Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Be the playoff committee: 2002
Author Message
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Be the playoff committee: 2002
(08-01-2014 07:10 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Exactly. Tuesday night!

However, the chance of it going ALL the way down to #5 on this list is very unlikely. But still, the week it happens...WOW! Each school will probably have to have all of their tickets bought on standby waiting for the announcement...

It's happened before- Big 12 2008- and I think actually Big 10 a few years ago.
08-01-2014 07:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EvilVodka Offline
stuff

Posts: 3,585
Joined: Jan 2014
I Root For: FSU LSU
Location: Houston, TX
Post: #22
RE: Be the playoff committee: 2002
I would have picked Iowa as #4

I don't know how you pick USC ahead of Washington State.....that would spur all sorts of controversy, and I wouldn't pick Washington State ahead of Iowa.....

so Iowa it is
08-01-2014 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NittanyLion Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 534
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 35
I Root For: PSU, Cincinnati
Location: Fort Thomas, KY
Post: #23
RE: Be the playoff committee: 2002
I'm really enjoying looking back at the years. One thing this exercise is pointing out is the relative frequency of the debate: "team A beat team B head-to-head, but there's a fairly strong argument to be made that the rest of team B's resume is better."


Saw this with Tennessee/Alabama 1999

And it was part of the Washington/Miami/FSU 2000 argument

Once again in 2001, Colorado/Nebraska.

Now 2002, USC/Washington State.


I tend to give more weight to the head-to-head winner. So I'd have it #1 Miami FLA, #2 Ohio State, #3 Georgia, #4 Washington State. Iowa (1 bad loss, no true top-notch wins) is behind Oklahoma, and the Sooners (2 bad losses versus 1 big win vs. Texas) are behind Wazzu (only 1 bad loss plus the big USC win).

Man, the Cougars were good in the late 90s and early 2000s.
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2014 08:01 PM by NittanyLion.)
08-01-2014 07:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goofus Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,285
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 148
I Root For: Iowa
Location: chicago suburbs
Post: #24
RE: Be the playoff committee: 2002
(08-01-2014 07:57 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  I'm really enjoying looking back at the years. One thing this exercise is pointing out is the relative frequency of the debate: "team A beat team B head-to-head, but there's a fairly strong argument to be made that the rest of team B's resume is better."


Saw this with Tennessee/Alabama 1999

And it was part of the Washington/Miami/FSU 2000 argument

Once again in 2001, Colorado/Nebraska.

Now 2002, USC/Washington State.


I tend to give more weight to the head-to-head winner. So I'd have it #1 Miami FLA, #2 Ohio State, #3 Georgia, #4 Washington State. Iowa (1 bad loss, no true top-notch wins) is behind Oklahoma, and the Sooners (2 bad losses versus 1 big win vs. Texas) are behind Wazzu (only 1 bad loss plus the big USC win).

Man, the Cougars were good in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Iowa beat #8 Michigan at Ann Arbor 34-9. That's your top notch win.
08-01-2014 08:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,011
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #25
Re: RE: Be the playoff committee: 2002
(07-28-2014 11:08 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(07-28-2014 11:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Miami, Ohio St, and Georgia are no brainers...

4th team-
conference champs-
#6 Washington St 21st SOS
#7 Oklahoma 14th SOS

non conference champs-
#4 USC 1st SOS
#5 Iowa 49th SOS

I just don't see Iowa at all. SOS way below the others, and they weren't a conference champ.

I think it'd be between USC, Wash St, and Oklahoma. I think how USC was playing in the end- would have been a factor. They absolutely smashed Notre Dame.

Oklahoma had 2 non top 25 losses. That hurts a lot...
WSU had a non top 25 loss to Washington... late.

I think they probably take USC- end of the year- they were playing better than anyone- to include the title game teams.

The problem with USC is two-fold IMO:

1- Lost to a division runner up from the league OU won
2- Didn't win the PAC10 after losing head to head with Wazzu.

I don't see any reason to have them above those two.

I like the idea that teams can improve. USC lost those games early, then ramped up massively despite playing the best schedule.

After their smashing of Notre Dame i would have given them the fourth slot.

And FYI, I hate USC.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2014 08:52 PM by quo vadis.)
08-01-2014 08:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NittanyLion Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 534
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 35
I Root For: PSU, Cincinnati
Location: Fort Thomas, KY
Post: #26
RE: Be the playoff committee: 2002
(08-01-2014 08:25 PM)goofus Wrote:  [quote='NittanyLion' pid='10955950' dateline='1406941072']
Iowa beat #8 Michigan at Ann Arbor 34-9. That's your top notch win.

