K92 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kreed5120 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Balsy said: 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. All 3 of those teams had 1 loss and I'm on record as saying I feel that year is more debate worthy than this year, which I don't feel was even close. That year OSU/Baylor/TCU were all 1 loss teams, OSU still came away with a better win %, which is what you'd need to overcome SOS. This year OSU had 1 fewer loss, a better SOS, and a better win %. I suppose the metric I value would be strength of record. That 13th game can be valuable in a close race and it helped Penn State narrow the gap some, but the selection committee was on record as saying the gap between OSU/PSU was too large to overcome going into that game as OSU had the most impressive resume outside of Bama heading into championship week. Edited January 4, 2017 by kreed5120 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balsy Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, kreed5120 said: OSU/PSU was too large to overcome going into that game as OSU had the most impressive resume outside of Bama heading into championship week. Even though OSU was beaten by PSU. That's the kind of "on the record" non-sense that we're pointing out is biased. So I'll give you that they both should not have been included. But saying there's a large gap between the two, when the one beat the other, is ridiculous. Head-to-head competition is supposed to be important. Nothing is more head-to-head than actually playing each other. Edited January 4, 2017 by Balsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kreed5120 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 11 minutes ago, Balsy said: Even though OSU was beaten by PSU. That's the kind of "on the record" non-sense that we're pointing out is biased. So I'll give you that they both should not have been included. But saying there's a large gap between the two, when the one beat the other, is ridiculous. Head-to-head competition is supposed to be important. Nothing is more head-to-head than actually playing each other. Pitt beat Penn State. Are you going to say there isn't a large gap between the two? Had Penn State beat either Pitt or Michigan and the losses been equal (between OSU/Penn State) and Penn State had the better record plus the head to head win, Penn State would have easily been ahead of OSU and we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would be the same situation as last year when MSU got in (rightfully so) over OSU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skip-zip Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 1 hour ago, kreed5120 said: My defenses were specifically regarding Ohio State because that's the team you've solely been targeting. That's exactly my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kreed5120 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 6 minutes ago, skip-zip said: That's exactly my point. Yes, lets just take my texts out of context and ignore anything that doesn't fit your narrative. You'd make an excellent politician. The below sentence immediately followed what you wrote. Quote Had you attacked Bama or Washington, I'd have defended them too. I'm defending the committee by defending the teams the committee picked. FPI, BCS Rankings, and pretty much every other objective metric agreed with the 4 teams that got in. Just because you don't agree with the teams they picked doesn't make them biased and incompetent as you seem to believe they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balsy Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 1 hour ago, kreed5120 said: Pitt beat Penn State. Are you going to say there isn't a large gap between the two? Had Penn State beat either Pitt or Michigan and the losses been equal (between OSU/Penn State) and Penn State had the better record plus the head to head win, Penn State would have easily been ahead of OSU and we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would be the same situation as last year when MSU got in (rightfully so) over OSU. Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kreed5120 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 5 minutes ago, Balsy said: Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows it? I'd say it's the one who labels others as the fool when in reality they are the one that is the true fool. I've stated my case and you stated yours. I'd agree with your opinion, but then we'd both be wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balsy Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 49 minutes ago, kreed5120 said: I'd say it's the one who labels others as the fool when in reality they are the one that is the true fool. I've stated my case and you stated yours. I'd agree with your opinion, but then we'd both be wrong... I don't think you understood my analogy. It wasn't directed towards me, or towards you, but the scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue & Gold Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDZip Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 16 hours ago, Blue & Gold said: I love this idea. The MAC is supposed to be a progressive conference with its Tuesday and Wednesday night games this could make the season even more compelling and give the networks even better (and more competitive) games to show later in the season. Plus with the shorter travel distances the MAC would be the ideal conference to try this out with. C'mon Dr. Steinbrecher make this happen. :-) Lets show them the MAC is a forward thinking (and smart) conference. WMU had the student athlete of the year. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kreed5120 Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 I like the concept, but it is a little too out there for me to like in practice. I want to continue seeing Minn/Wisconsin, OSU/UM, and Indiana/Purdue the last week of the season (ok that last 1 I could do without). There is just so much tradition in those match-ups, not to mention Bama/Auburn, Florida/Florida State, etc if you are looking to expand to other conferences. Eliminating divisions and devising some formula that actually matches up the 2 best teams I'd be for. This year Wisconsin had the 4th best resume in the B1G yet it made the championship game. I'm going to assume said formula would have had OSU/PSU. Had Penn State won that game they would have handed OSU their 2nd loss and being 2-0 vs, them on the year, including a neutral field win would show they were the superior team. Had OSU won they would have improved to 12-1 to PSU 10-3 and would have avenged their tightly contested road loss earlier in the season. Either way there would have been no controversy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipsoutsider Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 1 hour ago, kreed5120 said: I like the concept, but it is a little too out there for me to like in practice. I want to continue seeing Minn/Wisconsin, OSU/UM, and Indiana/Purdue the last week of the season (ok that last 1 I could do without). There is just so much tradition in those match-ups, not to mention Bama/Auburn, Florida/Florida State, etc if you are looking to expand to other conferences. I am probably too old school, but I like the traditions of the last week games. I would not pair teams as described - I would leave scheduling along, for the most part. It does lead to an imperfect system, but the value of the major upsets that happen every year are worth it, IMHO. Tradition, drama, and underdog upsets are the stuff that makes college football a lot more exciting than the NFL. There is a lot more parity in college football than analysts and Vegas would like to acknowledge. As mentioned on another thread, it can be painful to watch the shellackings at the hands of bigger programs, but without those, you lose the exhilaration of the major upsets, too. I think we so often want a professionalize amateur, college football and when we do that we lose a lot of what I love about college football. I wasn't happy with the OSU pick for the playoffs, this year, but I would rather live with that then over-engineer college football any further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.