# College Football Playoff Predictions!



## Clemson Fan

Ok folks, what are your predictions for the 4 teams that will make the college football playoff? 

Here are mine:

Florida State 
Oklahoma
UCLA
Ohio State

I think the championship will go back to Florida State!


----------



## 1950bing

No one from the SEC.?


----------



## Clemson Fan

1950bing said:


> No one from the SEC.?



LOL! Yeah, I know I'm poking the bear!

One of the podcasts I listen to posed the question of what's more likely: 2 SEC teams get in or none?  I think the committee is going to really focus on conference champions, and I don't think they'll exclude 2 conferences from the playoff in its first year.  I think the SEC will beat each other up and their conference champion may have 2 losses.  I don't think it will be the 4 best teams, but rather I think it will be the 4 best conference champions.


----------



## TUGBrian

FSU
oregon
georgia
oklahoma

since were two weeks in and all =)


----------



## Clemson Fan

Damn, really bad day for the Big 10!  I excluded the SEC on my initial predictions, but just 2 weeks into the season the conference that should be left out is the Big 10!

Based in what I've seen in 2 weeks, I would also take off UCLA on my list and replace them with Oregon.  I'm rooting for UGA to win the SEC and make it to the playoff as well.  My niece whom we took to Europe with us this summer is a freshman there.  If Gurley can stay healthy they have a good shot.  That dude is a beast!


----------



## Clemson Fan

Wow!  What a day in CFB!


----------



## pedro47

Florida State must be the #1 team in college football after today.


----------



## am1

pedro47 said:


> Florida State must be the #1 team in college football after today.



I do not see that.  

I think one or more of the Sec teams are better.  This may be the year where they need a second chance (playoff) to get in the national championship game.


----------



## TUGBrian

which sec team would that be?

While I originally argued that FSU certainly isnt playing like everyone expects a number 1 should...nor is any other team.

hard to ignore 20 straight wins...and FSU has still managed to beat 2 ranked teams.

I am certainly biased, but Id also agree with the national champion being #1 until a loss (or key injury etc)...its certainly something all SEC teams have been awarded that have held the top spot in the past years.

not to mention after this week, hte ACC will have just as many top 10 teams as the "god like" SEC...and both fsu and notre dame play 2 weeks from now!


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> which sec team would that be?
> 
> While I originally argued that FSU certainly isnt playing like everyone expects a number 1 should...nor is any other team.
> 
> hard to ignore 20 straight wins...and FSU has still managed to beat 2 ranked teams.
> 
> I am certainly biased, but Id also agree with the national champion being #1 until a loss (or key injury etc)...its certainly something all SEC teams have been awarded that have held the top spot in the past years.
> 
> not to mention after this week, hte ACC will have just as many top 10 teams as the "god like" SEC...and both fsu and notre dame play 2 weeks from now!



Enjoy this year for FSU because I'm really liking what I'm seeing from this true freshman QB Deshauwn Watson at Clemson.  They also have the #2 recruiting class this year according to ESPN.  Clemson gifted you guys the game this year, but next year I think we're going to get you.


----------



## tompalm

Clemson Fan said:


> Wow!  What a day in CFB!



ya, except you could have said what a week, Oregon #2 went down on Thursday night.  I don't think FSU will survive the season as number one.  There are no distance leaders in the front.  The final four are up for grabs.  By the way, I am a Noles fan because my brother, sister and mother went there.  But, I just don't see it happening unless they get better.


----------



## TUGBrian

clemson definately looking good for sure! (nc state just looked completely deflated this week)

I fully believe clemson is still in the hunt if they didnt have to play FSU (you know, since the SEC lovers all complain that sec vs sec games hurt)

Think we will truly see what FSU is made of in two weeks vs notre dame....although somehow I believe that even if FSU wins folks wont put as much weight into the game since ND is now just another ACC team.


----------



## am1

I would take an SEC team making the playoffs over an ACC team.  The chance of two SEC teams making the playoff is significantly higher then 2 ACC teams.  I would even spot you Notre Dame.  7 SEC schools are still playing for a playoff spot.  

More importantly though from top to bottom the SEC teams are better.


----------



## pedro47

Alabama, LSU, Florida State & Oregon or Notre Dame are my picks for the National Bowl..  Correction!!! Auburn not LSU. Sorry LSU Fans..


----------



## Clemson Fan

pedro47 said:


> Alabama, LSU, Florida State & Oregon or Notre Dame are my picks for the National Bowl..



Are you being facetious?  LSU is probably the worst team in the SEC West this year.


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> clemson definately looking good for sure! (nc state just looked completely deflated this week)
> 
> I fully believe clemson is still in the hunt if they didnt have to play FSU (you know, since the SEC lovers all complain that sec vs sec games hurt)



I didn't expect much from Clemson this year.  They lost a heck of a lot of players on offense.  However, now that I've seen this true freshman QB (#1 rated dual threat QB out of HS) play I really wish they didn't have their 2 toughest games (Georgia and FSU) so early in the season.  I now think they're going to run the table for the remainder of the season and next year they'll probably be a pre-season Top 5 team.


----------



## Clemson Fan

am1 said:


> More importantly though from top to bottom the SEC teams are better.



From 2nd to bottom maybe.  FSU is still the reining national champ having beaten the current top rated SEC school in that game.  Auburn could've easily lost to Kansas State this year as well.

ACC was 2-0 in BCS Bowls last year and the SEC was uh hm 0-2!

With all the focus on the SEC West this year, I'm thinking and actually rooting for Georgia to win the SEC and make the CFB playoff.  Gurley should also win the Heisman if he stays healthy.


----------



## bogey21

What about TCU?  I watched the whole TCU/Oklahoma game and TCU not only beat Oklahoma, they are better than Oklahoma.

George


----------



## ampaholic

Mississippi State
FSU
Arizona
Baylor

---

Baylor as the Big 12 champ
Arizona as the Pac 12 Champ
FSU as the ACC Champ
Mississippi State as the SEC Champ

---

If Mississippi State wins out - they will have beaten LSU, A&M, Arkansas, Bama, Ole Miss *AND* the SEC east's best team. Thats* Six* teams better than FSU, Arizona and Baylor

... just sayin ....


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> If Mississippi State wins out - they will have beaten LSU, A&M, Arkansas, Bama, Ole Miss *AND* the SEC east's best team. Thats* Six* teams better than FSU, Arizona and Baylor
> 
> ... just sayin ....



Aren't you going a little overboard here?  Yes, the SEC West is the best single division in CFB, but none of them are better then FSU although some are closer then others.  Let's break it down:

Auburn: Reining SEC champs who lost to FSU in the game played on the field.

Alabama: True powerhouse but they may not be as good this year and may end up being a 2-3 loss team

LSU: not even a Top 25 team this year and will probably end up around .500

A&M: Great offense and a LOUSY defense!  It's funny how a perpetual also ran in the Big 12 is now a powerhouse in the "best division in CFB".

Mississippi State: Very good team that's had a great couple of weeks.  However unless A&M stays in the Top 10 which I doubt they still haven't beaten a Top 10 team.

Ole Miss: Very good team that's recruited very well the last few years and has a very good defense.  They actually had the best win yesterday IMO.

Arkansas: Come on now.  Let's see Bielema win a game in the SEC first before stating they're better then FSU.


----------



## ampaholic

I just don't like that smarmy creep that quarterbacks for FSU.

that's why this thread is an "opinion" piece - nobody knows who will win out at this point.

There are 10 undefeated teams today - several will play each other in the coming weeks (TCU and Baylor for example) so there may be only 1 or 2 important undefeated teams come playoff time.

I think we may end up with 2 or even 3 one loss teams in the final four.

Do you pick an undefeated Marshall over a one loss Alabama or a one loss Georgia?


----------



## TUGBrian

am1 said:


> I would take an SEC team making the playoffs over an ACC team.  The chance of two SEC teams making the playoff is significantly higher then 2 ACC teams.  I would even spot you Notre Dame.  7 SEC schools are still playing for a playoff spot.
> 
> More importantly though from top to bottom the SEC teams are better.



disagree on both points.

if not for FSU playing ND (which is now a conference game for the ACC)...I dont see ND losing.


----------



## TUGBrian

ampaholic said:


> I just don't like that smarmy creep that quarterbacks for FSU.
> 
> that's why this thread is an "opinion" piece - nobody knows who will win out at this point.
> 
> There are 10 undefeated teams today - several will play each other in the coming weeks (TCU and Baylor for example) so there may be only 1 or 2 important undefeated teams come playoff time.
> 
> I think we may end up with 2 or even 3 one loss teams in the final four.
> 
> Do you pick an undefeated Marshall over a one loss Alabama or a one loss Georgia?



he even gave me a bad taste in my mouth, and im an FSU graduate.

kid has to be one of the smartest qbs to ever play the game at his age....it amazes me he seems to be a complete idiot off the field.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> I just don't like that smarmy creep that quarterbacks for FSU.
> 
> that's why this thread is an "opinion" piece - nobody knows who will win out at this point.
> 
> There are 10 undefeated teams today - several will play each other in the coming weeks (TCU and Baylor for example) so there may be only 1 or 2 important undefeated teams come playoff time.
> 
> I think we may end up with 2 or even 3 one loss teams in the final four.
> 
> Do you pick an undefeated Marshall over a one loss Alabama or a one loss Georgia?



Where did I ever say being undefeated is a super important criteria?

For the record, I think Georgia is the best team in the SEC.

Clemson isn't ranked right now, but even with 2 losses they're better then I expected and will finish the year as a Top 15 if not a Top 10 team.


----------



## persia

One team will win, another will lose. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth and a new improved system will be devised that will be met with - get this, much wailing an gnashing of teeth.

Meanwhile universities will continue to waste time and effort on something that has absolutely nothing to do with their primary purpose.....


----------



## TUGBrian

Clemson Fan said:


> Where did I ever say being undefeated is a super important criteria?
> 
> For the record, I think Georgia is the best team in the SEC.
> 
> Clemson isn't ranked right now, but even with 2 losses they're better then I expected and will finish the year as a Top 15 if not a Top 10 team.



actually they are back in the top 25 this week.

and georgia is so hit or miss for me...one week they look AMAZING...then they falter against sub par opponents. just like everyone else!  

and holy epic collapse of a team by south carolina...that team imploding also hurts georgia.


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> actually they are back in the top 25 this week.
> 
> and georgia is so hit or miss for me...one week they look AMAZING...then they falter against sub par opponents. just like everyone else!
> 
> and holy epic collapse of a team by south carolina...that team imploding also hurts georgia.



Georgia just has the best running backs in the country and they can run on anybody.  Clemson actually has a very good front defensive 7 and a stout run defense, but not against Georgia.  They just need to avoid shooting themselves in the foot and they should be able to control any game.

The only remaining game I really care about is the South Carolina game.  Losing to them 5 years in a row is just ridiculous!


----------



## TUGBrian

georgia struggled to beat a fairly terrible tennessee team.


----------



## ace2000

Right now Auburn looks like the best team in the land.  I'd go with them.


----------



## pedro47

pedro47 said:


> Alabama, LSU, Florida State & Oregon or Notre Dame are my picks for the National Bowl..  Correction!!! Auburn not LSU. Sorry LSU Fans..



The SEC has the best conf. in the nation. The four best teams will be Auburn, Notre Dame, Alabama and Florida State.


----------



## TUGBrian

really no way for FSU and ND to make it, as they play each other next week.

alabama and auburn also likely cant make it together either due to the SEC championship game.


----------



## Elan

ace2000 said:


> Right now Auburn looks like the best team in the land.  I'd go with them.



  That's the way I see it as well.


----------



## TUGBrian

auburn is going to play mississippi state this weekend.

then ole miss,  then georgia.

and finishes the season playing alabama.

If they are undefeated at that point, even id vote for them to be #1 over FSU. I however, see them as a 1 loss team by the end of the season with those 4 games


----------



## ace2000

Wow, that is a tough schedule.  I heard this weekend that Auburn has arguably the toughest schedule going into the end of the season - now I know why!   That SEC West division is a killer.  5 teams out of the top 15 rankings (4 out of the top 7).


----------



## TUGBrian

well, that said...one could argue that its only tough because they always get ranked high due to the SEC moniker.  

prior to entering the SEC, both mizzou and texas A&m were perennial bottom dwellers in the big 12.


----------



## Janette

Georgia has Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Florida on the road with Auburn and Ga Tech coming to to town. There is a long way until the end of the season. Love my DAWGS and those awesome running backs.


----------



## ampaholic

I think that any team good enough to be in the "conversation" has a slugger's chance (even Alabama).

Being good enough to be in the conversation, may not be enough to get into the top four playoff berths - some luck will be involved I think.

I don't know who will survive the prelims and get into the final four - but any team the does get into the final four will certainly find two heavy duty challenges there in order to win it all.

That's everything we can hope for - a clear cut National Champion.


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> snip...
> 
> prior to entering the SEC, both mizzou and texas A&m were perennial bottom dwellers in the big 12.



That's a bit unfair A&M has played in 35 bowl games, has 18 conference championship, 3 division championships and 3 National Championships (*same as FSU*) - not exactly a "perennial bottom dweller".

A&M has a division I record of: 544-430-41

Mizzou has appeared in 30 bowl games, has has 15 conference championships, and 4 divisional wins (3 in the Big Twelve, 1 in the SEC), They also have 2 National Champioship but they are "non-consensus".

Interestingly Mizzou has an all time record of 529-481-46 against Division I opponents - and a winning record against Bama - certainly not a "push over".



> As of this morning, an Alabama record that stood for more than four decades fell as the Southeastern Conference now includes a team with a winning record against the Crimson Tide. With the arrival of Missouri to the SEC fold, there is once again a team in the conference who has *won more games against Alabama than they have lost.*
> 
> The Tigers from Columbia have met the Tide just three times and have been victorious on two of those occasions.


 http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2012/7/1/3130143/alabamas-all-time-records-against-sec-opponents

Again not worthy of the "perennial bottom dweller" moniker.

For an interesting aside regarding college football matchups go to

http://www.winsipedia.com/auburn/vs/florida-state

You can change the teams to any you want to check up on.


----------



## TUGBrian

lol...going off the entire recorded history of a team to back up an argument about conferences is a bit silly.

A&M started playing football in the 1800s..and have only 1 big 12 championship title...won in 1998.  they have never even played in a big 12 championship game other than the 1998 season they won.

the las national title they won was in 1939.....

at least mizzou has played in 2, although got demolished in both.


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> lol...going off the entire recorded history of a team to back up an argument about conferences is a bit silly.
> 
> A&M started playing football in the 1800s..and have only 1 big 12 championship title...won in 1998.  they have never even played in a big 12 championship game other than the 1998 season they won.
> 
> the las national title they won was in 1939.....
> 
> at least mizzou has played in 2, although got demolished in both.



I think only an FSU fan would disrespect other teams to that degree, which is sad since they have an *easier* schedule than 10 SEC teams including both A&M and Mizzou.

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2014/2014-college-football-strength-of-schedule/

Pride goeth before destruction .....


----------



## pedro47

FSU football schedule does not compare to the worst SEC football team schedule in my opinion.


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> lol...going off the entire recorded history of a team to back up an argument about conferences is a bit silly.
> 
> A&M started playing football in the 1800s..and have only 1 big 12 championship title...won in 1998.  they have never even played in a big 12 championship game other than the 1998 season they won.
> 
> the las national title they won was in 1939.....
> 
> at least mizzou has played in 2, although got demolished in both.



Yup, the SEC fans would be talking up Army and how dominant they were as well if they joined the SEC.


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> Yup, the SEC fans would be talking up Army and how dominant they were as well if they joined the SEC.



Now you are just being silly - college football is not the NFL, there is no league wide effort at "parity".

That has been my point - the SEC is the strongest conference *BECAUSE* it has the most intense competition.



> Since 1920, SEC football teams have captured 30 National Championships (depending on which poll you rely on). They are:
> 
> Alabama -- (10); 1934, 1941, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992 and 2009;
> Georgia - (2); 1942 and 1980;
> Tennessee - (6); 1938, 1940, 1950, 1951, 1967, 1998;
> Arkansas (1); 1964 (went 11-0; shared title with 1 loss Alabama -- thanks to RM for this info);
> Auburn (1); 1957; 2010
> LSU (3); 1958, 2003, 2007;
> Ole Miss (3); 1959, 1960, 1962; and,
> Florida (3); 1996, 2006, 2008.
> 
> - See more at: http://www.secsportsfan.com/sec-football-history.html#sthash.snMnsf3d.dpuf



If FSU played in the SEC - they would be battling with Vanderbilt, Tennessee, South Carolina and Kentucky for the basement position!!!!!!!


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> auburn is going to play mississippi state this weekend.
> 
> then ole miss,  then georgia.
> 
> and finishes the season playing alabama.
> 
> If they are undefeated at that point, even id vote for them to be #1 over FSU. I however, see them as a 1 loss team by the end of the season with those 4 games



LOL -- yea, I agree with you - if FSU played in the SEC they would end up 7-5 or at BEST 9-3.



> Florida State is batting well below .500 all-time against the SEC, and holds the advantage over only three teams: LSU, Mississippi State and South Carolina. Tennessee is a wash at 1-1, but the following programs all own a winning record over the Seminoles: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky (KENTUCKY?!) and Ole Miss. But yeah, go ACC.
> 
> When you step out of the 2013 season vaccum, the Southeastern Conference is SECond to none.
> 
> Read more at http://gamedayr.com/sports/college-...against-sec-teams-116687/#I7lAKXVHJFkFuf5o.99


----------



## TUGBrian

ampaholic said:


> I think only an FSU fan would disrespect other teams to that degree, which is sad since they have an *easier* schedule than 10 SEC teams including both A&M and Mizzou.
> 
> http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2014/2014-college-football-strength-of-schedule/
> 
> Pride goeth before destruction .....



I am sorry that pointing out the truth is somehow taken as disrespect.

doesnt really change the truth though =)


----------



## TUGBrian

ampaholic said:


> Now you are just being silly - college football is not the NFL, there is no league wide effort at "parity".
> 
> That has been my point - the SEC is the strongest conference *BECAUSE* it has the most intense competition.
> 
> 
> 
> If FSU played in the SEC - they would be battling with Vanderbilt, Tennessee, South Carolina and Kentucky for the basement position!!!!!!!



so, the team that beat the best team the SEC had to offer last year....would be the worst team in the SEC if it were in that conference?

seems logical :rofl:


----------



## TUGBrian

> Florida State is batting well below .500 all-time against the SEC, and holds the advantage over only three teams: LSU, Mississippi State and South Carolina. Tennessee is a wash at 1-1, but the following programs all own a winning record over the Seminoles: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky (KENTUCKY?!) and Ole Miss. But yeah, go ACC.
> 
> When you step out of the 2013 season vaccum, the Southeastern Conference is SECond to none.



odd...as the stats show FSU having a 60% win rate over SEC teams since 1976(when it actually became part of a conference) with a 45-30-2 record:

http://chopchat.com/2014/09/02/fsu-vs-sec-history-domination/

I am not quite sure why your arguments seem to include stats from the early 1900s to somehow illustrate current events...although I guess using current facts wouldnt really work all that well for the "SEC IS THE BEST" stances =)


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> odd...as the stats show FSU having a 60% win rate over SEC teams since 1976(when it actually became part of a conference) with a 45-30-2 record:
> 
> http://chopchat.com/2014/09/02/fsu-vs-sec-history-domination/
> 
> I am not quite sure why your arguments seem to include stats from the early 1900s to somehow illustrate current events...although I guess using current facts wouldnt really work all that well for the "SEC IS THE BEST" stances =)



I think it's telling that you want to only count half of the history - but not the other half - shouldn't it be all or none?






During the BCS era the SEC has 6 National Championships and FSU has the last ONE - just fact.

"It was only with the establishment of the BCS that teams actually had to *win* the national championship, on the field. Since that time, SEC teams have won 6 national championships. No other conference has won more than 2 (Big 12, and ACC, if you include Miami's national championship in the ACC total, even though they were not part of the ACC at that time). The Big 10 and Pac 10 have one each (Ohio State and USC). The Big East has one, but only if you count Miami's national championship, since Miami was in the Big East at the time they won it. So:

If you go with conference affiliation at the time of the championship:
SEC (6)
Big 12 (2)
ACC (1)
Big 10 (1)
Big East (1)
Pac 10 (1)
All other Division I-A Conferences (0)"

To say that the SEC winning HALF of all the BCS championships is somehow a lesser feat than FSU winning the very last *one* ---- is inane if not insane


----------



## TUGBrian

given that logic, we should all still hate the japanese, germans, italians, russians, etc etc.  history is useful and all, just not to be used to skew current events.

If you want to continue to use statistics from decades ago to support an argument for teams in 2014 yet claim "last year" to be completely invalid, be my guest.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.


----------



## TUGBrian

FYI, fsu has 2 bcs national titles.

you should probably fact check a bit more.


----------



## Elan

Something to chew on (data thru 2012):

  "Since the inception of the BCS, the SEC has been crowned national champion 57.14 percent of the time. That's a stunning turnaround when compared with an undisputed national title rate of 10.42 percent over the half-century prior.

So what's behind such a radical shift in fortune, such a statistical improbability?

It certainly isn't on-field performance. Judging by inter-conference records -- that is to say actual games as opposed to media guesswork and bestowed rankings -- the SEC plays other BCS conferences about equally. Witness the record since the start of the BCS era in 1998:

SEC vs. PAC-12 regular season: 10-12
SEC vs. PAC-12 bowl games: 1-0
SEC vs. Big 12 regular season: 6-10
SEC vs. Big 12 bowl games: 21-8
SEC vs. ACC regular season: 42-36
SEC vs. ACC bowl games: 16-9
SEC vs. Big 10 regular season: 7-4
SEC vs. Big 10 bowl games: 19-19
SEC vs. Big East regular season: 16-15
SEC vs. Big East bowl game: 3-8

The record is clear. In head-to-head match-ups against other major conferences, the SEC has either a combined losing record or one that's generally only a little better than even."


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> FYI, fsu has 2 bcs national titles.
> 
> you should probably fact check a bit more.



FYI - I was quoting a source that was printed before FSU's squeaker against Auburn. 

You are correct FSU has won two BCS National Championships 1999 and 2013 - not that a "historical" win waaaaaay back in 1999 should count (add tongue in cheek emoticon).


----------



## am1

Elan said:


> Something to chew on (data thru 2012):
> 
> "Since the inception of the BCS, the SEC has been crowned national champion 57.14 percent of the time. That's a stunning turnaround when compared with an undisputed national title rate of 10.42 percent over the half-century prior.
> 
> So what's behind such a radical shift in fortune, such a statistical improbability?
> 
> It certainly isn't on-field performance. Judging by inter-conference records -- that is to say actual games as opposed to media guesswork and bestowed rankings -- the SEC plays other BCS conferences about equally. Witness the record since the start of the BCS era in 1998:
> 
> SEC vs. PAC-12 regular season: 10-12
> SEC vs. PAC-12 bowl games: 1-0
> SEC vs. Big 12 regular season: 6-10
> SEC vs. Big 12 bowl games: 21-8
> SEC vs. ACC regular season: 42-36
> SEC vs. ACC bowl games: 16-9
> SEC vs. Big 10 regular season: 7-4
> SEC vs. Big 10 bowl games: 19-19
> SEC vs. Big East regular season: 16-15
> SEC vs. Big East bowl game: 3-8
> 
> The record is clear. In head-to-head match-ups against other major conferences, the SEC has either a combined losing record or one that's generally only a little better than even."



To just takes wins and loses vs other conferences makes it too simple.  Always being in the NCG and once had two teams in it, brings the other SEC schools up  the depth chart.  

The most important info is, how many bcs national championships were won, how many times bcs bowls were made and how many times teams were left out of bcs bowls because 2 already made it from the conference.  Does another conference even come close to those 3 things compared to the SEC?


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> given that logic, we should all still hate the japanese, germans, italians, russians, etc etc.  history is useful and all, just not to be used to skew current events.



I don't see any logic in what you just typed .... sorry, you lost me.



TUGBrian said:


> If you want to continue to use statistics from decades ago to support an argument for teams in 2014 yet claim "last year" to be completely invalid, be my guest.
> 
> Everyone is entitled to an opinion.



You, on the other hand want to ignore "actual" history and think that one past game at the end of the 2013 season defines all future games.

Every football game and every football season is a new chance - but the SEC is still the tougher, more competitive conference.

The odds of the SEC champ NOT being in the final four are slim even with one loss - one loss for FSU and they are out - way out - even if they do win the ACC.


----------



## TUGBrian

I am still lost on how games from 25-100 years ago have any bearing on the discussion of college in 2014 (or even the past 10 years) is all.

Fact is, if you only study CURRENT college football, your arguments are rendered invalid.

Also love the "squeaker" comment, if its an SEC vs SEC opponent, that sort of victory is a "amazing hard fought fight between two powerhouses, its a shame one of them had to lose, oh I know lets just keep them both ranked really high because they are equally matched"

ACC vs SEC...its a "squeaked out victory".

the koolaid is strong with that conference!


----------



## pedro47

Guy's I guess we will have to wait until January 2015 to answer these questions ?


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> Fact is, if you only study CURRENT college football, your arguments are rendered invalid.



Uhhhh, wrongo --- according to the Sagarin rankings --- which are a comprehensive *unbiased *study of *THIS YEARS *games and are a tool that odds makers can use - the Noles are ranked 13th.

They would be underdogs if they played 12 higher ranking teams *TODAY*.

And SIX of those higher ranked teams are SEC.

But don't take my word for it: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:


----------



## TUGBrian

does sagarin rating take into account the 1939 national title Texas A&M won?

sure wish you would pick a point and keep on it =)


----------



## TUGBrian

works out well for me, last year they had FSU ranked 13th...and auburn not even in the top 50

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...rankings-bcs-standings-alabama-oregon-georgia

this should prove the utter uselessness of "polls" until the last game of the regular season is played.


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> works out well for me, last year they had FSU ranked 13th...and auburn not even in the top 50
> 
> http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...rankings-bcs-standings-alabama-oregon-georgia



Like arguing with Pollyanna .... the "opinion piece" you reference has ZERO NONE NADA ZILCH in common with the Sagarin rankings I referenced.

First it was done way before the start of the 2013 season, the Sagarin rankings I referenced was done YESTERDAY (midway through the 2014 season). Like comparing apples and fish.

Second the "fluff" you mention is just one guys opinion - the Sagarin is a SCIENTIFIC ranking based on REAL parameters that can be measured.



TUGBrian said:


> this should prove the utter uselessness of "polls" until the last game of the regular season is played.



I agree - your poll is as useless as is entirely decorative.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:


----------



## Elan

am1 said:


> To just takes wins and loses vs other conferences makes it too simple.  Always being in the NCG and once had two teams in it, brings the other SEC schools up  the depth chart.
> 
> The most important info is, how many bcs national championships were won, how many times bcs bowls were made and how many times teams were left out of bcs bowls because 2 already made it from the conference.  Does another conference even come close to those 3 things compared to the SEC?



  Actually, the regular season play is much more representative than the bowls, because:

1) the bowl match-ups are often selected (either by bowl committee, or via rankings, which are subjective), whereas the regular season games are scheduled, typically years in advance, and 

2) there's more data from regular season games than there is from bowls.  

  Regardless of how you want to dissect the data, it's obvious that the SEC is  clearly not dominant.  Anyone, regardless of their inherent bias, can see that.  

  Let me also point this out to you since logic doesn't seem to be a factor in your argument;  You do realize that every conference finishes .500 in conference play, right?   So, if the Pac-12 only played the Pac-12, and the SEC only played the SEC, the two conferences would have to be considered equal, as they'd both finish at .500 overall.  We'd have no data to determine otherwise.  Logically, the most direct way to establish which of the two conferences is "stronger" is head to head competition, which, inexplicably, you want to dismiss.  So how can you say "wins and losses vs other conferences makes it too simple", when, in fact, it's the most direct, objective way to compare conferences?


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> does sagarin rating take into account the 1939 national title Texas A&M won?
> 
> sure wish you would pick a point and keep on it =)



LOL - yea, you can't handle my point:

Some SEC team will certainly be in the final four, even one with one loss. 

FSU has to win out to have a chance to even get into the final four. FSU will need to ride the shirttails of last years "Glorious Shellacking" it gave Auburn to cover up it's 48th ranked Strength of Schedule *THIS YEAR*.


----------



## TUGBrian

just as with all the top rated teams, win out and you are in...this is the same strategy year after year.  I am not sure why it has anything to do with the SEC or ACC however.

having 1 loss also doesnt kick you out, assuming that loss comes early in the year and you finish the rest of the season strong and undefeated.

this also has nothing to do with conference....it happens year after year....has been for decades.


----------



## TUGBrian

you are also welcome to google the myriad of folks who point out the contradictory and utter ridiculousness of sagarin and his ranking system.

most recent of which actually rated notre dame as a stronger and favorite team over alabama in the 2013 title game....at the end of the season.

I think we all know what a ridiculous joke that was =)


It should also be noted that the folks who actually put their money where their mouth is (vegas oddsmakers)...still lists FSU as the favorite to win the national championship at 11/2...even auburn is 13/2


----------



## ampaholic

FSU has already slipped to number 7 in the Composite Top 25 Rankings:

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...llege-football-rankings-week-7-2014-ap-top-25

ruttt roooh


----------



## TUGBrian

could you remind me again what FSU is ranked in the two polls that do actually matter?


