(11-28-2014 11:16 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Heinous, my original post in this thread was strictly a joke post specifically designed to create chaos and a scenario where multiple SEC schools make the playoff. It was a friendly dig at all of the SEC haters here and certainly not a scenario that I would want to happen. My dream scenario, before Ole Miss was exposed as a pretender, was TCU, Arizona State, Ole Miss and Mississippi State. That's not because of the SEC, but because I pull for Ole Miss, my son attends MSU, my brother and stepmother are TCU grads and another brother is an ASU season ticket holder. That will never happen and that's OK. I'd still rather the best teams get in regardless of conference.

But let me be clear. I like the SEC brand of football as a rule. I hated Auburn beating Alabama last year, not because I dislike Auburn because I don't. I just thought Alabama was the best team and felt they had a better chance against FSU in the title game. Yes, I wanted the SEC national title run to continue. Sue me. But don't mistake my preference for the SEC as disrespect for other programs around the nation. And never suppose to be able to project biases upon me that do not exist. I think Oregon may be the best team in the country. TCU and Baylor are both dangerous offenses. Ohio State may be one of the more complete teams in the nation. Just because I like the SEC doesn't mean I dislike everyone else. I'm a Texas fan by birth and over my 60 years I have picked up allegiances to schools in every part of the country, including the Big 10's Penn State. So keep acting like it is everyone else that is biased and you are the paragon of objectivity.

Oh I have my biases but I am fair with them. I realize you were just being tongue in cheek. What you joke about though, is how many Southern folks actually think so I took on the thought more so than I took on you Zombie.

(11-28-2014 12:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 11:16 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Heinous, my original post in this thread was strictly a joke post specifically designed to create chaos and a scenario where multiple SEC schools make the playoff. It was a friendly dig at all of the SEC haters here and certainly not a scenario that I would want to happen. My dream scenario, before Ole Miss was exposed as a pretender, was TCU, Arizona State, Ole Miss and Mississippi State. That's not because of the SEC, but because I pull for Ole Miss, my son attends MSU, my brother and stepmother are TCU grads and another brother is an ASU season ticket holder. That will never happen and that's OK. I'd still rather the best teams get in regardless of conference.

But let me be clear. I like the SEC brand of football as a rule. I hated Auburn beating Alabama last year, not because I dislike Auburn because I don't. I just thought Alabama was the best team and felt they had a better chance against FSU in the title game. Yes, I wanted the SEC national title run to continue. Sue me. But don't mistake my preference for the SEC as disrespect for other programs around the nation. And never suppose to be able to project biases upon me that do not exist. I think Oregon may be the best team in the country. TCU and Baylor are both dangerous offenses. Ohio State may be one of the more complete teams in the nation. Just because I like the SEC doesn't mean I dislike everyone else. I'm a Texas fan by birth and over my 60 years I have picked up allegiances to schools in every part of the country, including the Big 10's Penn State. So keep acting like it is everyone else that is biased and you are the paragon of objectivity.

Oh I have my biases but I am fair with them. I realize you were just being tongue in cheek. What you joke about though, is how many Southern folks actually think so I took on the thought more so than I took on you Zombie.

No worries.

Part of how those people think, and opinion I happen to share, is the belief that if TCU, Baylor, Ohio State and Florida State played in the SEC West (plus a couple of games with the East), those teams would likely already have at least two losses and possibly more in the case of FSU. I believe only Oregon would legitimately be expected to have a record comparable to what they currently have. While they (I) could be completely wrong about that, they (I) do have some basis for that line of thinking, including recent history in OOC games, bowl games and national championship games. If you have a substantial amount of success, then it's not unreasonable to think such success is warranted and would be likely to continue. In other words, people aren't saying that the success the SEC has had is a birthright, but rather are simply acknowledging the obvious.

Those that hate the SEC or are jealous of the successes of member schools will take any angle in an attempt to discredit that success. It should at least be just as valid for someone to defend against such attacks. However, I ultimately feel that it is unnecessary to denegrate others in order to make one's self or one's school look good. It's the comparisons required to differentiate among contenders that inherently create conflict.

