(08-25-2017 09:43 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 08:33 AM)megadrone Wrote:  That's still a little arbitrary if you don't have a full round robin though. Was Ohio State a better team than Penn State last year? Penn State lost to Pitt and only beat Temple by 1 TD. That factored in.

Playoffs allow a team to get hot at the right time and win it all (look at the Giants last 2 super bowl wins). They were champs but the Patriots were the best team. It will happen, especially if there are ever 4 team divisions or pods.

Ohio St. got in because they are a football king with a sexy brand, huge following, and the ability to deliver TV ratings. The Committee could justify their inclusion because of their shiny win-loss record.

I don't understand why college football still uses a beauty pageant to crown its champion. Penn St. WON THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONSHIP...over Ohio St.! They beat Ohio St. on the field and won the Big Ten conference championship game.

I can understand the argument that Ohio St. - as a non-champ - might get in ahead of another conference's champion. But there is absolutely no reason to look at Pitt and Temple games to justify placing Ohio St. ahead of Penn St. - a team it lost to in the regular season and the champion of Ohio St.'s conference. Dumb.

If we're just going to measure sexiness and desirability, why even play the games?

The answer is one of two structural changes:

1) expand conference championships to include semi-finals, that allow a team like Ohio St. the chance to play for the conference championship, even if they don't have enough wins in their division. This is the ideal scenario for the P4 world, where only the larger power conferences participate in the CFP system;

OR

2) expand the CFP to allow spots for non-champs - but only IF their conference champ is also in the CFP. This would mostly likely entail autobids for the P5 conferences.

College football runs the risk of devaluing the regular season and the conference championship games by allowing non-champs like 2016 Ohio St. in over B1G champ Penn St.

OR, perhaps the CFP got it precisely right - because controversy is the best recipe for interest and ratings.

100% Agree. People can argue all day that Ohio State was "better than" Penn State, but... SCOREBOARD! You want to be the champ? Then beat the other contenders. You don't do that... then wait until next year like everyone else.

(08-25-2017 12:19 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 11:04 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 09:43 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 08:33 AM)megadrone Wrote:  That's still a little arbitrary if you don't have a full round robin though. Was Ohio State a better team than Penn State last year? Penn State lost to Pitt and only beat Temple by 1 TD. That factored in.

Playoffs allow a team to get hot at the right time and win it all (look at the Giants last 2 super bowl wins). They were champs but the Patriots were the best team. It will happen, especially if there are ever 4 team divisions or pods.

Ohio St. got in because they are a football king with a sexy brand, huge following, and the ability to deliver TV ratings. The Committee could justify their inclusion because of their shiny win-loss record.

I don't understand why college football still uses a beauty pageant to crown its champion. Penn St. WON THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONSHIP...over Ohio St.! They beat Ohio St. on the field and won the Big Ten conference championship game.

I can understand the argument that Ohio St. - as a non-champ - might get in ahead of another conference's champion. But there is absolutely no reason to look at Pitt and Temple games to justify placing Ohio St. ahead of Penn St. - a team it lost to in the regular season and the champion of Ohio St.'s conference. Dumb.

If we're just going to measure sexiness and desirability, why even play the games?

The answer is one of two structural changes:

1) expand conference championships to include semi-finals, that allow a team like Ohio St. the chance to play for the conference championship, even if they don't have enough wins in their division. This is the ideal scenario for the P4 world, where only the larger power conferences participate in the CFP system;

OR

2) expand the CFP to allow spots for non-champs - but only IF their conference champ is also in the CFP. This would mostly likely entail autobids for the P5 conferences.

College football runs the risk of devaluing the regular season and the conference championship games by allowing non-champs like 2016 Ohio St. in over B1G champ Penn St.

OR, perhaps the CFP got it precisely right - because controversy is the best recipe for interest and ratings.

Penn State had one more loss than Ohio State. They were tied in conference play but PSU had the head to head tiebreaker -- which Penn State won on a blocked field goal recovery for a TD. There's enough for a reasonable argument that OSU was a better team than PSU, even though PSU won that day on the field. If PSU had a convincing win over OSU then you can say that PSU was the better team. But you can't based on the bodies of work.

If the field goal isn't blocked, OSU wins 24-14.

Sounds like the Big Ten should have a selection committee to decide who plays in the conference championship game.

Not exactly, I'm just not making my point clearly enough. The only part of PSU's body of work that woudl have given them a clear advantage over OSU was that they won the head to head match.

But they didn't win in a convincing fashion. It was won on a turnover returned for a touchdown. If you look at the complete body of work for the season (as the committee is supposed to do) you can make the case that OSU had the better team even though PSU won the head to head match, the Big 10 East, and eventually the Big 10.

Since it's subjective, no one can be completely right or wrong. You can make logical arguments to support either case. If PSU had dominated OSU during the head to head match, then it makes a stronger case for PSU being a better team. But they didn't. They also lost to Pitt, which was a worse loss than anything OSU had on their schedule.

(08-25-2017 02:22 PM)megadrone Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 12:19 PM)YNot Wrote:  Sounds like the Big Ten should have a selection committee to decide who plays in the conference championship game.

