G5 Considering Their Own Playoffs?

[kreed5120]

6 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

It's been a very, very long time since Penn State got any favors from anyone who ranks college football teams, and that surely was also impacted by the negative publicity in recent years.  And in this case, Penn State is not the team who beat a playoff team, won that playoff team's division, won that playoff team's conference title, and won their last 9 straight conference games.    

 

Those sanctions prevented them from being bowl eligible for 2 years and with the mass exit of transfers plus scholarship penalties they are just now getting back to what they were. The previous 2 seasons when they were permitted to going back to bowls their records were 7-6, and 7-6. No 7-6 team is going to get picked for prominent bowl games.

 

Penn State is also the team that lost TWO games. All the teams ahead of them are P5 teams that lost 1 or fewer games. Had Penn State lost 1 fewer game they'd have made the playoffs simple as that. I'm going to provide you a groundbreaking fact. The regular season consists of TWELVE games (shocking I know) with a potential 13th game for a conference championship. It is not a 9 week season or whatever timeframe you want to make up to fit your agenda. The fact Penn State was the highest rated 2 loss team shows the committee was high on them.

[skip-zip]

15 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

Are you serious? Penn State is a huge name in the college football world. Certainly bigger than that of Clemson

 

Clemson took a dominant Alabama team to the brink last January.  No questions as to why they got their high ranking to start the season.  And they are playing for the title next week because they clearly and overwhelmingly showed us Saturday night, on the field, that they are one of the 2 best teams in the country.   Even a biased pollster or selection committee member couldn't find a way to ignore that.    

[Balsy]

59 minutes ago, zippyman23 said:

 

You've been stating that Penn State should have been ahead of Ohio State. That's an interesting way of sticking up for your alma-mater. 

 

I could care less about Penn State.  I'm merely pointing out that the CFB selection committee is biased.  It has been biased against many different teams.  I'm sticking up for my Alma mater by pointing out the hypocrisy in college athletics as well as bias that exists in it's complex. 

 

32 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

What I feel is so great is they keep saying OSU only got in because of its name failing to realize OSU had the 3 seed. Penn State, unlike 4th seeded Washington, is a legit blue blood. They would have attracted more eyeballs and money than Washington. There is no disputing that fact.

 

I never claimed there wasn't an aspect of politics involved.  Two BIG-10 teams, would definitely anger the other conferences.  Especially the almighty SEC.

 

10 minutes ago, zippyman23 said:

 

No, he's not. He's arguing against Ohio State. Same as you. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not even OSU fan, so I'll save you that reply.

 

With five P5 conferences and only four playoff spots, playoff expansion that would have given WMU an auto bid is really the only thing that would help a school like Akron. 

 

 

Yes I am, see comment above.  Skip has good reading comprehension skills, his defense of me is 100% on point.  You apparently struggle with reading comprehension and logic.  Ohio state happens to be the team at the focus of these comments yes, but it also goes for Alabama, which is why I have made comments in the past about them needing to rename the CFB "Alabama, Ohio State and two other random teams".  Now, Alabama can actually back itself up for why it belongs there...it's a conference champion for starters.  Ohio State can't.  Washington and Clemson certainly deserved to be in, they were conference champions.

 

Ohio State IS the focus of these comments yes, but not because of my personal dislike of Ohio State, but because of my observation that the CFB committee seems to come up with whatever explanation they want in order to justify OSU getting in.  And it's happened TWICE now. 

 

Conference Championship matters, now they don't matter.  Late season losses matter, now they don't matter.  Early season losses don't matter, now  they do.  I mean it's pretty clear what I'm arguing here and it's not my, or Skip's fault that you're not understanding it.

[kreed5120]

6 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

Clemson took a dominant Alabama team to the brink last January.  No questions as to why they got their high ranking to start the season.  And they are playing for the title next week because they clearly and overwhelmingly showed us Saturday night, on the field, that they are one of the 2 best teams in the country.   Even a biased pollster or selection committee member couldn't find a way to ignore that.    

