So let's say Wisconsin wins the Big 10 Championship

[Shanemansj13]

Nice example, but I don't think you thought it through...

H2H is not the first tiebreaker in the NFL, the Division record is.

So just like Penn State, the Cowboys have the better Division record. So by his rules, and your example, the Division winner trumps the H2H even though Penn State holds that too.

The precedent in CFB is clear too...

When we see Division Winners going to CCG's even though they have a worse overall record, due to OOC play, than others in their own Division, than why should it be any different with the next step up?

And why should we devalue CCG Champs over a Division runner up with a 'better record' who COULDN'T win their OWN Division?

Clearly a precedent has been set in time, and for a long time now.

Well ask the committee because the reasons you mentioned are EXACTLY why we have a 4 team playoff now. Depending on the circumstance, you don't have to win a conference championship because the main goal is to arrive with the best 4 teams.

If you think Penn St is better because of one game that was very close at home that could have went either way and that automatically makes them the better team, while completely ignoring the rest of their schedule and their 2 losses then fine.
Btw...in the NFL you play a division team more than once so it more than likely settles things out in the end if record already doesn't settle it.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

"we made massive mistakes that cost us the game, but we totally outplayed you."

lolz

I readily admit the mistakes and that OSU won. I just wish I got to watch the same game you did, so I wouldn't care that we lost, as OSU was clearly the better team.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

I readily admit the mistakes and that OSU won. I just wish I got to watch the same game you did, so I wouldn't care that we lost, as OSU was clearly the better team.

I never said OSU was clearly the better team.

I'm simply pointing out that all those mistakes that you readily admit should be included in one's evaluation on how the team played. They did, after all, happen.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

You should just be thankful we had Hornibrook as the QB for the entire game as he was the MVP with 3 int's and just taking sacks since he has no mobility.

Speight>>>>>>>>>>>>Hornibrook and it's not even close.

Meanwhile your boys will be sitting at home eating Harbaugh's buggers and while the Badgers are playing the BIG championship game.

We were supposed to be a 6 or 7 win team this year. Everything right now is just bonus points.

No doubt. UM made their own bed. Now. I just get to sit back and poke holes in the teams wanting the coveted CFP spots and hope for a miracle. GO COLORADO AND GO VA TECH!!!
I'd root for the B1G game, but UM beat them both and only gave up 360 yards combined to them. It is going to be a pisser for PSU and Whisky fans when UM is still ranked ahead of them tomorrow night, giving them no shot at the CFP.

It sucks, but I'd be willing to wager it happens.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

I never said OSU was clearly the better team.

I'm simply pointing out that all those mistakes that you readily admit should be included in one's evaluation on how the team played. They did, after all, happen.

No doubt they happened. It is the only reason it was a game. It isn't a big secret. You had one TD drive in regulation and it was 13 yards.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Nice example, but I don't think you thought it through...

H2H is not the first tiebreaker in the NFL, the Division record is.

So just like Penn State, the Cowboys have the better Division record. So by his rules, and your example, the Division winner trumps the H2H even though Penn State holds that too.

The precedent in CFB is clear too...

When we see Division Winners going to CCG's even though they have a worse overall record, due to OOC play, than others in their own Division, than why should it be any different with the next step up?

And why should we devalue CCG Champs over a Division runner up with a 'better record' who COULDN'T win their OWN Division?

Clearly a precedent has been set in time, and for a long time now.

I agree

11-2 overall with a Conference championship is better than 11-1 imo

In Penn States case you would also be adding 9-1 in conference play should they win.And a H2H win over OSU

Why play conference CCG's if they don't mean anything?

 

[Tharvot]

That's funny, you surely included it in your argument.

I included it because it's the second time in a row it's happened to Ohio State. It's a fact.

Show me where i then tried to state that due to this happening, they are deserving of anything. I'll wait.

 

[Tharvot]

Nice example, but I don't think you thought it through...

H2H is not the first tiebreaker in the NFL, the Division record is.

So just like Penn State, the Cowboys have the better Division record. So by his rules, and your example, the Division winner trumps the H2H even though Penn State holds that too.

The precedent in CFB is clear too...

When we see Division Winners going to CCG's even though they have a worse overall record, due to OOC play, than others in their own Division, than why should it be any different with the next step up?

And why should we devalue CCG Champs over a Division runner up with a 'better record' who COULDN'T win their OWN Division?

Clearly a precedent has been set in time, and for a long time now.

He's stressing head to head as the clear indicator of how good a team is compared to another. I am arguing it's not always the best indicator.

 

[Across The Field]

I agree

11-2 overall with a Conference championship is better than 11-1 imo

In Penn States case you would also be adding 9-1 in conference play should they win.And a H2H win over OSU

Why play conference CCG's if they don't mean anything?

Why enlist an entire committee to objectively decide the 4 best teams if you're just going to only go with conference champs? I mean, Wisconsin is playing for the conference title solely based on the fact that they play in the weaker division. If they were in the East, they would at very best be 3rd in the division. How is that fair? When you're objectively comparing an entire team's season, you can't just look at one game.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Why enlist an entire committee to objectively decide the 4 best teams if you're just going to only go with conference champs? I mean, Wisconsin is playing for the conference title solely based on the fact that they play in the weaker division. How is that fair? When you're objectively comparing an entire team's season, you can't just look at one game.

Total body of work. A CCG is a big piece. I can say if SC was in the same position.I wouldn't feel they had the better case for a play off spot. For the same reasons stated

 

[Vitamike]

I included it because it's the second time in a row it's happened to Ohio State. It's a fact.

