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

[4down20]

I'm a USC fan the system you cling to would benefit USC.

The only system that has ever benefited USC were the polls. When it comes to getting it done on the field, USC hasn't been able to do it. Which is why you are the lame ass team that claims an AP championship in the BCS era.

1978 was the last title you really had, and that one was split with Alabama. Without your Rose Bowl circle jerk, you got nothing.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

The only system that has ever benefited USC were the polls. When it comes to getting it done on the field, USC hasn't been able to do it. Which is why you are the lame ass team that claims an AP championship in the BCS era.

1978 was the last title you really had, and that one was split with Alabama.

If you don't think USC would benefit from this system or the committee. You're logic is seriously flawed.We could go back and forth shifting the goal posts.And deflecting from the topic.But that wouldn't be productive. Sorry I'm interested in facts,solid logic and the best system possible.Not the system that best suits my favorite team

 

[4down20]

If you don't think USC would benefit from this system or the committee. You're logic is seriously flawed.We could go back and forth shifting the goal posts.And deflecting from the topic.But that wouldn't be productive. Sorry I'm interested in facts,solid logic and the best system possible.Not the system that best suits my favorite team

You have to win, and adding more playoff spots would just give Alabama more chances.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

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.

You could say the same thing about Ohio State in 2014. They were a team that had a bad loss to V tech.That got hot at the right time. But they also won their conference And earned their spot in the play offs by winning their conference.WhileCo Champions TCU and Baylor did not make the play offs.Despite TCU having the "quality loss".Ande I agreed with Ohio State being in the play offs because they won their conference outright in a CCG.It's also while Penn State should have been there last year.They earned it on the field as did Ohio State in 2014.

As I stated.I think its quite clear universities like USC,Alabama,Ohio State,etc .....Will always benefit from the current system. Its quite clear their are no set guidelines in the selection process.As the committee chose to use a separate standard on different occasions. Honestly do you think if it comes down to the committee sitting in a room deciding on a play off spot.Using USC and a conference opponent under the same pretenses.That they wouldn't select USC based on brand? I wouldn't want to see them make the play offs that way.I want them to earn it as PAC 12 champions. The good thing is this is being discussed and a variety of possible play off expansions and selection formats are being put on the table.Which would lead to the best possible process.That would not just be exciting for all the fans but great for college football as a whole.

 

[cwerph]

You could say the same thing about Ohio State in 2014. They were a team that had a bad loss to V tech.That got hot at the right time. But they also won their conference And earned their spot in the play offs by winning their conference.WhileCo Champions TCU and Baylor did not make the play offs.Despite TCU having the "quality loss".Ande I agreed with Ohio State being in the play offs because they won their conference outright in a CCG.It's also while Penn State should have been there last year.They earned it on the field as did Ohio State in 2014.

As I stated.I think its quite clear universities like USC,Alabama,Ohio State,etc .....Will always benefit from the current system. Its quite clear their are no set guidelines in the selection process.As the committee chose to use a separate standard on different occasions. Honestly do you think if it comes down to the committee sitting in a room deciding on a play off spot.Using USC and a conference opponent under the same pretenses.That they wouldn't select USC based on brand? I wouldn't want to see them make the play offs that way.I want them to earn it as PAC 12 champions. The good thing is this is being discussed and a variety of possible play off expansions and selection formats are being put on the table.Which would lead to the best possible process.That would not just be exciting for all the fans but great for college football as a whole.

I agree completely about Ohio State in 2014. In fact, when the "starting" qb (who was really the #2 guy until Miller was injured a week before the season started) was injured in the last regular season game, I thought for sure the Buckeyes would be left out. Fortunately, they hammered Wisconsin in the CCG and made the playoffs.

However, the resumes of both TCU and Baylor weren't close to Ohio State and when the # 3 QB showed he could play on the big stage, the Buckeyes were in. I fully believe that if one of those two teams was named Oklahoma or Texas, Ohio State would have been left out.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

I agree completely about Ohio State in 2014. In fact, when the "starting" qb (who was really the #2 guy until Miller was injured a week before the season started) was injured in the last regular season game, I thought for sure the Buckeyes would be left out. Fortunately, they hammered Wisconsin in the CCG and made the playoffs.

