NCAA Week 13 Aftermath: Your season sucked, but you might go bowling anyway

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Football Funhouse > NCAA Week 13 Aftermath: Your season sucked, but you might go bowling anyway

downout: Jul 6, 2009

falz posted:

So the rankings going in to the weekend were

1 - Alabama (0 loss)
2 - Ohio State (1 loss)
3 - Michigan (1 loss)
4 - Clemson (1 loss)
5 - Washington (1 loss)
6 - Wisconsin (2 loss)
7 - Penn State (2 loss)

I would think they would do this at the top:

1 - Alabama (0 loss)
2 - Clemson (1 loss) +1
3 - Ohio State (1 loss) -1
4 - Washington (1 loss) +1
5 - Wisconsin (2 loss) +1
6 - Penn State (2 loss) +1
7 - Michigan (2 loss) -4

That way they could seamlessly flip flop Washington and B10 champ after its outcome without anyone moving lots of spots.

Edit: per a few posts down, also would keep Bama from playing Clemson first round.

I don't see the committee putting Michigan behind PSU/Wisconsin. I could see some argument for Wisconsin over UM, but PSU has a similar record as UM and lost to them. Bet PSU gets boned by OSU for the playoff spot even with a BIG champ win. Here is my Tuesday prediction:

1 - Alabama (0 loss)
2 - Ohio State (1 loss)
3 - Clemson (1 loss) +1
4 - Washington (1 loss) +1
5 - Michigan (2 loss) -2
6 - Wisconsin (2 loss)
7 - Penn State (2 loss)

# ¿ Nov 27, 2016 20:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:57

downout: Jul 6, 2009

So I kind of wanted to do a more complete eval of the playoff chances between PSU and OSU than just guessing. So I checked the committee's doc on it here.

Playoff Committee posted:

When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must
be considered:
 Championships won
 Strength of schedule
 Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
 Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)
...
Strength of schedule, head-to-head competition and championships won must be specifically
applied as tie-breakers between teams that look similar;

This is where it gets tricky. Would the committee consider PSU to look similar to OSU with a B1G champ game win? If just considering records against bowl-eligible teams, then no. PSU would have 7 wins over bowl-eligible teams and OSU would have 8. (I didn't double check these, but I think this is right math.)

Let's assume that they do, then the criteria above would be used. I think this is where it turns into a complete mess for the committee because everything cancels out.

PSU
Conf. Champ +1
Head-to-Head +1

OSU
Common Opp UM +1
SOS (2) +1

Going back to records being the ultimate comparison, I would guess the committee gives it to OSU over PSU due to final W/L record based on opponent quality.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2016 20:16

downout: Jul 6, 2009

Rad Valtar posted:

If Penn State had the same record as Ohio State I would understand completely them jumping up. It boggles my mind how college football fans can prioritize conference record over overall record. It's certainly not the norm in sports so I don't know if most of you just don't watch other sports leagues.

If they had the same number of losses with one more win over a bowl-eligible team, then I bet the committee puts them over OSU. Not this time.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2016 20:33

downout: Jul 6, 2009

Lasagna Pilot posted:

I think OSU is definitely in, the question is whether their decision to put OSU in is going to impact their thoughts on putting the 2-loss Big Ten champ in. So for example is PSU going to be evaluated vs. Washington straight up, or are they going to play games as far as deciding whether PSU needs to be in because they let OSU in, or maybe PSU needs to be out because they already have a Big Ten team in.

I hadn't even considered that, but if the committee follows the bowl-eligible metric, then PSU should jump Washington (if they both win conf champ games). If they don't then it the committee uses the straight-up W/L record in determining if the teams look similar. Which ever direction the committee goes will create precedent for how metrics are evaluated.

I see three scenarios assuming both PSU and Wash win their conferences:
If PSU and Wash are both in, then it means somehow the committee found OSU and PSU similar enough to go to the further criteria.
If OSU and PSU are in then it means the 'look similar' part wasn't met for Wash and bowl-eligible wins mean a lot.
If Wash and OSU are in then it means W/L records can mean more than bowl-eligible wins.

Any of these could be invalid if the committee has a broader definition of 'look similar' than I'm using here.

# ¿ Nov 30, 2016 00:29

downout: Jul 6, 2009

The Notorious ZSB posted:

Penn State/Wisconsins best hope is for CU and VT to win. Otherwise it looks like Michigan is next up to slip in should only 1 of them fall. Also the only way I see 2 Big10 teams getting in is if two of the top 4 falter. If only one goes down Big 10 champ is prb setup to jump Michigan with the bonus of a conference championship.

