USC beats Washington, who the committee has disrespected the entire season as playing a "weak" schedule, and they suddenly jump us with 3 losses????? And Auburn is right behind us with 3 losses.
OK, someone explain how this system is better than BCS??
- Thread starter MountaineerWV
- Start date
I find it funny that the talking heads pretty much downplayed our victory at Texas by saying "WVU beat a 5-5 team...." But the key to that was WE WON. Now, Clemson loses at HOME to an UNRANKED Pitt team......Michigan loses to an UNRANKED Iowa team.....and they stay inside the top 4?????
So, winning no longer matters.........and in fact, sometimes winning hurts as it has WVU by winning all its games except one.....to OK State......which is 10 times better than Pitt or Iowa.......
So, winning no longer matters.........and in fact, sometimes winning hurts as it has WVU by winning all its games except one.....to OK State......which is 10 times better than Pitt or Iowa.......
More woe is me....it seems to be getting infectious ....goodness gracious maybe it will grab ahold of me soon? Yikes! :scream:
Beat Oklahoma.
Beat Oklahoma.
Exactly ... who gives a flip where we are in the CFP as we are far from the top four (rightly so) and there is a lot of football left. Now if we are still boned after winning the next three I'll be right there with everyone decrying the system. But the truth is WVU has lost by 3 scores to the only good team its played and had the eke out wins against 3 average teams they played. Mostly looked impressive against subpar competition.
Michigan's ONLY win was Penn State......
Clemson's "squeaked" out wins against Troy (wow....30-24) and NC State (thanks to the kicker....24-17).....
And who the **** has Louisville beaten???? Florida State???? I mean they are good, but I'd put TCU against them and call it a toss up.
As for Michigan, PSU is a better win then others. Not to mention they also beat #7 Wisconsin.
TCU is very average and no way would I put them above Florida State. Not to mention that was an blowout win.
Clemson won at top 15 Auburn. Road wins are much bigger.
I hear where you are going but in reality we have only pretty good team and lost. It is what it is. Good thing, if we beat Oklahoma all of that will change.
I'm guessing those in charge viewed their 8-2 record, with losses on the road to #3 Michigan and #13 USC as being better than WVU, who lost by 17 to Oklahoma State. Colorado also has a couple notable wins. With that said, there's still (3) weeks of very meaningful football games left, and things will likely change dramatically by season's end.
I agree. My issue with the CFP committee is the criteria appears to be very subjective and changes depending on the team they are talking about. One week not having a conference championship is the reason the Big 12 is being left out. Now, there is a chance that neither OSU or Michigan will even be in the Big 10 Conference Championship game and it does not appear to be an issue.
Last season if you lost a game against a decent team early, you could work your way back in but lose late and you were in trouble. Michigan and Clemson both lose to unranked opponents in November and remain in the top 4.
Last season if you lost a game against a decent team early, you could work your way back in but lose late and you were in trouble. Michigan and Clemson both lose to unranked opponents in November and remain in the top 4.
Not this year - they way the system is set up in the years when the Peach and Fiesta host the semi-finals the number of bids for at large teams drops to one - the Cotton Bowl vs the best Group of 5 conf. Champion. In the year that the Sugar and Rose host the semi-finals and if the SEC, B12, B10 and P12 all get into the playoff then the number of at large bids is 5 plus one for the Group of 5 champ - Peach(2), Cotton(2), Fiesta(2). The Orange has an at large bid but it only goes to the SEC or Big 10.
The system is very flawed similar to the BCS but it's what we have right now. No chance to ever see a "Cinderella" team win their way through to a mythical NCAA Championship game/title.
Until a actual playoff system is in place there will always be teams left out and teams included that should not be. IMO
Until a actual playoff system is in place there will always be teams left out and teams included that should not be. IMO
I don't agree with that. After week 1, ESPN was pumping up Houston and were promoting them the first few weeks until they got beat by Navy. But if they had kept winning, Houston would have been up there......yet WVU has to go perfect in a season and then hope and pray for divine intervention...
I'm not saying the thing isn't biased toward preseason assumptions. All I'm saying is there is no point in getting all worked up right now because I just don't think WVU's current body of work merits a top 4 spot. Beating OU would go along way toward that, but it has to happen first. You can disagree, but I'd say Michigan, Louisville, and Clemson have won more convincingly than WVU has against their scrub competition. Like I said, doesn't mean we can't play with these guys. It's just a moot point for WVU unless we defend Mountaineer Field on Saturday.
This system is not better than BCS. It is not a true playoff now anymore than it was then. Subjective and elitist. However combining some elements of old BCS such as major conference champions getting an auto bid with a playoff expansion to eight teams would be about as good as it would get. Then again, the "committee" would probably show bias there as well.
I'm working under 2 assumptions
1) The Committee will need to address WVU in a different light if we win Saturday
2) We aren't going to go high enough to get into the top 4 even if we win out unless mass chaos continues.
