Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board
BobcatAttack.com Message Board
Ohio Football
Topic:  RE: Playoff system reform

Topic:  RE: Playoff system reform
Author
Message
oldkatz
General User

Member Since: 12/22/2004
Post Count: 1,421

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 9:10:54 AM 
Casper71 wrote:
I think the big 5 will go to a 5+3 at some point. The Champs of each BIG conference plus the next best 3. That's only one more weekend and it solves the problem they had this year...at least temporarily. Then numbers 9-10 will bitch and moan.

Personally, I think the little 5 might as well get together and have their own 60 (or so) team division.



Maybe they call it the NPA..Non Professional Alliance.....sounds much better than the UPA..Un Professional Alliance

"All my inside sources tell me I have no inside sources." Salvatore "money bucks" Mafiosiano.
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,485

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 11:41:15 AM 
What I am finding humorous here is that all the support for TCU, yet by validating their claim you ignore Baylor who actually beat TCU in head to head. How was TCU ever in that position in the 1st place?
Back to Top
  
OU_Country
General User



Member Since: 12/6/2005
Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County
Post Count: 8,320

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 12:03:24 PM 
perimeterpost wrote:
there are 351 teams in Div1 men's bball and EVERY SINGLE TEAM has a direct path to a national championship.

there are 124 teams in Div1 FCS football and EVERY SINGLE TEAM has a direct path to a national championship.

there are 128 teams in Div1 FBS football and NOT ONE SINGLE TEAM has a direct path to a national championship.


This is the "what" that needs to be fixed, until it is the "how" doesn't matter.



This supports my argument against the sport of college football as a whole right now. It's not a real sport with what I'd call real, fair competition. It's a sport with the drama of Reality TV for entertainment in the politicking over what team should be given the National Title shot. The people running it don't care because the cash register keeps ringing, and the American public keeps watching what is an obviously flawed system.

For OUr team, the only goal that matters is winning the MAC East, with the hope win in Detroit because after that, whatever bowl game we play in, regardless of how great of a season was had, is completely, 100% meaningless. The same can be said for all but about 20-25 teams in the country that are "D1" or "FBS". Conversely, a team that wins on the court, such as OU in 2012, or VCU, that isn't in a "power" conference, still has a chance by WINNING ON THE COURT or FIELD. That's what competition and sports is supposed to be about. That's why college football, as currently constituted, is barely more than a popularity contest.
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 12:54:33 PM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
What I am finding humorous here is that all the support for TCU, yet by validating their claim you ignore Baylor who actually beat TCU in head to head. How was TCU ever in that position in the 1st place?

This is why the Big 12 needs to add a conference championship game. Then they have one, and only one team at the top, to be considered for the playoff.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Big Willy
General User

Member Since: 12/29/2004
Post Count: 187

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 1:12:36 PM 
Actually, TCU going from #3 to #6 makes perfect sense if you listened to the Committee Chairman each week. First of all, according to the Chairman, #3 through #6 were VERY close last week. The FINAL resumes weren't in until Saturday night. Florida State beating the #11 team in the country improved their resume to the point that they passed TCU. Ohio State's annihilation of the #13 team in the country improved their resume to the point that they also passed TCU. Baylor's win over the #9 team in the country (a team TCU had also beaten) moved their resume up to being basically equal with TCU's resume. As the Committee Chairman said it would do if resumes were equal, the Committee then invoked head-to-head and moved Baylor ahead of TCU. OSU was already ahead of Baylor going into the last week. OSU's SOS was better than both Baylor and TCU, and OSU's non-conference SOS was much better than Baylor and TCU. The Chairman also stated OSU had beaten 9 bowl-eligible teams (several more than either Baylor or TCU), many of them on the road. Most pundits I have heard think the Committee got it right (except for that idiot, Mark May).

Assume for a minute that the Committee had not put out rankings each week and simply picked the four playoff teams at the end of the season (as the basketball committee does). I don't think there would have been nearly as much controversy had people not seen the rankings the week before. The main thing that caused the controversy was putting TCU ahead of Florida State the week before. But even while doing that, the Chairman said it was very, very close.

Edit: Just checked RealTime RPI. Their top 4 are Florida State, Alabama, Oregon, and Ohio State. Ohio State's SOS is 50, Baylor's is 113, TCU's 92. (Florida State - 57, Alabama - 33, Oregon - 73.)

Last Edited: 12/8/2014 1:32:30 PM by Big Willy
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,023

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 1:28:47 PM 
Big Willy wrote:


Assume for a minute that the Committee had not put out rankings each week and simply picked the four playoff teams at the end of the season (as the basketball committee does). I don't think there would have been nearly as much controversy had people not seen the rankings the week before. The main thing that caused the controversy was putting TCU ahead of Florida State the week before. But even while doing that, the Chairman said it was very, very close.