I could def see CU leaping them esp if they pound Washington and Clemson holds serve to avoid this all Big 10 thing. They're hanging close enough. No way they put 3 Big 10 teams in right with 2 upsets? Alabama, OSU, Mich, Big10 champ

This is likely not going happen, as UM is probably out. With a win PSU would have 11 wins to match UM and a conference championship (SOS close enough it'll be ignored). If Wisc wins, then UM might stay in but I doubt it.

This is nearly identical to 2014 wrt OSU and TCU. OSU had a conference championship, the same number of wins as TCU, and a much stronger SOS. It was an easy call for the committee then. They'll do the same this time, and it would be fairly consistent.

# ¿ Nov 30, 2016 14:22

downout: Jul 6, 2009

MyStereoHasMono posted:

Hypothetically, if there were two teams who were in the same division, who were undefeated before the final regular season game, and both teams had beaten several other top 10 teams (including OOC) pretty handily, and somehow the rest of the teams in the top 10 had four losses, and one team beats the other by only a few points, would you still say the loser of that game shouldn't be in the playoff because they didn't win their division, given that the "mission statement" of the playoff is to give spots to the four best teams?

Obviously this is an extreme example and this isn't the case this year, but just establishing the idea that "ok, I guess I wouldnt ALWAYS agree you have to win your division." OSU would also be in the conference championship if the lines were drawn differently and they were in the other B1G division, so you're basically arguing they don't deserve to be in because geography?

I think it sucks for any of the teams up for a spot don't get in. PSU/Wisconsin should be in because they would be the champion of the best conference and are ranked high. Ohio State should be in because they have three wins against the top 9 and only lost to #7 by three, on the road at night. Washington should be in because they won their conference with one loss. (assuming they win).

Here's the thing about Washington, though. Their OOC schedule is dogshit. Ohio State scheduled Oklahoma. By favoring them over Ohio State you are saying winning your conference weighs more than scheduling OOC, so why really bother doing that?

Now you could say "Well, those OOC games can be a boost if there's two similar/equal teams." Good point, but that is precisely how the playoff committee said they would also view conference championships. In '14 they apparently viewed OSU and TCU as "similar teams" and gave OSU the nod because of the extra point, given that both had weak OOC schedules.

I suppose you could argue that Penn state would get a "point" for being conference champion, OSU would get a "point" for their OOC win, and Penn State's head to head victory should give them the edge over OSU, if that's what it came down to.

Which basically brings me back to my main point which is that it'd be cool if people approached the likely impending controversy as "Yeah, this is tough, this is tricky, each team has a legit argument" rather than "NOPE OPTION X IS SO STUPID CANT YA SEE HOW OBVIOUS THIS IS!!"

There is also the common opponent comparison between OSU and PSU (UM). It's certainly bound to be messy. All the more reason to keep it at four. The limit creates controversy and which breeds interest.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2016 00:21

downout: Jul 6, 2009

kittenmittons posted:

So Ohio State should not be in the Playoff over two teams that they beat and have a better record than, because they had enough close games that they could've had a worse record and not beaten them?

This. Rewarding teams for playing cupcakes and not winning, sounds great!

# ¿ Dec 1, 2016 01:59

downout: Jul 6, 2009

TheGreyGhost posted:

Their entire personnel was tailored for Flood's weird "I think we should do Manball but not call it manball" take on offense, and it shows when you realize they were trying to run what was functionally the OSU Meyer/Tom Herman power spread without a running component from the QB or any skill guys outside of Grant pre-injury that can open up the passing game. Laviano and Giovanni whatever the gently caress his name was are both pocket passers with no business running the read option game that the system needs to keep the run game from getting stoned. Their only decent receiver got hurt, and the other receivers wouldn't even make the team at most teams in the conference. Don't blame Mehringer for failing to instantly transform their offense when he's dealing with the tar pit that is the Rutgers talent pool right now. If they get some decent talent, they can probably be okay at it, though that doesn't help the fact that they're guaranteed games against OSU, Michigan, Penn State, and Sparty every year.

However, if they should need a new offensive coordinator from the Meyer/Herman tree, we have very good deals on the gently used Ed Warriner model and are offering a clearance deal on the Tim Beck model.

I'd just like to say, I'm so happy that I'm not the only person on the 'maybe Warriner and Beck can gtfo' train.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2016 15:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:57

downout: Jul 6, 2009

Relentlessboredomm posted:

Yep, he was absurd in college. Shame he was ancient.

Although, he did manage to turn it into riding the bench for 4 or 5 years in the NFL making a decent chunk of change so it's hard to feel too bad for him.

This is my favorite Weinke play:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWgC3zOtEQ0

1. I love the balls to try this when you're on your own 1 yard line.

2. Look how loving casual he is with that Play Action fake.

gd that crowd! Good stuff.

edit: sic play too

# ¿ Dec 2, 2016 19:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Football Funhouse > NCAA Week 13 Aftermath: Your season sucked, but you might go bowling anyway