MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: wadesworld on November 26, 2016, 12:59:06 PM
-
Rooting for chaos, and more importantly for the B1G to get nobody in. Would be great to see Michigan, Minnesota, and Michigan State win today and then see Wisconsin beat Michigan in the B1G title game.
Bama would be in no matter what happens their last 2 games, then if Clemson and Washington win their conference titles they're in, and if Oklahoma would win the Big 12 title that most likely gets them in.
But guessing it'll be OSU over Michigan, UW over Minnesota, Penn State over MSU, and then UW over Penn State. So the real hope is Washington holds their spot over Wisconsin.
-
Blair Walsh was cut by Minnesota and picked up by...Ohio State?
-
Ball never crossed the 15. B1G always has the Buckeye$' back.
-
Playoff committee really screwed themselves in the past making a bunch of stink about conference championships being so important for a team to make the playoff. It should be the best 4 teams in the country, regardless of where you finish in your division, conference, etc.
This could end up SEC champ, BIG 12 champ, Pac 12 champ, Big Ten champ and leave out Michigan and Ohio St.
-
With one loss, Ohio State is in for sure. They'll never admit this, but deep in their hearts they'll skip the Big Ten championship game.
I'm thinking that Alabama, Washington and Clemson are also in if they win out. Any of them slip up and Michigan will get it.
Really who else deserves it? Wisconsin? Penn State? Oklahoma?
-
It would be really interesting to see who they would put into the playoff if Wisconsin won out and Clemson lost the ACC Championship game. Michigan won the head to head but was at home, Wisconsin would have won the B1G title game, both teams lost to OSU in OT, but Michigan was on the road while Wisconsin was at home.
While I said I was hoping the B1G would get 0 (OSU is in anyway so that's done), it would be pretty funny to see two teams from the same division of the same conference, neither of which won that division, make the playoff while the conference champion (and runner up) went on to play meaningless exhibition games.
-
While I said I was hoping the B1G would get 0 (OSU is in anyway so that's done), it would be pretty funny to see two teams from the same division of the same conference, neither of which won that division, make the playoff while the conference champion (and runner up) went on to play meaningless exhibition games.
Right? That's exactly what might happen here.
I think the rule should be the top four conference champions but the networks would never go for that.
-
Right? That's exactly what might happen here.
I think the rule should be the top four conference champions but the networks would never go for that.
I think it should be the "Power 5" conference champions + 3 at-large in an 8 team.
If OSU gets in, and Penn State ends up winning the division and Big Ten conference championship, and PSU doesn't get in, the committee is garbage and no one should believe anything they've ever said
-
If OSU gets in, and Penn State ends up winning the division and Big Ten conference championship, and PSU doesn't get in, the committee is garbage and no one should believe anything they've ever said
Why? Ohio State would have a better record. The committee doesn't set the rules.
-
Why? Ohio State would have a better record. The committee doesn't set the rules.
I actually agree OSU is the better team. But, PSU would have won the head to head, won OSU's division and won OSU's conference. If the committee wants the best 4 teams in the nation, regardless of conference finish, come out and say that. But they haven't. They have said conference championships are important.
-
I personally think if they want to sell the whole "not taking these student athletes away from school" and "not risking so much wear and tear on these student athletes' bodies" as reasons to not go to an 8 game playoff they should get rid of conference championships and just make it an 8 team, 3 week playoff. That way you could also call each of the quarterfinal games one of the major bowls (Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Rose) and have those bowls actually mean something again, and then just call the semifinals the semifinals and the finals the championship.
You could either move the start of the season back a week, give teams 2 weeks off, or have one week off, play the quarterfinals, then have another week off and play the semis back to back. That way teams are only "missing time during one week of school" and the other 2 games are during break, just like it is now with missing a week for the conference title and then the semis and finals.
How I would do it? Finish the regular season this week, reveal your 8 team playoff bracket on a Tuesday or whatever, take next weekend off, play 2 quarterfinal games (let's say they play the Orange Bowl early on Friday evening and the Fiesta Bowl late on Friday night) on the following Friday (so this year it'd be 12/9) and then play the other 2 (Sugar Bowl early Saturday afternoon and Rose Bowl early Saturday evening), give the teams one week off and then the semifinals are during most school's winter break (this year it'd be both on Saturday, 12/24...which I suppose presents a problem with the holidays being right in that time frame). Finals would be the week after.
-
If they to eight games, they should just play the first round at the top four seeds and there would be no need to change the schedule. They could do the quarterfinals this year on December 17 for instance. I think there would be legitimate concerns about filling stadiums for three straight neutral site games just before Christmas.
You could then give the quarterfinal losers a bowl game too so their season would be extended.
-
Wisconsin's defense in the second half was fantastic. Not a top four team IMO, but not far off.
-
Wisconsin's defense in the second half was fantastic. Not a top four team IMO, but not far off.
Should a team that can't even win a Division in a split league even get into the playoffs?
-
Should a team that can't even win a Division in a split league even get into the playoffs?
Who cares? its all politics and some good college teams competing against some semi- pro teams. And Meyer is dirty.
Great job by Chryst considering the insane schedule.
-
Keefe might still be in spasms.
I was at gopher game today...in blue MU sweatshirt. Had two different beer vendors sing MU fight song to me.
Also saw the obligatory UW coed dangerously drunk and puking her guts out on a sidewalk in her boyfriend's arms....puked on his sneakers too.
-
I think it should be the "Power 5" conference champions + 3 at-large in an 8 team.