Great point! The TCU ranking the week before established what turned out to be unrealistic expectations.
Back to Top
  
Ted Thompson
Administrator



Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,399

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 2:48:13 PM 
Big Willy wrote:
Actually, TCU going from #3 to #6 makes perfect sense if you listened to the Committee Chairman each week. First of all, according to the Chairman, #3 through #6 were VERY close last week. The FINAL resumes weren't in until Saturday night. Florida State beating the #11 team in the country improved their resume to the point that they passed TCU. Ohio State's annihilation of the #13 team in the country improved their resume to the point that they also passed TCU. Baylor's win over the #9 team in the country (a team TCU had also beaten) moved their resume up to being basically equal with TCU's resume. As the Committee Chairman said it would do if resumes were equal, the Committee then invoked head-to-head and moved Baylor ahead of TCU. OSU was already ahead of Baylor going into the last week. OSU's SOS was better than both Baylor and TCU, and OSU's non-conference SOS was much better than Baylor and TCU. The Chairman also stated OSU had beaten 9 bowl-eligible teams (several more than either Baylor or TCU), many of them on the road. Most pundits I have heard think the Committee got it right (except for that idiot, Mark May).

Assume for a minute that the Committee had not put out rankings each week and simply picked the four playoff teams at the end of the season (as the basketball committee does). I don't think there would have been nearly as much controversy had people not seen the rankings the week before. The main thing that caused the controversy was putting TCU ahead of Florida State the week before. But even while doing that, the Chairman said it was very, very close.

Edit: Just checked RealTime RPI. Their top 4 are Florida State, Alabama, Oregon, and Ohio State. Ohio State's SOS is 50, Baylor's is 113, TCU's 92. (Florida State - 57, Alabama - 33, Oregon - 73.)


I'm not why you'd use RPI to rank much of anything. Or why you would just cherry-pick the non-conference schedule. It's about how you perform against your entire schedule (Big 12 was much stonger than Big 10). The Big 12 schools played 9 games in their conference like everyone else. Just a quick look of Sagarin schedule strength:

TCU -42
Ohio St. - 52
Baylor - 56

Follow Ohio Football recruiting on the BobcatAttack.com football recruiting database.

Back to Top
  
Big Willy
General User

Member Since: 12/29/2004
Post Count: 187

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 3:05:50 PM 
Ted Thompson wrote:
Big Willy wrote:
Actually, TCU going from #3 to #6 makes perfect sense if you listened to the Committee Chairman each week. First of all, according to the Chairman, #3 through #6 were VERY close last week. The FINAL resumes weren't in until Saturday night. Florida State beating the #11 team in the country improved their resume to the point that they passed TCU. Ohio State's annihilation of the #13 team in the country improved their resume to the point that they also passed TCU. Baylor's win over the #9 team in the country (a team TCU had also beaten) moved their resume up to being basically equal with TCU's resume. As the Committee Chairman said it would do if resumes were equal, the Committee then invoked head-to-head and moved Baylor ahead of TCU. OSU was already ahead of Baylor going into the last week. OSU's SOS was better than both Baylor and TCU, and OSU's non-conference SOS was much better than Baylor and TCU. The Chairman also stated OSU had beaten 9 bowl-eligible teams (several more than either Baylor or TCU), many of them on the road. Most pundits I have heard think the Committee got it right (except for that idiot, Mark May).

Assume for a minute that the Committee had not put out rankings each week and simply picked the four playoff teams at the end of the season (as the basketball committee does). I don't think there would have been nearly as much controversy had people not seen the rankings the week before. The main thing that caused the controversy was putting TCU ahead of Florida State the week before. But even while doing that, the Chairman said it was very, very close.

Edit: Just checked RealTime RPI. Their top 4 are Florida State, Alabama, Oregon, and Ohio State. Ohio State's SOS is 50, Baylor's is 113, TCU's 92. (Florida State - 57, Alabama - 33, Oregon - 73.)


I'm not sure why you'd use RPI to rank much of anything. Or why you would just cherry-pick the non-conference schedule. It's about how you perform against your entire schedule (Big 12 was much stronger than Big 10). The Big 12 schools played 9 games in their conference like everyone else. Just a quick look of Sagarin schedule strength:

TCU -42
Ohio St. - 52
Baylor - 56


Not sure where I "just cherry-picked the non-conference schedule." I mentioned the non-con schedule because the Committee Chairman talked about the non-conference schedules. It obviously was not "only" about the non-con schedule, but the non-con schedule did come into play just as it does in basketball. I also talked about the overall schedule. I don't know what method was used to calculate the SOS, but according to the numbers shown on the screen, OSU had a better SOS than either Baylor or TCU. If in fact the Big 12 was stronger than the Big 10, then OSU's much stronger non-conference schedule as compared to Baylor and TCU more than made up for that.
Back to Top
  
