The playoff committee is about to get tested

It's ironic that it was The Big 10, raising cain like they did or raising more cain than other conferences, when Bama & LSU played for The BCS Championship a few years ago..Saying it was wrong cause both teams hadn't won a conference championship & now they're going to have multiple teams in the playoff format now..

rgw said:

Another thing, it would be a failure of the CFP system for Ohio State to be left home each of the last two seasons. They were very clearly - by the halftime of the Cotton Bowl - the best team in the Big Ten in 2015. It was so clear that Michigan State didn't deserve to be on the field with Alabama nor likely the other two playoff teams either. If Penn State or Wisconsin make it in over Ohio State, they'll also get their face caved in like Sparty before them. Will that make people reassess the criterion? Not because it is what ought to happen but because it benefitted Alabama's title runs for two years. Because we all know figuring out a way to regress the champ to the mean is a bigger motivator to the college football world than doing what is right.

Click to expand...

Maybe Ohio State should also stop losing to the team that holds them out of their own conference title game.

Yes, the regular season should matter, which is why Ohio State shouldn't just get a mulligan every time they lose because in some fantasy re-do we think they might win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

selmaborntidefan said:

BCS Standings 25 November 2007

1) Missouri 10-1
2) WVA 10-1
3) Ohio St 10-1
4) Georgia 10-2
5) Kansas 11-1
6) Va Tech 10-2
7) LSU 10-2

BCS Standings 2 December 2007
1) Ohio State 11-1
2) LSU 11-2
3) Va Tech 11-2
4) Oklahoma 11-2
5) Georgia 10-2
6) Missouri 11-2
7) USC 10-2
8) Kansas 11-1


Now....what was that you were saying????????

And btw, in this scenario, the two-loss conference champion got the bump and the one-loss NON-conference champion got dropped.

Just like folks are arguing right now.

Click to expand...

Strength of schedule has to play a part. In college ball there are no easy answers. The decision of a select few will still be controversial. Anyone who now or in the past thought a 2-loss team should be there (see LSU 2007) can now shut up about 1941.

teamplayer said:

Michigan might argue with that because they thought OSU was stopped short on 4th down in OT. The point being that the more people use "the eye test" instead of on field results, the more subjective the selections become. I do think the whole season should come into play, but some seem to think it only matters how teams are playing at the end of the season. For example, some think that a three loss USC should be considered over one and two loss teams. It all boils down to a bunch of opinions, and only the opinions of the committee members matter.

Click to expand...

The morons at Michigan can think/wish all they want. It was a first down (someone posted clear-cut pic earlier in another thread). Head to head is important, all other things being exactly equal. They are no exactly equal. So then you have to weigh the entirety with all the little pieces perhaps receiving different weights. The whole process is as, and possibly more, subjective than any other system in years past. At least there is an argument that if you have 2 losses OR if you can't win your conference and don't make a 4 team cut it's your own dang fault. I'd give the 1-loss team with a higher SoS the nod, but I understand others may feels differently. I will note that this is consistent with my opinion in 2011.

Alasippi said:

Personally, I think it should be the best four teams, period. The conferences nor conference championships should have anything to do with it.
If the committee selects four teams they truly believe are the four best teams, I'm all for it.
To me, this playoff was designed to make sure the best four teams in college football were competing for the championship, not to protect the conferences from "potential outsiders interfering with the revenue stream".

Click to expand...

Full Banjeaux for you, sir.

RammerJammer14 said:

Maybe Ohio State should also stop losing to the team that holds them out of their own conference title game.

Yes, the regular season should matter, which is why Ohio State shouldn't just get a mulligan every time they lose because in some fantasy re-do we think they might win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Or as I suggest: let the conference criteria be the conference's way and the national criteria be its own thing...because it doesn't necessarily produce the best team from that conference anyway. Often it does but there is something going on in the Big Ten. Due to the incredible imbalance of divisional alignment in the name of maintaining regionally important rivalries, the Big Ten looks like a conference that will quite often end up with an East winner that loses a tiebreaker that isn't exactly the best team in that division.

Also, Big Ten is a crap weather conference for the majority of their conference schedule...weird stuff is going to happen there. Ohio State has been one of the four best teams each of the last three seasons and could only make the playoffs once due to an overemphasis on how a regional alliance determines their champion? The only fair criterion at a national level is full resume review and a subjective value-based judgement. Until things are standardized - and we shouldn't want that because we'll lose a ton in the process - I see no way to make it work.

Even with 8-teams, we're still in an asymmetrical confederacy of rules. We're never going to fix this...just live with the subjective resume review and don't put a ton of weight in a conference title.

rgw said:

Or as I suggest: let the conference criteria be the conference's way and the national criteria be its own thing...because it doesn't necessarily produce the best team from that conference anyway. Often it does but there is something going on in the Big Ten. Due to the incredible imbalance of divisional alignment in the name of maintaining regionally important rivalries, the Big Ten looks like a conference that will quite often end up with an East winner that loses a tiebreaker that isn't exactly the best team in that division.

