College Football

[csxjohn]

More heresy (on my part): Rather than a two team, four team, or eight team playoff, I preferred the old bowl system with no playoff.

I like the old way better also but that would cost the NCAA millions to go back to it and that won't be happening.

As stated above, the best team around doesn't always win a tournament so there really is no way to say without a doubt, who is the best.

I got two tix to the championship game this year hoping OSU would get in. I don't care to see a re-match of Alabama / Clemson so if they both make it I will be selling the tix. I also booked a timeshare nearby for the week.

 

[pedro47]

Its sound like college football is about making money for the NCAA and the college football programs. Sound like these student college football players needs to share in all this money made in bowl games.

 

[SueDonJ]

Both fair arguments against cutting the schedule. As far as controversy over #4 slot vs controversy over #8 slot, the more teams you get into a playoff, the more likely the true best team is to be in the running. At this point in the season, USC or Ped State or OU could be the best team in the land, and they'll never have a chance to prove it.

I'd rather the argument turn into good teams fighting over whether they should have been included instead of the current scenario where great teams are outside looking in.

Ooooh, I see what you did there. Very good.

 

[colatown]

Where is Michigan ?

They lost 2 out of their last 3, why should they be in ?

 

[TUGBrian]

I do find the irony of the selection comittee arguing that clemson should be ahead of louisville (before lv started losing other games) because they beat them head to head.

butttttt....that argument didnt seem to hold much water when applied to osu/penn state.

Im convinced that the final decision comes down to money....there was no way they werent going to put OSU in as long as they won out no matter what the other teams did.

heck id even bet alabama could have lost to florida and still stayed in the top 4.

 

[Elan]

I do find the irony of the selection comittee arguing that clemson should be ahead of louisville (before lv started losing other games) because they beat them head to head.

butttttt....that argument didnt seem to hold much water when applied to osu/penn state.

Im convinced that the final decision comes down to money....there was no way they werent going to put OSU in as long as they won out no matter what the other teams did.

heck id even bet alabama could have lost to florida and still stayed in the top 4.

Yes, it's all about money. They manipulate their criteria weekly to get the brand names in. I almost wish they would have kept UW out this year, just to begin the revolt for an 8 team field.

 

[x3 skier]

I enjoy the regular season immensely and basically ignore the Bowl/Playoff games.

Cheers

 

[Ty1on]

I do find the irony of the selection comittee arguing that clemson should be ahead of louisville (before lv started losing other games) because they beat them head to head.

butttttt....that argument didnt seem to hold much water when applied to osu/penn state.

Im convinced that the final decision comes down to money....there was no way they werent going to put OSU in as long as they won out no matter what the other teams did.

heck id even bet alabama could have lost to florida and still stayed in the top 4.

Alabama would have remained #1 even if they lost to Florida.

 

[am1]

They do know the difference then a team losing 1 game and a team losing 2 games. If they were both two loss teams and osu lost to penn state and penn state won the cc then I would feel penn state should be in as well.

I would be happy if the committee would be given more criteria. Even if ranked from 1 - 25 as they would but when picking teams for the playoff use the following.

Undefeated P5 teams in.
3 loss teams out
minimum two conference champs
no more then two teams from one league.
Avoid rematches in the first round if possible. Means switch 3 and 4 if needed.

I do find the irony of the selection comittee arguing that clemson should be ahead of louisville (before lv started losing other games) because they beat them head to head.

butttttt....that argument didnt seem to hold much water when applied to osu/penn state.

Im convinced that the final decision comes down to money....there was no way they werent going to put OSU in as long as they won out no matter what the other teams did.

heck id even bet alabama could have lost to florida and still stayed in the top 4.

 

[Elan]

I enjoy the regular season immensely and basically ignore the Bowl/Playoff games.

Cheers

That's kind of where I am as well. I simply get irritated when someone attempts to implement a ludicrous system and then, via massive spin, tries to convince the public that the system actually accomplishes it's mission. The entire BCS era was a joke. I disregard all BCS era "National Championships", because only 2 teams got to compete for that title. It's hard to win when you're not allowed to play. The CFP committee system is only marginally better. There's an obvious, mathematically sound, solution that adds a huge degree of credibility to the title "National Champion". If identifying a champion is indeed the desired objective, the sooner we get to that solution, the better.

 

[TUGBrian]

I personally think losing head to head is more of a negative than the team you lost to having 1 more loss...

 

[Elan]

I personally think losing head to head is more of a negative than the team you lost to having 1 more loss...

