American Sports Thread

[AZOffaly]

Not so AZ.  The emphasis is on having the best teams in the last 4, not necessarily conference champions. That is a stated strategy, if that is the right word.

The committee have erred along the road to this point...especially by not dropping Michigan earlier (after the loss to Iowa). 

Where is the Big 10 now...Penn State won the title, but lost heavily to Michigan and also to Pitt.  Michigan lost to Ohio State. Ohio State lost to Penn State.  The loss by Penn State to Pitt should eliminate them from national title contenders. Wisconsin lost to both Ohio State and Michigan, plus Penn State, so they are out. 

I say the final four are Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State and Washington.  But I've been wrong on most things...

Ball hopper I'm sure 100% that the committee says 'where a non conference champion and a conference champion are being considered, the non conference champion MUST be unequivocally better than the conference champion. They have constantly said that, since day 1 3 years ago. I'm absolutely 100% sure that is the case.

So, if Ohio State are to get in, the committee must rate them as UNEQUIVOCALLY better than either Alabama, Clemson, Washington, Penn State or Oklahoma. I think they will view them as better than Oklahoma, but to say they are better than Penn State, when Penn State beat them , is a stretch.

I'm not arguing that Penn State are better than Ohio state by the way. I think neutral field OSU probably beats them, but key word is probably. If they view them as unequivocally better, then they better explain how and why, very very clearly.

[AZOffaly]

This is the college football selection committee protocols, and shows you where I am coming from.

http://d30ratpzqzalg7.cloudfront.net/CD-drupal-cfp-PROD/s3fs-public/CFP%20Selection%20Committee%20Protocol.pdf?tV3FOZ68If3qops3X7XJQFmkEd00PiAY

[Syferus]

I can see Penn State being left out but it will do massive damage to the committee's credibility.

They now own two wins v. current top six teams as well as a conference title. Ohio are the odd man out but the committee seem to have a hard on for the Buckeyes and Urban Meyer. You can have all the good press you want but the team on the outside looking in has a win over you and won your division and conference titles. You can make the case they deserve to be in on their other performances but the cons are concrete and the pluses are nebulous.

[Ball Hopper]

Not so AZ.  The emphasis is on having the best teams in the last 4, not necessarily conference champions. That is a stated strategy, if that is the right word.

The committee have erred along the road to this point...especially by not dropping Michigan earlier (after the loss to Iowa). 

Where is the Big 10 now...Penn State won the title, but lost heavily to Michigan and also to Pitt.  Michigan lost to Ohio State. Ohio State lost to Penn State.  The loss by Penn State to Pitt should eliminate them from national title contenders. Wisconsin lost to both Ohio State and Michigan, plus Penn State, so they are out. 

I say the final four are Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State and Washington.  But I've been wrong on most things...

Ball hopper I'm sure 100% that the committee says 'where a non conference champion and a conference champion are being considered, the non conference champion MUST be unequivocally better than the conference champion. They have constantly said that, since day 1 3 years ago. I'm absolutely 100% sure that is the case.

So, if Ohio State are to get in, the committee must rate them as UNEQUIVOCALLY better than either Alabama, Clemson, Washington, Penn State or Oklahoma. I think they will view them as better than Oklahoma, but to say they are better than Penn State, when Penn State beat them , is a stretch.

I'm not arguing that Penn State are better than Ohio state by the way. I think neutral field OSU probably beats them, but key word is probably. If they view them as unequivocally better, then they better explain how and why, very very clearly.

From the first paragraph of the document quoted... "For purposes of any four team playoff, the process will inevitably need to select the four best teams from among several with legitimate claims to participate."  Note the term "the four best teams". This has been at the heart of all the discussion on the sports talk shows the last month.  This committee have built up an odd reputation for themselves for sure. I still don't know how Michigan held on to the number two slot when they lost to Iowa.   They also appear to be kind to Ohio State as you suggest, at the cost of Penn State.

If the committee charter was based solely on conference winners, why would they even meet before today?  I say Ohio State are in the four and Penn State are out - they wil not drop a team from two to five when they did not even play this weekend.

