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

[cwerph]

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.

Calm down, man. I was just quoting another poster who said this:

Our playoffs aren't designed to crown the best team. It's meant to design the most deserving team. A NFL style playoff crowns a best team. We don't do that.

 

[cwerph]

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.

Guess I should have used the sarcasm font.

 

[Deep Creek]

That's why you see new schools come into the FBS all the time. It's not getting smaller, it's getting bigger.

Quantity is increasing but that doesn't mean the number of quality teams is increasing. It just means there are a lot more bottom feeders...similar to the guys I root for!

 

[Hook'Em0608]

I get the argument for Ohio St over Penn St because they had 1 less loss. I admitted it is a compelling argument already.

I'm simply saying that a team that is in the same ball park from a "resume" point of view, that won head to head against the team it's competing with, played the extra game, and won the conference. That team should bypass the superior resume team from the same conference. I'm not arguing Penn St deserved to go over Clemson for instance.

This was a strange scenario to have already this early in the 4 team playoff era. But it goes to show all the hand wringing we did when 4 teams were announced instead of 8 was correct. 4 teams still allow for severe human bias. The 5 power conference champions and 3 at large bids would be an outstanding start of crowning a true national champion.

 

[Deep Creek]

I fully believe that if one of those two teams was named Oklahoma or Texas, Ohio State would have been left out.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

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.

Again, these "labels" aren't just pulled out of someone's ass. They are earned by having an outstanding conference record and then winning a conference championship game. In this case the rationale for putting in Penn St. is that they earned it on the field over the course of the entire season. They earned a conference championship based on the rules (however flawed they may be). Ohio St. did not.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree if you really don't have a problem with rewarding teams for not winning their division.

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.

Well....it had something to do with it. If they had lost their conference championship game they would not have gotten in. They could have been undefeated beforehand and a loss to Iowa in that game would have knocked them out. That's part of the point I'm trying to make here. If you can not even make your conference championship game and still get in the playoff then why even have conference championship games?

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.

USC was playing like one of the best teams in the country towards the end of the season despite their rocky start. That'll happen since teams tend to evolve over the course of a year. In USC's case Sam Darnold made one hell of a difference. I don't think anybody here believes the USC team that defeated Washington and Penn St. is the same team that got blown out by Alabama. If you were looking to vote the teams playing the best football at the end of the year into the playoff then USC probably deserved consideration. Penn St was in that category too, which is what made that Rose Bowl game so good.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

oblems 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

That's part of the issue too. What makes these committee members more qualified to make these decisions than anybody on this board? Some of the member I understand. But others? Condoleezza Rice? Former USA Today reporters? Andrew Luck's dad? What the fuck?

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Calm down, man. I was just quoting another poster who said this:

Yeah that came off as more aggressive than it was meant to. I just thought it was weird to label a basic playoff system as "NFL style" when it's actually just "normal sports league" style.

 

[4down20]

Again, these "labels" aren't just pulled out of someone's ass. They are earned by having an outstanding conference record and then winning a conference championship game. In this case the rationale for putting in Penn St. is that they earned it on the field over the course of the entire season. They earned a conference championship based on the rules (however flawed they may be). Ohio St. did not.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree if you really don't have a problem with rewarding teams for not winning their division.

That is the confernces rationale, not the playoff committee's rationale. The rationale the Big10 used for their conference champion may say Penn St was the best team, but the playoff committee said otherwise. It states plain as day, their mission is to put in the BEST teams, not the ones the conferences crowned.

If you can't understand that, then we aren't going to agree.

Well....it had something to do with it. If they had lost their conference championship game they would not have gotten in. They could have been undefeated beforehand and a loss to Iowa in that game would have knocked them out. That's part of the point I'm trying to make here. If you can not even make your conference championship game and still get in the playoff then why even have conference championship games?

Because the conferences are stuck to dumb rules and do not put the best teams in their conference championship games. If you actually want the conference champion to be reflective of the best team, then the conferences need to change how they crown their champion.

While you say it makes the playoff committee look dumb when the conference champion isn't added but another team is, I think what it really says is that the conference is dumb and doesn't know how to properly crown a champion.

USC was playing like one of the best teams in the country towards the end of the season despite their rocky start. That'll happen since teams tend to evolve over the course of a year. In USC's case Sam Darnold made one hell of a difference. I don't think anybody here believes the USC team that defeated Washington and Penn St. is the same team that got blown out by Alabama. If you were looking to vote the teams playing the best football at the end of the year into the playoff then USC probably deserved consideration. Penn St was in that category too, which is what made that Rose Bowl game so good.

