If there was a 16 team Football playoff,Pitt would be in it.I believe this will be the future

[mdpitt]

of College Football and the ultimate tournament. Would any 1 seed want to play Pitt as the last team in? It's really a shame this wasn't the case this year because after Alabama, there are a bunch of "the rest" of college football.

The reason I bring this up is we would essentially be like Michigan State Basketball under Izzo as he always losses a bunch of games but the talk always comes back to " well he beat all these teams".

I know we are ranked #25 but we are uniquelly qualified to say we beat potentially 2 major conference champions and blew a chance to beat a few others high quality opponents.

We would score points on all the #1s but unfortunately we would give up a bunch of points. Our defense heals a lot in the next month before one of these games.

We would be a pain in the a$$ as a draw.

 

[OriginalEther]

There's zero chance Pitt would have been it in.
They have a better chance of playing in the Orange Bowl this season.

 

[mdpitt]

There's zero chance Pitt would have been it in.
They have a better chance of playing in the Orange Bowl this season.

My point was the conversation would be less about losses and more about wins. Certainly Bad losses would be discusses which Pitt had zero.

Can you name 16 teams which have more top 7 victories or top 30 victories?

If Penn State gets left out and wins the Big Ten and Ohio State gets in, the whole conversation of winning a conference title is dumb for importance from this point forward.

 

[OriginalEther]

All I need to know is that Pitt is ranked #25 and, after tiebreakers, came in 4th place in the division.

It was a successful season, but not one that gets a team into a hypothetical sixteen team playoff.

 

[runthewildcat]

of College Football and the ultimate tournament. Would any 1 seed want to play Pitt as the last team in? It's really a shame this wasn't the case this year because after Alabama, there are a bunch of "the rest" of college football.

The reason I bring this up is we would essentially be like Michigan State Basketball under Izzo as he always losses a bunch of games but the talk always comes back to " well he beat all these teams".

I know we are ranked #25 but we are uniquelly qualified to say we beat potentially 2 major conference champions and blew a chance to beat a few others high quality opponents.

We would score points on all the #1s but unfortunately we would give up a bunch of points. Our defense heals a lot in the next month before one of these games.

We would be a pain in the a$$ as a draw.

16 team playoff is a horrible idea. Why fix something that produces the best team as national champ year after year?
The bcs and 4 team playoff makes every game a must win in college football which is why it's so great.
Before you know it people will want a 64 team playoff like bball.

 

[steel_curtain]

16 team playoff is a horrible idea. Why fix something that produces the best team as national champ year after year?
The bcs and 4 team playoff makes every game a must win in college football which is why it's so great.
Before you know it people will want a 64 team playoff like bball.

Baylor's non conference schedule of Presbyterian, Abeilien Catholic, and Rice. Washingtons non conference schedule of Rutgers and FCS teams like Portland state. You don't see a problem with this? Why does Pitt continue to schedule like a dumbass and schedule top 10 teams when other schools beat creampuff fcs teams and schools ive never heard of by 70 and get a free pass for it? This is fair? How many losses would Washington have playing Pitts schedule? My guess is at least 4. How many losses would Pitt have playing Washingtons schedule? Probably 1. They have not played a top 15 team all year. Pitt has played 3 top 10 teams, 2 of which were on the road. Washington should be out because their schedule is a complete joke

 

[runthewildcat]

Baylor's non conference schedule of Presbyterian, Abeilien Catholic, and Rice. Washingtons non conference schedule of Rutgers and FCS teams like Portland state. You don't see a problem with this? Why does Pitt continue to schedule like a dumbass and schedule top 10 teams when other schools beat creampuff fcs teams and schools ive never heard of by 70 and get a free pass for it? This is fair? How many losses would Washington have playing Pitts schedule? My guess is at least 4. How many losses would Pitt have playing Washingtons schedule? Probably 1. They have not played a top 15 team all year. Pitt has played 3 top 10 teams, 2 of which were on the road. Washington should be out because their schedule is a complete joke

That's a lot of hypotheticals there. You forgot to mention we lost 4 games. If we were good enough, we would have won 2-3 out of those four and we would be mentioned. The opportunity was there.

 

[steel_curtain]

That's a lot of hypotheticals there. You forgot to mention we lost 4 games. If we were good enough, we would have won 2-3 out of those four and we would be mentioned. The opportunity was there.

