bbmind
All Conference
Posts: 119
|
Post by bbmind on Dec 4, 2016 20:48:25 GMT -5
Well sir it's very easy.
1. Your conference champ had 2 losses.
2. No one else was a viable candidate.
3. After reading 1 and 2 above that means you're out.
Many people want this to be complex or have automatics. There are 5 big conferences and only 4 teams so by design not all conferences get a team. Sucks to be you that 2 of those 3 years you've been on outside looking in. Get better, quit crying and good luck in 2017.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Dec 5, 2016 12:25:03 GMT -5
And add a couple of schools so a playoff is viable. "Rivalry Games" in the same week Conference Championship games are being played is a poor alternative, as has been proven 2 of the 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by 1percenter on Dec 5, 2016 13:23:26 GMT -5
The only one I do not like is rewarding a 1 loss Washington who played a cupcake non-conference schedule. Oklahoma is saying hmmmm, so if we didn't play Ohio State and Houston and scheduled Rutgers and Portland State like Washington did, then we'd be sitting at 12-0 and in the playoff. Why should we Oklahoma schedule hard non-conference games because it just cost us a trip to the playoffs in 2016 and you rewarded Washington for playing Portland State instead of Ohio State.
^^^ I think Ohio State threw the monkey wrench into them keeping Washington out. Had Ohio State been a 2 loss team, then I think they would have put Oklahoma and Penn State in over Washington and told Washington what they told Baylor and TCU in 2014, play a tougher non-conference schedule. I don't think the committee wanted to put 2 teams from the same Conference in yet (it's only year 3), let a Conference dominate for a couple years (like the SEC did a decade ago) then let that conference get 2 first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 14:20:26 GMT -5
Oklahoma can schedule those 2 teams just don't lose to both of them. They were ranked 4th and got beat by the 15th ranked team in the first week. That's on them.
If Ohio State would have lost 4 games this year they would not make the playoffs. If Alabama had lost 4 games this year they would not make it. All this talk of IFs can drive you crazy. For Oklahoma, they lost to a 9-3 team that that finished unranked in the top 25 and to a team that finished top 4 in a beat down. Bottom line is get better.
|
|
|
Post by 1percenter on Dec 5, 2016 14:28:20 GMT -5
^^^ doesn't change the obvious fact that if they played Washington's non-conference schedule then Oklahoma would be 12-0 and in the playoff. The Committee just told them to make the month of September a cupcake month. No more OU vs OSU, no more LSU vs Wisconsin, no more USC vs Bama. Just schedule cupcakes so you don't get an L. That's why I do not like the addition of Washington. Penn State or Oklahoma should have been put in over Washington.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 15:23:38 GMT -5
So you feel a 12-0 regardless of strength of schedule is better than a 10-2 team with a more difficult schedule?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 15:28:05 GMT -5
Also don't forget, the CFP Poll had Washington 3 spots higher than Oklahoma. The Coach's Poll had Washington 3 spots high than Oklahoma. The AP Poll had Washington 3 spots higher than Oklahoma. And the Football Power Index has Washington 4 spots higher than Oklahoma. Maybe it's not the committee that needs to change. It is everyone who is looking at Oklahoma and Washington sees the same thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 15:32:37 GMT -5
Washington played 5 top 25 teams during this season and all were within their conference. Oklahoma played 5(at the time they played) all season and lost to 2. Houston has since dropped out. Remove those 2 and their strength of schedule drops terribly in playing only 3 ranked teams. NOOOO doubt Oklahoma's non conferences schedule was much much tougher than Washington's, but when you lose it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by Observer on Dec 5, 2016 23:48:59 GMT -5
Simple solution. Have an eight team playoff. The eight highest ranked conference champions are in. If you don't win your conference you're not in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 23:57:28 GMT -5
The 9th ranked team would complain.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Dec 6, 2016 2:39:21 GMT -5
The 9th ranked team would complain. So true and diluting the field by expanding the party is not the answer. Boxing in ridiculous parameters like 'highest ranked conference champions' is rather ridiculous. Too many extenuating circumstances as was exhibited this year with the two best teams in the B1G not involved in the championship game.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Dec 6, 2016 19:54:30 GMT -5
Simple solution. Have an eight team playoff. The eight highest ranked conference champions are in. If you don't win your conference you're not in. Even Urban implies, that if you go to 8, the players should be compensated for playing a schedule almost as long as the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Dec 6, 2016 20:53:01 GMT -5
Urban is opposed to expanding it to 8 The playoff committee chairman said there is zero discussion to expand the format.
|
|
|
Post by maplecityjake on Dec 7, 2016 10:22:30 GMT -5
The only one I do not like is rewarding a 1 loss Washington who played a cupcake non-conference schedule. Oklahoma is saying hmmmm, so if we didn't play Ohio State and Houston and scheduled Rutgers and Portland State like Washington did, then we'd be sitting at 12-0 and in the playoff. Why should we Oklahoma schedule hard non-conference games because it just cost us a trip to the playoffs in 2016 and you rewarded Washington for playing Portland State instead of Ohio State. As I told Rambo McClain last week, what cost OU was not COMPETING in both games.
|
|
|
Post by DrTorch on Dec 7, 2016 15:25:43 GMT -5
The only one I do not like is rewarding a 1 loss Washington who played a cupcake non-conference schedule. Oklahoma is saying hmmmm, so if we didn't play Ohio State and Houston and scheduled Rutgers and Portland State like Washington did, then we'd be sitting at 12-0 and in the playoff. Why should we Oklahoma schedule hard non-conference games because it just cost us a trip to the playoffs in 2016 and you rewarded Washington for playing Portland State instead of Ohio State. As I trolled Rambo McClain last week, what cost OU was not COMPETING in both games. there, fixed that for ya
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2016 15:10:21 GMT -5
An 8 team playoff would not be an improvement. If it would not stay at a 4 team playoff, I would rather go to selected bowl games and a selected National Champ before expanding the playoff. And we all know it's not going back.
|
|
|
Post by DrTorch on Dec 8, 2016 15:49:32 GMT -5
the answer is 45-24
what exactly was the question again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2016 0:50:26 GMT -5
Correct
|
|
|
Post by Buckeye2b on Dec 11, 2016 21:22:16 GMT -5
Urban is opposed to expanding it to 8 The playoff committee chairman said there is zero discussion to expand the format. Of course not for the committee members.. that puts them out of a job. I personally don't care about conference champions, but rather a true national champion decided on the field. To believe that a "committee" will pick it without political influence each year is ludicrous. If Wisconsin wins the B1G championship, you think they don't vault into the CFP with Alvarez on "the committee?" Settle it on the field, cause we all know damn well this year of any that any one of multiple teams could win it if they can knock off Bama.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Dec 11, 2016 22:20:27 GMT -5
Uh, I think that's what we are doing now. I want to see the four best teams square off, not loosening the criteria to involving 2-3 or 4 loss teams of wanna-be's
|
|
|
Post by Buckeye2b on Dec 11, 2016 23:56:49 GMT -5
Uh, I think that's what we are doing now. I want to see the four best teams square off, not loosening the criteria to involving 2-3 or 4 loss teams of wanna-be's You sure about Washington? (BTW, I think Chris Peterson in a great coach, but are they really top 4?) I just want to see one more level... Michigan took 2 losses, but do you think they couldn't get Speight healthy after a month off and knock anyone else off in an eight team playoff?? I don't want it crazy watered down, but I also don't like the idea that only power five teams will be welcome. I still think the selection committee is a load of political Poop and always will be.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Dec 12, 2016 0:38:21 GMT -5
I'm not one of the experts on the committee. That's why they have a panel of experts comprising the committee to dwell these very questions and arrive at the four best. What did we have before? Sportswriters, coaches etc. voting their personal or regional biases? A mix of politics and sports....lol
|
|
|
Post by Buckeye2b on Dec 12, 2016 14:13:14 GMT -5
The plus one is far better than the BCS, however, it's still not giving a true NC in a year such as this. If Bama is as good as everyone thinks and they win it, then no one can argue. What happens if Washington knocks them off? Who really thought Ohio State should have won two years ago as the fourth seed?
Someone will always be upset they didn't make the cut, but limiting it to only power conferences isn't ok, when it completely eliminates opportunity to other D1 schools. Do I think undefeated Western Michigan belongs in the top 4?? Probably not, but what if they beat Wisconsin like red headed step children? I still can't get past Boise who beat TCU in the Fiesta and ended up #4 in both the AP and coaches poll that year AND undefeated to boot.
|
|
|
Post by Buckeye2b on Dec 12, 2016 15:13:23 GMT -5
I had the throw this out there just as further backup... YSU got an invite to the FCS playoffs, and even though not seeded, they are in the semifinals by earning it. They beat Sanford St in the first round, upset #3 seed Jacksonville State and Saturday beat Wofford in OT to face the #2 seed, Eastern Washington next weekend for a berth in the final. YSU has history in the playoffs, but they are advancing as a non-seed this year. Could 2 loss Michigan have done that in an eight team bracket? I think so...
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Dec 12, 2016 15:44:20 GMT -5
The plus one is far better than the BCS, however, it's still not giving a true NC in a year such as this. If Bama is as good as everyone thinks and they win it, then no one can argue. What happens if Washington knocks them off? Who really thought Ohio State should have won two years ago as the fourth seed?
Someone will always be upset they didn't make the cut, but limiting it to only power conferences isn't ok, when it completely eliminates opportunity to other D1 schools. Do I think undefeated Western Michigan belongs in the top 4?? Probably not, but what if they beat Wisconsin like red headed step children? I still can't get past Boise who beat TCU in the Fiesta and ended up #4 in both the AP and coaches poll that year AND undefeated to boot. Obviously, the playoff committee got it right two years ago and understood the Buckeyes were playing as well as anyone in the country at the seasons end. It's time to sit back, take a deep breath and recognize this selection committee indeed knows what they are doing. Ohio State was not the 'true' National Champion in 2014? Alabama was not the 'true' National Champion last year? With your logic, we would not have a 'true' National Champion unless all 128 FBS schools are entered in a full elimination tournament..."because you just never know".
|
|
|
Post by Buckeye2b on Dec 12, 2016 20:06:57 GMT -5
True NC in 2014 for OSU? Yes, but also in 2002 under the system at the time, which I didn't like then either. I like the plus one better, but I still think it short changes a team like Boise, and only because they don't belong to the correct conference... it's discrimination for the power five and against the little guys who will never get a chance in the current system. All I'm asking for is a small window of a chance for the Boises in the system. You realize that even in an eight team bracket, WMU wouldn't even make it in this year. Even better, I like the idea of using the BCS system to set up the bracket... but of course that takes away the need for a committee... LOL!!!
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Dec 12, 2016 23:00:47 GMT -5
True NC in 2014 for OSU? Yes, but also in 2002 under the system at the time, which I didn't like then either. I like the plus one better, but I still think it short changes a team like Boise, and only because they don't belong to the correct conference... it's discrimination for the power five and against the little guys who will never get a chance in the current system. All I'm asking for is a small window of a chance for the Boises in the system. You realize that even in an eight team bracket, WMU wouldn't even make it in this year. Even better, I like the idea of using the BCS system to set up the bracket... but of course that takes away the need for a committee... LOL!!! Which gets us back to what I have been advocating. The NCAA has to sit down and provide a category for mid-majors such as the Boise's and Western Michigan's and have a separate playoff to accomodate mid-majors. Many or most of these schools are struggling to satisfy minimum requirements to maintain FBS status and not slip into BCS. Let's get real, even an undefeated season with their schedule of opponents isn't going to get them in the conversation with the Power 5's.
|
|
|
Post by Buckeye2b on Dec 12, 2016 23:38:39 GMT -5
Because most of them are really just oversized D1AA programs. That's a valid point, and imostly why I am a proponent of the field of 8. However, those who would want that opportunity... I just can't get past Boise with Peterson at the helm... (I saw him speak at a football coaches clinic about ten years ago, and I was ready to suit up for the guy...) Given a shot into a plus one??? In their best year, I think they have an outside chance to win it all. But making them light hvywgts with their own FBS-AA championship?? I could see it, but then comes the question of how many divisions are enough?? LOL... I think we can solve it here on North Coast and present the solution to the NCAA...
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Dec 13, 2016 6:26:07 GMT -5
Because most of them are really just oversized D1AA programs. That's a valid point, and imostly why I am a proponent of the field of 8. However, those who would want that opportunity... I just can't get past Boise with Peterson at the helm... (I saw him speak at a football coaches clinic about ten years ago, and I was ready to suit up for the guy...) Given a shot into a plus one??? In their best year, I think they have an outside chance to win it all. But making them light hvywgts with their own FBS-AA championship?? I could see it, but then comes the question of how many divisions are enough?? LOL... I think we can solve it here on North Coast and present the solution to the NCAA... If you look at it post perspective, Boise State was a rather unique situation with a coaching viewpoint that was a bit unorthodox offensively. It took some years for the defensive minds to properly adapt. I can see what you are saying. I agree, the present system is too much a 'one size fits all' and the NCAA has basically failed to meet the needs of mid-majors and they continue to be merely fodder for the elites, who have much superior talent and depth. What's problematic, those programs are willing to offer themselves up as fodder, or lambs to slaughter for that big, one day pay check. I agree, we understand things as they are, perhaps better than the NCAA powers that be. An interesting discussion, to say the least.....lol
|
|
|
Post by galion on Dec 13, 2016 6:43:33 GMT -5
True NC in 2014 for OSU? Yes, but also in 2002 under the system at the time, which I didn't like then either. I like the plus one better, but I still think it short changes a team like Boise, and only because they don't belong to the correct conference... it's discrimination for the power five and against the little guys who will never get a chance in the current system. All I'm asking for is a small window of a chance for the Boises in the system. You realize that even in an eight team bracket, WMU wouldn't even make it in this year. Even better, I like the idea of using the BCS system to set up the bracket... but of course that takes away the need for a committee... LOL!!! Which gets us back to what I have been advocating. The NCAA has to sit down and provide a category for mid-majors such as the Boise's and Western Michigan's and have a separate playoff to accomodate mid-majors. Many or most of these schools are struggling to satisfy minimum requirements to maintain FBS status and not slip into BCS. Let's get real, even an undefeated season with their schedule of opponents isn't going to get them in the conversation with the Power 5's. They already do that with the 98 different bowls that exist now if you're a decent mid major team chances are you'll get into one of those. So now they need a separate playoff system to decide who the world's tallest dwarf is in addition to that?
|
|