My Take On Penn State

[Milkshake]

f'n @PIBuckeye

Really dude? Your boys lost and you've been gifted a playoff spot after not showing up for the b1g conference championship game.

Talk about hypocrisy....you should at the very least like the post cause you know you're team should be at the rose bowl and you're just happy to be alive and have the undeserved shot in the playoffs.

If you truly believe Penn St is better than OSU despite an extra loss and worse resume - that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. There was no gift from the committee. Their job was to select the four best teams.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS SO HARD FOR SOME OF YOU.

If you don't win your division, YOU AREN'T THE BEST TEAM IN YOUR CONFERENCE. PERIOD.

OSU and Michigan on paper look great. They both BLEW THEIR CHANCES. That's THEIR FAULT.

The B1G got it right.....there is NOTHING wrong with the system. The issue is morons out here that want to reward their favorite programs that DID NOT EARN title shots on the field.

Actually, I've said multiple times that I don't think Michigan should have been in the playoff but is probably one of the best 4 teams in the country. How you weigh that depends on how you think the playoff should be decided. And to some extent, even if you're a great team you shouldn't screw up and drop one against Iowa or keep your 10 point lead against OSU and finish the game off. But I'd still put Michigan up against any team in the country if we're talking 1 head to head matchup for a national title.

 

[starbigd]

Actually, I've said multiple times that I don't think Michigan should have been in the playoff but is probably one of the best 4 teams in the country. How you weigh that depends on how you think the playoff should be decided. And to some extent, even if you're a great team you shouldn't screw up and drop one against Iowa or keep your 10 point lead against OSU and finish the game off. But I'd still put Michigan up against any team in the country if we're talking 1 head to head matchup for a national title.

They HAD THEIR CHANCE TO PROVE IT ON THE FIELD - they failed. That's on them. They haven't earned or deserved a shot.

Yes, we can ALL objectively say they're a top 4 team......but if they don't prove that on the field they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[Milkshake]

Also, a single game is not necessarily a synecdoche of a teams overall season arch. Shit happens. Teams play down to their competition. Teams change play-calling due to weather or injuries. Rivalry games change expectations. The point is that a teams overall resume is what paints the final picture.

I get it. It's hard to grasp how head to heads can not be all meaningful. Or in this year's case - A CC plus a h2h. But when all the data is compiled and the records aren't the same, that should sound an alarm. If you focus too much on a h2h, you can easily start falling down the transitive rabbit hole.

For example - just look at all of these teams who are better than Penn St.

Bottom line - the committee's job was to get what they believed to be the four best teams, and their job was easy.

Congrats to Penn St for a hell of a year - but to pretend that they didn't benefit from the divisional scheduling is asinine.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

They HAD THEIR CHANCE TO PROVE IT ON THE FIELD - they failed. That's on them. They haven't earned or deserved a shot.

Yes, we can ALL objectively say they're a top 4 team......but if they don't prove that on the field they have no one to blame but themselves.

But there's a flip side to that. PSU lost two games, OSU lost one. You're saying that PSU deserved a spot, despite more losses, because they won the tie-breaker in conference play to go to the title game? That doesn't make sense to me either. You could argue that PSU also had their chance to make the playoff but failed because they lost to an 8 win Pitt team.

 

[Milkshake]

They HAD THEIR CHANCE TO PROVE IT ON THE FIELD - they failed. That's on them. They haven't earned or deserved a shot.

Yes, we can ALL objectively say they're a top 4 team......but if they don't prove that on the field they have no one to blame but themselves.

So Pitt and Michigan didn't prove it on the field against Penn St?

 

[Milkshake]

Dammit - quit making me agree with @MAIZEandBLUE09 -- it just feels wrong.

 

[starbigd]

But there's a flip side to that. PSU lost two games, OSU lost one. You're saying that PSU deserved a spot, despite more losses, because they won the tie-breaker in conference play to go to the title game? That doesn't make sense to me either. You could argue that PSU also had their chance to make the playoff but failed because they lost to an 8 win Pitt team.

PSU won the B1G according to the rules of the conference......yes they deserved to be there. In terms of making the playoff, I believe they should be in. Conference titles SHOULD be the FIRST decider. This is also why the field needs to be expanded to 8 teams.

We can't be in the business of deciding titles on vague non definable objective measures......there needs to be concrete proof in terms of on field results. Just like the NFL......division winners get priority seeding, everyone else fights for wildcards.

 

[jonvi]

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS SO HARD FOR SOME OF YOU.

If you don't win your division, YOU AREN'T THE BEST TEAM IN YOUR CONFERENCE. PERIOD.

OSU and Michigan on paper look great. They both BLEW THEIR CHANCES. That's THEIR FAULT.

The B1G got it right.....there is NOTHING wrong with the system. The issue is morons out here that want to reward their favorite programs that DID NOT EARN title shots on the field.

For real I have reservations about PSU being included. At the beginning of the season, PSU played like ... well the way we thought they would. But I can't deny 9 in a row. PSU is playing much better today. And during that stretch PSU took out tOSU in the process. When I go by the eye test, I can't get past the OT win at State College

A decision was cast by the players on the field.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

PSU won the B1G according to the rules of the conference......yes they deserved to be there. In terms of making the playoff, I believe they should be in. Conference titles SHOULD be the FIRST decider. This is also why the field needs to be expanded to 8 teams.

