Peach Bowl

[appst89]

The Nike story was just to show that who you are will always matter more than what you do when there is not an obvious distinction. It was perfectly illustrated with the selection. I really blame the committee for this because they could not have done a worse job leading up to this if they had tried. If Baylor or TCU had been Texas or Oklahoma, this discussion wouldn't even be happening. It's not Ohio State's fault, but they clearly got the benefit of being who they are. Snarky remarks and eyerolls about those with whom you disagree doesn't make your argument any more valid.

[AppSt94]

commentators last night noted that OSU has a dominant DLine and SEC comparable speed. Urban knew (knows) what is needed to beat the big boys in the SEC. FSU finally got exposed. I still think that they deserved a spot- defending champs and undefeated in the regular season. The only other team that really has an argument is probably TCU. That being said, an 8 team field is probably too much. A six team field with the top 2 receiving byes might be interesting but of course that is tough with the bowl system. It would be interesting to look back over the past 10-20 seasons and project 4 or even 8 team playoffs. I would imagine that 8 team formats would show relatively weak teams in the bottom of the bracket and 4 team formats would equate to interesting matchups. Should be a good championship game.

I disagree with th " FSU getting exposed comment". FSU was very dominant last year. They lost a ton of talent along with all of their primary receivers from. 2013. They were not as good this year but found a way to win which is what good teams do. They had a bad game against a very good team. Kudos to OSU beating Alalbam last night but I still contend that they should not have gotten the chance to do so. TCU was robbed for ratings.

Did you happen to also see Michigan State beating Big XII co-champs Baylor, or Wisconsin beating Auburn? Only the most devoted OSU/B1G haters could still cling to this narrative.

TCU wasn't "robbed." There were six deserving teams for a four-team field. It sucks that they got left out, but there is no longer any credible argument that OSU wasn't deserving.

Why is there no credible argument that OSU isn't deserving? Because OSU beat Alabama? There were 6 deserving teams and all four going into the last week all won but TCU got booted. TCU's lone loss was to a Top 5 team and OSU lost at HOME to a mediocre Va Tech. I don't see how looking at what Mich St and Wisconsin did in their bowl justifies your point but since you think that it does, did you see what TCU did to Ole Miss? We will have to agree to disagree. I am not a B1G hater, I just don't think that a team that has done what they needed to do to put themselves in a position to make the playoff should be punished for winning.

Let me clarify. By "deserving," I don't necessarily mean in direct relation to TCU, though obviously that is ultimately the decision that was made (along with Baylor). I mean that, whatever your personal opinion, Ohio State was obviously a credible choice for the playoff. As would TCU or Baylor have been. Nobody got robbed, regardless of whatever tinfoil hat theories someone writes about Nike uniform designs.

Yes, Ohio State had the worst loss of the three contenders for the last spot. But TCU had the worst wins. Baylor had the best single win of any, but also lost to a relatively mediocre team (WVU) plus played an atrocious OOC schedule.

Bottom line is OSU beat a top 10 team convincingly on the road and ended the season with an absolute annihilation of a top 15 team on a neutral field. And they obviously improved dramatically since the VT loss in week 2.

TCU beat two Top 10 teams and two more in the top 20. They beat #7 K-State and #15 Ok- State convincingly. Their lone loss was on the road to #5. In common opponents, OSU beat Minnesota 31-24. TCU beat them 30-7. Ohio St was deserving of consideration but not enough to jump ahead of TCU. TCU had it taken away by the committee.

[AppSt94]

Ohio State had the worst loss, by far, of any of the teams in consideration. They had no win that was any better than any of the other teams. TCU was penalized because of who they were, not because of anything they did. Ohio State was not deserving of their invitation. Nothing they do after getting there changes that. The name on the uniform will always be more important than the product on the field.

I don’t see how TCU could have been ahead of Baylor since Baylor won their head-to-head matchup and thus, won their conference. Conference winners were intended to be important to the committee. Ohio State, TCU and Baylor all had strong teams. Ohio State had better wins. TCU was the only team of the 3 that did not have a shaky loss but didn’t win their weak conference either. IMO, Ohio St was deserving of its selection. Baylor and TCU both would have been understandable choices for the last spot as well. The only ridiculous statement is that Ohio State was not deserving. Keep on with your conspiracy theories.

The Big XII declared the two Co-Champions.

[Saint3333]

The real issue isn't the four selected. There were 6 qualified teams. The issue is the process and specifically having TCU 3rd one week and 6th the next after they beat an opponent (any opponent, doesn't really matter) by 60.

The good news is we are likely 3 years away from having a minimum of 6 if not 8 teams at this rate.

[Cincy App]

The real issue isn't the four selected. There were 6 qualified teams. The issue is the process and specifically having TCU 3rd one week and 6th the next after they beat an opponent (any opponent, doesn't really matter) by 60.

The good news is we are likely 3 years away from having a minimum of 6 if not 8 teams at this rate.

I agree that there were 6 qualified teams. I hope the playoff goes to 8 teams soon. I also hope it does not expand from there.

At least there is progress. Under last year's system, Alabama and Florida State would have played for this year's national championship. FSU would have been in the game as the only undefeated team and Alabama would have been considered the top one-loss team based on the SEC's reputation.

[AppSt94]

The real issue isn't the four selected. There were 6 qualified teams. The issue is the process and specifically having TCU 3rd one week and 6th the next after they beat an opponent (any opponent, doesn't really matter) by 60.

The good news is we are likely 3 years away from having a minimum of 6 if not 8 teams at this rate.

Thank you Saint. The flaw in the system is my issue.

[WVAPPeer]

The real issue isn't the four selected. There were 6 qualified teams. The issue is the process and specifically having TCU 3rd one week and 6th the next after they beat an opponent (any opponent, doesn't really matter) by 60.

The good news is we are likely 3 years away from having a minimum of 6 if not 8 teams at this rate.

Having 4 is better than having only 2 --- I agree that we will see 6 or 8 - if they go to 8 then I think they have to take the 5 conference champs and 3 at-large ---
My suggestion to the concern 94 and Saint mention is that the committee should not rank the teams until the final ranking - list the top 10 in alphabetical order until the final poll is released ---

[Goapps15]

The real issue isn't the four selected. There were 6 qualified teams. The issue is the process and specifically having TCU 3rd one week and 6th the next after they beat an opponent (any opponent, doesn't really matter) by 60.

The good news is we are likely 3 years away from having a minimum of 6 if not 8 teams at this rate.

Having 4 is better than having only 2 --- I agree that we will see 6 or 8 - if they go to 8 then I think they have to take the 5 conference champs and 3 at-large ---
My suggestion to the concern 94 and Saint mention is that the committee should not rank the teams until the final ranking - list the top 10 in alphabetical order until the final poll is released ---

WV,

You are spot on about not releasing the rankings until the end of the season. Imagine if they did this from February on in College Basketball. The rankings show was a money grab.

The fact of the matter is if you win a P5 conference, you should be in the playoff. Winning a CCG is difficult.

Thank God for this new system. I am so glad CFB is moving in the right direction

[AppSt94]

The real issue isn't the four selected. There were 6 qualified teams. The issue is the process and specifically having TCU 3rd one week and 6th the next after they beat an opponent (any opponent, doesn't really matter) by 60.

The good news is we are likely 3 years away from having a minimum of 6 if not 8 teams at this rate.

Having 4 is better than having only 2 --- I agree that we will see 6 or 8 - if they go to 8 then I think they have to take the 5 conference champs and 3 at-large ---
My suggestion to the concern 94 and Saint mention is that the committee should not rank the teams until the final ranking - list the top 10 in alphabetical order until the final poll is released ---

I think 8 is more likely than 6 has it would allow for one more game and thus more $$$. I don't see the G5 getting into an 8team playoff unless they are ranked high enough but given the committees brief history they would keep them out.

[EastHallApp]

TCU beat two Top 10 teams and two more in the top 20. They beat #7 K-State and #15 Ok- State convincingly. Their lone loss was on the road to #5. In common opponents, OSU beat Minnesota 31-24. TCU beat them 30-7. Ohio St was deserving of consideration but not enough to jump ahead of TCU. TCU had it taken away by the committee.

Obviously the flaw there is that you are using the rankings at the times the games were played. Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. turned out to be dramatically overrated, and K-State will wind up outside the top 15 barring a huge comeback tonight. And they were TCU's best win.

As far as the TCU dropping from 3 to 6, I think people make too big a deal out of that. If you think the committee is so crooked, then why do you act like that previous #3 ranking was gospel? That was just as subjective as ranking them at 6 the next week.

[EastHallApp]

The Nike story was just to show that who you are will always matter more than what you do when there is not an obvious distinction. It was perfectly illustrated with the selection. I really blame the committee for this because they could not have done a worse job leading up to this if they had tried. If Baylor or TCU had been Texas or Oklahoma, this discussion wouldn't even be happening. It's not Ohio State's fault, but they clearly got the benefit of being who they are. Snarky remarks and eyerolls about those with whom you disagree doesn't make your argument any more valid.

The one place I'll agree with you is that if it were OU and Texas tied at 11-1 instead of Baylor and TCU, they'd have had a much better chance of making the field.

Did Ohio State benefit because fans, coaches and pundits tend to give more benefit of the doubt to name programs filled with blue-chip recruits? I would guess so.

Did they benefit because of an overt attempt to select teams that would drive better ratings? I doubt it, but it's certainly not impossible.

Does either of those things mean OSU didn't deserve to be in the field? Absolutely not.

But sorry, the jersey conspiracy theory is just silly. What if one of the teams had gone 8-4? Were they just going to put them in there anyway? More importantly, if Nike went to such trouble and expense to engineer this two-year long conspiracy to get these four specific teams in the playoffs so they could show off their special playoff uniforms, then why did everyone but Oregon wear their standard uniforms last night?

[EastHallApp]

The real issue isn't the four selected. There were 6 qualified teams. The issue is the process and specifically having TCU 3rd one week and 6th the next after they beat an opponent (any opponent, doesn't really matter) by 60.

The good news is we are likely 3 years away from having a minimum of 6 if not 8 teams at this rate.

Having 4 is better than having only 2 --- I agree that we will see 6 or 8 - if they go to 8 then I think they have to take the 5 conference champs and 3 at-large ---
My suggestion to the concern 94 and Saint mention is that the committee should not rank the teams until the final ranking - list the top 10 in alphabetical order until the final poll is released ---

WV,

You are spot on about not releasing the rankings until the end of the season. Imagine if they did this from February on in College Basketball. The rankings show was a money grab.

Completely agree with both. Ranking the teams weekly during the season serves no purpose.

[appst89]

The Nike story was just to show that who you are will always matter more than what you do when there is not an obvious distinction. It was perfectly illustrated with the selection. I really blame the committee for this because they could not have done a worse job leading up to this if they had tried. If Baylor or TCU had been Texas or Oklahoma, this discussion wouldn't even be happening. It's not Ohio State's fault, but they clearly got the benefit of being who they are. Snarky remarks and eyerolls about those with whom you disagree doesn't make your argument any more valid.

The one place I'll agree with you is that if it were OU and Texas tied at 11-1 instead of Baylor and TCU, they'd have had a much better chance of making the field.

Did Ohio State benefit because fans, coaches and pundits tend to give more benefit of the doubt to name programs filled with blue-chip recruits? I would guess so.

Did they benefit because of an overt attempt to select teams that would drive better ratings? I doubt it, but it's certainly not impossible.

Does either of those things mean OSU didn't deserve to be in the field? Absolutely not.

But sorry, the jersey conspiracy theory is just silly. What if one of the teams had gone 8-4? Were they just going to put them in there anyway? More importantly, if Nike went to such trouble and expense to engineer this two-year long conspiracy to get these four specific teams in the playoffs so they could show off their special playoff uniforms, then why did everyone but Oregon wear their standard uniforms last night?

I never said it was a conspiracy. That was completely your creation. I only mentioned it because it illustrates the fact that some schools will always get the benefit of the doubt because of who they are.

All of the teams that played last night had special designs created by Nike just for the playoffs. For Alabama, FSU and Ohio State, the special designs were on the undershirts and subtle changes to some of the striping because those schools are not as willing to go out there like Oregon does, but they were not their standard uniforms.

[AppSt94]

TCU beat two Top 10 teams and two more in the top 20. They beat #7 K-State and #15 Ok- State convincingly. Their lone loss was on the road to #5. In common opponents, OSU beat Minnesota 31-24. TCU beat them 30-7. Ohio St was deserving of consideration but not enough to jump ahead of TCU. TCU had it taken away by the committee.

Obviously the flaw there is that you are using the rankings at the times the games were played. Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. turned out to be dramatically overrated, and K-State will wind up outside the top 15 barring a huge comeback tonight. And they were TCU's best win.

As far as the TCU dropping from 3 to 6, I think people make too big a deal out of that. If you think the committee is so crooked, then why do you act like that previous #3 ranking was gospel? That was just as subjective as ranking them at 6 the next week.

If. TCU was good enough and had displayed enough to the committee to be ranked #3 in week 12 then barring a loss, ( which did not occur) they should be ranked #3 in the final poll. Never used the term crooked in terms of the committee but it was a farce. You are a Buckeye fan so having this debate with you is pointless because you think I am attacking your team. Oregon, FSU and Alabama deserved to be in the playoff. I am not complaining about who got the last spot but how TCU lost the last spot.
As for using the rankings at the time the teams played what else should I use? As you pointed out the Ohio St team that lost to the 5th place team in the ACC Coastal division was not the same team that beat Wisconsin. Teams were ranked where they were when TCU played them because they were playing at a high level at the time and were considered worthy of rankings. Teams fall out due to injuries, depth among other reasons so to dismiss a quality win from October because a team finished poorly is the same as you dismissing OSU's horrible loss in September to Tech because OSU is better.

[EastHallApp]

I never said it was a conspiracy. That was completely your creation. I only mentioned it because it illustrates the fact that some schools will always get the benefit of the doubt because of who they are.

Sorry, I guess I'm just not seeing the relevance then. If you're not suggesting that Nike somehow wielded influence on the selection process for these teams, then what is the point of the story? To illustrate that all four are lucrative programs? Not exactly breaking news there.

In any case, we can debate this all we want, but the debate is over everywhere that matters. No one with a microphone or a byline is going to argue against OSU's inclusion after last night. They wouldn't be taken seriously if they did. If anything, I think the takeaway will be increased pressure to move to 8 teams based on TCU's performance.

[appst89]

I never said it was a conspiracy. That was completely your creation. I only mentioned it because it illustrates the fact that some schools will always get the benefit of the doubt because of who they are.

Sorry, I guess I'm just not seeing the relevance then. If you're not suggesting that Nike somehow wielded influence on the selection process for these teams, then what is the point of the story? To illustrate that all four are lucrative programs? Not exactly breaking news there.

In any case, we can debate this all we want, but the debate is over everywhere that matters. No one with a microphone or a byline is going to argue against OSU's inclusion after last night. They wouldn't be taken seriously if they did. If anything, I think the takeaway will be increased pressure to move to 8 teams based on TCU's performance.

Never suggested that at all. The relevance is that it gives a glimpse into how people think. Nike didn't wield the influence, but rather a particular way of thinking did. The committee fell victim to the same sort of thinking. They gave the benefit of the doubt to the name team when there was no other real distinction between the three. For what it's worth I picked OSU to win the whole thing, in a bowl pool, the day the selections came out, but that doesn't change my belief that they never should have jumped the way they did. And as I also said before, that isn't Ohio State's fault, but the fault of the committee. They screwed this process up as bad as the BCS used to be.

[EastHallApp]

TCU beat two Top 10 teams and two more in the top 20. They beat #7 K-State and #15 Ok- State convincingly. Their lone loss was on the road to #5. In common opponents, OSU beat Minnesota 31-24. TCU beat them 30-7. Ohio St was deserving of consideration but not enough to jump ahead of TCU. TCU had it taken away by the committee.

Obviously the flaw there is that you are using the rankings at the times the games were played. Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. turned out to be dramatically overrated, and K-State will wind up outside the top 15 barring a huge comeback tonight. And they were TCU's best win.

As far as the TCU dropping from 3 to 6, I think people make too big a deal out of that. If you think the committee is so crooked, then why do you act like that previous #3 ranking was gospel? That was just as subjective as ranking them at 6 the next week.

If. TCU was good enough and had displayed enough to the committee to be ranked #3 in week 12 then barring a loss, ( which did not occur) they should be ranked #3 in the final poll. Never used the term crooked in terms of the committee but it was a farce. You are a Buckeye fan so having this debate with you is pointless because you think I am attacking your team. Oregon, FSU and Alabama deserved to be in the playoff. I am not complaining about who got the last spot but how TCU lost the last spot.
As for using the rankings at the time the teams played what else should I use? As you pointed out the Ohio St team that lost to the 5th place team in the ACC Coastal division was not the same team that beat Wisconsin. Teams were ranked where they were when TCU played them because they were playing at a high level at the time and were considered worthy of rankings. Teams fall out due to injuries, depth among other reasons so to dismiss a quality win from October because a team finished poorly is the same as you dismissing OSU's horrible loss in September to Tech because OSU is better.

I wouldn't call myself a Buckeye fan, and they certainly aren't "my team." Yes I'll pull for them in bowl games and the like (especially vs. the SEC, who i do, but I'm perfectly capable of looking at them objectively. I don't dismiss their loss to VT - it was a bad one and should be considered accordingly. I just think you have to weigh it against the rest of their season.

And I definitely disagree about using rankings at the times the games were played. The two Oklahoma teams weren't ranked high because they were playing well; they were ranked high based on last season and players returning. There was no point in the season where they were remotely deserving of those rankings. They were simply overrated in the preseason.

K-State, OTOH, is a good team and might be on the verge of yet another massive comeback that would probably secure them a spot in the final top 10.

[EastHallApp]

I never said it was a conspiracy. That was completely your creation. I only mentioned it because it illustrates the fact that some schools will always get the benefit of the doubt because of who they are.

Sorry, I guess I'm just not seeing the relevance then. If you're not suggesting that Nike somehow wielded influence on the selection process for these teams, then what is the point of the story? To illustrate that all four are lucrative programs? Not exactly breaking news there.

In any case, we can debate this all we want, but the debate is over everywhere that matters. No one with a microphone or a byline is going to argue against OSU's inclusion after last night. They wouldn't be taken seriously if they did. If anything, I think the takeaway will be increased pressure to move to 8 teams based on TCU's performance.

Never suggested that at all. The relevance is that it gives a glimpse into how people think. Nike didn't wield the influence, but rather a particular way of thinking did. The committee fell victim to the same sort of thinking. They gave the benefit of the doubt to the name team when there was no other real distinction between the three. For what it's worth I picked OSU to win the whole thing, in a bowl pool, the day the selections came out, but that doesn't change my belief that they never should have jumped the way they did. And as I also said before, that isn't Ohio State's fault, but the fault of the committee. They screwed this process up as bad as the BCS used to be.

Eh, OK. There would have been controversy no matter what. If TCU had been the pick, people would have screamed about them going ahead of the team that beat them. If Baylor had gone... Well, actually that probably wouldn't have been that controversial, except that they played the weakest schedule of the three. And they would have had to jump both TCU and OSU in the final week, which personally I don't think is a big deal, but obviously some do.

Again... Six teams, four spots. Somebody's getting left out. OSU played maybe the single most impressive game of the entire college season the night before the selections were made, and it was enough to get them in.

[AppSt94]

East we are going to have to agree that we are going to come at this from different angles. Good luck to the Buckeyes in the title game. The outcome will not validate their inclusion as it is about the process for me.

[appst89]

I never said it was a conspiracy. That was completely your creation. I only mentioned it because it illustrates the fact that some schools will always get the benefit of the doubt because of who they are.

Sorry, I guess I'm just not seeing the relevance then. If you're not suggesting that Nike somehow wielded influence on the selection process for these teams, then what is the point of the story? To illustrate that all four are lucrative programs? Not exactly breaking news there.

In any case, we can debate this all we want, but the debate is over everywhere that matters. No one with a microphone or a byline is going to argue against OSU's inclusion after last night. They wouldn't be taken seriously if they did. If anything, I think the takeaway will be increased pressure to move to 8 teams based on TCU's performance.

Never suggested that at all. The relevance is that it gives a glimpse into how people think. Nike didn't wield the influence, but rather a particular way of thinking did. The committee fell victim to the same sort of thinking. They gave the benefit of the doubt to the name team when there was no other real distinction between the three. For what it's worth I picked OSU to win the whole thing, in a bowl pool, the day the selections came out, but that doesn't change my belief that they never should have jumped the way they did. And as I also said before, that isn't Ohio State's fault, but the fault of the committee. They screwed this process up as bad as the BCS used to be.

Eh, OK. There would have been controversy no matter what. If TCU had been the pick, people would have screamed about them going ahead of the team that beat them. If Baylor had gone... Well, actually that probably wouldn't have been that controversial, except that they played the weakest schedule of the three. And they would have had to jump both TCU and OSU in the final week, which personally I don't think is a big deal, but obviously some do.

Again... Six teams, four spots. Somebody's getting left out. OSU played maybe the single most impressive game of the entire college season the night before the selections were made, and it was enough to get them in.

Eh, OK. There was an easy way to have no controversy at all; don't release any rankings until the final week. Then no one would have been mislead into believing that the rankings meant something, when obviously they didn't.