USC ended the year on a weak schedule. They played their difficult games to start the season and finished out on an easy stretch, with the Washington game being the only game of note. Seen Tennessee do the exact same thing for years, it doesn't mean anything. On top of that, you just have the normal USC hype. They lost to tough teams with Darnold too at the start of the year.

And did they change their entire offensive and defensive lines after they played Alabama?

Good teams no doubt, but not playoff caliber teams. When a 10-3 team finishes the season #3, you know it's USC.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

I get the argument for Ohio St over Penn St because they had 1 less loss. I admitted it is a compelling argument already.

I'm simply saying that a team that is in the same ball park from a "resume" point of view, that won head to head against the team it's competing with, played the extra game, and won the conference. That team should bypass the superior resume team from the same conference. I'm not arguing Penn St deserved to go over Clemson for instance.

This was a strange scenario to have already this early in the 4 team playoff era. But it goes to show all the hand wringing we did when 4 teams were announced instead of 8 was correct. 4 teams still allow for severe human bias. The 5 power conference champions and 3 at large bids would be an outstanding start of crowning a true national champion.

That's part of the issue too. What makes these committee members more qualified to make these decisions than anybody on this board? Some of the member I understand. But others? Condoleezza Rice? Former USA Today reporters? Andrew Luck's dad? What the fuck?

Completely agree with both posts very strong points.5 conference champions and 3 at large bids.Reduce the room for human error significantly.And puts the ball in the teams hands.As opposed basing the play offs on off the field the opinions.If we want one true champion let it be determined on the field not in an inconsistent conference meeting

 

[Cave_Johnson]

That is the confernces rationale, not the playoff committee's rationale. The rationale the Big10 used for their conference champion may say Penn St was the best team, but the playoff committee said otherwise. It states plain as day, their mission is to put in the BEST teams, not the ones the conferences crowned.

If you can't understand that, then we aren't going to agree.

I understand that they are trying to put the best teams in. We just disagree on how they should determine who the best teams are. I would prefer that there is some concrete requirement to eliminate pure opinion from determining who gets in. Like you've stated though, if those requirements involve conference championships then some changes do need to be made.

Because the conferences are stuck to dumb rules and do not put the best teams in their conference championship games. If you actually want the conference champion to be reflective of the best team, then the conferences need to change how they crown their champion.

Again, I agree.

While you say it makes the playoff committee look dumb when the conference champion isn't added but another team is, I think what it really says is that the conference is dumb and doesn't know how to properly crown a champion.

That's not quite what I was getting at. I think it's silly to let in a team that didn't make their conference championship game and lost to the conference champion. What really made the committee look dumb IMO was not only the decision itself, but the fact that the team they chose got absolutely destroyed in the first round. Yeah, Michigan St. got beat badly too the previous year, but there weren't any other teams really being considered for their playoff bid. Michigan St. was the obvious choice.

USC ended the year on a weak schedule. They played their difficult games to start the season and finished out on an easy stretch, with the Washington game being the only game of note. Seen Tennessee do the exact same thing for years, it doesn't mean anything. On top of that, you just have the normal USC hype. They lost to tough teams with Darnold too at the start of the year.

And did they change their entire offensive and defensive lines after they played Alabama?

Good teams no doubt, but not playoff caliber teams. When a 10-3 team finishes the season #3, you know it's USC.

I think the only game they lost with Darnold as the main QB was @Utah. I'm not saying they beat Alabama if they play again, but I'd imagine the game would have been way more competition.

 

[4down20]

I understand that they are trying to put the best teams in. We just disagree on how they should determine who the best teams are. I would prefer that there is some concrete requirement to eliminate pure opinion from determining who gets in. Like you've stated though, if those requirements involve conference championships then some changes do need to be made.

Well it's mostly about getting those who deserve a chance an actual chance, and anyone extra that gets in to fill the 3rd or 4th spot just benefit. So I couldn't care less who gets the 4th spot, only teams that have a legitimate claim on the top2 spots.

They've gotten it right so far, and for the most part I think it's been obvious who the top4 teams were. The times there was even a hint of controversy it's for the 4th team, and meh.

That's not quite what I was getting at. I think it's silly to let in a team that didn't make their conference championship game and lost to the conference champion. What really made the committee look dumb IMO was not only the decision itself, but the fact that the team they chose got absolutely destroyed in the first round. Yeah, Michigan St. got beat badly too the previous year, but there weren't any other teams really being considered for their playoff bid. Michigan St. was the obvious choice.

The playoff committee shouldn't be bound to the mistakes of the conference. That's my opinion on it, not going to change it.