While I think the SEC and in particular the West is worthy of such praise. I do think it has more to do with how people now perceive the SEC and the very recent history. I don't think any of the main powers in the SEC West are as good as they have been in very recent years. So that makes me question just how much better Miss State is than in previous years. Are they having all this success because they are that much better or simply because the other teams are now playing down at a similar level? Look at Ole Miss, same thing. People thought they were so great this year but teams have figured out their schemes and now they are looking rather mediocre at best.

Look at the team that beat them. Arkansas's scheme seems rather similar to what teams like Wisconsin bring to the table. Of course I purposefully make that comparison due to whom their coach is. That scheme tore apart the land shark defense that was considered so good.

(11-28-2014 11:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 11:04 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Nice try. Comparing a 68 team tournament to a 4 team tournament is just plain silly. It doesn't prove that they should limit the field to just being teams from the same conference. It is a National Tournament. Miss State already lost to Alabama.

Why should MSS losing to Alabama knock them out of the playoffs but Ohio State losing to vastly inferior VT means they are alive and kicking? Talk about making no sense.

BTW, I agree that comparing a 4-team tourney to the NCAA tournament doesn't prove that they should limit the field to just being teams from the same conference. It actually proves the exact opposite: Sometimes, two of the best four teams really are from the same conference, so the CFP committee should be open to selecting two teams from the same conference.

I think its far more important who you beat than who you lost to. A couple of years ago Tulsa lost to 4 unbeaten (at the time) top 10 teams. But they didn't beat anyone who was any good. They weren't better than any other 4 loss team just because they had the 4 best losses.

The bigger problem is that most of this is simply justification and changes from year to year. The same people on ESPN and in the SEC were arguing there shouldn't be a Ohio St./Michigan rematch in 2006 were arguing that Alabama should play LSU again in 2011. They were right the first time and wrong the second. Florida gets ranked #1 in 2008 after losing at home to an Ole Miss team that wasn't very highly regarded at the time. But they beat Alabama in the SEC ccg who everyone thought was the best team. In 2011 they said Oklahoma St. should be disqualified (when they even talked about them) because they lost to Iowa St. on the road.

(11-28-2014 10:25 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 10:17 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Alabama (11-1) beats Auburn
Mississippi State (11-1) beats Ole Miss
Georgia (10-2) crushes Georgia Tech (9-3)
Georgia (11-2) edges Alabama (11-2)
Florida beats Florida State (11-1) badly
Georgia Tech (10-3) easily handles Florida State (11-2)
Michigan upsets Ohio State (10-2)
Minnesota (9-3) beats Wisconsin (9-3)
Minnesota (10-3) beats Ohio State (10-3)
Oregon State beats Oregon (10-2)
Stanford beats UCLA (9-3)
Arizona State (10-2) beats Arizona (9-3)
Arizona State (11-2) beats Oregon (10-3)
Kansas upsets Kansas State (8-3)
Texas Tech upsets Baylor (9-2)
Kansas State (9-3) beats Baylor (9-3)
Iowa State upsets TCU (10-2)

Committee names Arizona State the #1 seed and three SEC schools to the playoff.
Rose Bowl - #1 ASU vs #4 Alabama
Sugar Bowl - #2 Mississippi State vs. #3 Georgia

To the haters

The ironic thing about this post is that it really just makes you out to be the hater.

For a fan of a conference to think that it makes any sense at all to have three teams out of the same conference in a National Tournament, it just goes to show that you guys cant be reasonable. You go about this for all the wrong reasons.

Perhaps you are afraid that the SEC really isn't all that strong this year and has survived on propaganda and previous year's results. You want as many SEC teams in as possible to help with your odds? That must be it. You are afraid. You are afraid of Oregon. You are afraid of Florida State and you are deathly afraid of Ohio State getting a win against an SEC team. Despite the history, you are still afraid of that outcome because of how you would react to it.

You are so afraid of these possibilities that you just want to see those possibilities completely removed from even being possible. Don't worry though, you are not alone. Every other crazy SEC fan is just like you. They mask their fear with pride as well.

H1 has it ever occurred to you that all your Big 10 bluster this year when the Big 10 has been at its worst in memory has been nothing but your own version of kitty litter to cover the stench? It's almost like the more you defend them the more goes awry for the Big 10. I imagine that Wisconsin takes it all. They have the best ground game and the best defense. But we'll see. After all the Big 10 was ravaged in OOC play and now are cannibalizing themselves.

