G5 Considering Their Own Playoffs?

[kreed5120]

The problem with a G5 playoff is what if there is a year where all the right cards fall into place and a G5 is actually in the discussion for a playoff spot? I believe Boise State finished 4th 1 year under the old BCS system and had Houston run the table this year with wins over Oklahoma and Louisville, they would have at the very least been finished #6, ahead of Oklahoma. Personally I'd guess they would have finish 5th, just a tad behind Washington.

 

We might only get a G5 champion to be a serious playoff contender once every decade or so and we might not ever see a G5 make the playoffs, but the possibility, however slim, exists for an AAC team. The MAC, Sun Belt, and C-USA pretty much have no shot ever. This is why you'd never see the AAC jump on board with this. They are trying to distance themselves from the other G5 in hopes that it will provide them more legitimacy in the future. Can't imagine Boise State of the MW would be for this either.

Edited December 31, 2016 by kreed5120

[ZippyRulz]

11 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

The problem with a G5 playoff is what if there is a year where all the right cards fall into place and a G5 is actually in the discussion for a playoff spot? I believe Boise State finished 4th 1 year under the old BCS system and had Houston run the table this year with wins over Oklahoma and Louisville, they would have at the very least been finished #6, ahead of Oklahoma. Personally I'd guess they would have finish 5th, just a tad behind Washington.

 

We might only get a G5 champion to be a serious playoff contender once every decade or so and we might not ever see a G5 make the playoffs, but the possibility, however slim, exists for an AAC team. The MAC, Sun Belt, and C-USA pretty much have no shot ever. This is why you'd never see the AAC jump on board with this. They are trying to distance themselves from the other G5 in hopes that it will provide them more legitimacy in the future. Can't imagine Boise State of the MW would be for this either.

 

I agree...it would need to be a G5-only "NIT tournament" so AAC/BYU/BSU/WMU... would still be eligible for both playoffs. But the risk would be that the P5 would use a secondary playoff as an excuse to freeze out any G5 teams from the big playoff per the golden rule (those with the gold...)

 

 

 

[Balsy]

23 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

OSU went 3-1 vs. the top 8 and beat I believe beat 5 top 25 teams. No team in college football had more top 10 or top 25 wins. I get there is a lot of hate in this forum against OSU, but honestly OSU resume was far superior to that of Penn State, Oklahoma, or any of the other teams that were left out.

 

"Top 25" means nothing.  It's a popularity contest.  Of course a popularity contest that benefits those in the Top-25, and that are a part of the P5 conferences.  

 

And then one year, so that Ohio state can be justified to get into the Playoffs Jumping over TCU, which had a better record and better Resume, the Committee rationalized that winning the conference championship game was a FAR MORE IMPORTANT thing than any one particular win or loss in the regular season.

 

If you guys think it's a fair system, you guys are nuts.  Its a system set up to justify why the top teams in popularity and $$ potential are constantly given the opportunity and benefit of the doubt to be in the playoffs.  Were Michigan and OSU really the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the country playing each other?  No.  No they really weren't.  But if the Number 2 team loses to the number 3 team, it won't hurt you as bad because "it was the second best team in the country".  It's a system that reinforces itself.

 

2/2 times OSU has been in the playoffs the committee has either had to make up some bogus rational to let them in, or go against said bogus rational to justify them getting in.  Its a joke.

 

Penn State BEATING OSU in the regular season, and winning the Big-10 is enough of a resume to be over OSU.  

Edited December 31, 2016 by Balsy

[skip-zip]

You're right, they will say that their "criteria" means one thing one year, and one thing another year.  But like I said, this year in particular, when unranked Penn State beat them, and they only dropped from #2 to #5, you knew what was going on.  

 

Two years ago, they said that early season losses didn't matter (Ohio State losing to a bad Virginia Tech school).  But this year, Penn State's early losses mattered.  It's really a joke.  

 

Regardless of what anyone says, this Committee set-up is far more subjective than it's predecessor.  They think that made it better by adding the "human element" instead of stats and number.  This has done nothing more than add people's biases to the process, not ensure more objectivity.  

[ZachTheZip]

Really, the BCS ranking system (which included the computers and the established polls) worked pretty well. It's just that the top teams weren't in a playoff. If we had the playoff but used the BCS ranking system, it would be pretty great. The committee is the worst idea.

[K92]

I am not going to sit here and listen to you guys trash the committee without speaking up.  Condoleezza has done a great job.