If OSU gets in, and Penn State ends up winning the division and Big Ten conference championship, and PSU doesn't get in, the committee is garbage and no one should believe anything they've ever said
The committee is garbage to begin with. They're not creating a playoff for the best 4 teams, they're creating a TV show to get the highest ratings and make the most money. OSU is in. If the cards falls right, Michigan could still get in too. It's all about money.
Oh, and Michigan got completely hosed yesterday!
-
Ohio State's selection wouldn't simply be about the money. They are one of the best four teams. They have a better overall body of work than Penn State or Wisconsin would. By the criteria established by the CFP, championships is a tie breaking consideration, NOT a primary one.
-
Embrace the chaos. As long as the championship/playoff is determined by a committee with an amorphous set of criteria, I will be in favor of every cockamamie scenario that creates controversy.
-
Ohio State's selection wouldn't simply be about the money. They are one of the best four teams. They have a better overall body of work than Penn State or Wisconsin would. By the criteria established by the CFP, championships is a tie breaking consideration, NOT a primary one.
The fact that a team that doesn't win their own conference can play for the national title over the team that did win the conference is asinine. I know it's not the criteria, but it should be. If it's not, why even bother with conferences? OSU is actually "rewarded" for finishing second in their division because they don't have to play another top 10 team.
-
The fact that a team that doesn't win their own conference can play for the national title over the team that did win the conference is asinine. I know it's not the criteria, but it should be. If it's not, why even bother with conferences? OSU is actually "rewarded" for finishing second in their division because they don't have to play another top 10 team.
Michigan getting another shot at a top 10 team would be a huge boost to their resume.
-
Fascinating that the 4th down spot in the second OT has become THE talking point of the weekend. Along with Harbaugh's officiating rant. Crean married into the right family, apparently. However, related to the spot..... It was damn close. I am not prepared to say whether it was right or wrong. I do know that after looking at dozens of replays/angles/pictures that whatever was called on the field should stand because there simply is not compelling evidence to overturn the call either way.
-
The fact that a team that doesn't win their own conference can play for the national title over the team that did win the conference is asinine. I know it's not the criteria, but it should be. If it's not, why even bother with conferences? OSU is actually "rewarded" for finishing second in their division because they don't have to play another top 10 team.
I agree with you. I think the idea of 8 teams with the five conference champions and three at large is the best idea.
-
I agree with you. I think the idea of 8 teams with the five conference champions and three at large is the best idea.
Eh, you want to really devalue the regular season, this is how you do it. Besides, there will always be a 5th or 6th/9th or 10th/17th or 18th place team that will have an argument for being in.
I'm as big a Penn State fan as you'll find, and I have no issue with OSU getting into the playoffs and PSU not. Some of that may be because this year was so unexpected (thought next year would be the year) so I'm playing with found money....but Wisconsin and Penn State both lost more games than OSU did. Penn State shouldn't have lost to Pitt, if they win that game, this is a no brainer PSU is in over OSU assuming they win the B10 championship. Same with Wisconsin, if they beat OSU at home, it's a no brainer.
Penn State and Wisconsin only have themselves to blame for OSU getting into the playoffs without winning the conference championship.
-
Fascinating that the 4th down spot in the second OT has become THE talking point of the weekend. Along with Harbaugh's officiating rant. Crean married into the right family, apparently. However, related to the spot..... It was damn close. I am not prepared to say whether it was right or wrong. I do know that after looking at dozens of replays/angles/pictures that whatever was called on the field should stand because there simply is not compelling evidence to overturn the call either way.
Agreed, this is where our over dependence on technology comes in. There is no angle that provides any kind of view that would over rule the official on the field. Having said that, and the case has been made over and over this weekend, if tennis can judge balls in play how we can't use technology to determine the spotting of a ball is just insane.
-
I've heard the "devalue the regular season" argument for 30 years. I simply don't think it is accurate. You don't think people would still attend and watch a Michigan v. Ohio State game? Would the Penn State victory over Ohio State have been less special? Every team that makes the playoff this year save Alabama will have a loss. Has that devalued the season?
Now it may devalue the bowl season as the other bowls become that much worthwhile. Attendance has already become a problem at a lot of them already. This will just make it worse.
-
I've heard the "devalue the regular season" argument for 30 years. I simply don't think it is accurate. You don't think people would still attend and watch a Michigan v. Ohio State game? Would the Penn State victory over Ohio State have been less special? Every team that makes the playoff this year save Alabama will have a loss. Has that devalued the season?
Now it may devalue the bowl season as the other bowls become that much worthwhile. Attendance has already become a problem at a lot of them already. This will just make it worse.
Let's get the bowl thing out of the way at the beginning....far too many bowls and exist only as an excuse to put crappy games on TV to generate revenue. I think, at a minimum there should only be enough bowls for the top 25 teams...more like top 20 if I had my way.
As far as devaluing the season....the less exclusive you make it, the less you incentivize teams to play strong schedules and win those games. The non-conference slate has been outstanding the last two years, in large part because teams are forced to have a good SoS to look good to the committee.
This year is an aberration (and each year will be an aberration of some sort). Wisconsin happened to get 2 out of 3 east division cross overs that were the best in the B1G. What if, instead of Michigan, Michigan State, and Ohio State (1-2) Wisconsin had played Michigan State, Rutgers, and Indiana. They would have been undefeated so "more deserving" but in reality Michigan and Ohio State proved to be better at least once. So Wisconsin can't have it both ways.