 

And what about Washington who was the team Penn State was actually competing with for that 4th spot?

[skip-zip]

16 minutes ago, zippyman23 said:

He's arguing against Ohio State. Same as you.

 

Correct.  Because they are the team that shouldn't have be in, and proved it on Saturday.  

 

I'm not a Penn State fan either, just so you know.   

[zippyman23]

3 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

Correct.  Because they are the team that shouldn't have be in, and proved it on Saturday.  

 

I'm not a Penn State fan either, just so you know.   

 

That's not how any of this works. 

[Balsy]

On 1/2/2017 at 6:37 PM, zippyman23 said:

With five P5 conferences and only four playoff spots, playoff expansion that would have given WMU an auto bid is really the only thing that would help a school like Akron. 

 

I decided to quote this seperately because it goes to the heart of the matter:

 

EXACTLY!  If the CFB were to expand, and continue under the SAME LOGIC IT HAS NOW, the G5 would NEVER GET A SEAT AT THE TABLE.  That's why you NEED a criterion of CONFERENCE CHAMPION to be considered.  If you give automatic bids to conference champions, or at least the top 4 or top 8 (or however many teams) are selected from the conference champions... that's a sure fire way that G5 teams get a seat at the table, or stand a chance to get at a seat at the table.  Now let me ask you:  do you seriously ever think thats going to happen?

 

I'll tell you right now that it's not.  Because college football is about $$$$ not the sport of football.  And until people realize that, and demand it to change (which will never happen) it will continue to be a bottom-line, best $$$ Business.  The G5 conferences would never risk losing to a G5 team in a playoff game, how embarrassing would that be!?  So they'll continue to use their power and influence to keep the P5 teams out.  And those with the most to gain or lose (the Ohio States, Alabamas of the world) will continue to influence how the CFB committee makes it's decisions.  Again, because it's a bottom-line, best $$$ business.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Balsy

[skip-zip]

5 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

And what about Washington who was the team Penn State was actually competing with for that 4th spot?

 

Washington won the PAC-12 North Division, and the PAC-12 Championship Game.  No argument there.  

[zippyman23]

3 minutes ago, Balsy said:

 

I could care less about Penn State.  I'm merely pointing out that the CFB selection committee is biased.  It has been biased against many different teams.  I'm sticking up for my Alma mater by pointing out the hypocrisy in college athletics as well as bias that exists in it's complex. 

 

 

I never claimed there wasn't an aspect of politics involved.  Two BIG-10 teams, would definitely anger the other conferences.  Especially the almighty SEC.

 

 

Yes I am, see comment above.  Skip has good reading comprehension skills, his defense of me is 100% on point.  You apparently struggle with reading comprehension and logic.  Ohio state happens to be the team at the focus of these comments yes, but it also goes for Alabama, which is why I have made comments in the past about them needing to rename the CFB "Alabama, Ohio State and two other random teams".  Now, Alabama can actually back itself up for why it belongs there...it's a conference champion for starters.  Ohio State can't.  Washington and Clemson certainly deserved to be in, they were conference champions.

 

Ohio State IS the focus of these comments yes, but not because of my personal dislike of Ohio State, but because of my observation that the CFB committee seems to come up with whatever explanation they want in order to justify OSU getting in.  And it's happened TWICE now. 

 

Conference Championship matters, now they don't matter.  Late season losses matter, now they don't matter.  Early season losses don't matter, now  they do.  I mean it's pretty clear what I'm arguing here and it's not my, or Skip's fault that you're not understanding it.

 

But you are doing the exact opposite. You are spinning for whatever reason not to include OSU. The "facts" you bring up aren't even true most of time. I already pointed out the huge flaw in the "late season loss" argument and how it isn't accurate. Maybe your reading comprehension aren't that good either.

 

 

 

 

 

[kreed5120]

It's pretty obvious this is going to go back and forth. The real divide is one side feels the entire season should matter while the other side feels only conference play should matter. Neither side will change the other sides opinion.

