Wisconsin's two losses were against top 5 teams, which is why they stayed in the top 10 despite losing twice. I would argue the Badgers are #3 in that scenario because their losses were "better" than Penn State's losses.

 

If the Big Ten was a conference without divisions like it was before, the standings would be:


1. Penn State

2. Ohio St.

3. Michigan

4. Wisconsin

---

What about when Ohio State was the National Champion yet lost to Virginia Tech?

 

Sometimes it's not as much who you lose to (OOC is better than in conference re: conference crowns) as much as about when you lose.

 

VT got worse as the season went on, which using "bad loss" logic would mean it reflected that much more poorly on the Buckeyes.  But that wasn't the case, since the upset was the first game of the season.  Even though it also happened in Columbus (a tough road for ANY team,) it still didn't affect the outcome of the season and their playoff rankings negatively.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

What about when Ohio State was the National Champion yet lost to Virginia Tech?

 

Sometimes it's not as much who you lose to (OOC is better than in conference re: conference crowns) as much as about when you lose.

 

VT got worse as the season went on, which using "bad loss" logic would mean it reflected that much more poorly on the Buckeyes.  But that wasn't the case, since the upset was the first game of the season.  Even though it also happened in Columbus (a tough road for ANY team,) it still didn't affect the outcome of the season and their playoff rankings negatively.

 

Why does anybody care when a team lost? That loss did not hurt Ohio State in the end because it was OOC. It does not matter if Ohio State loses to a non-conference team in September or October.

 

It was J.T. Barrett's second game as Ohio State's starting QB. I think if VT played in Columbus several weeks later, OSU would have won. But in the end all that mattered was OSU won every other game.

---

I still don't understand how OSU missed out on the BTCG with only one loss. Shame on the Big 10 for making them watch Penn State on TV this weekend.

 

Despite that anomaly, ESPN.com reported OSU is a "playoff wild card" after the Buckeyes beat Michigan.

 

You do realize the Buckeyes are actually happy to be in the BCS without facing the potential to lose or get anyone hurt against Wisconsin this weekend don't you.

---

You do realize the Buckeyes are actually happy to be in the BCS without facing the potential to lose or get anyone hurt against Wisconsin this weekend don't you.

 

Why do you say that? There is no stupid BCS anymore.

 

The Buckeyes would have been confident about beating Wisconsin. They already did that in Madison.

---

Doesn't that make non conference games irrelevant?

 

    Yes,  under the current formula to determine Conference Champions.

 

    However,  Conference Champions should be determined by non Conference games as part of the formula,  much like is the case with Divisional Champions in professional sports leagues.   IMO,  it doesn't make sense to eliminate non Conference games from the Conference Championship formula. 

---

Yes, under the current formula to determine Conference Champions.

 

However, Conference Champions should be determined by non Conference games as part of the formula, much like is the case with Divisional Champions in professional sports leagues. IMO, it doesn't make sense to eliminate non Conference games from the Conference Championship formula. 

 

This is exactly what I was saying. One of Ohio State's four top 10 wins was at Oklahoma. The Buckeyes are not getting credit for that just because OU is in the Big 12. Meanwhile Penn State lost to an unranked or a low-ranked team, but nobody cares about that because of their conference record. This is a perfect example of why only using conference records to determine the division winner is flat out wrong.

---

Why does anybody care when a team lost? 

 

You honestly don't understand that this does make a difference?

 

Think about it.

 

Had VT upset them down the stretch, it would have made a much bigger difference in the minds of people.

 

It happens every year.  The psychological phenomenon is called recency bias and is not specific to sports.  I'd give you a link but you've proven to ignore facts I show you.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

You honestly don't understand that this does make a difference?

 

Think about it.

 

Had VT upset them down the stretch, it would have made a much bigger difference in the minds of people.

 

It happens every year. The psychological phenomenon is called recency bias and is not specific to sports. I'd give you a link but you've proven to ignore facts I show you.

 

LOL You do realize there is a big difference between football and politics, right?

 

This is why a later game against VT would not matter: A win is a win and a loss is a loss. In the end all that matters is Ohio State did not finish the season undefeated. That is what people remember.

---

Why do you say that? There is no stupid BCS anymore.


The Buckeyes would have been confident about beating Wisconsin. They already did that in Madison.

MJF


What he is saying is that Ohio State is going to be in the playoffs (99% sure) without having to play in the Big10 Chpionship game.


They are already "IN". There's no need to play an extra game that:

1. May get some key players injured

2. Be a potential loss that would likely knock the Buckeyes out of the playoffs all together.


Yes, Ohio State won against Wisconsin. But, that game was VERY close. Overtime was needed, and it could've gone either way. Wisconsin could very likely defeat Ohio State in a rematch.