Not exactly, I'm just not making my point clearly enough. The only part of PSU's body of work that woudl have given them a clear advantage over OSU was that they won the head to head match.

But they didn't win in a convincing fashion. It was won on a turnover returned for a touchdown. If you look at the complete body of work for the season (as the committee is supposed to do) you can make the case that OSU had the better team even though PSU won the head to head match, the Big 10 East, and eventually the Big 10.

Since it's subjective, no one can be completely right or wrong. You can make logical arguments to support either case. If PSU had dominated OSU during the head to head match, then it makes a stronger case for PSU being a better team. But they didn't. They also lost to Pitt, which was a worse loss than anything OSU had on their schedule.

I don't like the fact that the CFP committee spokesperson identifies head-to-head matchup, 13th data point, and conference championship as major considerations for CFP selection - and even publicizes that those very factors kept TCU out in 2014.

Penn St. had all three factors leaning its way, but then, the CFP committee reverts to the 'body of work' and 'eye test' rhetoric to confirm that it is indeed still a beauty contest, biased towards the top handful of brands.

At least the B1G acknowledges the scoreboard and uses the head-to-head results to place Penn St. into the B1G championship game (which they deserved).

The subjectivity is brilliant, because here we are months later, still discussing.

It's like P90X - you hate it, but you love it.

(08-25-2017 02:47 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 02:22 PM)megadrone Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 12:19 PM)YNot Wrote:  Sounds like the Big Ten should have a selection committee to decide who plays in the conference championship game.

Not exactly, I'm just not making my point clearly enough. The only part of PSU's body of work that woudl have given them a clear advantage over OSU was that they won the head to head match.

But they didn't win in a convincing fashion. It was won on a turnover returned for a touchdown. If you look at the complete body of work for the season (as the committee is supposed to do) you can make the case that OSU had the better team even though PSU won the head to head match, the Big 10 East, and eventually the Big 10.

Since it's subjective, no one can be completely right or wrong. You can make logical arguments to support either case. If PSU had dominated OSU during the head to head match, then it makes a stronger case for PSU being a better team. But they didn't. They also lost to Pitt, which was a worse loss than anything OSU had on their schedule.

I don't like the fact that the CFP committee spokesperson identifies head-to-head matchup, 13th data point, and conference championship as major considerations for CFP selection - and even publicizes that those very factors kept TCU out in 2014.

Penn St. had all three factors leaning its way, but then, the CFP committee reverts to the 'body of work' and 'eye test' rhetoric to confirm that it is indeed still a beauty contest, biased towards the top handful of brands.

At least the B1G acknowledges the scoreboard and uses the head-to-head results to place Penn St. into the B1G championship game (which they deserved).

The subjectivity is brilliant, because here we are months later, still discussing.

It's like P90X - you hate it, but you love it.

The subjectivity is about advertising money and the shifting emphasis is merely reflective of how the intentionally arbitrary nature of the committee really only has one agenda, pairing the most profitable teams to televise.

T.C.U. and Baylor got hosed because they were privates with no national following. Penn State got hosed because the specter of Sandusky hangs over them where national following is concerned. Ohio State draws eyeballs from everywhere. It is not an accident that on both occasions OSU was the beneficiary. And I might add it is not B1G bias at work at all. Had Alabama been sitting on the edge the same thing would have happened. Ditto for USC or Notre Dame, or Florida State.

The CFP is a big money maker for the network. The oldest saying known to civilized humanity is that if you really want to screw over somebody or some institution then get a committee of impeccable reputations to do it. People may have doubts about the credibility of the decision but no one will question the reputations of the committee doing the deed.

(08-25-2017 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  T.C.U. and Baylor got hosed

A big part of that was the Big XII management not following what, at least we fans percieved, to be the rules. Baylor should have been called by them the sole champ that year.

(08-25-2017 05:13 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  T.C.U. and Baylor got hosed

A big part of that was the Big XII management not following what, at least we fans percieved, to be the rules. Baylor should have been called by them the sole champ that year.

I think it has less to do with that than Baylor's lack of decent non-conference opponents. All things being equal, the bigger brand will be allowed to win out.

I don't totally agree with the idea that brand is everything. See Washington last year...that spot could have very well gone to an Oklahoma for example.

The record on the field does determine participation in the CFP, but you better make it a clear distinction between you and the next guy in line or you allow the subjective to enter into the equation. In that scenario, the bigger draw wins.

(08-25-2017 08:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 05:13 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  T.C.U. and Baylor got hosed

A big part of that was the Big XII management not following what, at least we fans percieved, to be the rules. Baylor should have been called by them the sole champ that year.

I think it has less to do with that than Baylor's lack of decent non-conference opponents. All things being equal, the bigger brand will be allowed to win out.

I don't totally agree with the idea that brand is everything. See Washington last year...that spot could have very well gone to an Oklahoma for example.

The record on the field does determine participation in the CFP, but you better make it a clear distinction between you and the next guy in line or you allow the subjective to enter into the equation. In that scenario, the bigger draw wins.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

This is the point I was trying to make about State Penn and Ohio State. PSU didn't separate themselves from Ohio State, so the subjective could set in. If they had dominated the head to head match, they would have been in the CFP last year, even with the loss to Pitt.