#9 in the poll

[deadmanramsey]

Whatever...its like that same old story of old yellow blazers and absolutely not...the big ten must play the rose bowl.

USC and Penn State weren't playing some of the best football at seasons end? Yes they were. In hindsight you better believe the committee wouod have put them in.

PSU got trounced by Michigan yet they won the big ten..yet got snubbed on the playoff in favor of OSU...


Eight teams no more snubbing.

Then make the criteria that the hottest teams at seasons end should be in the playoff. I would rather look at the overall body of work. USC and PSU got destroyed when they had a chance to make their case for being elite teams. A USC fan complaining they didn't get a chance to play Bama in the playoffs is a fool.

Why can't the 9th ranked team complain about be snubbed?

I just find it odd that with a top 4 playoff system that already sees blowout after blowout, that fans would suggest that adding more (lesser quality) teams would be a good idea.

 

[88ND]

Then make the criteria that the hottest teams at seasons end should be in the playoff. I would rather look at the overall body of work. USC and PSU got destroyed when they had a chance to make their case for being elite teams. A USC fan complaining they didn't get a chance to play Bama in the playoffs is a fool.

Why can't the 9th ranked team complain about be snubbed?

I just find it odd that with a top 4 playoff system that already sees blowout after blowout, that fans would suggest that adding more (lesser quality) teams would be a good idea.

Ok..its wall meet head here.

Question...would you agree that PSU and USC would have had better showings than OSU and Washington. ?

We don't know to be exact but odds are they would have. Both teams were in a groove. Big time.

Yet they didn't make it why? Because the committee like you wants to connect the dots instead of the good old eye test. The simple eye test.

Please describe the sense of this.
OSU only loss was to Penn State. Penn State won the Big Ten Championship. Penn State earlier in the year had one of those forgetful games against Michigan.

Yet OSU gets selected over the very team that beat them head to head.

Head to head is to mean something????

Oooooooook.

OSU got there based on one thing. Reputation of Meyer. If he beat Clemson then it's a huge sell Saban vs. Meyer blah blah blah.

Clemson ruined the shit show and good for them.

You want the best teams playing at the end you need eight teams. Period.

 

[deadmanramsey]

Ok..its wall meet head here.

Question...would you agree that PSU and USC would have had better showings than OSU and Washington. ?

We don't know to be exact but odds are they would have. Both teams were in a groove. Big time.

Yet they didn't make it why? Because the committee like you wants to connect the dots instead of the good old eye test. The simple eye test.

Please describe the sense of this.
OSU only loss was to Penn State. Penn State won the Big Ten Championship. Penn State earlier in the year had one of those forgetful games against Michigan.

Yet OSU gets selected over the very team that beat them head to head.

Head to head is to mean something????

Oooooooook.

OSU got there based on one thing. Reputation of Meyer. If he beat Clemson then it's a huge sell Saban vs. Meyer blah blah blah.

Clemson ruined the shit show and good for them.

You want the best teams playing at the end you need eight teams. Period.

Perhaps, but not necessarily. No reason to think that a team that lost 49-10 and a team that lost 53-6 would absolutely have been competitive. Maybe, maybe not. Let's not act like OSU and Washington were stumbling down the stretch now. Anyway, your argument should be that USC and PSU were more worthy being in the top 4 over Washington and OSU then. That's what it would boil down to since you are comparing the two teams that made it to the two teams that did not.

Whether OSU and Washington were 5 or 6 rather than 3 or 4 would do nothing to support the argument in favor of a competitive 8 team playoff, because either way it would just illustrate they were completely unworthy competing for a title. So if anything, what we are seeing 3 years in is that 4 teams might be a stretch, and adding more seems completely unjustifiable.

And no, I am not in favor of any one size fits all approach in making the selections. I think the eye-ball test is important, as is head-to-head results. I think upward/downward trend is important. SOS, point differential, quality of wins and losses, conference championship, and so many things all need to be factored into the decision. It's impossible to reduce it all down to one thing in particular.

Your criticism here seems more aimed at the methods of the committee. In other words, it's not necessarily the number of teams they choose, but which ones and how they do so.

 

[88ND]

Perhaps, but not necessarily. No reason to think that a team that lost 49-10 and a team that lost 53-6 would absolutely have been competitive. Maybe, maybe not. Let's not act like OSU and Washington were stumbling down the stretch now. Anyway, your argument should be that USC and PSU were more worthy being in the top 4 over Washington and OSU then. That's what it would boil down to since you are comparing the two teams that made it to the two teams that did not.

Whether OSU and Washington were 5 or 6 rather than 3 or 4 would do nothing to support the argument in favor of a competitive 8 team playoff, because either way it would just illustrate they were completely unworthy competing for a title. So if anything, what we are seeing 3 years in is that 4 teams might be a stretch, and adding more seems completely unjustifiable.

And no, I am not in favor of any one size fits all approach in making the selections. I think the eye-ball test is important, as is head-to-head results. I think upward/downward trend is important. SOS, point differential, quality of wins and losses, conference championship, and so many things all need to be factored into the decision. It's impossible to reduce it all down to one thing in particular.

Your criticism here seems more aimed at the methods of the committee. In other words, it's not necessarily the number of teams they choose, but which ones and how they do so.

 

[88ND]

Perhaps, but not necessarily. No reason to think that a team that lost 49-10 and a team that lost 53-6 would absolutely have been competitive. Maybe, maybe not. Let's not act like OSU and Washington were stumbling down the stretch now. Anyway, your argument should be that USC and PSU were more worthy being in the top 4 over Washington and OSU then. That's what it would boil down to since you are comparing the two teams that made it to the two teams that did not.

Whether OSU and Washington were 5 or 6 rather than 3 or 4 would do nothing to support the argument in favor of a competitive 8 team playoff, because either way it would just illustrate they were completely unworthy competing for a title. So if anything, what we are seeing 3 years in is that 4 teams might be a stretch, and adding more seems completely unjustifiable.

And no, I am not in favor of any one size fits all approach in making the selections. I think the eye-ball test is important, as is head-to-head results. I think upward/downward trend is important. SOS, point differential, quality of wins and losses, conference championship, and so many things all need to be factored into the decision. It's impossible to reduce it all down to one thing in particular.

Your criticism here seems more aimed at the methods of the committee. In other words, it's not necessarily the number of teams they choose, but which ones and how they do so.

Everything I read from you says to me why do they even have 4 teams. Seriously.

We don't get four undefeated teams. So let's just go back to the old school way with the bowls and have a #1 vs #2.
Forget about that pesky playoff since by your account anything more than two teams ruin all the drama for you.

If the committee is going to be forgiving of a loss there is little to quantify that. Styles make good matchups.
You can only connect the dots so much.

You can be happy or pissy with four teams bevayse i can't tell how it makes you feel and I'm with the majority on this and getting more teams in.

Think about this...the more teams in the odds increase of getting the correct best teams in.

That's what we want ..right... the best teams in a playoff. It's impossible to get that with a four team tree. Eight increases the chances of the best teams in by default.

 

[88ND]

And no, I am not in favor of any one size fits all approach in making the selections. I think the eye-ball test is important, as is head-to-head results. I think upward/downward trend is important. SOS, point differential, quality of wins and losses, conference championship, and so many things all need to be factored into the decision. It's impossible to reduce it all down to one thing in particular.

So all things you list would have had Penn State in over OSU. But in the same breathe you say it doesn't really matter?

Get the eight best teams. It's a win win for everyone.

 

[deadmanramsey]

Everything I read from you says to me why do they even have 4 teams. Seriously.

We don't get four undefeated teams. So let's just go back to the old school way with the bowls and have a #1 vs #2.
Forget about that pesky playoff since by your account anything more than two teams ruin all the drama for you.

If the committee is going to be forgiving of a loss there is little to quantify that. Styles make good matchups.
You can only connect the dots so much.

You can be happy or pissy with four teams bevayse i can't tell how it makes you feel and I'm with the majority on this and getting more teams in.

Think about this...the more teams in the odds increase of getting the correct best teams in.

That's what we want ..right... the best teams in a playoff. It's impossible to get that with a four team tree. Eight increases the chances of the best teams in by default.

The reason I am in favor of 4 rather than 2 is because we have precedent of undefeated teams not even getting a chance to play for a championship. It is very likely that on average there will be 4 elite teams by season's end. That is what the playoffs are about. The best of the best. Admittedly, some seasons (like perhaps this year) the top tier is very small and might even be comprised of one team. That might be Alabama right now as I am convinced they could blow out any team you put in front of them.

Now, it would need to be the proponent of the 8 team playoff structure to convince me that there are on average 8 dominant teams in which they essentially each have a reasonable shot to run the table. I see no evidence of that. In regards to the traditional #1 vs #2 setup, I would be more in favor of that than an expansion. Last thing I want to see if something similar to the NBA playoffs in which the first round or two are completely devoid of suspense.

Again, it's silly to me to listen to fans of the #8 team complaining that on December 1st they should be in the national title conversation when they likely have 2 or even 3 losses. Nobody could possibly have a grievance in such a situation as they had ample opportunity to prove their mettle, and failed. They would have no one to blame but themselves. Go out and win a big bowl game, ride some momentum, and try again next year.

What I am wondering is why you are in favor of 8 teams, but not 10, 12, or 16. That is the natural progression once you redraw the line once. Your concern is with the doubt of the committee in accurately picking the best of the best (I think it's usually quite clear, as 12-13 games is more than enough evidence) so this would make more sense, would it not?

 

[tbonesays]

You want the best teams playing at the end you need eight teams. Period.

then you really don't need to play the regular season. One game does not really change who the better team is. Heck just crown Bama the 16 championship as they were still better than Clemson.

 

[deadmanramsey]

So all things you list would have had Penn State in over OSU. But in the same breathe you say it doesn't really matter?

Get the eight best teams. It's a win win for everyone.

What makes you say that? I don't think they botched the decision at the time or even in hindsight. Remember, PSU lost their bowl game, so how can they argue that they proved they belonged in the top 4?

-OSU was 11-1 and PSU was 11-2.
-OSU's average outcome was 43-14 and PSU's average outcome was 37-23
-OSU did not have any 'bad' losses, PSU had an embarrassing loss
-OSU beat 4 ranked teams, PSU beat 2 (only 1 in the regular season)
-Both teams were trending up, finishing strong

I think there were more pros in favor of OSU then PSU, despite the Nittany Lions winning the head-to-head.

Again...if the top 4 teams fail to be consistently competitive with each other in the playoffs, why would the top 8 be, when there would be an expected disparity even greater?

Your only argument in response to that seems to be find a better criteria for more accurately picking the top 4, or just go with more teams to be sure, as they are incapable of doing so reliably. I'm not arguing for perfection, I am arguing for what is best though. It seems clear that the system they have now is the best: for the regular season, for the playoffs, and for the Bowls, which maintain high value and intrigue.

 

[deadmanramsey]

then you really don't need to play the regular season. One game does not really change who the better team is. Heck just crown Bama the 16 championship as they were still better than Clemson.

I agree in that I don't necessarily want the 'best' teams, but the most deserving teams. The beauty in sports is that the best team does not always win. The reality though is that there are really only 4 maybe 5 teams that have a reasonable shot of running the table...sometimes not even.

 

[nemeth#5]

"
The Fighting Irish have slowly made their way up the rankings this season, jumping in briefly, falling out and then climbing steadily from 22 to 21 to 16 to 13. This is the 32nd time in seven-plus seasons under coach Brian Kelly that Notre Dame has appeared in the top 10 of the AP poll.

In 13 seasons under previous coaches Bob Davie, Tyrone Willingham and Charlie Weis, the Irish were ranked in the top 10 32 times."