Ted Thompson
Administrator



Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,399

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 3:18:18 PM 
Big Willy wrote:
Ted Thompson wrote:
Big Willy wrote:
Actually, TCU going from #3 to #6 makes perfect sense if you listened to the Committee Chairman each week. First of all, according to the Chairman, #3 through #6 were VERY close last week. The FINAL resumes weren't in until Saturday night. Florida State beating the #11 team in the country improved their resume to the point that they passed TCU. Ohio State's annihilation of the #13 team in the country improved their resume to the point that they also passed TCU. Baylor's win over the #9 team in the country (a team TCU had also beaten) moved their resume up to being basically equal with TCU's resume. As the Committee Chairman said it would do if resumes were equal, the Committee then invoked head-to-head and moved Baylor ahead of TCU. OSU was already ahead of Baylor going into the last week. OSU's SOS was better than both Baylor and TCU, and OSU's non-conference SOS was much better than Baylor and TCU. The Chairman also stated OSU had beaten 9 bowl-eligible teams (several more than either Baylor or TCU), many of them on the road. Most pundits I have heard think the Committee got it right (except for that idiot, Mark May).

Assume for a minute that the Committee had not put out rankings each week and simply picked the four playoff teams at the end of the season (as the basketball committee does). I don't think there would have been nearly as much controversy had people not seen the rankings the week before. The main thing that caused the controversy was putting TCU ahead of Florida State the week before. But even while doing that, the Chairman said it was very, very close.

Edit: Just checked RealTime RPI. Their top 4 are Florida State, Alabama, Oregon, and Ohio State. Ohio State's SOS is 50, Baylor's is 113, TCU's 92. (Florida State - 57, Alabama - 33, Oregon - 73.)


I'm not sure why you'd use RPI to rank much of anything. Or why you would just cherry-pick the non-conference schedule. It's about how you perform against your entire schedule (Big 12 was much stronger than Big 10). The Big 12 schools played 9 games in their conference like everyone else. Just a quick look of Sagarin schedule strength:

TCU -42
Ohio St. - 52
Baylor - 56


Not sure where I "just cherry-picked the non-conference schedule." I mentioned the non-con schedule because the Committee Chairman talked about the non-conference schedules. It obviously was not "only" about the non-con schedule, but the non-con schedule did come into play just as it does in basketball. I also talked about the overall schedule. I don't know what method was used to calculate the SOS, but according to the numbers shown on the screen, OSU had a better SOS than either Baylor or TCU. If in fact the Big 12 was stronger than the Big 10, then OSU's much stronger non-conference schedule as compared to Baylor and TCU more than made up for that.


Clearly, mathematically it doesn't. The non-schedule was only 25% of Baylor or TCU's schedule. So what is more important is the strength of your conference schedule. It's also how you perform against that schedule. Ohio St. lost to Va Tech while beating Navy, Kent St. and UC. TCU hammered Minnesota, SMU and Samford.

Follow Ohio Football recruiting on the BobcatAttack.com football recruiting database.

Back to Top
  
Ted Thompson
Administrator



Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,399

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 3:26:25 PM 
Alan Swank wrote:
Big Willy wrote:


Assume for a minute that the Committee had not put out rankings each week and simply picked the four playoff teams at the end of the season (as the basketball committee does). I don't think there would have been nearly as much controversy had people not seen the rankings the week before. The main thing that caused the controversy was putting TCU ahead of Florida State the week before. But even while doing that, the Chairman said it was very, very close.


Great point! The TCU ranking the week before established what turned out to be unrealistic expectations.


I'm not sure why you just don't rank the 4 teams that you're going to put in if they win.

Follow Ohio Football recruiting on the BobcatAttack.com football recruiting database.

Back to Top
  
Big Willy
General User

Member Since: 12/29/2004
Post Count: 187

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 3:35:18 PM 
Ted Thompson wrote:
Big Willy wrote:
Ted Thompson wrote:
Big Willy wrote:
Actually, TCU going from #3 to #6 makes perfect sense if you listened to the Committee Chairman each week. First of all, according to the Chairman, #3 through #6 were VERY close last week. The FINAL resumes weren't in until Saturday night. Florida State beating the #11 team in the country improved their resume to the point that they passed TCU. Ohio State's annihilation of the #13 team in the country improved their resume to the point that they also passed TCU. Baylor's win over the #9 team in the country (a team TCU had also beaten) moved their resume up to being basically equal with TCU's resume. As the Committee Chairman said it would do if resumes were equal, the Committee then invoked head-to-head and moved Baylor ahead of TCU. OSU was already ahead of Baylor going into the last week. OSU's SOS was better than both Baylor and TCU, and OSU's non-conference SOS was much better than Baylor and TCU. The Chairman also stated OSU had beaten 9 bowl-eligible teams (several more than either Baylor or TCU), many of them on the road. Most pundits I have heard think the Committee got it right (except for that idiot, Mark May).

