BeatMeechigun's picture

BeatMeechigun


MEMBER SINCE   May 17, 2018

Favorites

  • COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER: Michael Doss
  • COLLEGE BASKETBALL PLAYER: Jim Jackson
  • NFL TEAM: Cleveland Browns
  • NHL TEAM: Detroit Red Wings
  • NBA TEAM: Detroit Pistons
  • MLB TEAM: Detroit Tigers

Recent Activity

Comment 15 Nov 2019

Charles Woodson.

Almost sacrilege to picture, but the pains of 1995, 1996, and 1997 would be joys instead and I'd argue OSU would have been on the verge of 3 straight titles 1996-1998 with Woodson (and as much as anything with Woodson out of our way). 

1995: Biaka&%^$$^$tuka was the name pinned to the loss, but Woodson actually had two picks. Undefeated OSU goes on to play our PAC foe, #17 USC in the Rose Bowl with a potential shot at a shared NC at stake, though doubtful given Nebraska's dominance.  With a second straight year of an undefeated, Rose Bowl champion Big Ten missing a title share, the BCS and/or playoff come sooner.

1996: OSU scores more than 9 points vs TTUN without Woodson in the defensive backfield and defeats ASU to win the NC.

1997: Worth it for nothing else, that we'd never have to watch the punt return and Rose-in-teeth head nod.  TTUN never wins their lone 1/2 claim to a National Title since 1948.  OSU wins The Game and very arguably might have defeated PSU as well.  Instead of getting bowled over by FSU, the Bucks defeat Wazzou either way (and with a win vs PSU it's for a 2nd-straight NC).

In basketball, LBJ.

Comment 15 Nov 2019

My interests (and arguably all of ours on this board) differ from conference interests.  To put that to example, NW is an outstanding institution to have in the Big Ten Conference, but had it been NW and Rutgers who were added, rather than NW being a charter member, we could still be having this debate.  Maryland and Rutgers were added for their respected status as strong Research institutions and due to their geographic positioning in the East which had potential to open up new TV markets and added conference exposure in NYC and DC - arguably the two most influential American cities.

But from my interests (and probably many others) these additions have been duds.  We've replaced matchups with Illinois, Purdue, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and NW - programs with which we share a 100+ year athletic history with annual football beatdowns of Rutgers and Maryland in what rival games against MAC competition.  On the basketball side, while Maryland has been competitive we are playing Michigan, Indiana, MSU, and Purdue less frequently than ever, even with an expanded conference schedule.

ND was a no-go.  They are a great fit for the Big Ten from the Big Ten's perspective, but as much as I hate ND, I understand that they would have no desire to give up NBC, annual trips to the West Coast to play USC and Stanford, and annual games in recruiitng hotbeds like Texas and the Southeast.  If you want to see what ND would look like in the Big Ten, look no further than Nebraska.  they barely compete with Ohio State nationally these days as it is.  Regionalizing themselves to the Midwest is not going to improve that.

That said, I think Texas and OU would have been the go-to additions rather than Rutgers and MD.  OU would be the worst academic member, but is respected enough to make the cut.  Texas would be a perfect fit for everything but geography, but geography is an ever-decreasing factor in conference alignment.  Texas and OU would balance the West and East in football while adding competitive basketball programs.  Thanksgiving weekend would feature a renewal of the OU-Nebraska game on Friday followed by Ohio State Michigan on Saturday.  OU's academics along with the in-state politics surrounding Oklahoma State and Texas Tech/Baylor/TCU caused issues (it's no coincidence that our last 4 additions - PSU, Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers) are all essentially the lone in-state premier public institution), but from my perspective, Texas and OU should have been the targets.

Comment 15 Nov 2019

The program has long been in position to contend nationally and certainly in the Big Ten, but two of these events cost us a title shot.

The 2003 Buckeyes with a running game get past Wisky and TTUN and very, very likely defeat  OU in New Orleans.  The magical 2002 season becomes the magical 2002 AND 2003 seasons.

The 2010 team cost the 2011 team any shot (debatable where that team would have finished otherwise) but they absolutely cost the 2012 team a shot to take on a mediocre ND team in the BCS title game.

2 titles OSU couldn't get and two that went to Team SEC instead.

Comment 15 Nov 2019

Arguably the best year yet for the Gavitt Tipoff Games.  I loved the idea when the event was created but most years have lacked more than 1 good matchup (part of that was due to teams like MSU already being locked into other scheduling events), but this year was a solid slate.

Purdue absolutely collapsed.  Michigan looked better than I anticipated and very well could be/will be a ranked team when we meet them later this season.  Seton Hall appears as good as advertised.  Penn State looks poised to have a pretty decent year.

And oh yeah, the Bucks looked ok I guess... :)

Comment 13 Nov 2019

Here's what works:

The system works out each year in getting the top 4 teams.  As in we could scrap the system and use the old BCS and still get the exact SAME 4 teams each year.  Run the table and you are absolutely in as a P5.  Suffer one loss and win your CCG and you are very likely in.  Those two scenarios have produced 18 of our 20 CFP teams to date and only one team (2018 OSU) has missed out when meeting those scenarios (there were 3 undefeated teams and another 1-loss CCG champion at 1-4 that year).  2016 OSU and 2017 Bama just got plain lucky that the fields were weaker those years and a team that didn't meet those above criteria was needed.

