doesn't deserve to be in this playoff thing more than OSU?

People laugh about an 8 or 16 team playoff but we just return the favor when one these immortal programs gets embarrassed on national tv

The B1G has been outscored in playoff games the past 2 years 69-0, will Kirk Herbstreit go on a rant about how the B1G doesn't deserve to play in CFP games?

If WMU beats Wisconsin they better be top 5.

Their best wins on the season were Ohio, Toledo, and maybe Northwestern. Zero wins against the Top 25. It's pretty simple.

(12-31-2016 11:11 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  The B1G has been outscored in playoff games the past 2 years 69-0, will Kirk Herbstreit go on a rant about how the B1G doesn't deserve to play in CFP games?

B1G football shouldn't extend beyond Dec 28 (give or take).

(01-01-2017 12:39 AM)utpotts Wrote:  Their best wins on the season were Ohio, Toledo, and maybe Northwestern. Zero wins against the Top 25. It's pretty simple.

They lost 31-0. 31-0. Thirty-one to nothing. So far the teams that were their "best wins" have lost, too. Maybe WMU loses huge and proves they don't belong but OSU certainly didn't belong.

(01-01-2017 12:39 AM)utpotts Wrote:  Their best wins on the season were Ohio, Toledo, and maybe Northwestern. Zero wins against the Top 25. It's pretty simple.

OSU beat Northwestern 24-20 in Columbus. WMU won in Evanston 22-21.

In the 3 years (6 games) of the college football playoff, the semi-finals have had an average margin of victory of 25.3.

The outcome of the game doesn't reflect on whether a team should be in the game. Whether or not you thought OSU should have been in the playoffs or not is one thing, but whether they won or lost once there is a completely separate outcome. An undeserving team could win the same as a deserving team could lose. The winner of the NIT didn't prove they belonged in the NCAA.

(01-01-2017 06:42 PM)axeme Wrote:  The outcome of the game doesn't reflect on whether a team should be in the game. Whether or not you thought OSU should have been in the playoffs or not is one thing, but whether they won or lost once there is a completely separate outcome. An undeserving team could win the same as a deserving team could lose. The winner of the NIT didn't prove they belonged in the NCAA.

Can't agree. It shouldn't be the sole factor, but it lends support to the notion that they didn't belong. Most years the winner of the NIT is better than some of the auto qualifiers so I don't agree with that either.

Might as well have crowned Bama the champ and had a playoff with the next 4... Oklahoma vs. Clemson and Ohio State vs. Washington in the semi's...

This is just a weird year where you either had non conference champs, or 2 loss teams in the final 4. You couldn't draw up a more even 2 through 12.

What a joke of a playoff system, 31-0 and 24-7. Two uncompetitive games. If WMU loses to Wisconsin we'll have to hear about how they didn't belong in national media but no one talks about the two garbage games that were just played.

(01-01-2017 11:09 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 06:42 PM)axeme Wrote:  The outcome of the game doesn't reflect on whether a team should be in the game. Whether or not you thought OSU should have been in the playoffs or not is one thing, but whether they won or lost once there is a completely separate outcome. An undeserving team could win the same as a deserving team could lose. The winner of the NIT didn't prove they belonged in the NCAA.

Can't agree. It shouldn't be the sole factor, but it lends support to the notion that they didn't belong. Most years the winner of the NIT is better than some of the auto qualifiers so I don't agree with that either.

Yikes. I think that the auto bids for the mid and low major conferences are vital to the basketball tournament, and I would not like to see the the NCAA adopt the philosophy of the "best 68 teams" and make it all at-large. That NIT winner had all season to establish an NCAA tourney resume compared to other similar power conference and upper mid-major teams. That resume should not be compared to a say, Monmouth or some other smaller conference team who was an upset winner in their conference tourney. But perhaps we agree to disagree. Basketball is another animal than football because a team can play 3-4 games in a week if needed.

I still say you earn the right to play in either CFP or NCAA by whatever means that is used (and I know there is massive disagreement on that especially in football) but what happens after that does not mean the choice was justified or not. I don't understand the logic that says whoever Alabama and Clemson pounded did not belong. If the final game is a blowout, what does that say about the loser?

(01-02-2017 10:14 AM)axeme Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 11:09 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 06:42 PM)axeme Wrote:  The outcome of the game doesn't reflect on whether a team should be in the game. Whether or not you thought OSU should have been in the playoffs or not is one thing, but whether they won or lost once there is a completely separate outcome. An undeserving team could win the same as a deserving team could lose. The winner of the NIT didn't prove they belonged in the NCAA.

