Hot off the press: http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/gallery/big-ten-title-game-preview-penn-state-wisconsin-college-football-playoff-rankings-ohio-state-michigan-120116 I don't think OSU in is a no brainer......
Very true, but that's like saying that roughly 27% of your schedule is more important than the remaining 83%. Of that 83%, is the actual championship you play for during the season. This whole football season just seems to have been wrapped up before mid-October. With all the media hype, we know who is in the playoffs. We know who the Heisman winner is. We know it all. The problem is, for most of those teams and players, everything fell apart coming down the stretch. So now we're stuck with perceptions left in September and October while giving almost no regard to November, which has long been when seasons are made or broken. God help us if Alabama loses.
Well, I fail to see how stating that non conference losses and overall body of work matter equates to the words you just put in my mouth. Penn State is 10-2 against the 39th toughest schedule...and is 1-1 vs. top 10 teams. Ohio State is 11-1 against the 15th ranked schedule and is 3-0 vs top 10 teams. (That is all Sagarin talking...so if you use some other poll/ranking it will be a little different...but not much I bet) So that means I'm ignoring 83% of the schedule??? Ignoring November??? Relying on September perceptions??? I see why I was never was very good at debate team. I'm done here...the dumbest part of these actually interesting Bowl Championship Playoff arguments is trying to defend your team against the naysayers. I fully appreciate the PSU argument re: conference championship and head to head. It all depends on what you want your criteria to be.
So if PSU beats #7 Wisc. and ends up 11-2 and conference champion are they left out? And if they're left in that probably means that UW is out. Of course UWs non con schedule of Rutgers, Idaho and Portland St. leaves a little to be desired.
Stu, I fully appreciate both sides of the argument. Head to head plus conference championship is huge. Strength of schedule and quality wins is also huge. Eye test can factor in here to break the tie and in OSU's last two games to me they didn't pass the eye test. They squeaked by a bad Michigan State team and sure they handed Michigan their second loss in their last three games but it was ugly.... and controversial to be sure with the refs and especially that spot that could have given UM the game if ruled the other way.... which it very well could have been. It might get down to the eye test for Penn State on Sat. If they also win ugly/close etc. it may not be be enough. If they win convincingly.... and look strong doing so that will help their case vs. OSU significantly.
The problem with NU FB?.....No Identity.....who the **** are we anymore?.......anybody?.....getting away from what worked didn't help......this worked....this was an Identity.....this was NU FB.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV1a5WFGkKs
I dunno Gip...somebody gonna get left out. Personally I think that Wiscy is likely going to win...that would take care of Penn State but then there still will be arguments regarding Wiscy vs. whoever... Washington, Michigan, OSU...
I think what everybody is struggling with is the value of a Conference Championship. Back in the old days B1G fans will remember rules determining who got to go to the Rose Bowl, and it wasn't always the Conf Champ or the best team if I remember and the team that didn't go couldn't go anywhere else either. B1G fans probably weren't happy 100% but that was the rule they'd always lived with so probably more acceptance. Now everybody goes, and conference champion still doesn't get to go to the prize (sub CFP for Rose Bowl). In basketball as has already been pointed out, Conf Championships are a good thing but don't really mean squat when the NCAA tournament comes around, nor does the Post Season Tourney. In fact a lot of highly ranked and potentially highly seeded teams would just as soon not have to play the whole post season tourney. Stay fresh for the 1st round instead. I'm all for the concept of the best 4 teams going, which is different than what I was for when they first were setting up the CFP. It's tough sometimes to figure who those teams are absolutely. I'm also of the opinion that upsets are upsets, and if you are looking at the body of work over the whole season, you have to look at that upset (on the road, on a freak play counts for something iMHO). If in the case of PSU you want to overvalue that Ohio State upset then why are you ignoring the beat down by Pitt? It seems like everybody is saying, well they are a hot team now, maybe so since the Ohio State upset how many great teams have they played? Wisc will be the first. If we are going to say those losses to Pitt and Mich don't mean as much because they have had an awesome Nov, well then why can't we look at Oklahoma in the same light. If they beat a highly ranked Ok State they'll have completed their turnaround in an impressive way, and we should ignore the bad losses to Hou and OSU in Sept. What will 8 teams do? As always it will take care of some of the problems, like the B1G champ would be in, the Pac12 Champ would be in, and probably the B12 champ would be in. Also a 2nd B1G team would be in. Bama Ohio State Clemson Washington/Colorado Wisc/PSU OU/OKState OK those 6 take care of Conf Champions But what about the next 2. Do the losers of the Pac12, B1G, and the OU/OSU games have a claim on that spot. Michigan probably gets 1 of them. So which loser gets left out or do we add USC they are definitely a team on the rise.
I look at the score in the PSU-Pitt game of 42-39 and I can't see why it was a "beatdown" ? I know Penn St outscored them 18-7 in the 4th quarter but still.... a beatdown??
My solution is the 8 team format. You put in all of the major conference champions and then let those teams who didn't win their conference argue it out with those conference champs from the 'lesser' conferences. The 8 team format works every time.
It seems that most of the people engaged in this conversation prefer the eight team format. It appears no one involved in the four team format is touting change. Is there some conspiracy involved and big bucks are being funneled to just a few teams?
Shortly after I posted, I read an article on CBS Sports that going to an eight-team playoff, would probably eliminate all conference championships. That would not trouble me in the least for the power five conferences. Personally, I think all of the bowl games we have now are out of date period.
I want to ditch the vast majority of the minor bowls and replace them with a 16 Team playoff which includes power 5 and group of 5 champions plus wild cards. That would solve the problem
Don, I am for the 8 team format. My only problem with the Big 10 situation is that neither of the teams that will be going to the playoffs is even playing for the conference championship!
If you want the "best" 4 teams then sometimes it won't work out to be the conf champion. 1996 Texas went to the Fiesta Bowl after a huge upset of Neb in the B12 Champ game. They weren't the best team in the B12 but that one win entitled them to a bowl that their season said they didn't deserve. How about eliminating divisions and have the top 2 teams in the conference play for the championship. If you want conf champions to always be included then you won't have the best team in the conference playing due to upsets. I don't think anybody would argue right now that the 2 best teams in the B1G are in the champ game. The 2 best teams are Ohio State and Mich.
I think this is funny personally. I don't buy into the notion that CBS put forward that conference titles/title games would go away. The cornerstone for the evolution of FBS football has been the super conference. The idea behind the super conference is that the season is a long elimination tournament in which every game is important. That's what we were sold, and that's what we bought. Now, we are so painfully close to being able to do it right and the 'afraid to swim' crowd who warned us about how the game couldn't survive without the BCS is bringing out their hand wringing. The solution isn't hard and it requires exactly one more week. The teams start playing in August and take nearly a month off at the end of the season as it is, even with the 4 team playoff. There is plenty of time and resources to pull this off. I've been saying this since the days of the BCS. They said a playoff couldn't be done, ignoring all factual evidence to the contrary, and gave us a sort of 'BCS on steroids' which we currently have. It's better than before, but still not where we need to be.
Crowd at PAC12 Championship game is embarrassing. Apparently nobody cares, B1G and SEC games will be sold out, old B 12 games were always great crowds as well. I expect the ACC to be mediocre as well.