Yeah they did. They are the number 1 seed with the hardest route. If they get past the most explosive offense, they have to beat another very well rounded team.
My favorite question/answer was when Reece asked if they talked about OSU/Michigan rematch in the room.. and committee chair replied " in the room, no"...
At dinner, Starbucks, in the uber ride over... sure... we did..
It should’ve happened with Penn State in 2016, but unlike a certain conference, I will take no pleasure in this if TTUN goes further than us and especially if god forbid they win the natty. On the other hand, how funny would it be if the mighty SEC has to watch two Big Ten teams in the title game? The only team that matters now and forever is Ohio State, there’s only one thing left to do. Win the whole fucking thing.
Like Woody said, anything easy ain’t worth a damn!
I don’t know if this would be sacrilegious, but if TCU beats Michigan and we beat Georgia, we can wait until 2023 for revenge while we’re defending champs.
Like Woody said, anything easy ain’t worth a damn!
I think this is a curious case. I don't envy the committee. This was not an easy decision. Part of me thinks all the 2 loss teams should be out. The other part of me thinks no conference championship game should cost a team a spot over a team that didn't make their conference championship game. They seemed to favor this concept in ranking TCU over OSU, but not when comparing USC to OSU. For my perspective the only way I'm dropping a team for losing their conference championship is when comparing them to another team playing a conference championship themselves. But, I'm not dropping a team that loses their conference championship to a team sitting at home. If USC was ranked ahead of OSU last week they still should be this week. But, at the same time, it's cool to get 2 B1G teams in and boy what a show it would be if it was UM vs OSU in the NC game. I will be curious to see how OSU fares against UGA and hope ya'll don't meltdown if a loss happens. I know The Game is important, but Day, Stroud, the team have had a strong season and strong careers & deserve recognition win or lose IMO.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I would argue it is a lot harder to win the Big Ten East than to make a conference title game in the Big 12 or Pac 12. Shoot, Penn State would probably win either of those conferences.
I would argue it is a lot harder to win the Big Ten East than to make a conference title game in the Big 12 or Pac 12. Shoot, Penn State would probably win either of those conferences.
I agree too, but I also realize that thought process is speculative and without conclusive data. The conclusive data we have is one team (USC) earned the right to play in the conference championship at an 11-1 record and the other team (OSU) the other team did not with the same 11-1 record. The committee ranked USC ahead of OSU at that point. So, changing after the fact is punishing the team for playing a conference championship. If USC sat at home too and said no thanks to the conference championship they'd be in. That doesn't make sense in my mind.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Different conferences reward teams differently on how they place then in the title game. PAC12 and Big 12 don't have divisions, they take the best 2 teams. If the SEC and Big 10 did that, Ohio State and Michigan would've rematched and so would Tennessee and Georgia.
So your point on playing in a conference championship is kind of moot. Is Purdue a more deserving team than Ohio State because they played in a conference championship or were they beneficiaries of a flawed system?
I totally agree with this point. This is why I argued for the P5 to move to the same set up...no divisions, top two teams play in conference championship, no guaranteed games, rotating schedules...parity. But, since this is the system we have I still don't think it's fair to let a team that lost a conference championship game ahead of a team that didn't make it. If you want to compare both teams you compare them to the week before...both were 11-1 and USC was ranked ahead. That means regardless of how conferences choose their title participants, the committed thought USC was more deserved of a playoff spot than OSU and only the additional loss changed that and OSU was not forced to win another game to secure their birth.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
So when referring to the system in place when it comes to conference setup, it's fair in your estimation, but the system in place for the CFP isn't? I'll just use your own words, it's the system in place. Whether you think it's fair or not it's irrelevant, especially since your reasoning really lacks any consistent logic.
The CFP takes the 4 best teams in the committee's estimation. USC isn't close to Ohio State, just as Purdue isn't either. Making a conference title game (and losing) doesn't entitle anyone to a deserving spot in the playoffs in the system that's in place.
So when referring to the system in place when it comes to conference setup, it's fair in your estimation, but the system in place for the CFP isn't? I'll just use your own words, it's the system in place. Whether you think it's fair or not it's irrelevant, especially since your reasoning really lacks any consistent logic.
I don't think the system is fair. The system should be changed. But, we are forced to make a decision without fairness so you do your best to control for variables outside of your control.
The CFP takes the 4 best teams in the committee's estimation. USC isn't close to Ohio State,
I'm not sure that's the case. 11-1 vs 11-1 prior to the conference championship. USC has wins over Oregon & UCLA and a one point loss to Utah on the road prior to their conference championship. OSU has wins over ND & PSU and a 3 score loss to UM at home. I think USC has the better resume at that point and again you don't punish a team for losing a conference championship. I'd love to see a USC v OSU game. I think it would be a good game.
just as Purdue isn't either.
Agreed there
Making a conference title game (and losing) doesn't entitle anyone to a deserving spot in the playoffs in the system that's in place.
Neither should not having to play one. I'm not sure the system in place has a cut and dry stance on this. It seems to be at the discretion of each individual member of the committee. If I'm wrong on that I'd be curious to know if they have an actual policy that I'm unaware of.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The SP+ would disagree with you on USC's resume being better than Ohio State's. Perhaps if USC didn't get embarrassed for the better part of 3 quarters against 2 loss Utah, they'd had a chance. But they looked bad for most of the game. A second loss to Utah looks way worse than a loss to the #2 team in the nation. Especially when comparing the better wins.
You're letting your bias kick in too much. Only reason I can see Michigan fans thinking USC is more deserving than Ohio State is they aren't sure if Michigan could beat Ohio State in a rematch.
I get what you're saying but USC was blown out in that title game. They probably realized that OSU is a better team than USC which is true. Part of it is wanting to put the best 4 teams in.
OK, for these people whining that OSU is benefitting from staying at home, I'm guessing they want to reward USC for getting boat raced in their championship game and having 2 losses, or rewarding a 1 loss team behind OSU and jumping over them for staying home???
There's never any logic applied to these rantings, and they're just being amplified for drama, a "narrative", and ratings.
There's no critical thinking being applied.
"The minute I think I'm getting mellow, I'm retiring. Who ever heard of a mellow winner?" - WWH
Not when they don't place the 2 best teams in the conference against each other. The Big Ten Championship game hasn't mattered since they went to an East and West division.
And I have a typo in my original comment. "or rewarding a 1 loss team behind OSU and jumping over them for staying home???" is supposed to be 2 loss team.
"The minute I think I'm getting mellow, I'm retiring. Who ever heard of a mellow winner?" - WWH
I think you're highlighting the issue here. There is not one set of logic all committee members are following. Some believe conference championship games should not hurt you if you lose and sitting at home should not help you...ie the only way teams move around after conference championship week is in relation to the other teams playing in those games, but the teams sitting at home are stuck where they are at. Others think they should matter and a loss should drop them out of the race if it's their 2nd loss. Some value the eye test...ala the idea of Bama getting in under the assumption they are one of the top 4 regardless of record. Others think record is all that matters. Then you have the issue of conference alignment. The problem is there is no policy for making these decisions and this just highlights why expansion is needed.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Whether expansion is needed or not is moot, we're getting it. Just like it will certainly go to 16 in the near future, I'm sure THAT expansion will be needed as well. For those for whom the dollars toll.
As far as your conference championship scenario goes, why would a team that loses it be automatically inserted in the playoffs just because they were in that positon the week prior? If the committee's job is to evaluate after each week, why couldn't the losing team's position fall to the next in line? If evaluated after that week, it seems that two losses are worse than one. THAT result should be able to change the committee's mind as to who that team is. It's not the first time it's happened, al. got in while sitting on the sidelines one year. Osu got in over big champ psu in another year. Those aren't scenarios that you can put in a playoff committee's written decree. All of the possibilities couldn't possibly be put in writing so that we'd have a clear recipe for every scenario, that'd be impossible to implement. The committee's job is to evaluate after each week, that shouldn't stop just because some teams are playing for league championships and others aren't. It should be obvious to all, that not all leagues are created equal, even if one takes out the amount of members or league contests. So the only fair way to assess is after EVERY week's set of games, whether they be championship or not.
