I understood both sides of the decision and wouldn't have been furious either way.
Ohio State didn't want to lean on the importance of conference titles last year when Penn State won the Big 10 and now they do.
Cannot have it both ways Buckeye fans.
On the other hand, Alabama hasn't exactly solidified their case either when Nick Saban said last season "You should have to win your conference".
Cannot have it both ways Tide fans.
Here's my take: the committee changes the unofficial requirements to enter the tourney every year to fit their own narrative.
Last year, that worked for Ohio State, this year it worked against them, but neither case featured a consistent and cogent manner of deciding who should have gotten the spot by a defined set of guidelines.
This isn't from an OSU perspective, maybe if they hadn't given up 55 points to a team that lost in the same stadium two weeks later to Purdue, none of this would have mattered, but still one year conference titles matter, the next they don't, one year a tough non-conference game or two matters, the next wins over Mercer matters more.
It's just not consistent.,
Speaking of consistency, when is someone going to stand up against the SEC and their playing eight conference games rather than nine so they can play the Mercer's of the world later in the season.
The other four conferences are playing nine and are being penalized for improved scheduling rather than cash grabs.
Yesterday's decision will not be an immediate change, but it could change how teams schedule non-conference matchups.
The Big 10 has almost mandated that their teams not play 1-AA teams (which was why Youngstown State disappeared off the OSU schedule in 2015 after being scheduled to be the Buckeye opener) in order to boost the strength of schedule.
I'm actually not against 1-AA teams, but they need to be played in the first three weeks of the season and only once.
SEC teams since they play four non-con's can play one good team and then two or three teams from group of five or I-AA,so if it comes down to wins and losses-the SEC has a significant advantage.
I think that there are far too many persons of influence on the committee (Full Disclosure Ohio State's AD Gene Smith is on the committee) and too many people involved even with the standard recusal when your school comes up.
My solution? No one on the committee that draws a check from a school, conference or television network.
We can come up with a strong committee of former players, coaches, athletic directors and yes media members that have no dog in this fight to come up with a fair decision to avoid all conflicts.
To me, this makes sense and eliminates any questions of conflict of interest.
Do I think the committee made a mistake here?
No, and I would have said the same had Ohio State gotten in.
Both sides had very credible arguments and I'm sure not going complain now, although Nick Saban was far from gracious in taking shots at Ohio State before the decision (I get that, part of campaigning) and after (Was less than sportsmanlike after his team won the final berth) were less than needed.
I'm more than fine with Alabama.
Honestly, I think they are a little better than Ohio State (especially with J.T. Barrett at quarterback) and should make a better show vs Clemson, but there is plenty wrong with this process and there needs to be some repair.
I don't think this is a totally bad thing for one reason-the road to eight teams, which is the correct number, began yesterday with the inclusion of the second SEC team.
The road starts now...
No comments:
Post a Comment