BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

where to watch

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Football

Topic: RE: Playoff system reform

Topic: RE: Playoff system reform

Author

Message

JSF
General User

Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,341

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/9/2014 9:45:44 AM

OhioCatFan wrote:

I don't think there was anything slightly objective about this decision.

Isn't that why they went to a committee format? To add subjectivity/human judgment?

Quote:

Now, I know JSF, will say that they are clean as the driven snow, and that I have no evidence for that assertion.

Uhhh what? Why would I say that?

"Loyalty to a hometown or city is fleeting and interchangeable, but college is a stamp of identity."- Kyle Whelliston, One Beautiful Season.

My blog about depression and mental illness: https://bit.ly/3buGXH8

Deciduous Forest Cat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Ohio
Post Count: 4,306

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/9/2014 1:46:32 PM

Interesting reading...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/12/08/in-.../

GoCats105
General User

Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 6,913

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/9/2014 2:11:05 PM

I love the Vegas wise guys. I know it goes against the integrity of amateur athletics (HAHA, amateur), but having a Vegas Poll would be awesome. And they seem to always get it right. At least in the NFL.

Last Edited: 12/9/2014 2:11:32 PM by GoCats105

OhioStunter
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/9/2014 2:24:48 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.

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

Ohio University ~39,000 enrollment

So why aren't we in a bowl?

http://www.ohio.edu/compass/stories/14-15/11/enrollment-c...

Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,152

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/9/2014 3:07:56 PM

But enrollment at the Athens campus is only about 23,000 which would put us closer to Baylor and TCU than O$U. O$U's total enrollment at all campuses is about 64,000. I'm not sure how many of Ohio's branch campus students/alumni are Ohio fans first and foremost.

Last Edited: 12/9/2014 3:09:58 PM by Pataskala

We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

OhioStunter
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/9/2014 4:29:57 PM

Pataskala wrote:

But it puts us pretty close to the other 3 teams in the Playoffs.

Florida State - 32,525
Alabama - 30,000
Ohio - 28,442
Oregon - 20,394

(enrollment figures according to Phil Steele)

My point is not to rely too much on enrollment figures to determine post-season bids. No matter how you count it, our enrollment number is much higher than other schools, but it didn't work in our favor this year.

Y-CityCatFan
General User

Member Since: 7/28/2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 136

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/9/2014 4:42:27 PM

OhioStunter wrote:

Pataskala wrote:

Actually, OUr total attendance is now 38,241. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_University)

OhioStunter
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/9/2014 4:47:10 PM

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

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 I think the committee had the same thoughts as you did. Close call on either TCU or Baylor. It may have split the vote. A championship game would, in my opinion, have made the difference in one of those teams getting in over OSU.

I agree with you on the Big 10.

RSBobcat
General User

Member Since: 8/22/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 4,401

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/9/2014 9:25:58 PM

OrlandoCat wrote:

RSBobcat wrote:

Jeff McKinney wrote:

bobcat2nc wrote:

After further review I do not care what really happens because the decision to leapfrog tOSU over TCU cannot be motivated by anything other than self promotion of the system and money. Two impressive wins by the 3 and 5 rated teams and one team moves up while the other moves down. The body of work through the season is hard to compare but why change that comparison at this juncture?

Agree.

"The body of work through the season is hard to compare". I hate the thought that I am about to give some cred to to$u on here - but the body of work INCLUDED yesterdays games. to$u's performance vs Wisconsin was the most dominating performance of a top 20 team over another another top 20 team this year. TCU dominated 2-10 Iowa State (yawn)

Coming from somebody who doesn't love nor hate OSU, it's a joke that they jumped TCU. If who TCU beat was a problem then they should never have been ranked 3rd in the first place, it's not like the committee didn't know who TCU was playing the following week when they ranked them.

sigh.......

The selection was based on "the body of work" that INCLUDED THE RESULTS of the last week - not what the rankings were the week prior based on results up to that point........

RS Bobcat

OhioCatFan
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/10/2014 8:52:50 PM

RSBobcat wrote:

sigh.......

The selection was based on "the body of work" that INCLUDED THE RESULTS of the last week - not what the rankings were the week prior based on results up to that point........

double sigh . . . some will believe what they want to believe and if the "body of work" clich� makes you feel better, so be it. However, you must answer the question: what did TCU do in the last week to lose its 3rd place of the past week other than beat the crap out of ISU and maintain an objective Sagarin rating that was still better than OSU? I'd much prefer having these decisions done by computer rather than the impressionistic rankings of a selection committee that is subject to all kinds of subtle (and maybe not so subtle) lobbying.