[Syferus]

Not so AZ.  The emphasis is on having the best teams in the last 4, not necessarily conference champions. That is a stated strategy, if that is the right word.

The committee have erred along the road to this point...especially by not dropping Michigan earlier (after the loss to Iowa). 

Where is the Big 10 now...Penn State won the title, but lost heavily to Michigan and also to Pitt.  Michigan lost to Ohio State. Ohio State lost to Penn State.  The loss by Penn State to Pitt should eliminate them from national title contenders. Wisconsin lost to both Ohio State and Michigan, plus Penn State, so they are out. 

I say the final four are Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State and Washington.  But I've been wrong on most things...

Ball hopper I'm sure 100% that the committee says 'where a non conference champion and a conference champion are being considered, the non conference champion MUST be unequivocally better than the conference champion. They have constantly said that, since day 1 3 years ago. I'm absolutely 100% sure that is the case.

So, if Ohio State are to get in, the committee must rate them as UNEQUIVOCALLY better than either Alabama, Clemson, Washington, Penn State or Oklahoma. I think they will view them as better than Oklahoma, but to say they are better than Penn State, when Penn State beat them , is a stretch.

I'm not arguing that Penn State are better than Ohio state by the way. I think neutral field OSU probably beats them, but key word is probably. If they view them as unequivocally better, then they better explain how and why, very very clearly.

From the first paragraph of the document quoted... "For purposes of any four team playoff, the process will inevitably need to select the four best teams from among several with legitimate claims to participate."  Note the term "the four best teams". This has been at the heart of all the discussion on the sports talk shows the last month.  This committee have built up an odd reputation for themselves for sure. I still don't know how Michigan held on to the number two slot when they lost to Iowa.   They also appear to be kind to Ohio State as you suggest, at the cost of Penn State.

If the committee charter was based solely on conference winners, why would they even meet before today?  I say Ohio State are in the four and Penn State are out - they wil not drop a team from two to five when they did not even play this weekend.

All the teams that would cause Ohio to drop won conferences this weekend. Conference titles count for a lot more than sitting on your arse this weekend because you lost a big game, at least to me.

[Oraisteach]

The committee's task is to choose the four best teams, and undoubtedly Ohio State is one of those four.  As important as conference titles are, there are five power conferences, so obviously not all champions will make it. 

[Ball Hopper]

Not so AZ.  The emphasis is on having the best teams in the last 4, not necessarily conference champions. That is a stated strategy, if that is the right word.

The committee have erred along the road to this point...especially by not dropping Michigan earlier (after the loss to Iowa). 

Where is the Big 10 now...Penn State won the title, but lost heavily to Michigan and also to Pitt.  Michigan lost to Ohio State. Ohio State lost to Penn State.  The loss by Penn State to Pitt should eliminate them from national title contenders. Wisconsin lost to both Ohio State and Michigan, plus Penn State, so they are out. 

I say the final four are Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State and Washington.  But I've been wrong on most things...

Ball hopper I'm sure 100% that the committee says 'where a non conference champion and a conference champion are being considered, the non conference champion MUST be unequivocally better than the conference champion. They have constantly said that, since day 1 3 years ago. I'm absolutely 100% sure that is the case.

So, if Ohio State are to get in, the committee must rate them as UNEQUIVOCALLY better than either Alabama, Clemson, Washington, Penn State or Oklahoma. I think they will view them as better than Oklahoma, but to say they are better than Penn State, when Penn State beat them , is a stretch.

I'm not arguing that Penn State are better than Ohio state by the way. I think neutral field OSU probably beats them, but key word is probably. If they view them as unequivocally better, then they better explain how and why, very very clearly.

From the first paragraph of the document quoted... "For purposes of any four team playoff, the process will inevitably need to select the four best teams from among several with legitimate claims to participate."  Note the term "the four best teams". This has been at the heart of all the discussion on the sports talk shows the last month.  This committee have built up an odd reputation for themselves for sure. I still don't know how Michigan held on to the number two slot when they lost to Iowa.   They also appear to be kind to Ohio State as you suggest, at the cost of Penn State.

