I think the Co-Champs stuff is so insignificant it's insignificant. Even had Baylor had been declared outright Big 12 champs after beating K-State, Ohio St whitewash of Wisconsin still would have jumped the Buckeyes over the Bears.

(12-15-2014 08:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 02:32 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Who's "you"?

It is called an explanation into how that particular power metric was figured. It really isn't that difficult but if you need me to come up with whom else likely came to that conclusion? The Committee. My evidence? The teams that made the Final Four. Specifically, I am talking about Ohio State.

Ohio State is a name program. Neither TCU nor Baylor can make the same claim. They're very good, and may well be better than Ohio State or any of the other programs in the playoff. But they aren't "name programs", like Ohio State, and given the opportunity the playoff committee went with the name.

Baylor and TCU are on the outside looking in as a result. They have the resume, but not the name.

An easy excuse to be made. A proper Big 12 declaration of one team being champion over the other would have made the Ohio State decision much more difficult.

There are plenty of metrics that show Baylor and TCU really didn't have all that much stronger of a resume than Ohio State did. Such metrics were stated numerous times soon after Ohio State was chosen in order to show that they deserved it just as much.

Personally, I don't care either way. Either way was going to be a scandal and that is all I truly cared about.

The Big 12 should have been honorable with it's explanations. If you can choose a Bowl representative due to head to head then you can choose your conference championship. To defend the words of Bowlsby is to defend a lie and thus to become a liar.

IMO Baylor is the XII Champion. They beat TCU on the field, which is the one true method to determine such things. But the conference decided to ignore that, since it looked like TCU was the favored team in the race for the playoff. It was a bad move, since it backfired.

Baylor is the obvious champion. I think on it's own, the act of not choosing a champion is no big deal. But I think when you place that into the bigger picture of what the Big 12 has been marketing, it makes for a very obvious picture of the Big 12 trying to overwork the system and I do believe that truly did harm them.

Ohio State made it possible with that win for them to be picked. The Big 12's antics made it the more palatable choice for the Committee because I don't think they wanted to get into the business of deciding a conference's champion for them.

(12-15-2014 04:38 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 01:20 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  Right, because the Bama schedule of Florida Atlantic (3 wins), Southern Miss (3 wins) and Western Carolina is a murderers row.

Should I be surprised that you conveniently ignored the Alabama win over West Virginia?

Next year they play Wisconsin.

The year after they play USC.

The last few years they've played Michigan, Penn St., VT, and Clemson.

Every year they seem to schedule a decent P5 school OOC. How long has it been since Baylor played a P5 school OOC?

I didn't ignore it. Both Bama and Baylor played 9 P5 teams during the regular season. My point is that Baylor catches hell for a weak OOC yet Bama gets a pass because they had WVU even though they only play 8 conference games. If Bama can play 9 P5 games and be ranked #1 then why shouldn't Baylor do the same. Bama just showed the rest of the country that OOC doesn't matter.

(12-15-2014 11:43 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  I didn't ignore it. Both Bama and Baylor played 9 P5 teams during the regular season. My point is that Baylor catches hell for a weak OOC yet Bama gets a pass because they had WVU even though they only play 8 conference games. If Bama can play 9 P5 games and be ranked #1 then why shouldn't Baylor do the same. Bama just showed the rest of the country that OOC doesn't matter.

Baylor has another school in their very own conference who ended up with the same record and played 10 P5 schools. So should TCU be ranked higher than Baylor because of their tougher schedule?

Baylor looks like the scared school in the B12 who tries to game the system by scheduling weak OOC. If Baylor's attitude is "we don't have to schedule P5 teams OOC because we play 9 conference games" then good luck in the future. Obviously didn't work for you guys this year, though. People will continue to ding your school for that "we'll just do the bare minimum and it should be enough" attitude.

