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

[theboardref]

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.

(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.

Never said it was a rule, I said that is the way it should be. If team A. Must play an extra game and team B. Sits at home because they did not earn their way into said game, they should not be rewarded for dodging a likely top 15 showdown. Now if we got rid of Title games, which at this point I think makes sense, then OSU no doubt. But you don't get rewarded for playing a less game and risking a loss one less time.

 

[Smart]

Never said it was a rule, I said that is the way it should be. If team A. Must play an extra game and team B. Sits at home because they did not earn their way into said game, they should not be rewarded for dodging a likely top 15 showdown. Now if we got rid of Title games, which at this point I think makes sense, then OSU no doubt. But you don't get rewarded for playing a less game and risking a loss one less time.

What makes you think that OSU "did not earn their way into the title the game?" They had the same conference record as Penn State (8-1). They played a tougher schedule. Their loss was by 3 instead of by 39.

The reason they did not make the B1G Title was because Pitt is not a B1G team but Iowa is. That's it. That has nothing to do with "earning" anything. It's just a tiebreaker.

And again, you talk about how OSU had one less game like it makes sense. OSU had one less loss! Let's say theoretically they play us in 13th game and lose. Now they have the same record against Penn State with a better SOS. Your whole point seems to be that somehow losing at Pitt but beating Wisconsin in Indy is better than not playing Pitt and beating Wisconsin at Camp Randall because PSU "played more games." Playing more games with the same amount of wins is proof you have a worse resume, not a better one.

 

[Deep Creek]

And according to many of the same people, OSU didn't belong that year either.

I'm not one of 'em.

The committee got it exactly right in '14 by rewarding a spot to the B1G conference champion that finished the season very strong.

The committee got it wrong in '16 by NOT rewarding a spot to the B1G conference champion that finished the season very strong.

JMO

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

Give Clemson some credit.
They would have curb stomped any of the Big top teams that night.

Sometimes Clemson wanders a bit and loses focus to play down to teams no doubt
But they have super team ability if and when they are focused.

The score would have been:

Clemson 31
Michigan 0

Clemson 31
Wisconsin 0

Clemson 31
Penn State 0

So, Yes the committee got it right.

 

[Churchillin]

So 8 teams is what I'm hearing

I absolutely hate to say this, but I'm starting to move in this direction.

This is the 2nd straight year the committee clearly didn't take the best team from the conference. An 8-team playoff would have remedied this in both of those years.

 

[Churchillin]

Give Clemson some credit.
They would have curb stomped any of the Big top teams that night.

Sometimes Clemson wanders a bit and loses focus to play down to teams no doubt
But they have super team ability if and when they are focused.

The score would have been:

Clemson 31
Michigan 0

Clemson 31
Wisconsin 0

Clemson 31
Penn State 0

So, Yes the committee got it right.

I doubt Alabama would have beaten Clemson that night, but no, the other two teams you list would not have been blown out as badly as Ohio State's team of frosh/sophs playing in their first big away game. No way.

 

[trojanfan12]

OSU was the better overall team with the better overall resume.

Better overall resume?

Penn St. won the head to head and was the B1G Champion...what more do they need on their resume?

 

[WizardHawk]

You asked two different questions. In the title you asked if the best team made it, and then in the opening post you asked if the committee got it right. Those are not the same thing.

I mean you can try the stupid transitive BS, but remember that PSU beat OSU on a botched special teams play at the end of the game. OSU may have been blanked in their game and PSU played better in their bowl game, but in the head to head match up they were functionally even and PSU had a MUCH MUCH worse pair of losses on their resume.

The committee had no choice but to do what they did. It was the correct choice at that time. Hindsight on outcomes cannot, and will not, change that.

 

[trojanfan12]

I absolutely hate to say this, but I'm starting to move in this direction.

This is the 2nd straight year the committee clearly didn't take the best team from the conference. An 8-team playoff would have remedied this in both of those years.

I like an 8 team playoff largely for that reason. College football teams have a tendency to evolve or devolve as a season goes on.

Looking at teams like USC and PSU, neither had any business even being allowed to but tickets to a playoff game, let alone play in one.

Yet, by the end of the season, both had a strong argument for being the best team in their conference and Penn St. actually won theirs.