I think the only game they lost with Darnold as the main QB was @Utah. I'm not saying they beat Alabama if they play again, but I'd imagine the game would have been way more competition.

We'll see if USC lives up to the hype this year. They have tons of talent and potential, but it takes more than that to be elite.

 

[NolePride]

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

Because Florida State was an Independent 40 years ago when we began to climb.

An Independent that could get a spot in Elite Bowls. So we could play good teams,
beat them and get the good bowl spot. A mid-major Independent cannot do that
in this day and age. Only ONE mid-major is guaranteed an elite spot and that must be
the best Champion from the Group of 5 leagues.

Not only was FSU and Independent but so was Miami...Penn State...Pitt...Notre Dame
When Kramer from the SEC was floating the idea of the "coalition for the major bowls"
his greatest fear was those Independents gobbling up all the berths. That's why the
Big10 and Pac8 wouldn't be a part of that group. Not with those powerful Independents
out there. Once The Big East was formed, and Penn St went to the Big10 and most of the
others formed the Big East, FSU became a problem. So the SEC first and then the ACC
offered FSU because they didn't want them out their as an Independent taking up spots
for their leagues.

Here's 4 years of Bowl spots between the 1987 season thru the 1990 season, before the
coalition kicked in.

Orange Bowl: Miami-OU, Miami-Nebraska, N Dame-Colo & Colo-N Dame (1/2 the spots
to Independents)

Sugar Bowl: Auburn-Syracuse, FSU-Auburn, Miami-Ala & Tenn-Va. (3 of the 8 spots to Indy's)

Cotton Bowl: TAM-N Dame, UCLA-Arky, Tenn-Arky and Miam-Texas (2 of the 8 spots to Indy's)

Fiesta Bowl: FSU-Neb, N Dame-W Va, FSU-Neb & Louisville-Ala (5 of the 8 spots to Indy's)

32 Bowl spots over 4 years at those 4 bowl games. 14 of them to Independents

The last 4 years...1 Indy and 3 mid-majors have been in elite bowls. That's quite a drop-off
huh? W. Mich in last year's Cotton and N Dame in '15, Boise St in '14 and UCF in '13 to the
Fiesta Bowl.

You could build yourself up 40 years ago, but that door was slammed shut a long time ago.

The door had to be slammed on the mid-majors to protect the bottom feeders of each P5
league from having their recruiting devastated by kids wanting to at least compete in the
playoffs, picking Memphis over Iowa State or Colo State over Kansas or USF over Vandy
or Temple over Syracuse...etc...etc...etc!

The bottom feeders of the P5 leagues get very few 4-stars now. They'd lose them and
1/2 their 3-stars.

 

[Codaxx]

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

It crowns the best team over the course of the last 3-4 games. I am not sure what is the definition of the best team. Is it the team that rolls a weaker schedule? The team that had incredible injury luck, compared to others? Or is it just the opinion of the media?

Let's be honest the LSU team that lost a rematch to Bama, probably had the best resume of any NC contender. Bama beat them and it was "Bama was the best team".

 

[4down20]

Because Florida State was an Independent 40 years ago when we began to climb.

An Independent that could get a spot in Elite Bowls. So we could play good teams,
beat them and get the good bowl spot. A mid-major Independent cannot do that
in this day and age. Only ONE mid-major is guaranteed an elite spot and that must be
the best Champion from the Group of 5 leagues.

Not only was FSU and Independent but so was Miami...Penn State...Pitt...Notre Dame
When Kramer from the SEC was floating the idea of the "coalition for the major bowls"
his greatest fear was those Independents gobbling up all the berths. That's why the
Big10 and Pac8 wouldn't be a part of that group. Not with those powerful Independents
out there. Once The Big East was formed, and Penn St went to the Big10 and most of the
others formed the Big East, FSU became a problem. So the SEC first and then the ACC
offered FSU because they didn't want them out their as an Independent taking up spots
for their leagues.

Here's 4 years of Bowl spots between the 1987 season thru the 1990 season, before the
coalition kicked in.

Orange Bowl: Miami-OU, Miami-Nebraska, N Dame-Colo & Colo-N Dame (1/2 the spots
to Independents)

Sugar Bowl: Auburn-Syracuse, FSU-Auburn, Miami-Ala & Tenn-Va. (3 of the 8 spots to Indy's)

Cotton Bowl: TAM-N Dame, UCLA-Arky, Tenn-Arky and Miam-Texas (2 of the 8 spots to Indy's)

Fiesta Bowl: FSU-Neb, N Dame-W Va, FSU-Neb & Louisville-Ala (5 of the 8 spots to Indy's)

32 Bowl spots over 4 years at those 4 bowl games. 14 of them to Independents

The last 4 years...1 Indy and 3 mid-majors have been in elite bowls. That's quite a drop-off
huh? W. Mich in last year's Cotton and N Dame in '15, Boise St in '14 and UCF in '13 to the
Fiesta Bowl.

You could build yourself up 40 years ago, but that door was slammed shut a long time ago.

The door had to be slammed on the mid-majors to protect the bottom feeders of each P5
league from having their recruiting devastated by kids wanting to at least compete in the
playoffs, picking Memphis over Iowa State or Colo State over Kansas or USF over Vandy
or Temple over Syracuse...etc...etc...etc!

The bottom feeders of the P5 leagues get very few 4-stars now. They'd lose them and
1/2 their 3-stars.

It's even easier now, just saw TCU come up. The biggest obstacle is having a good area to build around, otherwise you get Boise St type sitatuions.

 

[NolePride]

It crowns the best team over the course of the last 3-4 games. I am not sure what is the definition of the best team. Is it the team that rolls a weaker schedule? The team that had incredible injury luck, compared to others? Or is it just the opinion of the media?

Let's be honest the LSU team that lost a rematch to Bama, probably had the best resume of any NC contender. Bama beat them and it was "Bama was the best team".

The definition of the "Best Team" has always been the one that wins the game.

What these people are trying to tell you is the opinion of a couple of voters outweighs the scoreboard.

You remember when Marquette upset UK, a few years back in the 2nd round of the NCAA
playoffs. If you go by what these people say, A "committee" would have voted that UK should
play on and Marquette must go home.

 

[belcherboy]

I think I still like the 4 team playoff over expansion. Depending on how you divvy out the playoff spots, there could have easily been a 3 loss team in an 8 team playoffs over the past few years. I can understand losing a bad game during the season...I mean both Clemson and Penn State lost bad games early in the year. I like that if you have 2 losses though, it will be nearly impossible for you to make it in the playoffs. The regular season is worth so much in the NCAA, and I think that makes each week so much more exciting. Just my two cents.

 

[4down20]

The definition of the "Best Team" has always been the one that wins the game.

What these people are trying to tell you is the opinion of a couple of voters outweighs the scoreboard.

Which scoreboard? What is being said is the opnion of a couple of voters outweights the way a conference decides it's champion. Because if you are looking the scoreboards, then Ohio St had a much better OOC win with Oklahoma, while Penn St lost to Pitt in it's OOC game.

The Big10 doesn't give a fuck about those 2 games, but the committee does.

You remember when Marquette upset UK, a few years back in the 2nd round of the NCAA
playoffs. If you go by what these people say, A "committee" would have voted that UK should
play on and Marquette must go home.

Huh? The committee is what put the teams in the original spots of that tournament.

 

[4down20]

It crowns the best team over the course of the last 3-4 games. I am not sure what is the definition of the best team. Is it the team that rolls a weaker schedule? The team that had incredible injury luck, compared to others? Or is it just the opinion of the media?

Let's be honest the LSU team that lost a rematch to Bama, probably had the best resume of any NC contender. Bama beat them and it was "Bama was the best team".

It's the teams that show they are the best over the season. Thats means being good yes, but you also have to win the games and prove it. Sadly, record seems to mean more than SoS, nd SoS decides when record is even. The exception being extreme differences.

LSU had a great resume that year, easily one of the best ever. But the 1st game was close, coming down to FG in OT, and the 2nd match was dominating by Alabama. If the 2nd game had been like the 1st, but exactly the opposite, it'd be different.

 

[Codaxx]

It's the teams that show they are the best over the season. Thats means being good yes, but you also have to win the games and prove it. Sadly, record seems to mean more than SoS, nd SoS decides when record is even. The exception being extreme differences.

LSU had a great resume that year, easily one of the best ever. But the 1st game was close, coming down to FG in OT, and the 2nd match was dominating by Alabama. If the 2nd game had been like the 1st, but exactly the opposite, it'd be different.

There were a lot of rumors circling LSU for that title game, which was really strange for an undefeated team. My real point is that teams change over the course of a season. Sometimes it is the development of young talent. It can be injury related, either losing or gaining someone. The idea of proclaiming a "best team" over the course of a season is just stupid. If the idea was to be constant, than why coach after Sept 1? In the end playoffs serve 2 purposes. #1 to crown a champion. #2 to entertain the fan base. The idea of "best team" is nonsense.