NCAA Football Conf. Championship Week

Greg29fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
20,484
NC
Out of the obvious teams I'd dump Clemson. I don't think the ACC is very good and they've had some really poor performances against teams like Troy and NC State.

I'd go Alabama, Ohio State, Washington, Penn State.
 

troparra

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,921
Michigan
ESPN can't stop talking about Michigan. WTF. Is Michigan still a consideration? How is it not Bama, OSU, Clemson, Washington?
 

nolasoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 11, 2004
6,930
Displaced
Out of the obvious teams I'd dump Clemson. I don't think the ACC is very good and they've had some really poor performances against teams like Troy and NC State.

I'd go Alabama, Ohio State, Washington, Penn State.
Clemson won those ‘poor performance’ games. Just sayin’.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,620
Out of the obvious teams I'd dump Clemson. I don't think the ACC is very good and they've had some really poor performances against teams like Troy and NC State.

I'd go Alabama, Ohio State, Washington, Penn State.

Washington over Clemson, not for me.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,905
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
Look at 12 games not 2
You make up your criteria, I'll make up mine. Neither of us are incorrect because the system is so odd.

The point is that the system sucks. In no other major team sport is an overall champion decided by the mood of the Russian judge. It is what it is for 2016. As much as it will stink that one of these teams will me left out, the system is set for this season. It's a crying shame that the NCAA can't simply expand to 8 and avoid leaving out Baylors and TCUs last years and two of PSU/Oklahoma/Washington/UM this year. Oh well.
 

Greg29fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
20,484
NC
Clemson won those ‘poor performance’ games. Just sayin’.
For sure, just IMO they have been the least-impressive good team to me this year. That win over Louisville doesn't look nearly as good as it did at the time either.

But like others have said, the biggest winners are people who will be beating the drum for expansion.
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,232
My gut says Ohio St, But when I read what the CFP protocol and criteria says should govern the selection process, it should be Penn St.

How do you justify penn state over Michigan? I don't think either should go, but I think mich has a better case. Same number of losses and slaughtered penn state head to head by 39 points
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,905
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
You got served, that'll learn ya
The interwebs say that the average man loses about 1 to 1.5 inches in height by age 70. I think Archie is just short of 70 inches and years. The same general source indicates that the average height and weight of an NFL OL has increased by 2 inches and 55 pounds since the 1970s. My comment was inspired by the visual comparison of Archie and McSorley, the latter of which appearing in the smaller side for QBs. So after I considered increases in average NFL OL sizes over time, corrected for that comparison to a college QB, multiplied by the square of Archie's lost height, and adjusted for Kentucky windage, the result was "Boy, Archie looks small."

And yes, I was certainly served.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
You make up your criteria, I'll make up mine. Neither of us are incorrect because the system is so odd.

The point is that the system sucks. In no other major team sport is an overall champion decided by the mood of the Russian judge. It is what it is for 2016. As much as it will stink that one of these teams will me left out, the system is set for this season. It's a crying shame that the NCAA can't simply expand to 8 and avoid leaving out Baylors and TCUs last years and two of PSU/Oklahoma/Washington/UM this year. Oh well.
Interesting thing, if they went by NFL rules, Penn State doesn't even play today, since Ohio State would have won the division. This system actually got Penn State another chance.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
How do you justify penn state over Michigan? I don't think either should go, but I think mich has a better case. Same number of losses and slaughtered penn state head to head by 39 points
PSU/OSU/Mich had a daisy chain. Unfortunately for Mich their loss came late in the season when the spotlight is a little brighter.
But Penn St is the conf champ, and the committee emphasizes the conference championship in their selection process.
I like the consistency and the fairness of using that as the primary measuring stick.