I knew about the Michigan game, I'd argue they're a notch below Texas (the pre-Bowl game rankings and computer rankings would agree with me). But I'll concede the point.


It's not Iowa's fault they didn't get to play Ohio State. It is their fault they blew a 3-score halftime lead and lost a home game to 7-6 Iowa State. That was Iowa State's only road win of the season, they were 0-4 in their other road games losing by an average of 30.5 points per game (!!)


That's one damn ugly black mark on the resume when competing with Oklahoma, Wazzu and USC. We'll never know, but I think Iowa would have been out (and a reasonable argument can be made the Hawkeyes wouldn't have even made a 6-team playoff).
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2014 08:59 PM by NittanyLion.)
08-01-2014 08:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
allthatyoucantleavebehind Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 942
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Penn State
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Be the playoff committee: 2002
(08-01-2014 07:57 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  I'm really enjoying looking back at the years. One thing this exercise is pointing out is the relative frequency of the debate: "team A beat team B head-to-head, but there's a fairly strong argument to be made that the rest of team B's resume is better."


Saw this with Tennessee/Alabama 1999

And it was part of the Washington/Miami/FSU 2000 argument

Once again in 2001, Colorado/Nebraska.

Now 2002, USC/Washington State.


I tend to give more weight to the head-to-head winner. So I'd have it #1 Miami FLA, #2 Ohio State, #3 Georgia, #4 Washington State. Iowa (1 bad loss, no true top-notch wins) is behind Oklahoma, and the Sooners (2 bad losses versus 1 big win vs. Texas) are behind Wazzu (only 1 bad loss plus the big USC win).

Man, the Cougars were good in the late 90s and early 2000s.

But head-to-head is a curious monster itself. Home field--first and foremost--is HUGE in CFB. These aren't professionals with years of experience living out of suitcases and traveling...and the home crowd is probably more rabid and often more loud than even NFL stadiums. I look VERY favorably on a head-to-head win on the road...but I don't instantly condemn a team for losing head-to-head on the road (especially when it's close).

It's nearly an impossible comparison for those two teams...and an overtime win at home for WSU doesn't tell me they are FARANDAWAY better than USC. And that Notre Dame win for USC on the final weekend!?!?! Wow.

One other note: TALK ABOUT OOC SCHEDULES! USC had Kansas State, Auburn, Notre Dame, and Colorado. In 2002 (and the years immediately preceding, which is when that schedule was made), all of those teams were legit top 30 programs. I think that's EXACTLY the kind of scheduling that the CFP will want to reward as SOON as they can.
08-02-2014 07:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,289
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Be the playoff committee: 2002
(07-28-2014 11:13 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Problem was that Oklahoma had 2 bad losses. I think that totally knocks them out.

I really think part of things will be how teams are playing end of the year. USC was playing great end of the year. I think that's going to hold a lot of weight quite frankly...

My thought is 1 USC 2 WSU and 3 Oklahoma(Iowa had an ugly loss as well).

That's not an eliminator in my opinion. I look more at who they beat. This is an interesting discussion of the type of criteria the committee will use. I'm guessing they will be closer to Steve20's thinking than mine.
08-02-2014 04:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,289
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Be the playoff committee: 2002
Also, OU lost on the road close to rivals.
08-02-2014 04:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,289
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Be the playoff committee: 2002
I think the committee doesn't have much trouble.
Miami, Ohio St. are givens.
Georgia is easy.
Iowa was also a conference champ (both Ohio St. and Iowa were 8-0 in conference)
and had a better record than Oklahoma, USC or any of the other contenders.
USC had absolutely no chance. Washington St. beat them head to head and won their conference and had the same overall record. If you ignore head to head AND conference championships, you have no credibility.
08-02-2014 04:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
allthatyoucantleavebehind Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 942
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Penn State
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Be the playoff committee: 2002
(08-02-2014 04:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the committee doesn't have much trouble.
Miami, Ohio St. are givens.
Georgia is easy.
Iowa was also a conference champ (both Ohio St. and Iowa were 8-0 in conference)
and had a better record than Oklahoma, USC or any of the other contenders.
USC had absolutely no chance. Washington St. beat them head to head and won their conference and had the same overall record. If you ignore head to head AND conference championships, you have no credibility.

Umm...bullet...you say Iowa was conference champ (tied) and then that USC was NOT conference champ (tied) in the same breath.

SOS is huge...closeness of losses (and where did the losses occur)...conference championships...number of losses...quality wins.

