Team 137 by Jim Harbaugh. Football talk and Predictions.

[iam416]

Hard to argue. Ohio State recorded zero impressive wins all year. They basically beat teams by far less than they should have, without exception, and shit the bed against the only decent, well-coached team they played.

[Rocky Bleier]

Ha! I saw what you did there, Slick - excluding Michigan as a decent well-coached team.

[iam416]

Well, I enjoy the "shit on OSU" vs HARBAUGH!!!! tension, Rocky.

War Bills!

[Tom W]

Urbs used his silver bullet to get Florida into the BCS title game after the 2006 season. Karma has a way of working itself out- and to think that OSU getting shafted TWICE in the deal is kinda cool.

[Da Geezer]

What did OSU do to be considered for the playoff?

Well, how about beating UM like a rented mule?

I agree with parts of what JRB said above. I think it is going to be very difficult for any conference to get two teams into the playoffs. Assuming that, I can see why "the committee" chose MSU. My point is that MSU was not even close to one of the four best teams in the country. I have no love for OSU, but they had one chance to make up for the terrible game plan against MSU, and they did so in spades. I believe that OSU's obsessive focus on UM may have cost them the week before against MSU.

The whole thing is caused by the B10 West being so terrible. As I said here several times, they should move UM and MSU to the West and replace them with NW and Purdue going to the East. Then just let the schedules revolve, and if UM misses Ohio in a given year, so be it. The Game meant a whole lot more when it was the last game of the year between the two best teams in the B10 fighting for one, and only one, bowl slot. Now the most The Game can mean is the title in the East, and a shot at the CCG.

Besides, The Victors says we are in the west, and if the B10 needs that to justify moving just UM to the West, that would be fine.
I will never understand why the two strongest programs have to subsidize the rest of the B10. Why not TRY to set up a UM v Ohio CCG?

[CGVT]

Going into the playoff MSU looked to be as good as any team in the country and they won their conference.

OSU beat a two loss team for its signature win. That's not much to hang your hat on.

It you are going to place a team in the tourney based on talent and potential you should just pencil in LSU every year.

[iam416]

Well, as long as you don't care about QB play, LSU is fine. Otherwise, that's silly.

I think a lot of people thought Ohio State was as good as anyone in the country. They thought they were solid in all phases. They played an inexplicably bad game against Michigan State. That happens. That doesn't necessarily mean MSU is a better team or that you were wrong about OSU...any more than when Ole Miss beat Alabama.

I think OSU, at their best, is on par with anyone in the country. They weren't at their best, or even remotely close, in a game that mattered and so they're out. That's fair. Still, that doesn't invalidate the former opinion. Obviously.

[Pasadena Blue]

I guess the point, is are you truly going to select the best 4 teams for the playoffs, or are you going to hold out a team for a single inexplicably bad game. Was 'Bama's loss to Ole Miss any better than the Bucks loss?

The point of using a Committee is that you can use the eyeball test and ignore all of the other stuff that biases polls.

The top 4 should have been O-state, 'Bama, Clemson, and Stanford --- would have loved to see Urbz-Satan redux.

[lineygoblue]

I don't think there's much question, that as things have turned out,

Stanford >>>>>>> MSU

and The Cardinal probably deserved to be there more than MSU, in spite of the extra loss. As I've stated before, and nobody has convinced me otherwise, I can make a strong case that MSU should have had at least 3 losses, and maybe even as many as 5.

[CGVT]

Well, as long as you don't care about QB play, LSU is fine. Otherwise, that's silly.

I think a lot of people thought Ohio State was as good as anyone in the country. They thought they were solid in all phases. They played an inexplicably bad game against Michigan State. That happens. That doesn't necessarily mean MSU is a better team or that you were wrong about OSU...any more than when Ole Miss beat Alabama.

I think OSU, at their best, is on par with anyone in the country. They weren't at their best, or even remotely close, in a game that mattered and so they're out. That's fair. Still, that doesn't invalidate the former opinion. Obviously.

OSU may very well have been the best team in the Big Ten but they didn't prove it on the field nor did they to prove that they were as good as anyone in the country.

They lost the game they needed to win and lost their shot at getting into the tourney. It shook out as it should have based on the on field results.

If OSU had lost to a different conference team and then won the division and conference, they would have been in, the same as Alabama. Had Ol Miss not lost to Arkansas, Alabama, who appears to be the best team in the country, most likely would have been out.

The first criteria listed for the committee to consider is championships (as it should be, IMO)

[Rocky Bleier]

I don't think there's much question, that as things have turned out,

Stanford >>>>>>> MSU

and The Cardinal probably deserved to be there more than MSU, in spite of the extra loss. As I've stated before, and nobody has convinced me otherwise, I can make a strong case that MSU should have had at least 3 losses, and maybe even as many as 5.

I said that when MSU beat Iowa and took a lot of heat. If MSU had pummeled Iowa, I may have felt differently. Stanford was impressive down the stretch, while MSU needed a great final drive to beat an overrated Iowa team. I guess the solution is: don't lose.

[Pasadena Blue]

The first criteria listed for the committee to consider is championships (as it should be, IMO)

Then we'll agree to disagree. I really don't think they should list our an order of criteria a priori. If we have a bunch of criteria and a priority list, you can weight the various criteria and use a formula and have a computer spit out the results. No need for a committee.

I'd rather have the committee use the eyeball test and use whatever criteria they feel appropriate. They can explain their rationale after the fact. I am comfortable with that.

[CGVT]

Then we'll agree to disagree. I really don't think they should list our an order of criteria a priori. If we have a bunch of criteria and a priority list, you can weight the various criteria and use a formula and have a computer spit out the results. No need for a committee.

I'd rather have the committee use the eyeball test and use whatever criteria they feel appropriate. They can explain their rationale after the fact. I am comfortable with that.

You say that now, will you be saying it when they bypass the Big Ten champ for a second SEC team because of the "eyeball test".

Conference championships being heavily weighted is the only thing that keeps it from being all sEcSPN all the time.

[iam416]

Actually, OSU would have made the playoff if Blake O'Neill could field a punt. Alabama would been out but for the Arky miracle against Ole Miss. When each team lost they didn't necessarily eliminate themselves from the CFP, they just lost control of their own destiny. That highlights the fickle nature of it all.


Ohio State would have been much better off losing to IU and beating MSU. They'd have played in the CFP.

Also, the Rose says way more about Iowa than Stanford. I watched Stanford lose to Oregon at home and then need a small miracle to beat Notre Dame at home. If OSU had to play Stanford in the CFP then I'd be making plans for the title game.

[Pasadena Blue]

You say that now, will you be saying it when they bypass the Big Ten champ for a second SEC team because of the "eyeball test".

Conference championships being heavily weighted is the only thing that keeps it from being all sEcSPN all the time.

Fair enough. But as long as Urbz and HARBAUGH are at M, I don't think a deserving B1G champ will fail the eyeball test.