Penn State should be there instead of UW

[kemajic]

Many people in general don't like the participation ribbon when competing. The effort that needs to be made is to win.

So why then should a team like Ohio State, who didn't even play in the conference championship get a chance to play for the National Championship? Guess its their participation ribbon, and winning the conference means nothing.

Winning the conference championship might mean something if the conferences were of equal strength top to bottom, had the same number of members and conference games, and most importantly, had balanced schedules. Try to name one of those that favors your argument. The playoff was designed to match up the four best teams; and using a multitude of criteria and information they have arrived at the best possible, if not perfect, result. OSU has a chance to play for the NC because they have demonstrated that they are one of the top four teams. Same for Udub.

 

[Griz2k]

Many people in general don't like the participation ribbon when competing. The effort that needs to be made is to win.

So why then should a team like Ohio State, who didn't even play in the conference championship get a chance to play for the National Championship? Guess its their participation ribbon, and winning the conference means nothing.

why should Youngstown St get a chance to play for the National Championship when they didn't even finish top 2 in their own conference?

 

[Griz2k]

Many people in general don't like the participation ribbon when competing. The effort that needs to be made is to win.

So why then should a team like Ohio State, who didn't even play in the conference championship get a chance to play for the National Championship? Guess its their participation ribbon, and winning the conference means nothing.

why should Youngstown St get a chance to play for the National Championship when they didn't even finish top 2 in their own conference?

Did the other two teams above them in their conference make the playoffs?

 

[Eriul]

Just go to 8. You can make an argument for quite a few teams being in the top 4. Why not eliminate the bullshit and just put 8 in. More money

 

[AZDoc]

Many people in general don't like the participation ribbon when competing. The effort that needs to be made is to win.

So why then should a team like Ohio State, who didn't even play in the conference championship get a chance to play for the National Championship? Guess its their participation ribbon, and winning the conference means nothing.

I agree they should not be in the final 4. Are they one of the best 4? Yes. But, they didn't win their conference...and really, they didn't even win their division within their conference to participate in that championship. Should be Penn St instead, even with the 2 loses. This, though is what it's all about. Who's better and who deserves it. We did the same when asking if a 7-4 Griz team would be in the playoffs. I think Washington deserves to be in it, but don't think they are one of the best 4. Probably 5 or 6 honestly. This can be debated for hours.

 

[AZDoc]

Many people in general don't like the participation ribbon when competing. The effort that needs to be made is to win.

So why then should a team like Ohio State, who didn't even play in the conference championship get a chance to play for the National Championship? Guess its their participation ribbon, and winning the conference means nothing.

why should Youngstown St get a chance to play for the National Championship when they didn't even finish top 2 in their own conference?

You can't compare a 4 team tournament to a 49 team (or however many FCS there are) bracket. This wouldn't even be a conversation if there were 8 teams. 5 champs + 3 at large. or even a 6 team with 1 at large and top 2 get bye week. The difference is that there are some criteria in major college football to pick teams. One really should be conference champ. Do we remember the days when teams lost conference championships and cost them chance for national title? There is a reason that the committee does "reserve the right to pick who we want", and that's money. OSU = money.
Again, I agree that they are the top 4 teams, but don't feel they've earned that right to play for it.
Everyone has their opinion. Makes for something to talk about during this crappy season's downtime until Feb 1st.

 

[kemajic]

Many people in general don't like the participation ribbon when competing. The effort that needs to be made is to win.

So why then should a team like Ohio State, who didn't even play in the conference championship get a chance to play for the National Championship? Guess its their participation ribbon, and winning the conference means nothing.

why should Youngstown St get a chance to play for the National Championship when they didn't even finish top 2 in their own conference?

You can't compare a 4 team tournament to a 49 team (or however many FCS there are) bracket. This wouldn't even be a conversation if there were 8 teams. 5 champs + 3 at large. or even a 6 team with 1 at large and top 2 get bye week. The difference is that there are some criteria in major college football to pick teams. One really should be conference champ. Do we remember the days when teams lost conference championships and cost them chance for national title? There is a reason that the committee does "reserve the right to pick who we want", and that's money. OSU = money.
Again, I agree that they are the top 4 teams, but don't feel they've earned that right to play for it.
Everyone has their opinion. Makes for something to talk about during this crappy season's downtime until Feb 1st.

Sure; Obama's opinion is the dems lost the elections because of the Russians.

 

[IdaGriz01]

Many people in general don't like the participation ribbon when competing. The effort that needs to be made is to win.

So why then should a team like Ohio State, who didn't even play in the conference championship get a chance to play for the National Championship? Guess its their participation ribbon, and winning the conference means nothing.

Right now, the accomplishment that garners the most FBS prestige is to be part of the four-team playoff. That being the case, I would suggest that the conference championships are "participation ribbons." It sure feels that way.

Personally, I think it's just a matter of time before they go to an eight-team format. It could have happened (and was much discussed) that UW's weak OOC schedule got them bumped in favor of Penn State. Then two power-five conferences would have been left out of the playoff. When that actually does happen, an eight-team playoff won't be far behind, IMO.

FWIW, while meaningless participation ribbons -- given to everyone no matter what the effort (or lack thereof) -- annoy me, I do believe there are situations where they are justified. That does not, BTW, include being "rewarded" with a bowl game when you compiled a 5-7 season record (i.e. North Texas and Mississippi State). It's equally ridiculous that 17 teams (if I counted right) with 6-6 records are going to bowl games. In fact, three bowls have matchups between two 6-6 teams. How crazy is that?

 

[AZDoc]

Many people in general don't like the participation ribbon when competing. The effort that needs to be made is to win.

