but the committee just doomed OU/OSU winner...
A subjective committee is much worse than the BCS, IMO...
A subjective committee is much worse than the BCS, IMO...
Not that either team deserves it...
- Thread starter Patriotgame
- Start date
Until conference winners actually means something to the committee, it's all just passing the eye test. I prefer the BCS system over the current playoff set up.
I wouldn't want to be on the committee that's for sure. Sorting out 4 "deserving teams" in all this mess is a pretty ridiculous job.
Win and you're in. OU didn't when it counted, so they're out and deservedly so. I'd like to see a good bowl game though. If there is a tie in between the B12 & the SEC, it should be an interesting pick as any of the SEC sans Bama will be up for grabs.
Pretty much this. OU dropped a couple of games early, and no longer controlled it's own destiny. OU needed ALOT of help, that never fully materialized.
Two things
- I really dislike the weekly rankings. Just announce the final four after all the games are played.
- Why does the penalty for an early season loss seem so much greater than the penalty for a late season loss? See Michigan at Iowa, Clemson at home to Pitt, and Washington at home to USC compared to OU at Houston.
2. Because the screaming, whining, crying, tantrum throwing fan bases of teams get the grease.
Conference winners that were selected the first two playoffs all had 1 loss less. This year, however, we could see 3 or 4 conference champs with 2 losses creating this mess.
I think the Big Ten situation last year is causing the committee to rethink the selection process. For those of you that aren't familiar, MSU beat OSU 17-14 on a walk off field goal in very nasty weather. Hey, the Spartans won fair and square and went on to win the BIG. Both teams ended up with only 1 loss. But anyone who paid any attention to CF knew who the better team was and they were left out of the playoffs. And I'll tell you who was dam* glad of OSU's exclusion: the Alabama coaching staff/team and their fan base. I still say the only two teams that could have beaten Alabama last year were the Buckeyes (with their massive NFL talent now gone) and Clemson, who almost took them down. You saw what Bama did to Big Ten CHAMP MSU - an absolute curb stomping - it got to a comical scene as the game went on. I think they're trying to avoid that same scenario again this year by selecting the 4 best teams - not just multiple loss conference champs.
Fast forward to this year. You mentioned that conference champs should mean something and I agree - but not everything. Perfect example: what would happen if 3-loss Florida should somehow upset Alabama. Yeah, I know, it won't happen but strange things happen in CF. Just let me point to OSU again and their losses to MSU last year and PSU this year when the were huge/lopsided favorites in both games. Should conference Florida be sent to the playoffs along with BIG champ Wisky/PSU leaving both Bama and OSU out ? Seriously ? Probably the only fan bases that would even pay any attention at all to that bogus playoff scenario would be the fans of those schools. Are conference championships important ? Darn right and they should be looked at ! But just as important are the resumes/schedules of the schools involved.
BTW, I truly believe that if you guys go on to win the Big 12, you should be given very strong consideration for the 4th spot even if Washington wins (likely they do). Again, it goes right back to your resume. You played probably the toughest non-conference schedule in the country and lost to a very good Houston team and OSU whereas I think I read that Washington's non-conference schedule was dead last (P5) or close to it. Not fair at all. I might get jumped on for this, but I also think part of your problem is the Big 12. You guys need to get the he!! out and to a legit conference where your storied program can flourish.
Final 4 last year... In both FB & BB. National Champions in how many sports? Football in the little xii is missing one thing... texASS. If they were a legit team, the strength of the little xii would not be in question.
Seems like the thought is if you lose early you're just not that good, you were overrated so you get hammered in the rankings because you have to be ranked lower than all of the undefeated teams making it nearly impossible to climb back into contention.
You lose for the first time late and you're a really good team because you were 8-0, 9-0, etc, and you just had an off night or are getting everyones best shot and only drop a couple spots in the rankings, if any because it's your first loss and have to stay ranked ahead of all of the 2 loss teams.
You lose for the first time late and you're a really good team because you were 8-0, 9-0, etc, and you just had an off night or are getting everyones best shot and only drop a couple spots in the rankings, if any because it's your first loss and have to stay ranked ahead of all of the 2 loss teams.
100% agree with PtLava!!! I remember a couple years ago we had a HUGE argument on here over whether OU and/or the Big XII needed a strong Texas. I think the present day has vindicated those of us that argued a strong Texas is beneficial. Having solid TCU and Baylor programs are great, but they don't replace having one of your blue-blood programs as far as status for the conference as a whole.
4 team plays give you a real champion, not a BCS or MNC. It would be ideal to take 5 conference champs and 3 at large. Give top 4 home field and let play week after conference titles, then play final four like now or get rid of bowls for CFP all together. The bowls are strictly for the teams not in the 8 team playoff.
No argument at all. You guys are definitely legit. I do visit other Big 12 boards and just like you mentioned, the common bitchin% theme seems to center around Texas and their greed factor which many have claimed is destroying the your conference.
I think it is the fact that OU lost by double digits, not by a last second FG that is the difference...
Yeah, but I'll say it one more time, OSU was not that good and you guys weren't that bad. Things just got away from you - and that happens sometimes. You're a totally different team as the year progressed.
Sure. It happens. This year it happened twice. I'd put the OU offense up against anyone. I'd put the OU defense up against a wall and throw rotten fruit at it.
Here's the thing. I don't think Washington, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pedophile State, or Clemson could beat OU this year. I don't think an OSU v OU rematch would give the same result either... But then, I expect OU to win, every time it takes the field...
OSU (Buckeyes). Been a diehard fan since the early-mid 60s. Really looking forward to our matchup next year in Columbus. Should be a great one. Even more, I'd love to see another home-away with you guys in the near future. Two legendary programs with great coaches and a ton of championships. Matchups like these keep the spotlight on both schools.
BTW, is B. Mayfield coming back next year ? If I remember correctly, he still has one more year of eligibility, correct ?
1950 were you in the shoe the day Von Schaumann made "the kick" ? It was sad to see the demise & end of your legendary Coach
Yes I was. That was one heck of a game. Have to admit though, it left me sick to my stomach/hard to sleep for a few days after that.
As far as Woody's demise, I even thought back then his leaving/retiring was just a matter although I didn't expect the way it happened. Woody/OSU blew several NCs in the late 60s and 70s - usually in one critical game to an underdog team and you could see the pressure mounting. He had no one to blame but himself.
Woody was a character; an icon of the ages. That was '77 or '78 (without looking) and believe it was the year he punched the kid in the bowl game, right ?
The OKLA-OSU game was in 1977.....Woody short-circuited and was fired in 1978. Remember that punch like it was yesterday. Just sat there stunned and knew right then that was it for Woody.
I was just a young punk then but pretty much reacted exactly the same.
Re: the OP and the Wash-Colo pillow fight tonight. I'm perfectly fine with Wash going to the final 4. ANYONE that would put the puffs ahead of us is goofy and I'd have to force vomit if they were to win anything other than a participation trophy
I agree and disagree. I don't think OU deserved consideration this year. And I disagree that Ohio State was better than Michigan State last year. They played head to head. Both knew what was on the line. They played in Columbus, and Michigan State won, despite playing their backup quarterback. It would have been different if MSU had more than one other loss, but they didn't. The eyeball test is surely important, but not more important than game results.
Penn State was a really good looking team at the end of the season. I thought Washington deserved to be in, because W-L record does matter. But I'm not sure that Penn State might ahve been a tougher match for Bama, than the Huskies.
Ohio State beat OU in the preconference part of the season. Penn State lost to Pitt. And they got slaughtered at Michigan 49-10. That has to matter. The irony in all this, is that Penn State went to the CCG, only because Michigan lost to Iowa. If that doesn't happen, then it's a three way, and the highest ranked team would have gone, Ohio State. So Michigan and Iowa, decided who would go between Penn State and Ohio State.
It's one reason why once again, the Big XII has the best scenario. The top two teams from a total round robin will determine the two in the CCG.
You got it. That's the exact reason - per committee - that PSU was left out. The 49-10 pasting by Michigan was really bad. Don't lose to Pitt and they're in, no argument.
The Big XII going to a CCG under its current round robin setup is not the best scenario....it's a joke. You are seriously going to take the stance that OU and OSU playing each other again, two weeks in a row would be a best scenario?? Because that's exactly what would have happened this year had the Big XII had a CCG this year.
Sorry but I'm not a fan of playing a rematch of a regular season game that really only gives the opportunity for teams to suffer more injuries.
I was going to post this is a season summary post, but this is likely a better place. You better believe that early season losses counted less.
Penn State and Michigan both had two losses. Michigan had the misfortune of going to Columbus and lost in OT, and had a couple of tough calls go against them, involved in that. Penn State beat the Buckeyes at home, on a blocked FG return Both were very close games.
Michigan beat Penn State BY 39 POINTS. But in the committee's final rankings, Penn State was fifth and Michigan sixth.
Florida State and Louisville were both 9-3. Louisville was 7-1 in the same division as Florida State, who was 5-3 in the division. Early in the season, Louisville beat Florida State 63-20. But in the final committee rankings, the Seminoles were ranked two places higher than Louisville.
Huh?