Last Edited: 12/10/2014 8:55:11 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

Mark Lembright '85
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/10/2014 9:30:09 PM

OhioCatFan wrote:

RSBobcat wrote:

sigh.......

The selection was based on "the body of work" that INCLUDED THE RESULTS of the last week - not what the rankings were the week prior based on results up to that point........

God bless you OCF but I gotta disagree with you in this one. I would ask, what did TCU ever do to leapfrog Florida State in the first place to be #3 a couple of weeks ago? THAT was the mistake. They didn't deserve to be #3 to begin with. And, why were they ranked ahead of Baylor, who actually beat them this year? All else being equal, Baylor deserves to be ranked of TCU.

Last Edited: 12/10/2014 9:38:37 PM by Mark Lembright '85

Mike Johnson
General User

Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: North Canton, OH
Post Count: 1,707

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/11/2014 9:41:40 AM

Mark Lembright '85 wrote:

OhioCatFan wrote:

RSBobcat wrote:

sigh.......

The selection was based on "the body of work" that INCLUDED THE RESULTS of the last week - not what the rankings were the week prior based on results up to that point........

Baylor's non-conf schedule didn't do it any favors: SMU, Northwestern State, Buffalo.

http://www.facebook.com/mikejohnson.author

OhioCatFan
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/11/2014 9:51:17 AM

Next year I notice that the Evil Empire plays two MAC schools, but they are not pushovers -- NIU and WMU.

.
General User

Member Since: 2/3/2005
Post Count: 2,949

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/11/2014 1:21:24 PM

This committee has about as much actual power as, say, the State Duma in 1906.

Eh, maybe a better comparison is a figure skating judge.

They know what they are paid to do. They do it. Ties go to powers. No work needs to be shown. It's the ultimate stacking of the deck. College football with political machinations. It's also terrifying.

Maryland Bobcat
General User

Member Since: 12/28/2004
Location: Annapolis, MD
Post Count: 167

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/11/2014 1:28:36 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.

Bingo. It's the only varsity sport in which Ohio has no opportunity of winning a championship. All others end in some sort of postseason tournament.

It's simple: 16 teams. 11 conference champions and 5 at-large. You can even give the top teams a bye and all home field advantages. Just give everyone SOME sort of chance.

I believe FCS has 24 teams eligible for their tournament, and they all still manage to play 12 regular season games. And don't lecture me on academics when the likes of William & Mary, Fordham, Richmond, Villanova, Lehigh,etc., all manage to participate. Heaven forbid the knuckleheads at some SEC school miss a few Intro to Leisure classes.

Last Edited: 12/11/2014 4:48:09 PM by Maryland Bobcat

OhioCatFan
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/11/2014 3:04:03 PM

Delete Pending wrote:

OhioCatFan
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/11/2014 3:06:37 PM

Maryland Bobcat wrote:

perimeterpost wrote:

+1 First time I've ever given two consecutive plus ones. You guys are on a roll! :-)

OhioStunter
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/11/2014 3:44:46 PM

Maryland Bobcat wrote:

perimeterpost wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a lawsuit about this. Maybe even from Marshall. The argument: a team can go undefeated in Division I and still not play for a national championship? Not play in a big money bowl? Before this year, teams like NIU could get a shot. Now with the purely human element -- it is not possible. And maybe worth an argument in the courts.

OhioCatFan
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/11/2014 4:51:17 PM

OhioStunter: That's why they came up with the Access Bowl that Boise is going to and the Marshall and NIU had a shot at. It was payoff to prevent such a suit. I read somewhere that the language in the agreement on the playoff system, including the Access Bowl, was such that it makes it very hard for injured parties to sue. Maybe one of our legal eagles on this board can find the exact language and give us an informed analysis. It's got to be public record.

OhioStunter
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/11/2014 5:56:59 PM

Here is the statement that is simply untrue:

"Universal Access
Every FBS team has equal access to the playoff based on its performance. No team will qualify automatically."

http://cfp-cms-s3-prod.slcfp.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/...

Every FBS team does not have EQUAL access. A team like Marshall* can go undefeated, but not even sniff the playoffs or an access bowl. Certain conferences start with UNEQUAL access given their SOS and conference quality.

At least with the BCS, the computer would take into account human polling and other factors to arrive at a somewhat scientific number that many would argue provided more EQUAL access than a human committee. NIU did all the right things and they got to an Orange Bowl.

