Their next opponent is 1st.

Sent from my LG-VM696 using Tapatalk 2

OSU will get the bid if they win, but better not roll over like they did to UF. Next year's rankings will s*ck for the BIG, especially with Rutgers & Maryland coming aboard.

I though the Football Outsiders did a good analysis:

http://insider.espn.go.com/college-footb...e-football

An important takeaway -

The main difference between the two teams is the strength of the opposition faced. Including postseason games, Alabama played the sixth-toughest schedule according to FEI, and Florida State has faced only the 98th-toughest schedule to date. But despite being relatively untested, FSU has posted seven victories ranked among the top 50 in our opponent-adjusted single game efficiency measure. No other team has more than four such wins.

The more obvious answer though is that while FSU did not really have a tougher schedule than OSU, they were far more impressive in their games

(12-04-2013 09:20 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  This doesn't take into account tempo or field position. Also, this doesn't prove any point without showing OSU's opponent's rankings, too.

MSU #4
Wiscy #6
Iowa #11

You left off the other 9 opponents because...?

(12-04-2013 09:28 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  Their next opponent is 1st.

Sent from my LG-VM696 using Tapatalk 2

Permission granted to ruin their day

While I will be pulling hard for a Michigan State win over Ohio State, if the Buckeyes win, they will have done enough to be in the BCS title game. Assuming the FSU quarterback plays in the ACC championship game and BCS title game, I believe the Seminoles will win handily in the championship game. Alabama, Auburn, Missouri or Oklahoma State may have reason to believe they would have fared better in a title game with FSU, but that's not how it's set up. They should have taken care of their business and there would have been no dispute. Personally, I have no problem with multiple teams laying claim to the national title, so I certainly have no problem with several teams thinking they should have been included in the BSC title game. It's going to continue when this four-team playoff starts next year. There will always be teams on the outside looking in that say, "but what about us."

Steve Spurrier weighs in:

"You know what I think is interesting? Everybody is picking on Ohio State. Their schedule was ranked tougher than FSU's."

(12-04-2013 09:54 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  You left off the other 9 opponents because...?

...the point is made with those three.

FSU could quite possibly look better after those three, but like fantasy football drafts, once you get past the first tier and certainly once you get to the third tier and beyond, it just doesn't matter nearly as much.

(12-04-2013 05:38 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 05:25 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 05:14 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Good question. Trying not to defend the Buckeyes, but here it is anyway:

http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/...yes-do-not

"The problem with Ohio State is also the problem with Florida State: a weak nonconference schedule. The Buckeyes played Buffalo, San Diego State, at California and Florida A&M. That's three unimpressive FBS teams (combined record: 16-20) and one from the lesser FCS subdivision.

Florida State did the same thing. Well, no -- the Seminoles did something worse. They played Nevada, Bethune-Cookman, Idaho and at Florida. That's three even more unimpressive FBS teams (combined record: 9-27) and one from the lesser FCS subdivision.

So we go to the conference slate. The Big Ten is bad, yes, but the ACC is worse. There is statistical data to support that conclusion, mainly the Big Ten's slightly better record in nonconference play -- 77.1 winning percentage, compared to the ACC's 73.2 winning percentage -- even though the Big Ten's composite non-conference strength of schedule is just a notch ahead of the ACC's."

That's easy. OSU struggled in several games, and struggled with some average teams. FSU beat the hell out of everyone.

This.

Ohio State gave up over 600 yards of offense and 41 pts to a 7-5 Michigan team that needy some help from the boys in stripes to avoid a loss to Akron (plus UConn nearly upset them as well). Buffalo actually challenged the Buckeyes (40-20 was the final). Ohio State had some close contests with Wisconsin (who just lost to a mediocre Penn State team), Northwestern (who lost five or six straight to end the year) and Iowa (who was smacked around by NIU).

OTH, FSU blew out everyone on their schedule. The lowest margin of victory was a 14 pt win over at BC. They beat Clemson 51-14, Maryland 63-0, Miami (FL) 41-14, beat Florida by 30 and curbstomped teams like Pitt, Syracuse, WF and NC State State.

