(09-22-2015 10:32 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think if you talked to most football guys, they would say Ohio St had a better case than Baylor. TCU was really meaningless in the situation because they lost head to head to Baylor.

And sorry- to say that the committee members were mindful of the brand-value of teams they were considering for the playoffs- that's absolutely conspiracy theory 101.

If the committee members were so mindful of things- why in the hell didn't they have Alabama/FSU and Ohio St/Oregon?

When comparing 1 loss teams the strength of the opposing team is certainly in consideration. That is why you saw TCU ahead of Baylor in some polls even after the loss. TCU was #3 the week before teams were chosen, that was well after the loss to Baylor.

Baylor passed TCU because they had the full conference schedule at that point- and that extra SOS helped Baylor out.

And the only poll that mattered- the CFP poll- had Baylor ahead. They broke the Big 12 tie by head to head. So last week, I don't think they really considered TCU all that most.

(09-22-2015 10:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Baylor passed TCU because they had the full conference schedule at that point- and that extra SOS helped Baylor out.

And the only poll that mattered- the CFP poll- had Baylor ahead. They broke the Big 12 tie by head to head. So last week, I don't think they really considered TCU all that most.

TCU being #3 was why the BIg 12 pulled the "Loophole" stunt. They thought it would be easier to keep TCU in the top 4 than it would be to try and boost Baylor into the top 4 so they chose to not pick 1 as the "1 true champion". Stupid last minute desperation move.

Do you keep up with this stuff or just blindly support whichever SEC schools are good?

I know you said Bama was your favorite but you don't' list it on your signature so you can switch if they happen to lose. Are you a LSU fan now?

You should give me more neg rep for embarrassing you again. SEC SEC FANBOY

TCU was ahead of Baylor the week before the season ended because Baylor hadn't played Kansas St yet(and TCU hadn't played Iowa St yet). Once those 2 games got played, Baylor had another top 25 win, and with that they had enough to pass TCU. End of the day, Baylor was viewed by the committee as the champion, and had that label. TCU really wasn't compared anywhere near as much as you would think.

Even if Baylor had the Big 12 full support- it wouldn't have mattered. Their schedule wasn't as good as Ohio St. Ohio St had 10 P5 games. Baylor had 9. Ohio St's SOS was about 15 spots higher than Baylor.

What's going to be so funny will be this year if Baylor is 12-0 and doesn't get in. Maybe then it'll show you big 12 minions that SOS matters, and you can't just hang your hat on 9 conference games being the end all. That OOC scheduling you know actually matters. Whatta concept!

(09-23-2015 09:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Even if Baylor had the Big 12 full support- it wouldn't have mattered. Their schedule wasn't as good as Ohio St. Ohio St had 10 P5 games. Baylor had 9. Ohio St's SOS was about 15 spots higher than Baylor.

Ohio State was, objectively, better than TCU or Baylor. The BCS computers had Ohio State 4, TCU 5, Baylor 6 (computers tend not to care about H2H).

Still, it was striking to see TCU win a game by 40 points or so and fall from #3 to #6. Substitute "Texas" for TCU in that exact same scenario, and I don't think that happens no matter what the objective SOS indicators say. That's where I think the brand-value of Ohio State over TCU/Baylor factored in.

(09-23-2015 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-23-2015 09:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Even if Baylor had the Big 12 full support- it wouldn't have mattered. Their schedule wasn't as good as Ohio St. Ohio St had 10 P5 games. Baylor had 9. Ohio St's SOS was about 15 spots higher than Baylor.

Ohio State was, objectively, better than TCU or Baylor. The BCS computers had Ohio State 4, TCU 5, Baylor 6 (computers tend not to care about H2H).

Still, it was striking to see TCU win a game by 40 points or so and fall from #3 to #6. Substitute "Texas" for TCU in that exact same scenario, and I don't think that happens no matter what the objective SOS indicators say. That's where I think the brand-value of Ohio State over TCU/Baylor factored in.

I agree. Bible schools have a tougher row to hoe than big blue blood flagships like Texas and OU. Perception=reality

Big difference though Texas and Oklahoma schedule for real. Bible schools like you call them schedule like *******. Big Difference there.

(09-23-2015 11:32 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Big difference though Texas and Oklahoma schedule for real. Bible schools like you call them schedule like *******. Big Difference there.

Nope. Once again you are wrong. I've proven you wrong over 10 times today. After this I"m taking the day off.

TCU has tOSU, Minnesota, Arkansas, CAl, Colorado and Stanford on the schedule. They play 10 P-05 games just about every year.

Thanks for being wrong, again. Laffin

Noticed you didn't mention Baylor. Because they schedule like *******.

(09-22-2015 10:56 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 10:32 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think if you talked to most football guys, they would say Ohio St had a better case than Baylor. TCU was really meaningless in the situation because they lost head to head to Baylor.

And sorry- to say that the committee members were mindful of the brand-value of teams they were considering for the playoffs- that's absolutely conspiracy theory 101.

If the committee members were so mindful of things- why in the hell didn't they have Alabama/FSU and Ohio St/Oregon?

Because all four of those schools were big-name brands, so it didn't matter how they were paired. It's not like any pair of them were historical rivals or somesuch.

no, but the Rose Bowl is I'd say pretty historic, and they ignored that.

I just don't see why it's so hard to think that the committee may actually have thought that Ohio St was better than Baylor. I think most folks did think just that.

The CFP ignored the Rose Bowl because there wasn't a cost to doing so, other than the Rose Bowl's feelings, for what they are worth.

As for quality versus TV concerns, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive: As I said, I don't have any beef with the committee thinking OSU was better than Baylor, or TCU. I do think that marquee value mattered though as well.

If Texas was #3, IMO they wouldn't have taken the tumble that TCU did after winning by 40 their last game. Nor would Texas have been subjected to the Baylor-albatross treatment that TCU was.

Enough of the Okielite vs Stever arguments! It's killing threads and I'm going to keep closing them until you guys cease endless pages of point and counterpoint sprinkled with ad hominem's over nothing but what amounts to arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If I have to close another one there will be consequences.