So late season performance was more important. Florida State pounded Florida. Louisville lost to Kentucky. And a couple of weeks earlier, Louisville got hammered at Houston. Late season scores matter more.
But OU doesn't go over Clemson for a lot of reasons. And nobody really thinks they should.
It happens in the first round in the NFL sometimes. And everybody can't schedule Kansas the last week of the season. It's one reason the BIG put Ohio State and Michigan in the same division, but that causes problems, too. Having the best two teams play each other is by far a better scenario than what the BIG had this year, when their fourth best team played their third best team for the conference title.
I get that. But the Bix XII structure ensures a CCG will always be a rematch game....every single year. When the Big XII decided against expansion they should have scrapped the plans for a CCG.
I think your point of view is worthwhile, but so is the other side of the argument. Getting to the CFP is the highest goal these days, and getting the conference title settled on a neutral field, is likely the best way to decide a conference champion. I'm pretty sure that if next year's paradigm had been in place two years ago, that the Baylor - TCU winner would have gone to the CFP. And since it would have been on a neutral site, maybe the Frogs wouldn't have been screwed like they were in Waco. Or maybe Baylor would have kicked their butts.
If OU v OSU continues to be the season finale, I suspect we'll go back Bedlam the next to last week and a bye after. So they'll be a week in between, anyway.
At the same time though, how much will a Big XXI team be helped by beating a team in the CCG they defeated in the regular season?? If defeating that team the first time in the regular season wasn't enough to convince the committee, then how much influence will winning a rematch have?? It really just gives more benefit to the team that lost in the regular season as they now have a chance to redeem that loss.
It sure would have helped TCU or Baylor. I was not in favor of a CCG, but I see the reasoning on the other side. And the coaches and administrators seemed to favor it. Can you imagine OU and Texas in Jerry World in December? That might cost a penny or two.
I like Bob's approach the best. He says that he lets others make that decision. He just wants to know what the rules are, before we start. That seems fair to me.
But we're talking two different subjects. You're advocating for a playoff where Western Michigan gets in at 13-0 with their best two wins over the two Big Ten schools from Illinois, whose combined W-L record was 9-15. Northwestern got better as the season went along, but the week after they lost to WMU, the Wildcats lost to Illinois State. Do they deserve more consideration than Wisconsin? USC? Either would kill them. They beat Ohio University by six in their CCG. If Ohio beat them, should they play for a national title.
There are logistical issues here. Should Louisiana Tech have gotten in had they beaten Western Kentucky? Again? They did in the regular season. La Tech had losses to Texas Tech, Middle Tennessee and Southern Miss. You can keep expanding the playoffs, and making the regular season less and less relevant, which are the only games most commoners like me, can afford.
I promise that the more levels of playoffs you add, the more diluted the regular season will be. I'd bet the SEC would eliminate all but one cross division game on their schedules.
I like Bob's approach the best. He says that he lets others make that decision. He just wants to know what the rules are, before we start. That seems fair to me.
But we're talking two different subjects. You're advocating for a playoff where Western Michigan gets in at 13-0 with their best two wins over the two Big Ten schools from Illinois, whose combined W-L record was 9-15. Northwestern got better as the season went along, but the week after they lost to WMU, the Wildcats lost to Illinois State. Do they deserve more consideration than Wisconsin? USC? Either would kill them. They beat Ohio University by six in their CCG. If Ohio beat them, should they play for a national title.
There are logistical issues here. Should Louisiana Tech have gotten in had they beaten Western Kentucky? Again? They did in the regular season. La Tech had losses to Texas Tech, Middle Tennessee and Southern Miss. You can keep expanding the playoffs, and making the regular season less and less relevant, which are the only games most commoners like me, can afford.
I promise that the more levels of playoffs you add, the more diluted the regular season will be. I'd bet the SEC would eliminate all but one cross division game on their schedules.
I'm not so much advocating that Western Michigan absolutely deserved to be included, but just adding that to the mix as to where the line is drawn on non-power 5 programs in their chances to get into the playoff. We've seen it a couple of times in the past where games like that didn't turn out like some expected. OU-Boise St being one, and Wisconsin-TCU being another. Maybe there are others I can't think of right now.
Western Michigan did their part all season. They were never defeated and won their conference. At what point can a team like that be taken over a power 5 school? Already 2-loss teams were on the bubble of making the playoff, while a 13-0 Western Michigan wasn't given a prayer.
But you're right on the money in saying that the larger you make the playoffs the less the regular season means. And I don't want to lose the feeling of importance you get with each weeks game during the regular season. That's one reason I guess I never really got into the NFL. Losing a game isn't a huge deal unless you start to lose too many of them.
