Bucks are "In" at #3...
-
Moral of the story.....don't lose to Pitt. Don't lose a game by 39 pts.
But it's ok to lose to PSU, the team that won the conference
But it's ok to lose to PSU, the team that won the conference
Thus the conundrum of separate conferences.
-
Roll Tide. Penn State got fucked. This playoff system is rigged.
Wouldn't shock me to know youre a State Penn fan.
-
My daughter graduated from there.
Well at least she was safe from the abuse then.
-
Moral of the story.....don't lose to Pitt. Don't lose a game by 39 pts.
But it's ok to lose to PSU, the team that won the conference
But it's ok to lose to PSU, the team that won the conference
One loss by 3 points, yes, is OK.....as long as you have beaten 3 other top Ten programs.
Lose to the #5 ranked team as your only loss? That's OK.
Don't lose to 23rd ranked Pitt. Don't lose to unranked Iowa. Don't lose a game by 39 points.
The committee looks at who you beat...and who you lost to. They talk about PSU having the best victory because they beat the #2/3 team in the nation. But OSU beat the #3 team in the nation....and the #7 and #8.
And their loss was to the #5 ranked team.
Besides....remember, PSU and OSU tied for the division crown.....but under tie breaker rules, the team with the head to head goes to the title game.
-
Exactly!! Don't lose twice.Moral of the story.....don't lose to Pitt. Don't lose a game by 39 pts.
-
As Bob Stoops said: "Big non conference games are only good if you win em."
-
I mean, I'm obviously happy OSU is in and I think they had a strong argument to be in the field as well. However, I'm also not disagreeing that the CFP needs to clear this shit up a little bit too.
If Ohio State got in because of a strong schedule they navigated well (which I totally get) that sets the idea of SOS as a critically important. However, by that logic why did Washington get in over PSU? They also tell us that winning the conference and head-2-head are critically important . By that logic, even with 2 losses why did PSU get left out over OSU? Does it really show that 2 losses pretty much eliminates you from contention barring incredible circumstances?
At the end of the day, I think the only team they messed up was Washington over PSU. They literally only beat one team worth a crap (Colorado) who got beaten by the 3rd best team by ranking in the B10 conference. I get why people are pointing fingers at OSU, but leaving a team out with one loss who has beaten the 6th, 7th, 8th best teams would be total nonsense no matter the conference outcome. The problem is that conference routes aren't created equal which obviously heavily favored OSU as well.
Point is, the CFP committee could have sent a clear signal with Alabama, OSU, Clemson, and Penn St. That 4 team bracket would show that winning a conference matters AND that having a strong OOC schedule matters as well.
-
I agree Jrb, they could clear a lot up still
-
I agree Jrb, they could clear a lot up still
Yeah-the problem as well is that they contradicted themselves specifically with OSU the past few years as well. In 2014 they made a very overt statement that winning a conference championship game was important. In 2016 with the same team they made the overt statement that a strong schedule was important. What I'd want cleared up if I was a school with legit playoff hopes is this:
Which is MOST important between head-to-head, conference championship, or strength of schedule?
This would, IMO, heavily dictate how universities attack creating schedules for future years. It's becoming too much of a scapegoat for them to say "we look at all of these things and weigh them as appropriate" when you send very mixed signals on which you see as important year to year. I mean I get it, it's an imperfect science that I'm fine with not being written in stone. But let's say the CFP says that conference championships are considered most important. You could easily see universities over the next 5 years plan much fewer games like Oklahoma v. OSU because they want their record in-tact before conference scheduling begins.
If it were me? I'd start all day SOS and common opponents. Conference games are pretty standard in how they are played year in and year out. Sometimes you get the luck of the draw (like PSU) and really only have to beat 1-2 similar talent teams in order to make it the conference championship.
-
59-0>38-31
-
I mean, I'm obviously happy OSU is in and I think they had a strong argument to be in the field as well. However, I'm also not disagreeing that the CFP needs to clear this shit up a little bit too.
If Ohio State got in because of a strong schedule they navigated well (which I totally get) that sets the idea of SOS as a critically important. However, by that logic why did Washington get in over PSU? They also tell us that winning the conference and head-2-head are critically important . By that logic, even with 2 losses why did PSU get left out over OSU? Does it really show that 2 losses pretty much eliminates you from contention barring incredible circumstances?
At the end of the day, I think the only team they messed up was Washington over PSU. They literally only beat one team worth a crap (Colorado) who got beaten by the 3rd best team by ranking in the B10 conference. I get why people are pointing fingers at OSU, but leaving a team out with one loss who has beaten the 6th, 7th, 8th best teams would be total nonsense no matter the conference outcome. The problem is that conference routes aren't created equal which obviously heavily favored OSU as well.
Point is, the CFP committee could have sent a clear signal with Alabama, OSU, Clemson, and Penn St. That 4 team bracket would show that winning a conference matters AND that having a strong OOC schedule matters as well.
I mean, I'm obviously happy OSU is in and I think they had a strong argument to be in the field as well. However, I'm also not disagreeing that the CFP needs to clear this shit up a little bit too.
If Ohio State got in because of a strong schedule they navigated well (which I totally get) that sets the idea of SOS as a critically important. However, by that logic why did Washington get in over PSU? They also tell us that winning the conference and head-2-head are critically important . By that logic, even with 2 losses why did PSU get left out over OSU? Does it really show that 2 losses pretty much eliminates you from contention barring incredible circumstances?
