Urban Meyer: 'Penn State deserved to be in playoff'

[TheRobotDevil]

It's easy to say the committees get it right when you are a fan of a blue blood who always gets the benefit of the doubt with committees. I felt Penn St got fucked over. I get the argument for Ohio St. It's even a compelling argument, but when you don't even play for your conference, I don't see how you deserve a shot at a national title. Someone else eliminated you already, on the field of play, when it mattered.

Oh I agree and a compelling arguement. Does not represent the best team. What happens on the field determines best team. You will not see a conversation in the NFL. To decide which team deserves a play off spot. Less focus on brand name more focus on winning a conference and earning it imo

 

[4down20]

Oh well, if they say so.

Most often, conference champions will make it. But it should be based on the merits, not because of the label.

I think the Big12 actually has a leg up with it's championship game selection style. You'll be getting your 2 best teams playing each other, and it will be a boost to their resume - even being a rematch. So I doubt we ever see a situation where the Big12 sends a team that didn't win it's conference.

But when it comes to everyone else having divisions, it's going to happen because they aren't going to be matching the 2 best teams from the conference in that game.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Most often, conference champions will make it. But it should be based on the merits, not because of the label.

I think the Big12 actually has a leg up with it's championship game selection style. You'll be getting your 2 best teams playing each other, and it will be a boost to their resume - even being a rematch. So I doubt we ever see a situation where the Big12 sends a team that didn't win it's conference.

But when it comes to everyone else having divisions, it's going to happen because they aren't going to be matching the 2 best teams from the conference in that game.

Since you brought up 2011, lets say Oklahoma St beats Iowa St. They play LSU and LSU beats them theoretically. Did the best team win the national championship? No, the most deserving team won the national championship.

If we are going to have a playoff, it should be to determine who the best team is. Right now it's still the most deserving. Which is fine, but let's call it what it is.

With that in mind, I can't justify a non conference winner making it over a conference winner when there is a head to head loss. It just doesn't make any sense. Regardless of SOS, number of total losses, etc. If it's close, the conference winner should get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[4down20]

Oh I agree and a compelling arguement. Does not represent the best team. What happens on the field determines best team. You will not see a conversation in the NFL. To decide which team deserves a play off spot. Less focus on brand name more focus on winning a conference and earning it imo

What happens on the field - except the parts where you ignore Penn St lost. And when you talk about things like "conference champion", you aren't really talk about what happened on the field, you're talking about a LABEL. If you were talking about what happened on the field, you'd be talking about an actual game.

You will not see it in the NFL because they have only 32 teams and a 16 game schedule. They even get to play the teams from their own division twice.

Meanwhile, FBS has just under 130 teams and only 12 game schedules.

 

[4down20]

Since you brought up 2011, lets say Oklahoma St beats Iowa St. They play LSU and LSU beats them theoretically. Did the best team win the national championship? No, the most deserving team won the national championship.

If we are going to have a playoff, it should be to determine who the best team is. Right now it's still the most deserving. Which is fine, but let's call it what it is.

With that in mind, I can't justify a non conference winner making it over a conference winner when there is a head to head loss. It just doesn't make any sense. Regardless of SOS, number of total losses, etc. If it's close, the conference winner should get the benefit of the doubt.

Well there is some give an take between best team and most deserving, no doubt about that. In your case, even if Alabama was the best team, there were 2 other teams that went further towards proving it, and Alabama has only itself to be blamed.

It's the same reason SoS matters.

Conference winner is just a label. I really don't know what else to say about it, other than that. If you win the conference championship, then you should have a great resume. But if you don't, then there is a reason for it. And in the case of Penn St, it's because they lost to 2 teams and Ohio St only lost to Penn St.

Meanwhile, Ohio St also had a win over Oklahoma. Penn St had Kent St, Pitt and Temple and it lost to Pitt. Penn St also got blown the fuck out by Michigan.

The truth is, even with the extra game in the Big10 championship, in which they beat a so-so Wisconsin team that lost to both Michigan and Ohio St, the Ohio St resume was just better.

Beyond that, when I look at advanced statistics, Ohio St always ranked much higher than Penn St. Ohio St was #2 in FEI while Penn St was #11.

The only way anyone can justify Penn St being in over Ohio St is because of a label, not because of what happened on the field.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Well there is some give an take between best team and most deserving, no doubt about that. In your case, even if Alabama was the best team, there were 2 other teams that went further towards proving it, and Alabama has only itself to be blamed.

It's the same reason SoS matters.

Conference winner is just a label. I really don't know what else to say about it, other than that. If you win the conference championship, then you should have a great resume. But if you don't, then there is a reason for it. And in the case of Penn St, it's because they lost to 2 teams and Ohio St only lost to Penn St.

Meanwhile, Ohio St also had a win over Oklahoma. Penn St had Kent St, Pitt and Temple and it lost to Pitt. Penn St also got blown the fuck out by Michigan.