FSU beat Pitt soundly with a final score of 41-13. Despite this score being no different than the margin FSU beat Miami by and objectively having a better showing than Clemson as indicated by the scoreboard, you choose to use an inflammatory remark that was designed to single out Pitt and Syracuse. If you are going to be snarky, at least do so legitimately. Trying to contrive one like this only makes you look petulant.

(12-05-2013 10:02 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  While I will be pulling hard for a Michigan State win over Ohio State, if the Buckeyes win, they will have done enough to be in the BCS title game. Assuming the FSU quarterback plays in the ACC championship game and BCS title game, I believe the Seminoles will win handily in the championship game. Alabama, Auburn, Missouri or Oklahoma State may have reason to believe they would have fared better in a title game with FSU, but that's not how it's set up. They should have taken care of their business and there would have been no dispute.

Imagine if at the start of a work day, I gave one worker a 1-ton pile of coal to shovel and another a 2-ton pile of coal to shovel, and said that at 5 PM I'd judge who was more deserving of a raise. At 5 PM the first worker has just finished up, but the second still has 1/2 ton left. By your logic, I should give the raise to the first worker because he "took care of his business" and the second worker didn't. But that would be dumb, because the second guy had much harder business to take care of.

Same thing when it comes to schedules and college football.

(12-04-2013 07:54 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 07:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 06:29 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  If OSU beats MSU they will have done enough to be number 2. Auburn lost to an 8-3 team. Granted LSU is not a bad team at all, but Auburn needed luck and magic to beat Georgia and Bama. Bama is probably the second best team in the nation, but they lost, and this is not a round robin affair.

Your logic doesn't hold. It's not fair to call Bama "probably the #2 team but they lost", when neither FSU nor OSU has had to play their schedule.

Believe me, Ohio State and FSU would want no part of LSU in their respective conference title games this weekend, they are better than any team either FSU or OSU will play before the BCS title game.

And they aren't the best team Bama has played.

You seem to have a problem with basic communication skills. Did you major in logic at South Florida or just spend too much time at St. Pete Beach?

This, coming from the guy who said: Point is - you need to win your games. So far OSU has won their games. When it is plain as day that if team A plays ten great teams and team B plays ten awful teams, it would be utterly ridiculous to compare those teams on who won more of their games?

And this thread is a good indicator on why I do not expect to see a whole lot more - if any - realignment among the P5 conferences. Everyone thinking that the SEC would try to get the cream of the Big12 or the ACC is not thinking it through clearly. If you put too many big name schools under one umbrella, you will see that 1) it becomes much harder to go to the championship game and 2) a few of those big name schools will become mediocre schools in the long term. There comes a time when you will see diminishing returns by collecting more prizes.

(12-05-2013 11:25 AM)C Marlow Wrote:  And this thread is a good indicator on why I do not expect to see a whole lot more - if any - realignment among the P5 conferences. Everyone thinking that the SEC would try to get the cream of the Big12 or the ACC is not thinking it through clearly. If you put too many big name schools under one umbrella, you will see that 1) it becomes much harder to go to the championship game and 2) a few of those big name schools will become mediocre schools in the long term. There comes a time when you will see diminishing returns by collecting more prizes.

"Everyone" doesn't think that the SEC will get the cream of the crop.

(12-04-2013 05:25 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 05:14 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Good question. Trying not to defend the Buckeyes, but here it is anyway:

http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/...yes-do-not

"The problem with Ohio State is also the problem with Florida State: a weak nonconference schedule. The Buckeyes played Buffalo, San Diego State, at California and Florida A&M. That's three unimpressive FBS teams (combined record: 16-20) and one from the lesser FCS subdivision.

Florida State did the same thing. Well, no -- the Seminoles did something worse. They played Nevada, Bethune-Cookman, Idaho and at Florida. That's three even more unimpressive FBS teams (combined record: 9-27) and one from the lesser FCS subdivision.

So we go to the conference slate. The Big Ten is bad, yes, but the ACC is worse. There is statistical data to support that conclusion, mainly the Big Ten's slightly better record in nonconference play -- 77.1 winning percentage, compared to the ACC's 73.2 winning percentage -- even though the Big Ten's composite non-conference strength of schedule is just a notch ahead of the ACC's."

That's easy. OSU struggled in several games, and struggled with some average teams. FSU beat the hell out of everyone.

This.

Surprise surprise, it is the Cincinnati fan whom hates the Buckeyes cheerleading a negative post about Ohio State. Guess we should put a lot of weight on that one!!!

(12-05-2013 03:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Surprise surprise, it is the Cincinnati fan whom hates the Buckeyes cheerleading a negative post about Ohio State. Guess we should put a lot of weight on that one!!!

"That's easy. OSU struggled in several games, and struggled with some average teams. FSU beat the hell out of everyone."


What's negative about that statement? It's factual. OSU struggled with several average teams. How is this negative?

In 12 games, FSU never trailed at the half and only one team stayed close with them through part of the third quarter - BC (6-6) . FSU led 24-17 at the half, won 48-34

In 12 games, OSU trailed Northwestern (5-7) in the 4th quarter. OSU won 40-30. OSU was tied with Iowa (8-4) at the end of the 3rd and OSU won 34-24. Wisky (9-3) pulled to within 7 in the 4th against OSU, and OSU won 31-24. Michigan (7-5) played OSU even until the last few seconds and lost 42-41 on a failed two point try.

(12-05-2013 03:22 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 03:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Surprise surprise, it is the Cincinnati fan whom hates the Buckeyes cheerleading a negative post about Ohio State. Guess we should put a lot of weight on that one!!!

"That's easy. OSU struggled in several games, and struggled with some average teams. FSU beat the hell out of everyone."


What's negative about that statement? It's factual. OSU struggled with several average teams. How is this negative?

In 12 games, FSU never trailed at the half and only one team stayed close with them through part of the third quarter - BC (6-6) . FSU led 24-17 at the half, won 48-34

In 12 games, OSU trailed Northwestern (5-7) in the 4th quarter. OSU won 40-30. OSU was tied with Iowa (8-4) at the end of the 3rd and OSU won 34-24. Wisky (9-3) pulled to within 7 in the 4th against OSU, and OSU won 31-24. Michigan (7-5) played OSU even until the last few seconds and lost 42-41 on a failed two point try.

Personally, I think it is a good thing that Ohio State has been challenged. You have your usual people who live with the mentality that every team that plays in the Big Ten is crap thus that must mean that Ohio State is crap due to having close games.

I, on the other hand, do not think everyone in the Big Ten is crap because I actually watch those games. Ohio State, being challenged and having to rise up under such circumstances, will be trained for the type of situation they will likely face against FSU when FSU jumps to the early lead.

How well prepared is FSU for when OSU figures them out and comes back? When has that happened yet this year?

FSU had West Virginia (even though they turned out to suck) cancel on them. I believe Air Force also canceled on them, though that might have been for next season...I forget. Also, FSU has just beat the crap out of their opponents, while OSU has several close games against so-so teams.

(12-05-2013 03:22 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 03:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Surprise surprise, it is the Cincinnati fan whom hates the Buckeyes cheerleading a negative post about Ohio State. Guess we should put a lot of weight on that one!!!

"That's easy. OSU struggled in several games, and struggled with some average teams. FSU beat the hell out of everyone."


What's negative about that statement? It's factual. OSU struggled with several average teams. How is this negative?

In 12 games, FSU never trailed at the half and only one team stayed close with them through part of the third quarter - BC (6-6) . FSU led 24-17 at the half, won 48-34

In 12 games, OSU trailed Northwestern (5-7) in the 4th quarter. OSU won 40-30. OSU was tied with Iowa (8-4) at the end of the 3rd and OSU won 34-24. Wisky (9-3) pulled to within 7 in the 4th against OSU, and OSU won 31-24. Michigan (7-5) played OSU even until the last few seconds and lost 42-41 on a failed two point try.

FSU's case rests too much on the old "margin of victory" and "eyeball" tests, and as most smart football analysts know, unless you are comparing two teams that played the same schedule, those factors are meaningless.