We can't be in the business of deciding titles on vague non definable objective measures......there needs to be concrete proof in terms of on field results. Just like the NFL......division winners get priority seeding, everyone else fights for wildcards.

The problem is that we implemented a system in which the conference championship games are rather unimportant. So, to the same extent, OSU did what they needed to do in order to get there under the system in place. PSU did not because they lost two games.

 

[Wamu]

PSU won the B1G according to the rules of the conference......yes they deserved to be there. In terms of making the playoff, I believe they should be in. Conference titles SHOULD be the FIRST decider. This is also why the field needs to be expanded to 8 teams.

We can't be in the business of deciding titles on vague non definable objective measures......there needs to be concrete proof in terms of on field results. Just like the NFL......division winners get priority seeding, everyone else fights for wildcards.

CFB isn't the NFL. Although I agree that a conference crown should hold more weight than it currently does. For some reason the committee considers other factors more important.

 

[SJ76]

PSU -- 2 losses, 1 to OOC rival Pitt
OSU -- 1 loss in conference, 1 win over Oklahoma on the road


Whats the deal here? Why all the crying? Sure PSU won head to head and that was the deciding factor as far as who would rep in the conference championship. But overall who had the best record?

 

[Milkshake]

PSU won the B1G according to the rules of the conference......yes they deserved to be there. In terms of making the playoff, I believe they should be in. Conference titles SHOULD be the FIRST decider. This is also why the field needs to be expanded to 8 teams.

We can't be in the business of deciding titles on vague non definable objective measures......there needs to be concrete proof in terms of on field results. Just like the NFL......division winners get priority seeding, everyone else fights for wildcards.

Though I disagree with your proclamation of Penn St.'s merits - I believe that there should be objective measures to determine the playoff. The problem is the playoff isn't big enough to make that work. And making the playoff bigger isn't necessarily a solution either. The league is too big. If the majority of the teams in the league start on day 1 and know that they can't win the championship - that's lame. The FBS should be cut in half.

 

[Craig24]

Are people satisfied with how the NFL does it? You simply win stuff on the field? If so, why shouldn't that be the way college football does it?

 

[jonvi]

if we are going to do that, my only stipulation would be to have the NCAA, FBI, CIA, etc. put bama under the strictest of microscopes and make sure no rules have been broken.

I'm not sure where you're going with this but I hated it when the talking heads just promoted the shit out of the SEC. Today it's the B1G. The teams look good, but winning on the field should trump all else. And if we are using an eye test, the last half of the season should far outweigh the games played during the first half.

 

[Wamu]

f'n @PIBuckeye

Really dude? Your boys lost and you've been gifted a playoff spot after not showing up for the b1g conference championship game.

Talk about hypocrisy....you should at the very least like the post cause you know you're team should be at the rose bowl and you're just happy to be alive and have the undeserved shot in the playoffs.

You need to take into consideration what the committee considers more important than conference crowns. Like current top 25 rankings, record versus top 25 teams & the FPI. I think conference champs should get an automatic invite to the Playoff but the committee thinks otherwise.

 

[Codaxx]

How did they prove they were better than UM? They were hammered by UM.

There is an argument for PSU. Michigan played 9 conference games. PSU played 10. Michigan lost 2 games and PSU lost 1. PSU beat both teams Michigan lost to. Only team on Michigan's schedule that PSU didn't play was Illinois. So you can say that PSU did more on the field in Big 10 play

 

[Craig24]

I'm not sure where you're going with this but I hated it when the talking heads just promoted the shit out of the SEC. Today it's the B1G. The teams look good, but winning on the field should trump all else. And if we are using an eye test, the last half of the season should far outweigh the games played during the first half.

Why are later games outweighing earlier games necessarily? Why play earlier games if they will not count? Again, the NFL counts every game and counts them equally. You simply have the best record to win a division. Ties are broken with automatic tie breakers that are under the control of the teams, not a committee. Everything is decided ONLY on the field. The NFL method works. So why does college football resist doing it the same way?

 

[jonvi]

If you truly believe Penn St is better than OSU despite an extra loss and worse resume - that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. There was no gift from the committee. Their job was to select the four best teams.

I don't require an opinion. In the head to head, PSU beat tOSU. Won their division and won the championship game.

tOSU was a no-show in the b1g championship and being in the playoffs is a gift.

And to save you a keystroke or two. Yes. I'm jealous.

 

[GNG]

1. I think the committee got the best 4 teams in so the system worked.
2. Penn State will be happier and more competitive in the Rose so it's not a bad deal for them.
3. What is broken is the system where conferences split into division as CCG's have proven rarely are the best 2 teams in and leagues are often unbalanced.

It's time to do away with conference divisional play and just take the 2 best teams in the conference for the CCG.

This year Michigan and Ohio State would have more than likely played again for the conference title but that would have been the right decision.

The college playoffs should be extended to the top 8 teams.