Also, when you play matters, I'd be willing to bet if Michigan and Penn State played now they outcome would be very different than when they played at the beginning of conference season. Michigan very well may still win, but now that PSU has figured out it's identity on offense and we have actual scholarship linebackers healthy it would not be the same lopsided result. However, they got smoked by Michigan and lost to Pitt, so by any appreciable measure, OSU is the better team right now.
-
Fascinating that the 4th down spot in the second OT has become THE talking point of the weekend. Along with Harbaugh's officiating rant. Crean married into the right family, apparently. However, related to the spot..... It was damn close. I am not prepared to say whether it was right or wrong. I do know that after looking at dozens of replays/angles/pictures that whatever was called on the field should stand because there simply is not compelling evidence to overturn the call either way.
I agree you couldn't overturn the call because there was nothing that showed the ball didn't definitively stay behind the 15 yard line, but just putting the pieces together from what I saw, the arm that Barrett was carrying the ball in went directly into his blocker's (I think it was #88 but forget now) butt, and his blocker's butt was definitely not at or past the 15 yard line. From there, Barrett's upper body got knocked backwards, not forwards, so I don't know how the ball could've ever crossed the 15 yard line. But again, you couldn't say with absolute certainty that it was clear the ball never crossed the 15 yard line from any replays, so you couldn't change the call on the field. I just personally don't see any way that the ball could've crossed the 15 the way the play happened, and I don't really have any fight in this one other than I wanted UW to have to beat Michigan in the B1G, but as it turns out that might've only helped UW's case to get into the Playoffs, as Michigan has remained ahead of UW in the AP poll, so we'll see what the CFP poll looks like tomorrow.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/AZOvRCi.jpg)
There's also a picture floating around today of a directly over-head shot. Looks pretty convincing to me. Now, clearly the refs didn't have access to that, so call on the field had to stand either way.
Great point about tennis technology.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/AZOvRCi.jpg)
There's also a picture floating around today of a directly over-head shot. Looks pretty convincing to me. Now, clearly the refs didn't have access to that, so call on the field had to stand either way.
Great point about tennis technology.
I don't know where you're seeing a football anywhere in either of those 2 different pictures. Not to mention the ball starts on the 25 yard line so it would have to cross the plane of the 15 yard line, while the yellow/red lines are drawn hugging just short of the 15 yard line.
If the ball was wedged in between his face mask then yup, clear and concise evidence it crossed the 15 yard line. But he was carrying it in his right arm and I really have no idea where the football is or when he's down in those pictures.
-
Also, when you play matters, I'd be willing to bet if Michigan and Penn State played now they outcome would be very different than when they played at the beginning of conference season. Michigan very well may still win, but now that PSU has figured out it's identity on offense and we have actual scholarship linebackers healthy it would not be the same lopsided result. However, they got smoked by Michigan and lost to Pitt, so by any appreciable measure, OSU is the better team right now.
It's hard to look back and say injuries mattered. Otherwise, Wisconsin could use that excuse. They lost to Michigan and OSU - each by one score; one in OT - without their best defensive player. Would it have mattered? Who knows?
With the PSU game, UW will have played 6 teams that were Top 10 when they played. OSU faced 1; Michigan faced 1. Maybe meaningless, maybe not. But certainly they have as good a case as any team other than Alabama. If MU and OSU were Illinois and Purdue with the same records, UW would be rated ahead of them.
So the system isn't fair and never will be. College football is about $$$$. The 2nd and 3rd things it is about are also $$$$$$. Michigan and OSU = more $$$$.
-
It's hard to look back and say injuries mattered. Otherwise, Wisconsin could use that excuse. They lost to Michigan and OSU - each by one score; one in OT - without their best defensive player. Would it have mattered? Who knows?
With the PSU game, UW will have played 6 teams that were Top 10 when they played. OSU faced 1; Michigan faced 1. Maybe meaningless, maybe not. But certainly they have as good a case as any team other than Alabama. If MU and OSU were Illinois and Purdue with the same records, UW would be rated ahead of them.
So the system isn't fair and never will be. College football is about $$$$. The 2nd and 3rd things it is about are also $$$$$$. Michigan and OSU = more $$$$.
So because Michigan State was one of the most overrated teams in the history of college football going into the season UW should be rewarded? They're a horrendous football team. Nebraska isn't any good and hasn't beat anybody good either. UW lost to both OSU and to Michigan. If UW's 2 losses were to a 1 loss Illinois team and a 2 loss Purdue team they'd be ranked behind both. Clemson and Washington aren't bringing the NCAA more money than Michigan is.
-
Well if Alabama and Western Michigan remain undefeated at seasons end they should play for the Championship. But we all know that will never happen, which is why college football has no appeal at least for me. At the moment college basketball offers that possibility to every division 1 team. Let's hope it stays that way.
-
https://twitter.com/mikesullivan/status/802641487360049153
(http://i.imgur.com/pJNSGXT.jpg)
(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/f4b7WEVCmgNr7LuV0NpQEhgdETE=/0x0:515x300/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:515x300):no_upscale()/cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7537327/4th1.0.gif)
(https://j.gifs.com/AnWDBl.gif)
Exceedingly tough to tell anything. Call on the field has to stand. You can almost get the line judge's view from that twitter link. Tough.
Also, the first picture/meme is just to troll Michigan fans. Look at the hash marks - photoshopped/slanted.
-
Well if Alabama and Western Michigan remain undefeated at seasons end they should play for the Championship. But we all know that will never happen, which is why college football has no appeal at least for me. At the moment college basketball offers that possibility to every division 1 team. Let's hope it stays that way.
Western Michigan should not be playing for the national championship unlesss you want to incentivize weak scheduling.
Western Michigan should not be playing for the national cWell if Alabama and Western Michigan remain undefeated at seasons end they should play for the Championship. But we all know that will never happen, which is why college football has no appeal at least for me. At the moment college basketball offers that possibility to every division 1 team. Let's hope it stays that way.
-
https://twitter.com/mikesullivan/status/802641487360049153
(http://i.imgur.com/pJNSGXT.jpg)
(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/f4b7WEVCmgNr7LuV0NpQEhgdETE=/0x0:515x300/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:515x300):no_upscale()/cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7537327/4th1.0.gif)
(https://j.gifs.com/AnWDBl.gif)
Exceedingly tough to tell anything. Call on the field has to stand. You can almost get the line judge's view from that twitter link. Tough.
Also, the first picture/meme is just to troll Michigan fans. Look at the hash marks - photoshopped/slanted.
Yup. The call on the field had to stand, no matter what that call was. No way you can find clear and decisive evidence of either side of the argument. I still think the ball never crossed the plane of the 15, but I can't say I know for sure. I just feel like the furthest forward the ball got was into #88's butt, and I think at that point #88's butt was behind the 15 yard line. But I can't see where the ball is in any of that, and I can certainly see how the ref would call it a first down live because from what I can see it seems like every part of his body other than where the ball was seemed to get further than where I think the ball got to.
-
Honest question, how much more money can one school bring in over another for a national semifinal/championship game? And in what way is that difference made, purely TV viewers? Merchandise?
I guess my point is, sure, for some random regular season game a big name school with huge followings will make a difference in the money generated. But won't the CFP sell themselves? I have to imagine the games will be sell outs regardless of who's playing, and as someone who isn't a huge college football fan myself I will be watching the semifinals and championship no matter who is playing. I imagine a lot of casual fans are the same, and if you just don't care for college football at all I doubt you're watching even if it's a school you think has a cool mascot or something.
-
Western Michigan should not be playing for the national championship unlesss you want to incentivize weak scheduling.
Western Michigan should not be playing for the national c
I've watched the Broncos 4 times this year. I grew up 5 miles from their campus, so I have a certain affection for them. And their bars. They are 2-0 on the road against the Big 1G. Thanks, Northwestern and Illinois. Their offense is good enough to score points against most teams. Any top 20 team is going to hang >40 on the Bronco defense. Lacks size up front and speed in back.
-
I've watched the Broncos 4 times this year. I grew up 5 miles from their campus, so I have a certain affection for them. And their bars. They are 2-0 on the road against the Big 1G. Thanks, Northwestern and Illinois. Their offense is good enough to score points against most teams. Any top 20 team is going to hang >40 on the Bronco defense. Lacks size up front and speed in back.
Maybe I'm remembering it as more of a david vs goliath match-up than it really was... but didn't everyone think oklahoma was going to destroy boise st in the fiesta bowl?
-
Honest question, how much more money can one school bring in over another for a national semifinal/championship game? And in what way is that difference made, purely TV viewers? Merchandise?
I guess my point is, sure, for some random regular season game a big name school with huge followings will make a difference in the money generated. But won't the CFP sell themselves? I have to imagine the games will be sell outs regardless of who's playing, and as someone who isn't a huge college football fan myself I will be watching the semifinals and championship no matter who is playing. I imagine a lot of casual fans are the same, and if you just don't care for college football at all I doubt you're watching even if it's a school you think has a cool mascot or something.
Does the World Seies sell itself? Or, does it do better when the Cubs or the Yankees or the Dodgers are in it?
Would a San Antonio - Toronto matchup in the NBA Finals sell itself because of the event?
The "name" teams attract a much larger audience which drives advertising rates and future contracts.
-
Maybe I'm remembering it as more of a david vs goliath match-up than it really was... but didn't everyone think oklahoma was going to destroy boise st in the fiesta bowl?
And Central Michigan 'beat' Oklahoma St this year. So, yes, there is always a chance that Western can stay in the game and win at the end. Just giving a personal assessment after watching them a few times.
-
It's hard to look back and say injuries mattered. Otherwise, Wisconsin could use that excuse. They lost to Michigan and OSU - each by one score; one in OT - without their best defensive player. Would it have mattered? Who knows?
With the PSU game, UW will have played 6 teams that were Top 10 when they played. OSU faced 1; Michigan faced 1. Maybe meaningless, maybe not. But certainly they have as good a case as any team other than Alabama. If MU and OSU were Illinois and Purdue with the same records, UW would be rated ahead of them.
So the system isn't fair and never will be. College football is about $$$$. The 2nd and 3rd things it is about are also $$$$$$. Michigan and OSU = more $$$$.
Ranked Top 10 at the time they played them??? That's not a thing anyone cares about, also who are the 6 that were Top 10. Best I can come up with is 4(if Wisconsin beats PSU): OSU, LSU, MSU and Michigan.
As far as I can tell, Wisconsin has not beaten anyone that is currently ranked in the top 25 let alone the top 10. That might change come Saturday but there is no way by any rational standard that Wisconsin deserves to go to the playoffs over Ohio State and it would be tough to put them in over Michigan as well, but if they win the B1G championship you'd have to put them over Michigan.
As far as the money goes I don't think there is appreciable difference between OSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penn State in terms of the eyeballs or $ driven. They are all well followed, highly visible programs. Putting Wisconsin not getting on $ alone is simply you not wanting to come to terms with Wisconsin's schedule not living up to the hype(not their fault LSU and MSU suck) and them potentially just not being as good as you'd like them to be.
Last thing on the injuries, normally I'm with you on that's part of the game but when Penn State is having to play their 4th string outside linebacker at INSIDE linebacker, a position he literally never played before, because the first 4 inside linebackers are injured or otherwise unavailable that's a problem....especially when its the 2nd quarter on the road at Michigan. Not saying they would have won, but I like the team that's playing a lot more now then the one that was playing then.
-
Ranked Top 10 at the time they played them??? That's not a thing anyone cares about, also who are the 6 that were Top 10. Best I can come up with is 4(if Wisconsin beats PSU): OSU, LSU, MSU and Michigan.
As far as I can tell, Wisconsin has not beaten anyone that is currently ranked in the top 25 let alone the top 10. T
LSU is ranked 21 in the AP poll. Nebraska is ranked 23. If they beat Penn State, that would be a third.
Ohio State has beaten Michigan, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Nebraska. Only loss on the road to Penn State. According to the criteria, they most definitely deserve to get in. Not just about the money.
If Michigan gets in over the B10 champion, that would be a problem.
-
LSU is ranked 21 in the AP poll. Nebraska is ranked 23. If they beat Penn State, that would be a third.
Ohio State has beaten Michigan, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Nebraska. Only loss on the road to Penn State. According to the criteria, they most definitely deserve to get in. Not just about the money.
If Michigan gets in over the B10 champion, that would be a problem.
Michigan has three top 10 wins (PSU, Wisconsin, and Colorado) and a OT loss to the number 2 team on the road. The Iowa loss is inexplicable so that hurts them some. I'm not advocating for Michigan to get in over Wisconsin, but the only reason Wisconsin would get in over Michigan is because they played in the western division and won the conference game.
-
Michigan has three top 10 wins (PSU, Wisconsin, and Colorado) and a OT loss to the number 2 team on the road. The Iowa loss is inexplicable so that hurts them some. I'm not advocating for Michigan to get in over Wisconsin, but the only reason Wisconsin would get in over Michigan is because they played in the western division and won the conference game.
I forgot they beat Colorado. That would make it more palatable.
-
Michigan has three top 10 wins (PSU, Wisconsin, and Colorado) and a OT loss to the number 2 team on the road. The Iowa loss is inexplicable so that hurts them some. I'm not advocating for Michigan to get in over Wisconsin, but the only reason Wisconsin would get in over Michigan is because they played in the western division and won the conference game.
Iowa is ranked 22nd.
-
I think the biggest problem, outside of the need to expand, is the committee announcing their standards. Best 4? Conference finishes? Etc. Make it clear to the schools, teams and fans.
-
I think the biggest problem, outside of the need to expand, is the committee announcing their standards. Best 4? Conference finishes? Etc. Make it clear to the schools, teams and fans.
The "criteria" is that the 4 teams who the committee feels are the best teams will make the playoff. There will never be clear-cut standards for a 4 team playoff. If there were, the committee couldn't do things like bump TCU for Ohio State...or potentially bump conference champ Colorado for Michigan.
Personally, I think that if a team doesn't win their conference, they can't be in the playoff unless the conference champ is also in.
-
But Ohio State should have been in two years ago. Their schedule was much more difficult than TCU's.
That being said, the "guiding document" is here:
http://d30ratpzqzalg7.cloudfront.net/CD-drupal-cfp-PROD/s3fs-public/CFP%20Selection%20Committee%20Protocol.pdf?tV3FOZ68If3qops3X7XJQFmkEd00PiAY
-
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-efjnJq-h9hs/UjUD9YwVNfI/AAAAAAAAAsA/Yf-jnGWmJe4/barbossa+guidelines.jpg)
-
And they have to be guidelines. The NCAA has tried hard and fast rules in the past and it doesn't work.
For instance, Mount Union has won 12 national titles in D3 football. They have been in 11 straight title games, only losing to UW-Whitewater on six occasions. This year they were ranked #1 all year long, but lost to a conference foe the last game of the year. That caused them to lose the automatic bid because they didn't win their conference - for the first time in 25 years.
Now there are only a handful of at-large bids given in D3 football. There are guidelines in place for the selection of the at-large based on overall record, games played within the region, etc. A few years ago, the NCAA experimented with making these hard and fast rules instead of guidelines. If that were the case this year, Mount Union would not have gotten into the playoffs. That would have been absurd. Everyone knows they are one of the best teams. They should be there - and they were selected.
(Part of the reason why they wouldn't have made it based on "rules" is because the computer modelling eliminates margin of victory as a variable. And they pretty much blew everyone out in their wins.)
-
And they have to be guidelines. The NCAA has tried hard and fast rules in the past and it doesn't work.
For instance, Mount Union has won 12 national titles in D3 football. They have been in 11 straight title games, only losing to UW-Whitewater on six occasions. This year they were ranked #1 all year long, but lost to a conference foe the last game of the year. That caused them to lose the automatic bid because they didn't win their conference - for the first time in 25 years.
Now there are only a handful of at-large bids given in D3 football. There are guidelines in place for the selection of the at-large based on overall record, games played within the region, etc. A few years ago, the NCAA experimented with making these hard and fast rules instead of guidelines. If that were the case this year, Mount Union would not have gotten into the playoffs. That would have been absurd. Everyone knows they are one of the best teams. They should be there - and they were selected.
(Part of the reason why they wouldn't have made it based on "rules" is because the computer modelling eliminates margin of victory as a variable. And they pretty much blew everyone out in their wins.)
All true, plus if there were hard and fast rules #embracedebate would not be as viable to fill non-game day air time
#conspiracy
-
What I think is really stupid is these weekly college football playoff rankings. That's where people got upset about TCU getting bumped by OSU the first year. If they simply just release the CFP field after the conference championships are finished nobody knows TCU is ahead of OSU up until TCU's...well, 52 point win.