If the committee charter was based solely on conference winners, why would they even meet before today?  I say Ohio State are in the four and Penn State are out - they wil not drop a team from two to five when they did not even play this weekend.

All the teams that would cause Ohio to drop won conferences this weekend. Conference titles count for a lot more than sitting on your arse this weekend because you lost a big game, at least to me.

Agree on that.  The committee have got it wrong by loving both Ohio State and Michigan. But Penn State lost to Pitt, should that result knock them out of consideration completely?  Seems it does. Pitt also beat Clemson by the way. 

Alabama look to be in a different class.

[AZOffaly]

Ball Hopper, why do you cherry pick that phrase and ignore the one where they say the place a premium on Conference champions, and head to head record? The only reason that Penn State could not be ranked ahead of Ohio State is if they think Ohio State is far, far better than Penn State, which is odd, considering Penn State beat them, and beat them in a late season game.

I don't have a problem with the concept of picking the 4 best teams, but the criteria is there to help you determine what is 'best'. And in this case they have either ignored it, or else decided it wasn't relevant because the teams aren't in the same stratosphere. Which is odd given the final rankings of #3 and #5.

Also, they absolutely screwed TCU a few years ago because they didn't play a conference championship game, they dropped from 3 to 6 after winning their last Big 12 game by a cricket score.

The hosed the Big 12 the same year, or maybe another year actually, because they declared co-champions. Baylor and someone else. Maybe it was TCU actually. The rationale was that the conference championship was a key determinant.

They slated Baylors Non conference schedule, and yet this year they allow Washington in, whose NCS is probably as bad or worse.

Look, I have no problem with a subjective assessment, but I think it's very stupid when they contradict themselves year on year, or even week on week, and it must be very frustrating if you are involved in a team.  What they should just say is 'We think these teams are the best, and that's that'.

And as for Penn State and Ohio State, I guarantee that if you swapped their helmets, and it was a 7th ranked Ohio State that won the conference title this weekend, and beat the #2 ranked team a few weeks ago, they would absolutely be in.

[AZOffaly]

The committee's task is to choose the four best teams, and undoubtedly Ohio State is one of those four.  As important as conference titles are, there are five power conferences, so obviously not all champions will make it.

Why undoubtedly oraisteach? On what basis? Penn State beat them. They didn't win their division. They didn't win their Conference. You may argue they are better, but I'm not sure you can say undoubtedly.

[AZOffaly]

Not so AZ.  The emphasis is on having the best teams in the last 4, not necessarily conference champions. That is a stated strategy, if that is the right word.

The committee have erred along the road to this point...especially by not dropping Michigan earlier (after the loss to Iowa). 

Where is the Big 10 now...Penn State won the title, but lost heavily to Michigan and also to Pitt.  Michigan lost to Ohio State. Ohio State lost to Penn State.  The loss by Penn State to Pitt should eliminate them from national title contenders. Wisconsin lost to both Ohio State and Michigan, plus Penn State, so they are out. 

I say the final four are Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State and Washington.  But I've been wrong on most things...

Ball hopper I'm sure 100% that the committee says 'where a non conference champion and a conference champion are being considered, the non conference champion MUST be unequivocally better than the conference champion. They have constantly said that, since day 1 3 years ago. I'm absolutely 100% sure that is the case.

So, if Ohio State are to get in, the committee must rate them as UNEQUIVOCALLY better than either Alabama, Clemson, Washington, Penn State or Oklahoma. I think they will view them as better than Oklahoma, but to say they are better than Penn State, when Penn State beat them , is a stretch.

I'm not arguing that Penn State are better than Ohio state by the way. I think neutral field OSU probably beats them, but key word is probably. If they view them as unequivocally better, then they better explain how and why, very very clearly.

From the first paragraph of the document quoted... "For purposes of any four team playoff, the process will inevitably need to select the four best teams from among several with legitimate claims to participate."  Note the term "the four best teams". This has been at the heart of all the discussion on the sports talk shows the last month.  This committee have built up an odd reputation for themselves for sure. I still don't know how Michigan held on to the number two slot when they lost to Iowa.   They also appear to be kind to Ohio State as you suggest, at the cost of Penn State.