As an aside I have no dog/rooting interest in who makes the Final four.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,905
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
Interesting thing, if they went by NFL rules, Penn State doesn't even play today, since Ohio State would have won the division. This system actually got Penn State another chance.
Great, fantastic. (I'm not sure why you arbitrarily selected the NFL as a comparison.) The difference in where you're going is that the current conference rules or rules you suggest are pre-determined. The conference sets the criteria - none of which involve votes or resumes - and the teams compete in the field to determine who wins the title. Pure and simple, like just about every other team athletic competition. The CFP system has a critical step that involves the teams playing first and the selections coming after, and they deal extremely poorly with that in my estimation by 1) listing the four CFP criteria and not placing a greater emphasis on conference titles, whether determined by overall conference record or a title game (this is customary in team competitive sports), and 2) not expanding the pool to 8 because the fifth best team in any given year will be more worthy than the ninth best team in any given year, and 5 conference winners plus 3 at-large bids *feels* more reasonable.

Also - What NFL criteria do you mean? PSU and OSU had the same conference records and obviously PSU beat OSU. Those are the first two NFL playoff criteria. Clarify if you wish. My issue isn't with the future 2016 outcome but with the system in general. I'm intellectually offended by it.
 
Last edited:

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
Also - What NFL criteria do you mean? PSU and OSU had the same conference records and obviously PSU beat OSU. Those are the first two NFL playoff criteria. Clarify if you wish. My issue isn't with the future 2016 outcome but with the system in general. I'm intellectually offended by it.
in NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, best overall record wins division.
 
Last edited:

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,232
PSU/OSU/Mich had a daisy chain. Unfortunately for Mich their loss came late in the season when the spotlight is a little brighter.
But Penn St is the conf champ, and the committee emphasizes the conference championship in their selection process.
I like the consistency and the fairness of using that as the primary measuring stick.

As an aside I have no dog/rooting interest in who makes the Final four.

The conf championship is a contrivance. It wasn't the top two teams. It would be one thing if it was Penn St vs Ohio, and PSU won again.

Thirty. Nine. Points.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
The conf championship is a contrivance. It wasn't the top two teams. It would be one thing if it was Penn St vs Ohio, and PSU won again.

Thirty. Nine. Points.
I just have one point.

When you read the CFP protocol the emphasis is on winning conference championship as the primary criteria for Final Four selection.

you may consider it a contrivance, but it is the stated protocol of the committee.

I'm not sure there is a compelling reason to stray from the path.

to quote

"Proposed Selection Process:

Establish a committee that will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength of schedule and head-to-head competition when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree (treat final determination like a tie-breaker; apply specific guidelines).

The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country."

Now as best as I can tell the conference championships were just determined. so its is only now that the committeee can consider what seems to be their primary criteria.

As I said before, it not perfect, but its consistent, and may be the most fair.

And I'm sorry for your loss.
 

splendid splinter

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
1,076
Greenville, SC
I just have one point.

When you read the CFP protocol the emphasis is on winning conference championship as the primary criteria for Final Four selection.

you may consider it a contrivance, but it is the stated protocol of the committee.

I'm not sure there is a compelling reason to stray from the path.

to quote

"Proposed Selection Process:

Establish a committee that will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength of schedule and head-to-head competition when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree (treat final determination like a tie-breaker; apply specific guidelines).

The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country."

Now as best as I can tell the conference championships were just determined. so its is only now that the committeee can consider what seems to be their primary criteria.

As I said before, it not perfect, but its consistent, and may be the most fair.

And I'm sorry for your loss.
But it's not one of their primary criteria. It's one of their tie-breaking criteria, assuming they think two teams are equal when considering record and "pedigree", which I assume means "how good we subjectively think they are". If you think Ohio State and Penn State would split 10 games on a neutral field, then fine, put PSU in the playoff. But there's a good chance the committee doesn't see it that way.

Being a conference champion in and of itself is pretty minor, which is why it's relegated to tie-breaker status. The primary benefit of being a conference champ is that it burnishes your overall record and gives you another game to shine. It also bumps your SOS since you're (hopefully) playing another quality team.
 

Oppo

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2009
1,576
Alabama, Clemson, Washington, PSU

OSU is probably better than PSU overall, however not enough to make up for PSU's conference championship and PSU today is as good as anyone in the country, completely different team from the first month.
Michigan is #6 for me. I get the head to head thrashing of PSU but the losses to OSU and Iowa in 2 of the last 3 games knocks them out.
 

Oppo

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2009
1,576
I think you have to have OSU before Michigan.

PSU I can understand the argument for putting them above or below those 2.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Alabama, Clemson, Washington, PSU

OSU is probably better than PSU overall, however not enough to make up for PSU's conference championship and PSU today is as good as anyone in the country, completely different team from the first month.
Michigan is #6 for me. I get the head to head thrashing of PSU but the losses to OSU and Iowa in 2 of the last 3 games knocks them out.
PSU is not not making it over OSU.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
But it's not one of their primary criteria. It's one of their tie-breaking criteria, assuming they think two teams are equal when considering record and "pedigree", which I assume means "how good we subjectively think they are". If you think Ohio State and Penn State would split 10 games on a neutral field, then fine, put PSU in the playoff. But there's a good chance the committee doesn't see it that way.

Being a conference champion in and of itself is pretty minor, which is why it's relegated to tie-breaker status. The primary benefit of being a conference champ is that it burnishes your overall record and gives you another game to shine. It also bumps your SOS since you're (hopefully) playing another quality team.
Then we read and interpret the first two paragraphs of their protocol in a different manner.

The first sentence of the first paragraph initially dicusses the emphasis on winning the conferecne championship.

The second paragraph, enables the committee to overide selection of a conference champion and to quote,

to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country..

Now if you can unequivocally make the case that Mich is one of the 4 best teams in the country, (while sporting two losses) have at it.

IMO the 4 conference championship model, although flawed, is consistent and fair.
 
Last edited:

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
Alabama, Clemson, Washington, PSU
You almost have to put Ohio State in the playoff; assuming they stay in second in both polls. Too much risk that you'd end up with a split if Bama were to lose in the playoff.
 

splendid splinter

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
1,076
Greenville, SC
Then we read and interpret the first two paragraphs of their protocol in a different manner.

The first sentence of the first paragraphs initially dicussed the emphasis on winning the conferecne championship.

The second paragraph, enables the committee to overide selection of a conference champion and to quote,

to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country..

Now if you can unequivocally make the case that Mich is one of the 4 best teams in the country, (while sporting two losses) have it.

IMO the 4 conference championship model, although flawed, is consistent and fair.
I guess we do read them differently. To me, the first paragraph is fairly clear - conference champion status is a secondary determinant of playoff qualification after record and the eye test. The second paragraph is sort of mealy-mouthed "keep a balance" language but it still seems like the thrust of it is "Don't give too much weight to being a conference champ if there's a better team out there that isn't."
 

nolasoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 11, 2004
6,930
Displaced
Alabama, Clemson, Washington, PSU

OSU is probably better than PSU overall, however not enough to make up for PSU's conference championship and PSU today is as good as anyone in the country, completely different team from the first month.
Michigan is #6 for me. I get the head to head thrashing of PSU but the losses to OSU and Iowa in 2 of the last 3 games knocks them out.
I would go with this (^^^), as well. Make the conference championships matter, and make #1 win it on the field. Give OSU and Michigan their rematch in the Sugar Bowl.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,442
I would go with this (^^^), as well. Make the conference championships matter, and make #1 win it on the field. Give OSU and Michigan their rematch in the Sugar Bowl.
Sugar Bowl?
The non playoff B1G team is going Rose to face most likely USC, possibly Colorado

Other one probably Orange to face FSU
 

grsharky7

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,243
Berlin, PA
Yes, I realize that. But why not extend the fantasy to the absurd. Give OSU and Michigan a rematch, if only to shut-up their respective fanbases.
I don't think that would shut up either fanbase. If Michigan won down in New Orleans it would just add fuel to the fire since they would've split the games this season.
 

