based on the TCU precedent set in 2014, I expect Ohio St to be dropped to #5 after the CCG.

1. Bama
2. Clemson
3. Washington
4. PSU
5. OHio St
6. oklahoma

(11-26-2016 08:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What if Florida beats FSU tonight and Alabama in the CCG?

Then, the SEC, not the B1G, will get two in. The B1G champ will be out.

Unless Clemson loses, and then it will be two SEC vs two B1G.

Florida has absolutely no chance at beating Bama. That game will be a bloodbath. Florida young O-line will get destroyed by Bama front four.

(11-26-2016 10:35 PM)goofus Wrote:  based on the TCU precedent set in 2014, I expect Ohio St to be dropped to #5 after the CCG.

1. Bama
2. Clemson
3. Washington
4. PSU
5. OHio St
6. oklahoma

Where is Wisconsin?

(11-26-2016 10:35 PM)goofus Wrote:  based on the TCU precedent set in 2014, I expect Ohio St to be dropped to #5 after the CCG.

1. Bama
2. Clemson
3. Washington
4. PSU
5. OHio St
6. oklahoma

Everyone had one loss in 2014 so there is no correlation with this "precedent".

(11-26-2016 08:04 PM)Scoochpooch Wrote:  

(11-26-2016 07:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  LOL

#2, beat Michigan, drop to #5? Give me a break.

Tell that to Baylor and TCU in 2014.
Baylor lost to WV away, tough place to play.
TCU lost by 3 to Baylor after super luckback of 20+ points.
OSU lost to VT at home (blow out) and then controversially "won" at PSU in 2OT.

You are throwing out the timing of the losses, aren't you? It seems fairly clear that the committee decided that the Buckeyes that lost to VT had substantially improved by the end of the season. (One wonders, but the CFP committee might also have concluded that the VT team that beat OSU were substantially injury weakened by the end of the season, and their season record did not reflect the challenge they presented early in the season).

One thing that the precedent does suggests is that the CFP does not automatically put the " " marks around "won" for a 2OT win.

Quote: I know OSU is good and could possibly win everything but they don't deserve the chance. You have to choose based on resume.

That is, indeed, one of the two theories for choosing someone for an at-large bid. But the argument that you give regarding the Buckeye's resume, TCU's resume and Baylor's resume in 2014 suggests that that the CFP committee are not purists in support of the resume theory for filling an at-large bid.

(11-26-2016 10:45 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(11-26-2016 10:35 PM)goofus Wrote:  based on the TCU precedent set in 2014, I expect Ohio St to be dropped to #5 after the CCG.

1. Bama
2. Clemson
3. Washington
4. PSU
5. OHio St
6. oklahoma

Where is Wisconsin?

Yes ~ while I would not be surprised to see the winner of the Big Ten CCG in the CFP, it is surprising to see the likely loser in the CFP while the likely winner is left out.

Ohio State made it in 2014 because of their name. They had a name known to the average fan more than Baylor and TCU (two small Texas schools).

(11-26-2016 11:40 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Ohio State made it in 2014 because of their name. They had a name known to the average fan more than Baylor and TCU (two small Texas schools).

It didn't have a damn thing to do with the name. It had to do with the fact that Baylor beat TCU in the regular season and the committee valued that, and then combine that with the fact that Baylor scheduled like a ***** and didn't deserve to get in the playoff. Oh and 59-0 had something to do with that.

(11-26-2016 11:40 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Ohio State made it in 2014 because of their name. They had a name known to the average fan more than Baylor and TCU (two small Texas schools).

This theory suggests that if Washington could win the Pac-12, and then borrow the USC or UCLA name for the balance of the year ... or even, on recent history, the Oregon name ... they would be in a shoe-in for selection.

The charge of the committee is to find the four best teams. Does anyone here really think Ohio State is not one of the four best teams? They are in. I think the Penn St/ Wiscy winner is in more limbo. Especially if Washington beats Colorado convincingly.

There will not be a second Big 10 school in the CFP if Washington & Clemson & Alabama win out.

They might get a second school in if Washington loses or Clemson loses in their conference championship game.

There, I cleared that up. You're welcome!

OSU over PSU, if PSU wins the championship. I can't wait for that controversy. Championships become not as important. 8 team playoff, here we come.

(11-26-2016 11:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There will not be a second Big 10 school in the CFP if Washington & Clemson & Alabama win out.

They might get a second school in if Washington loses or Clemson loses in their conference championship game.

There, I cleared that up. You're welcome!

Your 1st statement I think I agree with.

