• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

2017 College Football Playoffs (and Other Bowl Games)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
OSU_Buckguy said:
heck, capitalize on any of yesterday's numerous scoring opportunities and don't gift wisconsin 18 points and we're probably in.

three things killed ohio state:

1. losing 55-24 to a 5-7 team
2. failing multiple times to make a resounding statement last night
3. being embarrassed 31-0 in last year's playoff after receiving the benefit of the doubt

in regards to point #3, i guarantee you the committee was thinking this: "fool me once, shame on, shame on you; fool me, you can't get fooled again."
Click to expand...

I think #3 is perfectly fair too given how our Defense lost a lot of talent and the Offense is substantially the same. Plus it was basically repeated against OU, Iowa, and shades of the same issues against PSU, scUM, and Wisconsin as well.
At that point the Clemson game is just the evident start of a pattern against elite competition; a pattern which continued into and throughout this season.

That said, Bama still shouldn't be #4. There were more than 2 options.
 
Upvote 0
Jake said:
We also have two losses, not one, and got our pants pulled down last year after the committee gave us the benefit of the doubt despite not reaching the conference title game. Had we actually been competitive in last year's CFP, today may have turned out differently.

Yeah, each season is supposed to be independent of previous ones. But to think last year's flop didn't influence any humans in the room would be naive.
Click to expand...
I already pointed out the first point. I consider our loss and their loss to Auburn roughly equal. So it's 3 better wins vs a bad/terrible loss. The problem with the committee is they are inconsistent as fuck. Clemson's terrible loss doesn't matter cause of good wins but our terrible loss does. OU doesn't get the same credit for wins as does Clemson. On and on.

Don't give me metrics that make no sense and are condictory to justify it. Just tell me 31 point loss and eye test and people are a lot less upset. Do we agree with the committee maybe maybe not but we wouldn't bother arguing metrics they said mattered.
 
Upvote 0
kujirakira said:
I think #3 is perfectly fair too given how our Defense lost a lot of talent and the Offense is substantially the same. Plus it was basically repeated against OU, Iowa, and shades of the same issues against PSU, scUM, and Wisconsin as well.
At that point the Clemson game is just the evident start of a pattern against elite competition; a pattern which continued into and throughout this season.

That said, Bama still shouldn't be #4. There were more than 2 options.
Click to expand...
Yeah Wisconsin, UCF should be real pissed about right now.
 
Upvote 0
Jake said:
Not sure how 4 teams is worse than 2 teams when you favor 6-8 teams.

People are complaining about 2 teams from one conference being in the CFP. Have we forgotten the LSU-Alabama rematch for the BCS title?

Yeah, the BCS was awesome. :roll1:
Click to expand...
The issue is with the consternation over who gets in. The committee is just as bad, if not worse, in it's selection process than the computer. It doesn't need to be this difficult. Put in each conference Champion, have a spot for a P6 team and then they can argue over the 2 remaining teams in an 8 team playoff. Have the top seeded teams be hosts to the lower seeded teams (best conference champs, no at large in top 4 seeds) in the first round and then go to neutral sites for the semis and the championship. Easy peasy.
 
Upvote 0
I think the committee's decision was as simplistic as it gets. You have 6 teams with less than 2 losses. One of them is UCF, who isn't getting a bid. That leaves 5 teams.

Two of them are from the conference with the most NCs this century. One is the defending champion. One is Oklahoma. The other is Wisconsin, who lost to a two-loss team that got beat by Oklahoma and Clemson (62-16, combined) in the last 12 months and they're "Wisconsin" - they aren't getting in, either.

That leaves the 4 teams who got bids. Not a lot of deep thought needed to get there.
 
Upvote 0
Jake said:
I think the committee's decision was as simplistic as it gets. You have 6 teams with less than 2 losses. One of them is UCF, who isn't getting a bid. That leaves 5 teams.

Two of them are from the conference with the most NCs this century. One is the defending champion. One is Oklahoma. The other is Wisconsin, who lost to a two-loss team that got beat by Oklahoma and Clemson (62-16, combined) in the last 12 months and they're "Wisconsin" - they aren't getting in, either.

That leaves the 4 teams who got bids. Not a lot of deep thought needed to get there.
Click to expand...
That's oversimplifying it or undersimplifying it based on your viewpoint. If that 2nd SEC team was ole miss or Arkansas you think they would be in? They got in because their jersey says Bama on the front. No more no less
 
Upvote 0
dragurd said:
I already pointed out the first point. I consider our loss and their loss to Auburn roughly equal. So it's 3 better wins vs a bad/terrible loss. The problem with the committee is they are inconsistent as fuck. Clemson's terrible loss doesn't matter cause of good wins but our terrible loss does. OU doesn't get the same credit for wins as does Clemson. On and on.

Don't give me metrics that make no sense and are condictory to justify it. Just tell me 31 point loss and eye test and people are a lot less upset. Do we agree with the committee maybe maybe not but we wouldn't bother arguing metrics they said mattered.
Click to expand...
I agree that the committee is being wishy-washy, and there may be some inconsistency with regard to application of the "rules" or "guidelines" or whatever you wanna call them. But I'll beat this horse for the 63rd time...don't lose to Iowa by 31 points and we're probably not having this conversation. Clemson got in with a bad loss, but it was their ONLY loss. Bammer lost one game. We're a two loss team, the home loss in September was ugly, and the second loss was a flu shits cocktail. We looked pretty shaky in a few other games, including last night when we should have had the statement win to have a legitimate argument to get in as a two loss team, but we couldn't get out of our own way.

I get that people hate the SEC, and are upset that two SEC teams got in, but I just cannot argue against it given what happened in Iowa City. I never thought we should be considered since that debacle, so maybe that's why it's a little easier for me to accept.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top