If that same scenario were to happen this year under the new format, they'd still be in the Boca Raton Bowl.

(*Yes, the schedule was easy; I'm not lobbying for Marshall, just using them as an example)

Long Train Runnin'
General User

Member Since: 12/25/2004
Location: Cambridge, OH
Post Count: 118

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/11/2014 9:36:23 PM

C Money wrote:

No amount of reform is going to affect us. We'll keep getting the token handouts of money games and a "guaranteed" spot in an access bowl, but that's it. G5 ADs don't aspire to be G5 ADs--why would they ever reform a system to the detriment of those for whom they want to work?

Now there is something from this whole thing that could affect us, and that's the next round of conference realignment dominoes to fall. The Big 12 is going to have to add 2 teams to get to 12 to have a conference title game. Cincy has been begging for a spot, and several other AAC teams in good-sized markets would be in the conversation as well (Houston, UConn, Memphis).

The AAC also needs to add one more to get to 12 for a conference title game, and that's without any Big 12 raids. So, somewhere between 3 and 5 mid-major teams will be changing conferences within the next several years.

I don't know that I'm in favor of moving conferences, but for those of you who are, now's the time to start lobbying for it.

I wonder if Houston and SMU (both of whom are in major markets and have ties to the former Southwest Conference members in the Big 12) would possibly be considered.

OhioCatFan
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/12/2014 12:20:41 AM

OhioStunter, if Marshall had been undefeated they might easily have made the Fiesta Bowl instead of Boise. NIU was in the running also; if Boise had been upset by Fresno State in the final game they would in all likelihood have gone.

The playoff is another matter altogether. Here I agree with you completely that there is not equal access for the G5 schools; in fact, there is not equal access for most the P5 schools. It's really a party only for the so-called Elite schools. Hence, O$U over TCU or Baylor. A rich state school with a huge fan base over two parochial schools with relative small fan bases. If it had been Texas, rather than TCU, with otherwise identical circumstances, O$U's pounding of Wisconsin would never have resulted in the Evil Empire jumping them in the Selection Committee's final ranking, IMHO.

The point I was trying to make in my previous post is that though I agree with you that there is no equal access and that a law suit might be justified, in actuality no suit is possible. I'm of the opinion from what I read about the playoff agreement that the Access Bowl (this year the Fiesta Bowl) was specifically put in place to appease the G5 schools and they agreed to this buyout. I may be wrong about that, but that's my impression. In addition to the Access Bowl agreement that guarantees the highest ranked G5 school a spot in a Big Time bowl each year, all G5 conferences will get up to $12 million dollars ($1 million per school to a maximum of 12 schools) from the playoffs. This was also a buyout to prevent a law suit, I believe. These funds are far more than what G5 schools were getting before but FAR less than what the P5 schools get out of the playoffs. It's kind of like the G5 have signed a pack with the Devil. :-(

Ozcat
General User

Member Since: 1/4/2005
Location: Gahanna, OH
Post Count: 818

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/13/2014 1:38:03 PM

I don't buy the no equal access argument. If a team like Ohio, Marshall, or NIU wants a shot to get into the playoff, then they'll have to do what Boise did a few times. Load up your schedule with legitimate opponents, and go win them all.

Marshall wasn't given an ounce of respect because they didn't deserve any. Their best win was who? Rice? Their CUSA schedule didn't hold them back as much as their OOC slate did.

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/13/2014 3:50:42 PM

OhioCatFan wrote:

Next year I notice that the Evil Empire plays two MAC schools, but they are not pushovers -- NIU and WMU.

Ah, now you have it. Note the results...compare vs. next year for the local favorite.

We'll talk in 10 or so months.

Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!

DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

OhioCatFan
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Playoff system reform

Posted: 12/13/2014 9:32:46 PM

Monroe Slavin wrote:

OhioCatFan wrote:

Next year I notice that the Evil Empire plays two MAC schools, but they are not pushovers -- NIU and WMU.

Ah, now you have it. Note the results...compare vs. next year for the local favorite.

We'll talk in 10 or so months.

We play Minnesota in Minneapolis. Let's meet there, Monroe, and cheer the Bobcats on to victory! I'll buy you a beer. You on?

Showing Replies:	51 - 75 of 96 Posts
Jump to Page:	< Previous 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 Next >

View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics

There are 272 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

269 Guests
3 Registered Users:
	roger, OUs LONG Driver, MonroeClassmate

There are no other users looking at this page.