Anyhow, what will be interesting is that if Colorado were to beat Washington, Michigan would not only have wins over both teams in the B1G title game, but also over the Pac 12 champion.
-
Here's a bizarre hypothetical that would never actually happen...
What if teams could pass on playing in the conference championship game? For example, Alabama is in the playoff no matter what happens on Saturday. What's the point of them playing? Should they rest their starters like NFL teams do once they've clinched a playoff spot?
On the contrary, Clemson and Washington have nothing to gain and everything to lose in their conference championships. They'd both be in right now and a victory isn't going to change that. Meanwhile, Michigan will get the luxury of sitting at home while having a chance to get into the playoff as a result of not winning their division.
-
Here's a bizarre hypothetical that would never actually happen...
What if teams could pass on playing in the conference championship game? For example, Alabama is in the playoff no matter what happens on Saturday. What's the point of them playing? Should they rest their starters like NFL teams do once they've clinched a playoff spot?
On the contrary, Clemson and Washington have nothing to gain and everything to lose in their conference championships. They'd both be in right now and a victory isn't going to change that. Meanwhile, Michigan will get the luxury of sitting at home while having a chance to get into the playoff as a result of not winning their division.
I would agree about Clemson. But I think Washington needs to win. They need another victory on their schedule against a decent team.
Very weak non-conference (Rutgers, Idaho, Portland State). Conference schedule included only two teams in the top 25 and they lost to one of them. (Lost to USC. Beat Stanford.)
Without a conference championship game, the four would be Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson and IMO the Big Ten champion. Beating Colorado gives them another big win.
-
I've always (before they even announced a playoff) advocated taking the top twelve teams. That way, your vaunted top four that currently make the playoff all get a bye. All the conference champs would be in and it leaves room for any undefeated small-conference schools (so there's your Western Michigan). And let's be honest...if you're the 13th best team in the country, you probably weren't going to beat the 5th, 4th, and 1st best teams in the country in consecutive weeks anyway, so quit your whining.
As far as the devaluing the season, does it devalue the basketball season that 68 teams get in? Right now, roughly 20% of the college basketball teams in the nation get a shot at winning the title. Is it that egregious that roughly 10% of the college football teams get the same shot?
-
I would agree about Clemson. But I think Washington needs to win. They need another victory on their schedule against a decent team.
Very weak non-conference (Rutgers, Idaho, Portland State). Conference schedule included only two teams in the top 25 and they lost to one of them. (Lost to USC. Beat Stanford.)
Without a conference championship game, the four would be Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson and IMO the Big Ten champion. Beating Colorado gives them another big win.
The sweet delicious joy I take is if Clemson loses the conference that ESPN crafted by gutting the Big East will likely be left out of the playoffs all together.
-
I've always (before they even announced a playoff) advocated taking the top twelve teams. That way, your vaunted top four that currently make the playoff all get a bye. All the conference champs would be in and it leaves room for any undefeated small-conference schools (so there's your Western Michigan). And let's be honest...if you're the 13th best team in the country, you probably weren't going to beat the 5th, 4th, and 1st best teams in the country in consecutive weeks anyway, so quit your whining.
As far as the devaluing the season, does it devalue the basketball season that 68 teams get in? Right now, roughly 20% of the college basketball teams in the nation get a shot at winning the title. Is it that egregious that roughly 10% of the college football teams get the same shot?
Except the regular season has a third of the games that basketball does and is much more lopsided in terms of who plays who. Plus once you open it that far, all the P5 teams (it's a relevant usage here guys!) will stop scheduling each other in the non-conference because all they have to do is be a top 1 or 2 team in their own conference. Non-conference slate then sucks.
Besides, people are going to debate whether it's the 16th team or the 70th team that gets in so if the goal is to eliminate the debate that won't happen.
-
I've always (before they even announced a playoff) advocated taking the top twelve teams. That way, your vaunted top four that currently make the playoff all get a bye. All the conference champs would be in and it leaves room for any undefeated small-conference schools (so there's your Western Michigan). And let's be honest...if you're the 13th best team in the country, you probably weren't going to beat the 5th, 4th, and 1st best teams in the country in consecutive weeks anyway, so quit your whining.
As far as the devaluing the season, does it devalue the basketball season that 68 teams get in? Right now, roughly 20% of the college basketball teams in the nation get a shot at winning the title. Is it that egregious that roughly 10% of the college football teams get the same shot?
But every single basketball team has a route into the NCAA Tournament. As we see with Western Michigan, for a large number of college football teams, no matter what you do in the regular season you aren't going to have a shot to play in the CFP.
-
But every single basketball team has a route into the NCAA Tournament. As we see with Western Michigan, for a large number of college football teams, no matter what you do in the regular season you aren't going to have a shot to play in the CFP.
Exactly. There are 128 FBS teams but only half of those team have a legit chance at making the playoff.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the 128 teams split into two 64-team "leagues." Within each league, the teams fit into 8 conferences with the 8 conference champs automatically going to an 8-team playoff. Regular season consists of 7 conference games plus 5 non-conf games rotating to be against a team from another conference who finished in a corresponding place in the standings the previous season, similar to the NFL format. It gives the "BCS" teams a chance to earn their berth on the field and gives the non-BCS schools a chance at a championship.
Obviously that would never happen for countless reasons but it'd be better than the highly subjective system that is currently in place.