So why then should a team like Ohio State, who didn't even play in the conference championship get a chance to play for the National Championship? Guess its their participation ribbon, and winning the conference means nothing.

why should Youngstown St get a chance to play for the National Championship when they didn't even finish top 2 in their own conference?

You can't compare a 4 team tournament to a 49 team (or however many FCS there are) bracket. This wouldn't even be a conversation if there were 8 teams. 5 champs + 3 at large. or even a 6 team with 1 at large and top 2 get bye week. The difference is that there are some criteria in major college football to pick teams. One really should be conference champ. Do we remember the days when teams lost conference championships and cost them chance for national title? There is a reason that the committee does "reserve the right to pick who we want", and that's money. OSU = money.
Again, I agree that they are the top 4 teams, but don't feel they've earned that right to play for it.
Everyone has their opinion. Makes for something to talk about during this crappy season's downtime until Feb 1st.

Sure; Obama's opinion is the dems lost the elections because of the Russians.

:lol: And that's what makes it fun. We all know it was the North Korean Fat Toad

 

[Eriul]

I thought the dems lost because there's 60 million white supremacists who voted for trump...

Now it's the Russians...

I don't know who to blame! Certainly not Hillary she's a DELIGHT

 

[Sam A. Blitz]

I don't think anyone said the Dems lost elections because of Russian interference. The concern is that Russian hackers tried to influence the election. That should be a major concern for everyone, including Trump.

 

[catsack]

I don't think anyone said the Dems lost elections because of Russian interference. The concern is that Russian hackers tried to influence the election. That should be a major concern for everyone, including Trump.

The Russians did what most news stations wouldn't do leak the truth about the Clintons, now put the Clintons in prison, won't happen Obama will pardon them!!

 

[IdaGriz01]

Strange. "Technically" this thread doesn't really belong on this forum ... but at least it was about football for awhile. To bring it back to that ... here goes.

I got to wondering what an eight-team playoff might look like. Trouble is, the NCAA gives us just a rank, without letting us in on the actual numbers. And, of course, they really only look hard at the very top. So … we’ll use their rankings along with some other power rankings where we have actual numbers.

We start with one rule: The P-5 conference champions are all in. That decision is made easier by the fact that those champions are all in the top eight NCAA ranking (those rankings in parens): Alabama (SEC, 1), Clemson (ACC, 2), Washington (P-12, 4), Penn State (B-10, 5) and Oklahoma (B-12, 7).

Now we’re going to need a second rule, which I have heard discussed … so it’s not new: No P-5 conference can have more than two teams in the playoff. That adds Ohio State (3), but bumps Michigan (6) and Wisconsin (8).

We need two more, and that brings teams like Southern Cal, Colorado, Florida State and some others into the mix. Trouble is, when you get that far down, you need better numbers than the crude NCAA rankings. So I combined an ESPN number, Sagarin and one other. Adding up those more detailed values gave me a clear choice of Southern Cal and Florida State. They were less than 2 points apart, with nearly a 5-point drop to Colorado. (That difference was almost entirely the ESPN power number, where the Buffs got hammered.)

So my bracket would look like this:
Florida State (9-3) at Alabama (13-0)
USC (9-3) at Clemson (12-1)
Oklahoma (10-2) at Ohio State (11-1)
Penn State (11-2) at Washington (12-1)

Of course, Oklahoma and Ohio State played during the regular season, so you might want to break that up and have
USC (9-3) at Ohio State (11-1)
Oklahoma (10-2) at Clemson (12-1)

Any way you do it, these all look like they would be great games.

FWIW, in this scenario, the Rose Bowl would end up with Wisconsin (10-3) versus Colorado (10-3). That seems like it would be a good matchup.

 

[grizband]

Everyone has a fair chance from the beginning of the year. Only the winner of the conference should be eligible to play for the NC. You dont win your conference you don't go.

Thus Penn State over Ohio State. Doesn't matter that they had a blow out loss to Michigan. They won the Big 10, Michigan did not.

So you can pick 4 of these...

AAC - Temple
ACC - Clemson*
Big 12 - Oklahoma
Big 10 - Penn State*
ConfUSA - Western Kentucky
MAC - Western Michigan
MWC - San Diego State
Pac 12 - Washington*
SEC - Alabama*
Sun Belt - App State?

This approach is very simple.

-- it eliminates the need for a "tough" OOC schedule, which IMO can be harder for some schools (ie BSU) to create
-- no one can complain, you win, you're eligible
-- human bias is minimized (meaning rankings - which are subjective)
-- It's fair to everyone from day 1, every player knows they MUST win their conference, and not rely on others to vote them
-- it forces every conference to have a championship, and the independents to join a conference including Notre Dame
-- it makes sense

And because of the last one, it will never happen. And of course money. Personally I'd like to see all 10 get in, Seeds 1-6 get byes in week 1.

Of course people would complain anyway because its human nature....even here people will complain about it.

My picks have *

I think the committee is trying to get the best 4 teams in the playoffs and just because you win your conference doesn't mean you are the best team in that conference. If the bean counters would do away with the conference championship games and a non-conference game and they could expand the playoffs to 8 teams. You can bet your butt that any decisions made will be in the best interest of the student athlete and not based on monetary gains.

I disagree with the premise "the best 4". That doesnt apply in many sports, look no further than Baseball or Football where wildcards win their respective championships. If they want to be the "best" then win their conference. The best win IMO, not rely on Joe Schmo saying they are.

And yes I understand what you are saying, and agree with that is what they are trying to do. I just prefer the simple direct approach.

North Dakota State didn't win their conference this year. Then, they destroyed the team who did in the playoffs on Saturday...

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk