I've thought for years that an 8 team playoff for college football would be perfect. Get the power 5 Conference champs, 2 at large, and the highest ranked group of 5 champion. Doing more than 8 puts too many teams in and makes regular season losses hurt a bit less. Less than 8 and you are leaving out at least 1 conference champ from the Power 5 and basically never letting a group of 5 team have a shot (not that I think many of those teams would have a realistic shot anyhow). Most importantly an 8 team playoff wouldn't require extending the season if you played the first round in early December. It's a pipe dream but maybe one day.
OSU should be out. 4 Conf. champs in.
- Thread starter Duck_walk
- Start date
They never said winning a conference was a MUST... but under their protocol it is supposed to be a factor.
I think they would divide into either 2 16 seed brackets or 4-8 seed brackets. But I like it. You would have to cut a regular season game though. If not you would have kids playing 17 possible games in a season.
https://t.co/eBAZPDkXmH check this out gentlemen, this would be a perfect system. Inspired by an assistant at Navy. Details his plan and uses scenarios from several seasons.
They lost by 39 points to Michigan. If what you say is true, Michigan would have the argument to be in.
They didn't win their conference.
They lost to Iowa.
Penn State did win the conference.
Penn State was missing half their defense that game.
They have won nine straight.
Their QB is waaaaaay better than Michigan's.
Iowa is not a bad loss. The Michigan and Pittsburg loss, squeaking by Minnesotah ..Ugh. I like the argument, but the experts and I disagree.
FSU lost to all the good teams on their schedule. Beating Florida was OK, I guess.
Pittsburgh beat Clemson, Bro
Iowa lost to Northwestern and North Dakota State. Stop it.
The committee said OU didn't contend for a spot in the playoffs because their defense was bad. They gave up 40+ 4 times including 59 to Texas Tech. Then they turned around and said OSU had a huuuuge win over OU. They will do whatever it takes to justify Ohio State no matter the stated criteria. In 2014 they jumped over TCU in the final week because they won a conference. Now this year they are the first non conference champ to make the final four. It's horse poo.
Last edited:
I agree. It's really hard to reconcile their reasons for bumping TCU out with their pick of OSU this year.
I'm getting lost in your conspiracy theory. Oklahoma indeed is a bad defensive football team, decimated by injuries.
Penn State was outgained by OSU 413 to 276. Gave up a measly 8 catches to the vaunted PSU receiving corp. OSU statistically dominated the entire game and lost the game on a flukey blocked FG for a scoop and score. OSU fell victim to some questionable (non-calls) officiating in happy valley. They had 8 penalties and PSU had 1! Nebraska's defense is better than PSU!
Clemson losing to Pitt is an indication they are over-rated. Pitt lost 4 games. NDSU is a good football team with 5 National Championship, 9-3 versus FBS competition. They are a shoe in to beat one FBS team every season, for they play up in competition once a year. Michigan losing at Iowa is not a surprise.
OSU has the more impressive victories statistic over PSU, and BTW, they recently won a Natl Championship by beating up an Alabama team. PSU is flash in the pan, a one pony show in their RB, a team that caught fire at the end of the season helped by playing a favorable home schedule.
Last edited:
If OSU keeps working they could win their division next year
I guess nine games is considered "the end of the season". Bahahahahahahaha
Yep! Anyone who loses to Pitt doesn't deserve to be in the playoff (wait...)
Exactly. If PSU plays Michigan close they're a shoe in. Wisconsin looked like they were going to annihilate them with a backup quarterback.
The committee saw the big picture on this one and got it correct. I was sold on them they left out Oklahoma, particularly when OSU beat OU down before the OU defense was injured.
I think it's obvious a lot of people on here have a bias against OSU, which I get. I had the same bias the year Bama got into the NC game after losing to LSU. But just like that year, I think it is obvious who the best teams really are. Looks like the commitee got it right this year, no matter how you wanna spin it at the end of the day the best 4 teams got in. PSU has a hell of a matchup themselves with USC in the Rose Bowl however, a team that like them has really came on strong.
that point would have more significance if they hadn't also been blown out by Michigan. If it was the Pitt loss on its own this wouldn't be a conversation. Such a convenient way to leave out facts.