Assume for a minute that the Committee had not put out rankings each week and simply picked the four playoff teams at the end of the season (as the basketball committee does). I don't think there would have been nearly as much controversy had people not seen the rankings the week before. The main thing that caused the controversy was putting TCU ahead of Florida State the week before. But even while doing that, the Chairman said it was very, very close.

Edit: Just checked RealTime RPI. Their top 4 are Florida State, Alabama, Oregon, and Ohio State. Ohio State's SOS is 50, Baylor's is 113, TCU's 92. (Florida State - 57, Alabama - 33, Oregon - 73.)


I'm not sure why you'd use RPI to rank much of anything. Or why you would just cherry-pick the non-conference schedule. It's about how you perform against your entire schedule (Big 12 was much stronger than Big 10). The Big 12 schools played 9 games in their conference like everyone else. Just a quick look of Sagarin schedule strength:

TCU -42
Ohio St. - 52
Baylor - 56


Not sure where I "just cherry-picked the non-conference schedule." I mentioned the non-con schedule because the Committee Chairman talked about the non-conference schedules. It obviously was not "only" about the non-con schedule, but the non-con schedule did come into play just as it does in basketball. I also talked about the overall schedule. I don't know what method was used to calculate the SOS, but according to the numbers shown on the screen, OSU had a better SOS than either Baylor or TCU. If in fact the Big 12 was stronger than the Big 10, then OSU's much stronger non-conference schedule as compared to Baylor and TCU more than made up for that.


Clearly, mathematically it doesn't. The non-schedule was only 25% of Baylor or TCU's schedule. So what is more important is the strength of your conference schedule. It's also how you perform against that schedule. Ohio St. lost to Va Tech while beating Navy, Kent St. and UC. TCU hammered Minnesota, SMU and Samford.


I'm simply using the numbers that were shown/cited on TV. According to those numbers OSU had a better overall SOS than either Baylor or TCU. If you choose not to believe those numbers and simply want to express an opinion, have at it.
Back to Top
  
Ted Thompson
Administrator



Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,399

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 3:47:44 PM 
Big Willy wrote:
Ted Thompson wrote:
Big Willy wrote:
Ted Thompson wrote:
Big Willy wrote:
Actually, TCU going from #3 to #6 makes perfect sense if you listened to the Committee Chairman each week. First of all, according to the Chairman, #3 through #6 were VERY close last week. The FINAL resumes weren't in until Saturday night. Florida State beating the #11 team in the country improved their resume to the point that they passed TCU. Ohio State's annihilation of the #13 team in the country improved their resume to the point that they also passed TCU. Baylor's win over the #9 team in the country (a team TCU had also beaten) moved their resume up to being basically equal with TCU's resume. As the Committee Chairman said it would do if resumes were equal, the Committee then invoked head-to-head and moved Baylor ahead of TCU. OSU was already ahead of Baylor going into the last week. OSU's SOS was better than both Baylor and TCU, and OSU's non-conference SOS was much better than Baylor and TCU. The Chairman also stated OSU had beaten 9 bowl-eligible teams (several more than either Baylor or TCU), many of them on the road. Most pundits I have heard think the Committee got it right (except for that idiot, Mark May).

Assume for a minute that the Committee had not put out rankings each week and simply picked the four playoff teams at the end of the season (as the basketball committee does). I don't think there would have been nearly as much controversy had people not seen the rankings the week before. The main thing that caused the controversy was putting TCU ahead of Florida State the week before. But even while doing that, the Chairman said it was very, very close.

Edit: Just checked RealTime RPI. Their top 4 are Florida State, Alabama, Oregon, and Ohio State. Ohio State's SOS is 50, Baylor's is 113, TCU's 92. (Florida State - 57, Alabama - 33, Oregon - 73.)


I'm not sure why you'd use RPI to rank much of anything. Or why you would just cherry-pick the non-conference schedule. It's about how you perform against your entire schedule (Big 12 was much stronger than Big 10). The Big 12 schools played 9 games in their conference like everyone else. Just a quick look of Sagarin schedule strength:

TCU -42
Ohio St. - 52
Baylor - 56


Not sure where I "just cherry-picked the non-conference schedule." I mentioned the non-con schedule because the Committee Chairman talked about the non-conference schedules. It obviously was not "only" about the non-con schedule, but the non-con schedule did come into play just as it does in basketball. I also talked about the overall schedule. I don't know what method was used to calculate the SOS, but according to the numbers shown on the screen, OSU had a better SOS than either Baylor or TCU. If in fact the Big 12 was stronger than the Big 10, then OSU's much stronger non-conference schedule as compared to Baylor and TCU more than made up for that.


Clearly, mathematically it doesn't. The non-schedule was only 25% of Baylor or TCU's schedule. So what is more important is the strength of your conference schedule. It's also how you perform against that schedule. Ohio St. lost to Va Tech while beating Navy, Kent St. and UC. TCU hammered Minnesota, SMU and Samford.


I'm simply using the numbers that were shown/cited on TV. According to those numbers OSU had a better overall SOS than either Baylor or TCU. If you choose not to believe those numbers and simply want to express an opinion, have at it.


Well, here's a link to my numbers: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2014/conference/

But you don't want to believe them.

Follow Ohio Football recruiting on the BobcatAttack.com football recruiting database.

Back to Top
  
Big Willy
General User

Member Since: 12/29/2004
Post Count: 187

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 3:55:14 PM 
Ted Thompson wrote:
Big Willy wrote:
Ted Thompson wrote:
Big Willy wrote:
Ted Thompson wrote:
Big Willy wrote:
Actually, TCU going from #3 to #6 makes perfect sense if you listened to the Committee Chairman each week. First of all, according to the Chairman, #3 through #6 were VERY close last week. The FINAL resumes weren't in until Saturday night. Florida State beating the #11 team in the country improved their resume to the point that they passed TCU. Ohio State's annihilation of the #13 team in the country improved their resume to the point that they also passed TCU. Baylor's win over the #9 team in the country (a team TCU had also beaten) moved their resume up to being basically equal with TCU's resume. As the Committee Chairman said it would do if resumes were equal, the Committee then invoked head-to-head and moved Baylor ahead of TCU. OSU was already ahead of Baylor going into the last week. OSU's SOS was better than both Baylor and TCU, and OSU's non-conference SOS was much better than Baylor and TCU. The Chairman also stated OSU had beaten 9 bowl-eligible teams (several more than either Baylor or TCU), many of them on the road. Most pundits I have heard think the Committee got it right (except for that idiot, Mark May).

Assume for a minute that the Committee had not put out rankings each week and simply picked the four playoff teams at the end of the season (as the basketball committee does). I don't think there would have been nearly as much controversy had people not seen the rankings the week before. The main thing that caused the controversy was putting TCU ahead of Florida State the week before. But even while doing that, the Chairman said it was very, very close.

Edit: Just checked RealTime RPI. Their top 4 are Florida State, Alabama, Oregon, and Ohio State. Ohio State's SOS is 50, Baylor's is 113, TCU's 92. (Florida State - 57, Alabama - 33, Oregon - 73.)


I'm not sure why you'd use RPI to rank much of anything. Or why you would just cherry-pick the non-conference schedule. It's about how you perform against your entire schedule (Big 12 was much stronger than Big 10). The Big 12 schools played 9 games in their conference like everyone else. Just a quick look of Sagarin schedule strength:

TCU -42
Ohio St. - 52
Baylor - 56


Not sure where I "just cherry-picked the non-conference schedule." I mentioned the non-con schedule because the Committee Chairman talked about the non-conference schedules. It obviously was not "only" about the non-con schedule, but the non-con schedule did come into play just as it does in basketball. I also talked about the overall schedule. I don't know what method was used to calculate the SOS, but according to the numbers shown on the screen, OSU had a better SOS than either Baylor or TCU. If in fact the Big 12 was stronger than the Big 10, then OSU's much stronger non-conference schedule as compared to Baylor and TCU more than made up for that.


Clearly, mathematically it doesn't. The non-schedule was only 25% of Baylor or TCU's schedule. So what is more important is the strength of your conference schedule. It's also how you perform against that schedule. Ohio St. lost to Va Tech while beating Navy, Kent St. and UC. TCU hammered Minnesota, SMU and Samford.


I'm simply using the numbers that were shown/cited on TV. According to those numbers OSU had a better overall SOS than either Baylor or TCU. If you choose not to believe those numbers and simply want to express an opinion, have at it.


Well, here's a link to my numbers: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2014/conference/

But you don't want to believe them.


Now you're just being silly. I know what Sagarin is. But they are obviously not the numbers that were used on the selection/ranking show. So you can use Sagarin and I'll use the actual numbers that were shown/cited on TV.
Back to Top
  
GoCats105
General User

Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 6,922

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 4:12:42 PM 
Has anyone bothered to check the enrollments and sizes of the alumni bases of the three schools in question? There's your answer folks. According to Phil Steele's preseason mag, which may be a little inaccurate in this department:

Ohio State ~50,000 enrollment (#3 in the USA)

Baylor ~12,000 enrollment

TCU ~8,000 enrollment

Both Baylor and TCU aren't even in the Top 100 in enrollment figures. That added to their what I am guessing small alumni bases compared to OSU and non-recongnizable brands...it's easy to pick OSU in this situation.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Back to Top
  
BobcatGoldthwait
General User

Member Since: 10/10/2014
Post Count: 9

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 5:34:29 PM 
I don't follow the computer polls all that closely, but I saw where Ohio State beat #8 Michigan State on the road by double digits in November and then beat formerly #13, now #18, Wisconsin 59-0 at a neutral site.