However, the resumes of both TCU and Baylor weren't close to Ohio State and when the # 3 QB showed he could play on the big stage, the Buckeyes were in. I fully believe that if one of those two teams was named Oklahoma or Texas, Ohio State would have been left out.

I completely agree if that was Oklahoma and Texas. Rather than Baylor and TCU. The committee may have very well said their leaders as was to a team ranked 5th. And Ohio State lost to V Tech and put one in.

I think part of the problems with these discussions. Is a lot of people tend to look at the team names. A lot like the committee and this format puts emphasis on the brands. Rather than remove the team names from the equation. And four the focus on the actual format and selection process. If there's one thing we should all be able to agree on as fans of the greatest sport there is imo. It's that we should have the best possible product on the field. And want what's best for the sport.

Expanding the play offs whether it be to 6 or 8. And arriving at a consistent and concrete process. To determine play off teams. Rather than a process that takes these games off the field. And puts the decisions in the hands of human opinion. Would be very beneficial to revenue.Increase excitement in all fan bases while increasing competition levels throughout college football. Not just the P5's. Give us all the most exciting play offs possible. As well as some epic conference championship games. And the closest thing to one true champion you can possibly have. In the end one of the things that makes college football special. Isn't just the passion fans have for their favorite teams. But the passion they all have for the sport as well.

 

[cwerph]

I completely agree if that was Oklahoma and Texas. Rather than Baylor and TCU. The committee may have very well said their leaders as was to a team ranked 5th. And Ohio State lost to V Tech and put one in.

I think part of the problems with these discussions. Is a lot of people tend to look at the team names. A lot like the committee and this format puts emphasis on the brands. Rather than remove the team names from the equation. And four the focus on the actual format and selection process. If there's one thing we should all be able to agree on as fans of the greatest sport there is imo. It's that we should have the best possible product on the field. And want what's best for the sport.

Expanding the play offs whether it be to 6 or 8. And arriving at a consistent and concrete process. To determine play off teams. Rather than a process that takes these games off the field. And puts the decisions in the hands of human opinion. Would be very beneficial to revenue.Increase excitement in all fan bases while increasing competition levels throughout college football. Not just the P5's. Give us all the most exciting play offs possible. As well as some epic conference championship games. And the closest thing to one true champion you can possibly have. In the end one of the things that makes college football special. Isn't just the passion fans have for their favorite teams. But the passion they all have for the sport as well.

Screw the sport if it helps the Buckeyes.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Screw the sport if it helps the Buckeyes.

See I can't go that route.I'm always going to bleed cardinal and gold.But a very large factor in having the play off system.Is to correct the major flaws in the old BCS system.Where politics and human polls played a huge part in deciding a championship.I have no interest in crossing politics and sports.These kids work hard and put it all on the field.And that is where it should be decided if we actually want a true champion.

I'm not saying ditch the polls.Keep them to determine the other bowl games. But when it comes to the play offs and playing for a championship.Increase the play offs and open up the playing field.And use a format where those play off spots are earned.Take the politics,opinions and human error right out of the mix.If a team cant meet the set standards to achieve that spot.Then they don't belong there.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Ok then, Michigan should have gone since Michigan beat Penn St. But wait, Michigan lost to Ohio St and to Iowa.

You're twisting the argument here. We all know the last playoff spot was a decision between Ohio St. and Penn St. In that case when you have to decide between two teams a head to head comparison is as good of a decision maker as there is. The fact that Penn St. not only beat Ohio St. but also went on to play an additional game and win the conference championship while Ohio St. sat at home is another great piece of information to help make the decision.

It's not the committess fault the Big10(and others) have a crappy way of defining a conference champion. Their job is to put in the 4 best teams - which they did.

That's all opinion though. People keeping bringing up Penn St.'s blowout loss to Michigan at the beginning of the year as a reason they weren't good enough for the playoff. But Ohio St. got destroyed by Clemson in the playoff, which tends to make people question whether they really were the fourth best team.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

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

NFL Style playoffs? You mean just playoffs right? That's a standard playoff system you're talking about. The same system nearly every professional or college sports league in the country uses to determine their champion.

How else do you determine the best team other than having them settle it on the field one game at a time with the best teams advancing to the next round? If you can win 3 or 4 games in a row against the best teams in the league you've proven you are deserving of a championship. Bad teams can't just get hot and win 3 or 4 in a row against the best.

 

[4down20]

You're twisting the argument here. We all know the last playoff spot was a decision between Ohio St. and Penn St. In that case when you have to decide between two teams a head to head comparison is as good of a decision maker as there is. The fact that Penn St. not only beat Ohio St. but also went on to play an additional game and win the conference championship while Ohio St. sat at home is another great piece of information to help make the decision.

I didn't twist anything, I pointed out the reality of Penn St that people want to ignore - they lost 2 games.

You are no different than the others, you mention the Ohio St loss, but don't mention all the Penn St losses.

That's all opinion though. People keeping bringing up Penn St.'s blowout loss to Michigan at the beginning of the year as a reason they weren't good enough for the playoff. But Ohio St. got destroyed by Clemson in the playoff, which tends to make people question whether they really were the fourth best team.

It doesn't matter what happened once the playoff started, the decision was made before the playoffs. Michigan St got destroyed the year before last, 38-0 and they were the conference champions. Does that mean they didn't belong? Hell no.

 

[NolePride]

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



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



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



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

I will assure you, I know as much about CFB as anybody on this board.

 

[4down20]

I will assure you, I know as much about CFB as anybody on this board.

Then why are you suggesting mid-majors can't build up, when that's exactly what Florida St did?

 

[Cave_Johnson]

I didn't twist anything, I pointed out the reality of Penn St that people want to ignore - they lost 2 games.

You are no different than the others, you mention the Ohio St loss, but don't mention all the Penn St losses.

Are we or are we not talking Ohio St. vs. Penn St. here? Seems to me the most useful information when comparing two teams is who won the head to head match-up. We can argue about resumes all we want but the facts remain that Penn St. took care of business on the field against Ohio St. and took care of business the next week against Wisconsin while Ohio St. sat at home.

Look, we agree that the division system isn't he best way to determine who makes a conference championship game, but the rules are the rules right now. Don't you think it's a really bad precedent to set when you reward a team for NOT playing? That's exactly what you're doing when you vote teams in the playoff that didn't have to play the extra game every other playoff team had to play (I guess excluding the Big 12 since they are just now getting a CCG).

It doesn't matter what happened once the playoff started, the decision was made before the playoffs. Michigan St got destroyed the year before last, 38-0 and they were the conference champions. Does that mean they didn't belong? Hell no.

There was no controversy with the Michigan St. selection. No other team had a real legit claim to the playoff. I'm saying that when team A has a conference championship and beat team B head to head and then the committee chooses team B only to have team B get blown out in the playoff it makes the committee look real stupid.

 

[Deep Creek]

should the Big10
even get a play off spot?

That's probably the real question. But someone had to fill the 4th spot. The Big 12 champ lost to tOSU and Houston so that wouldn't hold water. Other teams from PAC 12, SEC and ACC weren't either.

Last year probably only had 3. Some years there may be 5-6.

 

[4down20]

Are we or are we not talking Ohio St. vs. Penn St. here? Seems to me the most useful information when comparing two teams is who won the head to head match-up. We can argue about resumes all we want but the facts remain that Penn St. took care of business on the field against Ohio St. and took care of business the next week against Wisconsin while Ohio St. sat at home.

Look, we agree that the division system isn't he best way to determine who makes a conference championship game, but the rules are the rules right now. Don't you think it's a really bad precedent to set when you reward a team for NOT playing? That's exactly what you're doing when you vote teams in the playoff that didn't have to play the extra game every other playoff team had to play (I guess excluding the Big 12 since they are just now getting a CCG).

No, I think it sets a bad precedent to put in teams you believe to be worse while rationalizing it with labels. There are actual games played and the entire resume is looked at.