But your second one- I disagree with that a lot. If Washington or Clemson loses, there's nothing that can stop it from happening.

After this week the rankings will be:

1, Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Clemson
4. Washington
5. Michigan
6/7. Penn State/Wisconsin

Oklahoma is out. Colorado can't move up that far. No one five or below can beat out Ohio State. Assuming Alabama and Clemson hold serve, the Committee will use the PAC12 championship as a play-in game for Washington. They will do this because they want four of the five power conferences represented in the playoff. They won't admit this, but that is what will happen. If Washington loses, the B1G champion will jump Michigan and take the fourth spot.

The Pac 12 was weak this year. The Penn St/Wisconsin winner brings a much better body of work when you put their schedule side by side with the one Washington played. I would not be surprised one bit if they leapfrog the Huskies. Clemson played a weak schedule too. We are talking about a Big Ten that has had 4 top 10 teams through the later part of the season once the pretenders were all exposed.

(11-26-2016 11:56 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-26-2016 11:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There will not be a second Big 10 school in the CFP if Washington & Clemson & Alabama win out.

They might get a second school in if Washington loses or Clemson loses in their conference championship game.

There, I cleared that up. You're welcome!

Your 1st statement I think I agree with.

But your second one- I disagree with that a lot. If Washington or Clemson loses, there's nothing that can stop it from happening.

When you get to be my age you will no longer make absolute statements about what any committee does. As attorneys cannot with 100% certainty predict the verdicts of juries, neither can sports fans predict the decisions of the Playoff Committee's. I agree that within all reason they should be in if Clemson or Washington or both were to lose. Will I emphatically declare it to be gospel? No!

There could be hanging chad, absentee votes that need to be counted, or dare I say it, network influences that want to maximize the market potential of the field so they can make more money. They have guidelines and some points of emphasis upon which to guide their decisions. That's just enough ambiguity to allow for anything.

So, we'll wait and see.

(11-27-2016 12:11 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The Pac 12 was weak this year. The Penn St/Wisconsin winner brings a much better body of work when you put their schedule side by side with the one Washington played. I would not be surprised one bit if they leapfrog the Huskies. Clemson played a weak schedule too. We are talking about a Big Ten that has had 4 top 10 teams through the later part of the season once the pretenders were all exposed.

The PAC 12 is not weak. Number 2 in Massey and Sagarin rankings, and very likely to be the only conference outside the B1G with more than 2 teams in the CFP top 10 rankings after this week.

Nobody is going to jump Washington or Clemson if they win their conference championship games next weekend. Sorry.

(11-27-2016 12:21 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(11-27-2016 12:11 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The Pac 12 was weak this year. The Penn St/Wisconsin winner brings a much better body of work when you put their schedule side by side with the one Washington played. I would not be surprised one bit if they leapfrog the Huskies. Clemson played a weak schedule too. We are talking about a Big Ten that has had 4 top 10 teams through the later part of the season once the pretenders were all exposed.

The PAC 12 is not weak. Number 2 in Massey and Sagarin rankings, and very likely to be the only conference outside the B1G with more than 2 teams in the CFP top 10 rankings after this week.

Nobody is going to jump Washington or Clemson if they win their conference championship games next weekend. Sorry.

I'd like to see Washington and Clemson play a conference schedule featuring Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Wisconsin, and Nebraska and see how many wins they get going through that gauntlet. A one loss team ranked #2 who ends the season with a win against a one loss team ranked #3 belongs in the top 4. The champion of the toughest league also should have a spot--a win over Wisconsin/Penn St is much more impressive than Colorado or VA Tech.

(11-26-2016 11:47 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  The charge of the committee is to find the four best teams. Does anyone here really think Ohio State is not one of the four best teams? They are in. I think the Penn St/ Wiscy winner is in more limbo. Especially if Washington beats Colorado convincingly.

I think post people thought OSU was one of the 4 best teams last year. Hell, possibly the overall best team. But they didn't make thanks to losing to Michigan State which cost them a shot at even winning their own conference.

I still think most people thought OSU was better than Michigan State (despite the loss) and Oklahoma in 2015.

(11-27-2016 12:29 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(11-27-2016 12:21 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(11-27-2016 12:11 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The Pac 12 was weak this year. The Penn St/Wisconsin winner brings a much better body of work when you put their schedule side by side with the one Washington played. I would not be surprised one bit if they leapfrog the Huskies. Clemson played a weak schedule too. We are talking about a Big Ten that has had 4 top 10 teams through the later part of the season once the pretenders were all exposed.