Can all the BK haters please come out?

 

[88ND]

"
The Fighting Irish have slowly made their way up the rankings this season, jumping in briefly, falling out and then climbing steadily from 22 to 21 to 16 to 13. This is the 32nd time in seven-plus seasons under coach Brian Kelly that Notre Dame has appeared in the top 10 of the AP poll.

In 13 seasons under previous coaches Bob Davie, Tyrone Willingham and Charlie Weis, the Irish were ranked in the top 10 32 times."

Can all the BK haters please come out?

Just curious how many in the top 5?

 

[StCecelia40]

I despise penn state even worse, the fans think they are amazing and ND is and always will be irrelevant

Agree. Penn State fans took JoePa's lead with anti-ND sentiment. I hate to root for OSU but lesser of two evils.

 

[88ND]

What makes you say that? I don't think they botched the decision at the time or even in hindsight. Remember, PSU lost their bowl game, so how can they argue that they proved they belonged in the top 4?

-OSU was 11-1 and PSU was 11-2.
-OSU's average outcome was 43-14 and PSU's average outcome was 37-23
-OSU did not have any 'bad' losses, PSU had an embarrassing loss
-OSU beat 4 ranked teams, PSU beat 2 (only 1 in the regular season)
-Both teams were trending up, finishing strong

I think there were more pros in favor of OSU then PSU, despite the Nittany Lions winning the head-to-head.

Again...if the top 4 teams fail to be consistently competitive with each other in the playoffs, why would the top 8 be, when there would be an expected disparity even greater?

Your only argument in response to that seems to be find a better criteria for more accurately picking the top 4, or just go with more teams to be sure, as they are incapable of doing so reliably. I'm not arguing for perfection, I am arguing for what is best though. It seems clear that the system they have now is the best: for the regular season, for the playoffs, and for the Bowls, which maintain high value and intrigue.

So much value and intrigue you now have players skipping on those high value bowls?

The bowls are great....and couod be used for the first two days of playoff. Two games on new year's eve, two on new year's day

 

[nemeth#5]

Just curious how many in the top 5?

I don't know.... I grabbed that quote from an ESPN article this morning. Probably should of linked it..... but it didn't sya anything about the top 5...... I am guessing BK only ever had them in the top five for a few week in 2012?

 

[Kelso86]

I agree. Something will give though next week. Either OSU or PSU will be eliminated.
There's that reputation thing again with Meyer. He's deserved it and unfortunately we've deserved the skepticism under Kelly.

We once had it. Hopefully last night was a step toward years of getting that back.

Next week if we make another statement then we'll leap frog more. We'll be ahead of PSU/OSU loser as long as we take care of business after next week.

Now I'm going go pretend I didn't say that as I do believe in a jinx.

All ND can do right now is simply take care of its own business and not listen to the noise -- stay humble and hungry.

 

[francade]

I’m all for eight but no automatic bid for conference champ. More than 2 loss conference champs will occur too often to warrant automatic bids. Maybe put a clause in that the conference champ gets an auto bid when it has two or less losses? I think the #8 team has as good a chance to win 3 games as a #4 does in some cases. Would six be doable? First two seeds get a bye?

 

[tbonesays]

I’m all for eight but no automatic bid for conference champ. More than 2 loss conference champs will occur too often to warrant automatic bids. Maybe put a clause in that the conference champ gets an auto bid when it has two or less losses? I think the #8 team has as good a chance to win 3 games as a #4 does in some cases. Would six be doable? First two seeds get a bye?

1. There will be a playoff expansion but it will come from within the conferences so they keep all the money. Eventually the BUG will got to 16 or more and then stage a conference semi-final a week before the CCG. And it will be horrible.

2. Can we please separate the "8 teams" crowd from the Polls thread? We're never going to get anywhere in the rankings chat if someone changes the subject by the 4th post.

 

[theskibro]

I despise penn state even worse, the fans think they are amazing and ND is and always will be irrelevant

p state sux what about iowa state? I think they play pedifiles