(12-16-2014 12:54 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 11:43 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  I didn't ignore it. Both Bama and Baylor played 9 P5 teams during the regular season. My point is that Baylor catches hell for a weak OOC yet Bama gets a pass because they had WVU even though they only play 8 conference games. If Bama can play 9 P5 games and be ranked #1 then why shouldn't Baylor do the same. Bama just showed the rest of the country that OOC doesn't matter.

Baylor has another school in their very own conference who ended up with the same record and played 10 P5 schools. So should TCU be ranked higher than Baylor because of their tougher schedule?

Baylor looks like the scared school in the B12 who tries to game the system by scheduling weak OOC. If Baylor's attitude is "we don't have to schedule P5 teams OOC because we play 9 conference games" then good luck in the future. Obviously didn't work for you guys this year, though. People will continue to ding your school for that "we'll just do the bare minimum and it should be enough" attitude.

I'm not saying that Baylor should be #1. I'm saying that if Bama can play a weak OOC schedule and finish the season ranked #1, then what reason does Baylor have to change up their comparable OOC? Why should the SEC teams get a pass for playing the same bare minimum that Baylor gets hammered for playing?

To me it is clear that outright Conference Champs get a bonus in voting from the CFP and they seem to really like massive blowout wins. I know Briles won't do it, but I think Baylor should stop letting off the gas in the 3rd Quarter and really blow out some of these games.

(12-15-2014 06:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 02:32 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 12:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You take away the first games of the year because most teams aren't playing their best ball.

Who's "you"?

It is called an explanation into how that particular power metric was figured. It really isn't that difficult but if you need me to come up with whom else likely came to that conclusion? The Committee. My evidence? The teams that made the Final Four. Specifically, I am talking about Ohio State.

Ok, well I don't think that's a fair approach.

First game of season? Well, what about game after mid-terms? Or what if weather is really bad? Or flu hits campus?

Lots of things go wrong for teams throughout season. It's inappropriate for a committee to choose one arbitrarily to favor one team.

Six teams have a strong record to get in, and that's why a playoff should have been a minimum of 8 teams.

(12-11-2014 07:52 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  They need to let Las Vegas pick the top 4. They don't play favorites. Could care less how big or small a school is or where it's located.

Worst idea ever. Vegas also doesn't care about results. Alabama could have gone 8-4 this year and Vegas would still consider them the best team.

(12-11-2014 03:41 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  This is one angle I haven't heard mentioned. Did SEC and Pac 12 lobby to get ZSU included b/c they felt TCU and Baylor were better?

Oregon has limited defense, and 'Bama's isn't fast enough to keep up w/ TCU's offense. 'Bama can't win that shoot out.

ESPN was afraid of Baylor and TCU getting into the playoff over a bigger brand—Ohio St. Consequently, ESPN interrupted the NFL Countdown Show the day of the selection announcements to explain through NFL and FBS analysts (college analysts on a NFL show...) why Ohio St should be in the playoff and the B12 excluded. Subsequently, what I heard from the committee chairperson echoed the mouthpieces for ESPN. This caused me to believe that ESPN had overwhelming influence on the committee to place the bigger name brand into the playoff. Nonetheless, the B12 gave ESPN the ability to expose and ridicule the “One True Champ” SCAM-paign when it proclaimed co-champs (when everyone knew that Baylor was/is the champ), justify penalizing it for not having a CCG, and question Baylor’s SoS. The committee could penalize the B12 almost every year should ESPN “encourage” it to do so because the B12’s current structure allows for it to be excluded from the playoff (if bigger brands are available from other power conferences) for not having a CCG….

(12-16-2014 02:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 02:32 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 12:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You take away the first games of the year because most teams aren't playing their best ball.

Who's "you"?

It is called an explanation into how that particular power metric was figured. It really isn't that difficult but if you need me to come up with whom else likely came to that conclusion? The Committee. My evidence? The teams that made the Final Four. Specifically, I am talking about Ohio State.

Ok, well I don't think that's a fair approach.

First game of season? Well, what about game after mid-terms? Or what if weather is really bad? Or flu hits campus?

Lots of things go wrong for teams throughout season. It's inappropriate for a committee to choose one arbitrarily to favor one team.

Six teams have a strong record to get in, and that's why a playoff should have been a minimum of 8 teams.

You aren't even making sense. Did you not see that the power ranking I showed had showed the same situation for every team? It is just a single power ranking that takes a look at the situation minus the first two games. Some folks believe that teams grow during the season and more often then not, the first game or two really aren't very representative of the identity of the team by the end of the season.

What you did was make up a bunch of false statements that have NOTHING to do with that one single power ranking. You do realize there are Other power rankings and I was simply pulling up one of the many in order to show that anyone wanting to push any agenda can find something to support that agenda.

The problem with your "flu scenario" or the weather is that they are not the same with every team. Not considering the first two games in a power ranking? That gives equal consideration.

You want to make your own power ranking that removes games played right after mid terms? Go for it. At least then you would be understanding the point.

In terms of your point about more teams needing to be in. I have been consistently telling folks that an expanded playoff will come sooner rather than later. In fact when I started saying this, I could probably count on one hand the number of posters here that agreed with me at the time. Now everyone does because the TV talking heads have told them that they are now allowed to think that.

It wont be expanded to 8 teams right away. That is the initial talking point put out by ESPN so that the Committee run by the Major Conferences is able to save face with a negotiation. They will come out sooner rather than later with a 6 team expanded playoff. Had ESPN started the conversation with talking about 6 teams then that wouldn't allow for the Committee run by the Conferences to be able to act.

Six teams in probably two years. They are most likely already working on the legal particulars with the two extra bowls that they would need to bring into the tournament.

(12-15-2014 11:42 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 08:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It is called an explanation into how that particular power metric was figured. It really isn't that difficult but if you need me to come up with whom else likely came to that conclusion? The Committee. My evidence? The teams that made the Final Four. Specifically, I am talking about Ohio State.

Ohio State is a name program. Neither TCU nor Baylor can make the same claim. They're very good, and may well be better than Ohio State or any of the other programs in the playoff. But they aren't "name programs", like Ohio State, and given the opportunity the playoff committee went with the name.

Baylor and TCU are on the outside looking in as a result. They have the resume, but not the name.

An easy excuse to be made. A proper Big 12 declaration of one team being champion over the other would have made the Ohio State decision much more difficult.

There are plenty of metrics that show Baylor and TCU really didn't have all that much stronger of a resume than Ohio State did. Such metrics were stated numerous times soon after Ohio State was chosen in order to show that they deserved it just as much.

Personally, I don't care either way. Either way was going to be a scandal and that is all I truly cared about.

The Big 12 should have been honorable with it's explanations. If you can choose a Bowl representative due to head to head then you can choose your conference championship. To defend the words of Bowlsby is to defend a lie and thus to become a liar.

IMO Baylor is the XII Champion. They beat TCU on the field, which is the one true method to determine such things. But the conference decided to ignore that, since it looked like TCU was the favored team in the race for the playoff. It was a bad move, since it backfired.

Baylor is the obvious champion. I think on it's own, the act of not choosing a champion is no big deal. But I think when you place that into the bigger picture of what the Big 12 has been marketing, it makes for a very obvious picture of the Big 12 trying to overwork the system and I do believe that truly did harm them.

Ohio State made it possible with that win for them to be picked. The Big 12's antics made it the more palatable choice for the Committee because I don't think they wanted to get into the business of deciding a conference's champion for them.

I don't doubt that played a part in it.

Of course, if TCU had been able to prevent Baylor from coming back to win it would be a moot point. If they had, TCU would be the unbeaten, undisputed XII Champion, and in the playoffs over Ohio State. But they weren't, and so they aren't.

(12-16-2014 07:56 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 11:42 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 08:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Ohio State is a name program. Neither TCU nor Baylor can make the same claim. They're very good, and may well be better than Ohio State or any of the other programs in the playoff. But they aren't "name programs", like Ohio State, and given the opportunity the playoff committee went with the name.