It would allow for automatic bids for all P5 conference champs and 3 "wild cards" which could consist of a couple of teams who have improved enough to be inconsideration and maybe a deserving mid-major.

 

[TigersBleaux]

I like an 8 team playoff largely for that reason. College football teams have a tendency to evolve or devolve as a season goes on.

Looking at teams like USC and PSU, neither had any business even being allowed to but tickets to a playoff game, let alone play in one.

Yet, by the end of the season, both had a strong argument for being the best team in their conference and Penn St. actually won theirs.

It would allow for automatic bids for all P5 conference champs and 3 "wild cards" which could consist of a couple of teams who have improved enough to be inconsideration and maybe a deserving mid-major.

I agree with 8 team playoff, but there needs to be a certain criteria met by the conference champ. I.E at least 10 wins or must be ranked in playoff top 15 etc. Reason i say that is because there have been wacky years in recent past where a 6-6 team has made the conference championship game. UCLA in 2011 and Georgia Tech in 2012 were 6-6, and Wisconsin in 2012 Won the Big 10 at 7-5. Theres no way a 7-5 team has any business being in the playoff.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

I absolutely hate to say this, but I'm starting to move in this direction.

This is the 2nd straight year the committee clearly didn't take the best team from the conference. An 8-team playoff would have remedied this in both of those years.

I think this year made a huge case for an 8 team play off. Penn State was definitely the better team

 

[OregonDucks]

I don't know, thought it should have been Iowa, but they looked awful today.

 

[UNA Lion]

Time for an eight-team playoff


moar football iz gud

 

[cwalke3408]

If anything, the past two years says we should we go back to the BCS. If the semis are not producing great games what make think the quarterfinals would be any better?

As far as OP question. IDK, they all pretty even in my eyes. OSU still had the best record and SOS, so I'm not going to feel sorry for PSU and Mich because Clemson and Alabama would still be heading to Tampa Bay. So what's the point of the question?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

The reality is, and what people against this system pointed out prior, is that there's no possible way to judge the top 4 teams in the country who haven't face common opponents. If you're taking only 4 teams and have 5 conference champions who will likely be 0-2 loss teams, there's always going to be someone pissed that they're left out. Would OU have done better against Bama than Washington? Would PSU have done better against Clemson than OSU? You just never know until that game is played. In this kind of a system we just have to accept that pretty much every year there's going to be controversy about who gets in.

 

[RobToxin]

I like an 8 team playoff largely for that reason. College football teams have a tendency to evolve or devolve as a season goes on.

Looking at teams like USC and PSU, neither had any business even being allowed to but tickets to a playoff game, let alone play in one.

Yet, by the end of the season, both had a strong argument for being the best team in their conference and Penn St. actually won theirs.

It would allow for automatic bids for all P5 conference champs and 3 "wild cards" which could consist of a couple of teams who have improved enough to be inconsideration and maybe a deserving mid-major.

One thing an 8-team playoff could also remedy is the month-long layoff that obviously affects teams.

I think the 8-team playoff could cause less, not more, playoff blowouts because of that very factor.

No way can a football team at any level take an entire month off from playing and still be the same team they were when they played their last game.

It's just not possible.

 

[cwerph]

I doubt Alabama would have beaten Clemson that night, but no, the other two teams you list would not have been blown out as badly as Ohio State's team of frosh/sophs playing in their first big away game. No way.

Call me crazy, but as a Buckeye fan I thought playing Oklahoma in Norman was a pretty big 'away game'.

 

[cwerph]

If anything, the past two years says we should we go back to the BCS. If the semis are not producing great games what make think the quarterfinals would be any better?

As far as OP question. IDK, they all pretty even in my eyes. OSU still had the best record and SOS, so I'm not going to feel sorry for PSU and Mich because Clemson and Alabama would still be heading to Tampa Bay. So what's the point of the question?

Posted this earlier. Not sure where you are going with this . . .

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

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

 

[KnightAndDay]

OSU was, top to bottom, the better team. OSU clearly had the better resume. Fewer losses and their loss was more respectable than either of PSU's two losses.


The committee got it right.

 

[fishinabarrel]

It sure didn't look like it.