Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tour2ma

Bucks are "In" at #3...

Recommended Posts

Going to play #2 Clemson in round one.

 

Other half of bracket will match up BAMA and Washington.

 

Michigan finsihed at #6 with #5 going to PSU.

 

 

 

Three Big Ten (or so) in the top six...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Clemson game is gonna be tight. If they manage that game I just don't have high hopes against Alabama. The defense is gonna be tested against Clemson, and then they're gonna have to

come back and be on the field against Alabama all game long. Bucks defense is as good as anyone in college but that offense is gonna sputter out against Alabama unless urb has been keeping jt's downfield throwing prowess under wraps. They will not move the ball against Alabama if jt can't throw over the pressing lb'ers, which he hasn't been able to do all season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suck a cock, Penn State.

 

... on second thought, do NOT do that.

 

Oh yeah just got that. ;)

 

Nice season for Penn State and the BIG BAD TEN , should be good again at the top next year!

 

And long live JoePa and $#% what's his name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah just got that. ;)

 

Nice season for Penn State and the BIG BAD TEN , should be good again at the top next year!

 

And long live JoePa and $#% what's his name.

OK, who is What's his name. Let me guess: Mark May?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't shock me to know youre a State Penn fan.

Moral of the story.....don't lose to Pitt. Don't lose a game by 39 pts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moral of the story.....don't lose to Pitt. Don't lose a game by 39 pts.

But it's ok to lose to PSU, the team that won the conference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't shock me to know youre a State Penn fan.

My daughter graduated from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's ok to lose to PSU, the team that won the conference

One loss by 3 points, yes, is OK.....as long as you have beaten 3 other top Ten programs.

 

Lose to the #5 ranked team as your only loss? That's OK.

 

Don't lose to 23rd ranked Pitt. Don't lose to unranked Iowa. Don't lose a game by 39 points.

 

The committee looks at who you beat...and who you lost to. They talk about PSU having the best victory because they beat the #2/3 team in the nation. But OSU beat the #3 team in the nation....and the #7 and #8.

And their loss was to the #5 ranked team.

 

Besides....remember, PSU and OSU tied for the division crown.....but under tie breaker rules, the team with the head to head goes to the title game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moral of the story.....don't lose to Pitt. Don't lose a game by 39 pts.

Exactly!! Don't lose twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I'm obviously happy OSU is in and I think they had a strong argument to be in the field as well. However, I'm also not disagreeing that the CFP needs to clear this shit up a little bit too.

 

If Ohio State got in because of a strong schedule they navigated well (which I totally get) that sets the idea of SOS as a critically important. However, by that logic why did Washington get in over PSU? They also tell us that winning the conference and head-2-head are critically important . By that logic, even with 2 losses why did PSU get left out over OSU? Does it really show that 2 losses pretty much eliminates you from contention barring incredible circumstances?

 

At the end of the day, I think the only team they messed up was Washington over PSU. They literally only beat one team worth a crap (Colorado) who got beaten by the 3rd best team by ranking in the B10 conference. I get why people are pointing fingers at OSU, but leaving a team out with one loss who has beaten the 6th, 7th, 8th best teams would be total nonsense no matter the conference outcome. The problem is that conference routes aren't created equal which obviously heavily favored OSU as well.

 

Point is, the CFP committee could have sent a clear signal with Alabama, OSU, Clemson, and Penn St. That 4 team bracket would show that winning a conference matters AND that having a strong OOC schedule matters as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Jrb, they could clear a lot up still

 

Yeah-the problem as well is that they contradicted themselves specifically with OSU the past few years as well. In 2014 they made a very overt statement that winning a conference championship game was important. In 2016 with the same team they made the overt statement that a strong schedule was important. What I'd want cleared up if I was a school with legit playoff hopes is this:

 

Which is MOST important between head-to-head, conference championship, or strength of schedule?

