POLL If Clemson loses, who gets in?

4down20 · Dec 3, 2016

Penn State/Wisconsin

seafandoghawk · Dec 3, 2016

Based on what the committee said last week-- that Michigan was #5 and borderline #4-- if VaT beats Clemson, then I think that Michigan is in at #4. I do understand the arguments for PSU if they win the CG over Wisky, and Oklahoma if they bet OkSt, but all the same, I think that the committee will move Michigan into the playoffs if Clemson loses just based on what they said last week about Michigan.

ralphiewvu · Dec 3, 2016

WizardHawk said:
Said that in the post above yours, and said it all year. I'm a season ticket holder and it PISSES me off that I have to pay so much money to see such garbage games. I bitched about this schedule all off season. There's nothing for me to have to admit.

You have a system in place and under that system UW has earned the right to go get slaughtered by Bama. It is what it is.

BS, you wouldn't see bama till the champ game. Unless of course you are talking about that. In ethier case though you won't get slaughtered.

TheRobotDevil · Dec 3, 2016

Deep Creek said:
True. But totally inconsistent with what they stated in '14.

I'm not dissing Washington. I'm a Peterson fan through and through. Just point out how the committee seems to talk out of both sides of their mouth.

If we are going by 2014 Ohio State is out . Due to not playing in their CCG. That is what put them in over Baylor and TCU.Everyone else in the discussion is playing that 13th game and would have Conference championships. It is kind of ironic with Penn State having the H2H and playing Wisconsin. It was the 13th game against Wisconsin and the conference championship that dropped TCU 3 spots and put OSU in.

WizardHawk · Dec 3, 2016

ralphiewvu said:
BS, you wouldn't see bama till the champ game. Unless of course you are talking about that. In ethier case though you won't get slaughtered.

It's one thing for UW's lines to look stout and dominate Colorado or another highly ranked, but not giant sized line, and it's entirely a different thing to go against the lines with giant dudes who are also fast and athletic. We have seen in prior years what dominating Pac teams look like against those bigger lines. Slaughter is probably an exaggeration, but they would still lose and by double digits.

Tidergirl · Dec 3, 2016

If Clemson loses and Penn ST wins PSU gets in...

seafandoghawk · Dec 3, 2016

WizardHawk said:
I freaking hate that you have to schedule these out so far in advance and can't make changes easily. The rest of our slate was who the conference put in front of us..

Couldn't agree more. There's maybe a small handful of teams in the country that you can comfortably guess are going to be really solid teams four years from now. Alabama, sure. Maybe Ohio State, maybe Oklahoma, maybe a couple other high-pedigree teams. But every P5 team in the nation can't fill up their OOC schedule with those teams-- there's not enough of them. So you place your bets the best that you can with the remaining teams, and hope for the best four years later.

For example, when UW scheduled Rutgers several years ago, they were 8-4 and a bowl team. This year they were 2-10 and abysmal. UW always plays a regional smaller cupcake OOC because it's an opportunity for those teams to make more money in one game than they will for the rest of their seasons, which helps support their athletic programs. And because the PAC plays 9 conference games, that leaves just one remaining team to schedule OOC, and you just do what you can with that.

Any number of teams in any number of conferences face the same kinds of dilemmas.

The bottom line is that OOC scheduling is more likely to be a crap shoot than not. Yet it has major significance for deciding bowls, playoff spots, and championships. And the very fact that teams could hypothetically win or lose opportunities to play for championships based on how well they could predict the future four years ago, is a weakness in the whole system.

But I'm not sure that there is any answer for it.

WizardHawk · Dec 3, 2016

seafandoghawk said:
Couldn't agree more. There's maybe a small handful of teams in the country that you can comfortably guess are going to be really solid teams four years from now. Alabama, sure. Maybe Ohio State, maybe Oklahoma, maybe a couple other high-pedigree teams. But every P5 team in the nation can't fill up their OOC schedule with those teams-- there's not enough of them. So you place your bets the best that you can with the remaining teams, and hope for the best four years later.

For example, when UW scheduled Rutgers several years ago, they were 8-4 and a bowl team. This year they were 2-10 and abysmal. UW always plays a regional smaller cupcake OOC because it's an opportunity for those teams to make more money in one game than they will for the rest of their seasons, which helps support their athletic programs. And because the PAC plays 9 conference games, that leaves just one remaining team to schedule OOC, and you just do what you can with that.

Any number of teams in any number of conferences face the same kinds of dilemmas.

The bottom line is that OOC scheduling is more likely to be a crap shoot than not. Yet it has major significance for deciding bowls, playoff spots, and championships. And the very fact that teams could hypothetically win or lose opportunities to play for championships based on how well they could predict the future four years ago, is a weakness in the whole system.

