OT: CFB Playoff

[upstater]

Michigan lost 1 game @ Iowa close when their QB got hurt. Mich beat Penn State by 39, the committee doesn't forget that.

So... Michigan's QB got hurt, but what role did injuries play in the Michigan PSU game? Are you even aware?

 

[superjohn]

PSU is better than you think. They are really playing well. They have shown the wins over OSU and others aren't fluky at all.

Washington has a win over Colorado. That's it. They played Idaho and D2 teams out of conference. Pretty pathetic. And the Pac12 was relatively weak with a down Oregon, UCLA and Arizona.

There is a case for PSU.

The Michigan game was a disaster, but they had walk-on safeties playing LB because of 7 injuries to the linebackers on the 2 deep.

Washington and Penn State have about the same strength of schedule. They both won their conferences, Penn State in a great comeback nailbiter against #10, Washington in a blowout of #8. Penn State has 2 losses, one being a dismantling by Michigan. Penn State really doesn't have much of an argument.

 

[JSM1970]

Well, the arguement is they won the conf championship. But so did OU and they're not even in the discussion and they would hammer PSU on a neutral field.

This is certainly a year where 8 would be good, add in Mich, PSU, OU and either USC or Western Mich, love to see them. Why not.

Washington and Penn State have about the same strength of schedule. They both won their conferences, Penn State in a great comeback nailbiter against #10, Washington in a blowout of #8. Penn State has 2 losses, one being a dismantling by Michigan. Penn State really doesn't have much of an argument.

 

[Fishy]

Alabama -14 Washington
Ohio State -3 Clemson

Odds to win the playoff...

Bama - 4/9
OSU - 7/2
Clemson - 6-1
Washington - 15-1

Michigan would be favored over Washington and Clemson. Penn State doesn't really have much of an argument - they're the third-best school in their conference.

 

[BUConn10]

Penn State shouldn't even have a football program.

 

[Fishy]

Well, the arguement is they won the conf championship. But so did OU and they're not even in the discussion and they would hammer PSU on a neutral field.

This is certainly a year where 8 would be good, add in Mich, PSU, OU and either USC or Western Mich, love to see them. Why not.

Given how fast and how far ratings for live sports have dropped, I wonder if college football left a bazillion dollars on the table by delaying the inevitable expansion to eight teams.

If they decide to do it five years from now, there might not be much of a bidding war for it.

 

[gtcam]

Clemson is my dark horse IF they get to the final vs Bama
That Clemson team is built to beat Bama
The problem is the Tigers pick the worst times to play ugly

 

[superjohn]

Alabama -14 Washington
Ohio State -3 Clemson

Odds to win the playoff...

Bama - 4/9
OSU - 7/2
Clemson - 6-1
Washington - 15-1

Michigan would be favored over Washington and Clemson. Penn State doesn't really have much of an argument - they're the third-best school in their conference.

Michigan has no argument either.

 

[superjohn]

Bama is awesome but they haven't really played anyone. Every team Bama beat had at least 4 losses except for USC who had 3 and who they played in the first game of the season before USC became good.

 

[SubbaBub]

The CFP is just the AP/BCS poll repackaged. A lot of people just supporting their subjective opinions. Problem is the reasons change year to year and from team to team. SOS matters unless it would force the committee to leave out a second conference champion (OK was already out). Conference championships matter unless it would mean leaving out the team anointed at the beginning of the season. Head to head matters only if you are talking about team #5 and #6 but not #2. Who you beat matters unless you are one of those preseason anointed teams whose best win was against a team with 3 losses and the next two wins are against teams with 4 or more losses.

The committee is made up of P5 appointees, they will spread the wealth to 4 out of the 5 P5's at all costs. The only exception being ND. Giving two spots to the Big 10 wasn't going to happen. They default to the teams with the fewest losses provided they meet the above criteria. If OU beat Houston, then either Washington or Ohio State would have been bumped (UW most likely).

If you wanted the best resumes, then the 4 should have been Bama, OSU, Washington, and Penn State
If you wanted the best teams, then the 4 should have been Bama, OSU, Michigan, and Clemson
If you wanted to crown the true champion of College Football the 4 should have been Bama, Washington, Clemson, and Penn State.

There are 128 teams all playing different schedules of only 12 games. There isn't enough of a crossover for anyone to say for sure who the best team is. Fortunately, the conferences who run the whole thing tell us who the best team in each league is. They gave them trophies yesterday. The committee should pick the best 4 champions. Which in this case would have been Bama, UW, Clemson, and OU. But you left out the B1g, they'll say? What about Penn State, Michigan, or 1-loss OSU? Well, there was a B1G game yesterday and Michigan and OSU both lost by forfeit, so Mich is a 3 loss team in my view and OSU is a two loss team that also lost the head to head against Penn State. So, PSU is the best the B1G has to offer. Are the other 4 better champions than PSU? To the CFB world yes because they lost fewer game, so that's tough for the B1G.

Problem is that neither Clemson, OU nor UW have wins as good as PSU's wins over two top ten teams. In the last poll, Clemson will have zero, OU zero, and UW one. PSU was 2-1 against the top 10, Clemson 0-1, OU 0-1, and UW 1-1. So if you assume those are the wins that count, then the final 4 is Bama (1-0 cc), PSU (2-1 cc), OSU (2-1), and Mich (2-1). But there is no way the committee would ever do that.

See it's simple

 

[Fishy]

Michigan has no argument either.

No, but if you actually do invite the four best teams, they're there and someone else ain't. Their loss to Ohio State was more impressive than anything Clemson did this year.

 

[mauconnfan]

Throw them all in a pile, make them #1,#2 or whatever. Bama will beat everyone one of them by 2 TD's at least.

I think Fishy's point is the best - We've seen Peterson's teams in big bowl games before after a long prep, could be interesting. Problem is they can't stop the Tide.

Bama NC

 

[JSM1970]

Most likely, but they have an inexperienced QB who is basically a running back so he's capable of a few bad plays. But the 'Bama defense wears down everyone the offense makes enough plays to win

If the CFP is really in its current form about finding the best 4 teams then the conf champions is meaningless. Just about everyone would rather see 'Bama vs. Mich than vs. Wash. Also, the P5 are not even in terms of their scheduling the balance in the leagues, etc.

If they really want the conf championships from the P5 to matter then move to 8 team playoff and give 1 for each and 3 at-large or 6 with 1 at-large and 2 teams get byes.

Throw them all in a pile, make them #1,#2 or whatever. Bama will beat everyone one of them by 2 TD's at least.

I think Fishy's point is the best - We've seen Peterson's teams in big bowl games before after a long prep, could be interesting. Problem is they can't stop the Tide.

Bama NC

 

[CTBasketball]

There's more controversy when you introduce 4 playoff spots instead of the 2 in the BCS. The conversation shifts to teams ranked 3-8 instead of 2-3. Such a stupid format too, the selection committee is all b*llshit.

 

[JSM1970]

I think it varies by year, in this year you could probably argue for at least 6 and in other years people would think no more than 2

I don't think they would ever go beyond 8, just too many games

There's more controversy when you introduce 4 playoff spots instead of the 2 in the BCS. The conversation shifts to teams ranked 3-8 instead of 2-3. Such a stupid format too, the selection committee is all b*llshit.

 

[Walker11]

Most likely, but they have an inexperienced QB who is basically a running back so he's capable of a few bad plays. But the 'Bama defense wears down everyone the offense makes enough plays to win

If the CFP is really in its current form about finding the best 4 teams then the conf champions is meaningless. Just about everyone would rather see 'Bama vs. Mich than vs. Wash. Also, the P5 are not even in terms of their scheduling the balance in the leagues, etc.

If they really want the conf championships from the P5 to matter then move to 8 team playoff and give 1 for each and 3 at-large or 6 with 1 at-large and 2 teams get byes.

I don't know what to do with myself right now. I fully agree with you.

 

[bobbygt]

If you wanted the best resumes, then the 4 should have been Bama, OSU, Washington, and Penn State
If you wanted the best teams, then the 4 should have been Bama, OSU, Michigan, and Clemson
If you wanted to crown the true champion of College Football the 4 should have been Bama, Washington, Clemson, and Penn State.

Problem is that neither Clemson, OU nor UW have wins as good as PSU's wins over two top ten teams. In the last poll, Clemson will have zero, OU zero, and UW one. PSU was 2-1 against the top 10, Clemson 0-1, OU 0-1, and UW 1-1. So if you assume those are the wins that count, then the final 4 is Bama (1-0 cc), PSU (2-1 cc), OSU (2-1), and Mich (2-1). But there is no way the committee would ever do that.

See it's simple

Washington's resume is nowhere near as good as Clemson's. Clemson was 4-1 against the top 25 and Washington was 2-1.

I was a supporter of PSU getting in, but they also didn't have as good a resume as Clemson. Clemson was actually 1-0 against the top ten. They were 4-1 against the top 25, while PSU was 4-2, with one of those losses by 39 points. Clemson is the only team in the country that has wins over 10 teams that will be going to bowl games.

Also, the top ten is a fluid thing during the course of a 12 game season. Louisville was #3 when Clemson beat them, even though Louisville is probably ranked now about where they should be. Meanwhile, you have a team like Florida State that is just sneaking into the top ten now.

But the big difference between Clemson and PSU or Michigan (and also why Ohio State is a playoff team) is that Clemson has just one loss. You can talk about top ten wins, but that additional loss is a big deal, and a 39 pt loss is really damaging to a team's profile.

 

[champs99and04]

Bama is awesome but they haven't really played anyone. Every team Bama beat had at least 4 losses except for USC who had 3 and who they played in the first game of the season before USC became good.

Seriously? They've beaten five teams currently in the top 25. Auburn, USC, and LSU would be at minimum the second best team in the ACC or Big 12.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Michigan has no argument either.

Because you think losing in double OT in Columbus to tOSU somehow means OSU is much better? Honestly, Michigan is the second best team to Bama but won't get in.

Michigan is the only one of these teams that might be able to beat Alabama, points would be very scarce.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Part of me likes the idea of Petersen taking on Alabama with a month to prepare, but the rational side of me sees Jake Browning under a pile of red jerseys. Michigan's resume doesn't do much for me. I'd imagine we'll see a Clemson Alabama rematch, which - to me - is as it should be.

 

[Scoe]

They should just do a 16 team playoff set it up like the NFL the top 4 teams get byes, hey the FCS has no problem doing a 12 team playoff.

 

[champs99and04]

Because you think losing in double OT in Columbus to tOSU somehow means OSU is much better? Honestly, Michigan is the second best team to Bama but won't get in.

Michigan is the only one of these teams that might be able to beat Alabama, points would be very scarce.

Michigan's problem is that they lost to Iowa. I agree with you that Michigan is the second best team in the country (I'm still not convinced they aren't the best, honestly), but I thought SVP put it best last night when he said there has to be a consequence for losing. If college football is going to continue to be marketed in the way it is, you can't screw around and lose to Iowa if you want people to feel bad for you when you lose a de facto playoff game to OSU (a game where they couldn't have tripped over their d***'s anymore).

Speaking of that, I think the number should be between 4 and 6 @Scoe . I don't want to create a system where games like the one we saw in Columbus a couple weeks ago mean less and I don't want teams thinking they can lose more than two times and still get in.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Michigan's problem is that they lost to Iowa. I agree with you that Michigan is the second best team in the country (I'm still not convinced they aren't the best, honestly), but I thought SVP put it best last night when he said there has to be a consequence for losing. If college football is going to continue to be marketed in the way it is, you can't screw around and lose to Iowa if you want people to feel bad for you when you lose a de facto playoff game to OSU (a game where they couldn't have tripped over their d***'s anymore).

Speaking of that, I think the number should be between 4 and 6 @Scoe . I don't want to create a system where games like the one we saw in Columbus a couple weeks ago mean less and I don't want teams thinking they can lose more than two times and still get in.

Picking the four one-loss teams was the right thing to do. But at some point you need to consider strength of schedule. Washington's was pretty weak. Penn State's was quite strong (that Temple win isn't nothing), but the loss to Pitt killed them, along with a 30+ point loss to Michigan.

I think 6 teams with 1-2 getting byes, or 8 teams, would remove any doubt. But at 8, you're certainly dipping into three loss territory as you say, and you'd have a lot of schools arguing over those last couple of slots.

 

[SubbaBub]

Washington's resume is nowhere near as good as Clemson's. Clemson was 4-1 against the top 25 and Washington was 2-1.

I was a supporter of PSU getting in, but they also didn't have as good a resume as Clemson. Clemson was actually 1-0 against the top ten. They were 4-1 against the top 25, while PSU was 4-2, with one of those losses by 39 points. Clemson is the only team in the country that has wins over 10 teams that will be going to bowl games.

Also, the top ten is a fluid thing during the course of a 12 game season. Louisville was #3 when Clemson beat them, even though Louisville is probably ranked now about where they should be. Meanwhile, you have a team like Florida State that is just sneaking into the top ten now.

But the big difference between Clemson and PSU or Michigan (and also why Ohio State is a playoff team) is that Clemson has just one loss. You can talk about top ten wins, but that additional loss is a big deal, and a 39 pt loss is really damaging to a team's profile.

Which top 10 team did Clemson beat? It's best win is FSU @ #11. UL wasn't a top ten team at the end which is all that matters. Or that is what the committee said was it's purpose. Look at the complete body of work, which could only be done last Sunday morning. Rankings before that or when they play don't matter. Those are incomplete opinions.

The other issue is that of losses and statistical efficiency (otherwise known as putting numbers to the eyeball test)

All that is a function of who you play, your conference which you have no control and your OOC which you do. UW is going to look better because they played 4 tomato cans. Clemson is going to look better because they played in the ACC where the second best team had 3 losses. They lost to Bama, nice try but no credit for losing.

OU played UH and OSU. UH turned out to be a's good as 4 loss UL but they lost that game and to OSU, so no credit. That's why the B12 wasn't discussed at all.

PSU lost to Pitt, who also beat Clemson and Michigan. PSU played three top 10 teams, the AAC champ Temple, and top 25 team Pitt going 3-2. Is that better than the four that made it? Anewer that and you will know if the committee got it right. I don't see how OSU makes it over their conference champion when the resumes are close and they lose the head to head match up.

I like the idea of the committee adding an extra loss for reams not in their conference's CCG. There should be a penalty for sitting at home.

 

[JSM1970]

Pitt didn't beat Michigan. If you are arguing for a team over Clemson it would be Michigan. Michigan beat PSU by 39. Both have 2 losses. The conference championship is meaningless. both Michigan & Ohio State beat Wisky. PSU had a great season, I am interested in seeing them against USC.

Did you notice USC is -7 in the Rose? USC will hammer them, so tells you what the non-biased college people think.

Which top 10 team did Clemson beat? It's best win is FSU @ #11. UL wasn't a top ten team at the end which is all that matters. Or that is what the committee said was it's purpose. Look at the complete body of work, which could only be done last Sunday morning. Rankings before that or when they play don't matter. Those are incomplete opinions.

The other issue is that of losses and statistical efficiency (otherwise known as putting numbers to the eyeball test)

All that is a function of who you play, your conference which you have no control and your OOC which you do. UW is going to look better because they played 4 tomato cans. Clemson is going to look better because they played in the ACC where the second best team had 3 losses. They lost to Bama, nice try but no credit for losing.

OU played UH and OSU. UH turned out to be a's good as 4 loss UL but they lost that game and to OSU, so no credit. That's why the B12 wasn't discussed at all.

PSU lost to Pitt, who also beat Clemson and Michigan. PSU played three top 10 teams, the AAC champ Temple, and top 25 team Pitt going 3-2. Is that better than the four that made it? Anewer that and you will know if the committee got it right. I don't see how OSU makes it over their conference champion when the resumes are close and they lose the head to head match up.

I like the idea of the committee adding an extra loss for reams not in their conference's CCG. There should be a penalty for sitting at home.