yeah, the committee did exactly what the rules said they're supposed to do- determine the 4 best teams. Sucks for you that it's not the 4 best conference champions but it's not.
(12-05-2016 05:34 PM)domer1978 Wrote: I didn't even look who made it till a while ago. Interesting that a non-CCG made it in. I swear a lot of people declared that an impossibility!!!
That's doesn't make sense. What if the conference champ has 4 losses? Unless everybody else in P5-land also has 4 losses, you'd have a hard time justifying that champ as being one of the 4 best teams.
(12-05-2016 05:13 PM)stever20 Wrote: yeah, the committee did exactly what the rules said they're supposed to do- determine the 4 best teams. Sucks for you that it's not the 4 best conference champions but it's not.
...or maybe you're too stupid to realize there are no "4 best teams"...it's whatever you want it to be.
In 2014, we hear that conference championships matter (why else was the Big XII left out??)
In 2016, we hear "every season has their own unique circumstances"
(12-05-2016 05:13 PM)stever20 Wrote: yeah, the committee did exactly what the rules said they're supposed to do- determine the 4 best teams. Sucks for you that it's not the 4 best conference champions but it's not.
...or maybe you're too stupid to realize there are no "4 best teams"...it's whatever you want it to be.
In 2014, we hear that conference championships matter (why else was the Big XII left out??)
In 2016, we hear "every season has their own unique circumstances"
2014 Ohio St was better than Baylor. Yeah some of that was due to the CCG, and that was part of their schedule. If you are a 11-1 team, you better have a darn air tight resume. Ohio St 2016 did. Baylor 2014 and even TCU 2014 didn't. End of the day in 2014, Baylor was the one being compared to Ohio St, and in that, there was no comparison because of the crap that Baylor put out for their OOC schedule.
What you have to realize bub is that the committee's job is to find the best 4 teams. Not the best 4 conference champions, or the 4 most deserving teams. The committee did exactly what they're supposed to do. The problem you should have isn't with the committee, but rather with the rules that were provided to the committee.
(12-05-2016 05:13 PM)stever20 Wrote: yeah, the committee did exactly what the rules said they're supposed to do- determine the 4 best teams. Sucks for you that it's not the 4 best conference champions but it's not.
...or maybe you're too stupid to realize there are no "4 best teams"...it's whatever you want it to be.
In 2014, we hear that conference championships matter (why else was the Big XII left out??)
In 2016, we hear "every season has their own unique circumstances"
The problem you should have isn't with the committee, but rather with the rules that were provided to the committee.
...and those rules are?? lol
I think maybe you're starting to catch on....maybe....
(12-05-2016 05:13 PM)stever20 Wrote: yeah, the committee did exactly what the rules said they're supposed to do- determine the 4 best teams. Sucks for you that it's not the 4 best conference champions but it's not.
...or maybe you're too stupid to realize there are no "4 best teams"...it's whatever you want it to be.
In 2014, we hear that conference championships matter (why else was the Big XII left out??)
In 2016, we hear "every season has their own unique circumstances"
It all depends on which angle benefits OSU the most.
(12-05-2016 05:13 PM)stever20 Wrote: yeah, the committee did exactly what the rules said they're supposed to do- determine the 4 best teams. Sucks for you that it's not the 4 best conference champions but it's not.
...or maybe you're too stupid to realize there are no "4 best teams"...it's whatever you want it to be.
In 2014, we hear that conference championships matter (why else was the Big XII left out??)
In 2016, we hear "every season has their own unique circumstances"
2014 Ohio St was better than Baylor. Yeah some of that was due to the CCG, and that was part of their schedule. If you are a 11-1 team, you better have a darn air tight resume. Ohio St 2016 did. Baylor 2014 and even TCU 2014 didn't. End of the day in 2014, Baylor was the one being compared to Ohio St, and in that, there was no comparison because of the crap that Baylor put out for their OOC schedule.
What you have to realize bub is that the committee's job is to find the best 4 teams. Not the best 4 conference champions, or the 4 most deserving teams. The committee did exactly what they're supposed to do. The problem you should have isn't with the committee, but rather with the rules that were provided to the committee.
OSU probably better in 2014 but not according to their resume. Otherwise why even play the games, just pick the teams with the bestbrecruiting each season.
Baylor lost away to WV. They had no other hiccups throughout the season.
TCU lost on a huge lucky comeback against Baylor, an 11-1 team.
OSU lost to a terrible VT team at home and beat PSU in 2OT. Baylor and TCU didn't need OT to win their games.
OSU got the opportunity to go to CFP and won. But you can't defend their inclusion based on the CFP outcome, that's backwards logic.
(12-05-2016 05:13 PM)stever20 Wrote: yeah, the committee did exactly what the rules said they're supposed to do- determine the 4 best teams. Sucks for you that it's not the 4 best conference champions but it's not.
...or maybe you're too stupid to realize there are no "4 best teams"...it's whatever you want it to be.
In 2014, we hear that conference championships matter (why else was the Big XII left out??)
