Do you think the best B1G team made it into the playoff?

[Inquisitor95]

Did the committee get it right? Should more weight have been given to how teams are playing toward the end of the season?

 

[tabascojet]

how about they start by just look at conference championships and head to head wins......

 

[Smart]

It comes down to what you believe the committee should reward, the best resume or the hottest team. Penn State was definitely the hotter team and has played better for the past several weeks. As of today, they are clearly the better team. I still think considering the entire regular season, OSU was the better overall team with the better overall resume.

I don't think there is an obvious answer about which should be rewarded, but if I were the committee, I would have taken Ohio State.

 

[Smart]

how about they start by just look at conference championships and head to head wins......

So Michigan gets in because they crushed Penn State?

Any argument for Penn State having a better resume ultimately comes down to "Penn State's fuckup was out of conference and Michigan's wasn't." That's an insanely stupid way to decide who has the better resume, especially when you are using it to have a 2 loss team jump a 1 loss team.

 

[Lions=TeHsUcKs]

Fuck no.

 

[tabascojet]

So Michigan gets in because they crushed Penn State?

Any argument for Penn State having a better resume ultimately comes down to "Penn State's fuckup was out of conference and Michigan's wasn't." That's an insanely stupid way to decide who has the better resume, especially when you are using it to have a 2 loss team jump a 1 loss team.

 

[cwerph]

It comes down to what you believe the committee should reward, the best resume or the hottest team. Penn State was definitely the hotter team and has played better for the past several weeks. As of today, they are clearly the better team. I still think considering the entire regular season, OSU was the better overall team with the better overall resume.

I don't think there is an obvious answer about which should be rewarded, but if I were the committee, I would have taken Ohio State.

You make too much sense. People want to demand that the committee have a crystal ball and know that OSU was going to lay a big egg in the Fiesta Bowl.

Meanwhile, there has only been one semi-final in 3 years that was a really competitive game and that was OSU-Alabama at the end of the 2014 season. And according to many of the same people, OSU didn't belong that year either.

 

[theboardref]

Did the committee get it right? Should more weight have been given to how teams are playing toward the end of the season?

This whole situation pushes my belief if you are sitting home on Championship Saturday, you sit at home come playoff time.

 

[theboardref]

You make too much sense. People want to demand that the committee have a crystal ball and know that OSU was going to lay a big egg in the Fiesta Bowl.

Meanwhile, there has only been one semi-final in 3 years that was a really competitive game and that was OSU-Alabama at the end of the 2014 season. And according to many of the same people, OSU didn't belong that year either.

I personally think the idea of a comittee is stupid. What was wrong with using the computers and just picking the top 4 teams? Because now it is subjecting, do you go with more deserving, more talented, or best chance to win? What I say you can disagree with and neither of us is wrong. Thats why having people who all have agendas and a stake in who does or doesn't go decide the final four is stupid. This system will be exposed soon enough, I was hoping Wisconsin would win the B1G to expose the system this year.

 

[cwerph]

I personally think the idea of a comittee is stupid. What was wrong with using the computers and just picking the top 4 teams? Because now it is subjecting, do you go with more deserving, more talented, or best chance to win? What I say you can disagree with and neither of us is wrong. Thats why having people who all have agendas and a stake in who does or doesn't go decide the final four is stupid. This system will be exposed soon enough, I was hoping Wisconsin would win the B1G to expose the system this year.

The BCS would've given us the same Playoff (again)

The only difference would have been OSU 2, Clemson 3.

 

[Lions=TeHsUcKs]

Well we have 3 morons that voted yes.

 

[cwerph]

Well we have 3 morons that voted yes.

People hated the BCS, but if that were the system, it would have been OSU vs Bama with no playoff.

 

[JuiceTheGator]

 

[theboardref]

The BCS would've given us the same Playoff (again)

The only difference would have been OSU 2, Clemson 3.

Nice find, but if Wisky would have won the B1G, you don't think having Alvarez on the board would have given them some pull? I am not anti playoff I am anti committee.

 

[Erie Warrior]

To rustle jimmies, sure why not?

 

[Smart]

This whole situation pushes my belief if you are sitting home on Championship Saturday, you sit at home come playoff time.

So let's be clear here:

OSU was 11-1, PSU was 11-2. OSU had the better record.

(A.) In the Michigan-PSU-OSU triangle, OSU was 1-1 with an even point spread. PSU was 1-1 with a -36 point spread. OSU was unquestionably better in the triangle.

(B.) Outside that triangle, OSU was 10-0 with true road wins against two top-ten teams. PSU was 10-1 with only a neutral site win over the same top-ten team OSU beat on the road. OSU was unquestionably better outside the triangle.

Both teams had the same conference record. The reason OSU lost out was that Pitt was not in the Big Ten but Iowa was.

What you are saying here is that you care more about an arbitrary conference tiebreaker than the fact that OSU was unquestionably better over the course of the year. The only retort people seem to give is "but H2H" but again, that is a retarded response because then Michigan clearly makes it over OSU.

Their resumes weren't close. If you think PSU belonged in over OSU, there are two options: (1.) You think momentum should trump resume (I disagree, but this is very reasonable); or (2.) You think PSU had a better resume. If you believe #2, you are stupid...there is no other way to say it. Propositions A and B are unquestionably true and if you understand basic math, you realize that properties are additive. If one team is better in two subsets, and those two subsets encompass the whole, then we have proven that that team is better on the whole.

 

[theboardref]

So let's be clear here:

OSU was 11-1, PSU was 11-2. OSU had the better record.

(A.) In the Michigan-PSU-OSU triangle, OSU was 1-1 with an even point spread. PSU was 1-1 with a -36 point spread. OSU was unquestionably better in the triangle.

(B.) Outside that triangle, OSU was 10-0 with true road wins against two top-ten teams. PSU was 10-1 with only a neutral site win over the same top-ten team OSU beat on the road. OSU was unquestionably better outside the triangle.

Both teams had the same conference record. The reason OSU lost out was that Pitt was not in the Big Ten but Iowa was.

What you are saying here is that you care more about an arbitrary conference tiebreaker than the fact that OSU was unquestionably better over the course of the year. The only retort people seem to give is "but H2H" but again, that is a retarded response because then Michigan clearly makes it over OSU.

Their resumes weren't close. If you think PSU belonged in over OSU, there are two options: (1.) You think momentum should trump resume (I disagree, but this is very reasonable); or (2.) You think PSU had a better resume. If you believe #2, you are stupid...there is no other way to say it. Propositions A and B are unquestionably true and if you understand basic math, you realize that properties are additive. If one team is better in two subsets, and those two subsets encompass the whole, then we have proven that that team is better on the whole.

I don't believe 1 or 2, I believe if you do not win your conference you should not be competing in the playoffs.

 

[7Samurai13]

I argued at the time that Penn State should have gone and nothing that I've seen has changed my mind.

 

[rmilia1]

So 8 teams is what I'm hearing

 

[Smart]

I don't believe 1 or 2, I believe if you do not win your conference you should not be competing in the playoffs.

I should have labeled the first one as an option. What you believe is #3: You care more about an arbitrary conference tiebreaker than the fact that OSU was unquestionably better over the course of the year.

(1.) That is not the rule, nor has it ever been the rule.

(2.) If the committee is just meant to plug in the conference champions, why even bother having a committee at all? At that point, just make four superconferences and have a playoff of the four conference champs.

(3.) Why would we intentionally choose a metric which has nothing to do with performance on the field when we could choose the teams with the best performance on the field?

Again, it makes no sense. There is only one sensible argument for PSU over OSU, which is that they had momentum and were playing better heading into the playoffs. Any other rationale favoring PSU over OSU is hogwash.