Show me where i then tried to state that due to this happening, they are deserving of anything. I'll wait.

My God, it was included in the very post of yours that I quoted.

If it wasn't relevant, then why the hell would you include it in your argument, fact or not?

It obviously had some bearing to your point or you wouldn't have included it in the first place...

Geez homeboy, I don't know you too well, but if this is what you are all about than

Maybe you have no concept of conceding anything?

IDK?
Either way, if you can't admit it when you are caught dead wrong, then just keep on waiting....

 

[The Oldtimer]

He's stressing head to head as the clear indicator of how good a team is compared to another. I am arguing it's not always the best indicator.

No "head to head" is not the best indicator, but when two teams finish at 8-1 in conference play and 5-1 in division play, then the "head to head" should be at least 80% of the indicator.

 

[Tharvot]

My God, it was included in the very post of yours that I quoted.

If it wasn't relevant, then why the hell would you include it in your argument?

It obviously had some bearing to your point or you wouldn't have included it in the first place...

Geez homeboy, I don't know you too well, but if this is what you are all about than

Maybe you have no concept of conceding anything?

IDK?
Either way, if you can't admit it when you are caught dead wrong, then just keep on waiting....

Did Ohio State miss out on the CCG last year because they happened to lose to the only other 1-loss team in the division or not? Did that happen this year?

The point is that they could have lost to just about anyone else on their schedule, even in conference and gotten to the CCG. They happened to lose to the wrong opponent both years. Similarly, if Ole Miss wouldn't have lost to Arkansas in OT last year, they would have gone to the SEC CCG ahead of Alabama, despite having 2 losses to Alabama's 1. I think it's safe to say that Ole Miss wasn't a better team than Bama was last year.

What part of this are you guys having issues understanding?

 

[Shanemansj13]

No "head to head" is not the best indicator, but when two teams finish at 8-1 in conference play and 5-1 in division play, then the "head to head" should be at least 80% of the indicator.

So resume/SOS, non-conference slate, common opponents should be 20%...ohh and the 2 bad losses a team has. I disagree. It isn't weighed that much.

If teams have similar resumes and the same number of losses OVERALL then of course.

 

[Tharvot]

No "head to head" is not the best indicator, but when two teams finish at 8-1 in conference play and 5-1 in division play, then the "head to head" should be at least 80% of the indicator.

It's the tiebreaker for conference seeding, you're correct. It's not necessarily a good indicator of which team is actually better...upsets happen quite a bit in this game.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Did Ohio State miss out on the CCG last year because they happened to lose to the only other 1-loss team in the division or not? Did that happen this year?

The point is that they could have lost to just about anyone else on their schedule, even in conference and gotten to the CCG. They happened to lose to the wrong opponent both years. Similarly, if Ole Miss wouldn't have lost to Arkansas in OT last year, they would have gone to the SEC CCG ahead of Alabama, despite having 2 losses to Alabama's 1. I think it's safe to say that Ole Miss wasn't a better team than Bama was last year.

What part of this are you guys having issues understanding?

The Ole Miss-Alabama reference is a good one bc I don't think anyone in their right mind thought Ole Miss was better than Alabama last year despite the head-to-head victory.

 

[The Oldtimer]

It's the tiebreaker for conference seeding, you're correct. It's not necessarily a good indicator of which team is actually better...upsets happen quite a bit in this game.

Yeah upsets happen all the time. Penn State upset Ohio State and won the BIG 10 East title.

 

[The Oldtimer]

The Ole Miss-Alabama reference is a good one bc I don't think anyone in their right mind thought Ole Miss was better than Alabama last year despite the head-to-head victory.

You do realize that Ole Miss lost three games last year, don't you?

 

[Vitamike]

The Ole Miss-Alabama reference is a good one bc I don't think anyone in their right mind thought Ole Miss was better than Alabama last year despite the head-to-head victory.

How is it a good example?

Regardless of the H2H, Bama still won their Division & the SEC Conference Championship before being selected to the final four.

Just like the Cowboys example given earlier, the Division winner is the trump card not the H2H and still Penn State has both.

I personally don't have a huge problem with teams who don't win their Conference getting into the Final Four, but if you're the third best team in your Conference (aka the first Division Runner-Up) then how can you possibly be the fourth best team in the Nation?

First things first, WIN YOUR DIVISION, then start talking about your place in the National standings otherwise....

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Why enlist an entire committee to objectively decide the 4 best teams if you're just going to only go with conference champs? I mean, Wisconsin is playing for the conference title solely based on the fact that they play in the weaker division. If they were in the East, they would at very best be 3rd in the division. How is that fair? When you're objectively comparing an entire team's season, you can't just look at one game.

@Vitamike is making a lot of very good points in regards to the topic. The play offs are supposed to be the best 4 teams. That entails total body of work. OOC strength of schedule is one factor. But not every team can schedule an "elite" team. Nor do they know how that teams season will unfold.

Conference games are of high importance. How can one say they are one of the 4 best teams in the country.When they did not win.Their division or conference title. Or that they are better than a team that beat them H2H and won their division and conference. CCG's are just as important if not more important in regards to SOS. Because teams have to earn the right to play that game.

By devaluing conference championships you are also potentially opening another can of worms. In regards to teams backing into the play offs. Creating the potential for a team to lose a game and bypass a CCG where they have nothing to gain. Let the teams decide who is the best on the field. The results on the field are the reason teams are in the CCG. Which makes them the better team imo