 

This would, IMO, heavily dictate how universities attack creating schedules for future years. It's becoming too much of a scapegoat for them to say "we look at all of these things and weigh them as appropriate" when you send very mixed signals on which you see as important year to year. I mean I get it, it's an imperfect science that I'm fine with not being written in stone. But let's say the CFP says that conference championships are considered most important. You could easily see universities over the next 5 years plan much fewer games like Oklahoma v. OSU because they want their record in-tact before conference scheduling begins.

 

If it were me? I'd start all day SOS and common opponents. Conference games are pretty standard in how they are played year in and year out. Sometimes you get the luck of the draw (like PSU) and really only have to beat 1-2 similar talent teams in order to make it the conference championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I'm obviously happy OSU is in and I think they had a strong argument to be in the field as well. However, I'm also not disagreeing that the CFP needs to clear this shit up a little bit too.

 

If Ohio State got in because of a strong schedule they navigated well (which I totally get) that sets the idea of SOS as a critically important. However, by that logic why did Washington get in over PSU? They also tell us that winning the conference and head-2-head are critically important . By that logic, even with 2 losses why did PSU get left out over OSU? Does it really show that 2 losses pretty much eliminates you from contention barring incredible circumstances?

 

At the end of the day, I think the only team they messed up was Washington over PSU. They literally only beat one team worth a crap (Colorado) who got beaten by the 3rd best team by ranking in the B10 conference. I get why people are pointing fingers at OSU, but leaving a team out with one loss who has beaten the 6th, 7th, 8th best teams would be total nonsense no matter the conference outcome. The problem is that conference routes aren't created equal which obviously heavily favored OSU as well.

 

Point is, the CFP committee could have sent a clear signal with Alabama, OSU, Clemson, and Penn St. That 4 team bracket would show that winning a conference matters AND that having a strong OOC schedule matters as well.

 

I am not a fan of the huskies ofc schedule it was a joke,but to say they did not beat anyone besides the buffalos is just wrong they rolled the cardinals and the cougers also beat the utes and pretty much stepped on the throats of all the lower ranked pac-12 teams now as far as penn state there ofc is not that strong and they lost one of those and of their two quality wins they won those both with a combined 10 points,so it came down to which champ they wanted in a one loss team or a two loss team also to dig a little deeper the huskies lost to usc while penn lost to pitt and got killed by m,so ya know just saying I really do not see a argument for penn getting in over washington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am not a fan of the huskies ofc schedule it was a joke,but to say they did not beat anyone besides the buffalos is just wrong they rolled the cardinals and the cougers also beat the utes and pretty much stepped on the throats of all the lower ranked pac-12 teams now as far as penn state there ofc is not that strong and they lost one of those and of their two quality wins they won those both with a combined 10 points,so it came down to which champ they wanted in a one loss team or a two loss team also to dig a little deeper the huskies lost to usc while penn lost to pitt and got killed by m,so ya know just saying I really do not see a argument for penn getting in over washington

 

First off holy moly use a period to break sentences up.

 

Washington beats the teams ending up ranked 10th, 18th, and 19th. Penn State beat teams ending up ranked 3rd, 8th, and 24th.SOS strongly favors PSU as well by most metrics. The one I like to use had Washington ranked 41st while Penn St was at 16. http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm. Penn St. objectively played in the harder conference and won it while beating its best team in the process (OSU). The ONLY negative PSU has is losing twice, literally that's it.

 

So yes, there is objectively using facts and data an argument for why PSU should have gotten in over Washington. That is EXACTLY as I noted before the CFP needs to better clarify what they are looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

First off holy moly use a period to break sentences up.

 

Washington beats the teams ending up ranked 10th, 18th, and 19th. Penn State beat teams ending up ranked 3rd, 8th, and 24th.SOS strongly favors PSU as well by most metrics. The one I like to use had Washington ranked 41st while Penn St was at 16. http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm. Penn St. objectively played in the harder conference and won it while beating its best team in the process (OSU). The ONLY negative PSU has is losing twice, literally that's it.

 

So yes, there is objectively using facts and data an argument for why PSU should have gotten in over Washington. That is EXACTLY as I noted before the CFP needs to better clarify what they are looking for.

 

hey I noticed a couple of comma's up there

GO BUCKS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×