- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Should OSU Be Penalized for Its QB Situation?
Posted on 12/3/14 at 7:44 am
Posted on 12/3/14 at 7:44 am
i keep seeing people argue that a factor in keeping OSU out is the fact that they're on their 3rd string QB, even if they win saturday
i know there are arguments about their year v. TCU/Baylor and those arguments are justified (and not really related to this thread).
how in the ever living frick can somebody make the argument that OSU should be penalized and left out of the playoffs b/c, even though it has the resume, because they're on their 3rd string QB?
a playoff should be built to include the best teams based off the evidence given from their play over their 12-13 game schedules. moving to completely subjective and irrelevant arguments like the QB argument above is 1 step away from making an argument based on uniform aesthetics
i know there are arguments about their year v. TCU/Baylor and those arguments are justified (and not really related to this thread).
how in the ever living frick can somebody make the argument that OSU should be penalized and left out of the playoffs b/c, even though it has the resume, because they're on their 3rd string QB?
a playoff should be built to include the best teams based off the evidence given from their play over their 12-13 game schedules. moving to completely subjective and irrelevant arguments like the QB argument above is 1 step away from making an argument based on uniform aesthetics
This post was edited on 12/3/14 at 8:05 am
Posted on 12/3/14 at 7:47 am to SlowFlowPro
100% agree. Injuries should not be taken into account. Backups are part of the team.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 7:49 am to SlowFlowPro
I don't think they should
Urban will probably have this QB ready anyways come playoff time. He makes just about any guy good
Urban will probably have this QB ready anyways come playoff time. He makes just about any guy good
Posted on 12/3/14 at 7:55 am to SlowFlowPro
For the same reason that Cincinnati was penalized when Kenyon Martin was injured for the year. Losing a Heisman candidate to injury is bad news. I think if they look good this week, people will be okay with them, but if the backup looks bad, they are clearly out.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 7:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
1 step away from making an argument based on uniform aesthetics
Oregon is fricked.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 7:58 am to SlowFlowPro
I've been saying this. The fact that they can potentially win the Big Ten with their 3rd string QB, after losing 2 Heisman caliber QBs, shows how strong of a team it is (offense at least, defense blows).
Posted on 12/3/14 at 7:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
playoff should be built to include the best teams
Is OSU one of the 4 best teams without their top 2 QBs? Granted we don't KNOW either way, all we KNOW is what has happened on the field, but I mean I think any objective person would realize OSU midseason isn't the same as OSU from here on out.
I actually don't know how to answer though..tricky situation.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:02 am to SlowFlowPro
I understand the argument. I compare it to the Arizona Cardinals situation. Were the Cardinals a top 4 team with Palmer as QB? Quite possibly. Are the Cardinals a top 4 team with Stanton as QB? Hell no.
This weekend should clear things up a bunch, though.
This weekend should clear things up a bunch, though.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:04 am to SwaggerCopter
quote:
For the same reason that Cincinnati was penalized when Kenyon Martin was injured for the year.
that's fricking stupid, too
quote:
Losing a Heisman candidate to injury is bad news
perhaps. the results on the field should tell that story if it's true
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
perhaps. the results on the field should tell that story if it's true
Will be interesting if they win an ugly game in spite of poor QB play.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:07 am to MrTwoBits
quote:
Is OSU one of the 4 best teams without their top 2 QBs?
that's irrelevant. if you want this standard, then you have to take whatever window they played without their top 2 QBs and apply that to everyone else. so we will judge the playoff entrants based off of half of last week and this week.
quote:
I actually don't know how to answer though..tricky situation.
it's not tricky at all
you look at the data presented. analyze the data and put in teh 4 teams with the best data from their resume
end of story. you shouldn't even be looking at individual players
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:07 am to LSUBoo
quote:
Will be interesting if they win an ugly game in spite of poor QB play.
will be the first time Les Miles roots for OSU or Urban in his adult life
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:10 am to SlowFlowPro
Of course, if you penalize teams for winning ugly in spite of poor QB play, then FSU should have dropped out of the top 10.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:11 am to SlowFlowPro
I don't really watch a lot of these espn bullshite shows but keep it on for background noise periodically. When I heard someone say that the committee will leave them out simply because they lost their QB I thought it was just one of those douches trolling like always. Then I continued to hear it from multiple people all week. It makes no sense to me at all and further proves that no matter if its the BCS or a playoff system, all it will ever be is a glorified beauty contest. What other "playoff system" penalizes at team for what a committee thinks you may do as opposed to rewarding you for what you have done.