The truth is, even with the extra game in the Big10 championship, in which they beat a so-so Wisconsin team that lost to both Michigan and Ohio St, the Ohio St resume was just better.

Beyond that, when I look at advanced statistics, Ohio St always ranked much higher than Penn St. Ohio St was #2 in FEI while Penn St was #11.

The only way anyone can justify Penn St being in over Ohio St is because of a label, not because of what happened on the field.

If conference champion is just a label, than national champion is also just a label.

 

[4down20]

If conference champion is just a label, than national champion is also just a label.

YES!

 

[Hook'Em0608]

YES!

So why do you defend one and belittle the other?

 

[4down20]

So why do you defend one and belittle the other?

I don't belittle the other one. It's just not relevant when you are talking about deciding the best teams, their actual resumes and what they did on the field - as a whole - is.

Penn St was the Big10 champion last year and outside of getting in trouble etc, nobody is going to take that from them. They earned that.

What they didn't earn was a chance at the Playoffs/National Championship.

Alabama was the SEC Champion last year and same deal, they earned that. But they didn't earn it because of the "SEC Champion" label, they earned it because of resume.

Clemson earned the ACC Championship and the National Championship.

Just because those labels are meaningless in some context/purpose doesn't mean they have no meaning at all.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

I don't belittle the other one. It's just not relevant when you are talking about deciding the best teams, their actual resumes and what they did on the field - as a whole - is.

Penn St was the Big10 champion last year and outside of getting in trouble etc, nobody is going to take that from them. They earned that.

What they didn't earn was a chance at the Playoffs/National Championship.

Alabama was the SEC Champion last year and same deal, they earned that. But they didn't earn it because of the "SEC Champion" label, they earned it because of resume.

Clemson earned the ACC Championship and the National Championship.

Just because those labels are meaningless in some context/purpose doesn't mean they have no meaning at all.

Unless teams play the same schedule, resumes are almost irrelevant. You are assuming Ohio St doesn't lose twice playing the Penn St schedule. Pittsburgh beat Penn St and Clemson. Is it not possible they could beat Ohio St as well? We know Clemson was much better than Ohio St at the end of last year. This stuff is all circular in logic too. Without conference champions meaning anything, we are comparing apples and oranges. College football doesn't produce enough data points for any statistical analysis to concretely say anything.

 

[4down20]

Unless teams play the same schedule, resumes are almost irrelevant.

This is just false. Not going to find agreement ever.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

What happens on the field - except the parts where you ignore Penn St lost. And when you talk about things like "conference champion", you aren't really talk about what happened on the field, you're talking about a LABEL. If you were talking about what happened on the field, you'd be talking about an actual game.

You will not see it in the NFL because they have only 32 teams and a 16 game schedule. They even get to play the teams from their own division twice.

Meanwhile, FBS has just under 130 teams and only 12 game schedules.

Yes I know the same loop you run every time this topic is brought up.But the fact is conference championships are won on the field not in an office room or voting booth.There is no reason the same logic shouldn't apply for national championships.By your standard Champions are based on opinion.

There are several options available to improve the formula. Keep human error and influence at a minimal .And put more focus on the game and one true champion.Starting with an expanded play off system.College baseball,basketball,college hockey and FCS football.All play an extended play off's.So you cant say there are too many teams in the country to do so.Also cant say it cant be done academically because its already done.Or that football is too physical for an expanded play off. They play one in FCS and college hockey is also physical and plays an extended play off.To say other wise would be a falsity.

This is just one example.Of how there are no legitimate reasons.Not to expand the play offs and find a more concrete selection system.And sorry but I'm not buying the system is fine excuse.When A conference champion is bypassed for a team in their conference they defeated.You have indecision on a spot with TCU and Baylor being labeled as co champions due to a round robin system.That would be based on a system built on opinion.And really just an opinion as well.......

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Unless teams play the same schedule, resumes are almost irrelevant. You are assuming Ohio St doesn't lose twice playing the Penn St schedule. Pittsburgh beat Penn St and Clemson. Is it not possible they could beat Ohio St as well? We know Clemson was much better than Ohio St at the end of last year. This stuff is all circular in logic too. Without conference champions meaning anything, we are comparing apples and oranges. College football doesn't produce enough data points for any statistical analysis to concretely say anything.

Unless its a level playing field its really all speculation.The only real comparable data in this scenario.Was that Penn State defeated OSU head to head.Won the division they both play in.And the conference they both play in.When a play off spot is decided on a discussion between a committee.With no set guidelines.And is based on who they feel the better team is...The system needs work.

 

[cwerph]

Our playoffs aren't designed to crown the best team. It's meant to design the most deserving team. A NFL style playoff crowns a best team. We don't do that.