EDIT: Actually, there are 65-66 teams with a shot at a title if you include independents ND and BYU. Darn! I was so close to the perfect solution! ;)
-
Here's a bizarre hypothetical that would never actually happen...
What if teams could pass on playing in the conference championship game? For example, Alabama is in the playoff no matter what happens on Saturday. What's the point of them playing? Should they rest their starters like NFL teams do once they've clinched a playoff spot?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
-
But every single basketball team has a route into the NCAA Tournament. As we see with Western Michigan, for a large number of college football teams, no matter what you do in the regular season you aren't going to have a shot to play in the CFP.
That is correct.
Remember though that the College Football Playoff is not an NCAA creation. It was done by the top conferences and therefore is going to benefit the top conferences.
Western Michigan has a choice. Stay at the FBS level and deal with the inequities for the sake of exposure and $$$. Or move down to FCS and a more level playing field where you can attempt to win a more pure championship.
Because the Western Michigans are likely never going to be in the top four. And likely won't even make the top 8 if it expands. That isn't going to change.
-
Just realized the committee has a pretty easy way of getting Michigan and OSU into the playoffs. Keep OSU in the top 4 tonight, which is justifiable. Put Michigan at 5. If Clemson or Washington loses, boom, Michigan in.
-
Just realized the committee has a pretty easy way of getting Michigan and OSU into the playoffs. Keep OSU in the top 4 tonight, which is justifiable. Put Michigan at 5. If Clemson or Washington loses, boom, Michigan in.
Well...
-
Say Washington loses to Colorado. Does the Big Ten champion leapfrog Michigan to get into the top four? I would think so. That's another quality win for either team and gives them a better overall record.
-
Say Washington loses to Colorado. Does the Big Ten champion leapfrog Michigan to get into the top four? I would think so. That's another quality win for either team and gives them a better overall record.
Problem is, Michigan beat both head to head.....so the guidelines are in conflict (h2h vs conference champion)
What's also interesting is that a lot of the speculation is based off of chatter from the previous head of the playoff committee. There is a new head this year who seems to have a different philosophy.
-
Problem is, Michigan beat both head to head.....so the guidelines are in conflict (h2h vs conference champion)
What's also interesting is that a lot of the speculation is based off of chatter from the previous head of the playoff committee. There is a new head this year who seems to have a different philosophy.
Well sure they beat both head-to-head. But with a better overall record, both beating a team that Michigan lost to, and winning the conference championship, I think either team would be more deserving.
-
Well sure they beat both head-to-head. But with a better overall record, both beating a team that Michigan lost to, and winning the conference championship, I think either team would be more deserving.
Not sure that they would have a better record. The winner would have one more win, but they'd be equal in the loss column.
If Wisconsin wins B1G: Wins over PSU(7), LSU(21), Loss to OSU (2), Michigan (5) and SoS 20th in country (improves from there with win)
If Penn State wins B1G: Wins over Wisconsin (6), OSU (2), Loss to Michigan(5), Pitt(25) and SoS 39th in country (improves from there with win)
Michigan: Wins over Wisconsin(6), PSU(7), Colorado(8), Loss to OSU(2) and Iowa(NR) and SoS 33rd in the country
I would assume both PSU and Wisconsin would move ahead of Michigan on SoS if either wins. Michigan has a better volume/quality of wins than both but a worse collection of losses than both. Michigan beat both head to head(at home) but isn't in the championship.
Not saying Michigan should get in over either....but there is definitely an easy argument to be made that they could/should.
-
Simple solution. If you don't win your conference championship, you can only go to the CFP if your conference champion also goes (to prevent a #2 team in the country from missing out if #1 is the conf champ).
Assuming Bama and Clemson win this weekend...
1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Washington (or B10 Champ if Col wins)
4. Big 10 Champ (or OSU if Col wins)
-
Simple solution. If you don't win your conference championship, you can only go to the CFP if your conference champion also goes (to prevent a #2 team in the country from missing out if #1 is the conf champ).
Assuming Bama and Clemson win this weekend...
1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Washington (or B10 Champ if Col wins)
4. Big 10 Champ (or OSU if Col wins)
Simply no way you can leave OSU out. If a rule leaves the clear #2 in the country out of the mix than it's a bad rule. Also that would mean if Alabama lost to Florida they would be left out...not sure I'd agree with that either.
-
Simply no way you can leave OSU out. If a rule leaves the clear #2 in the country out of the mix than it's a bad rule. Also that would mean if Alabama lost to Florida they would be left out...not sure I'd agree with that either.
If the best team on paper doesn't get it done on the field by winning enough games, that's on them.
If conference standings and championships don't matter, what's the point of having conferences? Get rid of conferences all together and let each program make their own 12-game schedule.
-
If the best team on paper doesn't get it done on the field by winning enough games, that's on them.
If conference standings and championships don't matter, what's the point of having conferences? Get rid of conferences all together and let each program make their own 12-game schedule.
Sure, if we live in a utopia but we don't. Besides your blow it up theory actually makes it significantly harder to pick the best teams because how do you determine a strength of schedule?
We live in a world where the NCAA and the universities are trying to sit between the desire to make a ton of money and the desire to appear as if they don't want to make a ton of money. As a result we get a bastardized system. The only reason we have conference championship games is because there is money to be made....not to determine who the best team is to put in the playoffs. My stance merely reflects that reality and trying to be as pragmatic as possible.
-
Right. The major conferences set this up to benefit the major conferences. They're gonna keep the rules as loose as possible because everyone knows Alabama is one of the best four teams in the country regardless of what they do Saturday.
