My Take On Penn State

[uncfan103]

I know you can't get them all in. There isn't enough weeks to expand beyond 8 teams IMO.

But when discussing cfb moving to a playoff system, I never considered a team that didn't qualify for their conference championship would advance to the playoffs over the conference champ they lost to during the season.

That just didn't cross my mind.

I understand where you're coming from. It's just that college football has always been about the regular season and rewarding teams for having the best season. And, if you finish 6th after the regular season you don't really have a legitimate gripe that you had the best season. And, with two losses, I don't think Penn State fans can say with a straight face that their season was the best in college football this year.

 

[jonvi]

That only makes sense if you play everyone in the conference. Divisional record should be the first determinant if its a conference split into 2 divisions. After divisional, I'd say you go with the highest ranked team. You could go conf record and overall record, but those will likely be played out in how high or low the team is ranked anyhow. Obviously, if just 2 teams are tied, you go with head to head.

I was talking to someone about this the other day. I think when it comes to who wins the division and gets to play in the CCG, games against the other division shouldn't count. I think in case of a tie, games against the same non-divisional teams can be included and head to head should break the tie.

My problem with ooc games are the varying degree of quality from one team to the next. Then we rely on metrics like kenprom etc to determine a ranking.

The fact that an unranked PSU beat a #2 tOSU and then follows that up with the B1G championship illustrates the polls were just grossly wrong. And they are in many instances.

My point is our polls are a poor reference and by subtraction so are the SOSs and other metrics used. I'm just having a problem wrapping my head around a team in the playoffs that lost in the regular season to the eventual conference champion and is ranked above the conference champ based on the eye test.

Over the weekend a #9 UCLA beat a #1UK team at Lexington. Polls are beauty contest. Championships should be proven on the field in h2h matchups.

 

[dirtboy068]

It boils down to your own person feelings. Do you believe the 4 most DESERVING or 4 BEST teams should be in the playoffs? I believe it should be the most deserving, picking the 4 BEST is too subjective and has been since they started using rankings. Case in point, you have no further to look then this year. Lets talk USC or even Oklahoma. If the committee truly wanted to have 4 best teams should these schools have got serious contention? I THINK USC AND Oklahoma are better than Washington and I think USC is better than Ohio st. right now. So why were they both left out? The committee is trying to have it both ways is why. They can let Washington in because they deserve it but keep Penn St. out because they think Ohio st. is really better. That's what causes all this controversy. JUST GO TO 8 , or 4 most deserving IMO, which means conference titles and head to head should mean something.

 

[osubuckeye89]

4 teams is fine, once you start expanding you ultimately end up with 24 teams like the FCS (who also started with 4 teams) who has 4 and 5 loss teams making their playoff now, no thanks.

The most i'd maybe ever go is 6. Give 1 and 2 BYEs and have 3/6 and 4/5 play to play them.

Bottom line though, which some people seem to ignore. Is that Ohio State had 1 loss and Penn State had 2. Penn State beating Ohio State head to head in a fluke game (they were significantly outgained and only won because of 2 blocked kicks) does not erase Penn States 39 point loss to Michigan or their loss to a 4 loss team. If Penn State had 1 loss theyd be in, but they dont.

 

[Tharvot]

My problem with ooc games are the varying degree of quality from one team to the next. Then we rely on metrics like kenprom etc to determine a ranking.

The fact that an unranked PSU beat a #2 tOSU and then follows that up with the B1G championship illustrates the polls were just grossly wrong. And they are in many instances.

My point is our polls are a poor reference and by subtraction so are the SOSs and other metrics used. I'm just having a problem wrapping my head around a team in the playoffs that lost in the regular season to the eventual conference champion and is ranked above the conference champ based on the eye test.

Over the weekend a #9 UCLA beat a #1UK team at Lexington. Polls are beauty contest. Championships should be proven on the field in h2h matchups.

At the end of the regular season, the polls are reasonable measurements for team quality.

Mid season, and definitely early season polls can be grossly off.