A single game is how things are often decided, and yet one game does not define the true strength of the team and you are trying to put everything else in a vacuum so that you can ignore it all.

There was no controversy with the Michigan St. selection. No other team had a real legit claim to the playoff. I'm saying that when team A has a conference championship and beat team B head to head and then the committee chooses team B only to have team B get blown out in the playoff it makes the committee look real stupid.

Michigan St was the right selection, but it didn't have a thing to do with "Conference Champion". Yet they also got blown out 38-0.

And you do realize Penn St lost in their bowl game to a worse team? A team that Alabama blew out 52-6 with basically a true freshman QB in his first ever game.

 

[romeo212000]

That's probably the real question. But someone had to fill the 4th spot. The Big 12 champ lost to tOSU and Houston so that wouldn't hold water. Other teams from PAC 12, SEC and ACC weren't either.

Last year probably only had 3. Some years there may be 5-6.

Yep. This whole thread pretty much all stems from the fact that Bob Stoops shit his pants in an early season game..... again.

You're welcome.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

You're twisting the argument here. We all know the last playoff spot was a decision between Ohio St. and Penn St. In that case when you have to decide between two teams a head to head comparison is as good of a decision maker as there is. The fact that Penn St. not only beat Ohio St. but also went on to play an additional game and win the conference championship while Ohio St. sat at home is another great piece of information to help make the decision.

That's all opinion though. People keeping bringing up Penn St.'s blowout loss to Michigan at the beginning of the year as a reason they weren't good enough for the playoff. But Ohio St. got destroyed by Clemson in the playoff, which tends to make people question whether they really were the fourth best team.

As far as 4down you may be better served.To just say let Bob Saget select the teams.We already know no matter what logical information,analysis or facts you lay on the table.Its only going to be met with skewed information,a stance based solely on opinion ,shifting the goal posts or you're crying etc....Waste of time really.

Great series of posts tho cave.And I completely agree.If we are looking at it from the committees process with OSU and Penn State as the example.You could say one of Penn States losses.Was to the same Pitt team that also beat Clemson.And that Same Clemson team destroyed Ohio State in the play offs.Which makes that judgement call on the play off spot and whether OSU was the best team very questionable.

Or we can just arrive at the obvious conclusion.Based on past precedents.Which is their are inconsistencies and flaws in the current system.Which are very visible.And that while the play offs is a good start in resolving past flaws. Whether it be through the play off format or selection process.It does need changes.But with all systems you always need to adapt and make changes to correct problems that are encountered along the way.In this case consistency in the process clearly needs a revamp.

Also agree on the professional style system.Where a champion is chosen on the field.To rely a committee of people.Who were not the ones pouring their blood and sweat on the field.Decide who they feel the best teams are.Is just plain asinine imo

 

[JuiceTheGator]

See I can't go that route.I'm always going to bleed cardinal and gold.But a very large factor in having the play off system.Is to correct the major flaws in the old BCS system.Where politics and human polls played a huge part in deciding a championship.I have no interest in crossing politics and sports.These kids work hard and put it all on the field.And that is where it should be decided if we actually want a true champion.

I'm not saying ditch the polls.Keep them to determine the other bowl games. But when it comes to the play offs and playing for a championship.Increase the play offs and open up the playing field.And use a format where those play off spots are earned.Take the politics,opinions and human error right out of the mix.If a team cant meet the set standards to achieve that spot.Then they don't belong there.

I agree with this. But we all know OSUx fans are a special breed of fanatics. (and dickheads )

 

[JuiceTheGator]

I agree completely about Ohio State in 2014. In fact, when the "starting" qb (who was really the #2 guy until Miller was injured a week before the season started) was injured in the last regular season game, I thought for sure the Buckeyes would be left out. Fortunately, they hammered Wisconsin in the CCG and made the playoffs.

However, the resumes of both TCU and Baylor weren't close to Ohio State and when the # 3 QB showed he could play on the big stage, the Buckeyes were in. I fully believe that if one of those two teams was named Oklahoma or Texas, Ohio State would have been left out.

lol. After several months of loving your PF contributions, I gotta learn to hate your ass again.