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> you are also welcome to google the myriad of folks who point out the contradictory and utter ridiculousness of sagarin and his ranking system.
> 
> most recent of which actually rated notre dame as a stronger and favorite team over alabama in the 2013 title game....at the end of the season.


 I likely wont be doing your googling for you (btw saying that makes you sound like Carolinian to me).

I referenced the "most recent" Sagarin rankings (see post #57) and it says NOTHING about ND playing Alabama in the 2013 title game - it is a 2014 ranking.

C'mon man ...


----------



## TUGBrian

you do know that alabama and ND played in the title game in 2013 right?  one of the most embarrassingly lopsided title games in recent memory.

still waiting on you to let me know what FSU is ranked in the two major polls used =)


----------



## laurac260

So, this is what they mean when they say, "you guys could ruin a wet dream…"


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> you do know that alabama and ND played in the title game in 2013 right?  one of the most embarrassingly lopsided title games in recent memory.



I don't see why you keep bringing up the Jan 7th 2013 walloping the Tide gave the Irish when you also seem to think:

A: All SEC teams are "over rated" and

B: You seem to think "What's history got to do with it" (hummed to the Tina Turner favorite).

Are you kidding?



TUGBrian said:


> still waiting on you to let me know what FSU is ranked in the two major polls used =)



You might be waiting a long long time - since you seem to only like the "beauty contest" polls and I like the Composite ranking and the Sagarin ranking (not really polls) - so we can't even agree on what you mean by "two major polls *used*"

Used by whom, what for, what ax do they have to grind etc, etc, etc.


----------



## ampaholic

laurac260 said:


> So, this is what they mean when they say, "you guys could ruin a wet dream…"



Are you saying you do? or we did? or we will (shudder)?

I really don't want to be involved in your dreams (of any kind).


----------



## TUGBrian

ampaholic said:


> I don't see why you keep bringing up the Jan 7th 2013 walloping the Tide gave the Irish when you also seem to think:
> 
> A: All SEC teams are "over rated" and
> 
> B: You seem to think "What's history got to do with it" (hummed to the Tina Turner favorite).
> 
> Are you Schitzo?



certainly dont appreciate the name calling, I thought you were a bit more mature than that.


The point was the week of the game, "sagarin" had notre dame as the computed better team....I can however see based on the chain of events in this thread, how you would ignore that obvious point and focus your argument elsewhere.


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> certainly dont appreciate the name calling, I thought you were a bit more mature than that.
> 
> *Sorry, I meant that in the rambunctious friendly razzing way - not the serious way - I'll eat that word.*
> 
> The point was the week of the game, "sagarin" had notre dame as the computed better team....I can however see based on the chain of events in this thread, how you would ignore that obvious point and focus your argument elsewhere.



I have NEVER claimed to have great (or even good) "focus".

And the AP poll had Oregon rated much higher before this last week as well - *that is why they play the game*


----------



## Clemson Fan

Sweet!  It looked like there were no CFB fans here on TUG for awhile after I started this thread.  I'm glad the conversation has picked up!


----------



## Clemson Fan

Elan said:


> Something to chew on (data thru 2012):
> 
> "Since the inception of the BCS, the SEC has been crowned national champion 57.14 percent of the time. That's a stunning turnaround when compared with an undisputed national title rate of 10.42 percent over the half-century prior.
> 
> So what's behind such a radical shift in fortune, such a statistical improbability?
> 
> It certainly isn't on-field performance. Judging by inter-conference records -- that is to say actual games as opposed to media guesswork and bestowed rankings -- the SEC plays other BCS conferences about equally. Witness the record since the start of the BCS era in 1998:
> 
> SEC vs. PAC-12 regular season: 10-12
> SEC vs. PAC-12 bowl games: 1-0
> SEC vs. Big 12 regular season: 6-10
> SEC vs. Big 12 bowl games: 21-8
> SEC vs. ACC regular season: 42-36
> SEC vs. ACC bowl games: 16-9
> SEC vs. Big 10 regular season: 7-4
> SEC vs. Big 10 bowl games: 19-19
> SEC vs. Big East regular season: 16-15
> SEC vs. Big East bowl game: 3-8
> 
> The record is clear. In head-to-head match-ups against other major conferences, the SEC has either a combined losing record or one that's generally only a little better than even."



Great post!

There's no doubt that the SEC has had a fantastic last 15 years!  Really dominant by all accounts!  That has given the SEC a lot of cache to the point now where there's a lot of criticism that they're now being a little bit over ranked.  These pendulums have a tendency to swing over time and I think this stretch of dominance will begin to end.  We saw a little bit of that last year when OU blew out Alabama in their own backyard (The Sugar Bowl) and Auburn lost in the NC game.

Other teams and conferences outside of the SEC have had their share of dominant runs.  Miami in the 80's and 90's.  OU, Nebraska and USC have had fairly recent periods of dominance as well.


----------



## am1

1.  National championship puts the best two teams in the regular season together.  Subjective or not, when was the last time a SEC team did not deserve to be in the NCG but was put in there because of bias?  Where was that bias when Auburn went undefeated?  

2.  Lots more data from regular season games.  The SEC does well in regular season games.  The top teams are not going to always play tough ooc games as they will have about all they can handle in conference play.  

Very rarely do teams from the same conference play each other in bowls.  When that happens in the NCG and teams end the season head to head 1 -1 then both had really good years.  In the past they would be co national champions.  Not sure why you need to mention that every conference finishes 500 in conference play.  

When the SEC has a team in the NCG that puts each team up the pecking order in who they play.  SEC #2 vs Big XII, etc.  That makes it harder for SEC teams to do well in bowl season. 

I still believe and would guess Vegas does as well that an SEC team will win the NCG this year.  What are the odds of an SEC team making the 4 team playoff?  Is it higher than the other conferences?  

Any one that thinks there is an SEC bias this year please rank your current top 15.  



Elan said:


> Actually, the regular season play is much more representative than the bowls, because:
> 
> 1) the bowl match-ups are often selected (either by bowl committee, or via rankings, which are subjective), whereas the regular season games are scheduled, typically years in advance, and
> 
> 2) there's more data from regular season games than there is from bowls.
> 
> Regardless of how you want to dissect the data, it's obvious that the SEC is  clearly not dominant.  Anyone, regardless of their inherent bias, can see that.
> 
> Let me also point this out to you since logic doesn't seem to be a factor in your argument;  You do realize that every conference finishes .500 in conference play, right?   So, if the Pac-12 only played the Pac-12, and the SEC only played the SEC, the two conferences would have to be considered equal, as they'd both finish at .500 overall.  We'd have no data to determine otherwise.  Logically, the most direct way to establish which of the two conferences is "stronger" is head to head competition, which, inexplicably, you want to dismiss.  So how can you say "wins and losses vs other conferences makes it too simple", when, in fact, it's the most direct, objective way to compare conferences?


----------



## Elan

Clemson Fan said:


> Sweet!  It looked like there were no CFB fans here on TUG for awhile after I started this thread.  I'm glad the conversation has picked up!


I've been to roughly 150 CFB games over the past 20 years.  From Hawaii to Georgia to California to Texas to .....

Always amazes me that so many supposed "fans" buy what the polls and ESPN feed them in spite of the data staring them right in the face. Goes to show the power of the media over the average "fan".

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## laurac260

ampaholic said:


> Are you saying you do? or we did? or we will (shudder)?
> 
> I really don't want to be involved in your dreams (of any kind).



Um, yeah.. Whatever.  

What I was SAYING is that you guys have completely ruined the conversation with your ridiculous back-and-forth

And, trust me, you would not be in any of my dreams.  :ignore:


----------



## Clemson Fan

laurac260 said:


> Um, yeah.. Whatever.
> 
> What I was SAYING is that you guys have completely ruined the conversation with your ridiculous back-and-forth
> 
> And, trust me, you would not be in any of my dreams.  :ignore:



If you don't like the thread, then why pay any attention to it?

Secondly, why do you feel the need to interject yourself into it?


----------



## laurac260

Clemson Fan said:


> If you don't like the thread, then why pay any attention to it?
> 
> Secondly, why do you feel the need to interject yourself into it?



I DID like the thread, and was following along with much interest,  that is, until it became a pissing contest.   

And sorry, I didn't get The memo that this particular thread was "private"


----------



## ace2000

laurac260 said:


> And sorry, I didn't get The memo that this particular thread was "private"



Private?  Brian has made the thread unavailable to all known SEC fans, but other than that it is completely available to the rest of us.  Why do you think we haven't heard from ampaholic in awhile?  :hysterical:

Anyway, I've enjoyed hearing from the non-SEC fans and that side of the equation.  There *could* be some merit to what has been mentioned on this thread.  We'll find out!  I vote we keep it light and enjoyable.


----------



## laurac260

ace2000 said:


> Private?  Brian has made the thread unavailable to all known SEC fans, but other than that it is completely available to the rest of us.  Why do you think we haven't heard from ampaholic in awhile?  :hysterical:
> 
> Anyway, I've enjoyed hearing from the non-SEC fans and that side of the equation.  There *could* be some merit to what has been mentioned on this thread.  We'll find out!  I vote we keep it light and enjoyable.



+1 and...:hysterical::rofl:


----------



## Elan

Anyone who follows college football religiously realizes that any discussion that involves postseason play and how the teams are chosen to participate will turn into a pissing match.  That's what makes it fun!  

Especially when the data is on your side.....  :rofl:


----------



## laurac260

Elan said:


> Anyone who follows college football religiously realizes that any discussion that involves postseason play and how the teams are chosen to participate will turn into a pissing match.  That's what makes it fun!
> 
> Especially when the data is on your side.....  :rofl:



Unfortunately I am ill equipped for any sort of pissing contest.


----------



## am1

Elan said:


> Anyone who follows college football religiously realizes that any discussion that involves postseason play and how the teams are chosen to participate will turn into a pissing match.  That's what makes it fun!
> 
> Especially when the data is on your side.....  :rofl:



In this case data is not on your side ad your still enjoying it.  SEC teams have made up more than half of the national championship qualifying teams since 2006.  

The criminoles are a good team this year and defending national champions but an SEC team is more likely to win this year.  Any number are still in the hunt especially with a 4 team playoff.


----------



## Clemson Fan

am1 said:


> In this case data is not on your side ad your still enjoying it.  SEC teams have made up more than half of the national championship qualifying teams since 2006.



The data is definitely on the SEC's side IF you only look at the last 10 years.  They dominated the BCS era.  Let's see if they'll be able to dominate this new playoff era.

However, as Élan points out the further you go back the more even the data becomes.  Pre BCS the SEC wasn't nearly as dominant.


----------



## Clemson Fan

laurac260 said:


> I DID like the thread, and was following along with much interest,  that is, until it became a pissing contest.
> 
> And sorry, I didn't get The memo that this particular thread was "private"



I didn't realize you were a college football fan and I apologize.

I thought you were just interjecting yourself on a topic you didn't really care about just to be snarky.


----------



## ace2000

I grew up as a Big 10 and Ohio St fan.  Now that I live in Missouri and also the fact that my son attends law school at MU, obviously right now I'm a big MU Tiger fan.   However, for years I've despised the SEC and even pulled for Fl St. to win last year.  It's still hard to overcome those feelings.  

It'll be interesting to see how I feel in 5 years after MU has a few SEC titles under their belt.


----------



## laurac260

Clemson Fan said:


> I didn't realize you were a college football fan and I apologize.
> 
> I thought you were just interjecting yourself on a topic you didn't really care about just to be snarky.



Thank you, and apology accepted.  I have been watching football since I was a tyke, became a college football fan in 91 when I went to Ohio State.

Admittedly there is MUCH I don't understand about College Football, such as:

Why are there THIRTEEN teams in the big 10?  Can't anyone count?

What the heck is Maryland doing in there?

Why does Michigan's helmets intimidate me?  (yes, it's true)

Why is it that no matter how good or bad Wisconsin is, they always come to beat us?

Why aren't we playing them this year?

Why does OSU continue to play Sister Mary School for the Blind as though we have preseason in College?

Why don't we have preseason in college?

Why don't big 10 teams typically draw the big name QBs?  Why are we still the big line guys, not the quick agile ones?

Why can't we have Jim Tressel back?  Please don't confuse me with facts, I just want him back!

Why does the SEC seem to garner more respect than Big 10, yet everyone seems to want to be in the big 10?  (atleast from my perspective).

There, that about sums it up.   Carry on...


----------



## TUGBrian

actually recently watched the 30 for 30 episode about OSU/tressel/maurice clarett scandal....I remember reading/watching it when it first happened...but it was nice to see the "full story"...and a fascinating watch.


----------



## ampaholic

to AM1:

I've been busy with DD birthday celebration 

to laurac260: 

The reason you like Tressel is that he taught a style of football that relied on field position, excellent defense and just enough offense to win - the type of football taught in parts of the SEC as well.

His winning % at OSU of 81 percent will very likely never be equaled.

Also you might like him because he is from Northeast Ohio like my Grandmother's family - all good solid salt of the earth types.

He was also a legendary recruiter for OSU and Youngstown State before that. Sadly he was unable to recruit 100% ethical players - but what coach is?

Too bad he will be unlikely to return to high level coaching because of the scandals.


----------



## mrmarty91

Why are there THIRTEEN teams in the big 10?  Can't anyone count?


Actually, there are FOURTEEN teams in the Big Ten or B1G.  You're probably forgetting Rutgers, Ohio States next opponent.


----------



## am1

Which #3 will be ranked #1 tomorrow.  Both from the same state in the SEC.  

Or do the pollsters keep FSU #1 for another week in case they beat Notre Dame next week and would be #1 again?  #1 vs #5 is a better game day sell then 2 vs 5.


----------



## ampaholic

Both Magnolia State teams looked pretty impressive today - the Egg bowl is starting to loom.


----------



## TUGBrian

cant ignore 21 straight wins!   and todays win was with relative ease (although expected to be).

 its getting a bit silly week after week where a new SEC team gets praised as the "Best team in the country"...then follows it up with a loss.

3 weeks ago it was bama...then after they lose (and everyone else) its auburn....now itll be ole miss and miss state until one of them loses.  hard for them to vote ole miss/miss state id imagine...especially since they play each other at the end of the year! 

going to be a heartbreaking game for one team for sure!

doing my best to get to Tallahassee for next weeks game vs the irish...although they looked pretty terrible against an equally terrible UNC team today!


----------



## Clemson Fan

Our true freshman phenom QB broke his hand today in the 1st quarter and will miss most of the remainder of the season.


----------



## TUGBrian

yea, I saw that headline last night...thats really too bad.  he was playing outstanding football.


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> cant ignore 21 straight wins!   and todays win was with relative ease (although expected to be).
> 
> its getting a bit silly week after week where a new SEC team gets praised as the "Best team in the country"...then follows it up with a loss.
> 
> 3 weeks ago it was bama...then after they lose (and everyone else) its auburn....now itll be ole miss and miss state until one of them loses.  hard for them to vote ole miss/miss state id imagine...especially since they play each other at the end of the year!
> 
> going to be a heartbreaking game for one team for sure!
> 
> doing my best to get to Tallahassee for next weeks game vs the irish...although they looked pretty terrible against an equally terrible UNC team today!



All winning streaks come to an end (even OU's legendary 47 game streak) I predict FSU's will end before it hits 30.

I just wish FSU had been tested against sterner opponents during their streak - but past is past 

We have known all along that only one team will emerge from the dogfight that is the SEC West to attend the SEC championship - so your comments about "us" praising one team after another is what is silly.

I'm sure several teams fans will be "heartbroken" when their team fails to make the SEC championship let alone the playoffs.

I am less than enthusiastic about the Irish knocking off FSU next week after their showing against NC - hopefully they will give the Noles a game at least.


----------



## TUGBrian

I doubt any SEC team will be as heartbroken as the loser of the ole miss/miss state game at the end of the year should they both remain undefeated.

was a time in the late 90s this happened year after year between FSU and UF.  (miami to an extent too, but that was always a mid season game)


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> I doubt any SEC team will be as heartbroken as the loser of the ole miss/miss state game at the end of the year should they both remain undefeated.
> 
> was a time in the late 90s this happened year after year between FSU and UF.  (miami to an extent too, but that was always a mid season game)



Both Mississippi State and Ole Miss started the season with 4 very large barriers to an undefeated season and thus a sure trip to the SEC championship. While there are other barriers these are the biggies:

1. They both play the Crimson Tide

2. They both play the War Eagle (Auburn)

3. They both play A&M (very well ranked at season opening)

4. They play each other

Both have hurdled two of the barriers - both have two remaining.

----

My main concern with FSU is that they didn't have even one such barrier - let alone FOUR.

I will give FSU this - they do have "pretty" uniforms. :rofl:


----------



## TUGBrian

bama has looked as unimpressive (especially if you are going to argue FSU has not lived up to the hype)...and has a loss

auburn lost to FSU =)

A&M is not only looking average, but now have 2 losses and will be lucky to remain in the top 25.

oklahoma state on the road to start the season doesnt count because its not an SEC school aye? (like to point out they are ranked well ahead of A&M currently)

not our fault our perennial SEC opponent (whos usually at the top of that class) has sucked for the past few years.


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> bama has looked as unimpressive (especially if you are going to argue FSU has not lived up to the hype)...and has a loss


Bama never "looks" all that impressive they just stomp those that do (usually). Their only loss was to the #3 team in the country - meh.



TUGBrian said:


> auburn lost to FSU =)



I thought you didn't want to bring "past glory" into this discussion????



TUGBrian said:


> A&M is not only looking average, but now have 2 losses and will be lucky to remain in the top 25.



They were #6 when Mississippi State beat them soundly and #14 when Ole Miss beat them AT HOME.

FSU hasn't even played anyone as high as #6 - that's why they have the #48 Strength of schedule - lower than 10 SEC teams.

At least Notre Dame remains ranked so they will face ONE ranked team this year.



TUGBrian said:


> oklahoma state on the road to start the season doesnt count because its not an SEC school aye? (like to point out they are ranked well ahead of A&M currently)



Hahaha - The Cowboys weren't even in the top 25 to start the season, and they prolly could beat up the "down on their luck" Aggies right now.

After all they came within one or two plays of beating the Noles



TUGBrian said:


> not our fault our perennial SEC opponent (whos usually at the top of that class) has sucked for the past few years.



So it's also not your fault that Mississippi State has leap frogged FSU in the USA Today Poll


----------



## TUGBrian

ampaholic said:


> At least Notre Dame remains ranked so they will face ONE ranked team this year.





I really dont understand why you continue to post inaccurate comments to support your opinion....OSU is ranked 15th (with their only loss being to the number 1 team in the nation, by a close margin....SEC logic dictates they should be ranked much higher) , and clemson both was...and is still in the top 25.

alabama sure stomped an unranked arkansas team saturday =)

by SEC logic, they should have dropped (since FSU won easily and did).

beginning to see the SEC bias yet?



> Hahaha - The Cowboys weren't even in the top 25 to start the season, and they prolly could beat up the "down on their luck" Aggies right now.



as of 3 weeks ago...MSU wasnt even in the top 25 either, now they are apparently the best team in the country...


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> I really dont understand why you continue to post inaccurate comments to support your opinion....OSU is ranked 15th (with their only loss being to the number 1 team in the nation, by a close margin....SEC logic dictates they should be ranked much higher) , and clemson both was...and is still in the top 25.
> 
> alabama sure stomped an unranked arkansas team saturday =)
> 
> by SEC logic, they should have dropped (since FSU won easily and did).
> 
> beginning to see the SEC bias yet?
> 
> 
> 
> as of 3 weeks ago...MSU wasnt even in the top 25 either, now they are apparently the best team in the country...



By ranked - I meant "top 10" perhaps I should clarify - The Cowboys certainly weren't "top 10" or even "Top 25" when they came within a couple of plays of beating FSU. 

Clemson? they have a football team? certainly NOT "top 10" - I have always thought of them as a Basketball School like Syracuse, Duke and Wake Forest. :rofl:

I personally would love to invite FSU to join the SEC for football or even all sports - at least FU has the hutzpa to *compete* against top 10 teams.

SEC bias - you bet. Just like Denise's Giants Bias.

If the final four "REALLY" had the four best teams - it would just be the SEC championships.

The AP just came out: Mississippi State #1

And *HALF* of the Top 10 are SEC teams - Woo Hoo


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> as of 3 weeks ago...MSU wasnt even in the top 25 either, now they are apparently the best team in the country...



Sounds like the cowbells are starting to be heard - even in Tallahassee :rofl::rofl:


----------



## am1

It is not easy to judge teams on how they were ranked at the start of the season.  There are injuries, younger teams should get better as they mature, weather, luck, meltdowns, teams get exposed etc.  A teams wins or losses gains or losses value as the season goes on.  

Until FSU loses we do not know how good a team they are.  Wins are impressive but they should be penalized for not playing a tougher schedule.  If they are undefeated at the end then they will get a spot in the playoff.  That should only be what matters for teams.  

I would hope that any team from the power 5 that goes undefeated would make the 4 team playoff, no matter how weak their schedule is.  But a one loss and all bets should be off.  I would even be okay if 3 loss teams were passed over for 1 and 2 loss teams.  

Other than the SEC, has expansion made any of the other leagues more competitive? It is just watering down schedules.  

I would take Vegas odds over rankings any day.  

This coming week 5 SEC teams are fighting to stay in the race and two have bye weeks.  I would guess there are 25-30 teams still in the race if they win out. A few each week will be eliminated.  And maybe a few more enter the race between now and December.


----------



## TUGBrian

let me know when your arguments leave the realm of opinions and anecdotes and shift into the real world of facts =)

ps...the ap poll came out much earlier today.

pps 2 of the top 5 are ACC teams...just as many as SEC


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> let me know when your arguments leave the realm of opinions and anecdotes and shift into the real world of facts =)



I could say the same - good thing there's a playoff this year so you can back up your "opinion" that FSU is invincible.



TUGBrian said:


> ps...the ap poll came out much earlier today.



Bit of a low blow - I have other things to do besides wait nervously by the computer - why would you point out that it came out "much earlier today"?

Of course when I said it "just came out" it was because when I had looked earlier at the ESPN site and it had last weeks AP poll up and then when I looked later they had the this weeks AP poll up - so naturally I typed it just came out. 

There is certainly no need for you to be "picky ooney" about it - even if you do own the site I don't appreciate it

Here is a nice article about "minding other peoples manners" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-mirza-grotts/minding-other-peoples-man_b_498674.html



TUGBrian said:


> pps 2 of the top 5 are ACC teams...just as many as SEC



Yep, but the two SEC teams have to play each other and so do the two ACC teams - so likely no more than 3 of the current top 5 will make the playoffs.

But I do believe the 4 playoff teams are in the current top 10 or 12 - they just need some sorting out.


----------



## TUGBrian

merely pointing out a regular issue with your posts in that they contain inaccurate information you clearly use to form your opinions.

I really dont see any reason for you to continue to do so, and certainly dont see why you would be upset by someone pointing it out.

an easy solution for both issues would be to...stop posting inaccurate information =)


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> merely pointing out a regular issue with your posts in that they contain inaccurate information you clearly use to form your opinions.
> 
> I really dont see any reason for you to continue to do so, and certainly dont see why you would be upset by someone pointing it out.
> 
> an easy solution for both issues would be to...stop posting inaccurate information =)



Yea, like you "implying" that FSU beat a ranked team when they beat the OSU Cowboys just because the Cowboys are ranked NOW.

I pointed out the accurate information that the Cowboys were NOT ranked when FSU just barely beat them - but you like to call anyone elses information  inaccurate as a tactic, to pump yourself up, like a bully.

Well FU Brian 

I mean by that that I hope FU kicks the snot out of your precious Noles.

FU FU FU FU FU FU FU - go FU

=) FU


----------



## Clemson Fan

Good win by FSU.  That OPI call at the end of the game was the correct call.  ND actually ran that very same rub route on their first TD, but the "picker" wasn't as obvious on that one as he was at the end of the game.  It was obvious at the end of the game that he was just rubbing out the defenders for Robinson.  BTW, David Robinson's son is a player!  He has a future NFL career!

I gotta admit I, like most of the rest of the country, have grown tired of Winston.  He's making Jimbo look like a complete fool with that autograph situation.  Jimbo, though, is just acting like any other SEC coach except of course Mark Richt.  

Georgia is the team I'm actually really rooting for now.  Oh by the way, can we all stop pretending now like Arkansas is any good!  Georgia boat raced them yesterday at Arkansas!  Don't let the final score fool you on that game, it was a complete whooping and Arkansas scored some points late in garbage time to make it look closer!


----------



## Clemson Fan

Clemson Fan said:


> Georgia is the team I'm actually really rooting for now.  Oh by the way, can we all stop pretending now like Arkansas is any good!  Georgia boat raced them yesterday at Arkansas!  Don't let the final score fool you on that game, it was a complete whooping and Arkansas scored some points late in garbage time to make it look closer!



On that same note can we all stop pretending like Texas A&M is any good!  It's obvious now that they were never a "real" Top 10 team although they were once ranked in the Top 10 due to them crushing a very average SC team on the road on a Thursday night when they were the only college game on TV.  It should be obvious now that they aren't even close to being a Top 25 team let alone Top 10!  You know you have a truly awful defense when a Lane Kiffin led offense can put 59 on you!


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> Good win by FSU.  That OPI call at the end of the game was the correct call.  ND actually ran that very same rub route on their first TD, but the "picker" wasn't as obvious on that one as he was at the end of the game.  It was obvious at the end of the game that he was just rubbing out the defenders for Robinson.  BTW, David Robinson's son is a player!  He has a future NFL career!
> 
> I gotta admit I, like most of the rest of the country, have grown tired of Winston.  He's making Jimbo look like a complete fool with that autograph situation.  Jimbo, though, is just acting like any other SEC coach except of course Mark Richt.
> 
> Georgia is the team I'm actually really rooting for now.  Oh by the way, can we all stop pretending now like Arkansas is any good!  Georgia boat raced them yesterday at Arkansas!  Don't let the final score fool you on that game, it was a complete whooping and Arkansas scored some points late in garbage time to make it look closer!



That ND/FSU game was an exciting game to watch. I agree the pik should have been less obvious and kudo's to FSU for hanging in there to snatch the win. ND had many opportunities to salt it away and didn't due to their own play as well as several that were batted down by FSU.

I'll admit Winston can do certain things well, I realized when I saw Jimbo in his ear hole after the game telling him to be humble with the press - he's just a brash young kid who has never had the benifit of a gunny sargent to snap him into shape.

Yes, the Admirals son has got game!

I certainly didn't see any domination by either team and if those same two teams played ten games I think it would end up 5 and 5.


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> On that same note can we all stop pretending like Texas A&M is any good!  It's obvious now that they were never a "real" Top 10 team although they were once ranked in the Top 10 due to them crushing a very average SC team on the road on a Thursday night when they were the only college game on TV.  It should be obvious now that they aren't even close to being a Top 25 team let alone Top 10!  You know you have a truly awful defense when a Lane Kiffin led offense can put 59 on you!



Along those lines - I guess we can stop thinking of the OSU Cowboys as a "top 25" team - well Brian can, I never did. :rofl::rofl:

And Baylor drops by the wayside as well.

Getting into the final four seems to be somewhat of a game of attrition, eh?


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> And Baylor drops by the wayside as well.



Baylor plays defense like uhm Texas A&M.  The best team in the Big 12 this year is TCU.  TCU got screwed in that Baylor game. I watched the end of that game and there was a no call on a critical 3rd down pass where there was a lot of contact and the CB didn't even have his head around.  Then when Baylor got the ball they benefitted and were put in FG range by a ticky tack PI call.


----------



## TUGBrian

I grow weary of the SEC bias in the polls...its just ridiculous these days.  I swear if the voters could get away with not dropping an SEC team when they lose to another SEC team...they would!  We shall see how it all plays out in the end as all of the top SEC teams play each other before the season ends, looking forward to the first release of the actual top teams next weekend when that first vote comes out...im sure itll lead to many future arguments.

as for the FSU/ND game, I managed to get some tickets at the last minute and was able to go...what a fantastic decision as that was easily one of the most exciting games ive gotten to watch in that stadium (and ive seen dozens and dozens of them).

The wave of emotions within 30 seconds of that final play still give me pause...just unreal.  

for those that weren there, the entire stadium went from very loud...to dead silent (when ND caught the pass)....to eardrum rupturing loudness as the ref announced the penalty.

was quite an experience for sure!  Definitely made the drive home to jax much easier!!


----------



## am1

FSU could have been put as #1 this week.  Or 1a, 1b and 1c.  I do not think anyone can make a strong case that one of the undefeated teams is more deserving of #1 than the other.  

Is is possible that two SEC west teams are the best in the country?  Even at the end of the year with one having a loss?

The second best SEC west team may have the easiest way to the playoff. Not having to face Georgia in the title game. 

After this week the SEC is the only conference with a shot of getting two teams in.  Outside shot at FSU and Notre Dame but I think they should be penalized for not being fully in a conference.


----------



## ampaholic

am1 said:


> FSU could have been put as #1 this week.  Or 1a, 1b and 1c.  I do not think anyone can make a strong case that one of the undefeated teams is more deserving of #1 than the other.
> 
> Is is possible that two SEC west teams are the best in the country?  Even at the end of the year with one having a loss?
> 
> The second best SEC west team may have the easiest way to the playoff. Not having to face Georgia in the title game.
> 
> After this week the SEC is the only conference with a shot of getting two teams in.  Outside shot at FSU and Notre Dame but I think they should be penalized for not being fully in a conference.



We need an 8 team playoff system to settle once and for all who the best team in the land is.