This post was edited on 12/3/14 at 8:15 am
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:25 am to SlowFlowPro
you may find this interesting, or useless and boring as hell....
There is some irony to this potential situation. Prior to the 1975 season only the Big Ten champion could go to a bowl and that bowl was the Rose Bowl. Until 1971 it was even more primitive that even with a conference title if you went to the Rose Bowl the prior year,you couldn't repeat. Hence Purdue in the 1967 Rose Bowl instead of Michigan State.
In 1973 10-0 #1 Ohio State met #4 10-0 Michigan in Ann Arbor. Winner goes to Pasadena, loser stays home. Game ends in 10-10 tie. There is no tie-breaker provision in the Big 10. Late in the game, Michigan QB Dennis Franklin suffers a broken collarbone and his health for Jan 1 is suspect.
The procedure to determine the representative was for the 10 ADs to meet in Chicago. Commissioner Wayne Duke reported Franklin's condition and indicated his services were unknown. For a variety of reasons,including Franklin's questionable situation, Ohio State was selected by a 6-4 vote and went to Pasadena (where they did beat Southern Cal, 42-21).
If you get the Big 10 Network they did a feature on this called "Tiebreaker" or some such thing.
There is some irony to this potential situation. Prior to the 1975 season only the Big Ten champion could go to a bowl and that bowl was the Rose Bowl. Until 1971 it was even more primitive that even with a conference title if you went to the Rose Bowl the prior year,you couldn't repeat. Hence Purdue in the 1967 Rose Bowl instead of Michigan State.
In 1973 10-0 #1 Ohio State met #4 10-0 Michigan in Ann Arbor. Winner goes to Pasadena, loser stays home. Game ends in 10-10 tie. There is no tie-breaker provision in the Big 10. Late in the game, Michigan QB Dennis Franklin suffers a broken collarbone and his health for Jan 1 is suspect.
The procedure to determine the representative was for the 10 ADs to meet in Chicago. Commissioner Wayne Duke reported Franklin's condition and indicated his services were unknown. For a variety of reasons,including Franklin's questionable situation, Ohio State was selected by a 6-4 vote and went to Pasadena (where they did beat Southern Cal, 42-21).
If you get the Big 10 Network they did a feature on this called "Tiebreaker" or some such thing.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:27 am to SlowFlowPro
We don't have a good baseline for what they are without Barret.
It comes down to a fundamental question. Who belongs in the playoff:
1.) the currently best 4 teams, the hot hands?
or
2.) the four teams that had the overall best game 1-13, despite what they currently look like.
It comes down to a fundamental question. Who belongs in the playoff:
1.) the currently best 4 teams, the hot hands?
or
2.) the four teams that had the overall best game 1-13, despite what they currently look like.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
So at what point do you draw the line? What if a van full of team players crashes, and they lose their starting RB, WRs, QB, and MLB to injury. At what point is a team penalized for losing the players that are responsible for their wins?
This post was edited on 12/3/14 at 8:29 am
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:29 am to SlowFlowPro
They shouldn't and won't. Based on where they are they already needed to win convincingly, so if they struggle and win on Saturday and get left out it won't be because of the new guy
Look at it this way, if Barrett played and OSU struggled, they would not make it in anyway, same if the new guy struggles on Saturday.
Look at it this way, if Barrett played and OSU struggled, they would not make it in anyway, same if the new guy struggles on Saturday.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News