Skip to main content

A response to ESPN's article, "Ohio State deserves to be in top four"

After the latest playoff committee top 25 rankings were announced on Tuesday night and having seen that Ohio State was ranked 6th in the latest poll, ESPN's David M. Hale decided to write an article, entitled, "Ohio State deserves to be in top four." Immediately after I read this article, I felt the need to respond.

First off, let me highlight a few of Hale's "points":

- "The cases for both Oregon and Ohio State are similar. Both teams have Heisman candidates at quarterback. Both have prolific offenses. Both are en route to a conference title. The signature win for both teams came against Michigan State. And both have a glaring loss on their record that came, in large part, because of injuries."

- (Comparing the two teams losses) "Arizona is 8-2 and ranked 15th in the committee's latest poll. Virginia Tech is 5-5 and narrowly kept its bowl chances alive with a win over Duke last week.

Look a little deeper, though, and the differences aren't nearly so stark. Aside from the win over Oregon, Arizona hasn't beaten a Power 5 team with a winning record. Its two remaining games (at Utah and vs. Arizona State) will tell us more about the Wildcats' true worth, but they needed a late turnover from Texas-San Antonio to win on Sept. 4, escaped Nevada by just a touchdown a week later, and toppled Cal a week after that thanks to a last-second Hail Mary. Virginia Tech has played essentially as well as Arizona, but while the Wildcats have four one-score wins, the Hokies have four one-score losses.."

- "If the goal is to put the best teams into the playoff, Ohio State's case is sound. In fact, there may not be a team in the country playing better football right now than the Buckeyes. Barrett has gone from a deer in headlights to a Heisman candidate. The offensive line has allowed just 10 sacks in the last eight games. The defense is light-years ahead of Oregon by virtually every metric."

Hale is correct in saying that Ohio State is playing very good football right now, and if they get some help from the teams ahead of them in the poll, they may be able to sneak into the playoff at season's end. However, based on their resume and the resume of their conference, Ohio State would have no business being in the playoff if it started today, and honestly, they'd still need a great deal of help by season's end in order to convince me that they deserve to be in the playoff at all.

How else do we fairly compare the top five conferences in the country than by measuring how they perform against one another? On that note, let's do just that...

Record (against other four major conferences and Notre Dame)

1) SEC: 5-2 (.714)

2) Pac-12: 7-3 (.700)

3) ACC: 5-7 (.417)

4) Big XII: 4-6 (.400)

5) Big Ten: 6-11 (.353)

The Big Ten has the worst record of any major conference against the Power 5 (and Notre Dame). In other words, the conference has done anything but convince unbiased fans and pollsters that they're worth of having a team in the playoff.


Opponents record in wins (against the other four major conferences and Notre Dame)

1) SEC: 31-18 (.633)

2) Big XII: 25-15 (.625)

3) ACC: 31-19 (.620)

4) Pac-12: 38-33 (.535)

5) Big Ten: 31-29 (.517)

Not only does the Big Ten have the worst record of any major conference against the Power 5, but in the games they've won, their opponents are just two games over .500, which is the worst winning percentage of the Power 5 conferences.


Point differential in wins (against the other four major conferences and Notre Dame)

1) Pac-12: +102/7 (+14.6)

2) ACC: +68/5 (+13.6)

3) Big XII: +53/4 (+13.3)

4) SEC: +65/5 (+13.0)

5) Big Ten: +38/6 (+6.3)

In these six Power 5 victories for the Big Ten conference, they've averaged to win the games by slightly over 6 points per, which is less than half of the next major conference.


Opponents record in losses (against the other four major conferences and Notre Dame)

1) Big XII: 47-13 (.783)

2) ACC: 51-19 (.729)

3) Pac-12: 19-11 (.633)

4) Big Ten: 70-41 (.631)

5) SEC: 10-10 (.500)

Even in the eleven defeats the Big Ten suffered at the hands of the Power 5, their opponents rank 4th (out of 5) in winning percentage.