NFL style playoff crowns a "hottest" team, not best. JMO

 

[Hook'Em0608]

NFL style playoff crowns a "hottest" team, not best. JMO

If you beat all the other best teams, that makes you the best.

 

[cwerph]

If you beat all the other best teams, that makes you the best.

The 9-7 Giants won the SuperBowl Tournament. They were nowhere near the best team that year but got hot at the right time, had favorable match ups and a little luck.

 

[NolePride]

Selection Committee FAQs | College Football Playoff

What is the mission of the selection committee?

The committee’s task is to select the 25 best teams in college football, rank the teams for inclusion in the playoff and selected other bowl games and then assign the teams to bowl sites.

Then why do we even play the fucking season?

Currently, we play the season to choose from a group of 25 teams to get the 4 spots.

When we kick-off next Saturday...65 teams will automatically be excluded from any possibility
of making the playoffs. Not because they win or lose but because who they are.

That's fair? I've never understood, with the exception of money, why the bg-schools are
terrified of these little schools. Actually, though I do understand. They cannot give them
any credibility or the bottom feeders of the P5 leagues, will be whipped by the good smaller
schools on the recruiting trails. ("I'd rather get to play in the playoffs at Appy St than
be cannon fodder at Iowa State.

The facts are...Only 27 schools, since the AP Poll began 81 years ago have ever won a
National Championship. 18 of the schools won at least 1 title in the first 40 years (1976).
Since then only 9 others have been able to join that elite group and 3 of those teams are
from the state of Florida where the skill talent is absolutely unreal. Those 3 have won
11 NC's in the last 34 years. (about every 3 years)

The game was designed to be played on the football field not in some back room

 

[4down20]

Then why do we even play the fucking season?

Currently, we play the season to choose from a group of 25 teams to get the 4 spots.

When we kick-off next Saturday...65 teams will automatically be excluded from any possibility
of making the playoffs. Not because they win or lose but because who they are.

No, because they will play a weak ass schedule that reflects who they are.

That's fair? I've never understood, with the exception of money, why the bg-schools are
terrified of these little schools. Actually, though I do understand. They cannot give them
any credibility or the bottom feeders of the P5 leagues, will be whipped by the good smaller
schools on the recruiting trails. ("I'd rather get to play in the playoffs at Appy St than
be cannon fodder at Iowa State.

This is bullshit and shows you don't know college football history - especially your own team.

The facts are...Only 27 schools, since the AP Poll began 81 years ago have ever won a
National Championship. 18 of the schools won at least 1 title in the first 40 years (1976).
Since then only 9 others have been able to join that elite group and 3 of those teams are
from the state of Florida where the skill talent is absolutely unreal. Those 3 have won
11 NC's in the last 34 years. (about every 3 years)

And this is what makes college football great. Success isn't punished.

The game was designed to be played on the football field not in some back room

It is, but believe your conspiracy theories if it makes you feel better.

 

[4down20]

Yes I know the same loop you run every time this topic is brought up.But the fact is conference championships are won on the field not in an office room or voting booth.There is no reason the same logic shouldn't apply for national championships.By your standard Champions are based on opinion.

There are several options available to improve the formula. Keep human error and influence at a minimal .And put more focus on the game and one true champion.Starting with an expanded play off system.College baseball,basketball,college hockey and FCS football.All play an extended play off's.So you cant say there are too many teams in the country to do so.Also cant say it cant be done academically because its already done.Or that football is too physical for an expanded play off. They play one in FCS and college hockey is also physical and plays an extended play off.To say other wise would be a falsity.

This is just one example.Of how there are no legitimate reasons.Not to expand the play offs and find a more concrete selection system.And sorry but I'm not buying the system is fine excuse.When A conference champion is bypassed for a team in their conference they defeated.You have indecision on a spot with TCU and Baylor being labeled as co champions due to a round robin system.That would be based on a system built on opinion.And really just an opinion as well.......

There is a true champion every year, no matter how much you cry about it.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

There is a true champion every year, no matter how much you cry about it.

I'm a USC fan the system you cling to would benefit USC.However I would prefer they earned a play off spot on the field.Rather than be awarded one based on brand.My stance is whats best for the sport and not me.Therefore looks like you would be the one in need of a tissue I'm seeing a lot of great responses based on facts and logic from a lot of college football fans.@NolePride just gave a very intelligent and well written response. And what looks to me like fear of competition and excuses.

While the play offs is a good start.Its pretty evident through facts,exaMPLES and logic.There is room for improvement.And a just cause for expanding the play offs.And a consistent system based on earning a play off spot.In order to crown a true champion.You can continue to shift the goal posts.But that's about all it is.I'm all for progression and crowning a champion based on merit. Like I said I will continue the discussion with you.When you have valid reasons(not speculation or opinions". As to why they shouldn't expand the play offs and put a consistent system based on actual merit in place.Rather than relying on a system based on human error.I'm not afraid of competition