if Clemson loses to 19th ranked V-tech and Washington to 8th ranked Colorado (who Michigan beat straight up) any chance OSU, the UW/PSU winner and Michigan all go to the playoff. The only other candidates to me are Colorado (who Michigan beat) or Oklahoma (who OSU blew out). I don't see both Clemson and Washington losing (probably even either) but I wonder if they would take three from one conference.
What if Clemson and Washington lose?
- Thread starter Windy City Cat Fan
- Start date
I would think no based on perception alone, even if there is a logical case to do it.
Don't you think if Wisconsin (or PSU) wins they are in - they wouldn't leave out the big ten conference champ
I'd rather see Michigan the Pen St.. They deserve to be sitting at home.
I agree - for many reasons, the least of which is that Michigan beat them 49-10. I think though that the conference champ goes. I hope Wisconsin beats the snot out of them
Absolutely not...it would guarantee two B1G teams in the playoff, but a third team would have two losses...I'd expect a championship Colorado team (only two losses to ranked teams on the road) and the winner of the Bedlam game to get in. Worth noting that OU's only losses were in September (also to ranked teams, incl. Ohio St.)...one of Ok State's losses was directly attributed to ref error, and the other was to a ranked Baylor on the road.
And...to be honest, I would never support three teams from the same conference going. Look at the Top 10 or Top 8 or whatever - MOST of these teams have not actually played each other. I agree with anyone there is extreme parity between Ohio State, Mich, Penn St and Wisconsin right now, and they're all good teams, but let the committee pick one (or at most two) and let's see different teams play each other on the field. Not that this would happen, but I'd also love for all the B1G ADs and coaches to get in a room together with Delany and decide. I'd buy a ticket to see that.
With 128 FBS college football teams, I personally think there should be a rule that no rematches can happen in the four-team playoff.
And...to be honest, I would never support three teams from the same conference going. Look at the Top 10 or Top 8 or whatever - MOST of these teams have not actually played each other. I agree with anyone there is extreme parity between Ohio State, Mich, Penn St and Wisconsin right now, and they're all good teams, but let the committee pick one (or at most two) and let's see different teams play each other on the field. Not that this would happen, but I'd also love for all the B1G ADs and coaches to get in a room together with Delany and decide. I'd buy a ticket to see that.
With 128 FBS college football teams, I personally think there should be a rule that no rematches can happen in the four-team playoff.
I assume you are talking about the first round of the playoffs only . . but even then, it seems a bit extreme to me to kick a team out of the playoff just because they already played someone when they would otherwise be a top 4 team.
I look forward to the inevitable expansion to 8 teams, so we can debate who should be 8th.
PSU would have 11 wins and UM 10 wins. 11-2 > 10-2. Do you think Iowa should get in over Michigan. PSU beat OSU. Pitt over Clemson.
UM lost two of three down the stretch. PSU lost two games at the start of the year. The CFP looks at the total body of work. They also rank late season games as more important than early season games.
Do you think UM's two losses in the last three weeks don't drop them three spots? Could you name any team that ever lost two games in three weeks and did not drop at least three spots?
You are emphasizing ONE regular season game more than the entire season and you are also ignoring the conference championship game.
Agree and then they will be calling for a 12 or 16 team playoff. wanting 18 year old kids to play additional 3 or 4 games on top of already possible 13 games is absurd. Next they will say that these players should be paid, oh wait, no they won't.
That one game was a 39 point blow out. Michigan lost 2 games both on the last play of the game. Michigan is clearly the better team in my world. And yes, I am ignoring the conference championship game - I don't think that should count more than a head to head blow out. I don't think it matters though because I think UW wins and Clemson and/or Washington win. As long as PSU does not make the playoffs all is right. That program is a disgrace to the big ten and college athletics.
Just my opinion obviously, but I do not think there should be any room in the four team playoff for any rematches. The "eye test" in college football, of all places, should be minimized. If you asked 100 "college football experts" if Penn State would beat Ohio State this year, most of them would have said no...and they're the same people who are deciding who the "Top Four" teams are. When some matchups have already been objectively decided on the field, I think the committee owes it to the sport to create opportunities for teams that have never played each other to actually meet on the field. A more clarifying question over head-to-head or strength of schedule might be...are we picking the four best teams "right now" and "who could beat whom," or are we selecting the best four teams based on 15 weeks of competition.
I would be happy with any team making the playoffs as long as it isn't the Ped State Sanduskys.
If Western Michigan wins on Friday they will be 13-0 conference champions.
13-0>11-2>10-2.
Using your system should WMU be in the final 4?
If the playoff expands to 8 or 16 (!) teams, the season will be extended well into January. When will the players go to school, or doesn't that matter?
We all know it really doesn't (and I'm not being jaded and cynical). We just like to pretend it does because it still does, relative to the powerhouses, at NU.
Good post.
I don't think Ok State gets in. Those losses are to bad teams, even if Baylor was ranked at the time.
