Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44

Thread: Article: Tailgating: The CFP Report

  1. PSU just got hosed.
    Workin' on mysteries without any clues

  2. #32
       
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Trumpetbdw's basement
    Posts
    2,079
    Congrats to Washington. The committee got it wrong. We can't reward Portland State, Idaho, and Rutgers. Very bad precedent. Sorry.

    If Ohio State doesn't play (and beat) Oklahoma, are they in? @Oklahoma is infinitely more challenging than what Washington did. @Pitt (and AAC champion Temple for that matter), is infinitely more challenging than what Washington did. Add in the much tougher conference with higher quality wins? They got it wrong.

    Who knew when McSorley forced a pass into the end zone in week 2 against Pitt instead of continue to drive for the winning FG that it would cost them a playoff spot? This season has been amazing, and this result will not taint that. The Rose Bowl is going to be an awesome thing.

    But still, it's wrong.
    "I will never give a motivational speech to my players. If I have to motivate you, I will fire you."

    -Chuck Noll

  3. #33
       
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Trumpetbdw's basement
    Posts
    2,079
    Chris Petersen- "All we can do is play our schedule"

    YOUR SCHOOL CREATED YOUR SCHEDULE!!!
    "I will never give a motivational speech to my players. If I have to motivate you, I will fire you."

    -Chuck Noll

  4. #34
       
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    New Orleans--Spain--Cleveland
    Posts
    2,239
    I'm not that worried about precedent right now. Based on what the Committee has done for the first three years, it certainly suggests that it views each year as a kind of unique and beautiful snowflake, and that the criteria is actually kind of a moving target. I understand this is frustrating in some ways, but I think an adaptive approach is better than previous BCS system, which was a math equation that could only be altered by voters manipulating the polls. Just as it shouldn't be a prescriptive formula, the Committee shouldn't feel obligated to just pick the four best conference champions. This was a position I held last year, by the way, too.

    The only team that's unimpeachable is undefeated Alabama. I mean, look at Clemson. No one is questioning their inclusion, but they also struggled against a meh Auburn team and Troy; the bloom is really off of Louisville's rose after getting smoked by Houston and losing to Kentucky in not-basketball; I've never been exactly certain that Florida State is good this year. Beating Virginia Tech, though, who has a first-year head coach and couldn't beat a Tennessee team that eventually lost to Vanderbilt despite the fact that Vols turned the ball over about 58 times in their game validates everything, though? Of course, these kinds of mental gymnastics around the transitive property of victories are kind of dumb. My point isn't to bash Clemson here, because it does seem that the Tigers obviously should be in, doesn't it? I just don't know how you arrived at that last night during a game against Virginia Tech.

    So, here's the deal. There is no one-size-fits-all formula to college football's national championship. As close as it comes, though, is that if you're a two-loss team, you won't factor in it. The only team to do so was 2007 LSU, when--literally--every other team in major college football had two losses. (Except for Ohio State, who they played in the NCG, because the Buckeyes only had one loss.) If you have one loss, you always need help and you have no one to blame but yourself if you're not in; if you have two, you pretty much need divine intervention.

    At least, you know, until the College Football Playoff figures out how to spread enough money around to have an eight- or sixteen-team tournament.
    Last edited by Matt Kocsan; 12-04-2016 at 04:55 PM.

  5. #35
       
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    New Orleans--Spain--Cleveland
    Posts
    2,239
    I swear, I was not watching their presser.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Hills, California
    Posts
    2,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Williams View Post
    To be clear, I'm not saying PSU should have the Michigan loss ignored, but I think it should be counted as just a loss, and the 39 part of the equation should be overlooked thanks to the circumstances/timing of the game being in September. And standings tiebreakers would include all 3. Had Michigan finished off Ohio State, both OSU and PSU would have to be out right now. But in H2H, all three finished 1-1 against the other. All 3 beat a top 10 Wisconsin-- Michigan at home, OSU on the road, PSU on a neutral field. PSU won the division and the
    Not all losses are equal. But if you get thumped by 39, then you aren't one of the four best teams in college football. Maybe there were contributing factors that led to the loss, such as key injuries. But to lose by 39? No, you are a flawed team and not one of the four best teamsi in college football.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Hills, California
    Posts
    2,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Williams View Post
    Congrats to Washington. The committee got it wrong. We can't reward Portland State, Idaho, and Rutgers. Very bad precedent. Sorry.

    If Ohio State doesn't play (and beat) Oklahoma, are they in? @Oklahoma is infinitely more challenging than what Washington did. @Pitt (and AAC champion Temple for that matter), is infinitely more challenging than what Washington did. Add in the much tougher conference with higher quality wins? They got it wrong.

    But still, it's wrong.
    Its a double-edged sword here. Ohio State doesn't get into the playoff without the victory over Oklahoma. I can guaramtee you that. The committee probably would have considered Oklahoma for the playoff, if they didn't look so bad against Ohio State and their loss against Houston didn't look good either. As I said in my other post, not all losses are equal. If Oklahoma was competitive in either of those games, they would have probably gotten in over Washington.

    I think you are also discounting the Pac 12 schedule way too much. Its a down year for the Pac 12, but Washington looked really good in most of their Pac 12 games. A lot of people tend to do that with Pac 12 games because the games are on later at night. I'm not accusing you of that, because I know you are a big college football fan. But that is the general tendency against the Pac 12.

    Ultimately what is the criteria for the playoff? Best or most deserving? Most deserving lends itself to the conference champion test mostly. Which would put Penn State in over Ohio State. Best is eye test and various other metrics. Those metrics, IMO, lended themselves more toward Washington than Penn State.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Hills, California
    Posts
    2,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Kocsan View Post

    So, here's the deal. There is no one-size-fits-all formula to college football's national championship. As close as it comes, though, is that if you're a two-loss team, you won't factor in it. The only team to do so was 2007 LSU, when--literally--every other team in major college football had two losses. (Except for Ohio State, who they played in the NCG, because the Buckeyes only had one loss.) If you have one loss, you always need help and you have no one to blame but yourself if you're not in; if you have two, you pretty much need divine intervention.

    At least, you know, until the College Football Playoff figures out how to spread enough money around to have an eight- or sixteen-team tournament.
    I'm not sure I agree with you about two losses. I think the committee looks at quality wins and judges teams on that number and not the number of losses they have. That is where a conference championship can be beneficial. Its a 13th chance to get another quality win.

  9. #39
    Totally unrelated..... Is someone (ahem, Brian) setting up a FP Group for Bowl Pick 'Em?

    I prefer the weighed picks option myself.

  10. #40
       
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    New Orleans--Spain--Cleveland
    Posts
    2,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Gapinski View Post
    Totally unrelated..... Is someone (ahem, Brian) setting up a FP Group for Bowl Pick 'Em?

    I prefer the weighed picks option myself.
    Yeah, we should get that up.
    Follow me on twitter @kocsan.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •