND.
My thought is that the committee didn't want to include OU, but that OSU (blowout loss to a 6-6 team) and Georgia (2 losses, one a blowout to a ranked team) had too many fatal resume mistakes to be picked instead.
-
This dis-respect for Big Ten conference champions all started when the Big Ten did not stick up for PSU in 2016.
They should have insisted back then, if our champion does not get in, then nobody from our conference gets in. Which I know would be tricky in some years when an 8-4 team upsets a 12-0 team in the CCG, but so be it, how often does that happen anyway?
Meh, that was a weird year. There was a good argument for PSU being the third best team in the conference that year. And I doubt anyone will ever get into the 4-team playoff with a 39-point loss on their resume.
Also, I don't think the Big Ten is being disrespected. They just aren't being so respected that they get in no matter what. The last two seasons, no Big Ten team has fit the standard.
-
seems the final slot was decided between a one-loss conference champ and a two-loss non champ
Ah, Georgia was #5, instead of OSU? Just noticed that. Still, I don't believe those 4-v-5 deliberations were serious. And either way, it falls in line with my other point about the unwritten rules of getting in (don't get blown out versus the unranked, don't lose 2 games).
-
my point is the committee doesn't even pretend that conference championship matters
I'd love to see upsets by the Sooners and the Irish in the first round. For a couple reasons...
just because the Irish have a better defense than the Sooners doesn't convince me that the Irish are the better team and therefore would win that matchup
so, in criteria levels, balanced team (decent defense) trumps other factors, such as best team?
-
ND and OU are both likely to lose. OU by hamblasting. ND maybe too (though unlike OU-Bama, ND v. Clemson *could* be good). I do think ND would beat OU, though. Perhaps by a lot. But we'll never get to do that experiment, so these are just words.
-
so, in criteria levels, balanced team (decent defense) trumps other factors, such as best team?
Are you asking this to the CFP Committee or to me, Joe Shmoe Fan?
I don't think the Committee needs to care about this question. I really think they can do all of their work by comparing final records, conference championships, and excluding teams with 2 losses and unranked blowouts. We may think they are having nuanced, sophisticated conversations, but (a) there's no evidence of that because (b) we'd get these same CFP fields without the committee having those kinds of hard conversations.
As for me, Joe Shmoe Fan, let's remember that ND is a #4 defense and Top 30 offense. OU has the #1 offense ... and a defense ranked ~#90. Yes, I think Oklahoma is obviously worse overall. ND is very well-rounded.
-
I heard the committee chair mention Notre Dame being a balanced team as part of the evaluation process
but, that's merely lip service
-
There has still never been:
-a 2 loss participant
-a participant with a blowout loss
OSU missed on both grounds last year and on the second this year. So we might as well (a) treat those as written CFP rules and (b) feel 100.000000% confident that a Big Ten champion who violates neither rule will *always* get in.
Nah, Auburn was going to get in with two losses last year until they picked up their 3rd loss in the SECCG. They were #2 in the CFP and ranked two spots ahead of an undefeated Wisconsin heading into those games.
-
I don't really see a problem with any of this. Fans wants an "advantage" for their team and dislike it when arbiters who have no ax to grind don't confer them said advantage.
-
as a fan, I'd like to see and advantage for playing a stronger schedule and an advantage for being a conference champion
the committee doesn't agree
-
i'm not sold that the rankings we see are the same order if ou lost the bigxiiccg. i think there's a better than 50% chance they put osu in over uga for 2 reasons.
1 - they'd be under a tremendous amount of pressure to do so (imo it'd be the right call fwiw)
2 - otherwise they have to put a rematch of bama/uga for rd 1. and i don't think they'd do that. it'd have been easier to have bama #2 and uga #4, but they'd have to come up with some excuse to move bama down, and i don't think they had it.
this year, the committee had it easy. had 3 p5 undefeated teams, so that's easy. osu had a massive wart, uga had 2 losses and if in would be in a rematch (not ideal), and ou had just gotten redemption for against the team responsible for their lone loss (which was a 3 point loss where they had -3 turnover ratio), so they technically beat every team on their schedule. it gave them an easy road with minimal controversy.
-
as a fan, I'd like to see and advantage for playing a stronger schedule and an advantage for being a conference champion
the committee doesn't agree
+1
-
i'm not sold that the rankings we see are the same order if ou lost the bigxiiccg. i think there's a better than 50% chance they put osu in over uga for 2 reasons.
I certainly hope you would be right about this.
But, they chose to not send this message even-though it meant nothing. Were they motivated to appease the SEC base or did they simply want to annoy the Big Ten and fans like me?
-
i'm not sold that the rankings we see are the same order if ou lost the bigxiiccg. i think there's a better than 50% chance they put osu in over uga for 2 reasons.
1 - they'd be under a tremendous amount of pressure to do so (imo it'd be the right call fwiw)
2 - otherwise they have to put a rematch of bama/uga for rd 1. and i don't think they'd do that. it'd have been easier to have bama #2 and uga #4, but they'd have to come up with some excuse to move bama down, and i don't think they had it.
this year, the committee had it easy. had 3 p5 undefeated teams, so that's easy. osu had a massive wart, uga had 2 losses and if in would be in a rematch (not ideal), and ou had just gotten redemption for against the team responsible for their lone loss (which was a 3 point loss where they had -3 turnover ratio), so they technically beat every team on their schedule. it gave them an easy road with minimal controversy.
I totally agree with this. I don’t think for a second UGA would have gotten the nod over Ohio St if it came down to that.
-
I certainly hope you would be right about this.
But, they chose to not send this message even-though it meant nothing. Were they motivated to appease the SEC base or did they simply want to annoy the Big Ten and fans like me?
i think it let them give their honest opinion without much cause for controversy. this will be forgotten in a month and will go down in history as one of the clean, no-issues seasons when picking 4 was relatively easy. 16 and 17 will be talked about for years as examples of conf champs getting snubbed. i think it had 0 motivation to appease sec/annoy the b1g.
and it's not an unfounded opinion that uga is better than osu. it's not necessarily one i buy into, but there's a decent argument to be made. but i also find it difficult to believe they'd have actually gone through with it given the circumstances i listed in this thread before.
-
I think UGA and OSU and OU are close enough, Michigan as well, that if they played each other 100 times, somebody might win 55 or so.
This is a case, I think where "the best team" is not the same as "the best team for the playoff". OU in my view is the latter.
-
I totally agree with this. I don’t think for a second UGA would have gotten the nod over Ohio St if it came down to that.
Totally agree with both of you. They got it right, and it was not controversial, plus, we will never know for sure but if Oklahoma would have lost Saturday I am 100% confident OSU would have got in.
This is actually the first time a 1 loss Conference Champ that won their CCG was kept out. But we always knew it would happen. With 5 power conferences and independents (namely ND)- and with Two of your conferences champs, plus ND being undefeated, it leave two conferences out. The PAC didn’t have a legitimate contender, and the Big 12 had a slight,but clearly better case.
-
so, then another way the Committee tells us one thing and then doesn't something else.
The committee thinks the Dawgs are a better team than the Bucks, but if it was for the 4th spot and not the 5th they would have voted differently?
great, that's my point. Why not vote the Bucks over the Dawgs if that's the way they would have done it if it really mattered? Just to mess with us all?
Just to stir the pot?
I just think it was an opportunity to tell the nation & SEC, that a non-champ with a weak 4-team non con schedule does not get rewarded.
-
maybe they're telling us not to lose by 30 to .500 teams?
-
One thing does seem obvious now, had UGA hung on to defeat Bama ......
-
so, then another way the Committee tells us one thing and then doesn't something else.
The committee thinks the Dawgs are a better team than the Bucks, but if it was for the 4th spot and not the 5th they would have voted differently?
great, that's my point. Why not vote the Bucks over the Dawgs if that's the way they would have done it if it really mattered? Just to mess with us all?
Just to stir the pot?
I just think it was an opportunity to tell the nation & SEC, that a non-champ with a weak 4-team non con schedule does not get rewarded.
I’m not sure I know the answer to that. This is the second time the committee has put a buffer between two teams I felt posed a tough decision for them.
They did the same thing putting Washington between Ohio St and Penn St. To this day I never believed that was a Washington/Penn St debate. I’ll always believe that was a PSU/OSU debate but they stick UW in the middle there to make it seem like it wasn’t even that hard a decision.
I almost felt like UGA at 5 was the same thing. I don’t know. I may be way off base but in both instances in order to make it seem less difficult than it was they put a team in between two teams they were debating to make it seem like, “You guys thought those teams were close? Hmm, we didn’t. It wasn’t even that hard.”
-
This dis-respect for Big Ten conference champions all started when the Big Ten did not stick up for PSU in 2016.
They should have insisted back then, if our champion does not get in, then nobody from our conference gets in. Which I know would be tricky in some years when an 8-4 team upsets a 12-0 team in the CCG, but so be it, how often does that happen anyway?
This is flat out ridiculous. Penn State had a loss to an unranked team and got absolutely drilled by Michigan. Ohio State had only one loss, on the road, to a very good team. They were not remotely comparable.
FWIW, @Anonymous Coward (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1513) 's comment upthread that PSU was not even the second best B1G team that year is spot on. Ohio State was the best by a hair over Michigan and Penn State was a fairly distant third.
HFA is a real thing. Penn State would not have lost to Michigan by more than five TD's at home. Then again, they wouldn't have won in Columbus.
-
I’m not sure I know the answer to that. This is the second time the committee has put a buffer between two teams I felt posed a tough decision for them.
They did the same thing putting Washington between Ohio St and Penn St. To this day I never believed that was a Washington/Penn St debate. I’ll always believe that was a PSU/OSU debate but they stick UW in the middle there to make it seem like it wasn’t even that hard a decision.
I almost felt like UGA at 5 was the same thing. I don’t know. I may be way off base but in both instances in order to make it seem less difficult than it was they put a team in between two teams they were debating to make it seem like, “You guys thought those teams were close? Hmm, we didn’t. It wasn’t even that hard.”
You are not the only one who wondered about that. That crossed my mind after 2016 and I think they may have done it again this year.
If they had ranked (2016) tOSU #4 and PSU #5 the wailing and gnashing of teeth would have been even worse.
This year I think they had a lot less reason to do it. In this case I think it was pretty clear that OU had the better argument. Their loss was better and they avenged it. Ohio State had a better "best" win but overall the wins were close. As an Ohio State fan, I wish my team had made it but I feel like I have no right to complain when my team lost by nearly 30 points to an unranked team. I've always pointed out PSU's bad loss to M in 2016 and I'm consistent here. Ohio State had a similar loss this year (less points but worse opponent).
-
maybe they're telling us not to lose by 30 to .500 teams?
valid point
-
Clemson lost to a 4-8 Syracuse team last year, and got in.
-
but, only by 3
hence, fluke
-
Better score, worse opponent. Push.
-
can't be a push, or they wouldn't get in
-
When OSU lost to MSU, it was "that's the ONE game that you couldn't lose! It kept you out of the Ccg"
So this year the Buckeyes lose to 6-6 Purdue, and it's "you can't lose to a .500 team and expect to get it"
Okay? So you are allowed one loss, but it has to be to a team over .500, but not quite good enough to win the divisional tiebreaker? OSU played like two teams that fit that narrow qualification zone all season.
Balderdash. Had OSU lost to Penn St instead of Purdue, it no doubt would have been "you can't lose to one of the only good teams that you play and expect to get in!"
Essentially if you are in the Big Ten then you have to be able to navigate your schedule without tripping over any of the road apples, or else you will be buried behind a two-loss non-champion from the SEC.