The second in particular....it's easier on the heart. I have no qualms on where we are right now. The Big 12 is down. Our OOC looked great pre-season but BYU had some awful luck and that has killed us. Misery has stunk it up as well....that Georgia loss was a killer.
1) The Committee will need to address WVU in a different light if we win Saturday
2) We aren't going to go high enough to get into the top 4 even if we win out unless mass chaos continues.
The second in particular....it's easier on the heart. I have no qualms on where we are right now. The Big 12 is down. Our OOC looked great pre-season but BYU had some awful luck and that has killed us. Misery has stunk it up as well....that Georgia loss was a killer.
Allan Taylor has done a nice video that shows the Mountaineers average ranking amongst the computer models is actually lower than the CFP ranking. In other words, the Committee ranks us higher than the computers.
Check it out.
http://wvmetronews.com/2016/11/16/computer-rankings-dont-like-wvu-any-more-than-playoff-committee/
I think we have a real good shot at having a strong Top Ten finish. And that, I think, is pretty darn good.
Check it out.
http://wvmetronews.com/2016/11/16/computer-rankings-dont-like-wvu-any-more-than-playoff-committee/
I think we have a real good shot at having a strong Top Ten finish. And that, I think, is pretty darn good.
Then there was absolutely NO REASON for us to join the Big 12 then, right? It has not improved our status when it comes to national level.....THAT IS A FACT!
Not really, the Big XII is just very clearly down this year. The Big East, for all its grief was very clearly up in the year we had an NC bid lined up with 1 loss already in the books. I would also say a big reason our win pct is what it is has to do with the schedule strength
A lot of horse **** with Michigan losing to a unranked,
almost 4 touchdown dog, and remaining in final 4. The
committee is trying to prop up SEC and BIG to enable
quality wins to count when they are not. PSU is really
a joke, Wisky and Neb have not offense. They also
put to SEC East teams back in T25, and I don't think
TENN even played last weekend.
I think Tennessee beat the mighty Kentucky Wildcats that allowed them to jump way up there again in the rankings.....now if that's not a "quality win" I don't know what is......
Uh .... I can think of million$ of reasons for us to be in the Big 12.
Does anyone actually think that if we were still in the BCS arrangement that we would be in the running for the NC? Those computers would still be spitting out the same numbers.
You do realize that if we weren't in the Big12, we would quite possibly be in a conference with UCONN, Cinn and getting a paltry 8 mill a year? Instead of Univiersity wide sports complex renovation, the AD would be planting trees outside the football stadium to be used by the men as urinals!
Let's get to 11-1 and then worry about it Ok?
If the season ended last Saturday I would be right there with you but there are still 3 games left for WVU to prove something. I guarantee you the top 4 will not look like it does now at season's end. History has proven this.
If the season ended last Saturday I would be right there with you but there are still 3 games left for WVU to prove something. I guarantee you the top 4 will not look like it does now at season's end. History has proven this.
I understand the financial reasons. However, when everyone was psyched we were getting an invite in to the Big 12 people thought that the end of being "insignificant" was over and that being in the Big East had brought us down. Now we can gain from the exposure and never have to worry about that again.....
.....well......we are sitting at 8-1.......and we have a PAC-12 team with three losses in front of us.....and numerous 2-loss teams as well......
You mean to tell me that if we were in the AAC or any other conference, it would be worse than this? Besides money, we haven't gained anything of legitimacy from this Big 12 conference.
The Committee is telling us that unless you are (1) OU; (2) Texas, (3) undefeated, the Big 12 is the new Big East.
All the other leagues are protected now except the Big 12 , Which they have blocked out, and possibly the SEC if Bama somehow loses twice.
All the other leagues are protected now except the Big 12 , Which they have blocked out, and possibly the SEC if Bama somehow loses twice.
I think your whole perspective hinges on this idea of significance. But before I address that you need to recognize that there are five (5) conferences from which the playoff committee will choose four teams. That means each and every year at least one of those conferences will not be represented in the playoff. Last year the Pac 10 was left out. Are they insignificant?
What do you actually mean by being significant? Or legitimate?
We are paid millions of dollars each year because .... I would say ... we have a significant and legitimate program.
Personally I think you are conflating your own sense of self-worth and the success of the football team. When you say that we need significance and legitimacy are you really talking about the football team or .... are you talking about yourself.
Follow the team. Cheer its success. We have 3 BCS bowl wins in the last decade or so. I've followed this program for 35+ years and we've had more success in the last 10 years than we ever had before. And we can land in a pretty good bowl this year even if we are not in the playoff.
But if your sense of self-worth hinges on the success of the football team you'll always be disappointed .... because even if it reaches the top ... it won't stay there for very long and you'll be right back to feeling disrespected.
So..... quit your whining and enjoy the team .... one season at a time, one game at a time.
This needs to be 8 teams. There will still be bitching. There will always be bitching. However, at least one conference isn't getting screwed.
But then again, there will likely only be 4 conferences in 10 years anyhow......
MI has beat WI CO & PSU and won most their games by blowout. Beating KSU, BYU, and TX by 4 or less isn't exactly impressive. Especially w/ 0 wins vs ranked teams. MI doesn't even have a little 4 point win, including their games against WI CO & PSU.....
That unranked IA team smoked ISU 42-3....who in the big 12 has done better than that?
Only 1 big 12 team has even held them under 20 points! And only 1 big 12 team has scored more than 42 against them...
That said, the IA team that played ISU and MI, isn't the one that has shown up most the year......
So what you are saying is the following.....
1. LOSING to UNRANKED teams is more important than WINNING against teams in your LEAGUE.
The Barry Alvarez Selection Committee has heard your complaints and responded: STFU. Their words, not mine.
This thing is so "rigged" than even Donald Trump admires it.
M anhandled Missouri, 26-11
O rdinary against Youngstown, 38-21
U nnerving miracle goalline tip/interception escapes BYU, 35-32
N o quit against Kansas State, 17-16
T ony’s turbulence tore up Texas Tech, 48-17
A nother defense whipping, of TCU, 34-10
I gnominy of turnovers against Oklahoma State, 20-37
N o problem decimating Kansas, 48-21
E xcellent, timely defense AGAIN; beat Texas, 24-20
E rectile dysfunction Oklahoma
R oll over Iowa State
S uffocate Baylor
This thing is so "rigged" than even Donald Trump admires it.
M anhandled Missouri, 26-11
O rdinary against Youngstown, 38-21
U nnerving miracle goalline tip/interception escapes BYU, 35-32
N o quit against Kansas State, 17-16
T ony’s turbulence tore up Texas Tech, 48-17
A nother defense whipping, of TCU, 34-10
I gnominy of turnovers against Oklahoma State, 20-37
N o problem decimating Kansas, 48-21
E xcellent, timely defense AGAIN; beat Texas, 24-20
E rectile dysfunction Oklahoma
R oll over Iowa State
S uffocate Baylor
I'll TRY to explain the original poster's question of what makes this system better than the BCS.
In theory, this system SHOULD work better because the committee picks the top 4 teams, regardless of conference, win/loss totals, computer ratings, poll ratings, and the like.
There will always be somebody(s) left out who feel they deserved a shot. But "eye test" must play a part in a decision also, and that is what the BCS system left out.
This year, as good as our record is, we are also at the mercy of the schedule we play. Nobody on this schedule really meets that eye test as being a top-tiered team. Oklahoma has two losses, with one of them being a beating to a team that currently sits in prime position to take one of those coveted top four spots. A win against them can only help us so much. The other "decent" team, Oklahoma State, beat us head to head. They will have to stay above us unless Oklahoma beats them in Bedlam. In other words, we're screwed because everybody we played this year is having a mediocre season.
In the end, it really doesn't matter where we are ranked right now. All that matters is the top-four. Spots 5 through infinity mean nothing other than for some barroom or message board bragging rights. This year, we are held hostage by our strength of schedule, and with teams above us in those top handful of spots all having better wins.
Of course, this is all subject to change in the next few weeks..
In theory, this system SHOULD work better because the committee picks the top 4 teams, regardless of conference, win/loss totals, computer ratings, poll ratings, and the like.
There will always be somebody(s) left out who feel they deserved a shot. But "eye test" must play a part in a decision also, and that is what the BCS system left out.
This year, as good as our record is, we are also at the mercy of the schedule we play. Nobody on this schedule really meets that eye test as being a top-tiered team. Oklahoma has two losses, with one of them being a beating to a team that currently sits in prime position to take one of those coveted top four spots. A win against them can only help us so much. The other "decent" team, Oklahoma State, beat us head to head. They will have to stay above us unless Oklahoma beats them in Bedlam. In other words, we're screwed because everybody we played this year is having a mediocre season.
In the end, it really doesn't matter where we are ranked right now. All that matters is the top-four. Spots 5 through infinity mean nothing other than for some barroom or message board bragging rights. This year, we are held hostage by our strength of schedule, and with teams above us in those top handful of spots all having better wins.
Of course, this is all subject to change in the next few weeks..
Another quick example...suppose this system is in place instead of the BCS.
Suppose its the year 2007. Most likely, we are sitting in one of those top four spots right now (probably number 2). The loss we are going to get from Pitt in another week MAY NOT knock us out of that playoff. Eye test would come into play and I feel that most reasonable people would argue that despite the loss we are still one of the top four teams in America.
We might be talking about that first national championship now. Rod might still be our coach. We may have another (probably not, but hey).
Suppose its the year 2007. Most likely, we are sitting in one of those top four spots right now (probably number 2). The loss we are going to get from Pitt in another week MAY NOT knock us out of that playoff. Eye test would come into play and I feel that most reasonable people would argue that despite the loss we are still one of the top four teams in America.
We might be talking about that first national championship now. Rod might still be our coach. We may have another (probably not, but hey).
If we had this system in 2007.....and it played out like it did with us losing to Pitt.......NO SHOT we remain in the top 4......if you believe that, you are delusional.