The way I see it
- Thread starter TDHelmick
- Start date
I would have to put Penn State up there (and I am by no means a Penn State fan) as deserving to make the college football playoffs. They won the Conference Championship in arguably the toughest conference in the country this year. Unfortunately I think the early season hiccup against Pitt is going to haunt them.
Yes the loss to Pitt counts. Not in the Big Ten standings but it does in the Playoff Standings. I would also add that if Oklahoma had played SMU instead of Ohio State, they would be in the playoffs. Strength of non-conference schedule killed them.
Probably right especially if you ask Vegas. They just happened to stumble late in the cornfields of Iowa without their starting QB. Injuries play such a huge role, more today then ever before with players getting bigger, stronger, faster. Many NFL and college teams look like a MASH unit on any given year where literally 7 starters are out. You have to be lucky when it comes to injuries.
Crowning a national champion has never been about how good a team is at the end of the year, but the entire body of work. I actually have USC as #2 in my Top 25 if you want to take into account how good a team is right now. But as you can see, the Top 4 playoff teams I had were the same as what was announced to no surprise. I really could not understand why some folks still feel Penn State got snubbed. Two loss teams never get in. I've heard the argument, well if Penn State plays Cal Poly instead of Pitt and wins then they get in. Well sure, but you can play that game with anyone. If Oklahoma plays SMU instead of Ohio State they get in. I would also add that if Penn State is better than anyone in that Top 4 it would be Clemson. Not impressed with them this year, especially on defense.
Guess I'll find out in the Orange Bowl on Dec. 30 how good Michigan is
Washington strength of out of conference schedule was 127 out of 128 in FBS. PSU wins conference championship and beats Ohio State. If this is the way it's going to be, why have conference championship games. 2 out of 4 in playoffs are conference champs, should not all 4 be a conference champ? Just an ol hillbilly's opinion.
2 losses should supersede a conf championship. Penn st should not be thought of over Mich because Mich beat them 49-10. It's that simple. Mich lost to OSU in OT on a sketchy spot.
What theprocessworks just said. If you apply the Penn State over Ohio State then Michigan had the same record and beat PSU by 39 points. Wouldn't that be an edge? Being conference champ is not a prerequisite obviously. Nor should it be. Non-conference games have to count.
The only argument you can make against Washington is their non-con SOS. I get that. But I thought the Pac 12 was good enough to overcome it. Especially the beat down they put on a very good Top 10 ranked Colorado team. The one the put on Stanford even more. The beat down they put on Wazzu was nuts. I'm not a fan of margin of victory, don't like to refer to it that way. There is no difference between beating a team by 60 points or 35 points. But when you see a team like Washington continually pound some good quality opponents it's legit. USC is another story. And I think PSU is about to find that out in Pasadena.
We will always have this argument every year about who got left out. What's crazy is that this process makes college football that much more popular. People like controversy. Expanding the playoff field does not relieve the controversy.
The only argument you can make against Washington is their non-con SOS. I get that. But I thought the Pac 12 was good enough to overcome it. Especially the beat down they put on a very good Top 10 ranked Colorado team. The one the put on Stanford even more. The beat down they put on Wazzu was nuts. I'm not a fan of margin of victory, don't like to refer to it that way. There is no difference between beating a team by 60 points or 35 points. But when you see a team like Washington continually pound some good quality opponents it's legit. USC is another story. And I think PSU is about to find that out in Pasadena.
We will always have this argument every year about who got left out. What's crazy is that this process makes college football that much more popular. People like controversy. Expanding the playoff field does not relieve the controversy.
Don't count out Cal Poly Helmick, Does Stefan Djordjevic still play for them? You remember him from Ampipe right?
Pitt beat both Penn State and Clemson this year, 2 of the top 5, and they took Oklahoma State to the wire on the road. I agree that 2 loss teams shouldn't get in if there are quality 1 loss teams like Washington. There is always some luck involved, Clemson should have lost to NC State if the kid makes a layup FG. Clemson was very lucky this year but they are talented enough to beat Ohio State.
Similar threads