Did TCU have any road or neutral site wins against the current top 10 or top 20?

I know Baylor had a mid-season home win against #6 TCU and a late home win against #11 Kansas State.

I would imagine the split champion issue hurt the Big 12 as well.


Besides the split champion issue, however, it seems to me that TCU doesn't even have a legitimate argument here unless you like a mass of mediocre wins over a couple of very strong wins - or I guess unless you like to compare losses. Notre Dame (for a week).

As for Baylor v. Ohio State, I would suppose it comes down to:

Baylor - 1 dramatic win against #6 at home and one comfortable win against #11 at home

v.

Ohio state - 1 comfortable win against #8 on the road and 1 blowout win against #18 at a neutral site.

As for losses between Ohio State and Baylor, not a lot of difference between WVU and VT.
Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 611

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 5:53:01 PM 
The Big 10 was awful this year. No big ten team deserved to get in at all. Look at how awful the big ten did out of conference. They had 1 ranked victory and it was by Indiana. All in all they went 1-4 against top 25 teams. and 4-9 against other P5 schools. this decision was a joke and entirely political. OSU or any big 10 team has no right to get in.
Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 611

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 5:56:23 PM 
BobcatGoldthwait wrote:
I don't follow the computer polls all that closely, but I saw where Ohio State beat #8 Michigan State on the road by double digits in November and then beat formerly #13, now #18, Wisconsin 59-0 at a neutral site.

Did TCU have any road or neutral site wins against the current top 10 or top 20?

I know Baylor had a mid-season home win against #6 TCU and a late home win against #11 Kansas State.

I would imagine the split champion issue hurt the Big 12 as well.


Besides the split champion issue, however, it seems to me that TCU doesn't even have a legitimate argument here unless you like a mass of mediocre wins over a couple of very strong wins - or I guess unless you like to compare losses. Notre Dame (for a week).

As for Baylor v. Ohio State, I would suppose it comes down to:

Baylor - 1 dramatic win against #6 at home and one comfortable win against #11 at home

v.

Ohio state - 1 comfortable win against #8 on the road and 1 blowout win against #18 at a neutral site.

As for losses between Ohio State and Baylor, not a lot of difference between WVU and VT.


The same MSU team who lost to Oregon by 19 and the same Wisconsin team who lost to LSU who had 4 losses in the SEC and lost to auburn by 35. No win in the big 10 can be considered good. that conference was a joke this year. If that's not enough let's look at games played ageists similar competition. TCU beat Minnesota by 23. Where OSU only won by 7.

Last Edited: 12/8/2014 5:58:42 PM by TheBobcatBandit
Back to Top
  
BobcatGoldthwait
General User

Member Since: 10/10/2014
Post Count: 9

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 6:18:08 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
BobcatGoldthwait wrote:
I don't follow the computer polls all that closely, but I saw where Ohio State beat #8 Michigan State on the road by double digits in November and then beat formerly #13, now #18, Wisconsin 59-0 at a neutral site.

Did TCU have any road or neutral site wins against the current top 10 or top 20?

I know Baylor had a mid-season home win against #6 TCU and a late home win against #11 Kansas State.

I would imagine the split champion issue hurt the Big 12 as well.


Besides the split champion issue, however, it seems to me that TCU doesn't even have a legitimate argument here unless you like a mass of mediocre wins over a couple of very strong wins - or I guess unless you like to compare losses. Notre Dame (for a week).

As for Baylor v. Ohio State, I would suppose it comes down to:

Baylor - 1 dramatic win against #6 at home and one comfortable win against #11 at home

v.

Ohio state - 1 comfortable win against #8 on the road and 1 blowout win against #18 at a neutral site.

As for losses between Ohio State and Baylor, not a lot of difference between WVU and VT.


The same MSU team who lost to Oregon by 19 and the same Wisconsin team who lost to LSU who had 4 losses in the SEC and lost to auburn by 35. No win in the big 10 can be considered good. that conference was a joke this year. If that's not enough let's look at games played ageists similar competition. TCU beat Minnesota by 23. Where OSU only won by 7.


So you believe that Champions are determined in September and that the transitive property applies to college football (never mind home or neutral v. away and nice weather v. freezing snow storm).

Well, according to the transitive property, Ohio State should beat Alabama by 2 touchdowns. Bama beat WVU by 10. WVU beat Maryland by 3. So, Bama is 13 better than Maryland. Ohio State beat Maryland by 25.