At the end of the day, I think the only team they messed up was Washington over PSU. They literally only beat one team worth a crap (Colorado) who got beaten by the 3rd best team by ranking in the B10 conference. I get why people are pointing fingers at OSU, but leaving a team out with one loss who has beaten the 6th, 7th, 8th best teams would be total nonsense no matter the conference outcome. The problem is that conference routes aren't created equal which obviously heavily favored OSU as well.
Point is, the CFP committee could have sent a clear signal with Alabama, OSU, Clemson, and Penn St. That 4 team bracket would show that winning a conference matters AND that having a strong OOC schedule matters as well.
I am not a fan of the huskies ofc schedule it was a joke,but to say they did not beat anyone besides the buffalos is just wrong they rolled the cardinals and the cougers also beat the utes and pretty much stepped on the throats of all the lower ranked pac-12 teams now as far as penn state there ofc is not that strong and they lost one of those and of their two quality wins they won those both with a combined 10 points,so it came down to which champ they wanted in a one loss team or a two loss team also to dig a little deeper the huskies lost to usc while penn lost to pitt and got killed by m,so ya know just saying I really do not see a argument for penn getting in over washington
-
I mean, I'm obviously happy OSU is in and I think they had a strong argument to be in the field as well. However, I'm also not disagreeing that the CFP needs to clear this shit up a little bit too.
If Ohio State got in because of a strong schedule they navigated well (which I totally get) that sets the idea of SOS as a critically important. However, by that logic why did Washington get in over PSU? They also tell us that winning the conference and head-2-head are critically important . By that logic, even with 2 losses why did PSU get left out over OSU? Does it really show that 2 losses pretty much eliminates you from contention barring incredible circumstances?
At the end of the day, I think the only team they messed up was Washington over PSU. They literally only beat one team worth a crap (Colorado) who got beaten by the 3rd best team by ranking in the B10 conference. I get why people are pointing fingers at OSU, but leaving a team out with one loss who has beaten the 6th, 7th, 8th best teams would be total nonsense no matter the conference outcome. The problem is that conference routes aren't created equal which obviously heavily favored OSU as well.
Point is, the CFP committee could have sent a clear signal with Alabama, OSU, Clemson, and Penn St. That 4 team bracket would show that winning a conference matters AND that having a strong OOC schedule matters as well.
I am not a fan of the huskies ofc schedule it was a joke,but to say they did not beat anyone besides the buffalos is just wrong they rolled the cardinals and the cougers also beat the utes and pretty much stepped on the throats of all the lower ranked pac-12 teams now as far as penn state there ofc is not that strong and they lost one of those and of their two quality wins they won those both with a combined 10 points,so it came down to which champ they wanted in a one loss team or a two loss team also to dig a little deeper the huskies lost to usc while penn lost to pitt and got killed by m,so ya know just saying I really do not see a argument for penn getting in over washington
I am not a fan of the huskies ofc schedule it was a joke,but to say they did not beat anyone besides the buffalos is just wrong they rolled the cardinals and the cougers also beat the utes and pretty much stepped on the throats of all the lower ranked pac-12 teams now as far as penn state there ofc is not that strong and they lost one of those and of their two quality wins they won those both with a combined 10 points,so it came down to which champ they wanted in a one loss team or a two loss team also to dig a little deeper the huskies lost to usc while penn lost to pitt and got killed by m,so ya know just saying I really do not see a argument for penn getting in over washington
First off holy moly use a period to break sentences up.
Washington beats the teams ending up ranked 10th, 18th, and 19th. Penn State beat teams ending up ranked 3rd, 8th, and 24th.SOS strongly favors PSU as well by most metrics. The one I like to use had Washington ranked 41st while Penn St was at 16. http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm. Penn St. objectively played in the harder conference and won it while beating its best team in the process (OSU). The ONLY negative PSU has is losing twice, literally that's it.
So yes, there is objectively using facts and data an argument for why PSU should have gotten in over Washington. That is EXACTLY as I noted before the CFP needs to better clarify what they are looking for.
-
I am not a fan of the huskies ofc schedule it was a joke,but to say they did not beat anyone besides the buffalos is just wrong they rolled the cardinals and the cougers also beat the utes and pretty much stepped on the throats of all the lower ranked pac-12 teams now as far as penn state there ofc is not that strong and they lost one of those and of their two quality wins they won those both with a combined 10 points,so it came down to which champ they wanted in a one loss team or a two loss team also to dig a little deeper the huskies lost to usc while penn lost to pitt and got killed by m,so ya know just saying I really do not see a argument for penn getting in over washington
First off holy moly use a period to break sentences up.
Washington beats the teams ending up ranked 10th, 18th, and 19th. Penn State beat teams ending up ranked 3rd, 8th, and 24th.SOS strongly favors PSU as well by most metrics. The one I like to use had Washington ranked 41st while Penn St was at 16. http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm. Penn St. objectively played in the harder conference and won it while beating its best team in the process (OSU). The ONLY negative PSU has is losing twice, literally that's it.
So yes, there is objectively using facts and data an argument for why PSU should have gotten in over Washington. That is EXACTLY as I noted before the CFP needs to better clarify what they are looking for.
First off holy moly use a period to break sentences up.
Washington beats the teams ending up ranked 10th, 18th, and 19th. Penn State beat teams ending up ranked 3rd, 8th, and 24th.SOS strongly favors PSU as well by most metrics. The one I like to use had Washington ranked 41st while Penn St was at 16. http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm. Penn St. objectively played in the harder conference and won it while beating its best team in the process (OSU). The ONLY negative PSU has is losing twice, literally that's it.
So yes, there is objectively using facts and data an argument for why PSU should have gotten in over Washington. That is EXACTLY as I noted before the CFP needs to better clarify what they are looking for.
hey I noticed a couple of comma's up there
GO BUCKS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login