Fine. If that's what has to happen, then cop up to it instead of hiding behind all these weasel arguments based on ever-changing goalposts.
-
I think it was that the Purdue loss wasn't the only game the Bucks looked like crap
Maryland, Nebraska, and the defense looked bad most of the season
but, yes, if they only lose by 3 to the Boilers on the road..... they finish in 5th place ahead of Georgia :)
-
See how Scott Frost and others voted in the final coaches poll.
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/ballots/ (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/ballots/)
Frost voted his former team fifth in the country. UCF ranked seventh in the composite rankings among coaches, and the same within the Associated Press. The Knights sat at eight in the final College Football Playoff rankings.
For Frost, UCF ranked in ahead of both Oklahoma and Georgia in the polls. During Frost’s final season with UCF, an undefeated run and win over Auburn, UCF finished seventh in the coaches poll.
Also of note, the Nebraska football coach showed a respect for his own conference. Ohio State, a team which Nebraska took to the brink this season, received a No. 4 ranking with Michigan at No. 8, Penn State at No. 9, Northwestern at 20 and Iowa at 21.
Frost is not the only coach whose final poll drew intrigue. Alabama and Nick Saban voted Georgia fifth a day after lauding the Bulldogs as a playoff team.
-
I think it was that the Purdue loss wasn't the only game the Bucks looked like crap
Maryland, Nebraska, and the defense looked bad most of the season
but, yes, if they only lose by 3 to the Boilers on the road..... they finish in 5th place ahead of Georgia :)
Not many teams blow out everyone that they play. It's not easy to do. While OSU should be better than the rest of the Big Ten on paper, there is always going to be one or two teams that play possessed against the Buckeyes.
I don't know of too many other teams that can "look bad" going 12-1, but whatever.
And yes, OSU shouldn't have cracked the top four this year, but being buried behind Georgia is ridiculous. The Dawgs lost their LSU game by twenty, lost a second game, and failed to win a Conference title.
It's an indictment on the league more than anything else. They are basically saying that you guys reside somewhere between the ACC and AAC with regards to the level of competition that you offer up.
-
It’s a rouse. If Oklahoma lost, OSU was in.
The rest is just spin. They got the top 4 right.
They were never going to put a two loss, non conf champ, who only played like what 8 or 9 power 5 teams, and who lost to their two toughest opponents, in over a 12-1 power 5 conference champ who had the most power 5 wins, tied with Clemson) of any team in the country.
-
Their final rankings suggest that they were indeed going to put Georgia in ahead of OSU if Oklahoma lost.
-
Their final rankings suggest that they were indeed going to put Georgia in ahead of OSU if Oklahoma lost.
Yes, they are very clever. But never. Leave out 3 conferences for a 2 loss team with very few wins over power 5 teams.
-
The playoff committee says that they would have put Georgia in over OSU, while an anonymous poster on the internet says that they wouldn't.
Hmmm, who to believe...
-
It’s a rouse. If Oklahoma lost, OSU was in.
The rest is just spin. They got the top 4 right.
I think you are right. My question is still: why spin it that way?
-
I think you are right. My question is still: why spin it that way?
Agreed. Oklahoma and OSU were so similar, Georgia had to either be #4 or #6. I think they thought Georgia was the better team, but didn't have the resume, so they were going to be #5 either way.
-
Another interesting caveat is that all of Urban's NC teams have had a loss, while none of his undefeated teams have ever been crowned.
-
When OSU lost to MSU, it was "that's the ONE game that you couldn't lose! It kept you out of the Ccg"
So this year the Buckeyes lose to 6-6 Purdue, and it's "you can't lose to a .500 team and expect to get it"
Okay? So you are allowed one loss, but it has to be to a team over .500, but not quite good enough to win the divisional tiebreaker? OSU played like two teams that fit that narrow qualification zone all season.