It will be interesting if Penn State wins. I don't think you can justify putting them in above Michigan, because of the beatdown nature of that matchup. I happen to think that Michigan is among the top four teams in the country, but I don't think you can justify putting in a team that couldn't even win its division, and also lost its last game.
I think Sicsonsin gets in if they win Saturday, but I think the Pac 12 champ gets in if Penn State wins. Michigan is out.
On the other hand, Penn State beat Ohio State and killed Iowa. Michigan lost to both. If you're not going to make a big deal out of the championship games, it seems a waste of time to hold them in the first place. The teams that reach the game have played every team in their divisions and according to B1G rules have come out on top.
Regarding Ok State...interesting that you bring them up, since most people would agree they lost due to referee error (google a story on the game if you didn't see it/don't recall). Baylor is bad now but I would argue they were playing very well at the time, which brings up the question of whether a loss is a loss or if it matters when the loss happened - last Saturday or in the first week of September.
As I mentioned in another reply, there's a lot of focus on the talk around the value of conference championships and head-to-head, but what I really want to know is if the committee is focused on choosing the four best teams RIGHT NOW, or if they are selecting based on "body of work" - very important distinction.
Didn't the CFP spokesperson say that the variance right now between 4 and 5 is razor thin but that between PSU and OSU is significant? We all know the only point of the conference championship games is $. I would be in favor of ditching those and adding rounds to the playoff pool. Really, does anyone think PSU vs Wisconsin is representative of the two best teams in the big ten?
Of course it is. It always has been. It is just a money grab like the bball conf tourneys
Alabama could lose by 21 and still get in. OSU is in and isn't playing in it and is still in. Michigan can get in.
Just like instant replay was so every call is perfect (ha!), the playoffs were because people insisted on a true champion. Now people want 8, soon 16. Because the 16th best team deserves a shot.
They are ruining the sport. "January madness?"
No. Your logic is wrong. Do you think Iowa gets in ahead of Michigan since they won head to head?
Last year the CFP committee specifically said that winning the conference is one of their main criteria. That is why they screwed the B12 out of the playoff. The winner of the UW vs PSU game will also have MORE wins than UM.
11-2 > 10-2. The committe also said they do NOT give bonus points for lopsided wins. A win is a win. A loss is a loss. That was THEIR criteria.
The wh ole thing is a joke. THE committee is bacically making up criteria as they go so they can get in their preferred teams. Last year they specifically said winning the conference was one of the top criteria. This year it is possible NONE of the confernce winners get in.
Might as well just have USC, Notre Dame, Bama and Michigan/OSU in the playoff.
They are not a power conference. Nice try. There are some D2 and D3 teams that should go to playoff with your logic. We could even have a playoff with ALL mid majors. Pretty stupid.
Well big Z, the committee made it clear they MO is to take the best 4 teams even if not conference champs. The fact is, no one but PSU fans think they are in the top 4 teams. Maybe next year after James wins all of the coach of the year awards this season.
I don't understand the Iowa argument. Head to head is meaningful when you have two closely ranked teams with the same number of losses. if you don't think Michigan is better than PSU you are watching football wrong.
Cardale was right, A lot of college players "Didn't come to play school".
The joke is that Ped State still is playing football, period. Harboring Sandusky for many, many years to preserve your football program is unforgivable.
That is ridiculous, the people behind it were punished and the school punished for millions and 3 lost sports years at least.
They are all gone and Franklin and these students and players bear no responsibility.
Should Germany have been destroyed? Are these Germans responsible for their grandfather actions?
I'm pretty sick of you PC Viglantes who believe the rule of LAW plays no role here, just your silly opinions count.
You know what's not PC? Covering up decades of kid diddling for a football program. Or using the term kid diddling.
C'mon man. That "penalty" was a slap on the wrist for an institutional failure that ruined lives.
If you don't think losing TWO of THREE down the stretch matters then you are not watching football.
Might as well not even have a playoff. Just let the committee pick the best team after week 8 and name them champ.
UM loses two out of three and the committee thinks they stay ahead of teams right behind them that won three out of three.
Your logic is flawed. You are ignoring the teams won't have the same number of wins. Do wins factor in your logic? The team that wins the conference will have MORE wins and a conference championship. I look at the #1 team in a conference ahead of the #3 team in the east division. You think the #3 team in the east is ahead of the #1 team in the whole conference.
No. Last year they made it clear the importance of conference champs. Now they are doing a 180. There are plenty of fans who agree with PSU fans. Wisconsin fans think their team should go if they win. The OP is a NW fan. You can find the same debate on just about EVERY team board. You are not too bright.
As long as there was not illegal action covered up by those coaches at the listed schools, no, the schools should not receive the death penalty.
Is the fact that he's a NU grad supposed to make my suddenly shift my opinion or make *me* feel somehow bad about him? It doesn't. He's worthless.
A better "Death Penalty" would be the end of the program, for good. That's what "death" is in its standard meaning. And yes, I believe a fitting penalty would have been the dissolution of the Pennsylvania State University football program.