But I'm not sure that there is any answer for it.

The real problem with this system is back when UW made their schedule for this year UW was only a 6-7 win team. You were asking them to find top level teams that probably had to travel across the entire country to play a team that hadn't been high quality in over a decade. Of course it's been hard for them to find that.

Sure, NOW teams will schedule them because they are up off the mat, but how were they supposed to attract them back then?

And I believe Rutgers was a 9 win team when we scheduled that. Schiano had them rolling. This is exactly why it was hard to get people to take UW H/H games then. There is less risk taking a mid level team than a Rutgers, but still a fair amount.

So go play tough teams in your OOC and you better damned well be able to find a way to get them to you if you are rebuilding and pray they don't suck by the time those games come up or you will be vilified in the media.

Thank God they took that Auburn game in '18 so at least after next year the schedule goes up to where it needs to be. As long as Auburn doesn't fall apart by then.

Deep Creek · Dec 3, 2016

WizardHawk said:
The real problem with this system is back when UW made their schedule for this year UW was only a 6-7 win team. You were asking them to find top level teams that probably had to travel across the entire country to play a team that hadn't been high quality in over a decade. Of course it's been hard for them to find that.

Sure, NOW teams will schedule them because they are up off the mat, but how were they supposed to attract them back then?

And I believe Rutgers was a 9 win team when we scheduled that. Schiano had them rolling. This is exactly why it was hard to get people to take UW H/H games then. There is less risk taking a mid level team than a Rutgers, but still a fair amount.

So go play tough teams in your OOC and you better damned well be able to find a way to get them to you if you are rebuilding and pray they don't suck by the time those games come up or you will be vilified in the media.

Thank God they took that Auburn game in '18 so at least after next year the schedule goes up to where it needs to be. As long as Auburn doesn't fall apart by then.

Good points. Michigan got lucky with Colorado this year. Not winning the game but Colorado actually being good this year.

ckhokie · Dec 3, 2016

Tidergirl said:
If Clemson loses and Penn ST wins PSU gets in...

I'm not sure why this is the case. Resume vs. resume, I'm not sure PSUs is any better than Clemson's, even if Clemson loses.

seafandoghawk · Dec 3, 2016

WizardHawk said:
The real problem with this system is back when UW made their schedule for this year UW was only a 6-7 win team. You were asking them to find top level teams that probably had to travel across the entire country to play a team that hadn't been high quality in over a decade. Of course it's been hard for them to find that.

Yeah that's the other issue, and it's a big one.

For what it's worth, I have no issue whatsoever with anyone rightly pointing to UW's OOC schedule as extremely weak. My issue is the implication that UW intentionally scheduled a weak OOC schedule in order to pad their W/L count. It's a ridiculous idea.

UW was sitting at 6-7, with years of consistent mediocrity behind it, unable to attract a top match up for a home-and-home, and therefore found a nine-win but non-pedigree bowl team to agree to terms. There was no intention there to inflate anything-- they just were dealing with the realities of their circumstances at the time.

Voltaire26 · Dec 3, 2016

seafandoghawk said:
Yeah that's the other issue, and it's a big one.

For what it's worth, I have no issue whatsoever with anyone rightly pointing to UW's OOC schedule as extremely weak. My issue is the implication that UW intentionally scheduled a weak OOC schedule in order to pad their W/L count. It's a ridiculous idea.

UW was sitting at 6-7, with years of consistent mediocrity behind it, unable to attract a top match up for a home-and-home, and therefore found a nine-win but non-pedigree bowl team to agree to terms. There was no intention there to inflate anything-- they just were dealing with the realities of their circumstances at the time.

I hate it when teams schedule games like Portland State (I've never heard of them before). My team (Michigan) has done it as well (I remember Appalachian State). You can only lose those games (even if you win). Others were guilty of it too.

seafandoghawk · Dec 3, 2016

Voltaire26 said:
I hate it when teams schedule games like Portland State (I've never heard of them before). My team (Michigan) has done it as well (I remember Appalachian State). You can only lose those games (even if you win). Others were guilty of it too.

I honestly think that they do it in order to help the athletic programs of those smaller regional schools. I can't say that I know I'm right about this-- but I'm not seeing another possible reason to do it.

Voltaire26 · Dec 3, 2016

seafandoghawk said:
I honestly think that they do it in order to help the athletic programs of those smaller regional schools. I can't say that I know I'm right about this-- but I'm not seeing another possible reason to do it.