Balderdash. Had OSU lost to Penn St instead of Purdue, it no doubt would have been "you can't lose to one of the only good teams that you play and expect to get in!"
Essentially if you are in the Big Ten then you have to be able to navigate your schedule without tripping over any of the road apples, or else you will be buried behind a two-loss non-champion from the SEC.
Fine. If that's what has to happen, then cop up to it instead of hiding behind all these weasel arguments based on ever-changing goalposts.
I know as a Buckeye fan it probably feels like they are picking on Ohio St but if you look at each year individually there was valid reasons to leave them out each time.
There has been no single team that has caused the committee as many headaches as Ohio St because their good looks so good but their bad looks so bad.
-
I know as a Buckeye fan it probably feels like they are picking on Ohio St but if you look at each year individually there was valid reasons to leave them out each time.
There has been no single team that has caused the committee as many headaches as Ohio St because their good looks so good but their bad looks so bad.
I also think it is important to remember that each year is different so a record that would easily get you in one year might leave you on the outside looking in another year.
This isn't set up such that all teams over X get in. If it were, we would have to have an adjustable playoff where one year it might be a simple CG and other years we might need quarterfinals and semifinals before the CG. Years ago @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) suggested just such a system. It is a great idea in theory but in practice it would be a nightmare logistically. Consequently, instead we have a fixed number of teams (4) and the committee selects the top four. Eventually we'll have a year where a 2-loss champ with a bad loss gets in. Somebody above or in another similar thread said that they thought no team would ever get in with a 39 point loss like PSU's loss to M in 2016. I disagree because there might be a year where, compared to the other contenders for the #4 spot, that isn't too bad. It just wasn't THAT year.
The same is true for Ohio State this year. Generically, they were a 12-1 conference champion with a good-but-not-great SoS, one really strong win, a few pretty good wins, and one really bad loss. This year that wasn't enough. Next year it might be more than enough.
-
A 12-1 conference champ will make it in MOST years, as we have seen to date. This year was highly unusual and had ND in the mix obviously.
I think that will be very rare going forward.
-
This year was highly unusual and had ND in the mix obviously.
I think that will be very rare going forward.
Notre Dame being in the mix won't be THAT rare going forward.
BK has had four 10+ win seasons since taking over (2010), and has reached at least 8 wins in every other season but one.
-
ND won't always catch a schedule break, like say, next season.
-
@ Georgia, @ Michigan
I be they thought that @ Louisville was going to look better than it will when they signed on. Oops.
-
ND won't always catch a schedule break, like say, next season.
It is really an illustration of how powerful the CG's are in terms of their impact on SoS. The 10 P5 CG participants were (final rank):
- #1 Bama
- #2 Clemson
- #4 Oklahoma
- #5 Georgia
- #6 Ohio State
- #9 Washington
- #15 Texas
- #17 Utah
- #22 Northwestern
- nr Pittsburgh
With the exception of Pittsburgh (and that was a rare case), any of the other nine would have been one of the toughest games played this year by Notre Dame (or any other team for that matter). Based on Final Ranking:
- #1 Bama was UGA's highest ranked opponent
- #2 Clemson was Pitt's highest ranked opponent
- #4 Oklahoma was Texas' highest ranked opponent (repeat so tied for first I guess)
- #5 Georgia was Bama's highest ranked opponent.
- #6 Ohio State was Northwestern's second highest ranked opponent
- #9 Washington was Utah's highest ranked opponent (repeat so tied for first)
- #15 Texas was Oklahoma's highest ranked opponent (repeat so tied for first)
- #17 Utah was Washington's second highest ranked opponent (repeat so tied for second)
- #22 Northwestern was Ohio State's third highest ranked opponent
If you schedule Florida State you expect a top-10 opponent that will buttress your SoS but sometimes you get this year's sub .500 team and your SoS suffers. If you make your CG you almost always get a high-end opponent that helps your SoS. Only Clemson and, to a lesser extent, Ohio State didn't get a major SoS boost from their CG's.