Jump to content

And the CFP Rigging Begins!


Balsy

Recommended Posts

And now we're down to an announcement show later today.  

 

1 Clemson (Won Decisively 12-1)

2 Auburn (Lost to Georgia 10-3)

3 Oklahoma (Won Decisively)

4 Wisconsin (Lost to Ohio State)

5 Alabama (11-1)

6 Georgia (Beat Auburn (12-1)

7 Miami (Lost to Clemson)

8 Ohio State (Won vs Wisconsin)

 

IMHO:  It should be Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia and Alabama.

 

They're preparing the excuses now (allowing the first 2-loss team in...Ohio State...) of "Championship win means more" (even though it didn't for Penn State) and everyone has been mentioning SOS, but NEVER the level of the losses: "Ohio State lost to Oklahoma...and they're in the top 4!"  "(no mention of Iowa State BLOWOUT LOSS near the end of the season)".  If the committee resembles anything "fair or objective" they will not select Ohio State.  I don't think that they will be.

 

Hopefully I will be eating crow later today.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/3/2017 at 11:41 AM, Balsy said:

They're preparing the excuses now (allowing the first 2-loss team in...Ohio State...) of "Championship win means more" (even though it didn't for Penn State) and everyone has been mentioning SOS, but NEVER the level of the losses: "Ohio State lost to Oklahoma...and they're in the top 4!"  "(no mention of Iowa State BLOWOUT LOSS near the end of the season)". 

Expand  

 

That's what it really comes down to for me.  Penn State was in the same position last year, and it didn't matter.  But I bet it matters now that it's the Suckeyes.  

 

And Penn State also had the following factors in their favor too:

1) Penn State's "bad loss" was a nail biter, and not a 31 point blowout.

2) Penn State's "bad loss" was way back on September 10th, not in November.  

3) They also had a head-to-head win over the Suckeyes.

 

The morning chat on ESPN was quite interesting.  The panel rightfully took the conversation down to "who is better", and they all nearly laughed and said Alabama.  So, I wonder why there is even a debate, outside the fact that the committee has done some strange things before.  

 

In addition, a poll of 25 ESPN writers chose Alabama by more than a 2 to 1 margin.  

 

But, things will be a little different in that selection room when the NCAA has their pocketbooks at stake.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/3/2017 at 1:46 PM, skip-zip said:

In addition, a poll of 25 ESPN writers chose Alabama by more than a 2 to 1 margin.  

 

But, things will be a little different in that selection room when the NCAA has their pocketbooks at stake.  

 

Expand  

 

Indeed.  I was listening to ESPN radio this morning (really early) and there was one person laying out how "Ohio State has THREE wins in the top-25!...therefore they're resume is soooooo much better".  Again no talk about how one of their losses was really, really, really bad, by comparison.  I hope the committee does the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017/12/03/ohio-state-or-alabama-the-decision-that-has-the-playoff-committee-anguishing-in-the-abyss/?utm_term=.486baa7a75a8

 

"Alabama (11-1) has the better record. Ohio State (11-2) has the better wins. Ohio State has the conference championship. Alabama never got throttled at home or annihilated in Iowa City, but Ohio State did. Alabama held down No. 5 last week but didn’t play. Ohio State held down No. 8 but withstood the great-big hearts of No. 4 Wisconsin, 27-21, in the Big Ten championship game. There has never been a two-loss team, or a team that suffered any annihilation at any time, in the playoff; now, the playoff might get both."

 

"The committee repeatedly has demonstrated that, in a pinch, it deems good wins more relevant than bad losses. In 2014, it inched Ohio State upward from No. 5 to No. 4, and docked TCU from No. 3 to No. 6, because in that closing week, Ohio State had routed a No. 13-ranked team, while TCU had routed a 2-10 team. In the hapless decades spent deciphering this sprawling, indecipherable sport, this represented a fresh wrinkle of thinking, welcome most everywhere but Fort Worth."

 

"This Alabama-Ohio State riddle often gets compared to the milder riddle of last season, when Ohio State (11-1, same as 2017 Alabama) got in over Penn State (11-2, same as 2017 Ohio State), even though the latter had a Big Ten title like Ohio State in 2017, and the former had no division title like Alabama in 2017, and the latter had beaten the former head-to-head. Yet the two situations are hardly comparable. In Ohio State’s body of work, it had beaten No. 6 Michigan (at home), No. 7 Oklahoma (on the road, crucially) and No. 8 Wisconsin (on the road), well better than Alabama 2017. Penn State had beaten No. 3 (at home), No. 8 (neutral) and No. 24 (at home), leaving Ohio State a clear-cut notch ahead."

 

I've highlighted  a few paragraphs, but the entire article is worth a read. It is the best I've come across in summarizing ALL the facts. The media has set this up from the beginning as an expectation that OSU will be chosen. The piece above is more balanced, but still gives OSU a 50-50 chance with 'Bama. Some of the comments are very enlightening as well...

 

e.g. random heartland american: "To muddy the waters a little more: Sagarin says Wisconsin's strength of schedule (#50) is HIGHER than Alabama's (#56) - but the 11-1 team that didn't even make its conference championship game is being considered over the 12-1 team that did? And what of USC, the 2-loss conference champion with a higher SOS (#16) than Ohio State (#28)?"

 

e.g. cupojoe6: "I do think region will be a factor. Three teams from the deep south (and the other from the prairie), is TV ratings death."

 

TCU had reason to be super pissed in 2014, and Penn State will likely have similar justification based on last season and this year. In 2017, Bama > Penn St. > Ohio State

 

How is this subjective crap any better than having the top four chosen by pure quantitative objectivity (i.e. an RPI-like formula)? Oh, right, you can't directly put a program's financial power into a formula and still have transparency and universal respect.

Edited by UAZipster0305
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's something else that's not being talked about here.  

 

Back in 2014, most people thought it was unjust that they suddenly leapfrogged in the final poll to a playoff spot.  

 

That was a 2 spot move, after a convincing 59-0 win over Wisconsin on a neutral field. 

This year, they need a 4 spot jump after surviving a game that everyone this morning is calling a "bad football game".

 

So, my thinking is that they should have needed a very convincing win last night to sway people that significantly.  And that didn't happen.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/3/2017 at 3:06 PM, UAZipster0305 said:

There has never been a two-loss team, or a team that suffered any annihilation at any time, in the playoff; now, the playoff might get both."

Expand  

 

In the end, you'd think that this should be the nail in the coffin for the Suckeyes. 

 

And even though the Iowa loss is recent, and horrible, you also can't forget that the other loss was a blowout, and at HOME.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After 3 years of crap, I'm finally happy to hear people saying that the committee "Removed politics from the equation, and did what was right".   And it's funny that many people have pointed out that the Suckeyes were always the ones who were at the center of the political garbage.  

 

Maybe that era is over?  Don't bet on it.  

 

Here's another interesting fact I just learned that all of the Suckeye and Big 10 complainers will need to face.

The Big 10 was the ONLY conference in the country this year that had ZERO non-conference wins against any team in the Top 25.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...