Click to expand...

Division alignments in the B1G are wacked. Absolutely no balance at all. MI, MI St, OSU, PSU ALL in the same division with a relatively weak division in the west makes no sense to me. The SEC did a great job with the divisions. Even though balance of power has shifted from east to west, over time it's about even with the West winning 13 times vs the East winning 11. The traditional balance of power in the B1G is mostly in the east. They would have done better putting MI in the west and Iowa in the east, geography be darned. I know rematches and all that, but goodness!

rgw said:

Also, Big Ten is a crap weather conference for the majority of their conference schedule...weird stuff is going to happen there. Ohio State has been one of the four best teams each of the last three seasons and could only make the playoffs once due to an overemphasis on how a regional alliance determines their champion? The only fair criterion at a national level is full resume review and a subjective value-based judgement. Until things are standardized - and we shouldn't want that because we'll lose a ton in the process - I see no way to make it work.

Even with 8-teams, we're still in an asymmetrical confederacy of rules. We're never going to fix this...just live with the subjective resume review and don't put a ton of weight in a conference title.

Click to expand...

I agree that we don't need to go to a straight jacket of rules and blow up conferences to make "super conferences". It would ruin college football.

However, I don't think you can just ignore conference titles just because a team passes the "eye test". As they say, the game isn't played on paper.

So looking at OSU-PSU this year. If PSU wins the B1G they are 11-2 with a win over OSU and loses to Michigan and Pitt. OSU is 11-1 with the loss to PSU. Now PSU blocked a FG to beat Ohio State. Everyone wants to give OSU a mulligan on that because really, how often are FGs blocked to win a game. Also, PSU got spanked by Michigan, who Ohio state just beat, and Pitt was only a decent team. Everyone seems cool with those hypotheticals because on paper, OSU is the better team.

But if we are going to play around in hypothetical rationalizing land, let me throw out this Devil's advocate. Frankly, Michigan should have beat Ohio State. They gifted them two dumb interceptions for 14pts and had their last, game tying drive stopped on 3rd and 10 but got called for a questionable PI call that kept OSU alive. Then it took OSU two overtimes with a 4th down conversion to win the game. Hardly dominant. OSU also just escaped with a win over Mich State, who PSU just annihilated. Penn State may have lost to Michigan, but that was early in the season. Penn State is playing completely different ball now. The loss to Pitt was also early in the season, and was by only 3pts. PSU committed more than a quarter of their season's turnovers in that game. Not characteristic. And that was a loss to the same team that also beat Playoff and ACC title probable Clemson. Not exactly chopped liver at 8-4. Same as the rest of the best SEC teams really.

Point being, you can't just play hypothetical "this team is better than that team" games one way and not the other in order to throw out the head to head. If PSU wins the conference, they deserve the playoff spot because they have a real, tangible victory over Ohio State. Lose, and it's fair game for OSU. They have the head to head over Wisconsin after all. Even if they did have to get a stop on the goal line in overtime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RammerJammer14 said:

However, I don't think you can just ignore conference titles just because a team passes the "eye test". As they say, the game isn't played on paper.

Click to expand...

Sorry, Alabama fans don't get to make this argument after 2011. Hypocrisy.

Alabama was one of the two best teams in 2011.


Ohio State was one of the four best teams in 2015 and 2016.


At least the BCS got it right to our benefit. The committee got it wrong once already with Ohio State and may very well get pressured to do it again this year.

At least with 2015 there is some conceit of hindsight going on here. It wasn't until we saw MSU, OSU, and Iowa in their bowl games that we realized the stark divide that couldn't be exposed by divisional split scheduling within that conference. Honestly, Big Ten owns some of the blame here. They need to fix their conference alignment. Like yesterday.

B1GTide said:

Sorry, Alabama fans don't get to make this argument after 2011. Hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Please. For one, it was only a two team system in 2011. It was also a consistent, algorithm-based ranking criteria. And In 2011 there were only 3 legitimate choices for the top teams. LSU, Alabama, and Okie State. LSU clearly in at #1. Then both Alabama and Okie State at 11-1. Basically what it came down to was who had the best loss, which Okie State failed at by a mile by losing to a 5 win team. Then they sat at home during conference championship games which hurt their rating. The BCS spat out LSU and Alabama. And I was ecstatic. If it spit out LSU and Okie State I would have been bummed but hey, we already had a shot at LSU in our own division and blew it. Thems the breaks.

If the playoff was in place in 2011, all 3 get in with the addition of Stanford.

So no, it's not hypocritical.