Point differential in losses (against the other four major conferences and Notre Dame)

1) Pac-12: -12/3 (-4.0)

2) ACC: -83/7 (-11.9)

3) Big XII: -84/6 (-14.0)

3) SEC: -28/2 (-14.0)

5) Big Ten: -155/11 (-14.1)

Lastly, in these eleven losses, the Big Ten has a worse margin of defeat than any other major conference.

So, in these five categories where I compare the Power 5 conferences, the Big Ten finishes last in four of them and next to last in one of them. No, this may not be all Ohio State's fault, but it can't help their cause any. Due to the Big Ten's poor performance this year, the other four major conferences can look at the playoff committee and reasonably state, "Our 2-loss team belongs more than their 1-loss team."

Let's now look directly at Ohio State, and since the author of the before-mentioned piece compared the Buckeyes to Oregon, I'll look at them as well.

Given how poor the Big Ten conference has played this year, Ohio State would likely need a solid non-conference resume to make up for it. Unfortunately for them, they don't have that. Ohio State's three out-of-conference wins have come against: Navy (5-5), Kent State (1-9), and Cincinnati (6-3), whom have a combined record of 12-17. Their 14-point loss came at home against Virginia Tech, who's 5-5. Their two wins against top 25 competition have come against Michigan State (by 12) and Minnesota (by 7). Michigan State's only non-conference Power 5 match-up came against Oregon, where they lost 46-27. Minnesota's lone non-conference Power 5 game was against TCU, and the Gophers lost that one 30-7. In other words, Ohio State and the two top 25 teams they beat are a combined 0-3 against the other four major conferences, where the teams were outscored 111-55 (average of 37.0 - 18.3 = 18.7).

Since the author insinuated that, despite their record, Virginia Tech is just as good as Arizona, let's look at those close Hokie losses. These four one-score losses were to: East Carolina (6-3), Georgia Tech (9-2), Pittsburgh (4-6), and Boston College (6-4), whom have a combined record of 25-15. That's not bad, but one of the losses was to 4-6 Pittsburgh. The Hokies were also shellacked by 6-4 Miami (Florida) by the final score of 30-6. Yes, no matter how the author wants to cut it, Virginia Tech is 5-5 and will be lucky to make a bowl game.

Oregon, meanwhile, has defeated three top 25 teams: Michigan State (by 19), UCLA (by 12), and Utah (by 24). Also, unlike Ohio State, whose conference is 6-11 against the other Power 5, Oregon has had to face Pac-12 competition, and the Pac-12 is 7-3 against the Power 5. Yes, the Pac-12 has more wins against the Power 5 than the Big Ten, even though they've played in seven fewer games. Also, unlike Ohio State, Oregon has a big non-conference win against the Power 5 (Michigan State).

Looking at Oregon's lone loss, Arizona, the Wildcats are 8-2 and ranked 15th in the nation. Their five close wins have come against teams with a 29-22 record (UTSA, Nevada, California, Oregon, and Washington). Their two losses were by a combined 12 points to USC and UCLA, whom have a combined record of 15-5. The author should ask Virginia Tech coach Frank Beamer, "If you could switch records and resumes with Arizona, would you?" I can just imagine Beamer's expression when being asked this question - the classic, "Are you f'ing serious/stupid?" look.

No matter what ESPN's David M. Hale would like to believe, at this point in time, Ohio State has no business being in the top four, and unless they receive some serious help, won't deserve to be in the playoff at season's end. Their non-conference resume is weak, the Big Ten has the worst resume of any Power 5 conference, and regardless of how warped one's mind is, that 14-point loss at home to a 5-5 Virginia Tech team is far worse than a 7-point loss to the 15th ranked team in the country, in 8-2 Arizona. When coaches start receiving more praises, raises, and extensions for close losses than for close wins, Hale will be able to say, "See? I told you so!" Until then, we'll have to go by the crazy notion that more wins likely means a better record and a better argument for making the playoff.

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/103462/ohio-state-deserves-to-be-in-top-four

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"