The PAC 12 is not weak. Number 2 in Massey and Sagarin rankings, and very likely to be the only conference outside the B1G with more than 2 teams in the CFP top 10 rankings after this week.

Nobody is going to jump Washington or Clemson if they win their conference championship games next weekend. Sorry.

I'd like to see Washington and Clemson play a conference schedule featuring Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Wisconsin, and Nebraska and see how many wins they get going through that gauntlet. A one loss team ranked #2 who ends the season with a win against a one loss team ranked #3 belongs in the top 4. The champion of the toughest league also should have a spot--a win over Wisconsin/Penn St is much more impressive than Colorado or VA Tech.

And yet mighty Penn State lost to Pitt. And the L.S.U. team that Wisconsin beat by 2 to open the season didn't turn out to be any better than middle of the road in the SEC. Mighty U.S.C. was roundly trounced by Alabama. Washington State lost to Boise and Portland. I do think at least the PAC got the best two teams into its conference championship game. That's a feat not accomplished by any other conference this year. I don't think the SEC can define #2. I don't think the Big 10 can distinguish between #2 through 4, and even their top school (Ohio State) has chinks.

The ACC????? Which Clemson shows up? The one that lost to Pitt at home, or the one that has blown out opposition. Their other entrant was blown out by Tennessee who was whipped tonight by Vanderbilt.

It's pretty clear that there is one team that looks to be complete, Alabama. We really don't know what everyone else has. As for computer rankings they've always sucked the sweat of dead donkey balls. They are as fair as their programmer's bias. Polls, like statistics, are for losers. I root for any method that allows the players to decide it on the field.

The PAC has only 6 eligible bowl teams and outside of Colorado and Washington there is nobody that looks the part. I sincerely doubt the strength of the PAC this year. Their early OOC was a disaster. Sure they beat up on each other in conference play, but that was after everyone else beat up on them including FCS and G5 schools.

The Big 10 is stronger in the middle than ever. The question is how strong are they at the top?

The SEC has Alabama. The strength of the rest of the conference is very much in question until they match up outside of the conference against schools ranked similarly.

I think you could put Virginia Tech, Florida, Auburn, Texas A&M, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Utah, U.S.C. and Penn State in a round robin and with health being equal it would be very interesting. Then there is a bigger pool of schools just half a notch below those in the standings.

Michigan, Ohio State, Washington, and Clemson would be in that level just below Alabama.

I don't think there is any distinction in being in the top 15 or below this year and some in the top 15 don't deserve to be there at all.

Heck the SEC is going to have a very hard time filling the Sugar Bowl at this point. We don't have a strong #2 this year.

Face it. It's Alabama and everybody else. So those final 3 slots could go to just about any 3 of 6 schools.

(11-27-2016 12:29 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(11-27-2016 12:21 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(11-27-2016 12:11 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The Pac 12 was weak this year. The Penn St/Wisconsin winner brings a much better body of work when you put their schedule side by side with the one Washington played. I would not be surprised one bit if they leapfrog the Huskies. Clemson played a weak schedule too. We are talking about a Big Ten that has had 4 top 10 teams through the later part of the season once the pretenders were all exposed.

The PAC 12 is not weak. Number 2 in Massey and Sagarin rankings, and very likely to be the only conference outside the B1G with more than 2 teams in the CFP top 10 rankings after this week.

Nobody is going to jump Washington or Clemson if they win their conference championship games next weekend. Sorry.

I'd like to see Washington and Clemson play a conference schedule featuring Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Wisconsin, and Nebraska and see how many wins they get going through that gauntlet. A one loss team ranked #2 who ends the season with a win against a one loss team ranked #3 belongs in the top 4. The champion of the toughest league also should have a spot--a win over Wisconsin/Penn St is much more impressive than Colorado or VA Tech.

I think the biggest problem is people try to determine conference strength based on a select few games. Since most games are in conference, people are relying on a small number of out of conference games. No one's really sure which conference is better. People can have opinions and those opinions can be based on some reasonable measures, but its not absolute. And then people try to extrapolate those perceived conference strengths/weaknesses on the eventual conference champ. At the end of the day, it's pure speculation.

That's one reason that I like that the committee has spread around the invites. They may not be right. Like I mentioned above, Ohio St was widely considered a top 4 team last year. But the committee passed on them for other conference champs. They let the conferences decide it on the field and pick the 4 best champs. That's not absolute, but will likely be the formula barring very convincing evidence to the contrary. The Big 10 is likely fighting for one spot total. Its just a question of who gets it