You could also look at it like this, if osu and usc had lost their only game of the year the same week, which team do you think would have been rated higher the following week? Is it really fair to punish a team for when they lose? It's certainly possible if both teams had lost to the same teams by the same score in week 5, that osu would have been rated higher than usc prior to the league championship game, due the the body of work of the whole season. If that possibilty exists, then why punish osu twice when usc loses the league championship game?
To finish that scenario...if osu had been rated higher than usc going into the league championship game, and usc had won, it would only be right that they would be in the playoffs-after that week's evaluation from the committee.
So it would seem fair if one scenario favors usc, then the other result should favor osu.
How do you lose to a poor team and stay in place instead of dropping in the rankings? While I DON'T want SCUM again in the first round, TCU should be no better than fourth.
Comments Show All Comments
Just play. Have fun. Enjoy the game. -- Michael Jordan
If Ryan Day lays an egg do we go after Kyle Wittingham?
What do?
Well, let's take a first blush look at this. First, where is his team playing their next game? Second, did he ever play at OSU or coach there?
If it were up to me, no offense, he's a decent coach, but I'd keep looking.
"The minute I think I'm getting mellow, I'm retiring. Who ever heard of a mellow winner?" - WWH
GA is 7 pt favs over us.
TTUN is 9.5 favs over TCU.
Really comical, GA got screwed!
Favored by 7 in Atlanta no less.
Time for the Buckeyes get healthy and re-focused. Let's do this!
Yeah they did. They are the number 1 seed with the hardest route. If they get past the most explosive offense, they have to beat another very well rounded team.
#walkaway
The big 10 has entered sec territory with 2 getting in. Gotta finish strong to keep it rolling. Why not us?
I got 7 letters for ya "F THE SEC " and you can quote me on that
Chris Haas
Thanks for all the extra money, we’ll use it on our next buyout in ~2 years
-Nebraska
JSN?
Never thought I'd see the B1G get 2 teams into a 4-team playoff.
Makes Sense to me...
Can we just say “second”?
My favorite question/answer was when Reece asked if they talked about OSU/Michigan rematch in the room.. and committee chair replied " in the room, no"...
At dinner, Starbucks, in the uber ride over... sure... we did..
Go Bucks!!!
It should’ve happened with Penn State in 2016, but unlike a certain conference, I will take no pleasure in this if TTUN goes further than us and especially if god forbid they win the natty. On the other hand, how funny would it be if the mighty SEC has to watch two Big Ten teams in the title game? The only team that matters now and forever is Ohio State, there’s only one thing left to do. Win the whole fucking thing.
Like Woody said, anything easy ain’t worth a damn!
I would be cool with them watching one B1G in the national championship game as long as that team is Ohio State.
I don’t know if this would be sacrilegious, but if TCU beats Michigan and we beat Georgia, we can wait until 2023 for revenge while we’re defending champs.
Like Woody said, anything easy ain’t worth a damn!
I think this is a curious case. I don't envy the committee. This was not an easy decision. Part of me thinks all the 2 loss teams should be out. The other part of me thinks no conference championship game should cost a team a spot over a team that didn't make their conference championship game. They seemed to favor this concept in ranking TCU over OSU, but not when comparing USC to OSU. For my perspective the only way I'm dropping a team for losing their conference championship is when comparing them to another team playing a conference championship themselves. But, I'm not dropping a team that loses their conference championship to a team sitting at home. If USC was ranked ahead of OSU last week they still should be this week. But, at the same time, it's cool to get 2 B1G teams in and boy what a show it would be if it was UM vs OSU in the NC game. I will be curious to see how OSU fares against UGA and hope ya'll don't meltdown if a loss happens. I know The Game is important, but Day, Stroud, the team have had a strong season and strong careers & deserve recognition win or lose IMO.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I would argue it is a lot harder to win the Big Ten East than to make a conference title game in the Big 12 or Pac 12. Shoot, Penn State would probably win either of those conferences.
Guess we will see that opportunity in the Rose Bowl!
I agree too, but I also realize that thought process is speculative and without conclusive data. The conclusive data we have is one team (USC) earned the right to play in the conference championship at an 11-1 record and the other team (OSU) the other team did not with the same 11-1 record. The committee ranked USC ahead of OSU at that point. So, changing after the fact is punishing the team for playing a conference championship. If USC sat at home too and said no thanks to the conference championship they'd be in. That doesn't make sense in my mind.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Nice backhanded comment. Good thing you don't have a say in it.
It's not backhanded. I can see both sides. I can also recognize my bias, which is why I explain both sides.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Different conferences reward teams differently on how they place then in the title game. PAC12 and Big 12 don't have divisions, they take the best 2 teams. If the SEC and Big 10 did that, Ohio State and Michigan would've rematched and so would Tennessee and Georgia.
So your point on playing in a conference championship is kind of moot. Is Purdue a more deserving team than Ohio State because they played in a conference championship or were they beneficiaries of a flawed system?
Eddie! Eddie! Eddie!
I totally agree with this point. This is why I argued for the P5 to move to the same set up...no divisions, top two teams play in conference championship, no guaranteed games, rotating schedules...parity. But, since this is the system we have I still don't think it's fair to let a team that lost a conference championship game ahead of a team that didn't make it. If you want to compare both teams you compare them to the week before...both were 11-1 and USC was ranked ahead. That means regardless of how conferences choose their title participants, the committed thought USC was more deserved of a playoff spot than OSU and only the additional loss changed that and OSU was not forced to win another game to secure their birth.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
So when referring to the system in place when it comes to conference setup, it's fair in your estimation, but the system in place for the CFP isn't? I'll just use your own words, it's the system in place. Whether you think it's fair or not it's irrelevant, especially since your reasoning really lacks any consistent logic.
The CFP takes the 4 best teams in the committee's estimation. USC isn't close to Ohio State, just as Purdue isn't either. Making a conference title game (and losing) doesn't entitle anyone to a deserving spot in the playoffs in the system that's in place.
Eddie! Eddie! Eddie!
I don't think the system is fair. The system should be changed. But, we are forced to make a decision without fairness so you do your best to control for variables outside of your control.
I'm not sure that's the case. 11-1 vs 11-1 prior to the conference championship. USC has wins over Oregon & UCLA and a one point loss to Utah on the road prior to their conference championship. OSU has wins over ND & PSU and a 3 score loss to UM at home. I think USC has the better resume at that point and again you don't punish a team for losing a conference championship. I'd love to see a USC v OSU game. I think it would be a good game.
Agreed there
Neither should not having to play one. I'm not sure the system in place has a cut and dry stance on this. It seems to be at the discretion of each individual member of the committee. If I'm wrong on that I'd be curious to know if they have an actual policy that I'm unaware of.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The SP+ would disagree with you on USC's resume being better than Ohio State's. Perhaps if USC didn't get embarrassed for the better part of 3 quarters against 2 loss Utah, they'd had a chance. But they looked bad for most of the game. A second loss to Utah looks way worse than a loss to the #2 team in the nation. Especially when comparing the better wins.
You're letting your bias kick in too much. Only reason I can see Michigan fans thinking USC is more deserving than Ohio State is they aren't sure if Michigan could beat Ohio State in a rematch.
Eddie! Eddie! Eddie!
I get what you're saying but USC was blown out in that title game. They probably realized that OSU is a better team than USC which is true. Part of it is wanting to put the best 4 teams in.
OK, for these people whining that OSU is benefitting from staying at home, I'm guessing they want to reward USC for getting boat raced in their championship game and having 2 losses, or rewarding a 1 loss team behind OSU and jumping over them for staying home???
There's never any logic applied to these rantings, and they're just being amplified for drama, a "narrative", and ratings.
There's no critical thinking being applied.
"The minute I think I'm getting mellow, I'm retiring. Who ever heard of a mellow winner?" - WWH
Championship games aren't exhibitions, they should matter.
Not when they don't place the 2 best teams in the conference against each other. The Big Ten Championship game hasn't mattered since they went to an East and West division.
Eddie! Eddie! Eddie!
Who's fault is that? The teams playing or the system? This is fixed by the powers at be in 2024, but by the rules, the top 4 teams are in.
"The minute I think I'm getting mellow, I'm retiring. Who ever heard of a mellow winner?" - WWH
I was agreeing with you.
Gotcha
"The minute I think I'm getting mellow, I'm retiring. Who ever heard of a mellow winner?" - WWH
And I have a typo in my original comment. "or rewarding a 1 loss team behind OSU and jumping over them for staying home???" is supposed to be 2 loss team.
"The minute I think I'm getting mellow, I'm retiring. Who ever heard of a mellow winner?" - WWH
I think you're highlighting the issue here. There is not one set of logic all committee members are following. Some believe conference championship games should not hurt you if you lose and sitting at home should not help you...ie the only way teams move around after conference championship week is in relation to the other teams playing in those games, but the teams sitting at home are stuck where they are at. Others think they should matter and a loss should drop them out of the race if it's their 2nd loss. Some value the eye test...ala the idea of Bama getting in under the assumption they are one of the top 4 regardless of record. Others think record is all that matters. Then you have the issue of conference alignment. The problem is there is no policy for making these decisions and this just highlights why expansion is needed.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Whether expansion is needed or not is moot, we're getting it. Just like it will certainly go to 16 in the near future, I'm sure THAT expansion will be needed as well. For those for whom the dollars toll.
As far as your conference championship scenario goes, why would a team that loses it be automatically inserted in the playoffs just because they were in that positon the week prior? If the committee's job is to evaluate after each week, why couldn't the losing team's position fall to the next in line? If evaluated after that week, it seems that two losses are worse than one. THAT result should be able to change the committee's mind as to who that team is. It's not the first time it's happened, al. got in while sitting on the sidelines one year. Osu got in over big champ psu in another year. Those aren't scenarios that you can put in a playoff committee's written decree. All of the possibilities couldn't possibly be put in writing so that we'd have a clear recipe for every scenario, that'd be impossible to implement. The committee's job is to evaluate after each week, that shouldn't stop just because some teams are playing for league championships and others aren't. It should be obvious to all, that not all leagues are created equal, even if one takes out the amount of members or league contests. So the only fair way to assess is after EVERY week's set of games, whether they be championship or not.
You could also look at it like this, if osu and usc had lost their only game of the year the same week, which team do you think would have been rated higher the following week? Is it really fair to punish a team for when they lose? It's certainly possible if both teams had lost to the same teams by the same score in week 5, that osu would have been rated higher than usc prior to the league championship game, due the the body of work of the whole season. If that possibilty exists, then why punish osu twice when usc loses the league championship game?
To finish that scenario...if osu had been rated higher than usc going into the league championship game, and usc had won, it would only be right that they would be in the playoffs-after that week's evaluation from the committee.
So it would seem fair if one scenario favors usc, then the other result should favor osu.
How do you lose to a poor team and stay in place instead of dropping in the rankings? While I DON'T want SCUM again in the first round, TCU should be no better than fourth.
Sani
TCU made it to their championship game and lost in OT on a FG. They earned the 3 ranking.
"The minute I think I'm getting mellow, I'm retiring. Who ever heard of a mellow winner?" - WWH
I haven’t seen many betting lines but maybe only Penn St, TTUN, & Minnesota will be favored from the Big10
Big for the conference, no doubt, but who gives a shit? That conference pride crap needs to die.
Buckeyes VS. THE WORLD!
The Excellence of Execution, the Best there is, the Best there was, the Best there ever will be!