In 2016, we hear "every season has their own unique circumstances"
The problem you should have isn't with the committee, but rather with the rules that were provided to the committee.
...and those rules are?? lol
I think maybe you're starting to catch on....maybe....
to find the 4 best teams.
straight from their rules:
Strength of schedule, head-to-head competition and championships won must be specifically applied as tie-breakers between teams that look similar;
So they didn't see Ohio St and Washington or Penn St to look similar.
(12-05-2016 05:13 PM)stever20 Wrote: yeah, the committee did exactly what the rules said they're supposed to do- determine the 4 best teams. Sucks for you that it's not the 4 best conference champions but it's not.
...or maybe you're too stupid to realize there are no "4 best teams"...it's whatever you want it to be.
In 2014, we hear that conference championships matter (why else was the Big XII left out??)
In 2016, we hear "every season has their own unique circumstances"
2014 Ohio St was better than Baylor. Yeah some of that was due to the CCG, and that was part of their schedule. If you are a 11-1 team, you better have a darn air tight resume. Ohio St 2016 did. Baylor 2014 and even TCU 2014 didn't. End of the day in 2014, Baylor was the one being compared to Ohio St, and in that, there was no comparison because of the crap that Baylor put out for their OOC schedule.
What you have to realize bub is that the committee's job is to find the best 4 teams. Not the best 4 conference champions, or the 4 most deserving teams. The committee did exactly what they're supposed to do. The problem you should have isn't with the committee, but rather with the rules that were provided to the committee.
OSU probably better in 2014 but not according to their resume. Otherwise why even play the games, just pick the teams with the bestbrecruiting each season.
Baylor lost away to WV. They had no other hiccups throughout the season.
TCU lost on a huge lucky comeback against Baylor, an 11-1 team.
OSU lost to a terrible VT team at home and beat PSU in 2OT. Baylor and TCU didn't need OT to win their games.
OSU got the opportunity to go to CFP and won. But you can't defend their inclusion based on the CFP outcome, that's backwards logic.
Ohio St had a road win @ Michigan St. and of course Wisconsin in the Big Ten title game.
Baylor's OOC schedule was 1-11 SMU, Northwestern St, and 5-6 Buffalo. Barf. They had 1 good win vs TCU(which was lucky).
TCU got hurt because they lost head to head to Baylor. So end of the day Baylor and their crap OOC schedule was compared to Ohio St.
OSU had a stellar track record (like 54-5 in the past five years or something?)...while PSU was 29-21 before this season. They believed OSU was a Bama-lite in early November (creamed Nebraska and Maryland) and stuck to that belief despite evidence to the contrary (MSU and UM luck-filled wins). PSU dominated November (and December), but they didn't want to believe their eyes...because of 29-21 through the sanctions. And because a very good OSU team was left out last season (due to their own failings in a tough road game then, as it was this year!)
Washington got the nod over PSU this year b/c Stanford was left out last year.
We're starting to see the short "history" of the CFP affect current seasons. (And this could be a snowball/avalanche that is impossible to slow down...)
(12-07-2016 03:36 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote: OSU had a stellar track record (like 54-5 in the past five years or something?)...while PSU was 29-21 before this season. They believed OSU was a Bama-lite in early November (creamed Nebraska and Maryland) and stuck to that belief despite evidence to the contrary (MSU and UM luck-filled wins). PSU dominated November (and December), but they didn't want to believe their eyes...because of 29-21 through the sanctions. And because a very good OSU team was left out last season (due to their own failings in a tough road game then, as it was this year!)
Washington got the nod over PSU this year b/c Stanford was left out last year.
We're starting to see the short "history" of the CFP affect current seasons. (And this could be a snowball/avalanche that is impossible to slow down...)
why do we act like just because Ohio St won a close game with Michigan they shouldn't get credit for beating a top 10 team. Because there is no one in this planet that thinks that Michigan isn't a top 10 team.
Also Penn St fans don't want to go down that road of luck filled wins. I think a lot of folks would call the win over Ohio St a luck filled win.
(12-07-2016 03:36 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote: OSU had a stellar track record (like 54-5 in the past five years or something?)...while PSU was 29-21 before this season. They believed OSU was a Bama-lite in early November (creamed Nebraska and Maryland) and stuck to that belief despite evidence to the contrary (MSU and UM luck-filled wins). PSU dominated November (and December), but they didn't want to believe their eyes...because of 29-21 through the sanctions. And because a very good OSU team was left out last season (due to their own failings in a tough road game then, as it was this year!)
Washington got the nod over PSU this year b/c Stanford was left out last year.
We're starting to see the short "history" of the CFP affect current seasons. (And this could be a snowball/avalanche that is impossible to slow down...)
why do we act like just because Ohio St won a close game with Michigan they shouldn't get credit for beating a top 10 team. Because there is no one in this planet that thinks that Michigan isn't a top 10 team.
Also Penn St fans don't want to go down that road of luck filled wins. I think a lot of folks would call the win over Ohio St a luck filled win.