 

[uncfan103]

My problem with ooc games are the varying degree of quality from one team to the next. Then we rely on metrics like kenprom etc to determine a ranking.

The fact that an unranked PSU beat a #2 tOSU and then follows that up with the B1G championship illustrates the polls were just grossly wrong. And they are in many instances.

My point is our polls are a poor reference and by subtraction so are the SOSs and other metrics used. I'm just having a problem wrapping my head around a team in the playoffs that lost in the regular season to the eventual conference champion and is ranked above the conference champ based on the eye test.

Over the weekend a #9 UCLA beat a #1UK team at Lexington. Polls are beauty contest. Championships should be proven on the field in h2h matchups.

Why does it matter that the polls were wrong? The polls will always be wrong. It doesn't mean that beating Oklahoma is no longer better than beating Purdue and losing to Pittsburgh.

 

[jonvi]

Why does it matter that the polls were wrong? The polls will always be wrong. It doesn't mean that beating Oklahoma is no longer better than beating Purdue and losing to Pittsburgh.

It's the OK win that convinced the committee to move tOSH in over a two loss PSU. I get it.

 

[Tharvot]

It boils down to your own person feelings. Do you believe the 4 most DESERVING or 4 BEST teams should be in the playoffs? I believe it should be the most deserving, picking the 4 BEST is too subjective and has been since they started using rankings. Case in point, you have no further to look then this year. Lets talk USC or even Oklahoma. If the committee truly wanted to have 4 best teams should these schools have got serious contention? I THINK USC AND Oklahoma are better than Washington and I think USC is better than Ohio st. right now. So why were they both left out? The committee is trying to have it both ways is why. They can let Washington in because they deserve it but keep Penn St. out because they think Ohio st. is really better. That's what causes all this controversy. JUST GO TO 8 , or 4 most deserving IMO, which means conference titles and head to head should mean something.

Ohio State deserves to be in too. Only lost 1 game all season, to the #5 team on the road, and it took a series of fluky special teams plays to seal the deal.

Road wins vs the #7 & #8 teams and a home win vs the #6 team.

That's about as fine a resume as you're going to find anywhere barring an undefeated season.

The only knock on them is that their lone loss happened to be in-division and due to stupid divisional ranking rules it eliminated them from contention to play in the conference championship game.

You can make a case for PSU, Michigan and even OU to get in. At the end of each season there will be 2-3 teams that feel like they belong in the final 4 and they will all have good arguments to get in.

 

[Tharvot]

It's the OK win that convinced the committee to move tOSH in over a two loss PSU. I get it.

No. It's the combined body of work from the entire season. Ohio State was always ranked ahead of Penn State. The entire season. It's not like they just moved Ohio State up to #3, ahead of PSU, this last week or something.

Ohio State had a better overall record against a tougher overall schedule.

 

[Locke888]

This year proves that CCG games are irrelevant in this playoff system and they should be re-evaluated. Maybe CCG's should go to a committee approach where the two actual best teams play in the game, similar to what you said? The problem is that conference like the B10 are just too diluted now. On any given year a team is going to miss playing 4 of the other B10 programs.

The math says ccgs are relevant. 11 of 12 conference champions have been in the playoff. That's 92%.
We all knew this could happen. Penn state lost a game by 39 points!
Just say "I hate Ohio State" and get it over with.

 

[jonvi]

No. It's the combined body of work from the entire season. .

My point was the OK game for tOSU was a much heavier weighted game than Pitt was for PSU. The rest of both teams schedule is a basic wash.

Ohio State was always ranked ahead of Penn State. The entire season. It's not like they just moved Ohio State up to #3, ahead of PSU, this last week or something.

Ohio State had a better overall record against a tougher overall schedule.

There you go with polls again (and entire season this time even though you admit they are crap early on). Like I said earlier....when PSU beat tOSU in State College, PSU was unranked.

Never bring up polls or rankings again. I would think a person that was overwhelmingly convinced Clinton was going to win big should know polls are not a science. Even though pollsters would like you to believe otherwise.

 

[mannyz]

I guess OSU fans don't consider Special Teams as part of the game. The blocks PSU had against OSU have been called lucky, fluky, and some other things. PSU won the game on the field. If you are not going to reward a conference champion, especially from what arguably be called the best conference this past season, then why have them. Let's go back to the days when coaches and writers decided the 2 teams that play for the NC. This isn't that much different, instead of 2 teams we now get 4 and it does not get decided on the field.

 

[Tharvot]

My point was the OK game for tOSU was a much heavier weighted game than Pitt was for PSU. The rest of both teams schedule is a basic wash.



There you go with polls again (and entire season this time even though you admit they are crap early on). Like I said earlier....when PSU beat tOSU in State College, PSU was unranked.

Never bring up polls or rankings again. I would think a person that was overwhelmingly convinced Clinton was going to win big should know polls are not a science. Even though pollsters would like you to believe otherwise.

There are a few major differences. First off. Ohio State won their game and PSU lost theirs. Secondly, OU is a much better team than Pitt. So yes, the win over OU definitely had a great benefit for Ohio State.

I already acknowledged that mid season polls and early polls are meaningless...why did you bring that up again? If we don't go by polls, how else are we to rank teams that don't play each other or have many if any common opponents?

Your political jab is both off point and stupid.

 

[Tharvot]

I guess OSU fans don't consider Special Teams as part of the game. The blocks PSU had against OSU have been called lucky, fluky, and some other things. PSU won the game on the field. If you are not going to reward a conference champion, especially from what arguably be called the best conference this past season, then why have them. Let's go back to the days when coaches and writers decided the 2 teams that play for the NC. This isn't that much different, instead of 2 teams we now get 4 and it does not get decided on the field.

You're right. A guy that hadn't missed a FG all season gets one blocked and returned for a TD isn't a fluke play. Just the game deciding points, nothing big.

And the possession before, the punt being blocked from a guy that hadn't had a punt blocked his entire career at Ohio State prior. Nah, nothing fluky about that.

 

[jonvi]

Your political jab is both off point and stupid.

lmao. Calm down tharv. Ya know I love ya.

 

[redseat]

Losing to Pitt and getting blown out by Michigan..... That is why

Have to give them a ton of credit for getting to where they are now however

 

[Tharvot]

Losing to Pitt and getting blown out by Michigan..... That is why

Have to give them a ton of credit for getting to where they are now however

Same reason why OU was never under consideration by the committee.

 

[Locke888]

Losing to Pitt and getting blown out by Michigan..... That is why

Have to give them a ton of credit for getting to where they are now however

2002 USC comes to mind.

 

[osubuckeye89]

I guess OSU fans don't consider Special Teams as part of the game. The blocks PSU had against OSU have been called lucky, fluky, and some other things. PSU won the game on the field. If you are not going to reward a conference champion, especially from what arguably be called the best conference this past season, then why have them. Let's go back to the days when coaches and writers decided the 2 teams that play for the NC. This isn't that much different, instead of 2 teams we now get 4 and it does not get decided on the field.

Ohio State controlled every aspect of the game besides those 2 blocked kicks

Passing

Ohio State 28/43 (65%) 245 yards

Penn State 8/23 (34.7%) 154 yards

Rushing

Ohio State 40-168 4.2 YPC

Penn State 37-122 3.3 YPC

Total Yards

Ohio State 413

Penn State 276

Penn State won that particular game on the field, but they also lost 2 games compared to 1.

If Penn State only lost 1 game they'd be in the playoff, but they lost 2.

 

[bonham]

You're right. A guy that hadn't missed a FG all season gets one blocked and returned for a TD isn't a fluke play. Just the game deciding points, nothing big.

And the possession before, the punt being blocked from a guy that hadn't had a punt blocked his entire career at Ohio State prior. Nah, nothing fluky about that.

You do realize PSU also had a FG blocked and a fumbled punt? OSU also got the ball back after the block6 with over 4 minutes left to score...and didn't.