FROMTHE18's picture

FROMTHE18


Barcelona, Spain (via Columbus, Ohio)

Member since 06 June 2012 | Blog

OSU BA '07, Columbia Law '09... role model: Vinny Gambini ... living in Barcelona, Spain

Favorites

  • NFL TEAM: New York Jets
  • NHL TEAM: CBJ / New York Rangers
  • NBA TEAM: Mike Fratello's Cleveland Cavs
  • MLB TEAM: New York Yankees

Recent Activity

Comment 30 Nov 2016

OSU is in. If Clemson and Washington win, they are also in. It would be one undefeated team and three 1-loss teams. No 2-loss teams are getting in at that point, even if PSU rolls. The real intrigue is Michigan, but I really can't see how the committee puts them in over a conference champion and/or winner of a conference division. I expect the B1G champion to get rewarded for playing an additional game, against a top-10 team, but jumping Michigan either at 5 or into the playoff. I dont see how Michigan moves up in any scenario. They are 3rd in a conference division and have a pretty bad loss (at Iowa). Moving Michigan into the playoff would make teams question whether its even worth it to have conference title games, which would be a complete 180 from 2 years ago when OSU benefited from playing that additional game. Winner of B1G title gets in if Clemson and/or Washington lose. If both lose, it'll be B1G champ and then Colorado. The head-to-head argument for Michigan over colorado is stupid. They beat CU in the first weeks of the season in Ann Arbor. Michigan is 1-2 in its last 3 games and CU would be on a 7 game win streak (I think). The committee MUST reward teams who play in a conference title game. Putting not one ,but TWO non conference champions would be bs. The reason OSU is in the driver seat as a team that didn't play in a conference title game is because they have one loss, on the road, due to blocked kicks and bad coaching and they have beaten three top 10 teams, two on the road at night. Michigan's resume has the W's but not the context. IMO, OSU's resume is so much more superior to UM's even without the head-to-head and thats why UM should be left out but OSU should be put in. 

Comment 29 Nov 2016

Michigan is not getting in and heres why. The only chance they would have is if both Clemson and Washington lost (a real possibility). So say that happens. At that point, you'd have Michigan, Penn State/Wisconsin, and Colorado vying for the #3 and #4 spots, respectively. If we are to take the "move up one" perspective (which is not how the committee does things anyways), then Michigan moves to 3 and B1G champ moves to 4. Thats not happening. Theres no way they put 3 teams in the same conference in. 1) that'd set a bad precedent; 2) it'd alienate the west coast, south west/central, and parts of the atlantic coast markets meaning less viewership and thus less money. What then? Well, you can't justify putting Colorado in over either Wisconsin or Penn State. Both Wisconsin and Penn State would have quality wins (for PSU, 2 top 6 wins) and for Wisconsin, their only two losses would be to two top 5 teams, both in close games. Yet, the committee would have to put Colorado in to avoid the 3 B1G team scenario. At that point, how could Michigan be in but not Wisconsin or Penn State? Especially considering one of the latter two won the conference when Michigan finished 3rd in its own division. The argument of "well, look at them on film, of course they are a top 4 team" is waaaaay to conjectural/subjective to be sufficient enough to reward Michigan for finishing 3rd in the B1G East and not having to play an additional game. The committee would have to then put PSU or Wisconsin in to avoid completely undermining the whole point of their existence (to take bias and subjectivity that existed using simply the polls or the BCS out of the equation as much as possible). But Michigan beat both of them, right? Taking the head-to-head approach at assessing this situation is stupid. Is Iowa really better than Michigan because they beat Michigan? Probably not. So how could you suggest Michigan is better than Wisconsin right now? Or even Penn State? The head-to-head evaluation practice rarely ever works out logically and thus shouldn't even be a factor in the committee's decision if Washington and Clemson both lose. In sum, for Michigan to get in, you'd have to do the impossible and put a 3rd B1G team in as well. Thats not happening. Fairness as well as money both say thats a bad idea. 

Comment 28 Nov 2016

The locks are Bama (even if UF somehow beats them [lols]) and OSU. The last two spots are up for grabs. Wisconsin needs either Clemson or Washington to lose, thats obvious. I dont see that happening so it will be: 1) Bama, 2/3) OSU, 2/3) Washington, 4) Clemson. Id put Clemson 4th because they have the worse of the losses compared to OSU and Washington. Lets say Wisconsin wins and Clemson loses. Then you put Wisconsin at 4. If Washington loses (more likely than Clemson losing), then OSU is at 2, Clemson at 3, Wisconsin at 4. Should both Clemson and Washington lose, then it gets dicey. I'd put Wisconsin in at 3 and Oklahoma in at 4. If PSU beats Wisconsin, and Clemson, Oklahoma, and Washington all lose, it will be even more crazy because do you really skip PSU over Michigan as the 2nd B1G team despite Michigan's close loss to OSU and the fact they beat Penn State? You would have to given the conditions used by the committee to assess a non-conference champion. Does Colorado also then jump in to the mix? If things go chaotic it could realistically be 1) Bama, 2) OSU, 3/4) PSU 3/4) Colorado. If Ive learned anything about the last weekend of the college football season its expect chaos. 

Comment 27 Nov 2016

Considering the offense has regressed in spite of 6 months of practices, Im not sure what the extra 15 will do for them this year. The D could use them to fine tune some pass rushing packages and of course the kickers need all the practice they can get. Im not sure we see much difference on offense though, or for the team in the general, come bowl time. 

Comment 07 Sep 2016

Hope Solo has a history of domestic violence and assault. Little more than a little rant on the internet...

Comment 07 Sep 2016

I have thought and continue to think this is a stupid idea. Look at the views from those seats and also even if you are down low you a pretty solid distance away from the field. Hope people aren't dropping a lot of money on tickets for the gimmick. 

Comment 01 Sep 2016

now we know why App State didn't throw most the game...they can't pass.

Comment 01 Sep 2016

so UT has scored on a forward fumble and a bomb...its insanity if they are still in the top 15 after this week. 

Comment 01 Sep 2016

you can't fumble that forward...doesnt it go back to where it was fumbled? Thats BS. 

Comment 01 Sep 2016

this game will be an after-thought later in the year when we hear how a 2 loss Tennessee team deserves a shot at the Playoff. 

Comment 01 Sep 2016

App State should have run up the middle...called TO and just said, lets see if this dude can hit a 50 yarder for the win. 

Comment 01 Sep 2016

That'll do it for App St... so stupid not to even give yourself a chance to chuck one up and see. 

Comment 01 Sep 2016

another 10 yards and we get to see him miss it wide left. 

Comment 01 Sep 2016

alright, well the kicker can't hit a simple PAT so, getting 20 yards wont even help

Comment 01 Sep 2016

just dont turn it over...get it to OT if you can and take your chances on a short field. 

Comment 01 Sep 2016

man how the hell does App State not get these fumbles?

Comment 01 Sep 2016

never thought Id be saying this tonight: App St. is going to choke.