Alabama played Chattanooga
ohio state did not play a sub conference team
Clemson play South Carolina State
Washington played Portland State
Michigan did not play a sub conference team
Wisconsin did not play a sub conference team
Penn State did not play a sub conference team
Colorado played Idaho State
Oklahoma played ohio state
Oklahoma State played Southeastern Louisiana

Every team has played those games throughout their history ... I just don't know why.

Michigan was thought to have a pretty easy ooc schedule (Hawaii, Central Florida and Colorado), but Colorado made it look a little tougher.

TrustMeIamRight · Dec 3, 2016

WizardHawk said:
zero chance the committee could put in two B1G teams with neither of them even playing for the CCG, more or less crowned conference champs. Just don't see that happening.

So if Penn State wins the B1GCG. They should get in over Michigan, who has the same two losses. But beat Penn State 49-10, while outgaining them 515-190 and started emptying the bench in the 3rd quarter or it would have been worse?

WizardHawk · Dec 3, 2016

TrustMeIamRight said:
So if Penn State wins the B1GCG. They should get in over Michigan, who has the same two losses. But beat Penn State 49-10, while outgaining them 515-190 and started emptying the bench in the 3rd quarter or it would have been worse?

There are two separate questions: Who should be in, and who will be in. People jump back and forth between them as though they are the same and they are not.

The committee has their hands full and if you trust them to put in the 4 best teams that also have the strongest claim then so be it. I have no such belief.

The way you select your division winners is broken if TWO teams more worthy are both sitting home today. Whatever happens is the fault of that system. Tell the B1G to get their shit together and put worthy teams in their CCG.

TrustMeIamRight · Dec 3, 2016

WizardHawk said:
There are two separate questions: Who should be in, and who will be in. People jump back and forth between them as though they are the same and they are not.

The committee has their hands full and if you trust them to put in the 4 best teams that also have the strongest claim then so be it. I have no such belief.

The way you select your division winners is broken if TWO teams more worthy are both sitting home today. Whatever happens is the fault of that system. Tell the B1G to get their shit together and put worthy teams in their CCG.

I just posed the question because you said there is no way the B1G gets two teams in and one of them aren't PSU or Whisky.

Say Whisky gets in. Do you think they'd be more deserving than a team they lost to 14-7 (but included 3 missed FG's and an INT inside the 10 of Whisky). UM outgained them 360-159. Whisky's offense crossed midfield once the entire game and it took an interception return of 60 yards to do so.

So they'd be more deserving?

Voltaire26 · Dec 3, 2016

WizardHawk said:
There are two separate questions: Who should be in, and who will be in. People jump back and forth between them as though they are the same and they are not.

The committee has their hands full and if you trust them to put in the 4 best teams that also have the strongest claim then so be it. I have no such belief.

The way you select your division winners is broken if TWO teams more worthy are both sitting home today. Whatever happens is the fault of that system. Tell the B1G to get their shit together and put worthy teams in their CCG.

The B1G picks it's teams like every other conference. Penn State and Wisconsin should be there. The Conference Champion and the National Champion are two different things. A one loss ohio state would rank higher than a two loss Penn State or Wisconsin nationally. With one conference loss to Penn State, ohio state had to sit and watch a one loss Penn State play. It really turned out to be an advantage for ohio state because anytime you walk on the field you can lose. Why the fuck am I supporting the ohio state fuckeyes ... I hate them.

Deep Creek · Dec 3, 2016

Voltaire26 said:
Why the fuck am I supporting the ohio state fuckeyes ... I hate them.

beantownmaniac · Dec 3, 2016

Voltaire26 said:
I say Michigan, because they have beaten both Penn State and Wisconsin. Also, ohio state/Michigan II would be a huge ratings. Michigan two losses were by a total of 4 points with 2 AP/Coaches ranked teams. Of course I am a homer who sees the world through Maize & Blue sunglasses.

What do others think

Here's an argument for Penn St. Michigan lost to Iowa 14-13 a week after Penn St beat the snot out of them 41-14.

POLL If Clemson loses, who gets in?

If Clemson loses, who gets in?

Michigan

Oklahoma/Oklahoma State

Penn State/Wisconsin

Western Michigan

Other ... please specify

Potato Salad

Clemson

Quit checking me out.

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Immortal

Release the Kraken - Fuck the Canucks

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Release the Kraken - Fuck the Canucks

Well-Known Member

Supporting Member Level 69

Active Member

Detroit Born and Raised

Active Member

Detroit Born and Raised

Well-Known Member

Release the Kraken - Fuck the Canucks

Well-Known Member

Detroit Born and Raised

Well-Known Member

I thought growing old would take longer

Similar threads