OSU Wins Due To Refs Agains
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:16 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:18 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 9:56 AM ^
Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck. I mean, how do you miss that? How does FOX ignore it?
How can refs in a power 5 be this bad? What is holding? Seriously, does it exist? This is bullshit.
December 3rd, 2017 at 5:23 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:20 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:23 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:42 AM ^
Lol he'll just retire with an insane record against Michigan while OSU passes us in B1G championships and takes over the overall wins record in the rivalry.
December 3rd, 2017 at 6:53 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:21 AM ^
This time next year we'll all be a much, much better mood.
December 3rd, 2017 at 3:25 AM ^
After Michigan wins the B1G at 13-0 and is the number 1 seed in the playoffs.
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:21 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:27 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 3:29 AM ^
In no way is the B1G anywhere near the best conference in college football.
In fact, I'd argue that the B1G is a little overrated this year.
Wisconsin is top ten, why, because they were with a pretty crappy schedule? They beat, who? an 8-3 Michigan with their third string QB who had a decent chance of winning until their backup QB went down? And now they just lost to a pretty mediocre OSU.
PSU beat who? Again, no one but Michigan. And they lost to a pretty mediocre MSU team.
So OSU's signature wins are two overrated teams and include getting destroyed by the one actual good team they've played and a crappy Iowa?
I don't see "best conference" in that anywhere in that resume.
December 3rd, 2017 at 5:31 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:22 AM ^
Username checks out
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:23 AM ^
OSU got a couple of vague breaks with the officials, but Wisconsin was not the better team in that game. C'mon. If the B1G wanted to ensure a playoff berth they would be rigging the game for Wisconsin, which was a sure thing if they won.
OSU probably doesn't get in. People wondering what Bama has in the eye test? I'll tell you what they don't have: A huge embarrassing 67 ish point loss to Iowa.
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:27 AM ^
The BIG has shown over and over again that they want to favor OSU whenever possible becuase OSU is flashy and sexy. Wisky is just plain boring and unathletic.
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:32 AM ^
The B1G wanted a playoff berth. Wisconsin gives that to them (and buttresses the otherwise weak reputation of the western division). OSU's case is murky at best.
Your reasoning is superstition.
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:41 AM ^
Cash is "King" and the BIG would prefer OSU over Wisky. ;)
December 3rd, 2017 at 1:15 AM ^
But if OSU doesn't make the playoffs, doesn't the B1G lose playoff money?
December 3rd, 2017 at 8:31 AM ^
an conspiracy. Probably just really poor officiating (these guys are weekend hobbyists) plus an unconscious bias by refs (or even a conscious bias by a few refs) in favor of OSU.
Delaney is terrible in general.
But if he wawnted to rig the officiating in this game it would make more sense to rig it infavor of Wisconsin. An undefeated Wisconsin would for sure get the Big Ten inot the playoff.
BTW, officiating in other places is terrible too. In the Pac12 CCG replay officials let stand at least two crucial obvious wrong calls.
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:24 AM ^
I love how the talking heads argue that winning your conference should put you in when it's OSU, but last year OSU deserved to be in because they didn't when their conference and they lost to the team that did. Huh
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:25 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:28 AM ^
USC should be in over OSU and AL. If I were the PAC 12 I'd leave the system altogether.
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:47 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 10:56 AM ^
What I'm about to say has nothing directly to do with if USC is deserving or not, nor whether the committee might actually put them in or not, but a possible reason why you aren't hearing about them much. You may have noticed that Wannstedt mentioned USC once during halftime and no other Fox commenters acknowledged that but instead returned to OSU and Bama, and then after the game Wannstedt didn't mention USC at all when asked basically the same question.
From Wikipedia:
"It {The Pac 12 Network} is the third sports network to be devoted to a specific collegiate athletic conference (after the Big Ten Network and the now-defunct MountainWest Sports Network) and the first to be owned by a conference outright without support from outside companies (Fox Entertainment Group owns 49% of Big Ten Network, while MountainWest Sports Network had CBS and Comcast as partners, and SEC Network is wholly owned by ESPN)."
December 3rd, 2017 at 8:36 AM ^
that has been blown out twice (with one blow out unranked Iowa) has a very weak argument for getting in.
USC has blown out once by ND and lost a close one to ranked Washington State.
Seems like USC should be in the conversation
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:26 AM ^
Badger. It was as blatant as it could have been.
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:28 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:34 AM ^
then the committee should just change the criteria and announce that only conference champs are eligible. Of course, they would have to admit that they made a huge mistake last year. If there is a case to be made for letting in a non conference champ, this year is it.
December 3rd, 2017 at 2:31 AM ^
I think the bigger problem for me is having two teams from one conference. SEC was weak outside of 3 teams.
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:29 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:53 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:30 AM ^
The only good that comes out of this is that either Saban or Meyer doesn't get in and that will be a huge hit to both of their egos
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:48 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:31 AM ^
The committee had to watch these championship games with no sound and with its own referee in the room to help point out major bad calls. That way the committee can't be influenced by idiot announcers who try to create drama and a story. And they can factor in shitty calls. If the goal is really to get the four best teams in, then try to eliminate some of the outside factors.
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:32 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 3:38 AM ^
And what happens when two conference champs are 7-5 with backup qb's throwing 1:2 td/int ratios and in other two conferences the top 4 teams are all 12-1 and look like a bunch of nfl players?
OOC games are important for measuring the relative strength of the conference as a whole.
IMHO confernce titles should be completely ignored. record is all that really matters - and who that record is against.
Cupcake wins should count for nothing, cupcake and unranked losses should pretty much ruin your season. Ranked wins, especially ranked blowouts should count for quite a bit.
Also, there are way too many teams in the FBS. Less teams would make it easier to judge a conferences strength as their would be more similar cross conference matchups.
December 3rd, 2017 at 5:28 AM ^
Cuz now you are talking about a regular season that exists merely to serve a playoff (tournament) and TV, rather than the other way around. Which frankly sounds like most pro sports.
December 3rd, 2017 at 6:21 AM ^
Those "nightmare" scenarios are extreme (to make your point, I understand) but they anomolies, and won't occur that often. In general, a system where the playoff field is decided on the field is going to be much more fair than a subjective beauty contest. Want to go to the playoff? Win your conference. Let the only subjective piece of this for the committee be the 2-3 at-large bids (assuming an 8 team CFP, and possible auto G5 bid), with no conference championship criteria.
December 3rd, 2017 at 6:06 AM ^
Auto-bids yes, but I can't understand the desire for a 6 team playoff with 2 byes. The general goal should be to remove subjectivity from the picture as much as possible, which the auto-bids do. Subjectively choosing the 2 prettiest teams to get a first round bye (huge advantage) is bullshit. You're already expanding the season another week with 6 teams. Add two more and decide things on the field. Also, non-conference games should regulate themselves, because the at-large bids will go to the non-champ teams that have the most impressive resumes. If you schedule cupcakes, you won't be as impressive. Tough non-conference matchups won't affect your ability to win your conference, and you'll need those games (as wins) if you hope to get an at-large.
Now every conference game is quite meaningful, and the loser of the conference championship had better hope they're left with some impressive non-conference games on their resume, so those are absolutely meaningful also.
December 3rd, 2017 at 9:36 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:33 AM ^
Amazing how many here think Alabama is getting in over OSU. The committee has already shown that it cares much more about good wins than bad losses. OSU has almost every metric in its favor as well as a conference championship. They have 2 top 10 (really top 5) wins. Alabama's biggest win is barely Top 20. Alabama has an FCS win whereas OSU played 9 conference games versus 8 in the SEC.
And then there are the ratings: You really think the committee wants to cut out 1 of the 2 regional cash cows it has for eyeballs. The Midwest and the Southeast are the lifeblood of college football ratings.
Not likely. It's going to look like this:
1. Clemson
2. Oklahoma
3. Georgia
4. Ohio State
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:37 AM ^
PSU had the best win that you would want - a direct head-to-head win over OSU. And yet it was the blowout loss to Michigan that really hurt PSU.
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:43 AM ^
Agreed. But this isn't last year and PSU last year wasn't OSU so you're making my point for me. Ratings and credibility still matter and they didn't want any part of PSU yet last year. This year? Yeah, they could take them now as they have gotten one more year away from the scandal and been whitewashed by ESPN a few times over.
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:47 AM ^
I should have been clearer. I totally agree with you that ratings plays a huge part in this so OSU gets the benefit of the doubt every time. What I don't agree with is that the committee has consistently shown it favors good wins over bad losses. Maybe they are trying to do that this year but they certainly didn't last year.
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:47 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 1:28 AM ^
I agree, I would like Maynard to tell us more about these two top 5 wins.
December 3rd, 2017 at 1:30 AM ^
December 3rd, 2017 at 12:59 AM ^