WEEK 7 - Other Games Thread

[Mean Purple]

Ohio State also beat 9-win Cincinnati in OOC. Why are you leaving that one out? So Cincinnati, Navy, Virginia Tech and Kent State is "pretty much a wash" with Samford, a 1-win SMU team, and Minnesota? What? We ended up with pretty much a terrible schedule by P5 standards. Didn't beat one team who didn't end the season (bowls included) with at least 3 other losses.

Also very clear differences in 2015 and 2016 in that in 2015 there were no other 1-loss P5 teams besides Oklahoma to choose from and in 2016 Penn State lost two games, including to Pitt and by 39 points to Michigan.

Why so obviously disingenuous on this subject?

Oh, yeah, I forgot that monumental victory OSU had over the Cincy squad that also lost to the below average Va Tech team that year. Thought I had put that in. Thanks for helping with pointing out the over glorified record of the suckeyes that year. I'll be sure and add that.

but congrats on dodging the common game again.

 

[Zubaz]

but congrats on dodging the common game again.

We did better in the common game and had a better loss, they had an objectively better record against what was by most metrics a better schedule, and definitely had the best win between the two of us. Round and round we go.

 

[Mean Purple]

We did better in the common game and had a better loss, they had an objectively better record against what was by most metrics a better schedule, and definitely had the best win between the two of us. Round and round we go.

Which is back to my point - It is not a reliable or consistent set of criteria to pick the playoff. Head to head matters, then it doesn't. 13th data point matters, then it doesn't .. and really doesn't when combined with a head to head. Big victory counts, bad loss does not, until it does for the purposes of a committee in a room wanting to pick a certain way.
Hell, even Alvarez has copped up to the problems.

 

[Wexahu]

Oh, yeah, I forgot that monumental victory OSU had over the Cincy squad that also lost to the below average Va Tech team that year. Thought I had put that in. Thanks for helping with pointing out the over glorified record of the suckeyes that year. I'll be sure and add that.

but congrats on dodging the common game again.

I watched the Ohio State-Minnesota game. It wasn't really that close after halftime. Ohio State was ahead 31-14 with 7 minutes to go. It was played in a snowstorm. Ohio State out-gained them by almost 200 yards. Anyway, it doesn't really make much difference.

It's funny how the common opponent thing is like the be-all, end-all when it result is to your liking.

What about the common game thing with Baylor-TCU? Those two teams actually played each other.

I like how you said in 2016 Penn State should've made it instead of Ohio State because they BEAT Ohio State (even though Penn State had two losses) but in 2014 TCU should've made it instead of Baylor because......well, just because.

 

[Zubaz]

Which is back to my point - It is not a reliable or consistent set of criteria to pick the playoff. Head to head matters, then it doesn't. 13th data point matters, then it doesn't .. and really doesn't when combined with a head to head. Big victory counts, bad loss does not, until it does for the purposes of a committee in a room wanting to pick a certain way.
Hell, even Alvarez has copped up to the problems.

I think, as always, the problem is trying to pretend that every scenario is the same. Take the 13th game for example: When you're comparing an 11-1 team to a 12-1 team, there's going to be some subjectivity in there and a debate over whether the one with the worse record should get in over the one with more wins, but if you're comparing an 11-2 team to a 11-1 team, that 13th game doesn't necessarily outweigh the extra loss. Ditto for 11-1 vs 12-1 where conference titles are important (and a split title vs an outright title, though can't happen anymore), but again with 11-1 vs 11-2, does that conference title for the 2-loss team outweigh the extra loss?

Surely we can at least agree that the committee has been consistent with one basics, and that's the P5 team's record. Undefeated Florida State got in when just about everyone knew that Baylor & TCU were better, because they were undefeated. They have yet to put a 2-loss team in over a 1-loss team, and yet to put a 1-loss team in over an undefeated team. It's when you have teams with the same record (or the same number of losses) that those "tiebreakers" start coming in. Subjective, yeah, there are no autobids, but they've at least been consistent there, as we saw last year when 12-1 Oklahoma got in over 12-1 Ohio State on the back of a better schedule and a better loss.

 

[Zubaz]

What about the common game thing with Baylor-TCU? Those two teams actually played each other.

To be clear "the common opponent" would tip towards TCU since we beat them and they lost to them. "Head to head" is a different criteria than common opponent.

 

[Zubaz]

Sorry, common opponent in the above would be WVU. We both beat everyone else in the Big 12.

 

[Wexahu]

Which is back to my point - It is not a reliable or consistent set of criteria to pick the playoff. Head to head matters, then it doesn't. 13th data point matters, then it doesn't .. and really doesn't when combined with a head to head. Big victory counts, bad loss does not, until it does for the purposes of a committee in a room wanting to pick a certain way.
Hell, even Alvarez has copped up to the problems.

They've actually been very consistent with their criteria, and it's really not hard at all to figure it out. You just have to not ignore facts and be just a tiny bit objective.

I've predicted the four teams they were gonna pick every year and it easy. The only year I had a question was this last year but they made the right pick IMO in taking Bama over OSU.

 

[Wexahu]

To be clear "the common opponent" would tip towards TCU since we beat them and they lost to them. "Head to head" is a different criteria than common opponent.

That's right, but if someone wants to make the case that common opponent should carry more weight than head to head, well that's pretty dumb.

 

[WhiteHispanicFrog]

 

[Zubaz]

The only year I had a question was this last year but they made the right pick IMO in taking Bama over OSU.

Wut? In what world was undefeated Alabama in danger of getting jumped by 1-loss Ohio State?

Or do you mean 2017, when 1 loss non conference champ Alabama got in over 2-loss B1G champ Ohio State?

 

[Wexahu]

Wut? In what world was undefeated Alabama in danger of getting jumped by 1-loss Ohio State?

Or do you mean 2017, when 1 loss non conference champ Alabama got in over 2-loss B1G champ Ohio State?

I meant 2017.

 

[Chongo94]

 

[Mean Purple]

I think, as always, the problem is trying to pretend that every scenario is the same. Take the 13th game for example: When you're comparing an 11-1 team to a 12-1 team, there's going to be some subjectivity in there and a debate over whether the one with the worse record should get in over the one with more wins, but if you're comparing an 11-2 team to a 11-1 team, that 13th game doesn't necessarily outweigh the extra loss. Ditto for 11-1 vs 12-1 where conference titles are important (and a split title vs an outright title, though can't happen anymore), but again with 11-1 vs 11-2, does that conference title for the 2-loss team outweigh the extra loss?

Surely we can at least agree that the committee has been consistent with one basics, and that's the P5 team's record. Undefeated Florida State got in when just about everyone knew that Baylor & TCU were better, because they were undefeated. They have yet to put a 2-loss team in over a 1-loss team, and yet to put a 1-loss team in over an undefeated team. It's when you have teams with the same record (or the same number of losses) that those "tiebreakers" start coming in. Subjective, yeah, there are no autobids, but they've at least been consistent there, as we saw last year when 12-1 Oklahoma got in over 12-1 Ohio State on the back of a better schedule and a better loss.

2015 Iowa's loss was to 12-1 Mich. State. OU lost to a 5-7 Texas team. Iowa's came in a conf title game. They came out of that season 12-1 (12-0 reg season[depending on how you defind the conf champ game]) They had one more win than OU. So then the guess is they said OU's conf champ carries more wait than not having as many wins, even though Oklahoma had a worse loss?

 

[Zubaz]

2015 Iowa's loss was to 12-1 Mich. State. OU lost to a 5-7 Texas team. Iowa's came in a conf title game. They came out of that season 12-1 (12-0 reg season[depending on how you defind the conf champ game]) They had one more win than OU. So then the guess is they said OU's conf champ carries more wait than not having as many wins, even though Oklahoma had a worse loss?