[zipsoutsider]

2 hours ago, K92 said:

I am not going to sit here and listen to you guys trash the committee without speaking up.  Condoleezza has done a great job.

I am not sure why you decided to call her out, specifically. Care to elaborate? She isn't the only one without college football coaching or playing experience on the committee.

[kreed5120]

6 hours ago, Balsy said:

 

"Top 25" means nothing.  It's a popularity contest.  Of course a popularity contest that benefits those in the Top-25, and that are a part of the P5 conferences.  

 

And then one year, so that Ohio state can be justified to get into the Playoffs Jumping over TCU, which had a better record and better Resume, the Committee rationalized that winning the conference championship game was a FAR MORE IMPORTANT thing than any one particular win or loss in the regular season.

 

If you guys think it's a fair system, you guys are nuts.  Its a system set up to justify why the top teams in popularity and $$ potential are constantly given the opportunity and benefit of the doubt to be in the playoffs.  Were Michigan and OSU really the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the country playing each other?  No.  No they really weren't.  But if the Number 2 team loses to the number 3 team, it won't hurt you as bad because "it was the second best team in the country".  It's a system that reinforces itself.

 

2/2 times OSU has been in the playoffs the committee has either had to make up some bogus rational to let them in, or go against said bogus rational to justify them getting in.  Its a joke.

 

Penn State BEATING OSU in the regular season, and winning the Big-10 is enough of a resume to be over OSU.  

Your entire rationale pretty much says OOC play doesn't matter. At the end of the day Penn State lost to Pitt in the regular season while OSU beat an even better Oklahoma. Throw rankings aside and OSU still played a significantly better SOS by every metric and finished with a better winning % while playing it.

 

Had Penn State beat Pitt and they were 12-1 to OSU 11-1 I'd agree with you.

[kreed5120]

3 hours ago, ZachTheZip said:

Really, the BCS ranking system (which included the computers and the established polls) worked pretty well. It's just that the top teams weren't in a playoff. If we had the playoff but used the BCS ranking system, it would be pretty great. The committee is the worst idea.

 

Funny you should mention that. The BCS would have had the same 4 teams making the playoffs...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/college-football/2016/12/6/13853430/bcs-college-football-playoff-2016

 

http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/rankings/

Edited January 1, 2017 by kreed5120

[skip-zip]

7 hours ago, zipsoutsider said:

I am not sure why you decided to call her out, specifically. Care to elaborate? She isn't the only one without college football coaching or playing experience on the committee.

 

But she surely was capable of sitting on the committee and making sure that the "popular", money-making choices get in the playoff.  

 

What a joke.  Clemson would have beaten the Suckeyes by 50 last night, if their offense hadn't made so many mistakes.  I wonder if any Suckeye Honks want to contend that Penn State would not have performed much, much better?  Last night showed us that the committee should have seen far more from the OSU/Penn State game and the 1-point OSU/Michigan State game, and dropped them appropriately in the standings.  Instead, the committee clearly showed that they'd rather stand behind a slim, comeback, double OT win, at home, against a Michigan team that had just lost to frickin Iowa.  And then allow them to sit out their conference championship game in order to not expose any further weaknesses (Oh, sorry they dropped them from #2 to #3 ).

 

Results speak for themselves.  I feel worse for Penn State than I felt a few weeks ago.  

[skip-zip]

7 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

Penn State lost to Pitt

 

And two years ago, the Suckeyes lost to Virginia Tech.  And that year, they didn't have a head-to-head game against Baylor or TCU later in the season that would have reinforced which team was better, like they did this year with Penn State.  

 

it demonstrates the complete hypocricy of the committee, which will use any excuse they want to justify money over accuracy.  

[kreed5120]

2 hours ago, skip-zip said:

 

And two years ago, the Suckeyes lost to Virginia Tech.  And that year, they didn't have a head-to-head game against Baylor or TCU later in the season that would have reinforced which team was better, like they did this year with Penn State.  

 

it demonstrates the complete hypocricy of the committee, which will use any excuse they want to justify money over accuracy.  

 

It's not comparable whatsoever. OSU was 12-1 to Baylor/TCU 11-1. Had OSU went 11-2 that year like Penn State did this year, OSU wouldn't have went.

 

Penn State got slaughtered by a team OSU defeated. Pitt beat Penn State so by your logic Pitt is better Penn State. Back to my point OSU this year played a tougher SOS and finished with a better record playing it. Any argument should start and end with that point.

[kreed5120]

3 hours ago, skip-zip said:

Instead, the committee clearly showed that they'd rather stand behind a slim, comeback, double OT win, at home, against a Michigan team that had just lost to frickin Iowa. 

 

You mean that same Michigan team that slaughtered Penn State by 39 points?...

[skip-zip]

18 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

Penn State got slaughtered by a team OSU defeated. Pitt beat Penn State so by your logic Pitt is better Penn State. Back to my point OSU this year played a tougher SOS and finished with a better record playing it. Any argument should start and end with that point.

 

If someone beating someone else, who beat someone else was solid Logic, Akron was the national champ in 2014.

Akron beat Pitt, who beat Virginia Tech, who beat the Suckeyes.  

 

And since this Thread is about Playoffs, and not about defending OSWho on an Akron board,  I'll stick with the point that a "certain team" was dropped only 3 spots in the standings with a head-to-head loss to an unranked team. Nobody can explain that, other than the desire for $$$$$$.   That made their "appearance" in the playoff last night possible.  

 

If you want to keep posting for the purpose of defending the Suckeyes, I'm sure there's other sites created by the people 2 hours south of here that would join you in your despair this morning.  And you can argue SOS, etc., all you want, but nobody can deny that there were certainly plenty of other candidates that would have done much, more than just show up and stand on the field last night.  

[kreed5120]

42 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

If someone beating someone else, who beat someone else was solid Logic, Akron was the national champ in 2014.

Akron beat Pitt, who beat Virginia Tech, who beat the Suckeyes.  

 

And since this Thread is about Playoffs, and not about defending OSWho on an Akron board,  I'll stick with the point that a "certain team" was dropped only 3 spots in the standings with a head-to-head loss to an unranked team. Nobody can explain that, other than the desire for $$$$$$.   That made their "appearance" in the playoff last night possible.  

 

If you want to keep posting for the purpose of defending the Suckeyes, I'm sure there's other sites created by the people 2 hours south of here that would join you in your despair this morning.  And you can argue SOS, etc., all you want, but nobody can deny that there were certainly plenty of other candidates that would have done much, more than just show up and stand on the field last night.  

You liked a post that said they should use BCS rankings to select playoff teams. OSU would have been the #2 rated team by the BCS metrics. Any objective person would see their resume was better than Penn State.

 

Of course by your many responses on this board you have shown the inability to ever be objective with anything OSU related. You let your hatred and envy cloud your judgement. 

 

I'm not the one that brought OSU into this discussion. It was you and Balsy. I just call people out on bullshit as I see it. If you want to constantly post stuff shitting on OSU like I've seen you do for the 2 or so years that I've been an active member here, I'm sure there is a board that would love you that was created by someone 3 hours NW of here. OSU has never been Akron's rival and will never be Akron's rival so IDK why you feel the constant need to bring them up.

Edited January 1, 2017 by kreed5120

[Balsy]

11 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

Your entire rationale pretty much says OOC play doesn't matter. At the end of the day Penn State lost to Pitt in the regular season while OSU beat an even better Oklahoma. Throw rankings aside and OSU still played a significantly better SOS by every metric and finished with a better winning % while playing it.

 

Had Penn State beat Pitt and they were 12-1 to OSU 11-1 I'd agree with you.

 

No.  That's the rationale of the Selection Committee.  OSU has a bad loss in it's OOC to Virginia Tech and still makes it in, giving the "rationale" that an early season loss is LESS than a late season loss.  OSU then loses LATE in the season, and the come up with a rationale to overlook that loss.  All I'm saying, is let's stop pretending it's a fair system that isn't biased.  It isn't. 

 

And I was proven right.  OSU proved last night that they didn't belong in the top-4 by getting waxed 31 - 0.

 

36 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

If someone beating someone else, who beat someone else was solid Logic, Akron was the national champ in 2014.

Akron beat Pitt, who beat Virginia Tech, who beat the Suckeyes.  

 

And since this Thread is about Playoffs, and not about defending OSWho on an Akron board,  I'll stick with the point that a "certain team" was dropped only 3 spots in the standings with a head-to-head loss to an unranked team. Nobody can explain that, other than the desire for $$$$$$.   That made their "appearance" in the playoff last night possible.  