Wisconsin beat Maryland by 45. Ohio State beat Maryland by 25. Therefore, Wisconsin would beat Ohio State by 20.

This is fun.

Obviously, there is no objective way to select these teams. This is why I am 100% against two teams ever making it from one conference. Too few of these teams actually play head-to-head so you can't "know" who is better. You may be an idiot and think you know, but you don't.

All you can do is look at as many DIRECT objective factors as possible and make a pick.

59-0 against a top 15 (Yes, it lost to LSU by blowing a 17 point lead after its 2 starting DTs went down and Gordon went out of the game, with it's 2nd team QB) is an exclamation point and it capped 2 rather "big" wins, and 3 top 25 wins, in the last month.

Ohio State was an undisputed conference champion. Ohio State is a top 5 recruiter and always in the top 5 to top 10 NFL producer.

The Big 12 named a split champion, and it's traditional powers with the top shelf NFL talent are down.

Last Edited: 12/8/2014 6:20:38 PM by BobcatGoldthwait
Back to Top
  
OhioStunter
General User



Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 7:09:23 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
The Big 10 was awful this year. No big ten team deserved to get in at all. Look at how awful the big ten did out of conference. They had 1 ranked victory and it was by Indiana. All in all they went 1-4 against top 25 teams. and 4-9 against other P5 schools. this decision was a joke and entirely political. OSU or any big 10 team has no right to get in.


I'm not a defender of the conference, but a record 10 Big Ten teams are in bowls this year; so for them, awful works.

Who would you have in the Football Four?
Back to Top
  
Mark Lembright '85
General User

Member Since: 8/22/2010
Location: Highland Heights, OH
Post Count: 2,447

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 7:10:06 PM 
For me, TCU doesn't have a dog in the fight. They lost to Baylor, hence Baylor, with an equal record, deserves to be and should be ahead of TCU. This year's finish wound up being the Big 12's worst nightmare and shows they need a conference championship game.
Back to Top
  
oldkatz
General User

Member Since: 12/22/2004
Post Count: 1,421

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 8:23:54 PM 
GoCats105 wrote:
Has anyone bothered to check the enrollments and sizes of the alumni bases of the three schools in question? There's your answer folks. According to Phil Steele's preseason mag, which may be a little inaccurate in this department:

Ohio State ~50,000 enrollment (#3 in the USA)

Baylor ~12,000 enrollment

TCU ~8,000 enrollment

Both Baylor and TCU aren't even in the Top 100 in enrollment figures. That added to their what I am guessing small alumni bases compared to OSU and non-recongnizable brands...it's easy to pick OSU in this situation.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



Ex-freakin'-zactly!!!! (Here quoting the Joel Grey song in Cabaret!)

"All my inside sources tell me I have no inside sources." Salvatore "money bucks" Mafiosiano.
Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 611

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 8:32:24 PM 
OhioStunter wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
The Big 10 was awful this year. No big ten team deserved to get in at all. Look at how awful the big ten did out of conference. They had 1 ranked victory and it was by Indiana. All in all they went 1-4 against top 25 teams. and 4-9 against other P5 schools. this decision was a joke and entirely political. OSU or any big 10 team has no right to get in.


I'm not a defender of the conference, but a record 10 Big Ten teams are in bowls this year; so for them, awful works.

Who would you have in the Football Four?


TCU or Baylor would be 4. Really tough choice there. Baylor did beat them, but only by 3. That's TCU's only lost where Baylor lost to a average WVU team so I'd give it too TCU but it could go both ways. The other top 3 stay the same. and yes they have 10 in but again who have those ten beaten to prove themselves. Find me 1 quality win outside the big 10 for those teams.

and for Goldthwait fair point about the point differential. and yes I do believe it can be decided in December. If a team losses multiple games early in the year we can't just negate those losses. It's a full season not just the second half especially when those first games are against out of conference and show how your conference measures up against others. The big ten doesn't measure up whatsoever. We used to criticize teams like Boise State and NIU for playing a joke OOC schedule and winning and because of it they would be left out of BCS bowls. Or we would see them lose against a P5 school and when it came late in the year we would point to that early season game and say, well they only can beat bad teams and they can't compete with the big dogs. Why aren't we now saying this to the Big 10?!?!?!? They went 4-9 against P5 teams and only beat up against bad ones and yet we're claiming they deserve to be there? how? Why is OSU and the rest of the Big 10 not getting the same treatment as teams like Boise and Utah and NIU did

Last Edited: 12/8/2014 8:49:58 PM by TheBobcatBandit
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/8/2014 9:11:07 PM 
GoCats105 wrote:
Has anyone bothered to check the enrollments and sizes of the alumni bases of the three schools in question? There's your answer folks. According to Phil Steele's preseason mag, which may be a little inaccurate in this department:

