TCU and Baylor out! Ohio State in!

I thought they would matchup FSU and Alabama in the Sugar Bowl as well, but I thought they would do it by making Oregon #1 vs #4 Ohio State in the Rose Bowl and Alabama #2 vs FSU #3 in the Sugar.

That would have even appeased tradionalists who miss the days of the Pac vs Big Ten in the Rose Bowl.

There is definitely a good argument for Oregon to be #1 over Alabama. I think the committee went with Alabama since they had a hard on for the SEC West all season and because the Crimson Tide lost a road game whereas Oregon lost at home.

I agree with you completely and also thought about the Big 10 - Rose Bowl tie. Maybe I was wrong in thinking that 1-4 (Sugar) and 2-3 (Rose) was predetermined. If it wasn't your scenario of Oregon moving to #1 makes far better sense. The fact that they did not do this gave the committee 'a little' more respect from a conspiracy theory guy like me.

WWRD wrote:

There would be some "we should be #8" discussion in an 8 teamer, but not nearly this, why? Because the rest of the nation wouldn't care, if you can't get in the 8, your chances of winning it all aren't that good anyhow. Said another way, there is diminishing angst as you grow the field about the teams left out, either that or we do what the tard above keeps saying and play all 128 :)

"If you cant get in the 4, your chances of winning it aren't all that good anyhow." FIXED.

Plus, the nation doesn't really care anyways. It was discussed on monday by sports media outlets and now its done. Check espn for reference, not a single thing about it on the homepage since monday.

dial it up wrote:

Plus, I DON'T care anyways. I discussed THIS monday WITH MY sports BRAHS and now its done. Check espn for reference FOR MY PERSONAL REFERENCES...

^^FIXED

opinionated guy wrote:

I agree with you completely and also thought about the Big 10 - Rose Bowl tie. Maybe I was wrong in thinking that 1-4 (Sugar) and 2-3 (Rose) was predetermined. If it wasn't your scenario of Oregon moving to #1 makes far better sense. The fact that they did not do this gave the committee 'a little' more respect from a conspiracy theory guy like me.

No, they determine which bowls will be semifinals in advance, but not the match-up (1 vs 4, 2 vs 3) until after the teams are decided. There is some rule where the top seed will always play in the bowl closest to them.

So, no matter if Alabama or Oregon ended up the top seed, they were still going to the Sugar and Rose Bowls, respectively. Only thing that changed based on their seeds were the opponents they would be matched up against.

I think it actually worked out better for Oregon. I'd rather play Florida State in the Rose Bowl if I were the Ducks.

opinionated guy wrote:

Those that are complaining that TCU dropped from 3 to 6. It actually should be looked at like they stayed the same, but other teams rose above their stagnant position. Much like being 3rd in a race, running steady, but a few others have stronger finishes leaving you in 6th. FSU, OSU, and Baylor's race was not finished while TCU facing terrible Iowa State was.

It seems lost on everyone here (same poster) that this is not what's actually being said. Read my last post.

Let me put this another way. Week #14 of the committee's rankings, TCU was #5, just below Miss St., who was #4. TCU played their biggest rival and the team they most want to beat every year on Thanksgiving in Texas. Now, no one would argue that Texas was a great football team this year, but they are bowl eligible and they started to play really well in November, going undefeated and beating the tar out of WVU, who Baylor lost to.

So, fast forward, and TCU crushes Texas 48-10. TCU could've played Iowa St. that week instead and still been in the commitee's final four by virtue of Miss St.'s loss. Had they played Texas a week later with the same result, I doubt they fall out of the committee's top four, but it's possible with TOSU's stature.

If the shoe were on the other foot and TOSU had been ranked #3 or #4 and only beaten lowly Indiana during the last week, despite TCU's theoretical crushing of Texas a mere ten days later, the committee still would've decided Ohio State had done "enough" to preserve their spot. Why? Because they are "T"OSU and Urban Myth is the coach.

The consensus is that this is settled and it may be if TOSU manages to beat Alabama. But if history is any indication, that won't happen, and it will leave the door open to second guessing.

We can parse this any number of ways. Bama-TOSU, FSU-UO makes for good television and $$$.

The Big Ten just wasn't very good.

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that flexibility although it makes better sense.

I agree that Oregon matches up far better against FSU's defense than either OSU or Bama.

How many people have to explain this to you rube? If the schedule was changed around and OSU had beat Wisco by 59 earlier in the year then they would have already been ranked in the top 4 prior to the final rankings. Go back and re-read what people have told you. It is very cut and dry yet you keep arguing the same point despite having had it explained to you.

According to your link the big 10 had a better record in their non-conference games and a tougher strength of schedule.

Not necessarily by virtue of their loss to Va Tech. Plus, Wisco wasn't as great as people make them seem. They barely beat Iowa, the same Iowa that lost to the vaunted 2-10 ISU Cyclones. Even so, accepting your argument, if TCU's last game had been KSU or Baylor, and they beat them badly at a neutral site, TOSU still remains in the top four.

You're right, and I'm not exactly sure how their methodology works. But it is a hard comparison, because parity is lacking. For example, I could just as easily say the Big 12 went 2-0 against the Big Ten. I'm going to repost this as it is a compilation of all major ranking systems, not some "blog." Where is FSU?

"How many people have to explain this to you rube?"

How many people? That's a laugh. The "people" are just you and the multiple nicks you are using.

PS. I has been fun reverse trolling you. Two can play the game. :-)

Smooches . . . XoXoXOOXXOO

Well, there is only one me, though I have borrowed other's stats.

In any event, it is what it is. It will be interesting to watch TCU-Ole Miss (who some have ranked in the top four still) and Baylor-Mich St. In many ways, those will be more entertaining than Alabama-TOSU and FSU-UO.

TCU is better than Baylor. Just needed to get them late at a neutral site. Baylor doesn't play defense.

The overall point is that in this last weeks rankings, which are the only ones that really count(the rest was for tv) they take into account the full season resume. Which means no matter what order the games are played in, the wins and losses are the same.

Not sure why it matters where FSU ranks on some low quality website, they are the only team with a 0 in the L column so I would say that is all that really matters assuming you are a power 5 team.

How many peeps wrote:

"How many people have to explain this to you rube?"

How many people? That's a laugh. The "people" are just you and the multiple nicks you are using.

PS. I has been fun reverse trolling you. Two can play the game. :-)

Smooches . . . XoXoXOOXXOO

When you aren't getting enough attention and you have to post to point out that you are trolling, it kind of makes you a shitty troll. I like the effort though.

dial it up wrote:

Which means no matter what order the games are played in, the wins and losses are the same.

Kind of contradicts what you have been purporting all along. What really mattered was the last week, not the body of work. Unfortunately, TCU didn't have a good draw on their schedule the last week.

Not sure why it matters where FSU ranks on some low quality website, they are the only team with a 0 in the L column so I would say that is all that really matters assuming you are a power 5 team.

I agree and have already acknowledged you can't deny an undefeated team from a "power" conference. I am merely pointing out that almost all rankings systems have them behind TCU, Baylor, and TOSU. They are ranked as low as 15 in one.

This is a mess. Four teams doesn't solve anything unless you have two play-in games. All conferences need to be represented. The ACC is the weakest of them all.

Sixteen games are necessary to stop the madness. Eliminate the conference finals. The top teams from a conference can play each other 16 team playoff in one of the rounds.

It is exactly what I have been saying all along. My point summarized:

-Committee said previous weeks rankings hold no water the next week

-TCU was #3 because they played all of their quality games prior to the final weekend

-This is unlike OSU, FSU, and Baylor who all had quality games that were not factored into their resume yet until the final weekend

-Once the season long resumes were complete, TCU was where they should have been based on overall body of work.

This has nothing to do with whether I think TCU could beat Baylor, I think they are probably better. However, we have to utilize some sort of data. The only data we really can go on is who did you beat and where did they rank at the end.

Rube wrote:

They barely beat Iowa, the same Iowa that lost to the vaunted 2-10 ISU Cyclones. Even so, accepting your argument, if TCU's last game had been KSU or Baylor, and they beat them badly at a neutral site, TOSU still remains in the top four.

The ultimate delusion of the Ohio State defenders pumping up a domination of Wisconsin is this--when did Wisconsin (and their season long quarterback disaster) prove they are some type of juggernaut? Everything about Wisconsin screams that they are a classic case of, 'solid team in crappy conference (Big 10 West)'.

Wisconsin and Iowa State both played Iowa at Iowa. Iowa State won by 3, Wisconsin won by 2. They have no other common results. Wisconsin played a single one-loss team and lost by 59. Iowa State played two and lost by 21 and 52. If we accept that OSU, TCU and Baylor are comparable teams, then the only other directly comparable result on their schedules indicates that Wisconsin is more similar in quality to Iowa and Iowa State than OSU. I'd love to hear an OSU fan rationalize those facts.

A blowout win over Wisconsin simply shouldn't count for very much. A committee of 'experts' deciding the championship simply should not overlook this type of stuff. Either they didn't and chose OSU for other reasons (which is obviously the case, $$$), or they did and have proven they aren't qualified to make these decisions.

Nobody has to address your idiotic comparisons. None of them make sense or hold any value.

For example, Ohio state beat Minnesota by 7 points. Wisconsin beat Minnesota by 10 points. Ohio State beat Wisconsin by 59 points.

TCU beat Texas Tech by 55 points, Baylor beat Texas Tech by 2 points, Baylor beat TCU by 3 points.

Dallas beat Seattle by 7 points. Seattle beat Philadelphia by 10 points. Philadelphia beat Dallas by 23 points.

Follow the Cash just got pwned.

And to piggyback on the last guy - TCU beat Kansas by 4 points! Duke beat Kansas by 38 points! What must this mean about the relative strength of Duke and TCU?

Here the bottom line for both Baylor and TCU:

If you don't win all your games AND you play an FCS team AND your own conference won't crown you the sole champion, then you don't get to complain about not making the playoff.

Baylor Bears upcoming non-conference schedules:

2015:

SMU

Lamar (FCS)

Rice

2016:

NW State (FCS)

SMU

Rice

2017:

Liberty (FCS)

UTSA (a school that did not have a football team until 2011 - I kid you not)

Duke (this is the only non-conference game in the next five years in which Baylor will have to leave the state of Texas)

2018:

UTSA

Duke

2019:

Incarnate Word (WTF is this?)

UTSA

Rice

I'm not saying that Ohio State is definitely better than Baylor this year, but I'm really glad that the Bears didn't get in. I don't think you'll see many teams scheduling so tepidly in the future.