SoxJox

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2003
7,082
Rock > SoxJox < Hard Place
and slaughtered penn state head to head by 39 points
Just an observation on this point. The team that played against Michigan was seriously impaired by injuries to starting LG Steven Gonzalez, RG Connor McGovern, and RT Chasz Wright. WR Saeed Blacknall also was out. On defense, Penn State was missing starting DL Curtis Cochran, LBs Nyeem Wartman-White, Jason Cabinda and Brandon Bell, and DBs Grant Haley and Malik Golden. That's 10 of 22 starters out. They were on the 4th line of the depth chart at some spots - playing inexperienced players, some of whom otherwise would have been left to redshirt. You can see the obvious and immediate impact Cabinda and Bell had upon their return against tOSU, with 21 tackles and 2 sacks between them. And Haley's TD return of Marcus Allen's blocked FG, and again teaming with Marcus Allen to stuff Corey Clement, one of the better RBs in the country, on 4th and 1 last night attests to his importance.

I'm not saying Michigan would not have won had Penn State been able to put their best team on the field. Michigan was a juggernaut that day. But let's not kid ourselves, that Penn State team fielded on 9/24 was very different than the one on and beyond 10/22.
 
Last edited:

nolasoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 11, 2004
6,930
Displaced
I don't think that would shut up either fanbase. If Michigan won down in New Orleans it would just add fuel to the fire since they would've split the games this season.
Well, then I guess we would all have to settle for annoying the shit out of their fanbases. Sounds like a fair compromise to me.

Edit: Sound arguments can be made for any one of PSU, OSU or Michigan to make the final four. I am just of the mind that winning your conference championship should count most. Only one person’s opinion in a sea of opinions.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,442
I admire Danny's bravery in talking down Ohio State with Herbie and Joey right there

He must have missed the Land Grabber destruction
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,232
I just have one point.

When you read the CFP protocol the emphasis is on winning conference championship as the primary criteria for Final Four selection.

you may consider it a contrivance, but it is the stated protocol of the committee.

I'm not sure there is a compelling reason to stray from the path.

to quote

"Proposed Selection Process:

Establish a committee that will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength of schedule and head-to-head competition when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree (treat final determination like a tie-breaker; apply specific guidelines).

The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country."

Now as best as I can tell the conference championships were just determined. so its is only now that the committeee can consider what seems to be their primary criteria.

As I said before, it not perfect, but its consistent, and may be the most fair.

And I'm sorry for your loss.

The protocol doesn't work when you have these divisions defined solely by geography in the big ten. The big ten champ should have been Ohio st vs penn state. Instead the 3rd and 4th best teams in the conf got together for a "championship" game.
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,232
Just an observation on this point. The team that played against Michigan was seriously impaired by injuries to starting LG Steven Gonzalez, RG Connor McGovern, and RT Chasz Wright. WR Saeed Blacknall also was out. On defense, Penn State was missing starting DL Curtis Cochran, LBs Nyeem Wartman-White, Jason Cabinda and Brandon Bell, and DBs Grant Haley and Malik Golden. That's 10 of 22 starters out. They were on the 4th line of the depth chart at some spots - playing inexperienced players, some of whom otherwise would have been left to redshirt. You can see the obvious and immediate impact Cabinda and Bell had upon their return against tOSU, with 21 tackles and 2 sacks between them. And Haley's TD return of Marcus Allen's blocked FG, and again teaming with Marcus Allen to stuff Corey Clement, one of the better RBs in the country, on 4th and 1 last night attests to his importance.

I'm not saying Michigan would not have won had Penn State been able to put their best team on the field. Michigan was a juggernaut that day. But let's not kid ourselves, that Penn State team fielded on 9/24 was very different than the one on and beyond 10/22.

Very true that penn state was banged up. So was Michigan vs Ohio state (at qb), a game with an insane amount of homecooking that mich lost by half an inch.

More importantly, 39 points is a lot.