Ohio State ~50,000 enrollment (#3 in the USA)

Baylor ~12,000 enrollment

TCU ~8,000 enrollment

Both Baylor and TCU aren't even in the Top 100 in enrollment figures. That added to their what I am guessing small alumni bases compared to OSU and non-recongnizable brands...it's easy to pick OSU in this situation.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


+1 You nailed it. I don't think there was anything slightly objective about this decision. The stats being cited are more a pretext than a reason. I believe that this is more corrupt than the basketball selection committee. Now, I know JSF, will say that they are clean as the driven snow, and that I have no evidence for that assertion. However, when you announce your top four teams one week, and all of those top four win, three by very large margins, and then you drop #3 out of the top 4, and add the former #5 into the top 4, it doesn't pass the smell test. As someone else had said here, if the tables had been reversed and the B12 had a championship game and the B1G did not, and TCU clobber Oklahoma in the championship game and #3 OSU clobbered a weak Michigan team in the final regular season game, you would never -- with this present committee -- see OSU dropped out of the top four and TCU bumped up. This is all about the money, and it makes a mockery of amateur athletics. I think this golden goose is about to shot itself in the foot.

Last Edited: 12/8/2014 9:14:52 PM by OhioCatFan

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
bobcat2nc
General User

Member Since: 12/28/2004
Post Count: 584

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/9/2014 12:15:55 AM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
GoCats105 wrote:
Has anyone bothered to check the enrollments and sizes of the alumni bases of the three schools in question? There's your answer folks. According to Phil Steele's preseason mag, which may be a little inaccurate in this department:

Ohio State ~50,000 enrollment (#3 in the USA)

Baylor ~12,000 enrollment

TCU ~8,000 enrollment

Both Baylor and TCU aren't even in the Top 100 in enrollment figures. That added to their what I am guessing small alumni bases compared to OSU and non-recongnizable brands...it's easy to pick OSU in this situation.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


+1 You nailed it. I don't think there was anything slightly objective about this decision. The stats being cited are more a pretext than a reason. I believe that this is more corrupt than the basketball selection committee. Now, I know JSF, will say that they are clean as the driven snow, and that I have no evidence for that assertion. However, when you announce your top four teams one week, and all of those top four win, three by very large margins, and then you drop #3 out of the top 4, and add the former #5 into the top 4, it doesn't pass the smell test. As someone else had said here, if the tables had been reversed and the B12 had a championship game and the B1G did not, and TCU clobber Oklahoma in the championship game and #3 OSU clobbered a weak Michigan team in the final regular season game, you would never -- with this present committee -- see OSU dropped out of the top four and TCU bumped up. This is all about the money, and it makes a mockery of amateur athletics. I think this golden goose is about to shot itself in the foot.



I said earlier I could grudgingly see the points made about tOSU getting in but I don't agree with them. My first comment was that there was no way the decision was about anything except money and power. That is how it still smells to me.
Back to Top
  
GoCats105
General User

Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 6,922

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Playoff system reform
   Posted: 12/9/2014 7:21:59 AM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
GoCats105 wrote:
Has anyone bothered to check the enrollments and sizes of the alumni bases of the three schools in question? There's your answer folks. According to Phil Steele's preseason mag, which may be a little inaccurate in this department:

Ohio State ~50,000 enrollment (#3 in the USA)

Baylor ~12,000 enrollment

TCU ~8,000 enrollment

Both Baylor and TCU aren't even in the Top 100 in enrollment figures. That added to their what I am guessing small alumni bases compared to OSU and non-recongnizable brands...it's easy to pick OSU in this situation.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


+1 You nailed it. I don't think there was anything slightly objective about this decision. The stats being cited are more a pretext than a reason. I believe that this is more corrupt than the basketball selection committee. Now, I know JSF, will say that they are clean as the driven snow, and that I have no evidence for that assertion. However, when you announce your top four teams one week, and all of those top four win, three by very large margins, and then you drop #3 out of the top 4, and add the former #5 into the top 4, it doesn't pass the smell test. As someone else had said here, if the tables had been reversed and the B12 had a championship game and the B1G did not, and TCU clobber Oklahoma in the championship game and #3 OSU clobbered a weak Michigan team in the final regular season game, you would never -- with this present committee -- see OSU dropped out of the top four and TCU bumped up. This is all about the money, and it makes a mockery of amateur athletics. I think this golden goose is about to shot itself in the foot.


Here's another curveball hypothetical:

What if the two Big 12 teams in question were Texas and Oklahoma? I'm interested to see how much it would have changed things.
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  26 - 50  of 96 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4    Next >
View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



WHO'S ONLINE
There are 253 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com
250 Guests
3 Registered Users:
 FJC31, bobcatsquared, Diamond Cat
There are no other users looking at this page.




Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties