This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Arguably 2015 MSU over Ohio St, based on head to head. by rockmcd

They each finished with one loss - MSU lost to a crappy Nebraska team that finished 6-7, while Ohio St had the misfortune of having their sole loss be against the team that they tied with. It wasn't controversial because we are accustomed to using head-to-head as a tiebreaker, and in MSU's defense they also had a terrific non-conference win over Oregon and the win over Ohio St was in Columbus. But I don't necessarily agree that the team who had the more embarrassing loss is automatically "better", which is effectively how it works out with divisional tiebreakers.

To look at it another way, hypothetically if Michigan St had lost to Michigan (that was the infamous fumbled snap on game ending punt attempt) but beaten Nebraska, then MSU would have an even stronger resume, but it would have resulted in a three-way tie for the Big 10 East lead, which could have opened the door for Ohio St to reach the B10 title game depending on the tiebreaker rules, and then the Playoffs. So why is Ohio State's season "better" than MSU under that hypothetical scenario, but MSU was "better" than Ohio St based on what actually happened? The answer is because divisional tiebreakers favor the team that lost to the weaker team.