You missed my point. Teams have been getting ripped off for years. That was proven time and time again with Boise state, Utah, and TCU. Had their been a fair playoff years ago, national championships would be in one or more of their trophy cases. My point had nothing o do with Pitt besides unbalanced scheduling. Had Pitt played rutgers and 2 FCS teams and had a 10-2 record, we are ranked in the top 10 right now. Washington clearly is not being punished for scheduling non conference garbage.

 

[runthewildcat]

You missed my point. Teams have been getting ripped off for years. That was proven time and time again with Boise state, Utah, and TCU. Had their been a fair playoff years ago, national championships would be in one or more of their trophy cases. My point had nothing o do with Pitt besides unbalanced scheduling. Had Pitt played rutgers and 2 FCS teams and had a 10-2 record, we are ranked in the top 10 right now. Washington clearly is not being punished for scheduling non conference garbage.

You missed my point too where I said has there ever been a year you thought the best team didn't win? The answer is no.
You need your head examined if you think so.

 

[steel_curtain]

You missed my point too where I said has there ever been a year you thought the best team didn't win? The answer is no.
You need your head examined if you think so.

I'm not even going to pull out a bunch of stats to prove that wrong which I could. I'll just say 13-9 and LSU backdoored its way into a title. There was also that undefeated Utah team that blew out Alabama. The Boise team that beat Adrian Peterson and Oklahoma. And the TCU team that exposed wisconsin and the big ten.

 

[runthewildcat]

I'm not even going to pull out a bunch of stats to prove that wrong which I could. I'll just say 13-9 and LSU backdoored its way into a title. There was also that undefeated Utah team that blew out Alabama. The Boise team that beat Adrian Peterson and Oklahoma. And the TCU team that exposed wisconsin and the big ten.

It's all about the money. The teams that win have great reputations. Teams like Pitt, Boise, Utah have to beef up their schedule to have a chance.
But, at the end of the day never have anyone really said the best team didn't win.
16 games is too much. I understand your argument, but I like it how it is.

 

[mdpitt]

It's all about the money. The teams that win have great reputations. Teams like Pitt, Boise, Utah have to beef up their schedule to have a chance.
But, at the end of the day never have anyone really said the best team didn't win.
16 games is too much. I understand your argument, but I like it how it is.

It's only 8 games that would produce a real Final 4. This year may prove that winning a Conference Title means nothing to go to the College Final Four which really ends the "every game means something argument". It clearly does not.

 

[H2P-2007]

I hope that we stick with four - any bigger will be too cumbersome and may end up shortening the regular season. Bowl games will become even less interesting. No matter the number included, someone will always complain that they just missed the cut.

 

[Pitt79]

It's only 8 games that would produce a real Final 4. This year may prove that winning a Conference Title means nothing to go to the College Final Four which really ends the "every game means something argument". It clearly does not.

Exactly, and BEST TEAM has nothing to do with CHAMPION, to be champion, the best team should have to be forced to get past teams that AREN'T the best to be champion. An 8 or 16 team tournament that includes at least every Power 5 Champ and at least the best champion of the non-power leagues would be the best result, and you'd still have CORPORATE WELFARE for the FAILED RICH GUYS (Perceived BEST TEAM, blue bloods) who FAILED ON THE FIELD to win their league title. It would be epic, like basketball's NCAAs, and all 120 D1 teams would theoretically have a shot to get in, which would add to the excitement. Every regular season game, for many more teams, would truly mean something if winning your conference was an automatic or potential bid. You could be 6-4 and not be mathematically eliminated from the playoffs possibly, talk about MORE regular season games meaning something.

 

[Pitt79]

You missed my point too where I said has there ever been a year you thought the best team didn't win? The answer is no.
You need your head examined if you think so.

Why should the subjectively decided BEST TEAM always win? They play the games for a purpose, To determine winner on the field! The greatest championship stories, the legendary stuff, never to be forgotten are like 'Nova over the Hoyas in '84, or the 18-0 Patriots losing the Super Bowl, another Alabama title is nothing but immediately forgettable and not exciting at all.

 

[Pitt79]

It's all about the money. The teams that win have great reputations. Teams like Pitt, Boise, Utah have to beef up their schedule to have a chance.
But, at the end of the day never have anyone really said the best team didn't win.
16 games is too much. I understand your argument, but I like it how it is.

The only way to combat that is automatic bids for conference champs, that way you can't lose to history and traveling fan numbers.

 

[kma0043]

Field of 16 would be great, but it's more likely that an 8 team playoff, with the Power 5 champs auto locks, is coming in the next few years.

 

[Swervin27]

Field of 16 would be great, but it's more likely that an 8 team playoff, with the Power 5 champs auto locks, is coming in the next few years.

field of 64, no off days, games every day til last man standing. That would definitely show who the best team is..

 

[OriginalEther]

It's only 8 games that would produce a real Final 4. This year may prove that winning a Conference Title means nothing to go to the College Final Four which really ends the "every game means something argument". It clearly does not.

While I agree in that I think conference champions should generally be the only ones in, there is one game that hasn't been mentioned that is wrecking this...

Ohio State beating Oklahoma, decisively, in Norman, in week three.

That's giving people a lot of leeway to put in Ohio State. It's also likely keeping out Oklahoma, so I think psu/wisky would be excluded if that game had a different outcome.

 

[Pitt79]

Field of 16 would be great, but it's more likely that an 8 team playoff, with the Power 5 champs auto locks, is coming in the next few years.

That would be fine too. Would any of you be crying if the 4th BEST LOSER didn't get in?

 

[Pitt79]

The thing that bothers me is how little weight some of you want to put on league championships? WOW? A team wins a division, by having the best record among 6-7 teams, then wins a championship game against a quality opponent, and that's not "deserving" to some people who'd rather analyze the subjective aspects of a team?

Theoretically, let's say Pitt went 9-3 and won their division, then beats Clemson and wins the ACC ends 10-3, tOSU goes 11-1 but doesn't even make their title game, like this year. What's more "deserving", I'd take the championship team every time, they might not be "subjectively better" but their on field achievement is more. I'd take deserving over best.

That's why I want every champion in the playoff, and corporate welfare for the BEST LOSERS that FAILED ON THE FIELD to win their league. lol

 

[mdpitt]

The thing that bothers me is how little weight some of you want to put on league championships? WOW? A team wins a division, by having the best record among 6-7 teams, then wins a championship game against a quality opponent, and that's not "deserving" to some people who'd rather analyze the subjective aspects of a team?

Theoretically, let's say Pitt went 9-3 and won their division, then beats Clemson and wins the ACC ends 10-3, tOSU goes 11-1 but doesn't even make their title game, like this year. What's more "deserving", I'd take the championship team every time, they might not be "subjectively better" but their on field achievement is more. I'd take deserving over best.

That's why I want every champion in the playoff, and corporate welfare for the BEST LOSERS that FAILED ON THE FIELD to win their league. lol

I seem to remember in Basketball a few years ago that the last 48 out of 50 champions also won their conference title. Different sports but same Merit.

 

[steel_curtain]

The thing that bothers me is how little weight some of you want to put on league championships? WOW? A team wins a division, by having the best record among 6-7 teams, then wins a championship game against a quality opponent, and that's not "deserving" to some people who'd rather analyze the subjective aspects of a team?

Theoretically, let's say Pitt went 9-3 and won their division, then beats Clemson and wins the ACC ends 10-3, tOSU goes 11-1 but doesn't even make their title game, like this year. What's more "deserving", I'd take the championship team every time, they might not be "subjectively better" but their on field achievement is more. I'd take deserving over best.

That's why I want every champion in the playoff, and corporate welfare for the BEST LOSERS that FAILED ON THE FIELD to win their league. lol

-The spin ESPN is doing right now is out of control. If you read Heather Dinich's article today, she is basically finding any way possible to get both Ohio State and Michigan in the playoff. 2 Teams that finished 2nd and 3rd place in their own division and neither of which played for a conference title in the playoff. Human bias is starting to ruin this sport. She says if Clemson loses, they are automatically out because they lost Pitt and Virginia Tech, horrific losses she called it. When both of those teams are ranked in the Top 25.

-She then proceeds to say other teams have good losses. Failing to mention Oklahoma lost to unranked Houson and was boatraced at home by Ohio State, Colorado getting blasted by Michigan, Oklahoma State losing to Baylor and Central Michigan, etc.. This article was so slanted against Clemson and Penn State it was pathetic.