I don't think it's that simple; I think it's more a difference between the people who are ok with settling disputes on paper versus settling them on the field. Sure OSU only has one loss, but that loss cost them their division and their conference; the New England Patriots had no losses going into their first Super Bowl matchup against the Giants, yet their one and only loss of the season meant they were runner up that year to a 7-loss Giants team...
...and before anyone says "that's NFL and this is college", isn't the whole point of instituting a playoff in college to make it more like the NFL in that we settle disputes on the field and NOT on paper???
And oh ya (not that anyone needs to be reminded, but still a valid point), OSU's only loss not only cost them their division and conference, but it was against the team that went on to win the conference, PSU (yet PSU is out because the paper is more important then the field in College, no matter how many teams they add to the playoff...)
In your opinion, who is the better team? You have a 1-loss team that by every available advanced metric is considered a better team than a 2-loss team. In the game against PSU, they were also the better team....Thats the whole point of the playoff. Now, that being said I don't think Washington is one of the 4 best teams (I think Michigan is better); HOWEVER, they are the best 1 loss team.
It's simple, 2 losses versus 1 loss. Who has the better chance of beating Clemson? A team that lost to the team that beat Clemson ( that lost 4), or Ohio State?
Considering PSU beat OSU head to head AND won OSU's division AND conference, I'd say it's closer than people want to admit...
...again, it all depends on what's more important to you; the field or the paper
Yes, in a game dominated by the other team. Hats off to PSU for winning, but OSU wins the division if they win that game. So yeah...3 points cost them the division and possibly the conference. They're all intertwined....It was 5 times harder for OSU to lose 1 game against their schedule than it was for Penn State to lose 2 games against theirs.
They had the same record in the same division while playing a tougher OOC schedule and had 1 less loss. Better SOS, SOR, FPI, record, quality of wins, etc....
We all could argue this all day and we aren't going to change each others minds.
The more you take "opinion" out of it and go with on the field results, the more acceptable it is. My local high school lost in districts but they beat really good team earlier this year, so do they get to go to the show me bowl? If you don't win your conference you have proven you are NOT worthy.
If you want to use high school result about not winning conferences...tell that to Lamar.
The advanced metrics aren't "opinion". I understand computers aren't perfect (look at the BCS). But when every one of them agrees It's hard to argue.
Regardless...they're in. And last time everyone was complaining about them in they won the title so I'm hoping for the same. Just to make you mad. Ha.
The advanced metrics aren't "opinion". I understand computers aren't perfect (look at the BCS). But when every one of them agrees It's hard to argue.
Regardless...they're in. And last time everyone was complaining about them in they won the title so I'm hoping for the same. Just to make you mad. Ha.
Would Lamar have one the state title if the lost their district? Obviously not.
The Tigers won when it mattered and so did PSU; OSU did not (but yet here we are because the paper matters more than the results on the field in college football...)
I see where you're coming from with your statements, but I think with the comparisons you've made you're comparing apples to oranges here. The Pats aren't a good example because they lost in the super bowl. Now if the Bucks lost in the NC game and the commitee still handed them the trophy that analogy would work.
Based on your comments what I'm gathering is that only conference, and to a greater extent division games matter in your eyes.
Yeah PSU beat OSU, but they also got their head kicked in by UM (a team OSU beat) and Pitt (a team that lost by almost 30 to Miami, so eluding to how good the wins Pitt had are annulled by some bad loses.) That's why they aren't in the playoffs.
I know we'll continue to disagree all day but I agree with the commitee in their thinking that a 1 loss team with no conference title and no 30 pt loses is a better playoff fit than PSU. I suppose the commitee thought that PSU's loss to Pitt/UM was a little more damning than OSU's loss to PSU.
And like I said before, this precedent regardless of if we like it or not has been set before. If we go back to the 2012 national title game do we try to put someone other than Bama in that game against LSU? Would you also say the eventual champ was not worthy because they had already lost to LSU and failed to win their conference?
Similar threads