I just wish the committee would come out and say something definitive. I don't care which they deem worse, just tell us which it is, and apply that consistently. For obvious reasons, they won't do that.

 

[TUGBrian]

agreed

 

[am1]

I just wish the committee would come out and say something definitive. I don't care which they deem worse, jus
tell us which it is, and apply that consistently. For obvious reasons, they won't do that.

The difference between one and two loses is huge. Other then osu and Wisco who did penn state beat?

 

[Ty1on]

I just wish the committee would come out and say something definitive. I don't care which they deem worse, just tell us which it is, and apply that consistently. For obvious reasons, they won't do that.

The obvious reasons being that they will get called out on it next year and they know it.

 

[csxjohn]

I personally think losing head to head is more of a negative than the team you lost to having 1 more loss...

I guess it would depend on who and how badly the losses were to. And the committee does look at the games, so how and why you lose may also come into play.

In the case of Penn State, their out of conference loss to a weak Pitt team coupled with Ohio States out of conference win against Oklahoma, and the closeness of the game between the two made the committee think OSU was better.

In the big 10, had Mich. not lost a second in conference game, OSU would have had the three way tie breaker and gone to the championship game against Wisconsin.

I actually thought PSU would be in and OSU out after the Big10 championship game and I would have been OK with it.

 

[am1]

I guess it would depend on who and how badly the losses were to. And the committee does look at the games, so how and why you lose may also come into play.

In the case of Penn State, their out of conference loss to a weak Pitt team coupled with Ohio States out of conference win against Oklahoma, and the closeness of the game between the two made the committee think OSU was better.

In the big 10, had Mich. not lost a second in conference game, OSU would have had the three way tie breaker and gone to the championship game against Wisconsin.

I actually thought PSU would be in and OSU out after the Big10 championship game and I would have been OK with it.

osu was always in. If the refs did not blow a few call then Michigan would be in at #2.

 

[csxjohn]

If the refs wouldn't have blown the pass interference call in the OSU PSU game, OSU would probably have no losses. But no one knows about it because Urban Meyer didn't cry about it, in fact, he didn't mention it. Calls are part of the game. If Michigan didn't have 2 interceptions and a fumble near their own goal line they would probably have won but their coach would rather blame the refs.

 

[TUGBrian]

im always frustrated when the refs truly decide the outcome of a game (one way or another) via either a horrible call, or a blatant missed call.

replay should be about getting the call correct on the field, and should include all major penalties.

 

[bnoble]

out of conference loss to a weak Pitt team

Pitt turned out to be a little better than "weak"---they finished ranked by the committee, with wins over both the B1G and ACC champs.

 

["Roger"]

im always frustrated when the refs truly decide the outcome of a game (one way or another) via either a horrible call, or a blatant missed call.

replay should be about getting the call correct on the field, and should include all major penalties.

Ah time more heresy on my part. I hate replay and not just because it makes the games frustratingly slow (although that frustrates me enough that I watch much less football than I used to - games are too slow - almost makes me enjoy boring soccer in that at least they keep playing).

There is so much arbitrariness as to what is reviewable and what is not. Fumbles are reviewable, but when a ref misses a clear fumble, but the whistle blew, too bad. Or, three people in the booth think that the replay is not decisive, but this ref is willing to overturn the call. Review adds a different arbitrariness to the game.

Major penalties should be reviewable? What about major penalties not seen? And what counts as a major penalty? Only fifteen yarders? Anything that results in a first down? Three minutes to go. A five yard penalty for a team behind by two points is the difference between third and one versus third and six. Call the referee over to the side to make sure that the penalty was called correctly? Or are five yard penalties only reviewable during the last five minutes of the game?

Games are a human endeavor and mistakes are going to be made. Accept it and move on.

 

[bnoble]

it makes the games frustratingly slow

Replay is much less to blame IMO than the incessant commercial breaks.

 

[TUGBrian]

i also have a problem with calls that are "not review-able"

one of the most ridiculous rules ive ever heard of....the entire goal of the refs and replay is to get the call right on the field. if you can clearly see that the call was NOT right on the field...there should literally be no reason to not make it right.

 

[TUGBrian]

an easy solution would be if it takes more than 60 seconds to review a play based on the video, then the refs probably did a fine job in their judgement in real time.

im talking about absolutely ridiculous totally blatant no excuse to not make right (either way) calls.

 

[TUGBrian]

they have already built the foundation for this very effort with the rules for "targeting calls"...where not only does the replay booth determine if the player gets ejected or not...but if the penalty was even a good call and thus should be reversed.