 

I will say I didn't hear anyone claim the system was rigged last year when an 11-1 OSU team was left out of the playoffs...

 

I actually agree with the committee decision for OSU to not be selected last year, but last year there were 4 more deserving teams. This year there weren't. 

 

Edit: Can someone clarify so I can understand? Is the playoff committee only rigged in years in which OSU is admitted in, but it's not rigged in years they are left out? I ask because the last 3 years OSU has gone 12-1, 11-1, and 11-1 in the regular season, but according to you guys that should equate to 0 playoff appearances.

Edited January 3, 2017 by kreed5120

[Balsy]

42 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

It's pretty obvious this is going to go back and forth. The real divide is one side feels the entire season should matter while the other side feels only conference play should matter. Neither side will change the other sides opinion.

 

I will say I didn't hear anyone claim the system was rigged last year when an 11-1 OSU team was left out of the playoffs...

 

I actually agree with the committee decision for OSU to not be selected last year, but last year there were 4 more deserving teams. This year there weren't. 

 

Edit: Can someone clarify so I can understand? Is the playoff committee only rigged in years in which OSU is admitted in, but it's not rigged in years they are left out? I ask because the last 3 years OSU has gone 12-1, 11-1, and 11-1 in the regular season, but according to you guys that should equate to 0 playoff appearances.

 

It's rigged (perhaps you guys are getting hung up on the adjective "rigged"...perhaps favored would be better?...w/e it's besides the point) to favor programs that are at the top of the P5. The argument is that all of the measures used to "evaluate" a team are inherently biased.  Each measure comes from a subjective, arbitrary, not really good, system of evaluating teams.  And these arbitrary measures are biased in that they benefit the "haves" and not the "have nots" or the "maybes" It just so happens that OSU is the "haves" team that has benefited from it in both instances.  

 

Take the entire Big-10 and the SEC.  Numerous teams ranked at the begining of the year.  They (for the most part) beat up on low programs, and maintain those rankings.  When they get to Conference play, they have half the conference ranked.  When you play half of your games against ranked opponents, it looks favorably on your future rankings.  Those rankings (as someone mentioned earlier in this thread) are taken into consideration when "your highly ranked in both the AP and the Coaches poll".  Those pre-season polls are nothing more than popularity contests.  There's no viable methodology, no criterion for how teams are selected...simply people picking favorites.  That's it.  It's inherently a system that self-fulfills itself.  

[kreed5120]

I actually have agreed with all 12 teams to date that the selection committee has picked. Of course different people weigh certain criteria differently.

 

A 4 team playoff will never achieve what you are hoping that it would. Houston was probably the only G5 team that had any chance of making the playoffs this year and they would have had to run the table and get a lot of help to do it. An 8 team playoff is what it would probably take to open the door up to a WMU. I'd actually support an 8 team playoff, but nothing more than that.

[skip-zip]

13 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

It's pretty obvious this is going to go back and forth. The real divide is one side feels the entire season should matter while the other side feels only conference play should matter. Neither side will change the other sides opinion.

 

I commend you for acknowledging that this back and forth is going nowhere.  But you're still missing the point.  

 

I have my own opinions about why teams should/shouldn't be in, just like every other sports fan.  But my biggest beef is simply that the committee clearly changes what is, or is not an important criteria, based on which teams they want to have in the playoff during any particular year.  

[kreed5120]

53 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

I commend you for acknowledging that this back and forth is going nowhere.  But you're still missing the point.  

 

I have my own opinions about why teams should/shouldn't be in, just like every other sports fan.  But my biggest beef is simply that the committee clearly changes what is, or is not an important criteria, based on which teams they want to have in the playoff during any particular year.  

 

The committee's objective is to put the 4 most deserving teams into the playoffs, I feel it is has done that even though you might not think it has. The committee has never come out and said that only conference champs can make it or that early season losses don't matter. Many things go into their decision. The prior 2 years the 4 most deserving teams were the 4 conference champs that made it. This year a non conference declared champ was declared more deserving than 2 other conference champs. An opinion that the vast majority of fans and experts agreed with. Even if we went off of computer numbers and took the human element out of it, OSU would have been declared more deserving than Penn State. That's a point that you have still failed to recognize.

 

We are in year 3 of the selection committee. That's an extremely small sample size. Of course new situations will present themselves.

[skip-zip]

5 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

The committee has never come out and said that only conference champs can make it or that early season losses don't matter. Many things go into their decision. .

 

Maybe you're just very trusting that this is all done with honest intentions.  I don't know.  The reason they are so exposed now is because they make plenty of public comments about why the committee chose one team instead of another.  Too many, I guess.  Especially when they justify some decisions with a certain attribute, but refute that attribute in another case.   But, I just find that it's been pretty consistent that you are defending one particular school.  

[kreed5120]

38 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

Maybe you're just very trusting that this is all done with honest intentions.  I don't know.  The reason they are so exposed now is because they make plenty of public comments about why the committee chose one team instead of another.  Too many, I guess.  Especially when they justify some decisions with a certain attribute, but refute that attribute in another case.   But, I just find that it's been pretty consistent that you are defending one particular school.  

 

No, I'm defending the selection committee's selections as I have agreed with them. You have solely been targeting 1 school, which is why I have defended it. I'm on record as saying an 11-1 OSU from the 2015-2016 college football season wasn't 1 of the 4 most deserving and the committee made the right decision to leave them out.

 

What I have found to be consistent is your inability to be objective when it comes to anything OSU related. If I actually cared enough I could go back through your posts on this forum and find at least 50 posts of you ragging on OSU in just the last year alone. You've probably made reference to an ancient Cardale Jones tweet 10-20 times alone. OSU could go 14-1 and lose in the national championship game and you will come up with some tin foil hat excuse for why they shouldn't have been there. Edit: Actually even worse OSU had a season where they DID go 14-1 and won the national championship and you are still arguing they weren't one of the 4 best teams therefore shouldn't have been in the playoffs. Do you honestly believe yourself or are you just trolling?

Edited January 3, 2017 by kreed5120

[Buckzip]

52 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

 

No, I'm defending the selection committee's selections as I have agreed with them. You have solely been targeting 1 school, which is why I have defended it. I'm on record as saying an 11-1 OSU from the 2015-2016 college football season wasn't 1 of the 4 most deserving and the committee made the right decision to leave them out.

 

What I have found to be consistent is your inability to be objective when it comes to anything OSU related. If I actually cared enough I could go back through your posts on this forum and find at least 50 posts of you ragging on OSU in just the last year alone. You've probably made reference to an ancient Cardale Jones tweet 10-20 times alone. OSU could go 14-1 and lose in the national championship game and you will come up with some tin foil hat excuse for why they shouldn't have been there. Edit: Actually even worse OSU had a season where they DID go 14-1 and won the national championship and you are still arguing they weren't one of the 4 best teams therefore shouldn't have been in the playoffs. Do you honestly believe yourself or are you just trolling?

[skip-zip]

1 hour ago, kreed5120 said:

I'm on record as saying an 11-1 OSU from the 2015-2016 college football season wasn't 1 of the 4 most deserving and the committee made the right decision to leave them out.

 

Wow.  That's going out on a limb.  So, you use that as an example of being equally fair and critical?  I think the rest of the country would agree with you on that, and probably even some people in Columbus.  

 

You may think that continuing the debate about which one of us has some other motive for arguing for or against OSWho is accomplishing something.  I have no love for OSWho or just about any other school that we compete against (and tonight, BGSU will be my target).   Which is why I enjoyed watching them get pummeled the other night   But in this case, they are also the current beneficiary of the debate about the CFP committee's biases.  And they showed on their own that they weren't worthy of championship contention.  Nothing I said would have changed that fact.  

 

Out of curiosity, if you changed the names of the schools, and it was Kent State instead of OSWho that was getting "slammed" here (as you call it) as part of a debate about the CFP, would you have written paragraph after paragraph after paragraph, for several days, defending that Golden Flashes as well?  