But if what you guys want is anarchy that would be the Big 10 and SEC being left out while Arizona State, T.C.U., Baylor, and Georgia Tech make the final 4 positions. The one's going nuts the most wouldn't be in Delany's or Sive's offices but in those of ESPN. The advertising rating for the finals would plummet along with the ad profits and the champs only model would be implemented before the 12 years was up, maybe even by the next season. Now that would be the craptastic finish that anarchists would love.

(11-28-2014 10:25 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 10:17 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Alabama (11-1) beats Auburn
Mississippi State (11-1) beats Ole Miss
Georgia (10-2) crushes Georgia Tech (9-3)
Georgia (11-2) edges Alabama (11-2)
Florida beats Florida State (11-1) badly
Georgia Tech (10-3) easily handles Florida State (11-2)
Michigan upsets Ohio State (10-2)
Minnesota (9-3) beats Wisconsin (9-3)
Minnesota (10-3) beats Ohio State (10-3)
Oregon State beats Oregon (10-2)
Stanford beats UCLA (9-3)
Arizona State (10-2) beats Arizona (9-3)
Arizona State (11-2) beats Oregon (10-3)
Kansas upsets Kansas State (8-3)
Texas Tech upsets Baylor (9-2)
Kansas State (9-3) beats Baylor (9-3)
Iowa State upsets TCU (10-2)

Committee names Arizona State the #1 seed and three SEC schools to the playoff.
Rose Bowl - #1 ASU vs #4 Alabama
Sugar Bowl - #2 Mississippi State vs. #3 Georgia

To the haters

The ironic thing about this post is that it really just makes you out to be the hater.

For a fan of a conference to think that it makes any sense at all to have three teams out of the same conference in a National Tournament, it just goes to show that you guys cant be reasonable. You go about this for all the wrong reasons.

Perhaps you are afraid that the SEC really isn't all that strong this year and has survived on propaganda and previous year's results. You want as many SEC teams in as possible to help with your odds? That must be it. You are afraid. You are afraid of Oregon. You are afraid of Florida State and you are deathly afraid of Ohio State getting a win against an SEC team. Despite the history, you are still afraid of that outcome because of how you would react to it.

You are so afraid of these possibilities that you just want to see those possibilities completely removed from even being possible. Don't worry though, you are not alone. Every other crazy SEC fan is just like you. They mask their fear with pride as well.

H1 has it ever occurred to you that all your Big 10 bluster this year when the Big 10 has been at its worst in memory has been nothing but your own version of kitty litter to cover the stench? It's almost like the more you defend them the more goes awry for the Big 10. I imagine that Wisconsin takes it all. They have the best ground game and the best defense. But we'll see. After all the Big 10 was ravaged in OOC play and now are cannibalizing themselves.

But if what you guys want is anarchy that would be the Big 10 and SEC being left out while Arizona State, T.C.U., Baylor, and Georgia Tech make the final 4 positions. The one's going nuts the most wouldn't be in Delany's or Sive's offices but in those of ESPN. The advertising rating for the finals would plummet along with the ad profits and the champs only model would be implemented before the 12 years was up, maybe even by the next season. Now that would be the craptastic finish that anarchists would love.

But most likely the presently projected final four end up with 1 or 2 upsets in the final two weeks at the most. I'd bet on 1. I think T.C.U. is in the safest position right now. Florida/Florida State, Ole Miss/Miss State, Wisconsin/Ohio State (should it occur) Alabama/Auburn, and Baylor/Kansas State are anything but gimmes. U.C.L.A./Oregon will be unfair for the Ducks and Arizona State/Oregon isn't a certainty either.

(11-28-2014 01:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  While I think the SEC and in particular the West is worthy of such praise. I do think it has more to do with how people now perceive the SEC and the very recent history. I don't think any of the main powers in the SEC West are as good as they have been in very recent years. So that makes me question just how much better Miss State is than in previous years. Are they having all this success because they are that much better or simply because the other teams are now playing down at a similar level? Look at Ole Miss, same thing. People thought they were so great this year but teams have figured out their schemes and now they are looking rather mediocre at best.