If the committee charter was based solely on conference winners, why would they even meet before today?  I say Ohio State are in the four and Penn State are out - they wil not drop a team from two to five when they did not even play this weekend.

All the teams that would cause Ohio to drop won conferences this weekend. Conference titles count for a lot more than sitting on your arse this weekend because you lost a big game, at least to me.

Agree on that.  The committee have got it wrong by loving both Ohio State and Michigan. But Penn State lost to Pitt, should that result knock them out of consideration completely?  Seems it does. Pitt also beat Clemson by the way. 

Alabama look to be in a different class.

Agree with all of that, and that's my main issue with this. They have protocols to guide them, but they pick and choose which protocols apply, depending on their own inherent opinions. It's confirmation bias. Baylor have a shit Non Conference Schedule, they are out. Washington have a Shit Non Conference Schedule, but they won their conference, so they are in. TCU didn't win their conference, so they are out. Penn State won their conference, and beat OSU, but they lost two games including to Pitt, so they are out. Clemson lost to Pitt, and came within a gnat's ass of losing to North Carolina State, but they are in because we love Clemson.

There's no pattern, and when they have a protocol, there should be. As I said, no problem with picking the best 4, but something has to help you determine that, and they seem to change their mind on what that 'something' is whenever the wind changes.

[Ball Hopper]

Ball Hopper, why do you cherry pick that phrase and ignore the one where they say the place a premium on Conference champions, and head to head record? The only reason that Penn State could not be ranked ahead of Ohio State is if they think Ohio State is far, far better than Penn State, which is odd, considering Penn State beat them, and beat them in a late season game.

I don't have a problem with the concept of picking the 4 best teams, but the criteria is there to help you determine what is 'best'. And in this case they have either ignored it, or else decided it wasn't relevant because the teams aren't in the same stratosphere. Which is odd given the final rankings of #3 and #5.

Also, they absolutely screwed TCU a few years ago because they didn't play a conference championship game, they dropped from 3 to 6 after winning their last Big 12 game by a cricket score.

The hosed the Big 12 the same year, or maybe another year actually, because they declared co-champions. Baylor and someone else. Maybe it was TCU actually. The rationale was that the conference championship was a key determinant.

They slated Baylors Non conference schedule, and yet this year they allow Washington in, whose NCS is probably as bad or worse.

Look, I have no problem with a subjective assessment, but I think it's very stupid when they contradict themselves year on year, or even week on week, and it must be very frustrating if you are involved in a team.  What they should just say is 'We think these teams are the best, and that's that'.

And as for Penn State and Ohio State, I guarantee that if you swapped their helmets, and it was a 7th ranked Ohio State that won the conference title this weekend, and beat the #2 ranked team a few weeks ago, they would absolutely be in.

I'm not disagreeing with you that much...I listen to a lot if the sports talk shows here and the point being made continuously is picking the best teams, not necessarily the conference champs.  I do think it is odd.  They backed themselves into a corner by having both Ohio State and Michigan too high.

I bet if the committee met only once in the season...that being today...the rankings would be very different.

[AZOffaly]

Yeah I think we are more or less saying the same thing. My problem is that what defines 'best' is communicated as being something different several times a year/over multiple years. Agree on them painting themselves into a corner with Ohio State, and probably Clemson too!

As regards if they only met once a year, well this is the thing. Every week is supposed to be a completely new fresh exercise. That's in the protocols as well, and is also referred to constantly. When TCU dropped, that was mentioned as a prime reason. "We forget last week, and rank completely again". But that's obviously a nonsense too.

[Ball Hopper]

Hopefully the GAA don't get wind of this process...imagine the uproar if Roscommon managed to win the Connacht football title, but Mayo get to play the All-Ireland semifinal instead. Ballaghadereen would be demolished. 

[AZOffaly]

That happened this year with Galway, but at least they got a chance to lose instead of being told by Croke Park that Mayo looked better!

[heganboy]

Which 4 will more people watch?