-
Sure, if we live in a utopia but we don't. Besides your blow it up theory actually makes it significantly harder to pick the best teams because how do you determine a strength of schedule?
We live in a world where the NCAA and the universities are trying to sit between the desire to make a ton of money and the desire to appear as if they don't want to make a ton of money. As a result we get a bastardized system. The only reason we have conference championship games is because there is money to be made....not to determine who the best team is to put in the playoffs. My stance merely reflects that reality and trying to be as pragmatic as possible.
Right. The major conferences set this up to benefit the major conferences. They're gonna keep the rules as loose as possible because everyone knows Alabama is one of the best four teams in the country regardless of what they do Saturday.
To paraphrase Don Ohlmeyer, the answer to all of my questions is money. I understand why the set-up is what it is, but that doesn't mean it isn't completely illogical and ridiculous.
-
To paraphrase Don Ohlmeyer, the answer to all of my questions is money. I understand why the set-up is what it is, but that doesn't mean it isn't completely illogical and ridiculous.
Both can absolutely true and very often are.
-
Both can absolutely true and very often are.
In fact, what makes college football so fantastic is that it is absurd, illogical and ridiculous.
-
In fact, what makes college football so fantastic is that it is absurd, illogical and ridiculous.
Correct, see also: March, Madness
-
If Washington or Clemson loses, I think Michigan is in.
Herb kirkstreit was on Mike and Mike this morning. He said things that would be used as tie breakers (head to head result, conference championship, common opponents, etc) would only be used if the committee couldn't determine which team is clearly better. Well, I think based on where the teams are ranked right now, they clearly think Michigan is better than WI or PSU.
-
If Washington or Clemson loses, I think Michigan is in.
Herb kirkstreit was on Mike and Mike this morning. He said things that would be used as tie breakers (head to head result, conference championship, common opponents, etc) would only be used if the committee couldn't determine which team is clearly better. Well, I think based on where the teams are ranked right now, they clearly think Michigan is better than WI or PSU.
This is where I disagree, Jes.
When I defended UW earlier, it was not to say they were one of the top 4 teams (I'd rank them 5th). It was to say that two teams from the same division of the same conference - neither of whom could even end up in 1st place in a 7-team division - should not be in the playoffs.
-
This is where I disagree, Jes.
When I defended UW earlier, it was not to say they were one of the top 4 teams (I'd rank them 5th). It was to say that two teams from the same division of the same conference - neither of whom could even end up in 1st place in a 7-team division - should not be in the playoffs.
One finished tied for first place in their 7 team division, a far and away tougher 7 team division than the joke of a 7 team division Wisconsin is in.
UW lost to 2 teams in the East, which means the absolute best they could've done in the East if they played in that division would be tied for 3rd with Michigan (losing the head to head tiebreaker). And then if they played in the East they still win their crossovers with the West (since they won all their games against West teams) and Michigan State (since they beat them), and we're about to find out if they could beat Penn State. Chances are fairly high they'd beat Indiana, Maryland, and Rutgers as well, but they'd finish 4th in their 7 team division.
-
This is where I disagree, Jes.
When I defended UW earlier, it was not to say they were one of the top 4 teams (I'd rank them 5th). It was to say that two teams from the same division of the same conference - neither of whom could even end up in 1st place in a 7-team division - should not be in the playoffs.
Right.
I'm not writing what I want to happen or what I think should happen. I was saying what I think will happen given the current system.
-
Alabama v Washington
Clemson v Ohio State
If Penn Sate gets in instead of Washington or Ohio State I wouldn't complain.
-
Going to be interesting. Can't see it being anything other than Bama over OSU in the championship.
-
It's a mixed bag for Eng tonight. See, he probably had a couple cocktails during the game tonight and while he team was victorious his rendition of 'Nah, nah, hey, hey goodbye' got him relegated to sleeping in the garage prior to the onset ofthe snow tomorrow.
-
Alabama v Washington
Clemson v Ohio State
If Penn Sate gets in instead of Washington or Ohio State I wouldn't complain.
Penn State won their division over OSU, won the championship in the best conference in the country, beat OSU head-to-head and were deemed to be not as good as OSU. Replace Ohio State with Indiana, Maryland or Rutgers and Penn State gets in.
-
Penn State won their division over OSU, won the championship in the best conference in the country, beat OSU head-to-head and were deemed to be not as good as OSU. Replace Ohio State with Indiana, Maryland or Rutgers and Penn State gets in.
We've been over this. According the guidelines of the College Football Playoff, Ohio State should get the nod. (And they did.) If they limited it to conference champions, I would be fine with that.
-
Unfortunately, I don't see an 8 team anytime soon. As always, money rules. And I'm not talking about the NCAA or the teams or the conferences.
-
No need to go to an 8 team, dilutes the product unnecessarily....and I say that as a Penn State fan.
What will be interesting is if this now drives non-conference scheduling changes. If you think you're in a top 2 conference(which can ebb and flow each year) there is zero reason to schedule strong in the non-conference. Washington's NC was hot garbage and they won all three and Penn State played two top 25 teams: Temple at home which they won and Pitt on the road which they lost by 3. Additionally, the committee put OSU in over PSU, which by definition overlooks PSU's head to head win against OSU which effective means the committee put more value on a road loss in September by 3 to a top 25 than it did on a top 2 home win in October. So why schedule tough non-conference opponents?
By the way, if you go to 8 the non-conference schedules definitely become crap because there is less than zero incentive to schedule tough...just win your own conference and you're in.
-
Holy crap - Mixon/Oklahoma
I could have started another thread like Heisy, but this seemed inline with the topic.