Someone asked earlier if Ole Miss didn't lose to Arkansas last year and went to the SECC and won, should they have gone to the playoff instead of Alabama. My answer would be, yes, unless there was no other 1-loss team out there who won their conference. Ole Miss beat us with the aid of 5 turnovers and we improved tremendously as a team to peak as the clearly #1 team at the end of the playoffs. But Ole Miss still beat us fair and square, they never even trailed. If they had won the division, we could have only kicked ourselves.

Should Alabama have gotten a mulligan is 2013 too? Auburn beat us on a fluke play and we only lost the Sugar Bowl because we didn't care and didn't prepare. Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RammerJammer14 said:

So no, it's not hypocritical.

Click to expand...

You said:

However, I don't think you can just ignore conference titles just because a team passes the "eye test". As they say, the game isn't played on paper.

Click to expand...

Alabama passed the eye test but lost the conference title. You were fine with it then because some computer formulas and human polls said that it was okay (and because it you benefited). You are not okay with it now because it is just a human committee even though the BCS formulas and same human polls would also put OSU at #2.

Yeah, that is hypocrisy.

B1GTide said:

Sorry, Alabama fans don't get to make this argument after 2011. Hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Yes they do. Given the Big 10's panty twisting at the time. Bama fans have every right to throw the argument right back at the Big 10.

Edit: The current system is biased toward conference champions at the behest of the Big 10. Any Big fan arguing for the old way is being hypocritical due to the Big's past panty twisting.

NationalTitles16 said:

The morons at Michigan can think/wish all they want. It was a first down (someone posted clear-cut pic earlier in another thread). Head to head is important, all other things being exactly equal. They are no exactly equal. So then you have to weigh the entirety with all the little pieces perhaps receiving different weights. The whole process is as, and possibly more, subjective than any other system in years past. At least there is an argument that if you have 2 losses OR if you can't win your conference and don't make a 4 team cut it's your own dang fault. I'd give the 1-loss team with a higher SoS the nod, but I understand others may feels differently. I will note that this is consistent with my opinion in 2011.

Click to expand...

Can't find the clear cut picture you refer to. What thread was it on? Thing that many are missing is the line to gain was the WHITE line, not the YELLOW line. The official ruled it a first down, and replay let it stand...So it was a first down. But keep in mind, the official knew without a shadow of a doubt exactly where the line to gain was and immediately made a decision to touch the WHITE line with the football. One inch back and it was a turnover on downs.
The best angle anywhere to found is from an angle behind the OSU offense which would automatically give the impression the ball was further up field. Likewise, if the view had been from behind the Michigan defense it would have looked shorter. I fully believe he was short......

Tide1986 said:

Yes they do. Given the Big 10's panty twisting at the time. Bama fans have every right to throw the argument right back at the Big 10.

Edit: The current system is biased toward conference champions at the behest of the Big 10. Any Big fan arguing for the old way is being hypocritical due to the Big's past panty twisting.

Click to expand...

I am not arguing either side - simply pointing out the obvious hypocrisy.

alwayshavebeen said:

Can't find the clear cut picture you refer to. What thread was it on? Thing that many are missing is the line to gain was the WHITE line, not the YELLOW line. The official ruled it a first down, and replay let it stand...So it was a first down. But keep in mind, the official knew without a shadow of a doubt exactly where the line to gain was and immediately made a decision to touch the WHITE line with the football. One inch back and it was a turnover on downs.
The best angle anywhere to found is from an angle behind the OSU offense which would automatically give the impression the ball was further up field. Likewise, if the view had been from behind the Michigan defense it would have looked shorter. I fully believe he was short......

Click to expand...

There is a clear overhead shot - he made the first down. You can find it in the other thread.

B1GTide said:

You said:
Alabama passed the eye test but lost the conference title. You were fine with it then because some computer formulas and human polls said that it was okay (and because it you benefited). You are not okay with it now because it is just a human committee even though the BCS formulas and same human polls would also put OSU at #2.

Yeah, that is hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

I see you just ignored where I said, if it went the other way I would not have complained because we already lost to our division champion. I guess you just had to fit it to your "hypocrite" narrative. But since Alabama fans are apparently a monolith all the sudden, "Ohio State fans have no business saying they deserve to be in the playoff after complaining about Alabama in 2011. That's called hypocrisy".

We will see where Ohio State ends up on the musical chairs after next weekend. Frankly, I hope we play Ohio State and crush you into dust. No offense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

B1GTide said:

Sorry, Alabama fans don't get to make this argument after 2011. Hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Well I agree we don't get to make that argument after 2011 but the hypocrisy has to be owned by the Big Ten. Hard to just say the best four teams should be picked because that is too subjective. USC would then be in the top four and they have three losses so they should be out because of their body of work. Frankly I think they will get it right in the end just like they did in 2011. It will be Bama, Clemson, OSU and one other team. My guess is Washington.