The only one criterion of those 5 that Iowa BEATS USC? Number of losses.

SOS--USC
Losses--USC (Iowa lost close at home to an average Iowa State...USC lost close on road to two top 10 teams)
CC--both.
Number of losses--Iowa.
Quality wins--kind of goes with SOS logic...but USC gets the nod here
08-02-2014 11:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,289
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Be the playoff committee: 2002
(08-02-2014 11:04 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  
(08-02-2014 04:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the committee doesn't have much trouble.
Miami, Ohio St. are givens.
Georgia is easy.
Iowa was also a conference champ (both Ohio St. and Iowa were 8-0 in conference)
and had a better record than Oklahoma, USC or any of the other contenders.
USC had absolutely no chance. Washington St. beat them head to head and won their conference and had the same overall record. If you ignore head to head AND conference championships, you have no credibility.

Umm...bullet...you say Iowa was conference champ (tied) and then that USC was NOT conference champ (tied) in the same breath.

SOS is huge...closeness of losses (and where did the losses occur)...conference championships...number of losses...quality wins.

The only one criterion of those 5 that Iowa BEATS USC? Number of losses.

SOS--USC
Losses--USC (Iowa lost close at home to an average Iowa State...USC lost close on road to two top 10 teams)
CC--both.
Number of losses--Iowa.
Quality wins--kind of goes with SOS logic...but USC gets the nod here

Iowa was 8-0 in conference, same as Ohio St.
USC was 7-1 but lost to 7-1 Washington St.
That's a real difference.
08-03-2014 01:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,011
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #33
Re: RE: Be the playoff committee: 2002
(08-03-2014 01:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-02-2014 11:04 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  
(08-02-2014 04:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the committee doesn't have much trouble.
Miami, Ohio St. are givens.
Georgia is easy.
Iowa was also a conference champ (both Ohio St. and Iowa were 8-0 in conference)
and had a better record than Oklahoma, USC or any of the other contenders.
USC had absolutely no chance. Washington St. beat them head to head and won their conference and had the same overall record. If you ignore head to head AND conference championships, you have no credibility.

Umm...bullet...you say Iowa was conference champ (tied) and then that USC was NOT conference champ (tied) in the same breath.

SOS is huge...closeness of losses (and where did the losses occur)...conference championships...number of losses...quality wins.

The only one criterion of those 5 that Iowa BEATS USC? Number of losses.

SOS--USC
Losses--USC (Iowa lost close at home to an average Iowa State...USC lost close on road to two top 10 teams)
CC--both.
Number of losses--Iowa.
Quality wins--kind of goes with SOS logic...but USC gets the nod here

Iowa was 8-0 in conference, same as Ohio St.
USC was 7-1 but lost to 7-1 Washington St.
That's a real difference.

I would hate to reward a conference that allowed two teams to go unbeaten in conference with two playoff bids. A conference should be structured so that whether by round robin or a title game, that is impossible.



Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
(This post was last modified: 08-03-2014 10:28 AM by quo vadis.)
08-03-2014 10:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,289
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Be the playoff committee: 2002
(08-03-2014 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-03-2014 01:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-02-2014 11:04 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  
(08-02-2014 04:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the committee doesn't have much trouble.
Miami, Ohio St. are givens.
Georgia is easy.
Iowa was also a conference champ (both Ohio St. and Iowa were 8-0 in conference)
and had a better record than Oklahoma, USC or any of the other contenders.
USC had absolutely no chance. Washington St. beat them head to head and won their conference and had the same overall record. If you ignore head to head AND conference championships, you have no credibility.

Umm...bullet...you say Iowa was conference champ (tied) and then that USC was NOT conference champ (tied) in the same breath.

SOS is huge...closeness of losses (and where did the losses occur)...conference championships...number of losses...quality wins.

The only one criterion of those 5 that Iowa BEATS USC? Number of losses.

SOS--USC
Losses--USC (Iowa lost close at home to an average Iowa State...USC lost close on road to two top 10 teams)
CC--both.
Number of losses--Iowa.
Quality wins--kind of goes with SOS logic...but USC gets the nod here

Iowa was 8-0 in conference, same as Ohio St.
USC was 7-1 but lost to 7-1 Washington St.
That's a real difference.

I would hate to reward a conference that allowed two teams to go unbeaten in conference with two playoff bids. A conference should be structured so that whether by round robin or a title game, that is impossible.



Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Well the Big 10 had 11 teams then. They couldn't play a 9 game schedule and no one would play 10 of their 12.
08-03-2014 12:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.