Can't agree. It shouldn't be the sole factor, but it lends support to the notion that they didn't belong. Most years the winner of the NIT is better than some of the auto qualifiers so I don't agree with that either.

Yikes. I think that the auto bids for the mid and low major conferences are vital to the basketball tournament, and I would not like to see the the NCAA adopt the philosophy of the "best 68 teams" and make it all at-large. That NIT winner had all season to establish an NCAA tourney resume compared to other similar power conference and upper mid-major teams. That resume should not be compared to a say, Monmouth or some other smaller conference team who was an upset winner in their conference tourney. But perhaps we agree to disagree. Basketball is another animal than football because a team can play 3-4 games in a week if needed.

I still say you earn the right to play in either CFP or NCAA by whatever means that is used (and I know there is massive disagreement on that especially in football) but what happens after that does not mean the choice was justified or not. I don't understand the logic that says whoever Alabama and Clemson pounded did not belong. If the final game is a blowout, what does that say about the loser?

Given your definition of "belong" I back off from my NIT/NCAA disagreement. I meant that the NIT winner is almost always better than some auto bids. However, that stance sort of bolsters my argument against OSU. WMU had all season to lose a game. They didn't. They built their resume, won their conference playoff and, as Boca noted, had a "better" win against a common opponent. On top of that, they could certainly have performed as well as OSU did against Clemson. I do agree that football and basketball are very different but I didn't make the original comparison. Again, if I was saying that a typical 9-3 MAC Champ had as much right to the playoffs under the current system as an 11-1 OSU team I would be wrong. But WMU soundly beat every team they played. Here's hoping that string continues.

(01-02-2017 10:32 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  They built their resume, won their conference playoff and, as Boca noted, had a "better" win against a common opponent.

On top of that, they could certainly have performed as well as OSU did against Clemson.

But WMU soundly beat every team they played.

WMU built their resume off a lot of mid and low grade opponents.

Clemson would've probably scored a lot more against WMU compared to OSU.

And WMU did not "soundly beat" every team they played. But they got the "W" just the same.

I do hope for WMU to win, but with this being the strongest competitor they have faced this season, the wheels can come off quick. Most board members echo that Wisconsin has to basically not "show up" performance-wise for this to be close.

(01-02-2017 11:04 AM)wleakr Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 10:32 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  They built their resume, won their conference playoff and, as Boca noted, had a "better" win against a common opponent.

On top of that, they could certainly have performed as well as OSU did against Clemson.

But WMU soundly beat every team they played.

WMU built their resume off a lot of mid and low grade opponents.

Clemson would've probably scored a lot more against WMU compared to OSU.

And WMU did not "soundly beat" every team they played. But they got the "W" just the same.

I do hope for WMU to win, but with this being the strongest competitor they have faced this season, the wheels can come off quick. Most board members echo that Wisconsin has to basically not "show up" performance-wise for this to be close.

Don't doubt Clemson would have scored more. Don't believe WMU wouldn't have scored, though, and I suspect the final disparity,would have been no greater. Obviously, I'm a MAC fan and that colors my opinion but we'll see tonight.

(01-02-2017 11:31 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 11:04 AM)wleakr Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 10:32 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  They built their resume, won their conference playoff and, as Boca noted, had a "better" win against a common opponent.

On top of that, they could certainly have performed as well as OSU did against Clemson.

But WMU soundly beat every team they played.

WMU built their resume off a lot of mid and low grade opponents.

Clemson would've probably scored a lot more against WMU compared to OSU.

And WMU did not "soundly beat" every team they played. But they got the "W" just the same.

I do hope for WMU to win, but with this being the strongest competitor they have faced this season, the wheels can come off quick. Most board members echo that Wisconsin has to basically not "show up" performance-wise for this to be close.

Don't doubt Clemson would have scored more. Don't believe WMU wouldn't have scored, though, and I suspect the final disparity,would have been no greater. Obviously, I'm a MAC fan and that colors my opinion but we'll see tonight.

Devil's advocate: while you are supposing results, how many teams in the country would be undefeated had they played WMU's schedule of unranked teams? (Maybe the question should be, how many teams are there whose only losses are to current top 25 teams?) 10? More?

I don't think record should be the major determining factor or no one would ever schedule a tough non-conference opponent.

I think whether a team belonged in a game or not being determined by the margin of victory, should be the same question for G5 as it is for P5. That's all I ask.

What kind of cowardly thread is this? OSU belonged and got stomped. MSU belonged last year and got stomped. It is what it is.