I think so, yeah. An 11-1 outright champion would "win the tie" against a 12-1 team without a conference title. Good example though, Iowa doesn't really get brought up that much, perhaps because the CCG's are viewed essentially as de-facto quarterfinals and the loser has little chance of being included. See also 2017 Wisconsin for a similar though not identical, scenario.

 

[netty2424]

Schedule better in non-conference and go 11-1 or better. I know I'm beating the dead horse but it's such BS to think because of 2014 that we have no shot. That just isn't true at all. Beat Baylor that year and we're in. If one of a whole bunch of other things happen, we're in. If we had a CCG like the Big 12 does now and we win that game, we're in.

If we go 12-0 we will be in the CFP. Period. If you disagree with that you're just being totally unreasonable. Hell, 8 times out of 10 we'll be in with a 11-1 record. So to say we don't have a shot is disengenuous, that's just the woe is us mentality. We have a shot now, we just have to win games.

I do agree if we went 12-0, we’re most likely in. But that’s kind of the point. Why are some teams able to go 11-1 and get it, but it takes other schools perfection to get in?

That’s the point. One slip up on the road and we’re out, along with 99% of the other programs.

Open it up to 6 as a play in game, or 8 if the final records dictate it.

Treat it like a golf tournament. They don’t know what the cut will be before the tournament begins. Why not absorb one or two NY6 games as play in games or first round games. Top 4 seeds are in. It can actually fluctuate year to year if needed.

 

[Wexahu]

Why are some teams able to go 11-1 and get it, but it takes other schools perfection to get in?

What are you talking about? Who are “some teams?” Ohio State has gone 11-1 and 12-1 on two separate occasions and didn’t get in. It happens. Not sure what you mean by “some teams” and “other schools”, as if there is some kind of different criteria. Go undefeated and we are 100% in. Go 12-1 and there is a very good chance we are in. That’s just reality. How that translates to “no shot” I have no idea.

 

[netty2424]

What are you talking about? Who are “some teams?” Ohio State has gone 11-1 and 12-1 on two separate occasions and didn’t get in. It happens. Not sure what you mean by “some teams” and “other schools”, as if there is some kind of different criteria. Go undefeated and we are 100% in. Go 12-1 and there is a very good chance we are in. That’s just reality. How that translates to “no shot” I have no idea.

Lol, Ohio State has had at least 1 loss every season in the CFP era. They’ve never been perfect. Remind us how many times they’ve been in?

Convenient you used the two seasons they didn’t get in as examples and left out the two they did. Neither time in they were undefeated.

‘Some teams’ are any team that has to be perfect to get in, while others don’t. You knew what I meant, you’re just dug in.

 

[Wexahu]

Lol, Ohio State has had at least 1 loss every season in the CFP era. They’ve never been perfect. Remind us how many times they’ve been in?

Convenient you used the two seasons they didn’t get in as examples and left out the two they did. Neither time in they were undefeated.

‘Some teams’ are any team that has to be perfect to get in, while others don’t. You knew what I meant, you’re just dug in.

Michigan State got in with one loss. So did Washington. I don’t know what you’re talking about as far as certain teams have to be undefeated. And Ohio State has lost about 6 or 7 regular season games in the entire 5-year CFP era, that they happened to get in a couple times shouldn’t be surprising. It wouldn’t be surprising for any team with 4 one-loss seasons to make it a couple times. Sometimes the chips fall the right way and sometimes they don’t, as the last two seasons have proven for them.

 

[Zubaz]

Lol, Ohio State has had at least 1 loss every season in the CFP era. They’ve never been perfect. Remind us how many times they’ve been in?

Convenient you used the two seasons they didn’t get in as examples and left out the two they did. Neither time in they were undefeated.

‘Some teams’ are any team that has to be perfect to get in, while others don’t. You knew what I meant, you’re just dug in.

But that's the point, right? Sometimes 1-loss will get you in, other times it will not. It doesnt seem to depend on "who the team is" because we've seen the exact same team left out with 1 loss AND get in with one loss. It depends on the circumstances and records you're competing against, not the brands.