-Im almost inclined to agree with you. Win your conference, or prepare for golf as you are auto out by failing to win your conference. This whole selection process this year has been a complete and utter joke.

 

[Pitt79]

-The spin ESPN is doing right now is out of control. If you read Heather Dinich's article today, she is basically finding any way possible to get both Ohio State and Michigan in the playoff. 2 Teams that finished 2nd and 3rd place in their own division and neither of which played for a conference title in the playoff. Human bias is starting to ruin this sport. She says if Clemson loses, they are automatically out because they lost Pitt and Virginia Tech, horrific losses she called it. When both of those teams are ranked in the Top 25.

-She then proceeds to say other teams have good losses. Failing to mention Oklahoma lost to unranked Houson and was boatraced at home by Ohio State, Colorado getting blasted by Michigan, Oklahoma State losing to Baylor and Central Michigan, etc.. This article was so slanted against Clemson and Penn State it was pathetic.

-Im almost inclined to agree with you. Win your conference, or prepare for golf as you are auto out by failing to win your conference. This whole selection process this year has been a complete and utter joke.

Exactly! This 4 "best team" stuff is way too subjective and too much bias that never goes away. It's like in Basketball, if they had a 4 team playoff it would be Duke, Kansas, Kentucky and UNC every year, Pitt could go 30-4 and win the ACC and they'd argue, but Duke is "better", they have 10 McDonald AAs! At least if a team wins a league, IMO it's easy to just say, they are deserving of something.

 

[steel_curtain]

Exactly! This 4 "best team" stuff is way too subjective and too much bias that never goes away. It's like in Basketball, if they had a 4 team playoff it would be Duke, Kansas, Kentucky and UNC every year, Pitt could go 30-4 and win the ACC and they'd argue, but Duke is "better", they have 10 McDonald AAs! At least if a team wins a league, IMO it's easy to just say, they are deserving of something.

-They used to pull this shit in basketball. The RPI has been the single best basketball tool used in the history of college basketball. Somehow some espn folks wanted to use the "eye test" over the RPI to change tournament seeding to benefit certain teams. They are doing this exact same crap this year, especially with Michigan. How a team that finishes 3rd in its over division, and could possibly finish 2 wins behind a potential Penn State Big Ten Champion in the Big Ten, and still be considered for a playoff spot, is criminal.

-And Im making this argument because Pitt continues to play a loaded schedule. And at some point we may have a 10-2 season and be on the cusp of a playoff birth. And I can totally see ESPN voting us out, even if Pitt had 4 Top 10 wins, I can still see them spinning shit around to leave us out for a team like Ohio State or Michigan. Its sad.

 

[steel_curtain]

-ESPN- 2 New Videos today slam Ohio State getting in over Penn State if Penn State wins the Big 10

-Apparently winning your Conference means a lot more than anything else. As it should, and what Ive been saying all a long


ESPN first take - Trevor Matich slams Ohio State getting ahead of Penn State



Follow
Trevor MatichVerified account‏@TMatich
Trevor Matich Retweeted robert landsbach

If #PennState wins #BigTen, they must be ahead of #OhioState in pecking order. If so, ok to include PSU only, PSU & OSU, but not OSU only.


College Football live. National Title and Conference Title are the top 2 goals of any coach, any player, and assistant, and any fan. Why and who says that should change? Ohio State gets ripped again if they get in over the Big Ten Champion




-National talking heads voicing their opinion loud and clear now of the value of a Conference Title. And its about friggin time. Committee getting absolutely ripped right now.

 

[CentPaPittFan]

That's a lot of hypotheticals there. You forgot to mention we lost 4 games. If we were good enough, we would have won 2-3 out of those four and we would be mentioned. The opportunity was there.

I kind of see both sides...if this was an NCAA basketball discussion for a 16 team field, even at 8-4 Pitt would be in either the Last 2 In, Last 2 out discussion... "Quality Wins, Quality Losses" that type of stuff would come into play... the Jay Bilas "we all know the last teams in can lose, but who did they beat"
Pitt would absolutely be in the discussion for the 15th 16th spots, maybe 14th....in 8 team playoff, no way.