2017 College Football Season/Playoff Thread

[Los216]

When the full rankings come out Ohio State will have beat 2 top 10 teams. Bama will have beat 0 top 15 teams.

 

[inliner311]

I neither agree nor disagree with the selections.

One thing I think is certain, JT Barrett cost us a shot. He was awful yesterday and if he is average it was a blowout and we are in. Glad that that guy is moving on.

Not having a good QB coach for two years killed JTs development. I will be happy that the coaching staff will have to be more creative going forward because they can't lean on JTs running ability going forward.

 

[Ohio]

By the way, @RG

We get to settle our "OSU in over 1 loss Miami" debate by proxy, in a weird way.

Well...

 

[col63onel]

@bob2the2nd

 

[caf]

Bad precedent set today, IMO.

The precedent was set last year. Not this year.

This year they just stayed consistent with the thought that conference championships don't matter and losses do.

I don't agree with their decision though. I thought Penn State should have been in last year, and OSU should have been in this year.

 

[redscoon]

I can't be too angry because our lack of passing game would have in all likelihood lead to another beat down by Clemson. Getting humiliated again could have lasting implications on future close debates involving Ohio State.

 

[Chris]

So last week 5-8 are very close according to the committee, Bama doesnt play and OSU goes out and beats the now #6 team at a neutral site. Bama gets in?

Mmkay...I mean I’m okay with it but, they shouldnt have said those teams are very close and now today Bama is unequivocally better.

 

[col63onel]

So last week 5-8 are very close according to the committee, Bama doesnt play and OSU goes out and beats the now #6 team at a neutral site. Bama gets in?

Mmkay...I mean I’m okay with it but, they shouldnt have said those teams are very close and now today Bama is unequivocally better.

Yup.

I get that the committee is trying to be transparent, but their logic is never consistent week to week. They need to scrap that show.

edit - This is how the committee must've thought, given that Hocutt said Alabama was clearly #4

 

[redscoon]

The precedent was set last year. Not this year.

This year they just stayed consistent with the thought that conference championships don't matter and losses do.

I don't agree with their decision though. I thought Penn State should have been in last year, and OSU should have been in this year.

I don't think that's the precedent because Wisconsin wasn't seriously considered and UCF wasn't even in the conversation.

The committee established this year that you can play Mercer late in the year and that's ok. You can get whooped in your final game and that's ok. You can have no quality wins and that's ok.

But most of all, your name is the biggest factor, not what you have done. It worked for us in the first year though, so we already knew this.

 

[Mr. Orange]

Not having a good QB coach for two years killed JTs development. I will be happy that the coaching staff will have to be more creative going forward because they can't lean on JTs running ability going forward.

Yep. Just two of the worst INTs I have seen in a long time yesterday which led to a pick 6 and a short field TD. Take those away and it's a blowout and we are in.

 

[Ohio]

Part me of thinks we were screwed the moment Bama lost to Auburn. Which is sad. But weeks ago I laid out the scenario for OSU to get in...and it involved Bama winning out. They didn't, and we got screwed because of it.

 

[col63onel]

Part me of thinks we were screwed the moment Bama lost to Auburn. Which is sad. But weeks ago I laid out the scenario for OSU to get in...and it involved Bama winning out. They didn't, and we got screwed because of it.

I really have no idea why he said "5-8 were close last week" when they obviously weren't.

And I would've been OK last week if he had said "5-7 are close, then there is a big gap". That's completely justifiable. But you said OSU and Bama were close, OSU beats a 12-0 at a neutral site, and now Bama is clearly better. That doesn't make any sense.

 

[BimboColesHair]

The precedent was set last year. Not this year.

This year they just stayed consistent with the thought that conference championships don't matter and losses do.

I don't agree with their decision though. I thought Penn State should have been in last year, and OSU should have been in this year.

No.

Last years was about the resume outweighing the lack of a conference championship. That was the reasoning behind it.

This year it's about "the best 4 teams on the field".

The precedent I've now seen is that the things looked for will change year to year, which I am not sure is a good thing when you are splitting hairs between a handful of teams for 1 spot.

Keep the reasoning consistent, and you'll have no argument from me. OSU has been on the receiving end, both in the good and bad, of inconsistent reasoning by the committee.

 

[billmac91]

It's cynical but don't discount ESPN's preference of a second SEC team.

I said it last night, but Fox and the Big 10 have a massive contract together.

Going forward, a strong SEC is just good business for ESPN. Ohio State and the Big 10 being a premier conference isn't in their best interest...

But having the rights to the CFP, I think it'd be naive to not think there were some politics at play...

 

[redscoon]

Part me of thinks we were screwed the moment Bama lost to Auburn. Which is sad. But weeks ago I laid out the scenario for OSU to get in...and it involved Bama winning out. They didn't, and we got screwed because of it.

We were. Miami losing to Pitt opened the door for OSU as long as Bama won out and OSU beat Wisconsin. Miami losing to Pitt eliminated the possibility of two ACC teams. Alabama losing to Auburn however, created the possibility of two SEC teams. It negated the Miami loss essentially.

The OSU losses were just too ugly to get in over a 1 loss power conference team.