Look at the team that beat them. Arkansas's scheme seems rather similar to what teams like Wisconsin bring to the table. Of course I purposefully make that comparison due to whom their coach is. That scheme tore apart the land shark defense that was considered so good.

Not that anyone would car to, but if someone checked my statements on the SEC board either prior to the season or very early on, I said that the conference looked like it had a number of good to very good teams, but I didn't see any great teams. I even predicted (wrong so far) that all of the teams in the West would have at least two losses, thinking that they were all good enough to win on a given Saturday, which has proven mostly true.

Being a fan of Ole Miss, I knew they were living on borrowed time, because of the run game. A very good defense with a solid ground game can control games, but a good defense matched with an offense predicated on passing will inevitably meet with difficulty. LSU and Arkansas were expected to be bad matchups for the Rebels because of their reliance on the run. The Auburn game surprised me since I expected the Tigers to win handily, but the Rebels came one broken ankle/leg short of the win. Ole Miss is still a good team and should do well in their bowl game UNLESS they are matched up with a team like Wisconsin, who is my nightmare bowl opponent.

(11-28-2014 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 10:25 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 10:17 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Alabama (11-1) beats Auburn
Mississippi State (11-1) beats Ole Miss
Georgia (10-2) crushes Georgia Tech (9-3)
Georgia (11-2) edges Alabama (11-2)
Florida beats Florida State (11-1) badly
Georgia Tech (10-3) easily handles Florida State (11-2)
Michigan upsets Ohio State (10-2)
Minnesota (9-3) beats Wisconsin (9-3)
Minnesota (10-3) beats Ohio State (10-3)
Oregon State beats Oregon (10-2)
Stanford beats UCLA (9-3)
Arizona State (10-2) beats Arizona (9-3)
Arizona State (11-2) beats Oregon (10-3)
Kansas upsets Kansas State (8-3)
Texas Tech upsets Baylor (9-2)
Kansas State (9-3) beats Baylor (9-3)
Iowa State upsets TCU (10-2)

Committee names Arizona State the #1 seed and three SEC schools to the playoff.
Rose Bowl - #1 ASU vs #4 Alabama
Sugar Bowl - #2 Mississippi State vs. #3 Georgia

To the haters

The ironic thing about this post is that it really just makes you out to be the hater.

For a fan of a conference to think that it makes any sense at all to have three teams out of the same conference in a National Tournament, it just goes to show that you guys cant be reasonable. You go about this for all the wrong reasons.

Perhaps you are afraid that the SEC really isn't all that strong this year and has survived on propaganda and previous year's results. You want as many SEC teams in as possible to help with your odds? That must be it. You are afraid. You are afraid of Oregon. You are afraid of Florida State and you are deathly afraid of Ohio State getting a win against an SEC team. Despite the history, you are still afraid of that outcome because of how you would react to it.

You are so afraid of these possibilities that you just want to see those possibilities completely removed from even being possible. Don't worry though, you are not alone. Every other crazy SEC fan is just like you. They mask their fear with pride as well.

H1 has it ever occurred to you that all your Big 10 bluster this year when the Big 10 has been at its worst in memory has been nothing but your own version of kitty litter to cover the stench? It's almost like the more you defend them the more goes awry for the Big 10. I imagine that Wisconsin takes it all. They have the best ground game and the best defense. But we'll see. After all the Big 10 was ravaged in OOC play and now are cannibalizing themselves.

But if what you guys want is anarchy that would be the Big 10 and SEC being left out while Arizona State, T.C.U., Baylor, and Georgia Tech make the final 4 positions. The one's going nuts the most wouldn't be in Delany's or Sive's offices but in those of ESPN. The advertising rating for the finals would plummet along with the ad profits and the champs only model would be implemented before the 12 years was up, maybe even by the next season. Now that would be the craptastic finish that anarchists would love.

Has it ever occurred to you in your SEC blurred vision that I am not doing an equal and opposite radicalized defense of The Big Ten here?