 

If you want to keep posting for the purpose of defending the Suckeyes, I'm sure there's other sites created by the people 2 hours south of here that would join you in your despair this morning.  And you can argue SOS, etc., all you want, but nobody can deny that there were certainly plenty of other candidates that would have done much, more than just show up and stand on the field last night.  

 

EXACTLY.  Bingo. 

[kreed5120]

1 hour ago, Balsy said:

 

No.  That's the rationale of the Selection Committee.  OSU has a bad loss in it's OOC to Virginia Tech and still makes it in, giving the "rationale" that an early season loss is LESS than a late season loss.  OSU then loses LATE in the season, and the come up with a rationale to overlook that loss.  All I'm saying, is let's stop pretending it's a fair system that isn't biased.  It isn't. 

 

And I was proven right.  OSU proved last night that they didn't belong in the top-4 by getting waxed 31 - 0.

 

 

EXACTLY.  Bingo. 

 

Penn State also got slaughtered by UM midseason so its not just like they lost 1 early season game and that was it as was the case the year OSU lost to VT. They could have lost to Pitt or UM. The problem was they lost to both.

 

At the end of the day OSU went through the regular season playing potentially the toughest, or at least 1 of the toughest schedules in NCAAF, and lost 1 game on a blocked fg on the road in a hostile environment. A more credible loss than either of Penn State's losses. Penn State played a less challenging schedule and came away with 2 losses. 1 in which they were boat raced vs. Michigan and another where they lost to a good, but not great Pitt team.

 

Personally I feel the OSU/TCU/Baylor year was a much tighter race as all 3 teams had 1 loss.  OSU pretty much had to beat Wisconsin by what they did. Had they won a close game, they wouldn't have gotten in. OSU getting in over Penn State this year was pretty much a no brainer IMO and the slection committee, old bcs rankings, and pretty much every relevant poll/computer ranking agree with those findings. I guess we must all be biased.

Edited January 1, 2017 by kreed5120

[skip-zip]

1 hour ago, Balsy said:

OSU proved last night that they didn't belong in the top-4 by getting waxed 31 - 0.

 

Be careful.  The Suckeye Faithful are already quite testy this morning.    You're likely to get several more posts because of this.  

 

36 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

Penn State also got slaughtered by UM midseason

 

September 24th is Midseason?  If we're debating whether teams should have been in or out of the playoffs, that's one thing.  When you're distorting facts all for the purpose of defending ONE particular team, who is not even the Fanbase represented by this board, that tells me your motive.   

 

I won't respond to you baiting us on the "Akron doesn't compete against Ohio State" crap, because it doesn't belong in this thread.  I'd gladly take that somewhere else.   But, since our LOCAL media outlet put a Special 5-Page insert in the newspaper yesterday celebrating OSWho's (very brief) playoff run while they give us a "staff reporter" for their own Hometown D-1 team, that should give you just one element of what we are competing against as Zips Fans vs. Ohio State.    

[kreed5120]

11 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

Be careful.  The Suckeye Faithful are already quite testy this morning.    You're likely to get several more posts because of this.  

 

 

September 24th is Midseason?  If we're debating whether teams should have been in or out of the playoffs, that's one thing.  When you're distorting facts all for the purpose of defending ONE particular team, who is not even the Fanbase represented by this board, that tells me your motive.   

 

I won't respond to you baiting us on the "Akron doesn't compete against Ohio State" crap, because it doesn't belong in this thread.  I'd gladly take that somewhere else.   But, since our LOCAL media outlet put a Special 5-Page insert in the newspaper yesterday celebrating OSWho's (very brief) playoff run while they give us a "staff reporter" for their own Hometown D-1 team, that should give you just one element of what we are competing against as Zips Fans vs. Ohio State.    

 

So I suppose it was the 4th game of the year instead of the 5th or 6th that I initially thought it was. I'd hardly call that distorting the facts. It's still 2 losses so therefore isn't even comparable to a single loss. I post on an Akron board and by all definition am an Akron booster so I think that tells you where my loyalty lies.

 

We get pee poor coverage by our local media. There is no disputing that fact. I feel you are taking the wrong angle on this "competing for fans" issue. We shouldn't be trying to make people choose between Akron and OSU and pushing away anyone that doesn't choose Akron. That isn't a battle we can win. What we should be doing is getting people that are fans of OSU to also become fans of Akron.

[zipsoutsider]

6 hours ago, skip-zip said:

 

But she surely was capable of sitting on the committee and making sure that the "popular", money-making choices get in the playoff.  

 

What a joke.  Clemson would have beaten the Suckeyes by 50 last night, if their offense hadn't made so many mistakes.  I wonder if any Suckeye Honks want to contend that Penn State would not have performed much, much better?  Last night showed us that the committee should have seen far more from the OSU/Penn State game and the 1-point OSU/Michigan State game, and dropped them appropriately in the standings.  Instead, the committee clearly showed that they'd rather stand behind a slim, comeback, double OT win, at home, against a Michigan team that had just lost to frickin Iowa.  And then allow them to sit out their conference championship game in order to not expose any further weaknesses (Oh, sorry they dropped them from #2 to #3 ).

 

Results speak for themselves.  I feel worse for Penn State than I felt a few weeks ago.  

Look, I am not going to defend the committee. I didn't think OSU deserved to be picked, but to call out Rice, exclusively, when the poster had no way of knowing whether she supported the OSU choice or not seems a bit odd, at best and wanted to give poster an opportunity to explain why he specifically called Rice out, as opposed to the other committee members.

 

With 2 losses, PSU is also a questionable choice. Fleck himself came out and basically said that G5 school had to go winless and schedule higher ranked teams in order to be selected, so WMU never stood a chance.

 

I tend to think the pick should have gone to PSU, with the conference title win, but neither PSU or OSU really deserved to be in the playoffs. They picked a 4th to fill the slot, but there was no clear #4 team. The quality of play dropped off considerably after the top 2 this year.

 

[skip-zip]

25 minutes ago, zipsoutsider said:

Look, I am not going to defend the committee. I didn't think OSU deserved to be picked, but to call out Rice, exclusively, when the poster had no way of knowing whether she supported the OSU choice or not seems a bit odd, at best and wanted to give poster an opportunity to explain why he specifically called Rice out, as opposed to the other committee members.

 

I know that the poster may have specifically discredited her.  I only responded to indicate that she was at least qualified enough to do what I believe other committee member do....pick their favorites because of other motives.  

 

I actually really like her, going all the way back to when she served our country under President Bush.  And I understand that she's a pretty big sports fan.    

[Buckzip]

LOL.

[zippyman23]

4 hours ago, Balsy said:

 

No.  That's the rationale of the Selection Committee.  OSU has a bad loss in it's OOC to Virginia Tech and still makes it in, giving the "rationale" that an early season loss is LESS than a late season loss.  OSU then loses LATE in the season, and the come up with a rationale to overlook that loss.  All I'm saying, is let's stop pretending it's a fair system that isn't biased.  It isn't. 

 

 

TCU lost to Baylor in the 5th game that season. Both lost early in the season. 

 

The OSU/PSU game was midseason and was before any Playoff Rankings came out. Clemson and Washington both lost later in the season. as did every other P5 school with 0-1 losses at the time not named Alabama. You'd be better off sticking with the "early season loss is less" argument.

 

As for the bias, in 2014 that if it was "Texas" and "Oklahoma" instead of "Baylor" and "TCU" that I would guess that Ohio State probably doesn't get in. But in 2016, I can't rationalize how the #2 team in AP and Coaches poll doesn't make a four-team playoff. 

[skip-zip]

Here's a few more things to consider that should have been an indicator of OSWho's impending collapse.

 

In fact, in Marla's ABJ Front Page article, she headlines these facts with, "Warning signs where all over, but we didn't want to look".  She might be referring to the press and the fans?  But obviously, the selection committee chose not to look also.  

 

1) They threw for 200 yards, COMBINED, over the last two games of the regular season, and one of those games went to double overtime. 

2) From Mid-October until the end of the season, they allowed the 3rd most sacks (20) in the entire nation.

3) Their kicker missed his last 4 field goal attempts of the season (including last night).

 

[ZipsVoice]

I can't think of one NCAA selection commitee in any sport that is not either consciously or subconciously biased towards the big $$ schools, let alone the BCS  selection committee.  Just look at D1 basketball, soccer mens and womens, hockey and yes football.  The number of teams from the P5 leagues are outrageous and the seeding is even worse.  At least with track and field and swimming it's totally objective - be the fastest and you go.  I've had an opportunity to be around some of the NCAA bigwigs and committee people and they are so sanctimonious and cloistered in their big conference mentality.  One of the highlights of this year was going to the NCAA rifle championship banquet and watching the NCAA bigwigs squirm and tut-tut, listening to Bob Golic deliver his politically incorrect keynote speech!