 

And Yes, the sheer stupidity of posting "We Ain't Come To Play School" on your Twitter account, from a college "student/athlete", is one of the irresistible all-time classics that will surely entertain for many  years to come.  No surprise that it came from an Ohio State athlete.    

 

 

 

 

[kreed5120]

5 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

You may think that continuing the debate about which one of us has some other motive for arguing for or against OSWho is accomplishing something.  I have no love for OSWho or just about any other school that we compete against (and tonight, BGSU will be my target).   Which is why I enjoyed watching them get pummeled the other night   But in this case, they are also the current beneficiary of the debate about the CFP committee's biases.  And they showed on their own that they weren't worthy of championship contention.  Nothing I said would have changed that fact.  

 

Out of curiosity, if you changed the names of the schools, and it was Kent State instead of OSWho that was getting "slammed" here (as you call it) as part of a debate about the CFP, would you have written paragraph after paragraph after paragraph, for several days, defending that Golden Flashes as well?  

 

And Yes, the sheer stupidity of posting "We Ain't Come To Play School" on your Twitter account, from a college "student/athlete", is one of the irresistible all-time classics that will surely entertain for many  years to come.  No surprise that it came from an Ohio State athlete.    

 

How OSU performed in the playoff is irrelevant as that data point wasn't available to the selection committee at the time of the selection. I do find it funny you use OSU terrible performance as justification for why they shouldn't have been picked this year, but disregard them winning it in 2015 as justification for them being selected that year. You can't have it both ways.

 

I've posted large paragraphs on many different topics if you want to go back through my post history you can see that for yourself. I've also seen you belittle OSU more times than I can count and this topic I'm fairly certain is the only time I can ever remember responding to your criticism. I've seen you, Buckzip and others go at it, but I've pretty much stayed out of it. 

 

I consider myself to be an objective fan, or at least I try to be. If in some parallel universe Kent State had a season where they deserved to be in CFP or be an at-large team in March Madness, I'd make my opinion known. If there is a year where Akron does well enough to be in the conversation for CFP or an at-large for March Madness but their resume comes up a tad short IMO, I'd state that opinion as well. I do think Akron got hosed having to play a road game at OSU for the NIT, but that is an entirely different issue.

[Balsy]

19 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

A 4 team playoff will never achieve what you are hoping that it would. Houston was probably the only G5 team that had any chance of making the playoffs this year and they would have had to run the table and get a lot of help to do it. An 8 team playoff is what it would probably take to open the door up to a WMU. I'd actually support an 8 team playoff, but nothing more than that.

 

I personally don't think any G5 team will ever have a chance at playoffs at it currently stands.  There's way too much money and political influence to allow that from happening.  There will always be an SOS argument and cherrypicked statistics to prevent that from happening.

[skip-zip]

4 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

you use OSU terrible performance as justification for why they shouldn't have been picked this year

 

Correct.  And several other reasons, which I have stated.  Are you trying to say that I am the first sports fan ever to argue that a team shouldn't have been in a playoff because of how pathetically they played in the playoff that they were placed into ?

 

4 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

I've also seen you belittle OSU more times than I can count

 

Correct Again.  I'm sure it's in the hundreds.  We compete against them on numerous fronts, so I love when they fail, and find great amusement when their athletes attract media attention for saying and doing really stupid things.  I also love that we just won our 17th straight game against BGSU.  I'm an Akron fan.

 

Going back to the topic would be nice.  I'd gladly discuss other things about the Suckeyes in another topic.  They are only pertinent here, again, because they were the recipient of a playoff spot this year within a system that's considered a joke by many, many people nationwide.  Not just Zips fans in Akron Ohio.   

 

[kreed5120]

39 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

Correct.  Are you trying to say that I am the first sports fan ever to argue that a team shouldn't have been in a playoff because of how pathetically they played in the playoff that they were placed into ?

 

 

Then if you want to use that as a metric then you have to concede at the very least the OSU team that went onto win the national championship deserved to be there. You refuse to do that. I feel the committee has gone 12/12 as you can't predict how a game that hasn't been played yet will play out. You can only go off of what each team has done up to the selection point. You haven't disputed any of the other teams that have made It besides the 2 Buckeye teams and since your all important hindsight metric shows that the 2014-2015 Buckeyes were deserving, that means the committee is 11/12. Looks like they are doing a pretty good job. That's what I've been arguing.

[skip-zip]

8 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

You can only go off of what each team has done up to the selection point. 

 

Or in this case, ignore whatever you choose to ignore about how a team was performing leading up to the selection point.  Read Marla's article from Sunday.  Plenty of signs were there.  When you are supposedly chosen as an "elite team" to enter a 4 team playoff against a team that you've been "supposedly ranked" neck-and-neck with in the standings for weeks, and a 31-0 shellacking ensues, it's only going to add to the dialogue that already existed (no division title or even a conference title appearance) as to why they were ever selected in the first place.  Why wouldn't it?

 

Not surprisingly, this might be the only sentence in your post that seemed like it was focused on the topic (which was the only reason I responded), while the rest appears to be more of the same myriad of defenses specifically regarding Ohio State.   

[Balsy]

8 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

 

Then if you want to use that as a metric then you have to concede at the very least the OSU team that went onto win the national championship deserved to be there. 

 

No.  We could say that the only year they got things right was last year; when they used the logic they established the year previous.  When they changed the logic to SOS is more important than winning a conference championship, it casts doubt on the decision made in 2014.

 

TCU (11-1) had the 10th hardest SOS by the end of the regular season. OSU(12-1) had the 26th, even after winning their conference championship.  

 

The Justification for OSU that year was that  "conference championship was more important" of which the Big-12 hadn't had one since 2010, (and is adding it again in 2017)...meaning their regular season had to be weighted less than a team that had a conference championship.  

 

Fast forward to this year, where OSU didn't participate in the Conference Championship.  OSU had the 1st overall SOS, Penn State had the 10th, but won the conference it's championship.  

 

Picking and choosing when something is important, and when it's not is cherry-picking.  For something not to be cherry-picking you have to have established, objective criterion that is used, not something that is changed every year.  Objectively, using the 2016 logic for picking the CFB field, TCU should have been in over OSU several years ago.  Objectively using the 2014 logic, OSU should not have been in this year over Michigan State.

 

Let's not pretend this system isn't biased.  It very clearly is.

[kreed5120]

8 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

Or in this case, ignore whatever you choose to ignore about how a team was performing leading up to the selection point.  Read Marla's article from Sunday.  Plenty of signs were there.  When you are supposedly chosen as an "elite team" to enter a 4 team playoff against a team that you've been "supposedly ranked" neck-and-neck with in the standings for weeks, and a 31-0 shellacking ensues, it's only going to add to the dialogue that already existed (no division title or even a conference title appearance) as to why they were ever selected in the first place.  Why wouldn't it?

 

Not surprisingly, this might be the only sentence in your post that seemed like it was focused on the topic (which was the only reason I responded), while the rest appears to be more of the same myriad of defenses specifically regarding Ohio State.   

 

At the end of the day OSU had wins over the 6th, 7th, and 8th ranked teams. 2 of those 3 teams went onto win high profile bowls. Looking for excuses for why they shouldn't have been there after the fact is ridiculous. Given hindsight of what we know now and if the playoffs teams were picked today, it would be USC in the playoffs, not Penn State. A 3 loss P5 team was never going to get selected over a 1 loss P5.

 

My defenses were specifically regarding Ohio State because that's the team you've solely been targeting. Had you attacked Bama or Washington, I'd have defended them too. YOU'RE the one that turned this into an Ohio State hate fest. It seems convenient you have skipped over every point that proves just how wrong you are. You criticize the selection committee for not being objective and liked a post that said they should use the old BCS ratings. According to the old BCS, the top 4 teams got in.