And here's the problem:

The committee between now and the final weekend tries to balance perception and performance.  Perception suggests Bama, Clemson, and UGA are great.  Perception suggests Minnesota, Baylor, and UCF are not.  OSU and LSU have both perception and performance and thus are atop the rankings.  1-loss UGA and Bama are ranked ahead of teams with better performance such as Minnesota and Baylor because perception is that they are better.  They likely are.  But if perception is what matters, then let's just use the damn recruiting rankings and put Bama, Clemson, and OSU in each and every year and consider their losses flukes.

At the end of the season, if Minnesota or Baylor wins out they will be in.  If UGA wins out they will be in.  If OSU, Clemson, and LSU, win out, they will be in.  Ultimately the committee will get it right because the committee will fill the slots with all undefeated P5 champions (4 possible still) and the perceived top 1-loss CCG winner will be included.  If we do not have 4 teams that meet that criteria, then the Tide get in.  It's simpler than we make it out to be, but for ratings' sake, ESPN creates these damn weekly CFP rankings shows to stir up interest, driving TV dollars, website hits, talkshow listeners, and even posts like this because someone is outraged that 1-loss Bama is overrated and 0-loss Minnesota is underrated.  In the end it will all work out and we could probably just use the BCS formula that final week and get the same 4 teams.

Comment 13 Nov 2019

Fully agree.  I honestly think the committee has gotten the 4 teams right every year.  Run the table as a P5 and you are in. Suffer only one loss and win your CCG as a P5 and you are in if there's enough spots (the only team to miss out with these two scenarios was 2018 OSU who had 3 undefeated teams ahead of them and a 1-loss OU who avenged that loss in their CCG).  Not a single year has the committee gotten the top 4 wrong.

I'm sour 2015 OSU missed out, but 4 teams ahead of us had a better resume and honestly that 2015 team under-performed all year until TTUN.

I'm sour 2017 Alabama got in, but OSU had two losses, Wisconsin had no quality wins, and UCF had no quality wins.  It was a weak field in a year the Tide needed the field to be weak.  Personally, I would have rather seen the committee go with UCF to punish OSU for a bad loss and Bama for not winning a CCG as well as playing a weak schedule, but I ultimately believe they got it right.

I'm sour 2018 OSU missed out, but our defense was awful and while 13-1 we looked nothing like a playoff teams in the Maryland and Nebraska games either.

Take away the emotions and it all comes down to 1) Run the table as a P5 and 2) if you suffer a single loss as a P5, win your CCG.  18/19 times those scenarios have resulted in a CFP appearance.  Everything beyond that is semantics and meant to get ratings.  Not to go conspiracy theory, but I GUARANTEE ESPN prefers movement in the rankings each week to draw interest in their CFP show.  Why would anyone tune in if teams 1-4 stayed locked in position from the start.  I'd love to know whether influence exists there.

Comment 12 Nov 2019

It all depends on the field. There was no team in those 4 in 2015 who Ohio State could boast a better resume over. We underperformed all year in 2015 up until that Michigan game. 2017 Bama on the other hand simply lucked out that the field provided them an in.

Comment 12 Nov 2019

With UNC top 5 and a true road game in Chapel Hill and Kentucky at 1 with a pseudo road game in Vegas, it would be outstanding if the Bucks could snag this one at home.

Comment 10 Nov 2019

Still in the race but will need help.

SEC champ is in.

OSU is likely to run the table and probably in even as a 1-loss to TTUN or Minn

Clemson is likely to run the table and in if undefeated.

If LSU loses to UGA they are in over Bama

A 1-loss conference champion OU (or undefeated Baylor) is in over Bama.

A 1-loss PAC 12 champion is in over Bama though there would be debate.

The playoff formula has been much simpler than we make it out to be:

1. Run the table as a P5 and you’re in.

2. Win your conference with 1-loss as a P5 and you’re in (2018 OSU was the only exception).

Only two of twenty (to date) playoff teams have not met that criteria. Both were 1-loss teams who had previously made a playoff which made it in a year when all other contenders had 2 losses.

I’ll add that I don’t believe the “eye test” is real. To me the “eye test” just means is it Bama, Clemson, OSU, or another SEC team. The eye test means “we think they are good bc they were expected to be good”. The eye test (when it comes to the 4 teams selected) has never trumped those top two criteria.

Bama is not out but needs: LSU to win out and either 2-loss PAC AND BIG 12 champions or one of those champions to have 2 losses and Clemson to be upset.

Comment 09 Nov 2019

That 1974 MSU game was a decision away from being a more dramatic win than Holy Buckeye. Arguably the oddest ending to a football game in Big Ten history with the Buckeyes seemingly scoring to win and the officials taking forever to sort it out.

Comment 08 Nov 2019

Because OSU self-reports.

Simple as that.

Bama drives the highway at 100mph and when the cop turns on the lights, they floor it and say "catch us"..

Ohio State drives 38 in a 35, recognizes their error, travels to the police station and offers to pay a fine.

Comment 07 Nov 2019

Mid-season Danny K stated on radio that he didn’t know Ohio State (and then 6-ranked) Wisconsin were scheduled to play during the regular season.

At that point, projected to be one of the biggest games of the CFB year. He didn’t know it was scheduled. That’s how much homework Danny does.

Comment 06 Nov 2019

PSU could beat the Gophers 38-0 and this is still a better spot than the Minnesota program has been in for a long time.  I know they weren't ranked in 2002 and at one point in 2014 I believe (maybe this Gopher presence in the polls is a good sign for us??) but when was the last time we could say Minny was competing for a title?  Even with a loss to PSU they'll have that chance.

The ceiling for Minnesota is probably what Ferentz did at Iowa with the exception that division titles are now the equivalent of Big Ten co-championships.  If the Gophers are competing for the West 50% of the time, the Gophers are doing excellent compared to their past 50 years.