The Buckeyes are lucky to be in the position they find themselves in (not having to play an extra game).

---

Jagherd, I was replying to the BCS part. Of course I know Wisconsin could beat Ohio State in a rematch, but sports psychology works differently.

---

    Yes,  under the current formula to determine Conference Champions.

 

    However,  Conference Champions should be determined by non Conference games as part of the formula,  much like is the case with Divisional Champions in professional sports leagues.   IMO,  it doesn't make sense to eliminate non Conference games from the Conference Championship formula. 

 

Non-conference (or non-division) games in the NFL or other sports are at least relatively equal.  In college football there is a vast discrepancy. I'm not sure you could get much buy in to award conference champions based on overall record.  I think part of the reason why Ohio St is locked in at #2 above Penn St is they crushed a good Oklahoma team on the road.  Penn St lost to a solid but inconsistent Pitt team in what essentially was neutral a site matchup.  

 

** plus I do find it somewhat odd that in the NFL you could lose every single division game and yet still win your division.  But at least the non-division schedule is the exact same save for two games.

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

If the Big Ten was a conference without divisions like it was before, the standings would be:


1. Penn State

2. Ohio St.

3. Michigan

4. Wisconsin

 

Ohio St and Michigan had to play all 3 of the other teams.  While Penn St and Wisconsin didnt have to play each other in the regular season.  So Penn St may be on top but they had the easier conference schedule.  There is no perfect way to do it now that the conferences are as big as they are.  

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

LOL You do realize there is a big difference between football and politics, right?

 

This is why a later game against VT would not matter: A win is a win and a loss is a loss. In the end all that matters is Ohio State did not finish the season undefeated. That is what people remember.

 

Facts are facts, and you're ignoring these as well.

 

You get upset or lose any game later in the season and it matters more.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Ohio St and Michigan had to play all 3 of the other teams. While Penn St and Wisconsin didn't have to play each other in the regular season. So Penn St may be on top but they had the easier conference schedule. There is no perfect way to do it now that the conferences are as big as they are.  

 

Penn State did not have to play against Michigan either.

 

Remember when both Ohio State and Iowa were undefeated in Big Ten play and were named co-champions because they had no scheduled meeting? Ohio State played more games in 2002. Iowa had one loss. The Big Ten did not care because they won the same number of in-conference games (all of them). This year Penn State and Wisconsin get the chance Ohio State and Iowa did not 12 years ago, but they are not the best teams in the conference, so it is still screwed up.

 

If college football was like the NFL, all conferences would have 10 teams and every team would play against every other team in the same conference. There would be no independent teams (sorry, Notre Dame). All conferences would be considered equal. None of the "SEC is the best and MAC is terrible" stuff. And schools would not be allowed to jump from one conference to another under any circumstances.

---

Facts are facts, and you're ignoring these as well.

 

You get upset or lose any game later in the season and it matters more.

 

You have not explained why it matters more whether a team loses in September or November. If that was really important, there is a very good reason for it, and I am waiting for that.

---

Penn State did not have to play against Michigan either.


Remember when both Ohio State and Iowa were undefeated in Big Ten play and were named co-champions because they had no scheduled meeting? Ohio State played more games in 2002. Iowa had one loss. The Big Ten did not care because they won the same number of in-conference games (all of them). This year Penn State and Wisconsin get the chance Ohio State and Iowa did not 12 years ago, but they are not the best teams in the conference, so it is still screwed up.


If college football was like the NFL, all conferences would have 10 teams and every team would play against every other team in the same conference. There would be no independent teams (sorry, Notre Dame). All conferences would be considered equal. None of the "SEC is the best and MAC is terrible" stuff. And schools would not be allowed to jump from one conference to another under any circumstances.

I'm sure Penn State wishes they hadn't had to play Michigan but they most certainly did.

---

I'm sure Penn State wishes they hadn't had to play Michigan but they most certainly did.

 

I doubt they actually felt that way after losing to Michigan. They probably were just mad at themselves for not getting the job done.

 

Of course Penn State losing to Michigan was not as bad as Michigan losing to unranked Iowa.

---

I doubt they actually felt that way after losing to Michigan. They probably were just mad at themselves for not getting the job done.


Of course Penn State losing to Michigan was not as bad as Michigan losing to unranked Iowa.

Iowa is actually playing good football at the moment. They went through a rough stretch but they are playing much better now than earlier in the season.

---

Iowa is actually playing good football at the moment. They went through a rough stretch but they are playing much better now than earlier in the season.

 

In the eyes of people who only care about whether Michigan is playoff worthy or not, only the fact that Iowa is unranked matters. In fact the Hawkeyes have been an afterthought since dropping out of the rankings in September.

---