Baylor and TCU are on the outside looking in as a result. They have the resume, but not the name.

An easy excuse to be made. A proper Big 12 declaration of one team being champion over the other would have made the Ohio State decision much more difficult.

There are plenty of metrics that show Baylor and TCU really didn't have all that much stronger of a resume than Ohio State did. Such metrics were stated numerous times soon after Ohio State was chosen in order to show that they deserved it just as much.

Personally, I don't care either way. Either way was going to be a scandal and that is all I truly cared about.

The Big 12 should have been honorable with it's explanations. If you can choose a Bowl representative due to head to head then you can choose your conference championship. To defend the words of Bowlsby is to defend a lie and thus to become a liar.

IMO Baylor is the XII Champion. They beat TCU on the field, which is the one true method to determine such things. But the conference decided to ignore that, since it looked like TCU was the favored team in the race for the playoff. It was a bad move, since it backfired.

Baylor is the obvious champion. I think on it's own, the act of not choosing a champion is no big deal. But I think when you place that into the bigger picture of what the Big 12 has been marketing, it makes for a very obvious picture of the Big 12 trying to overwork the system and I do believe that truly did harm them.

Ohio State made it possible with that win for them to be picked. The Big 12's antics made it the more palatable choice for the Committee because I don't think they wanted to get into the business of deciding a conference's champion for them.

I don't doubt that played a part in it.

Of course, if TCU had been able to prevent Baylor from coming back to win it would be a moot point. If they had, TCU would be the unbeaten, undisputed XII Champion, and in the playoffs over Ohio State. But they weren't, and so they aren't.

You are correct but unfortunately, the situation is as it is. What if's don't really matter.

(12-16-2014 10:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:56 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 11:42 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 08:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  An easy excuse to be made. A proper Big 12 declaration of one team being champion over the other would have made the Ohio State decision much more difficult.

There are plenty of metrics that show Baylor and TCU really didn't have all that much stronger of a resume than Ohio State did. Such metrics were stated numerous times soon after Ohio State was chosen in order to show that they deserved it just as much.

Personally, I don't care either way. Either way was going to be a scandal and that is all I truly cared about.

The Big 12 should have been honorable with it's explanations. If you can choose a Bowl representative due to head to head then you can choose your conference championship. To defend the words of Bowlsby is to defend a lie and thus to become a liar.

IMO Baylor is the XII Champion. They beat TCU on the field, which is the one true method to determine such things. But the conference decided to ignore that, since it looked like TCU was the favored team in the race for the playoff. It was a bad move, since it backfired.

Baylor is the obvious champion. I think on it's own, the act of not choosing a champion is no big deal. But I think when you place that into the bigger picture of what the Big 12 has been marketing, it makes for a very obvious picture of the Big 12 trying to overwork the system and I do believe that truly did harm them.

Ohio State made it possible with that win for them to be picked. The Big 12's antics made it the more palatable choice for the Committee because I don't think they wanted to get into the business of deciding a conference's champion for them.

I don't doubt that played a part in it.

Of course, if TCU had been able to prevent Baylor from coming back to win it would be a moot point. If they had, TCU would be the unbeaten, undisputed XII Champion, and in the playoffs over Ohio State. But they weren't, and so they aren't.

You are correct but unfortunately, the situation is as it is. What if's don't really matter.

Ain't that a dog of the female persuasion?

(12-15-2014 08:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 02:32 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Who's "you"?

It is called an explanation into how that particular power metric was figured. It really isn't that difficult but if you need me to come up with whom else likely came to that conclusion? The Committee. My evidence? The teams that made the Final Four. Specifically, I am talking about Ohio State.

Ohio State is a name program. Neither TCU nor Baylor can make the same claim. They're very good, and may well be better than Ohio State or any of the other programs in the playoff. But they aren't "name programs", like Ohio State, and given the opportunity the playoff committee went with the name.

Baylor and TCU are on the outside looking in as a result. They have the resume, but not the name.

An easy excuse to be made. A proper Big 12 declaration of one team being champion over the other would have made the Ohio State decision much more difficult.

There are plenty of metrics that show Baylor and TCU really didn't have all that much stronger of a resume than Ohio State did. Such metrics were stated numerous times soon after Ohio State was chosen in order to show that they deserved it just as much.

Personally, I don't care either way. Either way was going to be a scandal and that is all I truly cared about.

The Big 12 should have been honorable with it's explanations. If you can choose a Bowl representative due to head to head then you can choose your conference championship. To defend the words of Bowlsby is to defend a lie and thus to become a liar.

IMO Baylor is the XII Champion. They beat TCU on the field, which is the one true method to determine such things. But the conference decided to ignore that, since it looked like TCU was the favored team in the race for the playoff. It was a bad move, since it backfired.

Bit... I appreciate your honest opinion regarding Baylor—especially since WV beat Baylor. I also agree with you that Baylor is the B12’s “One True Champion.”

(12-17-2014 05:16 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 08:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It is called an explanation into how that particular power metric was figured. It really isn't that difficult but if you need me to come up with whom else likely came to that conclusion? The Committee. My evidence? The teams that made the Final Four. Specifically, I am talking about Ohio State.

Ohio State is a name program. Neither TCU nor Baylor can make the same claim. They're very good, and may well be better than Ohio State or any of the other programs in the playoff. But they aren't "name programs", like Ohio State, and given the opportunity the playoff committee went with the name.

Baylor and TCU are on the outside looking in as a result. They have the resume, but not the name.

An easy excuse to be made. A proper Big 12 declaration of one team being champion over the other would have made the Ohio State decision much more difficult.

There are plenty of metrics that show Baylor and TCU really didn't have all that much stronger of a resume than Ohio State did. Such metrics were stated numerous times soon after Ohio State was chosen in order to show that they deserved it just as much.

Personally, I don't care either way. Either way was going to be a scandal and that is all I truly cared about.

The Big 12 should have been honorable with it's explanations. If you can choose a Bowl representative due to head to head then you can choose your conference championship. To defend the words of Bowlsby is to defend a lie and thus to become a liar.

IMO Baylor is the XII Champion. They beat TCU on the field, which is the one true method to determine such things. But the conference decided to ignore that, since it looked like TCU was the favored team in the race for the playoff. It was a bad move, since it backfired.

Bit... I appreciate your honest opinion regarding Baylor—especially since WV beat Baylor. I also agree with you that Baylor is the B12’s “One True Champion.”

The fact that WVU beat Baylor didn't figure into my thinking. I just thought the first tie breaker in every conference was the head to head tie breaker. I just didn't know it was every conference, except the Big XII until this season.

You learn something new every day.

(12-11-2014 03:41 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  This is one angle I haven't heard mentioned. Did SEC and Pac 12 lobby to get ZSU included b/c they felt TCU and Baylor were better?

Oregon has limited defense, and 'Bama's isn't fast enough to keep up w/ TCU's offense. 'Bama can't win that shoot out.

Someone doesn't watch much football...stick to the Buffalo Wild Wings West Board, guy.

(12-11-2014 03:41 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  This is one angle I haven't heard mentioned. Did SEC and Pac 12 lobby to get ZSU included b/c they felt TCU and Baylor were better?

Oregon has limited defense, and 'Bama's isn't fast enough to keep up w/ TCU's offense. 'Bama can't win that shoot out.

Right again. It's ok, I'm used to it.

(12-31-2014 04:05 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 03:41 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  This is one angle I haven't heard mentioned. Did SEC and Pac 12 lobby to get ZSU included b/c they felt TCU and Baylor were better?

Oregon has limited defense, and 'Bama's isn't fast enough to keep up w/ TCU's offense. 'Bama can't win that shoot out.

Right again. It's ok, I'm used to it.

When you are right, you are right.