I spoke of Oregon, I spoke of Florida State. Basically I spoke of anyone NOT in the SEC and the little extra I threw in there about Ohio State seems to be very true based upon your over the top reaction in trying to paint a picture that I was merely talking about The Big Ten. Sorry, but I am much less focused on the Big Ten in comparison to how folks like yourself are focused on the SEC.

The Big Ten is hardly cannibalizing itself. Nebraska winning in overtime is cannibalization? Wisconsin beating Nebraska with the top running back in the conference with more Doak finalists than any other conference has EVER achieved? Yeah, the Big Ten is so horrible.

The Big Ten is just fine. You want to talk cannibalization? Missouri is losing to Arkansas. If that happens then the better team, Georgia, goes into the SEC Championship game from the East. They crushed Auburn....

(11-28-2014 12:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 11:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 11:04 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Nice try. Comparing a 68 team tournament to a 4 team tournament is just plain silly. It doesn't prove that they should limit the field to just being teams from the same conference. It is a National Tournament. Miss State already lost to Alabama.

Why should MSS losing to Alabama knock them out of the playoffs but Ohio State losing to vastly inferior VT means they are alive and kicking? Talk about making no sense.

BTW, I agree that comparing a 4-team tourney to the NCAA tournament doesn't prove that they should limit the field to just being teams from the same conference. It actually proves the exact opposite: Sometimes, two of the best four teams really are from the same conference, so the CFP committee should be open to selecting two teams from the same conference.

The fact that it doesn't make sense to you says everything that needs to be said.

Your last little statement defeats itself. The only way that we know the best two teams came from the same conference in basketball is precisely because it COULD be proven in that tournament. With a four team tournament, it cant be proven if you make that choice BEFORE competition. T

Your "logic" is, as usual, abysmal, because it would have to apply equally to the notion that the best four teams came from different conferences as well. You baselessly believe that there should be a presumption that your "the 4 teams should come from different conferences" standard requires no proof and should be assumed by the committee as correct, whereas the "4 best teams can come from the same conference" view requires some kind or rigorous proof or else it should be dismissed.[/b]

But if last year's NCAA tournament's Final 4 was chosen by a committee, and that committee used your standard, the "Final 4 should consist of the champs of 4 different conferences" standard, it would have made the mistake [b]of excluding either Kentucky or Florida, two of the four real best teams, in favor of an inferior conference champ.

And that's the point: The CFP committee should not assume that the 4 best teams come from different conferences, because they very well might not. They therefore should be open to the idea of multiple teams from a given conference.

All teams should be judged on their overall resumes. If MSS beats Ole Miss and OSU beats Michigan and then Wisconsin, it will be hard to make the case that OSU has the better resume.

Hopefully, the committee will not be blinded by a false criteria - conference champ - and do the wrong thing.

You even fail in your attempts to cut down my posts.

You are a joke. We are done. Why don't you reply about Long's statement about Conference championships being weighed heavily?

Oh I know, you wont and you will spin away in your constant attempt to ad hom your way through every single discussion.

(11-28-2014 05:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Big Ten is just fine.

In what sense? The B1G is 5-10 versus other P5 conferences this year, easily the worst record among the P5 conferences. All four of their currently-ranked teams lost their big OOC games against good teams from other conferences.

The current rankings of teams like OSU and Wisconsin are based purely on running through a raft of other bad B1G teams.

Why should anyone from another P5 respect the fact that Wisconsin is on a winning streak against teams like Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland, and Illinois?

(11-28-2014 06:28 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

You even fail in your attempts to cut down my posts.

You are a joke. We are done.

Translation: You once again smashed one of my idiotic, illogical "arguments", but I lack the guts to admit it.

(11-28-2014 06:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  All teams should be judged on their overall resumes. If MSS beats Ole Miss and OSU beats Michigan and then Wisconsin, it will be hard to make the case that OSU has the better resume.

Hopefully, the committee will not be blinded by a false criteria - conference champ - and do the wrong thing.

OSU plays 13 games. Cincy, Navy, and VaTech in OOC. 1 poor OOC team. Minny, UMD, Rutgers, MSU, PSU, Indiana (which I mention because an SEC team lost to them at home), and Big Ten CG opponent (hopefully Wisconsin, for OSU's sake).

MSU plays 12 games. Four poor OOC teams. TAMU, LSU, Ole Miss, Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn.

I wouldn't dare argue that the 6 "quality" conference opponents mentioned above for OSU are better than Miss St's...but we're literally talking about a six game season that MSU played this year. They went 5-1. OSU, on the other hand, played 10 games worth discussing, which they went 9-1 through (assuming they win out in the CCG). I think it's harder to go 9-1 versus 10 solid to good opponents than 5-1 versus 6 good opponents.

I highly doubt that the committee takes 11-1 MSU over 12-1 OSU as Big Ten champ. Highly.

(11-29-2014 08:01 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 06:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  All teams should be judged on their overall resumes. If MSS beats Ole Miss and OSU beats Michigan and then Wisconsin, it will be hard to make the case that OSU has the better resume.

Hopefully, the committee will not be blinded by a false criteria - conference champ - and do the wrong thing.

OSU plays 13 games. Cincy, Navy, and VaTech in OOC. 1 poor OOC team. Minny, UMD, Rutgers, MSU, PSU, Indiana (which I mention because an SEC team lost to them at home), and Big Ten CG opponent (hopefully Wisconsin, for OSU's sake).

MSU plays 12 games. Four poor OOC teams. TAMU, LSU, Ole Miss, Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn.

I wouldn't dare argue that the 6 "quality" conference opponents mentioned above for OSU are better than Miss St's...but we're literally talking about a six game season that MSU played this year. They went 5-1. OSU, on the other hand, played 10 games worth discussing, which they went 9-1 through (assuming they win out in the CCG). I think it's harder to go 9-1 versus 10 solid to good opponents than 5-1 versus 6 good opponents.

I highly doubt that the committee takes 11-1 MSU over 12-1 OSU as Big Ten champ. Highly.

Navy is not what I qualify as a good OOC opponent. Cincy had a down year by their standards. Virginia Tech was woeful even though they struggled to a break even year against what proved to be a 7 loss Virginia team. Miss State's SOS is ranked 8th in the nation as of last week. OSU's was nowhere in sight at the top of the listing. Think about it.

(11-29-2014 08:01 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 06:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  All teams should be judged on their overall resumes. If MSS beats Ole Miss and OSU beats Michigan and then Wisconsin, it will be hard to make the case that OSU has the better resume.

Hopefully, the committee will not be blinded by a false criteria - conference champ - and do the wrong thing.

OSU plays 13 games. Cincy, Navy, and VaTech in OOC. 1 poor OOC team. Minny (29), UMD (44), Rutgers (66), MSU (12), PSU (55), Indiana(90) (which I mention because an SEC team lost to them at home), and Big Ten CG opponent (hopefully Wisconsin, for OSU's sake).

MSU plays 12 games. Four poor OOC teams. TAMU, LSU, Ole Miss, Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn.

I wouldn't dare argue that the 6 "quality" conference opponents mentioned above for OSU are better than Miss St's...but we're literally talking about a six game season that MSU played this year. They went 5-1. OSU, on the other hand, played 10 games worth discussing, which they went 9-1 through (assuming they win out in the CCG). I think it's harder to go 9-1 versus 10 solid to good opponents than 5-1 versus 6 good opponents.

I highly doubt that the committee takes 11-1 MSU over 12-1 OSU as Big Ten champ. Highly.

Wow ... just looking at the teams you focused on, I'd MUCH rather play Minnesota (29), Maryland (44), Rutgers (66), Penn State (55), Michigan State (12), and Wisconsin (14) than ... TAMU (27), LSU (21), Ole Miss (11), Arkansas (22), Alabama (1), and Auburn (10). The latter slate is far more talented and difficult to beat. Those numbers in parentheses are the Massey Composite rankings of over 100+ computers and ranking systems. You can see the disparity. In your mind, a team like Penn State is close in quality to a team like TAMU, but Massey says TAMU (27) is much better than PSU (55).

According to Massey, MSS has played three teams - Alabama, Auburn, and Ole Miss - that are better than anyone OSU has played.

Overall, the average ranking of OSU's conference opponents we discussed above is 33.8 .... MSS's is 15.3. That's a big difference in quality.

Yes, OSU played a tougher OOC schedule, but not by that much. They didn't face any Oregons or TCUs, nobody on their OOC schedule is ranked higher than #50 in the Massey Composite. So I don't put much stock in games versus Navy, VT, and Cincy being "worth discussing". Let's face it: In the SEC those games would be viewed as "breather" games. Playing and winning them proves little versus playing even worse teams like UAB and USA.

All that said, where the rubber should meet the road is overall SOS. That covers all the quibbles about OOC and whose conference was better.

Currently, Sagarin has MSS's schedule at #39, Ohio State's is #55. That could move a little in OSU's direction if they play Wisconsin in the CCG but probably not that much given OSU also is tagged with playing Michigan as well while MSS has to get by Ole Miss.

Overall, it's likely that MSS will have played a slightly tougher schedule than OSS. Combine that with MSS's far better loss, and it will be difficult to make a rational case for OSU.

Because of that, I expect the case for OSU to be more emotional/political, along the lines of "how on earth can we leave the B1G Champion out of the playoffs ?!?!" and the like.

(11-29-2014 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 06:28 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

You even fail in your attempts to cut down my posts.

You are a joke. We are done.

Translation: You once again smashed one of my idiotic, illogical "arguments", but I lack the guts to admit it.

Premise 1: The committee doesn't really have a consistent, thought-out philosophy of who they rank where.
Premise 2: The committee ends up following the conventional wisdom, pretty much.

Based on those, I predict that, this week or next, the committee will endorse what I'm calling the "Clay Travis Rule", that if you lost to a team that finishes .500 or worse, you can't play for the national championship.

So even if they win their CCG's:
Sorry Ohio State (lost to Virginia Tech.)
Sorry Missouri (lost to Indiana).
Sorry Georgia (I'm sure there's still a total-chaos scenario that puts UGA at #4.)

And Baylor really, really needs West Virginia to pull it together vs Iowa State today.

It is so funny to watch SEC folks pushing for another Alabama/LSU debacle. Everyone else understands what a pathetically terrible situation that ended up being. With three other potential options that havnt lost to anyone else in the top 4, they havnt been proven to not belong there like MSU has.

Yet, the argument for MSU is some computer ranking based upon overhyped perception? Missouri lost to Indiana, Missouri just beat Arkansas whom blanked Ole Miss and yet people still talk as if it should impress us when Miss State beats Ole Miss today?

Sorry but the pendulum swings both ways despite SEC fans trying to argue otherwise. Just proving yourselves to be selfish little children if you actually think MSU should be there. It isn't about Ohio State for me. I would rather see either Baylor or TCU get in. If Ohio STate doesn't get in, no big deal. But giving one conference two teams in the dance when one has already beaten the other, it is a mistake. Luckily, the Committee is made up of highly intelligent persons, unlike this forum.

(11-29-2014 10:57 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It isn't about Ohio State for me. I would rather see either Baylor or TCU get in. If Ohio STate doesn't get in, no big deal. But giving one conference two teams in the dance when one has already beaten the other, it is a mistake. Luckily, the Committee is made up of highly intelligent persons, unlike this forum.

Why? You keep saying it like it's ipso-fatso true, but with no justification.

Losing to Alabama is obviously far less of a black mark than losing to, say, Virginia Tech, but you seem to think otherwise. That's just weird.

(11-29-2014 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2014 10:57 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It isn't about Ohio State for me. I would rather see either Baylor or TCU get in. If Ohio STate doesn't get in, no big deal. But giving one conference two teams in the dance when one has already beaten the other, it is a mistake. Luckily, the Committee is made up of highly intelligent persons, unlike this forum.

Why? You keep saying it like it's ipso-fatso true, but with no justification.

Losing to Alabama is obviously far less of a black mark than losing to, say, Virginia Tech, but you seem to think otherwise. That's just weird.

I have already said why. In true SEC hypester fashion, you deny how bad Alabama vs LSU was for the Networks and for viewership. In true SEC hypester fashion, you will say none of that matters. Either that or you will, once again, completely dodge the point by acting like the monkey that you are and just fling poo at me.

Once again, this is not just about MSU vs OSU despite your very obvious attempt to try and paraphrase me in a way to make folks think that is my angle. It is not and while you keep doing it, you only make it more obvious.