1 spot each for the Pac 12, SEC, ACC, Big 10 and Big 12 Champions and three at large to be put in by a competition committee. The three at large would cover a very competative second SEC (or ACC for that matter) team and it would also allow for a 12-0 Bosie St. or Marshall to be invited.

That would only be four extra games in the season (the round of 8) and if any team didn't like the extra game they could cut back playing the Furman and Appalachian St. type games (the 56-7 scores wouldn't be needed anyway).

Right now the eight would possibly be --- Oregon, the best Mississippi team, FSU, Michigan State, K-State and ??? 

I would put in Georgia (if they are a close runner up in the SEC title game), Notre Dame if they remain 1 loss and Marshall if they remain undefeated.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> We need an 8 team playoff system to settle once and for all who the best team in the land is.
> 
> 1 spot each for the Pac 12, SEC, ACC, Big 10 and Big 12 Champions and three at large to be put in by a competition committee. The three at large would cover a very competative second SEC (or ACC for that matter) team and it would also allow for a 12-0 Bosie St. or Marshall to be invited.
> 
> That would only be four extra games in the season (the round of 8) and if any team didn't like the extra game they could cut back playing the Furman and Appalachian St. type games (the 56-7 scores wouldn't be needed anyway).
> 
> Right now the eight would possibly be --- Oregon, the best Mississippi team, FSU, Michigan State, K-State and ???
> 
> I would put in Georgia (if they are a close runner up in the SEC title game), Notre Dame if they remain 1 loss and Marshall if they remain undefeated.



That would be awesome!  I think we're only a few short years away from this.  Once they see the $$$ the playoff will generate they won't be able to resist expanding it.


----------



## TUGBrian

Id like to see an expanded playoff as well even if it does eliminate a regular season game.

I dont mind conference champions getting an extra bonus from the selection committee, however there would have to be some de-facto "what if" rules put into place so some terribly undeserving team that manages to get a win in a conference championship....or a conference champion that has far too many losses, or isnt even ranked in the top 12 etc etc...

All the discussion surrounding the final 4 selections seems to be now arguing over putting 3 sec teams in with FSU as the final four, which imo would literally end all everyone outside the SEC thinking the selection committee is unbiased in the first year...so I just dont see that happening even if 3 of the top 4 at the end are indeed 1 loss SEC teams.

it appears to be 3 conferences (sec, big 12, pac 12) fighting for the last spot as it seems pretty obvious barring some amazing games in the last few weeks, that the SEC is going to have at least 2 teams make the cut.  assuming fsu wins out like everyone predicts they will given the mediocrity of the teams left on the schedule.


----------



## am1

I do not see 3 SEC teams in the final 4.  But depends on the other conferences.  

The SEC West teams that not not played each other still have to.  That is 4 losses between the top 4.  Plus Auburn playing Georgia.  Then most likely Georgia playing the top team at the end of the year.  If Georgia never lost to a bad USC team then it is a different story.


----------



## csxjohn

ampaholic said:


> We need an 8 team playoff system to settle once and for all who the best team in the land is.
> 
> ...



Nothing anyone can ever do will accomplish this.  Every time we get a change it is to once and for all let us know which team is the best.  If that's true, why is it constantly being changed?

We will all have our opinions of which team is best and nothing will change that.  We cannot however dispute who won which game and until a completely subjective method is used to determine the participants, the argument will go on.

IMO there was no way ND belonged in the championship game recently but their popularity put them in it.  When you squeak by weak opponents it should be reflected in the rankings.

I'm not anti ND but this is the best example of the wrong team playing that I can come up with right now.


----------



## Elan

We'll see the playoff expand as soon as the power brokers in CFB are assured that all of the playoff proceeds come their way.  D1 (FBS) football has done a piss poor job of identifying the best team, but that's not been their goal for quite some time.  As I've stated here before, if they really wanted to identify a champion, the model has existed in 1AA (FCS) for years.  ESPN , conference commissioners and the big school AD's are well on their way to ruining college football.


----------



## ampaholic

What happens if the SEC champion is a one loss team?


----------



## ksqdomer

TUGBrian said:


> disagree on both points.
> 
> if not for FSU playing ND (which is now a conference game for the ACC)...I dont see ND losing.



I don't think the Notre Dame ACC games count in the standings for the full in ACC schools, or does it?. I know ND is still considered Independent in football.


----------



## TUGBrian

they are considered a "partial member"....scheduling their "conference" opponents as all acc opponents.

they do not participate in the conference championship...but they are considered part of the ACC for bowl tie-in purposes.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> What happens if the SEC champion is a one loss team?



They would easily get in.

It would get interesting if say a 2 loss Georgia team won the SEC championship game against a 1 loss SEC West team giving that team 2 losses.  Let's say then that there's another SEC West team with one loss who didn't play in the championship game because of a tiebreaker.  That would then get interesting.

Despite all the hoopla about the SEC West, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Georgia wins the championship game.


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> they are considered a "partial member"....scheduling their "conference" opponents as all acc opponents.
> 
> they do not participate in the conference championship...but they are considered part of the ACC for bowl tie-in purposes.



I'm hoping ND is the 5th team and the first one left out of the playoff and that the main reason cited is a lack of a conference championship.  That would force their hand pretty good.


----------



## am1

Clemson Fan said:


> I'm hoping ND is the 5th team and the first one left out of the playoff and that the main reason cited is a lack of a conference championship.  That would force their hand pretty good.



Would it or would they still keep their head in the clouds?

Georgia is my team to win the SEC.  Most of it is they have the easiest path to Atlanta.


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> They would easily get in.
> 
> It would get interesting if say a 2 loss Georgia team won the SEC championship game against a 1 loss SEC West team giving that team 2 losses.  Let's say then that there's another SEC West team with one loss who didn't play in the championship game because of a tiebreaker.  That would then get interesting.
> 
> Despite all the hoopla about the SEC West, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Georgia wins the championship game.



Ole Miss has the best chance to go undefeated - their biggest hurdles are Auburn and Mississippi State - both at home.

Mississippi State also has a chance to go undefeated - their big hurdles are Alabama and Ole Miss - both away games - I think more daunting than Ole Miss's schedule.

If Ole Miss loses to Auburn and Mississippi State loses to Bama - there would be four 1 loss SEC West teams going into the last week.

Any one of those four teams could end up representing the SEC West in the SEC championship game.

Of course if all four of these SEC West teams are one loss before the last game of the season - Georgia will be a two loss team entering the SEC Championship 
having lost to Auburn on Nov. 15th.

And the four one loss will be reduced to two as they play each other on the last day.

THAT would be interesting - but then so would one of them winning out, and entering the playoffs as the #1 seed, or Georgia knocking off Auburn and facing a 1 loss Ole Miss in the big game.

Imagine the possibilities - just in the SEC.

See what you are missing by dissing the SEC Brian.


----------



## TUGBrian

the SEC is great...its the only conference in the land where losing to other overrated conference members doesnt really hurt you and you can keep your own overrated ranking!

its perfect!

Rule 1: lose a game, its ok...you got beat by a GREAT team so we wont drop you much if at all.

Rule 2:win a game, its even better than any other out of conference win, because you won a hard fought struggle against a great team...and we had no idea that other team was as good as it was...so we'll apply rule 1!


----------



## am1

Before Tuesday evening please give us your unbiased top 25.



TUGBrian said:


> the SEC is great...its the only conference in the land where losing to other overrated conference members doesnt really hurt you and you can keep your own overrated ranking!
> 
> its perfect!
> 
> Rule 1: lose a game, its ok...you got beat by a GREAT team so we wont drop you much if at all.
> 
> Rule 2:win a game, its even better than any other out of conference win, because you won a hard fought struggle against a great team...and we had no idea that other team was as good as it was...so we'll apply rule 1!


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> snip whine.....
> 
> Rule 1: lose a game, its ok...you got beat by a GREAT team so we wont drop you much if at all.
> 
> Rule 2:win a game, its even better than any other out of conference win, because you won a hard fought struggle against a great team...and we had no idea that other team was as good as it was...so we'll apply rule 1!



So THAT's why Notre Dame only fell to #7 (two spots) while MSU fell from 7th to 14th when beat by Oregon ..... It's because FSU has a pass on the close scrutiny.

Both Alabama and Auburn fell 5 to 7 places after their losses, so it is clear that both of your "rules" are ACC rules if anything.

A more telling "rule" is that FSU's lousey SOS is costing them 1st place votes (down from 57 to 14 in the AP) even though they are "winning".

Hey Brian there's winning and there's "winning" 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pipTwjwrQYQ


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> Ole Miss has the best chance to go undefeated - their biggest hurdles are Auburn and Mississippi State - both at home.



IMO, Ole Miss is the best team in the SEC because they have an elite defense and a good offense.  I actually think MSU will finish with at least 2 losses.


----------



## Clemson Fan

Holy cow, did you see Arkansas today!  They looked awesome!


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> Holy cow, did you see Arkansas today!  They looked awesome!



I think UAB brings out the best in them.


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> IMO, Ole Miss is the best team in the SEC because they have an elite defense and a good offense.  I actually think MSU will finish with at least 2 losses.



Good thing they'll have to settle it on the field instead of resorting to pretty uniforms to impress the judges.

I could see Mississippi State having two losses and STILL being a team capable of beating FSU in a playoff.


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> the SEC is great...its the only conference in the land where losing to other overrated conference members doesnt really hurt you and you can keep your own overrated ranking!
> 
> its perfect!
> 
> Rule 1: lose a game, its ok...you got beat by a GREAT team so we wont drop you much if at all.
> 
> Rule 2:win a game, its even better than any other out of conference win, because you won a hard fought struggle against a great team...and we had no idea that other team was as good as it was...so we'll apply rule 1!



Yup, drop Ole Miss to #5 or 6 now and put LSU in the Top 10.


----------



## laurac260

Have I mentioned how much I miss Jim Tressel?


----------



## TUGBrian

Clemson Fan said:


> Yup, drop Ole Miss to #5 or 6 now and put LSU in the Top 10.



exactly....

today is a perfect example of my post.

all the top sec teams struggled  (including one who lost) to unranked opponents who were considered pretty terrible in terms of even SEC standards.


----------



## ampaholic

You fail to see the forest because you are screaming obcenities at the trees Brian.

Instead of a confrence mostly of lightweights with 1 or 2 mid to large dogs (like the ACC) the SEC is a confrence of mostly BIG DOGS who can all bite.

On any given Sat. most any SEC team can play good enough football to win - and most of them are capable of boners as well.

LSU would never be part of a #48 strenght of schedule, but The Citadel, Syacuse, Wake Forest and Virginia would be (and are)


----------



## ksqdomer

Clemson Fan said:


> I'm hoping ND is the 5th team and the first one left out of the playoff and that the main reason cited is a lack of a conference championship.  That would force their hand pretty good.



If the selection committee decides that Conference champions are the criteria for being one of the best 4 teams in the country we will rarely see the best 4 teams in the country. ND will hold a death grip on Independence until it is impossible to remain so, howver, there is still no compelling reason. If and when it happens it will surely be the ACC. Our Olympic
 sports in general have done quite well and seem a good fit.  An 11-1 season resulting in a playoff berth surely is a nice perk but most ND supporters (at least alums) have always felt our path is to go 12-0.


----------



## TUGBrian

shall find out tonight what the folks who matter think!


----------



## Elan

TUGBrian said:


> shall find out tonight what the folks who matter think!



  Yes, the bias will likely be evident starting tonight.  :hysterical:

  As an engineer, it's pretty obvious that they easily could have come up with an algorithm to pick 4 playoff teams and back tested it over the past 20 years or so and taken most, if not all, of the subjectivity out of the process.  But then they'd have no power to manipulate, so I guess that explains why that method wasn't chosen.


----------



## ace2000

Man, the SEC must be a conference powerhouse !!!


----------



## colatown

ace2000 said:


> Man, the SEC must be a conference powerhouse !!!


Yes it is, same as the last decade, unfortunately my school isn't this year. 
Probably some unhappy people in Tuscaloosa and Huntington tonight. WTH is U of L doing in the top 25?


----------



## ampaholic

OMG - Brian must have had a stroke!

FSU will have to have defeated two SEC teams to repeat

But don't worry - the SEC West isn't done chewing on it's own leg.


----------



## Elan

ampaholic said:


> But don't worry - the SEC West isn't done chewing on it's own leg.



Just like every other conference.....


----------



## TUGBrian

lol...further proving my point.

did I not watch the right game saturday, Ole miss did LOSE right?  lol

ohhhh thats right, it lost a terribly played game to a 2 loss SEC team...but instead of both teams being punished for playing an awful game....both teams are rewarded..."Because SEC"


this article spells it out very nicely:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture...spn-and-the-college-football-playoff-20141028


----------



## ampaholic

Wowser Brian - I'm surprised that with all the power of the interweb you have waited until* just now* to post a sour grapes account that harmonizes with your own.

As all the denizens of the interweb can attest - it is possible to find most any wildly fringe position displayed in print "somewhere" on the internetweb.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ih_Qq-WBYY


----------



## TUGBrian

sorry, I was unable to post the article until it was written (yesterday).

I will attempt to avoid such a mistake in the future.


----------



## ampaholic

Florida stops #11 Georgia - runs it down their throat is more like it - great game to watch.


----------



## am1

TCU/WVU was a good game as well.  I was switching back and forth.  

A few good games on now.   These are the weeks where we have the most elimination games and the teams know it.  

Would be interesting if Mizzou were to win the SEC.


----------



## TUGBrian

strong work by florida to turn that game around, I thought it was going to be an easy rout after the florida qb fumbled it in the first quarter.

am amazed georgia had no ability to stop the run on any given down...just terrible.


----------



## ksqdomer

ole Miss drops all the way to 13 in coaches poll. Of course only my boys could drop after winning!:annoyed:


----------



## TUGBrian

only took two losses in a row to knock them off the pedestal....

I see Miss state wasnt phased in the least by the polls (in fact, they even got more votes) despite going all the way to the wire against one of the worst teams in the SEC...a team that hasnt won a conference game in what...3 straight years?


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> only took two losses in a row to knock them off the pedestal....
> 
> I see Miss state wasnt phased in the least by the polls (in fact, they even got more votes) despite going all the way to the wire against one of the worst teams in the SEC...a team that hasnt won a conference game in what...3 straight years?



Haters gonna hate.

Did you watch the game? Mississippi State was pretty much in control - I never felt the outcome was up in the air. 

The score isn't the only measure of a teams "dominance" - if it was, FSU would get more props when they run up the score on the Citadel and Wake Forest.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## TUGBrian

yes, total domination to score 17 points on a defense that has surrendered 40+ to most other FBS schools they have played and save the game on a last second interception!

both teams put up 400ish yards of offense....MSU had 3 turnovers....and wasnt even in the lead until the 4th quarter.

not sure anyone without bias would call that "in control all game" or "dominance"...but you are welcome to your opinion.


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> snip irrelevant...
> 
> both teams put up 400ish yards of offense....MSU had 3 turnovers....and wasnt even in the lead until the 4th quarter.
> 
> not sure anyone without bias would call that "in control all game" or "dominance"...but you are welcome to your opinion.



So by your standard FSU was* never* "in control" or "dominant" with ND -- since they didn't win until a last second ref call let them back in.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> So by your standard FSU was* never* "in control" or "dominant" with ND -- since they didn't win until a last second ref call let them back in.



Nice way to change the subject which was Mississipi State's rather lackluster performance last week.  You are correct, though, FSU was never in control or dominant in the game against ND and I don't believe Brian ever said they were?

I think if FSU, TCU and Oregon win out (distinctly possible) they will all get in leaving only one spot for the SEC.


----------



## Clemson Fan

am1 said:


> Would be interesting if Mizzou were to win the SEC.



That would be hilarious!  While the SEC West is great, the SEC East is a dumpster fire!  I was really disappointed with how Georgia played against Florida!

If the SEC team was able to beat the SEC West team in the championship game, I wonder if the SEC would get shut out of the playoff! :hysterical:

That could happen if FSU, TCU, ND and Oregon all win out, but only if the SEC West representative lost in the SEC championship game.


----------



## am1

I would say a 1 loss big 10 team would get in over ND


----------



## vacation.memories

Clemson Fan said:


> If the SEC team was able to beat the SEC West team in the championship game, I wonder if the SEC would get shut out of the playoff! :hysterical:



Keep dreaming.  I'd be absolutely shocked if there weren't at least two from the SEC this year.

I'm an MU fan, but they have no chance to win the SEC this year.  Last year they did have a chance though.


----------



## Clemson Fan

am1 said:


> I would say a 1 loss big 10 team would get in over ND



You're right.  I forgot about them.  However, with ND's remaining schedule, IF they were able to win out (that's a big IF and I actually don't think they'll win out), then I do think they'll have about a 80% or greater chance of getting in the playoff.  They would definitively get in over a 1 loss OSU team who has a terrible home loss and they would just have one signature win over MSU.  If MSU is the 1 loss Big 10 team, then I think they have a better shot at getting in the playoff.

I think FSU and TCU have a much better chance of winning out and if they do I think they both get in the playoff.


----------



## Clemson Fan

vacation.memories said:


> Keep dreaming.  I'd be absolutely shocked if there weren't at least two from the SEC this year.
> 
> I'm an MU fan, but they have no chance to win the SEC this year.  Last year they did have a chance though.



IF 3 out of these 5 (FSU, TCU, ND and Michigan State, Kansas State) win out I don't think there's any way the SEC will get 2 teams in.  If 4 out of those 5 win out and the SEC West team loses the SEC championship game, guess what, I think the SEC will get left out of the playoff.  That's a BIG IF and I don't think it will play out that way, but that is a "nuclear" scenario where the SEC could potentially be shut out of the playoff.


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> Nice way to change the subject which was Mississipi State's rather lackluster performance last week.  You are correct, though, FSU was never in control or dominant in the game against ND and I don't believe Brian ever said they were?
> 
> I think if FSU, TCU and Oregon win out (distinctly possible) they will all get in leaving only one spot for the SEC.



No the subject has always been how over ranked FSU is. Claiming MSU (or any SEC team) is over ranked FAILS to change that.

I have always been a Ducks fan - I just am realistic about their defense standing up in a playoff game.

My heart is with Puddles --- GO DUCKS.

But my brain says *"one spot is all the SEC NEEDS"*


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> IF 3 out of these 5 (FSU, TCU, ND and Michigan State, Kansas State) win out I don't think there's any way the SEC will get 2 teams in.  If 4 out of those 5 win out and the SEC West team loses the SEC championship game, guess what, I think the SEC will get left out of the playoff.  That's a BIG IF and I don't think it will play out that way, but that is a "nuclear" scenario where the SEC could potentially be shut out of the playoff.



Florida is looming bigger and bigger for FSU, I don't think they will be a "walk over" at all.

Go FU


----------



## ampaholic

Suppose Auburn and Mississippi State both win out (I hate to think it since it would make the Tide a three loss team).

MSU would be the SEC champ and undefeated #1 - a LOCK for the #1 seed.

Staring the selection committee in the face would be a one loss Tiger team whose loss was to the #1 team fairly early in the season and who had the #1 toughest schedule in CFB (beating *5* ranked teams!) - how could they be denied to allow ANY OTHER one loss team in?

I still hope against hope that FU blows FSU's hope!


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> Suppose Auburn and Mississippi State both win out (I hate to think it since it would make the Tide a three loss team).
> 
> MSU would be the SEC champ and undefeated #1 - a LOCK for the #1 seed.
> 
> Staring the selection committee in the face would be a one loss Tiger team whose loss was to the #1 team fairly early in the season and who had the #1 toughest schedule in CFB (beating *5* ranked teams!) - how could they be denied to allow ANY OTHER one loss team in?
> 
> I still hope against hope that FU blows FSU's hope!



That's one of the few scenarios where I can see the SEC getting 2 teams in.  I don't think that will happen, but if it does I do think the SEC will get 2 teams in.

BTW, for Florida it's not FU, but rather UF.  I know that doesn't fit as well with your narrative, but they are UF.  My wife is a UF alumni.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> Florida is looming bigger and bigger for FSU, I don't think they will be a "walk over" at all.
> 
> Go FU



I actually think the night game at Miami with Duke Johnson poses more of a threat.  The UF game is at Tallahassee and I don't think FSU will come close to losing that one.


----------



## TUGBrian

have no doubt that he/she is well aware thats not how its spelled.

not really much to argue at this point, just happy my team is so good....that folks need to support an entire conference in a joint effort to bring it down =)


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> have no doubt that* he/she* is well aware thats not how its spelled.
> 
> not really much to argue at this point, just happy my team is so good....that folks need to support an entire conference in a joint effort to bring it down =)



*NOW* we find out who "Carolinian" really is - who knew.

Yea your team is so good they can beat the #48 strenght of schedule --- well, them AND the refs can anyway ..... 

UF Brian ... see it works either way.


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> That's one of the few scenarios where I can see the SEC getting 2 teams in.  I don't think that will happen, but if it does I do think the SEC will get 2 teams in.
> 
> BTW, for Florida it's not FU, but rather UF.  I know that doesn't fit as well with your narrative, but they are UF.  My wife is a UF alumni.



Odd .... Baylor University is BU, Auburn University is AU, National University is NU, Gonzaga University is GU, Emory University is EU, Geogetown University is GU also ......

English is such a peculiar thing sometimes.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> Odd .... Baylor University is BU, Auburn University is AU, National University is NU, Gonzaga University is GU, Emory University is EU, Geogetown University is GU also ......
> 
> English is such a peculiar thing sometimes.



University of Georgia is UGA, University of Southern California or South Carolina are USC, University of Arizona is U of A, University of Tennessee or Texas  are UT, etc. etc.


----------



## csxjohn

This is all hard for me to follow because I don't know all the teams and I get lost in the initials but one thing I find amusing is that the refs are getting blamed for a team losing.

When a foul is committed it needs to be called. By not making a call the refs are determining the outcome of a game.

Don't commit a foul and if you do, don't blame the refs for calling it.  I hate it when people say " you can't make that call in such an important game."  I say, BULL, if it's a foul in week one it's a foul all year and should be called.

I'm thinking the play I've been hearing about was an offensive pass interference call that nullified a touchdown, as it should have.



One thing I don't want to see in a national championship game is a repeat game from two teams that have already played.  One of them beat the other already, let someone else have a shot at that winner.

Two teams that have played can make the final four but I hope they are matched up so they don't have the ability to meet in the final game.  There are too many good college teams out there for us see in the big game without having a rematch.
.


----------



## ace2000

csxjohn said:


> This is all hard for me to follow because I don't know all the teams and I get lost in the initials but one thing I find amusing is that the refs are getting blamed for a team losing.



I'm with you.  One thing I do know for sure is that the predictions keep changing as we get closer!    I will admit Florida St. has been the one constant though.

I think it's kinda strange including the Mississippi teams in the conversation this year.


----------



## am1

Calling or not calling a foul is part of the game. There is just too much going on to see it all.  Instant replay has helped but shows how hard it is to make the call on the field.   Committing fouls is also part of the game.  A possible pass interference call is a better choice then a touchdown.  

If this years national championship is a rematch so be it. 

Where would FSU be if Winston had to sit 4 games?  Does anyone believe he did not get paid or compensated for signing that many autographs.  He should be smarter than that.  I guess sleeping on a big pile of money makes it easier for Jimbo Fisher.


----------



## Elan

csxjohn said:


> This is all hard for me to follow because I don't know all the teams and I get lost in the initials but one thing I find amusing is that the refs are getting blamed for a team losing.
> 
> When a foul is committed it needs to be called. By not making a call the refs are determining the outcome of a game.
> 
> Don't commit a foul and if you do, don't blame the refs for calling it.  I hate it when people say " you can't make that call in such an important game."  I say, BULL, if it's a foul in week one it's a foul all year and should be called.
> 
> I'm thinking the play I've been hearing about was an offensive pass interference call that nullified a touchdown, as it should have.
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I don't want to see in a national championship game is a repeat game from two teams that have already played.  One of them beat the other already, let someone else have a shot at that winner.
> 
> Two teams that have played can make the final four but I hope they are matched up so they don't have the ability to meet in the final game.  There are too many good college teams out there for us see in the big game without having a rematch.
> .



  It's long been stated that an infraction could be flagged on every play of a football game, which is undoubtedly true.  I think the issue, much like a plate ump's strike zone, is consistency.  If running a pick play is worthy of being called in the 4th quarter of a close game on a TD completion, then it should also be called in the first quarter on an incompletion.  

  The plays that get me are the blatant infractions that happen right in front of an official that don't get called.  If anyone watched Alabama v Ole Miss, there was a turnover right before half where the Bama player clearly grabbed the facemask of the Ole Miss RB and then stripped the ball, returning it for a TD.  Happened right in front of an official that had nothing else to watch at that time but those two players.  Stuff like that makes me question the integrity of the game.  

  I agree that rematches are pointless.  There was never a bigger snooze fest that watching the ineptitude of the Alabama and LSU offenses twice in the same year a few years back.  Once they expand the playoff to a more logical number (minimum of 8), the likelihood of a rematch in the finals will be pretty minimal, and if it happens, it will at least be deserved.


----------



## TUGBrian

I am in full agreement that obvious blatant penalties that impact the play directly should be subject to review.


----------



## ampaholic

am1 said:


> snip things I agree with...
> 
> 
> I guess sleeping on a big pile of money makes it easier for Jimbo Fisher.



Sleeping on a big pile of money makes EVERYTHING easier.

Ask any star athlete.

http://blog.agogo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/130109214120-barry-bonds-650-single-image-cut.jpg


----------



## Clemson Fan

Elan said:


> I agree that rematches are pointless.  There was never a bigger snooze fest that watching the ineptitude of the Alabama and LSU offenses twice in the same year a few years back.  Once they expand the playoff to a more logical number (minimum of 8), the likelihood of a rematch in the finals will be pretty minimal, and if it happens, it will at least be deserved.



I didn't watch one play of that game and I'm a huge college football fan.  I didn't watch it out of any sort of protest, but I already saw the first game and I had no interest in watching it again.  I would've much rather seen OSU and their high octane offense play against LSU's vaunted defense that year.


----------



## am1

Clemson Fan said:


> I didn't watch one play of that game and I'm a huge college football fan.  I didn't watch it out of any sort of protest, but I already saw the first game and I had no interest in watching it again.  I would've much rather seen OSU and their high octane offense play against LSU's vaunted defense that year.



But Alabama won.  So you wanted the BCS rankings to be wrong?


----------



## Elan

Clemson Fan said:


> I would've much rather seen OSU and their high octane offense play against LSU's vaunted defense that year.



  Me too, and that's the match-up that should have happened.  Most SEC run defenses are very good.  But most SEC passing offenses are well below average (admittedly getting better with aTM and Mizzou joining, and with Malzahn at Auburn), which helps the run defenses look even better than they really are.  OSU would've exposed LSU's relatively weak pass defense (Geno Smith passed for 465 yards on that LSU team).  Not saying OSU would've beaten LSU, but at least  LSU would've been forced to keep up offensively, which I'm not sure they would have done.  Would have been a much more interesting match-up, regardless of outcome.


----------



## Clemson Fan

am1 said:


> But Alabama won.  So you wanted the BCS rankings to be wrong?



So what!  Alabama didn't deserve to be in that game and LSU got screwed by them being in that game.  LSU already beat them at Alabama to essentially win the SEC.  Alabama got their shot at LSU at home and they lost.  That should've been the end of the story and it wasn't fair to LSU to have to play them again.  I'm not a fan of either team and that's just my opinion.  It was also a lousy championship game that I'm glad I didn't waste my time watching.


----------



## TUGBrian

happened in 96 too...was at both games :/


----------



## Elan

am1 said:


> But Alabama won.  So you wanted the BCS rankings to be wrong?



So the 15 years of game data don't prove my point, but the result of 1 game proves _your _point.  Got it!  :hysterical:


----------



## am1

Elan said:


> So the 15 years of game data don't prove my point, but the result of 1 game proves _your _point.  Got it!  :hysterical:



Not trying to prove a point.  Alabama or OSU making the title game was a toss up.  Alabama was the team that went and won the game. I am not sure if OSU would have won the game although you are right it may have been more exciting.  LSU did deserve their spot in the game even if they would have lost to both teams.  LSU should have nothing to complain about even if they already beat Alabama on the road.


----------



## ampaholic

You know - all we have to do to settle who is the stronger conference is head count how many players each sends to the NFL.

I did an average per school to show the strenght of the "entire" conference not just one or two powerhouse teams.

SEC is (of course) first with an average of 36 players in the NFL per school.

PAC 12 is second with an average of 30.6 players in the NFL per school.

ACC is a close third with an average of 30.1 players per school in the NFL.

Big 10 is fourth with 29.6 players on average per school in the NFL.

leaving the Big 12 in the rear with 23.3 per school average in the NFL.

-------

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/number-of-nfl-players-by-college/2014/


----------



## Clemson Fan

Clemson Fan said:


> If the SEC team was able to beat the SEC West team in the championship game, I wonder if the SEC would get shut out of the playoff! :hysterical:
> 
> That could happen if FSU, TCU, ND and Oregon all win out, but only if the SEC West representative lost in the SEC championship game.



Throw Baylor into the mix now.  Wow, I didn't expect them to house OU today at Norman!  I didn't think much of them and thought they would surely lose today which is why I didn't include them.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> Suppose Auburn and Mississippi State both win out (I hate to think it since it would make the Tide a three loss team).
> 
> MSU would be the SEC champ and undefeated #1 - a LOCK for the #1 seed.
> 
> Staring the selection committee in the face would be a one loss Tiger team whose loss was to the #1 team fairly early in the season and who had the #1 toughest schedule in CFB (beating *5* ranked teams!) - how could they be denied to allow ANY OTHER one loss team in!



Or they could lose to an unranked team at home...


----------



## Clemson Fan

What is up with players just dropping the ball right before they cross the goal line?!  I've seen that happen so many times in the last 5 years it's ridiculous!


----------



## TUGBrian

Its ok, A&M will go back to being ranked after beating auburn....its how this all works =)

and watch LSU go from unranked, to 16, to top 10 in 3 weeks after beating two SEC teams if they pull it out vs bama tonight.


----------



## ampaholic

The Ducks are perhaps starting to click. I'm worried about the injuries to two key players - both on the O line, the center and the tight end. 

That 100 yard return was cool wasn't it - I'll bet Clay never does THAT again


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> Its ok, A&M will go back to being ranked after beating auburn....its how this all works =)
> 
> and watch LSU go from unranked, to 16, to top 10 in 3 weeks after beating two SEC teams if they pull it out vs bama tonight.



A&M is an enigma - Capable of beating good teams and capable of losing to so so teams - go figure.

LSU is out of the picture - but they are still a tough out for any team.

We are in the part of the season that will produce some great games - whooo hooo!


----------



## ace2000

Clemson Fan said:


> Throw Baylor into the mix now.  Wow, I didn't expect them to house OU today at Norman!  I didn't think much of them and thought they would surely lose today which is why I didn't include them.



It's like the weather in some parts.  Give it 15 minutes and it'll change again.  It's been a crazy year.


----------



## ace2000

TUGBrian said:


> Its ok, A&M will go back to being ranked after beating auburn....its how this all works =)
> 
> and watch LSU go from unranked, to 16, to top 10 in 3 weeks after beating two SEC teams if they pull it out vs bama tonight.



The LSU game must have been something.  I went to bed and saw online that they kicked the go-ahead field goal, and then lost in overtime.  Looks like Saban cannot be denied again this year.  Alabama will at least be a major factor at the end.


----------



## csxjohn

Clemson Fan said:


> What is up with players just dropping the ball right before they cross the goal line?!  I've seen that happen so many times in the last 5 years it's ridiculous!



I've always believed that after any play, the person with the ball should hand it to a ref.  Coach that and this will disappear.


----------



## csxjohn

ace2000 said:


> The LSU game must have been something.  I went to bed and saw online that they kicked the go-ahead field goal, and then lost in overtime.  Looks like Saban cannot be denied again this year.  Alabama will at least be a major factor at the end.



I kept peeking in at that game while watching Ohio State stun Michigan state.  That was a very exciting game.  It's too bad that Ohio State lost a game in the freshman quarterback's second start.

I was rooting for LSU, Ohio State needs a lot of top teams to lose multiple times to overcome that crazy loss.  I felt LSU gave the game away.  If the top teams start losing, maybe, just maybe the committee will forgive that early loss and OSU can take that fourth spot.


----------



## ace2000

Good highlight film of Jameis Winston and how he responds under pressure.  

Like him or hate him - the kid is good.  And there has been one constant throughout this college season and that has been Florida St.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBssQZ3D-80#t=76


----------



## Elan

ace2000 said:


> The LSU game must have been something.  I went to bed and saw online that they kicked the go-ahead field goal, and then lost in overtime.  Looks like Saban cannot be denied again this year.  Alabama will at least be a major factor at the end.


I watched the tail end.  Kudos to Bama for that last drive, but what was up with LSU's play calling in OT?.  It was like they didn't understand that you can get a first down.    
  Also, someone needs to inform those two teams that completing a forward pass is a legal play.  Terrible QB play on both sides.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Clemson Fan

csxjohn said:


> I kept peeking in at that game while watching Ohio State stun Michigan state.  That was a very exciting game.  It's too bad that Ohio State lost a game in the freshman quarterback's second start.
> 
> I was rooting for LSU, Ohio State needs a lot of top teams to lose multiple times to overcome that crazy loss.  I felt LSU gave the game away.  If the top teams start losing, maybe, just maybe the committee will forgive that early loss and OSU can take that fourth spot.



That stuff happens.  My team, Clemson, had their 2 toughest games of the year (Georgia and FSU both on the road) at the very beginning of the season.  I don't know why they play FSU so early since they're both in the same division and for the past 5-6 years the winner of that game typically goes to the ACC championship game.  They're a very young team breaking in a lot of new starters including their QB Deshaun Watson.  Watson is a true freshman and was the #1 rated dual threat QB in HS last year.  He reminds me a lot of Terrel Pryor.  He finally took over as the full time started after the FSU game and he was absolutely spectacular for a couple of weeks until he broke his hand against Louisville early in the game.

OSU has been very impressive as of late, but what would they have looked like if they played in the ACC?  After all they have lost they're last 2 games against ACC opponents!


----------



## Clemson Fan

Elan said:


> I watched the tail end.  Kudos to Bama for that last drive, but what was up with LSU's play calling in OT?.  It was like they didn't understand that you can get a first down.



LOL.  I thought the same thing.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> *NOW*Yea FSU is so good they can beat the #48 strength of schedule



I just saw on ESPN that Mississippi State's SOS is #43 and that's with a propped up SEC SOS!

Put FSU and MSU on a neutral field and who would you bet on?  I'd take FSU.  The only SEC team I'd bet money on a neutral field over FSU would be Alabama.


----------



## Elan

If Baylor and TCU both finish with one loss, it will be interesting to see how the committee handles it.  They'll have similar SOS, TCU will likely win the "eye test", but Baylor won the head-to-head.


----------



## TUGBrian

and here we go again....

lol...texas a&m forgiven for its absolutely horrid string of games....back in the top 25 after pulling off a miracle.

auburn still in the top 10 after 2 losses...

georgia still in top 15 after 2 losses (including a stinker vs uf)

LSU with 3 losses moving up near the top 15 again...


its ridiculous how SEC teams lose very little ranking after a loss to an SEC team, all while the SEC team that beat them gets a HUGE boost just for beating them.

if you continue to inflate SEC team rankings, they always get a "tougher" SOS because they regularly play "ranked" teams.


----------



## ampaholic

What --- no mention of the Ducks moving past the Noles into 2nd?

I expected you to be apoplectic about that, Brian.


----------



## TUGBrian

*shrug...isnt really worth the argument at this point.

fsu wins out, they make the playoffs...they lose and they are out.

think everyone is curious as to how the msu/bama games plays out saturday!  Shall be more amused when oregon somehow becomes the #1 team in the nation.

or will SECSPN PR win the hearts and minds of the voters and just throw bama at #1 if they beat MSU.


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> I just saw on ESPN that Mississippi State's SOS is #43 and that's with a propped up SEC SOS!
> 
> Put FSU and MSU on a neutral field and who would you bet on?  I'd take FSU.  The only SEC team I'd bet money on a neutral field over FSU would be Alabama.



Nonsense - their SOS power ranking did fall from #11 to #20 based mostly on Auburn's and LSU's losses.

But their SOS power ranking is still far ahead of #32 FSU

You need to stay out of the wacky tobacky dude.

http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other


----------



## TUGBrian

saw one of the "measures" showing team strength had oklahoma at number 10....team that isnt even in the top 25 anymore.

statistics can say whatever you want them to depending on the point you want to make or position you want to argue.

one statistic you cant make up though, is 25 straight wins.


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> *shrug...isnt really worth the argument at this point.
> 
> fsu wins out, they make the playoffs...they lose and they are out.
> 
> think everyone is curious as to how the msu/bama games plays out saturday!  Shall be more amused when oregon somehow becomes the #1 team in the nation.
> 
> or will SECSPN PR win the hearts and minds of the voters and just throw bama at #1 if they beat MSU.



I agree - at this point any major undefeated team deserves a spot, no matter how pretty their uniforms are.

I am torn on who to root for in the MSU/Bama game - not an easy choice - but it stands to be a barn burner for sure.


----------



## TUGBrian

Im sure itll either be:

1. a low scoring affair...which will just show how AMAZING both of these SEC defenses are and how tough it is to play against such great SEC defenses..

2. a high scoring shootout...which will show just how AMAZING both of these SEC offenses are...and how tough it is to contain such great SEC offenses.

3. a blowout...which will show just how AMAZING one of these two teams is, as it takes a complete team that can easily compete for the national title to so easily beat out (whatever team lost) and should be ranked at the top of all polls.

=)


----------



## am1

ampaholic said:


> I agree - at this point any major undefeated team deserves a spot, no matter how pretty their uniforms are.
> 
> I am torn on who to root for in the MSU/Bama game - not an easy choice - but it stands to be a barn burner for sure.



Bama wins and they are still in the top 4, even with a loss MSU is in it as well.  MSU wins and are a very strong number 1 while Alabama is way down the depth chart.  

I think Alabama will make it happen.


----------



## am1

TUGBrian said:


> Im sure itll either be:
> 
> 1. a low scoring affair...which will just show how AMAZING both of these SEC defenses are and how tough it is to play against such great SEC defenses..
> 
> 2. a high scoring shootout...which will show just how AMAZING both of these SEC offenses are...and how tough it is to contain such great SEC offenses.
> 
> 3. a blowout...which will show just how AMAZING one of these two teams is, as it takes a complete team that can easily compete for the national title to so easily beat out (whatever team lost) and should be ranked at the top of all polls.
> 
> =)



I would spend more time enjoying your team and the games you like to watch.  It is suppose to be fun.


----------



## csxjohn

ampaholic said:


> ...
> I am torn on who to root for in the MSU/Bama game - not an easy choice - ....



It's an easy choice for me.  An Alabama win will not help my team from Ohio but a MSU win will move us up, assuming we also win.  GO BULLDOGS!


----------



## ace2000

TUGBrian said:


> Im sure itll either be:
> 
> 1. a low scoring affair...which will just show how AMAZING both of these SEC defenses are and how tough it is to play against such great SEC defenses..
> 
> 2. a high scoring shootout...which will show just how AMAZING both of these SEC offenses are...and how tough it is to contain such great SEC offenses.
> 
> 3. a blowout...which will show just how AMAZING one of these two teams is, as it takes a complete team that can easily compete for the national title to so easily beat out (whatever team lost) and should be ranked at the top of all polls.
> 
> =)



Ha, ha... there is an element of truth to what you are saying.  

I'm kinda wondering where Mississippi falls to if they lose to Alabama (which I *think* they will).  Would they still be in the playoff hunt?  I think so.  It's all hypothetical at this point though.


----------



## am1

ace2000 said:


> Ha, ha... there is an element of truth to what you are saying.
> 
> I'm kinda wondering where Mississippi falls to if they lose to Alabama (which I *think* they will).  Would they still be in the playoff hunt?  I think so.  It's all hypothetical at this point though.



After thinking about it they would fall to 4-6 but if Bama wins out then that would boost MSU as well as if they beat Ol Miss. 

Baylor and TCU have reached their peak.  They have to win out and hope others lose. 1 may slip in to the top 4 at the end of the year.  

Ohio State will keep moving up if they keep winning.  If Nebraska wins out I would invite them to the conversation.  

Oregon or ASU will have a voice if they win out.  If ASU loses and then south champ beats Oregon the Pac 12 is out.  

Still in the mix. 

MSU
Oregon/Arizona State
Baylor/TCU
Alabama
ohio state/long shot Nebraska
FSU

10 undefeated or one loss teams left.  4 games left between them at most.  Cannot see Duke getting in even if they are the ACC champion and chaos happens.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> Nonsense - their SOS power ranking did fall from #11 to #20 based mostly on Auburn's and LSU's losses.
> 
> But their SOS power ranking is still far ahead of #32 FSU
> 
> You need to stay out of the wacky tobacky dude.
> 
> http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other



LOL!  Who puts out that website?  The director of the SEC!? :hysterical:

Here's where I got my information.  Directly from ESPN.  Not to say that they're not biased either, but they have MSU's SOS as #43 and that's with the SEC inflation!

http://espn.go.com/college-football/playoffPicture


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> LOL!  Who puts out that website?  The director of the SEC!? :hysterical:
> 
> Here's where I got my information.  Directly from ESPN.  Not to say that they're not biased either, but they have MSU's SOS as #43 and that's with the SEC inflation!
> 
> http://espn.go.com/college-football/playoffPicture



Looney - your ESPN website is creating a "new" stat -- SOS = Strenght of Schedule PLAYED --- WTF is that in that Bama has played a very similar schedule and they are SOS PLAYED at #4

Bama might be a "scoch" better than MSU - but not 10 times better! The website I referenced is data driven. Here is a quote from the site....



> Our power rankings, and the quantitative ratings that drive them, are objective and data driven. They incorporate only hard facts about teams, game outcomes, and game situations. Although we have evolved our algorithms over the years, we’ve stayed true to one philosophical belief. Measurable data and game performance is gospel, no matter what the "experts" think and say about teams. Humans have an incredible ability to rationalize any position or opinion they want to believe, even when sufficient data exists to refute it.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> Looney - your ESPN website is creating a "new" stat -- SOS = Strenght of Schedule PLAYED --- WTF is that in that Bama has played a very similar schedule and they are SOS PLAYED at #4



Aren't all these "stats" new and artificial?  Your website can claim in their mission statement to only use hard data, but there are still going to be biases in how that "hard data" is interpreted.

Have you seen MSU's out of conference schedule?  It's absolutely pathetic and one of the worst in the country!  At least Bama played a "real" team out of conference with West Virginia.  Even your beloved FSU played Oklahoma State out of conference.  Granted OSU is down this year, but they are a "real" team and have been a Top 10 team in fairly recent history.  That can't be said for any of the teams MSU played out of conference.

Regardless, both Bama and MSU control their own destiny.  Win out and they're in.

I'm rooting for either the SEC to get 2 teams in or no teams in the playoff because I'd love to see the chaos that would follow in either of those situations!


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> Aren't all these "stats" new and artificial?  Your website can claim in their mission statement to only use hard data, but there are still going to be biases in how that "hard data" is interpreted.
> 
> Have you seen MSU's out of conference schedule?  It's absolutely pathetic and one of the worst in the country!  At least Bama played a "real" team out of conference with West Virginia.  Even* your beloved FSU* played Oklahoma State out of conference.  Granted OSU is down this year, but they are a "real" team and have been a Top 10 team in fairly recent history.  That can't be said for any of the teams MSU played out of conference.
> 
> Regardless, both Bama and MSU control their own destiny.  Win out and they're in.
> 
> I'm rooting for either the SEC to get 2 teams in or no teams in the playoff because I'd love to see the chaos that would follow in either of those situations!



Don't get me wrong - I don't give MSU much of a shot at Bryant Denny Stadium and I think the egg bowl is "pick um" -- but OMG FSU is Brians love child --certainly not mine.

with the ESPN FPI ranking - you can see each team warts and all.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings

My final four right now is:

Oregon
Alabama
TCU 
Ohio State

only because I pick "the U" to knock off FSU.


----------



## beejaybeeohio

*too many tigers*

Both Auburn and LSU in the SEC are Tigers.  Where's some originality?  At least Clemson isn't in that division. But 3 southern teams using a tiger as their mascot I just don't understand.  Tradition is probably the reason- the cardinal is DDs college mascot (Otterbein) and several years ago it was proposed to change from that to an otter, makes sense to me, but the switch was nixed.

(BTW DGS is pre-admitted into Clemson's engineering degree program so I may have to start rooting for them as well as the Buckeyes!)


----------



## ace2000

ampaholic said:


> My final four right now is:
> 
> Oregon
> Alabama
> TCU
> Ohio State
> 
> only because I pick "the U" to knock off FSU.



Miami is playing FSU ??  

Actually I was more impressed with your early predictions in post #19 (see below).  Now I see you're just pulling em out of your ### each time.  



ampaholic said:


> Mississippi State
> FSU
> Arizona
> Baylor


----------



## Clemson Fan

ace2000 said:


> Miami is playing FSU ??



Yup, this week and FSU is only a 3 point favorite in Vegas.

For the record, while ampaholic was predictiting UF to take down FSU, I was the first one on this board to say that Miami actually poses their biggest risk for a FSU loss.


----------



## ampaholic

ace2000 said:


> Miami is playing FSU ??
> 
> Actually I was more impressed with your early predictions in post #19 (see below).  Now I see you're just pulling em out of your ### each time.



And *you* pull *your* predictions out from where?

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

At least I actually take the risk and MAKE predictions .....


----------



## ace2000

ampaholic said:


> And *you* pull *your* predictions out from where?
> 
> 
> At least I actually take the risk and MAKE predictions .....



LOL - you got it right.  One thing I learned about predicting sports is that nobody will tell you how right you were with a prediction, but everybody loves to remind you of your wrong prediction.  You just can't win...


----------



## ampaholic

am1 said:


> I would spend more time enjoying your team and the games you like to watch.  It is suppose to be fun.



Actually that is the best advice on this thread.

There are going to be some very good games the next few weeks and the playoffs stand to include some legendary ones.

Woo Hoo


----------



## TUGBrian

FSU isnt my love child, I graduated from the university.

FSU plays miami and florida every year...both of those were annual out of conference games on FSU's schedule that would normally rank extremely high strength wise.

Then Miami up and joined the ACC...and florida started sucking....so neither count for much anymore other than rivalry games.


----------



## ampaholic

Miami has ended several FSU winning streaks.

Remember this:  





> In a climactic ending however, the Hurricanes' defense stood its ground and denied the 'Noles victory as Christian Ponder's final pass was dropped in the endzone - sealing the Miami victory.



Hurricane warning is up.


----------



## am1

TUGBrian said:


> FSU isnt my love child, I graduated from the university.
> 
> FSU plays miami and florida every year...both of those were annual out of conference games on FSU's schedule that would normally rank extremely high strength wise.
> 
> Then Miami up and joined the ACC...and florida started sucking....so neither count for much anymore other than rivalry games.



Add Ole Miss in 2016.


----------



## TUGBrian

Ive been to most fsu vs miami and uf games since 1993.


----------



## Clemson Fan

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/1...un-becomes-two-traffic-tickets.html?referrer=

Brian, what are your thoughts on Jimbo Fisher and all these negative stories coming out about the FSU program?  I've personally lost a lot of respect for Jimbo Fisher over the last year and these stories are making him look terrible.  When he came out defending Winston over the autograph scandal saying Winston just signed them for fans around the stadium, he looked like a fool!  I could care less if Winston did get paid for them which it's pretty obvious he did, but it made Jimbo look like a damn fool in his defense of Winston.

I loved Bobby Bowden and all he stood for, but when it comes to Jimbo I really don't think much of him.  He doesn't seem very ethical or honest.


----------



## Clemson Fan

So if MSU is really the #1 team in the land, would they be a double digit dog in the road?  That kinda tells you what Vegas thinks of the current #1 team in the land.


----------



## TUGBrian

guess I was missing where it was obvious he was paid for them...what makes you draw that conclusion?  

I am personally of the camp where once you get arrested/charged with something....you should be suspended.  However, until you are arrested/charged....you have every right to keep playing.  I think Jimbo feels the same (however I have no doubt he wakes up daily slapping his forehead reading story after story)...but what else can a coach do but defend his players?  

Should he choose to keep defending them once they are charged....my opinion of him will most certainly change.

I think the NY times author that keeps publishing all this stuff is certainly doing it for reasons other than "reporting the truth".

its absurd how badly his other piece on Winston was torn apart by the actual facts of the case he left out of his story.   (not that I care to get into that in particular on here).

The most recent thing is also pretty sketchy, in that it amounts to two kids in an accident deemed so minor by the other driver and the cops, that the only thing to come of it were two traffic tickets.


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> I am personally of the camp where once you get arrested/charged with something....you should be suspended.  However, until you are arrested/charged....you have every right to keep playing.  I think Jimbo feels the same (however I have no doubt he wakes up daily slapping his forehead reading story after story)...but what else can a coach do but defend his players?



I agree 100% with this sentiment - unless it's a clear violation let them play on, innuendo and supposition are for the dictionary game - not peoples real lives.


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> So if MSU is really the #1 team in the land, would they be a double digit dog in the road?  That kinda tells you what Vegas thinks of the current #1 team in the land.



Vegas has always liked the Tide since Nick took over - here is what he said on the subject ....



> "I get the feeling sometimes when people say Mississippi State, they think about the past," Saban said. "We're not playing Mississippi State. We're playing the No. 1 team in the country. They deserve what they have by the body of work and what they've done to this point."



http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/index.ssf/2014/11/alabama_host_no_1_mississippi.html

Go Ducks


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> guess I was missing where it was obvious he was paid for them...what makes you draw that conclusion?



Ugh, come on Brian.  It's obvious to anybody looking at the situation except through garnet covered glasses.  2000 sequentially signed items signed in the perfect spot with the same consistency.  Many of the items were just the number 5 which are obviously meant to be later sewn onto a jersey.  It's easier for a dealer to transport 1000 #5's than 1000 jerseys.  Why would he do that unless he got paid?  Did he just want to spend him time doing the dealer a favor?  It's pretty damn obvious that he very likely got paid.

That being said, I'm actually in the camp where I think these star athletes should be able to get paid for signing autographs.  However, I think it's embarassing for Jimbo and the FSU AD to make these lame excuses about him signing these items at baseball games or whatever.  It makes them look like fools.


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> The most recent thing is also pretty sketchy, in that it amounts to two kids in an accident deemed so minor by the other driver and the cops, that the only thing to come of it were two traffic tickets.



You're right it is pretty sketchy that both cars were totaled (2 totaled cars doesn't seem like a minor accident to me) early in the morning and the FSU Football players fled the scene and when they were finally located they weren't tested for alcohol and just got some minor traffic tickets.


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> I am personally of the camp where once you get arrested/charged with something....you should be suspended.  However, until you are arrested/charged....you have every right to keep playing.  I think Jimbo feels the same (however I have no doubt he wakes up daily slapping his forehead reading story after story)...but what else can a coach do but defend his players?



I agree with this sentiment as well unless the Talahasee PD is intentionally protecting the FSU players by not charging them like they would an ordinary student or citizen.

The coach should defend his players unless it's obvious those players are making him look like a fool.  That was my whole point with the autograph stuff.  Like I said, I actually think Winston should have the right to get paid for them.  However, the way Jimbo is defending it is frankly making him look like a fool.


----------



## csxjohn

TUGBrian said:


> ...I am personally of the camp where once you get arrested/charged with something....you should be suspended.  ....



I don't agree with this.  Just being charged with something should not be grounds for anyone's suspension.

People are charged with crimes everyday that are unfounded.  Until it's obvious the charges are true, I think suspensions are a violation of our right to be innocent until proven guilty.

In the case of athletes, false or careless criminal charges could end ones career or diminish ones value on the open market.  

If guilty, then let the career be ruined.


----------



## am1

The NCAA and their members are suppose to self-report any and all possible infractions.  It is not a court of law.  If the coach suspects, and in this case he should, the player should not be playing.  If the truth comes out the games may be forfeited and the other players lose what they have done.  He could have just sat the 4 games and be done with it.


----------



## ace2000

Florida St has met their enemy and it is themselves.  There is no way this team will withstand all these distractions.  They're going down at some point, probably sooner rather than later.


----------



## csxjohn

am1 said:


> The NCAA and their members are suppose to self-report any and all possible infractions.  It is not a court of law.  If the coach suspects, and in this case he should, the player should not be playing.  If the truth comes out the games may be forfeited and the other players lose what they have done.  He could have just sat the 4 games and be done with it.



My point is that accusations alone should not bring sanctions, there must be reasonable proof whether you're talking about the law or NCAA rules.

Ohio State went through this a few years ago and Jim Tressel was dismissed over it.  Free tattoos for memorabilia that was given to the players.  (Apparently the recipients of rings and trophies don't really own them and they can't sell them. 

Tressel could have saved his job and the schools one year sanction by reporting what he knew when he knew it.  He tried to hide it and it bit him.

We had a top team the year the sanctions were enforced but the school was Bowl ineligible.

Tressel is the one who caused Michigan's current problems IMO.  They had a recent string of victories against us until he got here and the tables turned.  They've been scrambling ever since to get a coach that can make them win again.

Here in Ohio those national standings aren't important to us fans.  It's important to the school and the conference for the revenue generated but the only thing that matters to many of us and to Michigan fans is to win that last regular season game.


----------



## am1

csxjohn said:


> My point is that accusations alone should not bring sanctions, there must be reasonable proof whether you're talking about the law or NCAA rules.



Reasonable proof is that there are thousand of items that he signed.  Why else would he do it?  Has the coach or AD asked him if he received compensation and if he said no did they tell him how bad of an idea it was to do that for free?  

I think signing thousands of items for one person should be against NCAA rules regardless if there was compensation or not.  Takes the grey area out of it.  

Does anyone on here think he did not receive compensation for those signings?


----------



## TUGBrian

Clemson Fan said:


> Ugh, come on Brian.  It's obvious to anybody looking at the situation except through garnet covered glasses.  2000 sequentially signed items signed in the perfect spot with the same consistency.  Many of the items were just the number 5 which are obviously meant to be later sewn onto a jersey.  It's easier for a dealer to transport 1000 #5's than 1000 jerseys.  Why would he do that unless he got paid?  Did he just want to spend him time doing the dealer a favor?  It's pretty damn obvious that he very likely got paid.
> 
> That being said, I'm actually in the camp where I think these star athletes should be able to get paid for signing autographs.  However, I think it's embarassing for Jimbo and the FSU AD to make these lame excuses about him signing these items at baseball games or whatever.  It makes them look like fools.




it wasnt at a dealer, all the items werent even in the same place...these "Sequential" numbered items were merely record lists from a business based in the southeast united states that verifies sports memorabilia signatures....one that doesn't even sell anything other than their services to verify a signature is legit.

What would you expect to find at such a shop if not thousands records of signatures from the current Heisman trophy winning football player whos from the south, plays in the south, and in every media headline on earth?

its not like they were all for sale at the same shop, or were all provided by the same person!  (if you read something different, please show me).

So ill ask again, what proof did you get that he was paid for signatures?

That partic


----------



## TUGBrian

Clemson Fan said:


> You're right it is pretty sketchy that both cars were totaled (2 totaled cars doesn't seem like a minor accident to me) early in the morning and the FSU Football players fled the scene and when they were finally located they weren't tested for alcohol and just got some minor traffic tickets.



three problems I have with that.

1. both cars were very old...with damage coming on both cars in the front corners (given the accident diagram posted in the article)....so it would take very little to "total" a car worth only a few grand....its not like it was a colission between a ferarri and a mercedes here.

2. Ive been in a number of accidents....and ive never known a police officer to also be an insurance adjuster.

3. The players werent "located"....the story (if you got to the bottom) shows they came back on their own after a very short time.


----------



## TUGBrian

csxjohn said:


> I don't agree with this.  Just being charged with something should not be grounds for anyone's suspension.
> 
> People are charged with crimes everyday that are unfounded.  Until it's obvious the charges are true, I think suspensions are a violation of our right to be innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> In the case of athletes, false or careless criminal charges could end ones career or diminish ones value on the open market.
> 
> If guilty, then let the career be ruined.



I suppose that is a valid argument...and I guess it would really have to depend on the charges and evidence provided.

but I am not aware of any college in the spotlight that would not immediately suspend a player upon a felony arrest.


----------



## TUGBrian

am1 said:


> Reasonable proof is that there are thousand of items that he signed.  Why else would he do it?  Has the coach or AD asked him if he received compensation and if he said no did they tell him how bad of an idea it was to do that for free?
> 
> I think signing thousands of items for one person should be against NCAA rules regardless if there was compensation or not.  Takes the grey area out of it.
> 
> Does anyone on here think he did not receive compensation for those signings?



there is absolutely nothing in the NCAA rulebook about signing autographs (long as you dont get paid)

as it was pointed out...Winston stays long after every baseball game and signs autographs for hours for fans.  there is lengthy video proof of this.

are you going to suspend every player of every college team that signs an autograph?  thats going to make for some really awful football games.


----------



## ampaholic

Moving day for Mississippi State  - how far will they fall - I'm thinking down to 5th or 6th. After all it was a pretty good team they lost to.

Will the Tide or Oregon (or FSU?) move into #1?


----------



## am1

TUGBrian said:


> there is absolutely nothing in the NCAA rulebook about signing autographs (long as you dont get paid)
> 
> as it was pointed out...Winston stays long after every baseball game and signs autographs for hours for fans.  there is lengthy video proof of this.
> 
> are you going to suspend every player of every college team that signs an autograph?  thats going to make for some really awful football games.



I said I think it should be against the NCAA rules.  Especially in the way and the items he signed.  I said thousands not an autograph.

FSU fans are welcome to keep their head in the sand on this issue but for me it just devalues the school and the degree.


----------



## ace2000

ampaholic said:


> Moving day for Mississippi State  - how far will they fall - I'm thinking down to 5th or 6th. After all it was a pretty good team they lost to.
> 
> Will the Tide or Oregon (or FSU?) move into #1?



I'm thinking 4th or 5th for MSU.  FSU game tonight may be a factor for #1.


----------



## am1

ampaholic said:


> Moving day for Mississippi State  - how far will they fall - I'm thinking down to 5th or 6th. After all it was a pretty good team they lost to.
> 
> Will the Tide or Oregon (or FSU?) move into #1?



It will not be TCU.  I prefer a idle team does not take over the top spot.  I would say if FSU wins it is theirs.  Even though their Notre Dame win keeps getting devalued.  

I do not see much changing next week as across the board it is almost a bye week.  

Then the last week conference championship games will change everything again.


----------



## Clemson Fan

am1 said:


> FSU fans are welcome to keep their head in the sand on this issue but for me it just devalues the school and the degree.



Thats a little too far IMO.  It's still a good school with a lot of good people.

What it has done IMO is make Jimbo Fisher look like a fool and a complete tool!  It also raises some what I think are very valid concerns with how the community (Talahasee PD as an example) is treating the football players and they've gotten too absorbed with winning at all costs that it does appear like they're compromising some integrity.


----------



## jme

I predict UGA will maul the Auburn Thugs, I mean Tigers, by a score of 34-7.
LOL

What a gratifying victory after last year's unbelievable last-second loss to the lucky thugs on a tipped pass (4 of the current Auburn players were previously kicked off the UGA team for various crimes and Auburn welcomed them with open arms)! 

Sleeping well tonight. This past week has been hell waiting on this game. 

Go Dawgs ..... with some luck they might be playing Alabama for the SEC championship, altho I never bet on UGA to do anything. They're heartbreakers more often than not, but they do have some awesome talent.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> Moving day for Mississippi State  - how far will they fall - I'm thinking down to 5th or 6th. After all it was a pretty good team they lost to.
> 
> Will the Tide or Oregon (or FSU?) move into #1?



Man I hope Georgia can make it into the championship game because I think they would have a shot at upsetting the West team.  I think Missouri will get rolled by the West team if they make it and they're currently in the drivers seat.  Missouri lost to Indiana and got rolled by Georgia.

It would be really interesting to see what happens if Georgia wins the SEC championship game!  Would a one loss MSU team that fails to make it to the championship game make it into the playoff over a SEC champion Georgia team?  MSU's quality wins (LSU, Auburn, Texas A&M and potentially Ole Miss) are fading fast in impressiveness and their out of conference schedule is absolutely pathetic.  

Who knows, if the SEC East team wins the championship game maybe the SEC will get shut out of the playoff!   The only team I'm really rooting for to make the playoff is Georgia.


----------



## jme

Clemson Fan said:


> Man I hope Georgia can make it into the championship game because I think they would have a shot at upsetting the West team.  I think Missouri will get rolled by the West team if they make it and they're currently in the drivers seat.  Missouri lost to Indiana and got rolled by Georgia.
> 
> It would be really interesting to see what happens if Georgia wins the SEC championship game!  Would a one loss MSU team that fails to make it to the championship game make it into the playoff over a SEC champion Georgia team?  MSU's quality wins (LSU, Auburn, Texas A&M and potentially Ole Miss) are fading fast in impressiveness and their out of conference schedule is absolutely pathetic.
> 
> Who knows, if the SEC East team wins the championship game maybe the SEC will get shut out of the playoff!   The only team I'm really rooting for to make the playoff is Georgia.



I must have clicked SUBMIT 2 seconds after you, as your post wasn't there when I typed mine.  But I hope you're right, and it would be even more controversial than ever if the SEC champ possibly got shut out of the playoffs.  It might then have to go to an 8-team playoff I guess....lol

also, what the heck happened to Clemson today?  Can't believe they lost to Ga Tech....Didn't see that coming!!!  I hate that.


----------



## Clemson Fan

jme said:


> I predict UGA will maul the Auburn Thugs, I mean Tigers, by a score of 34-7.
> LOL
> 
> What a gratifying victory after last year's unbelievable last-second loss to the lucky thugs on a tipped pass (4 of the current Auburn players were previously kicked off the UGA team for various crimes and Auburn welcomed them with open arms)!
> 
> Sleeping well tonight. This past week has been hell waiting on this game.
> 
> Go Dawgs ..... with some luck they might be playing Alabama for the SEC championship, altho I never bet on UGA to do anything. They're heartbreakers more often than not, but they do have some awesome talent.



Yeah man, I'm rooting hard for them!  Texas A&M laid an egg today at home and didn't do the dogs any favors.  It would be a shame if Missouri made the championship game!

I think highly of Mark Richt!  He has integrity and does the right thing even if that means suspending or dismissing his best players!  That's unlike Jimbo Fisher who's getting played the fool by his players!


----------



## TUGBrian

am1 said:


> I said I think it should be against the NCAA rules.  Especially in the way and the items he signed.  I said thousands not an autograph.
> 
> FSU fans are welcome to keep their head in the sand on this issue but for me it just devalues the school and the degree.



I believe you are incorrectly assuming as so many are, that someone...somewhere has thousands of winston autographs in one bulk lot...which is not the case.

What exactly would you expect to find records of at a business thats sole purpose, is to verify autographs?


It is about as far apart from the GURLEY issue as it can get, as with the gurley situation you have an individual making a claim (with apparent proof in video format) that he paid gurley to sign autographs.  Again, I would like to know what evidence you are using to make your claim, vs just reading a media headline and drawing a conclusion.


----------



## TUGBrian

certainly an amazing day of football games for sure.

I dont have any fingernails left =)


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> I believe you are incorrectly assuming as so many are, that someone...somewhere has thousands of winston autographs in one bulk lot...which is not the case.



http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fro...0.Xjsa+winston.TRS0&_nkw=jsa+winston&_sacat=0

It's been like this on eBay for over a month.  The average fan can't even get a custom Winston jersey (you can get the number, but not the number and nameplate) as they're not licensed or sold by the NCAA.  Those custom jerseys with the number and the nameplate are mainly supplied and sold by guess who - dealers!  You can't get them in the FSU bookstore or the local malls in Talahasee.  To believe that all those custom jerseys were signed in public at a baseball game or whatever is complete baloney!  It's much more likely that he signed a bunch of number 5's not yet sewn onto a jersey in a private sitting with a dealer who then later had them sewn onto a custom jersey with his nameplate.

There are also a lot of perfectly packaged and signed mini helmets.


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> It is about as far apart from the GURLEY issue as it can get, as with the gurley situation you have an individual making a claim (with apparent proof in video format) that he paid gurley to sign autographs.



Yup, the differences are 

1. There is an apparent video of Gurley signing for money.  There is no apparent video of Winston which must mean he clearly did not get paid for all of those dealer quality autographs. 

2. Mark Richt is the clear leader of his program!  He's not afraid to suspend or even dismiss his star players.  Jimbo Fisher obviously doesn't mind getting played the fool by his players and his players have the power and authority over him!

FSU is a team I would actually occasionally root for under the leadership of Bobby Bowden.  IMO Jimbo has shown a great lack of moral character and leadership over the past 1-2 years and I'm finding it harder and harder to root for FSU because of it.


----------



## Clemson Fan

jme said:


> also, what the heck happened to Clemson today?  Can't believe they lost to Ga Tech....Didn't see that coming!!!  I hate that.



What happened is that their future star true freshman starting QB (rated #1 dual threat QB in HS and who looked awesome when he played earlier in the season) who just returned today from a broken hand hurt his knee on the second series of the game.  Still don't know how bad it is, but it didn't look great the way he went down.  Our 5th year senior QB, who's been really sub par this year, came in and on I think his 3rd play threw an 80 yard pic 6.  He threw another pic 6 in the 3rd quarter and he was just absolutely pathetic today and Dabo finally replaced him with a walk-on.  The defense actually played well and only gave up 2 scores with Clemson's inept offense always putting them on the field in poor field position.

Sort of like Mark Richt, our projected starting QB for this year, Chad Kelly (Jim Kelly's nephew and highly recruited out of HS), was kicked off the team by Dabo immediately after the spring game for throwing his helmet and yelling at coaches on the sideline.  BTW, Chad Kelly is now the #1 rated JC QB and he's being actively recruited by Alabama and FSU and VT has already made him an offer.


----------



## pedro47

Alabama will be number 1 this week followed by Oregon or Florida State as the number 2 team in the nation.


----------



## ace2000

There will be at least one SEC team in the playoff group and second, if Florida St goes undefeated they will make the final four too. 

The media has been beating the drum of the opposite for weeks and it appears even some here have bought into it.  It's good for talk, but let's see it happen.  It won't happen.


----------



## ace2000

TUGBrian said:


> certainly an amazing day of football games for sure.
> 
> I dont have any fingernails left =)



I enjoyed the evening games.  I kept switching back and forth between Fl St/Miami and MU/Texas AM.  

Mizzou is getting better.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ace2000 said:


> There will be at least one SEC team in the playoff group and second, if Florida St goes undefeated they will make the final four too.
> 
> The media has been beating the drum of the opposite for weeks and it appears even some here have bought into it.  It's good for talk, but let's see it happen.  It won't happen.



Oh I think there will surely be a SEC team in the playoff.  I'm just speculating on some "what if" scenarios that I actually don't think will happen.  I think most likely Alabama will beat Auburn and then win the SEC championship game and be in the playoff.  However, what if Alabama loses the SEC championship game and now the SEC champion is a 2 loss team? 

What I think is apparent now is that it's very unlikely that there will be 2 SEC teams in the playoff.  Remember when the playoff committee rankings first came out and 3 of the top 4 teams were SEC West teams?  Everybody then was saying then there would surely be 2 SEC teams in the playoff.  I don't think a 1 loss MSU team will make it in because their quality wins (LSU, Texas A&M, Auburn and potentially Ole Miss) are quickly losing their shine and MSU's out of conference schedule is pathetic.


----------



## ace2000

Clemson Fan said:


> I don't think a 1 loss MSU team will make it in because their quality wins (LSU, Texas A&M, Auburn and potentially Ole Miss) are quickly losing their shine and MSU's out of conference schedule is pathetic.



I think Miss St. has a great shot at it, assuming they beat Ole Miss.  The big advantage they have is their remaining schedule.  The other schools are going to have to get past their conference playoff - and that will probably take one or two down.

I don't see Miss St. dropping beyond the 5th spot this week.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ace2000 said:


> I think Miss St. has a great shot at it, assuming they beat Ole Miss.  The big advantage they have is their remaining schedule.  The other schools are going to have to get past their conference playoff - and that will probably take one or two down.
> 
> I don't see Miss St. dropping beyond the 5th spot this week.



They're only remaining significant game is Ole Miss.  Vanderbilt is terrible and won't help them at all.  They're quality wins will end up being:

LSU: Will be a 4 or 5 loss team depending on who wins their game against Texas A&M
Texas A&M: 4 or 5 loss team (see LSU)
Auburn: 4 loss team if Alabama beats them
Ole Miss: 3 loss team is MSU beats them

Ole Miss will still be a good win, but they're remaining quality wins will probably drop out of the Top 25 or at least to the bottom of the Top 25.  Add to that that they're out of conference schedule was atrocious.

They may only drop to #5, but I don't think they can get back into the Top 4 unless one of the Top 4 trips up or several, if not all, of the other remaining Top 10 1 loss teams (OSU, TCU, Baylor) trip up.

MSU's best hope now is that Auburn beats Alabama, they beat Ole Miss and get into and win the SEC championship game.  Short of that I don't think they'll make it in the playoff.


----------



## Elan

Of course there will be an SEC team in the playoff.  They could all finish 6-6 and one of them would still make it.  Even though the conference is barely above .500 against the other Power 5's in the last 15 years, it's an unwritten rule that the SEC gets a spot.

  What's kind of funny is MSU's strength of schedule went way down (no wins over any team with less than 3 losses), but Alabama gets big props for beating them.  Oh, and TCU gets reamed (at least by the media thus far) for squeaking by Kansas, but where was the outrage when Bama squeaked by a crappy Arkansas team?  

  Good thing there's no double standard.  :hysterical:


----------



## am1

Where MSU falls to today is really the only important decision to be made.

When was the last time a team lost to 6, 6, 7, 10, 1 and still have to face 10 and whatever mizzou will be ranked at in two weeks.  While beating #17.  They are not as bad as their record shows.  

A two loss SEC conference championship team would make the top 4.


----------



## colatown

Elan said:


> but where was the outrage when Bama squeaked by a crappy Arkansas team?
> 
> Good thing there's no double standard.  :hysterical:


The Hogs are only crappy by SEC standards, they might win the All Cupcake Conference and would be an upper level B1G team.


----------



## ace2000

Clemson Fan said:


> MSU's best hope now is that Auburn beats Alabama, they beat Ole Miss and get into and win the SEC championship game.  Short of that I don't think they'll make it in the playoff.



That's where we disagree.  I believe MSU makes it if they beat Ole Miss.  It's all speculation at this point.


----------



## TUGBrian

Clemson Fan said:


> http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fro...0.Xjsa+winston.TRS0&_nkw=jsa+winston&_sacat=0
> 
> It's been like this on eBay for over a month.  The average fan can't even get a custom Winston jersey (you can get the number, but not the number and nameplate) as they're not licensed or sold by the NCAA.  Those custom jerseys with the number and the nameplate are mainly supplied and sold by guess who - dealers!  You can't get them in the FSU bookstore or the local malls in Talahasee.  To believe that all those custom jerseys were signed in public at a baseball game or whatever is complete baloney!  It's much more likely that he signed a bunch of number 5's not yet sewn onto a jersey in a private sitting with a dealer who then later had them sewn onto a custom jersey with his nameplate.
> 
> There are also a lot of perfectly packaged and signed mini helmets.



lol..some of this is just ridiculous.  

Average person cant use google to find an FSU stitched jersey?  really?

http://www.fsportsfanshop.com/nike-florida-state-seminoles-fsu-jameis-winston-5-black-stitch-jersey

cmon man...you can get a stitched jersey of any college or pro team of any number or name you like on it.


You can get a "nameplate" from any one of thousands of trophy vendors...all for about 7 dollars.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/JAMEIS-WINS...FOR-SIGNED-FOOTBALL-HELMET-8x10-/271444336449


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> lol..some of this is just ridiculous.
> 
> Average person cant use google to find an FSU stitched jersey?  really?
> 
> http://www.fsportsfanshop.com/nike-florida-state-seminoles-fsu-jameis-winston-5-black-stitch-jersey
> 
> cmon man...you can get a stitched jersey of any college or pro team of any number or name you like on it.
> 
> 
> You can get a "nameplate" from any one of thousands of trophy vendors...all for about 7 dollars.
> 
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/JAMEIS-WINS...FOR-SIGNED-FOOTBALL-HELMET-8x10-/271444336449



It's OK Brian, you can continue to view things through you Garnet covered glasses and continue to believe that he didn't sign all those custom jerseys with a dealer and instead signed them to average fans at baseball games.  It makes you look foolish, but hey it's a free country and like you said there is no smoking gun video tape.


----------



## Clemson Fan

am1 said:


> Where MSU falls to today is really the only important decision to be made.
> 
> When was the last time a team lost to 6, 6, 7, 10, 1 and still have to face 10 and whatever mizzou will be ranked at in two weeks.  While beating #17.  They are not as bad as their record shows.



Do you really think the commitee is going look at the highest ranking any team had throughout the season when evaluating those quality wins?  I don't think they will.  I think they're going to look at where those teams ended up (with 4 or 5 losses and not ranked in some cases) when making the final determination on how "quality" those wins actually were.

BTW, MSU will only get to face Missouri or Georgia IF Auburn beats Alabama.  Otherwise they'll be on the outside looking in on the SEC championship game.  That's why I stated above that I think they're going to need a lot of help to get back into the 4 teams for the playoff.


----------



## TUGBrian

Clemson Fan said:


> It's OK Brian, you can continue to view things through you Garnet covered glasses and continue to believe that he didn't sign all those custom jerseys with a dealer and instead signed them to average fans at baseball games.  It makes you look foolish, but hey it's a free country and like you said there is no smoking gun video tape.



Ive asked you repeatedly for you to provide proof to support your claim....at this point your only posts have been to call me foolish.

*shrug...to each his own.


----------



## am1

Clemson Fan said:


> Do you really think the commitee is going look at the highest ranking any team had throughout the season when evaluating those quality wins?  I don't think they will.  I think they're going to look at where those teams ended up (with 4 or 5 losses and not ranked in some cases) when making the final determination on how "quality" those wins actually were.
> 
> BTW, MSU will only get to face Missouri or Georgia IF Auburn beats Alabama.  Otherwise they'll be on the outside looking in on the SEC championship game.  That's why I stated above that I think they're going to need a lot of help to get back into the 4 teams for the playoff.



I started talking about the Razorbacks.  They are not a good team but did beat NIU and Texas Tech OOC.  Came very close to winning some of their other games against the ranked opponents (at the time) that I talked about.  

As far as MSU goes they are behind FSU, Alabama, Oregon for sure if all 4 win out.  Then there is Baylor, TCU, and Ohio State and a 1 loss FSU team to think about where they will end up.  7 teams left.  Baylor and TCU will not both make it.

There has to be some combination of where teams end the season and where they were when the matchup happened.  Is it due to injury, teams being exposed, weak early schedules, young players getting better etc.  Every time a team losses their ranking goes down.  Its possible the 4th best team loses to the top 3 teams in the country but they would not be ranked 4th.  

I am all for stopping 1AA wins counting towards getting to a bowl.  There are enough 1A teams that have moved up in recent years to be chicken feed.  I also feel for the 1AA gys who work just as hard who are sold out by their school for a payday.  Although a team going for a national championship year in and year out is not worried about becoming bowl eligible.


----------



## TUGBrian

looks like mariotta also got paid....

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odk...iota+signed.TRS0&_nkw=mariota+signed&_sacat=0


dak prescott too!

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odk...signed.TRS0&_nkw=dak+prescott+signed&_sacat=0

uh oh..amari cooper in trouble with a signed stitched jersey!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/AMARI-COOPE...36176142?pt=US_Autographs&hash=item58b786a30e


how weird you can just type in the name of a popular leading college athlete on a top 10 team and find autographed and certified memorabilia!  but hey, im sure its just winston that got paid...the other autographs on the same medium (stitched jerseys, mini helmets, footballs) are all legit.


----------



## Elan

Clemson Fan said:


> Do you really think the commitee is going look at the highest ranking any team had throughout the season when evaluating those quality wins?  I don't think they will.  I think they're going to look at where those teams ended up (with 4 or 5 losses and not ranked in some cases) when making the final determination on how "quality" those wins actually were.
> .



Yep.  In not sure why someone would cling to rankings at all, much less weeks old rankings that have since been proven to be laughably inaccurate.  Rankings are subjective and useless.  Go back and look at how far off preseason and early season rankings typically are compared to end of season results if anyone wants to prove it to themselves.



Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## TUGBrian

someone else posted an amusing comment on another thread...talking about how auburn, lsu, scar and TAM....who all at one point were ranked in the top 10 (and some in the top 5)....and who all now have a combined 15 losses now?


----------



## ampaholic

Elan said:


> Yep.  In not sure why someone would cling to rankings at all, much less weeks old rankings that have since been proven to be laughably inaccurate.  Rankings are subjective and useless.  Go back and look at how far off preseason and early season rankings typically are compared to end of season results if anyone wants to prove it to themselves.



Such a shame that they actually have to play the games - isn't it? 



TUGBrian said:


> someone else posted an amusing comment on another thread...talking about how auburn, lsu, scar and TAM....who all at one point were ranked in the top 10 (and some in the top 5)....and who all now have a combined 15 losses now?



Yea, if I had known for sure about Oregon knocking off FSU in the 1st playoff round and the Alabama in the championship game -- think of the money I could have made placing that bet at the start of the season.  :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

Oh and Bama destroyed TCU in their semi

Sent from January 30th 2015


----------



## ampaholic

Heather Dinich SLAMS FSU - puts them at #4!!!

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:11897158

(sorry about the 30 seconds of dead air while it loads - be patient)

Wonder if she is reading the tea leaves correctly?


----------



## pedro47

There is another undefeated football team in the nation called Marshall University. I hope they get a chance to go and play in a bowl game .
Prediction both Alabama and Oregon will lose one more game before the season is over this year.


----------



## Elan

What irks me is that there's an obvious disconnect in the whole "selection by committee" approach.  What really matters?  Record, _perceived_ strength of schedule, quality of wins, quality of losses, "eye test", etc?  This committee process is likely to be as big of farce as the BCS was, it just get's twice the wiggle room in that the playoff is 4 teams, and the BCS MNC selection was 2 teams.

  Either put objective, measurable criteria on the process, or expand the playoff field to a point where it's reasonable to assume that the last team chosen has little to no likelihood of winning it all.  Until either of those two things happens, the process is every bit as susceptible to fraud as the BCS system was.


----------



## am1

Elan said:


> What irks me is that there's an obvious disconnect in the whole "selection by committee" approach.  What really matters?  Record, _perceived_ strength of schedule, quality of wins, quality of losses, "eye test", etc?  This committee process is likely to be as big of farce as the BCS was, it just get's twice the wiggle room in that the playoff is 4 teams, and the BCS MNC selection was 2 teams.
> 
> Either put objective, measurable criteria on the process, or expand the playoff field to a point where it's reasonable to assume that the last team chosen has little to no likelihood of winning it all.  Until either of those two things happens, the process is every bit as susceptible to fraud as the BCS system was.



I am in favour of that more criteria.  

All Power 5 undefeated teams get in.
Conference champs get a boost.
Losing conference championship game hurts more then losing early.
No more than two teams from one conference.
No more than 3 losses.
Power 5 1 loss team gets in over a 3 loss non conference championship team,

These are very simple ones.  I am sure better ones can be brainstormed.

Marshall had no chance before the season started.


----------



## ampaholic

Elan said:


> What irks me is that there's an obvious disconnect in the whole "selection by committee" approach.  What really matters?  Record, _perceived_ strength of schedule, quality of wins, quality of losses, "eye test", etc?  This committee process is likely to be as big of farce as the BCS was, it just get's twice the wiggle room in that the playoff is 4 teams, and the BCS MNC selection was 2 teams.
> 
> Either put objective, measurable criteria on the process, or expand the playoff field to a point where it's reasonable to assume that the last team chosen has little to no likelihood of winning it all.  Until either of those two things happens, the process is every bit as susceptible to fraud as the BCS system was.



Your mistake is thinking Football should be like golf - in golf you can have a "shotgun" start where each golfer starts (and ends) the game at about the same time, so you can have 18 or more scores at the end of the day - in football the entire season is like playing 10 or 11 holes (games) - but no 2 teams play the* SAME* 10 or 11 holes er, teams.

In football competing teams play against *EACH OTHER* - not the "course". It is therefore viable to gnash about hypothetical match ups and how does team A's body of work compare to team B's.

The "body of work" helps determine the rankings - review the link I supplied above it will help you understand the "committee thinking" as explained by Heather.


----------



## Elan

am1 said:


> I am in favour of that more criteria.
> 
> All Power 5 undefeated teams get in.
> Conference champs get a boost.
> Losing conference championship game hurts more then losing early.
> No more than two teams from one conference.
> No more than 3 losses.
> Power 5 1 loss team gets in over a 3 loss non conference championship team,
> 
> These are very simple ones.  I am sure better ones can be brainstormed.
> 
> Marshall had no chance before the season started.



  That's a start, but what does "boost" mean?  All of this stuff needs to be quantified, or it's useless.  Any wiggle room allows for bias to creep in, and that was the problem with the BCS.

  The best approach is my second suggestion.  Expand the field.  While it's difficult to argue Marshall's case, there's little doubt they should make an 8 or perhaps 12 team field (assuming they remain undefeated).  People can talk all they want about relative conference strength, but as has been shown, perception and reality are vastly different when that's the topic.  Furthermore, as an example, if we applied strength of conference to baseball, the Giants would have 0 World Series wins instead of 3, because they come from what's generally perceived as one of the one of the weakest divisions in baseball.  A weak conference isn't indicative of a weak conference champion, nor is the converse true.


----------



## TUGBrian

Ive always thought it silly that one play can determine who "should" or "shouldnt" be ranked in a particular spot.

for instance, lets say miami scores on that last drive and beats FSU...now due to one play...the entire voting community would rank FSU way down the line (perhaps not even in the top 10 for some).  however, without that play...they are apparently the best team in the nation merely because they remain unbeaten.

just as with auburn last year, they were 3 or 4 "single plays" away from being a 4 loss team and not ranked by anyone.

that said, I am not sure there is any non-subjective way to rank separate teams who never play each other on a neutral field...for the purposes of comparing how they would perform on a neutral field against each other.

is virginia tech better than ohio state?  not a chance...but they beat them at home earlier this year.

is florida a better team than georgia?  not in any measurable category...but yet they blew their doors off a few weeks back.

I dont see any real solution to this short of expanding the playoffs to include the top 12 or more teams....thus shortening the regular season.


----------



## TUGBrian

and now a story from today on ESPN....all those winston autographs are likely fakes

https://espn.go.com/college-footbal...-jameis-winston-items-due-legitimacy-concerns


----------



## am1

Elan said:


> That's a start, but what does "boost" mean?  All of this stuff needs to be quantified, or it's useless.  Any wiggle room allows for bias to creep in, and that was the problem with the BCS.
> 
> The best approach is my second suggestion.  Expand the field.  While it's difficult to argue Marshall's case, there's little doubt they should make an 8 or perhaps 12 team field (assuming they remain undefeated).  People can talk all they want about relative conference strength, but as has been shown, perception and reality are vastly different when that's the topic.  Furthermore, as an example, if we applied strength of conference to baseball, the Giants would have 0 World Series wins instead of 3, because they come from what's generally perceived as one of the one of the weakest divisions in baseball.  A weak conference isn't indicative of a weak conference champion, nor is the converse true.



Right it is not easy which all the more reason to have established criteria.  I would add out of the 4 two are to be conference champions.  The other 3 conference champs would still get some kind of boost when compared to the others.  Maybe even 3 conferences need to be represented but not all 3 have to be conference champs.  Some of these criteria's may keep better teams out but it ensures that more conferences are represented and less room for error from the rankings.  

It would be hard now but maybe 4 super conferences is the answer to this.  

I am not in favor of an 8 team playoff but it seems that the other equal but non-playoff bowls are not being talked about at all.


----------



## Elan

am1 said:


> It would be hard now but maybe 4 super conferences is the answer to this.
> 
> I am not in favor of an 8 team playoff but it seems that the other equal but non-playoff bowls are not being talked about at all.



  If 4 super conferences are the answer, then someone sure as hell needs to make sure that the BSU's and BYU's are in and the Vandy's, Wake Forests and Indiana's, etc are out.  That isn't going to happen, so playoff expansion is the solution.  It works in FCS (although they've made their playoff field too large, IMO), so it can easily work in FBS.


----------



## TUGBrian

cant think of any major sporting "title" that ISNT judged by a playoff system....except college football.


----------



## ace2000

TUGBrian said:


> cant think of any major sporting "title" that ISNT judged by a playoff system....except college football.



Not anymore though (I know I'm stating the obvious here).  Whatever number of teams are chosen there will always be some "deserving" team(s) left out.  At least we're heading in the right direction.  I'm a lot happier about this format than what we had previously.  I can't complain.

I'm a lot more interested this year than the past.


----------



## Elan

ace2000 said:


> Not anymore though (I know I'm stating the obvious here).  Whatever number of teams are chosen there will always be some "deserving" team(s) left out.  At least we're heading in the right direction.  I'm a lot happier about this format than what we had previously.  I can't complain.
> 
> I'm a lot more interested this year than the past.



  There will always be a few teams that will complain about being left out of the field.  But I'd rather have 8 conference champions and a committee tell me who 9-12 are (in a 12 team playoff), than have the committee tell me who 1-4 are in a 4 team playoff.  Win your conference, you're in - like most other sports.


----------



## ace2000

Elan said:


> There will always be a few teams that will complain about being left out of the field.  But I'd rather have 8 conference champions and a committee tell me who 9-12 are (in a 12 team playoff), than have the committee tell me who 1-4 are in a 4 team playoff.  Win your conference, you're in - like most other sports.



Agreed, and I hope they can figure it out.

I saw something the last weekend that mentioned a couple of scenarios that would push for expanded playoffs.  An undefeated Fl St team getting shut out and two SEC teams.


----------



## TUGBrian

called it!

Playoff comissioner tonight when asked about alabama in the 1 spot:



> They had a decisive win over the number 1 ranked team in the country, we felt they should be number 1



same guy when asked why MSU only dropped to 4, literally 15 seconds later:


> They played a great game against the now number 1 team and only lost by 5 points, we never felt like they were out of the game.



*sigh


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> looks like mariotta also got paid....
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odk...iota+signed.TRS0&_nkw=mariota+signed&_sacat=0
> 
> 
> dak prescott too!
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odk...signed.TRS0&_nkw=dak+prescott+signed&_sacat=0
> 
> uh oh..amari cooper in trouble with a signed stitched jersey!
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/AMARI-COOPE...36176142?pt=US_Autographs&hash=item58b786a30e
> 
> 
> how weird you can just type in the name of a popular leading college athlete on a top 10 team and find autographed and certified memorabilia!  but hey, im sure its just winston that got paid...the other autographs on the same medium (stitched jerseys, mini helmets, footballs) are all legit.



They probably did get paid and you know what, I'm not against them getting paid.  I never was.  I think they, including Winston, should get paid for their autograph if they can.  Why should all the money go to some sleazy autograph dealer?

My beef isn't with Winston getting paid.  It's with how Jimbo defended it all.  It made Jimbo look like a fool and at FSU it looks like Jimbo exerts very little disciplinary control over his program.


----------



## Elan

TUGBrian said:


> called it!
> 
> Playoff comissioner tonight when asked about alabama in the 1 spot:
> 
> 
> 
> same guy when asked why MSU only dropped to 4, literally 15 seconds later:
> 
> 
> *sigh



Yep, Long would be better off to keep his mouth shut than to try to justify the unjustifiable.  I love that in the very first year the committee is making a mockery of the process.  Particularly impressed that Marshall and Colorado State can't crack the top 25, yet 7-3 Minnesota makes it.  What a joke!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Clemson Fan

I have to admit that I'm a little surprised that MSU is at 4.  Now instead of beating 3 Top 10 teams in a row they only have a single win against a Top 25 team.  

I still think that if TCU, Baylor or OSU win out that one of them will eventually jump MSU to the 4th position assuming MSU wins the Egg Bowl.  My best guess is that OSU will make it in mainly because the Big 10 has a championship game and the Big 12 does not.  I think having won the regular season conference championship AND the conference championship game will hold a lot of weight with the committee and will brake a tie when they compare them to MSU.  I don't think TCU nor Baylor have enough left in their schedule which lacks a championship game to be able to jump a MSU team that wins the Egg bowl.

Here's my updated playoff prediction (not like anybody cares :hysterical:

Alabama 
Oregon
FSU
OSU


----------



## Clemson Fan

ace2000 said:


> Agreed, and I hope they can figure it out.
> 
> I saw something the last weekend that mentioned a couple of scenarios that would push for expanded playoffs.  An undefeated Fl St team getting shut out and two SEC teams.



I'm rooting hard for chaos!


----------



## am1

Elan said:


> If 4 super conferences are the answer, then someone sure as hell needs to make sure that the BSU's and BYU's are in and the Vandy's, Wake Forests and Indiana's, etc are out.  That isn't going to happen, so playoff expansion is the solution.  It works in FCS (although they've made their playoff field too large, IMO), so it can easily work in FBS.



Yes that is why it would not being easy.  The lines are drawn in stone.  If there were 4 12 team conferences, year in year out the best teams could come from there.  I appreciate the history (whats left) and hope it does not go that way.  

Expanding the tournament would take away from the regular season.  I think the season is long enough as it is.  But hopefully it is all a work in progress.


----------



## ampaholic

am1 said:


> Yes that is why it would not being easy.  The lines are drawn in stone.  If there were 4 12 team conferences, year in year out the best teams could come from there.  I appreciate the history (whats left) and hope it does not go that way.
> 
> Expanding the tournament would take away from the regular season.  I think the season is long enough as it is.  But hopefully it is all a work in progress.



Follow the money ... the bowl games are big money for the schools involved and won't be going away anytime soon. 

Fitting and expanded playoff structure into the bowl game structure is why it won't happen - unless some smart bloke figures out how to keep the pay for the schools the same.

Like the NFL - they really don't care who wins - because they all get'in paid!


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> I have to admit that I'm a little surprised that MSU is at 4.  Now instead of beating 3 Top 10 teams in a row they only have a single win against a Top 25 team.
> 
> I still think that if TCU, Baylor or OSU win out that one of them will eventually jump MSU to the 4th position assuming MSU wins the Egg Bowl.  My best guess is that OSU will make it in mainly because the Big 10 has a championship game and the Big 12 does not.  I think having won the regular season conference championship AND the conference championship game will hold a lot of weight with the committee and will brake a tie when they compare them to MSU.  I don't think TCU nor Baylor have enough left in their schedule which lacks a championship game to be able to jump a MSU team that wins the Egg bowl.
> 
> Here's my updated playoff prediction (not like anybody cares :hysterical:
> 
> Alabama
> Oregon
> FSU
> OSU



What if Auburn beats Bama and Ole Miss whips up on MSU???? OMG


----------



## ampaholic

BTW - I am ecstatic about the idea of the Ducks obliterating the Noles on a neutral field.


----------



## TUGBrian

Clemson Fan said:


> They probably did get paid and you know what, I'm not against them getting paid.  I never was.  I think they, including Winston, should get paid for their autograph if they can.  Why should all the money go to some sleazy autograph dealer?
> 
> My beef isn't with Winston getting paid.  It's with how Jimbo defended it all.  It made Jimbo look like a fool and at FSU it looks like Jimbo exerts very little disciplinary control over his program.



guess you didnt read the article today that has signature experts pointing out this huge number of winston "signings" are likely forgeries.

I suppose it is easier to assume someone is guilty, vs wait for proof of it though.


----------



## TUGBrian

ampaholic said:


> BTW - I am ecstatic about the idea of the Ducks obliterating the Noles on a neutral field.



oregon would have to develop a defense for that to happen.

at least florida state has one that plays half a game each week!


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> guess you didnt read the article today that has signature experts pointing out this huge number of winston "signings" are likely forgeries.
> 
> I suppose it is easier to assume someone is guilty, vs wait for proof of it though.



Like I said, I don't really care if Winston got paid or not.  If the forgery "excuse" was the first one Winston and Jimbo rolled out that would've been their best play.  However, why are they now saying they're forgeries now over a month after the story broke?  Instead Jimbo's initial play was that he signed them at baseball games and after practices and that Winston told him he didn't get paid for all those autographs.  Why didn't Winston say they were forgeries or Jimbo suggest they were forgeries back then?  If they made that claim back then it would be more believable unless of course your viewing things through Garnett tinted glasses. 

BTW, the PSA expert is not saying they're forgeries.  They're just saying that they aren't comfortable validating them because Winston wouldn't agree to sign in front of them.  That's actually a smart move by Winston.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> BTW - I am ecstatic about the idea of the Ducks obliterating the Noles on a neutral field.



You mean like they did against Auburn and Cam Newton a few years ago! 

If you're able to get physical with Oregon they will fold like a K-mart deck chair!


----------



## TUGBrian

Clemson Fan said:


> Like I said, I don't really care if Winston got paid or not.  If the forgery "excuse" was the first one Winston and Jimbo rolled out that would've been their best play.  However, why are they now saying they're forgeries now over a month after the story broke?  Instead Jimbo's initial play was that he signed them at baseball games and after practices and that Winston told him he didn't get paid for all those autographs.  Why didn't Winston say they were forgeries or Jimbo suggest they were forgeries back then?  If they made that claim back then it would be more believable unless of course your viewing things through Garnett tinted glasses.







how on earth would winston or fisher have any idea these were forgeries when asked at the time?

Unlike the general public...its much easier to just let the folks paid to investigate matters like this do so...and release their findings...which is apparently being done.

Its ESPN and the NYT that build their click empire through publishing inflammatory stories with no real evidence to back them up...and millions of folks eat it up and form the opinion the story is slanted to portray.




> BTW, the PSA expert is not saying they're forgeries.  They're just saying that they aren't comfortable validating them because Winston wouldn't agree to sign in front of them.  That's actually a smart move by Winston.



did you even read the article at all completely?  Im finding it hard to believe so given that NEITHER of the experts who were quoted in the story work for PSA.

heres a quote from the article.



> Ron Keurajian, a Baseball Hall of Fame autograph specialist, said that in his opinion, "These Winston autographs from the supposed signing are done by more than one hand. His authentic signature is very unstructured, which makes it harder to authenticate, but there are many here that actually are structured very well."


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> oregon would have to develop a defense for that to happen.
> 
> at least florida state has one that plays half a game each week!



I'm thinking 46-7 at halftime and the Ducks hold on to win 52-49 in the second half :rofl:


----------



## TUGBrian

lol, thats certainly not an outrageous score prediction!

I would gander the over/under on that particular matchup would be nearly 100!


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> You mean like they did against Auburn and Cam Newton a few years ago!
> 
> If you're able to get physical with Oregon they will fold like a K-mart deck chair!



That team has for the most part graduated - this is COLLEGE football - new team every two years.

Or are you still waiting for C. J. Spiller to go wild against FSU?


----------



## csxjohn

I am not in favor of an expanded number of playoff games at the expense of regular season games.  Are hundreds of teams supposed to play a shorter season so a few can play more games?

There is plenty of time now between the end of the regular season and the National Title Game to have a few rounds of playoffs.

We all will still decide who we think is the top team and on down the line.  We don't need a committee of twelve to tell us this.  The only reason they exist is to make mega bucks for the NCAA and where ever they spend it.

I truly enjoyed the old system better, before the BCS.  I want to see the Big 10 champ play the PAC 12 champ in the Rose Bowl, etc.  I don't need this arbitrary system to enjoy the games.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> That team has for the most part graduated - this is COLLEGE football - new team every two years.
> 
> Or are you still waiting for C. J. Spiller to go wild against FSU?



Seriously, when has Oregon EVER won a big game?  They've been a perennial Top 5 team for the past 10 years, but whenever they face a SEC team they invariably get beat.  Even lowly Clemson takes on SEC teams and occasionally beats them like Georgia, LSU and Auburn in the last 3 years.  Oregon can only beat Big 10 teams out of conference.


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> how on earth would winston or fisher have any idea these were forgeries when asked at the time?



Seriously, don't you think the first thing out of Winston's mouth over a month ago would've been, "Hey coach, I never signed those items."  Winston should know as its HIS signature.  Instead, Winston first said he didn't get paid to sign those items.  Forgery turns out to be like the 5th or 6th excuse well over a month after the story broke.  I'm surprised it took FSU's media department this long to get those forgery stories printed!


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> Unlike the general public...its much easier to just let the folks paid to investigate matters like this do so...and release their findings...which is apparently being done.
> 
> Its ESPN and the NYT that build their click empire through publishing inflammatory stories with no real evidence to back them up...and millions of folks eat it up and form the opinion the story is slanted to portray.



It's not a criminal act, so no authority is ever going to investigate it.

So now you're comparing ESPN and the NYT to Joe's sports blog?  Poor FSU, those completely unreliable and inflammatory Internet blogs of ESPN and the NYT are picking on them!


----------



## Elan

Clemson Fan said:


> Seriously, when has Oregon EVER won a big game?  They've been a perennial Top 5 team for the past 10 years, but whenever they face a SEC team they invariably get beat.  Even lowly Clemson takes on SEC teams and occasionally beats them like Georgia, LSU and Auburn in the last 3 years.  Oregon can only beat Big 10 teams out of conference.



  Not a big Ducks fan by any means, but they did win the Fiesta and the Rose in back-to-back years.  If not for a semi-flukish play, they certainly could have beaten Auburn in the MNC game a few years back.  Not like it was a blowout.


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> did you even read the article at all completely?  Im finding it hard to believe so given that NEITHER of the experts who were quoted in the story work for PSA.



Here you go:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...-jameis-winston-items-due-legitimacy-concerns


----------



## Clemson Fan

Elan said:


> Not a big Ducks fan by any means, but they did win the Fiesta and the Rose in back-to-back years.  If not for a semi-flukish play, they certainly could have beaten Auburn in the MNC game a few years back.  Not like it was a blowout.



Oregon is good, but I have NO faith in them being able to win it all.  If there's a SEC team in this years playoff, I would only give Oregon a 5% chance of winning the playoff.  I'll actually be rooting for them (unless it's against Georgia) because I would like nothing better then to see the SEC crowd get silenced.  At least FSU was able to silence the SEC crowd last year.

Interestingly, I was at that Rose Bowl a couple of years ago when Oregon played Wisconsin.  It was a very entertaining game!


----------



## Elan

Clemson Fan said:


> Oregon is good, but I have NO faith in them being able to win it all.  If there's a SEC team in this years playoff, I would only give Oregon a 5% chance of winning the playoff.  I'll actually be rooting for them (unless it's against Georgia) because I would like nothing better then to see the SEC crowd get silenced.  At least FSU was able to silence the SEC crowd last year.
> 
> Interestingly, I was at that Rose Bowl a couple of years ago when Oregon played Wisconsin.  It was a very entertaining game!



  Oregon has always under-emphasized defense.  They are tough to prepare for because their offense is so dynamic.  But the extra weeks given to prepare for bowl games neutralizes some of that offensive advantage.  

  In general, I am pretty ambivalent toward the Ducks, don't really care if they win or lose.  But that typically changes depending on who they're playing.


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> Seriously, when has Oregon EVER won a big game?  They've been a perennial Top 5 team for the past 10 years, but whenever they face a SEC team they invariably get beat.  Even lowly Clemson takes on SEC teams and occasionally beats them like Georgia, LSU and Auburn in the last 3 years.  Oregon can only beat Big 10 teams out of conference.



So far this year Oregon has scored 460 points while opponents have scored 250, roughly *HALF* as many points - that seems like a fairly good recipe for success. 

FYI - FSU opponents have scored 228 on the Noles - an average of only 3 points less per game than the Ducks - yet I don't hear you whining about their "lack of gumption" or complaining they can't beat the SEC.

*In the last 5 years Oregon has only played 2 SEC teams* - and granted the Ducks lost both those games - one was against #1 Auburn by 3 lousy points and the other was against #2 LSU and was the first game of the 2011 season.

Besides the fact that those teams no longer exist - two fairly close and competitive losses don't "define" a program.

Perhaps a record of 54-8 over the last five years is a better reflection of Duck Football -as is a respectable 45-18 for Clemson.

Clemson lost to #1 Auburn the very same year the Ducks did and they lost to Georgia a few years later - and they always seem to find a way to loose to South Carolina (SEC East). 

Sure Clemson has won against four mostly unranked SEC teams in the last five years - but that doesn't give you the right to imply that their record is somehow "better" than the Ducks simply because they play the SEC much more than the Ducks do.

Especially considering their record for the last five years is 4-6 against the SEC - certainly not knocking them dead.

So - at least be reasonable with your whines.


----------



## TUGBrian

Clemson Fan said:


> Seriously, don't you think the first thing out of Winston's mouth over a month ago would've been, "Hey coach, I never signed those items."  Winston should know as its HIS signature.  Instead, Winston first said he didn't get paid to sign those items.  Forgery turns out to be like the 5th or 6th excuse well over a month after the story broke.  I'm surprised it took FSU's media department this long to get those forgery stories printed!



so, a kid who signs thousands of autographs is going to know where each and every one of them ended up?  or would he only know that hes never been paid to sign one?

you are just grabbing at straws here.




Clemson Fan said:


> Here you go:
> 
> http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...-jameis-winston-items-due-legitimacy-concerns



yes, thats the same article.  would suggest actually reading it =)



Clemson Fan said:


> It's not a criminal act, so no authority is ever going to investigate it.
> 
> So now you're comparing ESPN and the NYT to Joe's sports blog?  Poor FSU, those completely unreliable and inflammatory Internet blogs of ESPN and the NYT are picking on them!



id bet any amount of money you want that the NYT posts more "retractions" in a year than every "joes sports blog" in history...combined.

the job of the modern media now is to sell drama and headlines...not report the truth.


----------



## Talent312

The main reason why the Oregon Ducks won't win a National Championship -- yeah, they've won in other sports, but not football -- is this:  Their name, "Ducks." Delaware has a similar problem with its teams, the "Blue Hens."  <just sayin'>
.


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> id bet any amount of money you want that the NYT posts more "retractions" in a year than every "joes sports blog" in history...combined.
> 
> the job of the modern media now is to sell drama and headlines...not report the truth.



+1


----------



## ampaholic

Talent312 said:


> The main reason why the Oregon Ducks won't win a National Championship -- yeah, they've won in other sports, but not football -- is this:  Their name, "Ducks." Delaware has a similar problem with its teams, the "Blue Hens."  <just sayin'>
> .



Well yea, there is* THAT*-- and a mascot named "Puddles"


----------



## csxjohn

It's getting more interesting for me now that Ohio State is #6.

Do they have a chance at beating any of the five teams ahead of them?

Of course they do.

Do the five teams below them have a chance at beating them?

Same answer.

The remaining games on everyone's schedule are going to mean a lot more to the committee than the first games of the season.  How else could OSU be there after losing to Virginia Tech in game two if the later games didn't mean more?

When Braxton Miller went down pre-season I knew we'd have a capable player step in but this has been a pleasant surprise.


----------



## ace2000

csxjohn said:


> It's getting more interesting for me now that Ohio State is #6.
> 
> Do they have a chance at beating any of the five teams ahead of them?
> 
> Of course they do.



Ohio State needs some of the upper ranked teams to lose.  Their schedule is going to be a weak selling point.  I see them as the last team out of the mix in the end.


----------



## am1

ace2000 said:


> Ohio State needs some of the upper ranked teams to lose.  Their schedule is going to be a weak selling point.  I see them as the last team out of the mix in the end.



I think it is the loss that will hold ohio state back.  Their MSU win is big as well as their WISCO win will be if they both win out till then.  MSU has the best 2 losses in the country.  But no real win.

I do think if Baylor, TCU and ohio state win out Baylor is the most deserving as it will have the best win (TCU).  But TCU has the best loss (baylor) and OSU won a conference championship game.  But TCU and Balyor in a conference championship game and the winner gets in by a landslide over ohio state.


----------



## csxjohn

I'm not all that sure that Ohio state will win out and I'm thinking if they do some of the teams ahead of them may falter.  That's what's making it interesting.  

If they beat Michigan, I won't have any complaints.


----------



## ampaholic

am1 said:


> I think it is the loss that will hold ohio state back.  Their MSU win is big as well as their WISCO win will be if they both win out till then.  MSU has the best 2 losses in the country.  But no real win.
> 
> I do think if Baylor, TCU and ohio state win out Baylor is the most deserving as it will have the best win (TCU).  But TCU has the best loss (baylor) and OSU won a conference championship game.  But TCU and Balyor in a conference championship game and the winner gets in by a landslide over ohio state.



If TCU and Baylor win out won't Baylor be the Big 12 Champ (due to the head to head)? if so then they would be first in line with three top 25 wins and a conference championship, TCU would be next with 4 (count em) top 25 wins but no conference championship (the head to head with Baylor would count as well) and Ohio state would be third with 2 top 25 wins and their own conference championship.

Unless the committee sees conference championships as more important than top 25 wins - then Ohio St. would be second.

Any of the three would depend on Mississippi State losing the egg bowl.

Clear as mud - isn't it? 

Like I said first we need an eight team playoff.


----------



## am1

ampaholic said:


> If TCU and Baylor win out won't Baylor be the Big 12 Champ (due to the head to head)? if so then they would be first in line with three top 25 wins and a conference championship, TCU would be next with 4 (count em) top 25 wins but no conference championship (the head to head with Baylor would count as well) and Ohio state would be third with 2 top 25 wins and their own conference championship.
> 
> Unless the committee sees conference championships as more important than top 25 wins - then Ohio St. would be second.
> 
> Any of the three would depend on Mississippi State losing the egg bowl.
> 
> Clear as mud - isn't it?
> 
> Like I said first we need an eight team playoff.



I would pick Baylor but they would be co champs. Baylor with the head to head win.  In the past a 3 way tie would mean the highest BCS ranked team would be the conference champion representative.


----------



## ace2000

ampaholic said:


> Any of the three would depend on Mississippi State losing the egg bowl.



I think that's the question.  If MSU wins, do they get the fourth spot?  The fourth spot while assuming Florida St, Oregon, Alabama retain theirs.  

So, that means the fourth spot is up for grabs between MSU, Ohio St, and TCU/Baylor.  I think MSU keeps it, because of the stronger schedule - (yes, that "stronger" schedule is because of the SEC admiration by all).

I know some on here believe that MSU won't get it, but I definitely don't see it that way.


----------



## ampaholic

am1 said:


> I would pick Baylor but they would be co champs. Baylor with the head to head win.  In the past a 3 way tie would mean the highest BCS ranked team would be the conference champion representative.



Wait, doesn't the big 12 advertize "the one true champion" *BECAUSE* they don't have a championship game - the team with the best conference record is it?

How would "co champs" square with that?

Diabolical


----------



## csxjohn

Here's a question for those of you who follow college FB more than I do.  We all speculate about how things will work out if this or that happens next.  

I'd like to know what you think it would look like if Ohio State had won that game against VA Tech by say 10 points?

Their freshman QB was just finding his way around due to Miller being injured before game 1 and I think the committee is taking that into consideration, otherwise I don't think they'd be at number six.


----------



## TUGBrian

definately curious to see where miller ends up next season, apparently if he graduates he can transfer to any other D1 school without having to sit out a season.


----------



## Elan

Seeing how Georgia Tech clinched their half of the ACC last night, I went and looked at their schedule.  They're 9-2 with two narrow losses to Duke and UNC.  Makes me really wonder where they'd be in this whole playoff deal if they were undefeated.  On the one hand, they'd be undefeated.  OTOH, they'd have what's considered a weak schedule with no real quality wins but, then again, they play in the same conference as FSU..............


----------



## ace2000

Elan said:


> OTOH, they'd have what's considered a weak schedule with no real quality wins but, then again, they play in the same conference as FSU..............



So, what's your point?  :hysterical:


----------



## Elan

ace2000 said:


> So, what's your point?  :hysterical:



  Not so subtle, huh? 

  Basically, I was wondering how much team bias there is on top of the conference bias.  There's little doubt in my mind that TCU and Baylor would be treated differently this year if they were Texas and Oklahoma.  

  I'd just love to see Indiana, Kentucky, Wake Forest, Kansas and Washington State go undefeated in the same year.  I bet emergency legislation would pass  to immediately move to an 8 team playoff.  :hysterical:


----------



## csxjohn

Elan said:


> Not so subtle, huh?
> 
> Basically, I was wondering how much team bias there is on top of the conference bias.  There's little doubt in my mind that TCU and Baylor would be treated differently this year if they were Texas and Oklahoma.
> 
> I'd just love to see Indiana, Kentucky, Wake Forest, Kansas and Washington State go undefeated in the same year.  I bet emergency legislation would pass  to immediately move to an 8 team playoff.  :hysterical:



I think I see team bias for Notre Dame every year.  They finally took themselves out of the discussion this year.  I did make a few bucks betting against them when they recently played in the title game.  They didn't belong there then and they are not ready yet.


----------



## ace2000

I'll add that a currently undefeated defending national champion has definitely earned any bias that comes their way.


----------



## Elan

ace2000 said:


> I'll add that a currently undefeated defending national champion has definitely earned any bias that comes their way.



  I have no problem with FSU.  They earned the respect they're being given even though they haven't been nearly as dominant this year.  But that doesn't change that there is a pecking order of preferred teams within each conference.  I doubt there's a media outlet that doesn't hope for UND, Bama, USC and OSU in the playoffs on a recurrent basis.


----------



## TUGBrian

certainly not an unreasonable theory at all, that teams with the biggest fan base would be given higher rankings etc etc.

I had actually thought Duke was a stronger than they seemed or were ranked team...till they straight up laid an egg at UNC last night.

then again UNC had shown signs of life during the season as well.

its probably because the ACC is such a tough conference to play in, and the teams just beat themselves up playing in conference all year!  :rofl:


----------



## Elan

TUGBrian said:


> its probably because the ACC is such a tough conference to play in, and the teams just beat themselves up playing in conference all year!  :rofl:



  Undoubtedly!  

  Funny thing is I noticed that the Sun Belt teams were all beating each other up in conference games as well.  

  We may be on to something..............


----------



## ampaholic

Each college football team is allowed 85 scholarships by the NCAA.

So....

The fact is any time you have one group of 85 or so individuals compete against 85 or so other individuals - there will always be a *certain amount of unpredictability* - it's the nature of such events.

Now when you have yet a different group of 85 or so compete against yet another group of 85 - it gets REALLY hard to predict how well they would compete against the first group of 85 that they HAVEN'T EVEN PLAYED - so we use statistics and experts and "gut foolings er, feelings" to help us predict, and we hope we are right.

On any given Saturday any group of 85 that were good enough to get a scholarship to a legit program should have at least a sluggers chance to win against the other group of 85 in front of them.

You know, unless that other group is coached by Nick Sabin :rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## csxjohn

ampaholic said:


> Each college football team is allowed 85 scholarships by the NCAA.
> 
> So....
> 
> The fact is any time you have one group of 85 or so individuals compete against 85 or so other individuals - there will always be a *certain amount of unpredictability* - it's the nature of such events.
> 
> Now when you have yet a different group of 85 or so compete against yet another group of 85 - it gets REALLY hard to predict how well they would compete against the first group of 85 that they HAVEN'T EVEN PLAYED - so we use statistics and experts and "gut foolings er, feelings" to help us predict, and we hope we are right....:




And that is why I was happy without a playoff system of any kind.

The powers that be saw a cash cow in the field and they wanted to milk her.  They will keep milking her until she is dry.

They will will field teams that they think will bring in the most money and will justify their choices the way many of you have pointed out.  North is correct for finding this team but south is correct for finding the next, all in the same breath.  

We will get 2 playoff games worth watching and that's the bottom line.

It's like the media, they will not let facts get in the way of a good story.


----------



## csxjohn

If OSU keeps up this nonsense against Indiana and manages to squeak by, they will not keep their #6 spot.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> Clemson lost to #1 Auburn the very same year the Ducks did and they lost to Georgia a few years later - and they always seem to find a way to loose to South Carolina (SEC East).
> 
> Sure Clemson has won against four mostly unranked SEC teams in the last five years - but that doesn't give you the right to imply that their record is somehow "better" than the Ducks simply because they play the SEC much more than the Ducks do.



Won against four mostly unranked SEC teams?  They beat #7 LSU in the Peach Bowl followed by beating a Georgia team ranked in the Top 10 to begin last season.  That made them the first and only non-SEC team EVER to beat 2 Top 10 SEC teams back to back!  Georgia didn't end the year in the Top 10 as they were ravaged by injuries by the end of last year, but they didn't have those injuries when Clemson played them.  The LSU team they beat in the Peach Bowl was a legitimate Top 10 team that has a bunch of players off that team now playing in the NFL.  

They also gave that NC Auburn team their closest game of the year!  That game was at Auburn and it went to OT and we lost when our kicker (Chandler Cantanzaro who now kicks in the NFL for the Cardinals) missed a chip shot field goal in OT.  That's actually the only clutch kick that kid ever missed in his college career.

Yes, South Carolina has had our number the last 5 years, but all South Carolina has to do now is win for the next 23 straight years to TIE the all time series!

I'm actually fairly realistic when it comes to Clemson Football.  I think they're decent and would have a fairly decent shot to beat most teams on any given Saturday, but they also have the ability to get blown out as well.  Oregon fans IMO seem to buy into the hype a lot and think they're team is the "best team ever" and they're shocked when a team manhandles them and is able to slow them down.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ace2000 said:


> I think that's the question.  If MSU wins, do they get the fourth spot?  The fourth spot while assuming Florida St, Oregon, Alabama retain theirs.
> 
> So, that means the fourth spot is up for grabs between MSU, Ohio St, and TCU/Baylor.  I think MSU keeps it, because of the stronger schedule - (yes, that "stronger" schedule is because of the SEC admiration by all).
> 
> I know some on here believe that MSU won't get it, but I definitely don't see it that way.



The BIG unknown is how the committee is going to value a conference championship!?  We don't know because it hasn't come into play yet.  In the end I actually think it will be a big factor.  I think OSU will get the 4th and final spot if they win out because they'll have that added conference championship game win against a presumed Top 25 team.  I think a lack of a Big 12 Championship game will in the end hurt TCU and Baylor because calling them co-champs just sounds and feels kinda lame.

Ole Miss getting blown out today by an average at best Arkansas team was absolutely devastating to MSU!  Now when and if MSU beats them it may actually drop Ole Miss completely out of the Top 25!


----------



## Clemson Fan

Here's a BIG question that I think is going to begin to develop more this week.  That question is: Will Jaimis Winston get suspended for the UF game for shoving a referee?

http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...zed-ejected-florida-state-seminoles-bc-112214


----------



## TUGBrian

8 refs on the field and noone threw a flag, including the one involved.

why would he be suspended?  I realize the world hates this kid, but man...yall are grabbing at straws to throw him under the bus for anything.


----------



## TUGBrian

fun facts of the day for folks on the "FSU doesnt play anybody and barely wins"

beating a 4 loss team by 10 points, a 5 loss team by 1 point, another 5 loss team by 14 points, needing overtime to beat a 4 loss team, and losing to a 3 loss team. 

but no, this isnt FSU's record....its the "complete team, number 1 ranked in the nation" Crimson Tide.




> Ole Miss getting blown out today by an average at best Arkansas team was absolutely devastating to MSU! Now when and if MSU beats them it may actually drop Ole Miss completely out of the Top 25!



and if alabama beats auburn...that will make:

ole miss
auburn
texas a&m
south carolina
LSU

all at one point being ranked in the top 10 (and most within the top 5)....being unranked with 3 or more losses at the end of the season.


----------



## am1

TUGBrian said:


> fun facts of the day for folks on the "FSU doesnt play anybody and barely wins"
> 
> beating a 4 loss team by 10 points, a 5 loss team by 1 point, another 5 loss team by 14 points, needing overtime to beat a 4 loss team, and losing to a 3 loss team.
> 
> but no, this isnt FSU's record....its the "complete team, number 1 ranked in the nation" Crimson Tide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and if alabama beats auburn...that will make:
> 
> ole miss
> auburn
> texas a&m
> south carolina
> LSU
> 
> all at one point being ranked in the top 10 (and most within the top 5)....being unranked with 3 or more losses at the end of the season.



Because they are all in the the same division some have to lose and some have to win.  

LSU, Arkansas and A&M are all receiving votes.  Auburn and Ole Miss are ranked with their biggest game of the year coming up.  MISS and Alabama are at the top.  Who have those teams beat OOC and who have they lost to?  Who have they lost to in the east?

If Miss state and Alabama make the playoff then who is the SEC representative in the other top bowl?  My guess is Georgia.  This will bring all the other teams up in the pecking order for the bowls.  

If all 4 teams win out I would put Alabama 1st, MSU 4th.  Is there anything in place to not have rematches in the first round? 

Why so little talk about who would be playing in the other 4 bowls?


----------



## Clemson Fan

am1 said:


> Why so little talk about who would be playing in the other 4 bowls?



Im still hoping Clemson can get the Orange Bowl which is one of the main reasons I'm hoping FSU makes the playoff.  The loss to Georgia Tech hurts and we will have to beat South Carolina.  Clemson fans travel really well and are very supportive so we usually get better bowls then we sometimes deserve.  So if we beat South Carolina and FSU makes the playoff, then I'm thinking the Orange Bowl will take Clemson over Georgia Tech.  Georgia Tech fans won't like it, but the Orange Bowl knows that Clemson will easily bring at least twice as many fans as Georgia Tech would.  The same thing happened last year when they took Clemson over Duke.


----------



## pedro47

How can Alabama be number 1 playing a team last week ranked ??? in the college ranking ?


----------



## ampaholic

pedro47 said:


> How can Alabama be number 1 playing a team last week ranked ??? in the college ranking ?



The reason Alabama is ranked #1 is that a bunch of smart educated people who promised to try and be "neutral" in their voting think that the Tide would beat any other team in the nation AT THIS TIME if they played on a neutral field.

Anyone can argue against that supposition, that is their right. Brian likes to argue against it because he's a fanatical of the Noles. Clemson Fan is well - a Clemson fan. Arguing against it doesn't change the supposition - only beating the Tide "on the field" would do that and who is going to do that?

Me, I think the Crimson Tide stands a pretty good chance of taking home that trophy even considering I am really a Ducks fan at heart - I even have an "O" on my car.

My greatest hope is for some great games - woo hoo!


----------



## ampaholic

am1 said:


> Because they are all in the the same division some have to lose and some have to win.
> 
> LSU, Arkansas and A&M are all receiving votes.  Auburn and Ole Miss are ranked with their biggest game of the year coming up.  MISS and Alabama are at the top.  Who have those teams beat OOC and who have they lost to?  Who have they lost to in the east?
> 
> If Miss state and Alabama make the playoff then who is the SEC representative in the other top bowl?  My guess is Georgia.  This will bring all the other teams up in the pecking order for the bowls.
> 
> If all 4 teams win out I would put Alabama 1st, MSU 4th.  Is there anything in place to not have rematches in the first round?
> 
> Why so little talk about who would be playing in the other 4 bowls?



What Brian always fails to point out is that the SEC West has 5 of the last 10 National Championship Trophies in their glass cases - and the SEC East has 2 more.

To rail against the SEC and especially the SEC West for testing each other under fire is silly - since that is WHY they are the strongest conference - period.


----------



## TUGBrian

ampaholic said:


> Arguing against it doesn't change the supposition - only beating the Tide "on the field" would do that and who is going to do that?
> 
> !



um...how about ole miss?


the issue you regularly gloss over is that the teams get ranked so high because of their performance against other highly ranked teams in the same conference that later on down the road prove to be average at best.

MSU and Ole miss were propped up to their top 5 rankings for beating teams that arent even ranked anymore, but at the time were ranked in the top 10 "because SEC" before they started showing signs of being just like every other team outside of the SEC (ie, they started losing games they should have won based on their ranking)

if your main argument is that FSU "doesnt play anybody", you simply cannot ignore the fact that the super highlight wins on the other side of the argument (ie, sec vs sec games) count just as much as acc vs acc games when discussing teams outside the top 25.

Should FSU have beaten BC by more than 3 points with a FG in the 4th quarter?  sure!

Should Alabama have beaten arkansas by more than 1 point with a TD in the 4th quarter?  Id think so given you want to rank them number 1 and claim they are the best and most "complete team".


If auburn had won the title last year, and was undefeated all through this year....every SEC fan's head would explode the minute they went from number 1, to number 2 in the polls...not to even another drop to 3.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> The reason Alabama is ranked #1 is that a bunch of smart educated people who promised to try and be "neutral" in their voting think that the Tide would beat any other team in the nation AT THIS TIME if they played on a neutral field.
> 
> Anyone can argue against that supposition, that is their right. Brian likes to argue against it because he's a fanatical of the Noles. Clemson Fan is well - a Clemson fan. Arguing against it doesn't change the supposition - only beating the Tide "on the field" would do that and who is going to do that?
> 
> Me, I think the Crimson Tide stands a pretty good chance of taking home that trophy even considering I am really a Ducks fan at heart - I even have an "O" on my car.
> 
> My greatest hope is for some great games - woo hoo!



Uhm, where did I argue that Alabama shouldn't be #1?  I actually think Alabama should be #1 and for the most part the committee has the rankings correct.

A lot of what I write about is just thinking about "what if" scenarios and most of them I don't think will actually happen.  I'm just saying "what if".  

If I were to put money down on it right now I would put my money down on Alabama to win it all.  I won't be rooting for that, but I do think that's the most likely outcome.  I'll actually root for your ducks to win if they end up playing Alabama, but I just don't think that will happen.  I was rooting for the ducks against Auburn several years back and they really disappointed me.  I was also rooting for the ducks in the Rose Bowl game I went to where they played Wisconsin.  I didn't realize at the time that I would end up being a huge Russell Wilson fan in the NFL and that was his last college game.

If MSU actually makes it into the playoff, I'm actually going to root for them since I like rooting for the historically lesser than programs.  I honestly don't think MSU will make it in unless 2 of the Top 6 lose.  Again, the one factor that we really don't have any idea how the committee will value is a conference championship.  I think that will be a HUGE factor and because of that OSU will jump MSU in the end.  I don't like OSU at all or really any of the Big 10.  I'd personally like to see MSU make it ahead of OSU.


----------



## ace2000

Clemson Fan said:


> If MSU actually makes it into the playoff, I'm actually going to root for them since I like rooting for the historically lesser than programs.  I honestly don't think MSU will make it in unless 2 of the Top 6 lose.  Again, the one factor that we really don't have any idea how the committee will value is a conference championship.  I think that will be a HUGE factor and because of that OSU will jump MSU in the end.  I don't like OSU at all or really any of the Big 10.  I'd personally like to see MSU make it ahead of OSU.



MSU is in the unenvied position of being a team that if they make it to the playoffs some will say it's because of the SEC, and then if they miss the playoffs it will be because of the SEC (and not wanting two SEC teams in).  

I've been saying here all along that if they win the last game they'll make it.


----------



## ace2000

Clemson Fan said:


> Here's a BIG question that I think is going to begin to develop more this week.  That question is: Will Jaimis Winston get suspended for the UF game for shoving a referee?
> 
> http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...zed-ejected-florida-state-seminoles-bc-112214



I think a suspension is unwarranted and it won't happen.  However, the Ref blew it big time by not throwing a flag on the play for a 15-yard penalty.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ace2000 said:


> MSU is in the unenvied position of being a team that if they make it to the playoffs some will say it's because of the SEC, and then if they miss the playoffs it will be because of the SEC (and not wanting two SEC teams in).
> 
> I've been saying here all along that if they win the last game they'll make it.



The 30-0 drubbing Ole Miss took by Arkansas was devastating to MSU.  I still think OSU will jump them if they win out, but we will see.  Personally, I'd rather see TCU, Baylor or MSU in the playoff then OSU.


----------



## ace2000

Clemson Fan said:


> The 30-0 drubbing Ole Miss took by Arkansas was devastating to MSU.  I still think OSU will jump them if they win out, but we will see.  Personally, I'd rather see TCU, Baylor or MSU in the playoff then OSU.



I guess you could be right, we'll see... but Arkansas is not a bad team - currently right on the fringe of the top 25.  And Ole Miss is still in the rankings even with that "drubbing" by Arkansas.


----------



## Clemson Fan

WHAT IF Alabama loses to the SEC East team in the championship team?  Would the committee put in a 1 loss MSU team OVER the SEC champion or would there be a playoff with NO SEC team? 

I'm actually rooting for that just to see what the committee would do.


----------



## ace2000

Clemson Fan said:


> WHAT IF Alabama loses to the SEC East team in the championship team?  Would the committee put in a 1 loss MSU team OVER the SEC champion or would there be a playoff with NO SEC team?
> 
> I'm actually rooting for that just to see what the committee would do.



I'm not really concerned about Alabama losing to the SEC East team.  I'm a big Missouri fan and IF they beat Arkansas first next Friday, I give them no shot at beating Alabama this year.  Maybe some of the others are willing to play along.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ace2000 said:


> I'm not really concerned about Alabama losing to the SEC East team.  I'm a big Missouri fan and IF they beat Arkansas first next Friday, I give them no shot at beating Alabama this year.  Maybe some of the others are willing to play along.



I don't think Missouri has a shot at beating Alabama either.  Georgia, however, would have at least an outside shot even with the loss of Gurley.  Georgia is actually one of my favorite teams and I've been rooting hard for Missouri to lose over the last few weeks.


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> I don't think Missouri has a shot at beating Alabama either.  Georgia, however, would have at least an outside shot even with the loss of Gurley.  Georgia is actually one of my favorite teams and I've been rooting hard for Missouri to lose over the last few weeks.



I think Alabama needs to pay attention to Auburn as well as the SEC East champ.

The "projected" playoff berths are just that "projected" any of the four can be lost.

Bama needs to win out to hold on to the #1 spot, Oregon needs to win the OSU game coming up as well as the PAC 12 Championship Game (looks like #9 UCLA if they can beat Stanford), FSU Needs to get past UF and then beat the Yellow Jackets in the ACC Championship Game and they are certainly in.

I think all three of these teams will win out to get into the playoffs in some sort of 1,2,3 order.

Leaving the most uncertain position 4th -- Mississippi State needs a huge (dominant) win over Ole Miss to retain that spot if Ohio State, Baylor and TCU all win out.

Of course any team is capable of having a bad game - so light em up boys - here we go!


----------



## ampaholic

"Sneaking up on the Noles"

http://www.nerdsraging.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/579643_10151413294962300_1440494763_n-1.jpg


:rofl::rofl:


----------



## ampaholic

What if UCLA beats Oregon and wins the PAC 12, Wisconsin wins the Big 10, Auburn beats Bama and Georgia wins the SEC, and Georgia Tech wins the ACC ?


Mississippi State
UCLA
Baylor 
TCU

???

:hysterical::hysterical:


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> What if UCLA beats Oregon and wins the PAC 12, Wisconsin wins the Big 10, Auburn beats Bama and Georgia wins the SEC, and Georgia Tech wins the ACC ?
> 
> 
> Mississippi State
> UCLA
> Baylor
> TCU
> 
> ???
> 
> :hysterical::hysterical:



Say the over/under for how many of the current Top 4 will actually make the playoff is 2.5.  Would you take the over or the under?


----------



## ace2000

Clemson Fan said:


> Say the over/under for how many of the current Top 4 will actually make the playoff is 2.5.  Would you take the over or the under?



IF there are changes (I don't see more than one), I think it will be TCU/Baylor getting the fourth spot.  Ohio State needs for two of the four to bow out, and they'll have to win theirs.


----------



## Clemson Fan

Clemson Fan said:


> Say the over/under for how many of the current Top 4 will actually make the playoff is 2.5.  Would you take the over or the under?



Ace has the over.  I'll take the under since crazy things always seem to happen in CFB.  Anybody else want to play?  The betting window will be open until midnight Friday.


----------



## Elan

Clemson Fan said:


> Ace has the over.  I'll take the under since crazy things always seem to happen in CFB.  Anybody else want to play?  The betting window will be open until midnight Friday.



  I'd take the under as well.  These conference championship games are likely to be as good or better than the playoff games.  I think UCLA vs Oregon (provided they both win this weekend) has the potential to be about as good as it gets this year, with 2 of the top QB's in CFB.


----------



## csxjohn

ace2000 said:


> IF there are changes (I don't see more than one), I think it will be TCU/Baylor getting the fourth spot.  Ohio State needs for two of the four to bow out, and they'll have to win theirs.



Maybe not.  They won and still dropped so anyone ahead of them could do the same.  A few losses would be nice up there but big wins coupled with weak wins by the others could move them up.

OSU must knock the snot out of Michigan and do the same in the Big Ten championship game.  Then whatever happens, happens.


----------



## am1

For the current 4 to stay top 4, 7 games need to be won by those 4 teams.  

5 games for the next 3 to stay in it.  

Be one hell of a 12 game parlay.  I cannot see them all winning out but would be a strong statement that the voters got it right a few weeks ago and the teams are playing for real.  

Too many loses and I think the decisions get even harder.  As 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 18, 15, 16, 17, 19 are or maybe playing a top 7 team.  There should be a lot of good games in the next 2 weeks.


----------



## csxjohn

am1 said:


> For the current 4 to stay top 4, 7 games need to be won by those 4 teams.
> 
> 5 games for the next 3 to stay in it.
> 
> Be one hell of a 12 game parlay.  I cannot see them all winning out but would be a strong statement that the voters got it right a few weeks ago and the teams are playing for real.
> 
> Too many loses and I think the decisions get even harder.  As 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 18, 15, 16, 17, 19 are or maybe playing a top 7 team.  There should be a lot of good games in the next 2 weeks.



I predict that the OSU - Mich game will not be good by most people's standards.  I'm expecting a blowout.


----------



## am1

csxjohn said:


> I predict that the OSU - Mich game will not be good by most people's standards.  I'm expecting a blowout.



Hopefully urban meyer os able to keep his team under control this year.


----------



## csxjohn

am1 said:


> Hopefully urban meyer os able to keep his team under control this year.



You never know with kids.

It's a crazy rivalry especially in Toledo.

I worked there for 5 years before I retired and couldn't believe it.  No one wanted to work the day of the game.  People would go around painting other people's offices the color or "their" team.  I made big money on game day because my boss knew I would double over rather than watch the game.

I always rooted for OSU but up there it fanatical.  Toledo is only an hour away from Detroit and is or at least was very heavily vested in the auto industry so it's almost a suburb of Detroit. (Don't tell anyone from Toledo I said that, they hate it.)

The city is pretty evenly split with the nearness to Michigan and the home state sentiment for the Buckeyes.  Talk about a bunch of drinking and after the game, half the city celebrating and the other half crying.


----------



## Clemson Fan

Clemson Fan said:


> Say the over/under for how many of the current Top 4 will actually make the playoff is 2.5.  Would you take the over or the under?



BTW, this is a real bet you can make in Vegas!


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> BTW, this is a real bet you can make in Vegas!



So, which would you take? I'm on the under, I think two will fall out.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> So, which would you take? I'm on the under, I think two will fall out.



I already said I'll take the under.


----------



## am1

Easy to agree with two will fall out.  1 by loss and 1 gets jumped.


----------



## csxjohn

Clemson Fan said:


> BTW, this is a real bet you can make in Vegas!



What is the pay out for each?  My betting site does not have this prop to bet on.

I'm guessing over 2.5 would have a nice payout.


----------



## pedro47

Prediction two of the four team top listed are going to lose this weekend.


----------



## Clemson Fan

csxjohn said:


> What is the pay out for each?  My betting site does not have this prop to bet on.
> 
> I'm guessing over 2.5 would have a nice payout.



Don't know as I'm not really a sports bettor.  I just heard it on one of the sports podcasts that I listen to that its a real prop bet in Vegas.


----------



## am1

colatown said:


> The Hogs are only crappy by SEC standards, they might win the All Cupcake Conference and would be an upper level B1G team.



End the season knocking off 3 ranked teams.  Only lost to teams that were ranked at the time.  All but 1 are ranked now.


----------



## TUGBrian

so, they have 1 top 25 win, and likely zero after this weekend and ole miss loses and becomes yet another 4 loss SEC hasbeen for 2014? =)

very strong indeed.


----------



## am1

ole miss and mizzou, LSU may be ranked after this week.  Especially if you are thinking ole miss and mizzou are out.  Marshall is out.  SEC may knock 3 teams out of the top 25.  (not all)

Tomorrow will be an interesting day.  Possibly more so then next week.


----------



## TUGBrian

mizzou is likely gone if they lose to another unranked team.


----------



## am1

Id bet the hogs will be ranked after this week if they hold on. Mizzou may or mot be if they lose.


----------



## TUGBrian

mizzou making a game out of it at least!

thought it was over after the fake punt.


----------



## ace2000

Hello SEC playoffs for the second straight year !!!  Go MU!!!


----------



## ampaholic

ace2000 said:


> Hello SEC playoffs for the second straight year !!!  Go MU!!!



They better raise their game if they want to win the Championship game - they looked pretty "FSU" ish in that game - but kudos - they did pull it out at the end.


----------



## TUGBrian

ampaholic said:


> They better raise their game if they want to win the Championship game - they looked pretty "FSU" ish in that game - but kudos - they did pull it out at the end.



should be just fine, after all...alabama only beat arkansas by 1 point. 

thats 6 less than mizzou just won by.


----------



## Elan

Two years running that a slightly above average team from the B12 wins the SEC east.  LMAO

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## ace2000

Elan said:


> Two years running that a slightly above average team from the B12 wins the SEC east.  LMAO



  Guess some want to forget that the slightly above average Missouri finished the season in the top 5 last year.


----------



## Elan

ace2000 said:


> Guess some want to forget that the slightly above average Missouri finished the season in the top 5 last year.



  I wasn't knocking Missouri's accomplishments.  I like to watch them play and I think Pinkel does a great job.  

 Just observing that a team that was good, but not dominant, in the B12, can come in and win half of the SEC in two of it's first three years in the conference.


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> should be just fine, after all...alabama only beat arkansas by 1 point.
> 
> *thats 6 less than mizzou just won by.*



So then by your weird calculus Louisville must be a LOT better than FSU because they beat Miami by 18 while FSU just "squeaked by" by 4 lousy points.

See the silliness of your contention yet?


----------



## ampaholic

Elan said:


> I wasn't knocking Missouri's accomplishments.  I like to watch them play and I think Pinkel does a great job.
> 
> Just observing that a team that was good, but not dominant, in the B12, can come in and win half of the SEC in two of it's first three years in the conference.



Ahhhemmm - well actually, yes you were knocking Missouri's accomplishments. And you were "attempted knocking" the SEC while you were at it.

Just sayin.....


----------



## am1

I am shocked Mizzou is doing as well as they are but being in the SEC elevates a program.  After yesterdays game they can have a pretty good rivalry with Arkansas.  

I would like to see them playing more Big XII teams for OOC.  Not sure why they need to play Arkansas state on the road.  

Also would prefer they are in the SEC west for geographic reasons.  The other east schools may as well.


----------



## Elan

ampaholic said:


> Ahhhemmm - well actually, yes you were knocking Missouri's accomplishments. And you were "attempted knocking" the SEC while you were at it.
> 
> Just sayin.....


No, I wasn't knocking Mizzou's accomplishments.  Simply pointing out that a team that didn't dominate the B12, and would have been considered easy pickings by SEC fans 4 years ago has managed to come in and not only be competitive in the SEC, but actually win the east 2 out of 3 years.   That's what I was sayin........

But thanks for trying.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elan

am1 said:


> I am shocked Mizzou is doing as well as they are but being in the SEC elevates a program.



That's OK, I was shocked when I found out Santa wasn't real.

I knew someone would pull out the "elevates a program".  Quite the elevation to move from one P5 conference to another and be winning one side of the new conference in the second  and third years.  Maybe, just maybe, Mizzou was as good as the SEC east, even when they played in the "lowly" B12? 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## ampaholic

Elan said:


> That's OK, I was shocked when I found out Santa wasn't real.
> 
> I knew someone would pull out the "elevates a program".  Quite the elevation to move from one P5 conference to another and be winning one side of the new conference in the second  and third years.  Maybe, just maybe, Mizzou was as good as the SEC east, even when they played in the "lowly" B12?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



That's OK - you seem to have the common misconception of thinking the conference makes the program - actually it is the PROGRAM that makes the conference.

The SEC is richer BECAUSE Mizzou is in it - and the Big "12" is poorer

Simple really: 





> "I mean, they're not gonna kill ya, so if you give 'em a quick short, sharp, shock, they won't do it again. Dig it? I mean he get off lightly, 'cause I would've given him a thrashing - I only hit him once! It was only a difference of opinion, but really...I mean good manners don't cost nothing do they, eh?"
> 
> Read more: Pink Floyd - Us And Them Lyrics | MetroLyrics


----------



## Clemson Fan

Ahhhhhh!  The stars have realigned and the natural world order has returned!  

Clemson has returned back to dominating the cocks!

BTW, the ACC is 3-0 against the SEC today although I really didn't want to see Georgia lose to GT as it makes it harder now for the Orange Bowl to take Clemson over them and I also like Georgia a lot.


----------



## Elan

ampaholic said:


> That's OK - you seem to have the common misconception of thinking the conference makes the program - actually it is the PROGRAM that makes the conference.
> 
> The SEC is richer BECAUSE Mizzou is in it - and the Big "12" is poorer
> 
> Simple really:


Uh, it was am1 that inferred that the SEC made Mizzou better, not I.  I don't give two hoots about conference affiliation.  To me, it's about individual teams, not conferences.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1

Elan said:


> Uh, it was am1 that inferred that the SEC made Mizzou better, not I.  I don't give two hoots about conference affiliation.  To me, it's about individual teams, not conferences.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



It has.  The sec saw something in Mizzou and A&M.  Being in the SEC makes MIZZOU better.  MIZZOU in the SEC makes the SEC better as well.  

They get more recruits, bigger budget, coaches are less likely to leave, and the SEC bias.  Do not get me wrong the east has been down and there will be a time when MIZZOU is in the bottom half of the east.


----------



## Elan

am1 said:


> It has.  The sec saw something in Mizzou and A&M.  Being in the SEC makes MIZZOU better.  MIZZOU in the SEC makes the SEC better as well.
> 
> They get more recruits, bigger budget, coaches are less likely to leave, and the SEC bias.  Do not get me wrong the east has been down and there will be a time when MIZZOU is in the bottom half of the east.


It wasn't like recruits couldn't play for the MNC with Mizzou, when Mizzou was in the B12.  To claim that Mizzou was noticeably better in 2 years simply by joining the SEC is silly.  Maybe after 5 or so years they'll see a small bump up due to slightly better recruits, but even that is insignificant relative to many other factors.  As I said, it's far more believable that Mizzou in the B12 was every bit as good as the teams in the SEC east.  
 I would somewhat buy that the B12 has made TCU better, in the sense that recruits couldn't play for the MNC when TCU was in the MWC, even though they were good enough to win it all.  But I think TCU would have also been instantly competitive in the B12 had Pachall not had issues.  That set them back considerably.  As it is they are already at the top of the B12 only 3 years in.

It's not about the conferences, it's about the individual programs. 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Clemson Fan

ACC 4-0 vs. the SEC today!

In the BCS bowl games this year the ACC was 2-0 and the SEC was 0-2.

Hmm, maybe they should let in 2 ACC teams to the playoff instead of 2 SEC teams!  How about FSU and Clemson!


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> ACC 4-0 vs. the SEC today!
> 
> In the BCS bowl games this year the ACC was 2-0 and the SEC was 0-2.
> 
> Hmm, maybe they should let in 2 ACC teams to the playoff instead of 2 SEC teams!  How about FSU and Clemson!



Actually Georgia Tech has a better record than Clemson so shouldn't the second ACC team be them?

And BTW Mississippi State (still 10-2), Michigan State and Wisconsin all still have a better records than Clemson ......


----------



## Talent312

Clemson, fan... Once in while there's a total eclipse of the sun, too. Enjoy it while it lasts.

The problem with the SEC is that, by this time in the season, the "better" SEC teams are worn out from beating up on each other, while ACC teams are fresh from playing their little "tune-up" games.  
.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> Actually Georgia Tech has a better record than Clemson so shouldn't the second ACC team be them?
> 
> And BTW Mississippi State (still 10-2), Michigan State and Wisconsin all still have a better records than Clemson ......



GT will lose to FSU and they'll have the same records.  I was just kidding if you didn't already realize that.  I'm just hoping the Orange Bowl picks up Clemson instead of GT.


----------



## Clemson Fan

Talent312 said:


> The problem with the SEC is that, by this time in the season, the "better" SEC teams are worn out from beating up on each other, while ACC teams are fresh from playing their little "tune-up" games.
> .



Boy, doesn't it seem like the SEC is full of "excuses" recently!  What's the "excuse" for going 0-2 in the BCS bowl games this year with a month to prepare?


----------



## am1

And if Georgia Tech wins????  Two tough losses to basketball schools.  

This is why College football is the best sport out there.  Every Saturday games matter.


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> Boy, doesn't it seem like the SEC is full of "excuses" recently!  What's the "excuse" for going 0-2 in the BCS bowl games this year with a month to prepare?



I missed your excuses for the ACC for the 2011-2012 season when the SEC went 5-2 over the ACC?

Could you repeat it here please?

Why do you think the SEC holds a 268-132-10 (.666) all-time advantage?

That's 2/3rds BTW


----------



## Clemson Fan

am1 said:


> And if Georgia Tech wins????  Two tough losses to basketball schools.
> 
> This is why College football is the best sport out there.  Every Saturday games matter.



Then GT goes to the Orange Bowl and I guess FSU would go to the Peach Bowl.  Clemson would then probably go to the Citrus or Outback Bowl.


----------



## ampaholic

I'm glad my Ducks took care of business, and I'm glad they get Arizona in the PAC 12 Championship Game.

Time for a big dose of revenge.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> I missed your excuses for the ACC for the 2011-2012 season when the SEC went 5-2 over the ACC?
> 
> Could you repeat it here please?
> 
> Why do you think the SEC holds a 268-132-10 (.666) all-time advantage?
> 
> That's 2/3rds BTW



And Clemson holds a 23 (no wait, 24 after today) all time series lead over South Carolina, but all we heard for the past 5 years was SEC SEC SEC from the cocks fanbase!  Whenever we bought up our all time series domination over them we were told to stop living in the past!  So I guess the past is the past, but today it was 4-0 with the biggest whipping out of the 4 was the domination of my Tigers over the cocks!  :whoopie::hysterical:


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> I'm glad my Ducks took care of business, and I'm glad they get Arizona in the PAC 12 Championship Game.
> 
> Time for a big dose of revenge.



I'm starting to believe in the ducks again.  Will they live up to it or fall flat?


----------



## TUGBrian

ampaholic said:


> So then by your weird calculus Louisville must be a LOT better than FSU because they beat Miami by 18 while FSU just "squeaked by" by 4 lousy points.
> 
> See the silliness of your contention yet?



yea, when you ignore sarcasm and head to head matchups (read, SEC logic)...you come to those sorts of conclusions.


----------



## csxjohn

Well, Ole Miss did their part in shaking up the top four.  Fla gave it a good shot too.

Ohio State did not really trounce Michigan as I thought they would, MI made a game of it but our QB got his ankle broke.  Next weeks Big Ten championship game will be interesting.  

If the OSU team prevails maybe they can grab that #4 spot.  My thinking is that the committee will downgrade the team because the QB went down.  Even if the QB did not go down, I think OSU would have a lot of trouble against the teams at the top but you never know.


----------



## Clemson Fan

csxjohn said:


> If the OSU team prevails maybe they can grab that #4 spot.  My thinking is that the committee will downgrade the team because the QB went down.  Even if the QB did not go down, I think OSU would have a lot of trouble against the teams at the top but you never know.



That's a very interesting dilemma for the committee!  Do they downgrade a team based on them losing their star QB right before the playoff and thus being less likely to be competitive?  Before that happened I really thought OSU would get that 4th spot, now I'm thinking it will be TCU or Baylor.

So much for all those predictions of there definitely being 2 SEC teams in the playoff!  Who knows, there might be 2 Big 12 teams in the playoff!   If that happened we would think we were watching the basketball Final 4 with what the final scores would be in those games.

I think there's a less than 5% chance of this happening, but what if Missouri upset Alabama in the SEC championship game?


----------



## Elan

Clemson Fan said:


> Boy, doesn't it seem like the SEC is full of "excuses" recently!  What's the "excuse" for going 0-2 in the BCS bowl games this year with a month to prepare?



  What's funny about this particular "excuse" is that the 4 SEC teams that we're talking about here played Charleston Southern, Eastern Kentucky, South Alabama and bye last week.  One can see how they'd be so worn out after that murderous schedule.


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> I think there's a less than 5% chance of this happening, but what if Missouri upset Alabama in the SEC championship game?



 Interestingly MSU is a -10 point dog while GT is only at - 4.5:

And what if GT upsets FSU? While AZ beats Oregon (again) we could end up with: 

GT
Wisconsin
Baylor
Arizona



But really I think Mizzou would get #4 if they knock off Bama


----------



## csxjohn

Clemson Fan said:


> That's a very interesting dilemma for the committee!  Do they downgrade a team based on them losing their star QB right before the playoff and thus being less likely to be competitive?  Before that happened I really thought OSU would get that 4th spot, now I'm thinking it will be TCU or Baylor.
> 
> So much for all those predictions of there definitely being 2 SEC teams in the playoff!  Who knows, there might be 2 Big 12 teams in the playoff!   If that happened we would think we were watching the basketball Final 4 with what the final scores would be in those games.
> 
> I think there's a less than 5% chance of this happening, but what if Missouri upset Alabama in the SEC championship game?



The new QB will need a very good outing next Sat. He will get the chance to show it's a team effort but if he stinks the place up it won't matter anyhow.

Does the committee judge on past performance of teams or what they think the teams can do in the future?  This might be one of the advantages of having a committee rather than just using stats to determine the four teams.


----------



## colatown

Clemson Fan said:


> GT will lose to FSU and they'll have the same records.  I was just kidding if you didn't already realize that.  I'm just hoping the Orange Bowl picks up Clemson instead of GT.


Maybe with Tater math they would have the same record but with my math 10-3 is better than 9-3.


----------



## Clemson Fan

colatown said:


> Maybe with Tater math they would have the same record but with my math 10-3 is better than 9-3.



Yup, you got me!

If they both have 3 losses my bet is that the Orange Bowl will still opt for Clemson and their 30-40k traveling fans vs. GT and their 10k traveling fans.

BTW, how is Columbia feeling now that your 5 year streak is over!?  Maybe in another 100 years you'll be able to put together another 5 year streak!


----------



## colatown

Clemson Fan said:


> Yup, you got me!
> 
> If they both have 3 losses my bet is that the Orange Bowl will still opt for Clemson and their 30-40k traveling fans vs. GT and their 10k traveling fans.
> 
> BTW, how is Columbia feeling now that your 5 year streak is over!?  Maybe in another 100 years you'll be able to put together another 5 year streak!



I'm okay thank you, not worried about 2114, we will be a juggernaut that year.


----------



## ace2000

Mizzou is only a 2 touchdown underdog vs Alabama... anything can happen, right???


----------



## Clemson Fan

ace2000 said:


> Mizzou is only a 2 touchdown underdog vs Alabama... anything can happen, right???



Ya gotta figure if they played 20 times they would maybe win once (5%) if they get like 5 turnovers to none of their own.


----------



## Elan

Slightly OT, but anyone think Mariota won't win the Heisman?


----------



## ace2000

Elan said:


> Slightly OT, but anyone think Mariota won't win the Heisman?



He'll probably need a good game in the Pac-12 championship, but he appears to be in the lead.  It's between him and Gordon.


----------



## ampaholic

Elan said:


> Slightly OT, but anyone think Mariota won't win the Heisman?



Let me put it this way - do you notice anyone playing better college football than Mariota?


----------



## TUGBrian

I think mariotta is easily the best player on the offensive side of the ball...and I have little doubt he will be the 1st choice in next years draft!


----------



## Elan

I want the Rams to trade up to draft Mariota.  They're a QB away from being a pretty good football team, IMO.


----------



## TUGBrian

ha, they have been saying that in jacksonville for 10 years now!


----------



## ace2000

TUGBrian said:


> ha, they have been saying that in jacksonville for 10 years now!



And the Rams have been saying that for 10 years now too!


----------



## Elan

ace2000 said:


> And the Rams have been saying that for 10 years now too!



  Sad, but true.  We need another grocery checker out of UNI!


----------



## TUGBrian

lol...playoff committee doing their best to make themselves look ridiculous in the first year for sure!


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> lol...playoff committee doing their best to make themselves look ridiculous in the first year for sure!



I figured FSU would be #1 after the ACC smashed the SEC this past weekend! :hysterical:

Then again, there's only one "ACC" member on the committee who happens to also be Clemson's AD.


----------



## TUGBrian

oddly enough, 4 is a better slot than 2 or 3 for FSU given the location of the playoff games.

Its hard to imagine the Playoff committee had any other scenario in mind vs putting FSU vs Alabama against each other in the sugar bowl...and having oregon vs (whoever) playing in Pasadena.


----------



## Elan

TUGBrian said:


> lol...playoff committee doing their best to make themselves look ridiculous in the first year for sure!



  Kind of strange.  I'm not sure FSU meets the "eye test" but they are undefeated for almost two years, and they had some decent OOC wins.  Of course, there could be any number of factors in play here, including ranking to give the most desirable semifinal games.  I put nothing outside the realm of possible reasons the committee does what they do.  

  What's also kind of odd is that going by their own rankings, of the 3 one loss teams that are in the top 4, TCU has the best loss, then Oregon, then Bama, yet their ranking is reversed.


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> oddly enough, 4 is a better slot than 2 or 3 for FSU given the location of the playoff games.
> 
> Its hard to imagine the Playoff committee had any other scenario in mind vs putting FSU vs Alabama against each other in the sugar bowl...and having oregon vs (whoever) playing in Pasadena.



I actually think that played a significant role in their thinking.  People were speculating if they would "re-seed" the 4 teams to put the east coast schools 1 and 4 and the west coast schools 2 and 3.


----------



## am1

Strange as well.  Regardless of how good or bad a team is an undefeated needs to be given a little benefit of the doubt.  

But a conference championship, semi-final and final may be too much travel for some teams fans.  But big time college football should not have to worry about that.  

Anyone have a link online of the possible outcomes.  With a win Arizona will be in the mix even K State and GT with chaos.  That makes 9 teams and to catch everything a 1 loss FSU and 2 loss Alabama and Oregon.   I think making the playoff coming off a loss regardless of who would really take away from the playoff format.  It is great so many of the top teams are in action.  More exciting then a number 4 o5 MSU sitting at home hoping for other teams to fall.  

Any benefit in just matching 1 vs 2 in conference championship games going forward instead of the winners of the east and west or north and south? Divisions barely matter as it is now.  Just have a few protected games for each team. 

If anyone has some stroke I am free next year to join the committee.


----------



## TUGBrian

Couldnt help but laugh listening to the playoff chairman actually make the claim that the reason TCU got the nod over baylor and OSU, is in part because they have the best loss.

What sort of bizzaro world do we live in where not only does baylor not get credit for beating TCU, but TCU actually benefits additionally from being beaten by baylor in the first place because they are ranked so high.


----------



## ace2000

Now that TCU has the three spot, does Florida St have to win big to hold off Baylor or Ohio St?


----------



## ampaholic

ace2000 said:


> Now that TCU has the three spot, does Florida St have to win big to hold off Baylor or Ohio St?



:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:


----------



## bogey21

ace2000 said:


> Now that TCU has the three spot, does Florida St have to win big to hold off Baylor or Ohio St?



No matter what happens this coming weekend the Selection Committee will find a way to keep TCU out.  

George


----------



## Clemson Fan

bogey21 said:


> No matter what happens this coming weekend the Selection Committee will find a way to keep TCU out.
> 
> George



Baylor can lose to Kansas State.  If that happens TCU will stay in.  If Baylor and TCU win, then I think you're right and they will flip Baylor over TCU.

I now really don't want to see OSU get in.  With a new QB I just think they would get rolled by Alabama.  I don't want to see Alabama get such an easy game.


----------



## am1

Clemson Fan said:


> Baylor can lose to Kansas State.  If that happens TCU will stay in.  If Baylor and TCU win, then I think you're right and they will flip Baylor over TCU.
> 
> I now really don't want to see OSU get in.  With a new QB I just think they would get rolled by Alabama.  I don't want to see Alabama get such an easy game.



If Baylor loses there goes TCU's good loss which put them at 3.  I think Baylor should be 4th if they win.


----------



## "Roger"

A couple of mathematically oriented comments...

Let us presume that the quality of college football teams lie along a standard bell shaped curve.  As you move away from either of the extremes, the number of teams at whatever level increases until you get to the middle of the curve.  What that means is that as you allow more teams into the playoffs, there will be more teams at almost the same level of quality as the last team let in.  Thus, while it might be hard to decide which two teams most deserve to play for the championship, it will be even harder to decide which should be the fourth team that deserves to be in the playoff (so this is why the selection committee will surely get criticized).  I might add, that the amount of controversy over which team should be the last team allowed in would only intensify if the number of teams in a playoff increases to eight.

Let us suppose that one team is decidedly better than the others in the top four.  They would beat any of the other top teams four out of five times they were to play each other.  (I doubt that any team is good enough that they would beat another top four team every time they played. Look at the SEC.)  With a single game playoff, the probability that the dominant team would win the national championship would be .80 (eighty percent).  If, however, they have to go through a two game playoff, the probability that this better team would win the championship drops to .64 (sixty-four percent).  A college playoff system might be good for generating revenue (and distracting "student athletes" from their academics - most players on even the best team will never play a game in the NFL), it is not a great system for determining which team deserves to be declared the national champion.

(Okay, I know that these comments will not be popular, but they are what mathematics tells us.)


----------



## ace2000

Here's the problem with the playoffs...  in the past, the argument over who deserved to be national champion was made after the season was over.  You'd hear about how number two or number 3 got robbed.  So now we've replaced it with a system where everyone wants to argue who should be the third or fourth team in before the playoffs occur, and that's regardless whether anyone believes that third or fourth or fifth team really deserves to be the real champion.  

I don't care if you made it 16 teams, the teams left on the edge will always be stirring controversy.  There is no magic formula to all this, but we've improved and it's better than the ways of the past.


----------



## Elan

"Roger" said:


> A couple of mathematically oriented comments...
> 
> Let us presume that the quality of college football teams lie along a standard bell shaped curve.  As you move away from either of the extremes, the number of teams at whatever level increases until you get to the middle of the curve.  What that means is that as you allow more teams into the playoffs, there will be more teams at almost the same level of quality as the last team let in.  Thus, while it might be hard to decide which two teams most deserve to play for the championship, it will be even harder to decide which should be the fourth team that deserves to be in the playoff (so this is why the selection committee will surely get criticized).  I might add, that the amount of controversy over which team should be the last team allowed in would only intensify if the number of teams in a playoff increases to eight.
> 
> Let us suppose that one team is decidedly better than the others in the top four.  They would beat any of the other top teams four out of five times they were to play each other.  (I doubt that any team is good enough that they would beat another top four team every time they played. Look at the SEC.)  With a single game playoff, the probability that the dominant team would win the national championship would be .80 (eighty percent).  If, however, they have to go through a two game playoff, the probability that this better team would win the championship drops to .64 (sixty-four percent).  A college playoff system might be good for generating revenue (and distracting "student athletes" from their academics - most players on even the best team will never play a game in the NFL), it is not a great system for determining which team deserves to be declared the national champion.
> 
> (Okay, I know that these comments will not be popular, but they are what mathematics tells us.)



  Yes, of course that's true.  But a logically reasonable way to determine the size of a playoff field would be to make it very large, then reduce it based on results, because quantifying team "quality" is highly subjective.  

  Let's say, hypothetically, that there was a 32 team football playoff.  If the teams were seeded 1-32 (in a manner similar to the current CFP ranking system, for instance) after some time, there presumably would be sufficient data to indicate that no team higher than say a 11 seed had ever won the playoff.  So the field could logically be reduced to 12 teams with little fear that a potential champion was being excluded.  Sure there would be grumblings from the teams that barely didn't qualify, but statistics would indicate that their chances of winning the playoff were very small.    

  The most glaring problem with the current system isn't that it's statistically a less than ideal way to determine a champion, it's that championship caliber teams are omitted entirely from the process.  While I think we'd all agree, based on experience, that 32 teams is far too many, it's nearly as obvious that 4 is too few.  The right size, IMO, is somewhere in the 8 to 12 range.


----------



## TUGBrian

Id think far less folks would have such an issue with it if they didnt arbitrarily make up the metrics and values they use to "rank" these teams as they go along.


----------



## "Roger"

Elan said:


> ...  The most glaring problem with the current system isn't that it's statistically a less than ideal way to determine a champion, it's that championship caliber teams are omitted entirely from the process.  While I think we'd all agree, based on experience, that 32 teams is far too many, it's nearly as obvious that 4 is too few.  The right size, IMO, is somewhere in the 8 to 12 range.


Yes and no.  

I agree that the best team is almost certainly (maybe even certainly) in the top eight.  (I suspect the top four would do it.)  The problem comes after that.  

The "best" team does not always win an individual game (or, in baseball, a series).  If they did, then we could automatically eliminate any one loss team from the championship series because, by losing, they have proven that they are not the best team.  

As you expand the size of the playoff system, what you are doing is reducing the odds of the best team winning (by putting them more at risk by having them have to win a series of individual encounters).

Personally (and I know people not going to like this), I preferred the old system with no championship game.  _It did not reduce some very interesting bowl matchups to a who cares status._

Did the polls afterwards always choose the "best" team as the national  champion. I suspect that they were at least as accurate as a playoff system.  If two (or three) teams all ended up thinking that they should have been declared champions, for a bunch of college kids most of whom will never play professional football, I don't think that is such a bad thing.

(Remember when a fairly mediocre St. Louis Cardinal team won the World Series.  The idea that they were not the best team was so universal The Onion printed a great spoof: Tony La Russa apologizes for winning the World Series.)


----------



## TUGBrian

I think the old bcs system did indeed make all other bowls meaningless..

the goal was to always put the 1 vs 2 team against each other in a final bowl game...thus the winner (be it 1 or 2) was crowned the champion.

that said, the OLD OLD bowl system where all the bowls played out, then a champion was decided based on another ranking after they were all complete...well...im sure that would have created just as much controversy if social media/etc was back then...what it is today.


----------



## am1

I am happy with 4.  Makes the regular season mean something.  

If too many teams get in we are not having this discussion.  Too many teams and the first round needs to be played on campus.  It is tough when ever year more than half the leagues will not be included.  The bottom conferences even before the season starts.  But they have 0 shot on the most part.


----------



## ace2000

I'm going to state my previous post more clearer... for those proposing more than four teams, what team outside of the top four do you think is capable of beating Alabama right now?  Because that's the purpose of the playoffs - to get the "true" champion.


----------



## TUGBrian

well if you asked me, I would not have given ole miss a shot at beating alabama.

nor would I have taken arkansas and 1 points in a bet...
nor would I have taken LSU and 7 points
nor would I have taken MSU and 5 points.

alabama at home, and alabama on the road are two very different teams.


----------



## ace2000

TUGBrian said:


> well if you asked me, I would not have given ole miss a shot at beating alabama.
> 
> nor would I have taken arkansas and 1 points in a bet...
> nor would I have taken LSU and 7 points
> nor would I have taken MSU and 5 points.
> 
> alabama at home, and alabama on the road are two very different teams.



Using that kind of logic then you could make the case that the playoffs should be about 32 teams then.  l'm not buying it.


----------



## TUGBrian

further expanding on an earlier post for comparison...

the "complete championship team thats so perfectly rounded it has the best shot at winning it all" has on its resume of wins:

a 5 loss team by 10
a 6 loss team by 1
a 6 loss team by 14
a 4 loss team by 7
a 4 loss team by 11

and losing to a 3 loss team by 6

While im not arguing that FSU has dominated as it did last year (no team in history has, but folks seem to forget that)....its utterly ridiculous that one can claim alabama is "so complete" and "controls games" and is hands down the better team....unless you simply are ignoring half the games they played all year.


they also (not even including these games) have played 3 out of conference basically division 2 school cupcakes, thus making this teams entire season based on the results of 2 games alabama has played and done well in by "winning easily".

these 2 games are

Florida
Texas A&M

both of these teams are 5 loss teams.


----------



## ampaholic

I don't think any amount of sour grapes over how the ranking committee "thinks" is going to affect who is in the 4 team playoff.

A football game has so many variables that it is impossible to play the same game twice - even if you played the same two teams ten times, you would STILL just have ten different games. 

A schedule and a season and 128 different teams add a multitude of complexities on top of that - making it IMPOSSIBLE to figure out who would win a game without ACTUALLY playing that game.

All the ranking in the world is just "best guessing" about who would win if "so and so" played old "what's their name" on Friday in Nashville.

I am just glad the Ducks will get a chance (if they win out) to *PLAY* for the title this year - since they were x'd out last year even though they were a better team than either Auburn or FSU :rofl:


----------



## TUGBrian

ampaholic said:


> I am just glad the Ducks will get a chance (if they win out) to *PLAY* for the title this year - since they were x'd out last year even though they were a better team than either Auburn or FSU :rofl:



stanford and arizona last year disagree with your logic...


----------



## ampaholic

TUGBrian said:


> stanford and arizona last year disagree with your logic...



Stanford and Arizona were also both better than Auburn and FSU _last year_.

Just my opinion - and since neither Auburn or FSU actually beat Stanford, Arizona _*or*_ Oregon *ON THE FIELD* - it's all just that, "Opinion".


----------



## Elan

"Roger" said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> I agree that the best team is almost certainly (maybe even certainly) in the top eight.  (I suspect the top four would do it.)  The problem comes after that.
> 
> The "best" team does not always win an individual game (or, in baseball, a series).  If they did, then we could automatically eliminate any one loss team from the championship series because, by losing, they have proven that they are not the best team.
> 
> As you expand the size of the playoff system, what you are doing is reducing the odds of the best team winning (by putting them more at risk by having them have to win a series of individual encounters).
> 
> Personally (and I know people not going to like this), I preferred the old system with no championship game.  _It did not reduce some very interesting bowl matchups to a who cares status._
> 
> Did the polls afterwards always choose the "best" team as the national  champion. I suspect that they were at least as accurate as a playoff system.  If two (or three) teams all ended up thinking that they should have been declared champions, for a bunch of college kids most of whom will never play professional football, I don't think that is such a bad thing.
> 
> (Remember when a fairly mediocre St. Louis Cardinal team won the World Series.  The idea that they were not the best team was so universal The Onion printed a great spoof: Tony La Russa apologizes for winning the World Series.)



I get the exponential probability decrease, and yes, occasionally a really good team gets upset by a lesser team.  But rarely does a truly undeserving team make it all the way through 3 rounds to win a championship.  I mean if Marshall were to get into an 8 team playoff this year, and thump Alabama, Oregon and TCU in consecutive weeks to win the championship, would we all be saying that it was a total fluke, or would we be saying we underestimated Marshall?  I know that for me the answer is clearly the latter.  Bottom line is that statistically there's not a significant enough sample size to clearly discern out of 120ish D1 teams who the best 4 are based on 12 or 13 games each.  So increase the playoff field and let the play on the field decide.  If Marshall didn't belong in the playoff, they'd get their asses handed to them in the first round and be home for Christmas.  No harm, no foul.

  BTW, your scenario has been true in the NFL for years.  But how many years end with folks disputing who the NFL champions are?  Not many, if any.  A lot of years a 14-2 team lays an egg and loses to a 9-7 team.  That may be a fluke, or one off.  But if the 9-7 team proceeds to win 2-3 more games to claim the title, it's hard to call that a fluke.  Furthermore, if a 14-2 team can't beat a 9-7 team when it matters most, then are they really the best team?  

  Include as many teams as practical, and settle it on the field.  That's the most fair way.


----------



## Elan

ace2000 said:


> I'm going to state my previous post more clearer... for those proposing more than four teams, what team outside of the top four do you think is capable of beating Alabama right now?  Because that's the purpose of the playoffs - to get the "true" champion.



  I think there's a lot of teams capable of beating Alabama in the course of a 3 round playoff.  Certainly anyone in the top 12 (Ole Miss is #12).  If Alabama is the obvious best team, why play the games?  Or, if they're clearly the best team, then they should have no problem beating 3 teams in a playoff.  Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather let the play on the field decide who's best rather than a bunch of stuffed shirts in a conference room.   

  To carry the concept to the extreme, imagine there were 128 D1 teams and no regular season.  In place of the regular season, each weekend was a round of playoffs.  While Oregon or Bama might get upset in the second week, it'd be hard to argue that the 1 undefeated team at the end of 7 weeks was undeserving of the title.


----------



## TUGBrian

ampaholic said:


> Stanford and Arizona were also both better than Auburn and FSU _last year_.
> 
> Just my opinion - and since neither Auburn or FSU actually beat Stanford, Arizona _*or*_ Oregon *ON THE FIELD* - it's all just that, "Opinion".



not sure what metric you use to base that claim, certainly no factual ones.

welcome to your opinion though!


----------



## TUGBrian

fun read here

https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1711509

some good quotes:



> Did you know that the 1972 Miami Dolphins, the only NFL team to ever finish a season undefeated, had a number of scares from average to below-average opponents? They beat a Buffalo Bills team, which went 4-9-1 that season, by one point. They beat the Minnesota Vikings, which finished 7-7, by two points. And they beat the New York Jets, who also went 7-7, by four. Less than half of their 17 victories were decided by more than 10 points.





> Never in recent history has a team from a power conference gone undefeated, in a season when every other team has a loss, and been ranked lower than No. 1.


----------



## csxjohn

Clemson Fan said:


> ...
> I now really don't want to see OSU get in.  With a new QB I just think they would get rolled by Alabama.  I don't want to see Alabama get such an easy game.



Wow, good thing the NFL doesn't use that logic and deny teams a shot at the Super Bowl because the QB got injured before the big game.  There were a few backups to win the big game. (Don't ask me to name them, but I've heard them over the weekend.  

I know it's a different system and no one decides who's going to play, the teams decide but your statement may or may not be close to what the teams are going to decide Saturday.

Why don't we wait until Saturday's games are played before we anoint Alabama or bury any OSU or any other team.  Let's play the games on the field.

You're assuming if OSU wins they will be #4, that is not a foregone conclusion either.

If OSU has a good team and can win with another new QB this year, they could move all the way to number one, depending on the other games.  I'm not predicting that but bringing up the possibility.


----------



## csxjohn

*A letter of thanks*

OSU and Michigan hate each other.  the fans, the players, the coaches, everybody.

When my wife and I saw Devin Gardner consoling T. J. Barrett when he got hurt we commented on what a nice move it was on his part.

We were not the only ones to feel that way.

I wish this young man luck in his future.

http://collegespun.com/big-ten/ohio...-a-thank-you-letter-for-consoling-j-t-barrett


----------



## ace2000

csxjohn said:


> Wow, good thing the NFL doesn't use that logic and deny teams a shot at the Super Bowl because the QB got injured before the big game.  There were a few backups to win the big game. (Don't ask me to name them, but I've heard them over the weekend.



We just talked about one of them... Kurt Warner getting his chance when Trent Green was injured.  I am a Rams fan and thought their season was over.  The head coach was in tears after the announcement (seriously), and then Warner carried them throughout the season all the way to the title.  Nobody gave the Rams a chance that year.


----------



## am1

I do not think a 12th place team deserves a shot at the title game.  They had their chance earlier in the season to earn it.  I do not want the games watered down.  In fact there are too many bowl games already.   In an expanded playoff how much are the athletes going to get paid?  The break between regular and bowl games is used for practice for the following year as well. If a team is eliminated in the first round they lose weeks of practice time.  Bowl games are supposed to be fun. 

There are still rams fans?


----------



## Clemson Fan

csxjohn said:


> Wow, good thing the NFL doesn't use that logic and deny teams a shot at the Super Bowl because the QB got injured before the big game.  There were a few backups to win the big game. (Don't ask me to name them, but I've heard them over the weekend.
> 
> I know it's a different system and no one decides who's going to play, the teams decide but your statement may or may not be close to what the teams are going to decide Saturday.
> 
> Why don't we wait until Saturday's games are played before we anoint Alabama or bury any OSU or any other team.  Let's play the games on the field.
> 
> You're assuming if OSU wins they will be #4, that is not a foregone conclusion either.
> 
> If OSU has a good team and can win with another new QB this year, they could move all the way to number one, depending on the other games.  I'm not predicting that but bringing up the possibility.



Boy a couple of weeks ago you were lamenting the fact that OSU was getting punished for losing AT HOME to a BAD VT team by 2 TD's because it was only JT Barrett's 2nd game!  Now they should let them into the playoff with their 3rd string QB playing in only his 2nd game as well when there are probably going to be other just as deserving teams?

I'm fine letting the games play out.  With Barrett's injury though, IMO, they would be less competitive against an Alabama then a TCU or Baylor and in the end I want to see Alabama lose.  Also, if OSU wins I'm actually NOT assuming they'll be #4.  I actually don't think they'll get in now ahead of TCU or Baylor even with a win against Wisconsin whereas before Barrett's injury I was actually predicting they would get in.  BTW, Vegas has OSU as an underdog against Wisconsin.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ace2000 said:


> I'm going to state my previous post more clearer... for those proposing more than four teams, what team outside of the top four do you think is capable of beating Alabama right now?  Because that's the purpose of the playoffs - to get the "true" champion.



While I do think Alabama should be #1 and they're the odds on favorite to win it all, I think there are a lot of teams that could upset Alabama.  Heck, if Auburn was just marginally effective in the red zone they should've beaten Alabama in the Iron bowl.

I honestly think the best playoff system would be 8 teams and give the 5 power conference champs automatic bids and let the committee choose 3 wildcards.


----------



## TUGBrian

heres to hoping it expands from 4 in a year or so.


----------



## ace2000

And here's to hoping the topic regarding the number of playoff teams never comes up in this thread again...


----------



## csxjohn

Clemson Fan said:


> Boy a couple of weeks ago you were lamenting the fact that OSU was getting punished for losing AT HOME to a BAD VT team by 2 TD's because it was only JT Barrett's 2nd game!  Now they should let them into the playoff with their 3rd string QB playing in only his 2nd game as well when there are probably going to be other just as deserving teams?
> I'm fine letting the games play out.  With Barrett's injury though, IMO, they would be less competitive against an Alabama then a TCU or Baylor and in the end I want to see Alabama lose.  Also, if OSU wins I'm actually NOT assuming they'll be #4.  I actually don't think they'll get in now ahead of TCU or Baylor even with a win against Wisconsin whereas before Barrett's injury I was actually predicting they would get in.  BTW, Vegas has OSU as an underdog against Wisconsin.



I'm not saying they should be "let in."  I'm saying it's a team effort and if they earn their way in with their record they should play.

They were the favorite until Barrett broke his ankle and I think they are going to have a hard time of it against Wisconsin.  Saturday will be a fun day, win or lose.

I would not have any problem with them being lower now due to that bad loss because they should have won even with a new QB in there.  That committee has made stranger moves as documented here.


----------



## Clemson Fan

csxjohn said:


> I'm not saying they should be "let in."  I'm saying it's a team effort and if they earn their way in with their record they should play.
> 
> They were the favorite until Barrett broke his ankle and I think they are going to have a hard time of it against Wisconsin.  Saturday will be a fun day, win or lose.
> 
> I would not have any problem with them being lower now due to that bad loss because they should have won even with a new QB in there.  That committee has made stranger moves as documented here.



I think overall we actually agree.  

You're an OSU fan and that's cool.  

I'm not an OSU fan although I will say I do think Urban Meyer has improved them considerably and I don't think they're as overrated as I have thought at times in the past 15 years.


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> I honestly think the best playoff system would be 8 teams and give the 5 power conference champs automatic bids and let the committee choose 3 wildcards.



Deja Vu - it like I'm back at post 118 all over again:



ampaholic said:


> We need an 8 team playoff system to settle once and for all who the best team in the land is.
> 
> 1 spot each for the Pac 12, SEC, ACC, Big 10 and Big 12 Champions and three at large to be put in by a competition committee. The three at large would cover a very competative second SEC (or ACC for that matter) team and it would also allow for a 12-0 Bosie St. or Marshall to be invited.
> 
> That would only be four extra games in the season (the round of 8) and if any team didn't like the extra game they could cut back playing the Furman and Appalachian St. type games (the 56-7 scores wouldn't be needed anyway).



:hysterical:


----------



## ace2000

ampaholic said:


> Deja Vu - it's like I'm back at post 118 all over again:



Rick, I guess it just has something to do with your power of persuasion around here.


----------



## Clemson Fan

Clemson Fan said:


> That would be awesome!  I think we're only a few short years away from this.  Once they see the $$$ the playoff will generate they won't be able to resist expanding it.



And I agreed with you in post #119!

Brian, what are the TUG citing proper credit guidelines?


----------



## Elan

ace2000 said:


> And here's to hoping the topic regarding the number of playoff teams never comes up in this thread again...



  Perhaps mundane to some, it is, nonetheless, a fundamental flaw of CFB.  I was fine with the old pre-BCS system, but if things are going to change to the point where we're calling the winner of 1 game a national champion, then the process for determining that champion should be as fair and transparent as possible.  The BCS was an utter joke, and a 4 team playoff is only marginally less so.  Nobody will ever convince me that there are only 4 teams that are capable of winning 2 straight games against their peers.  That's asinine, to put it mildly.


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> And I agreed with you in post #119!
> 
> Brian, what are the TUG citing proper credit guidelines?



Brian gets all the credit for keeping the site running. Thanks Brian!


----------



## ampaholic

Elan said:


> Perhaps mundane to some, it is, nonetheless, a fundamental flaw of CFB.  I was fine with the old pre-BCS system, but if things are going to change to the point where we're calling the winner of 1 game a national champion, then the process for determining that champion should be as fair and transparent as possible.  The BCS was an utter joke, and a 4 team playoff is only marginally less so.  Nobody will ever convince me that there are only 4 teams that are capable of winning 2 straight games against their peers.  That's asinine, to put it mildly.



But.... If you are, say TCU and you can win one game against FSU and then one game against Alabama - or even one against Oregon and then one against FSU ---- I think most people would call you "National Champion".

At least that's the plan.


----------



## am1

Anyone else hoping that Penn State is left out of a bowl?  Or even better they do the right thing and take themselves out of the running for a big 10 bowl spot?


----------



## ampaholic

am1 said:


> Anyone else hoping that Penn State is left out of a bowl?  Or even better they do the right thing and take themselves out of the running for a big 10 bowl spot?



I don't think the student athletes or other students should be punished any more than they have.

Time to move on.


----------



## am1

ampaholic said:


> I don't think the student athletes or other students should be punished any more than they have.
> 
> Time to move on.



How about the student-athletes at a 7-6 school that will be looked over for a team who was ineligible to start the year?  I do not think 6-6 schools especially with wins over 1AA schools should be allowed to play in a bowl.


----------



## ampaholic

am1 said:


> How about the student-athletes at a 7-6 school that will be looked over for a team who was ineligible to start the year?  I do not think 6-6 schools especially with wins over 1AA schools should be allowed to play in a bowl.



Something to take up with the NCAA?


----------



## ampaholic

Well, the Ducks have done their part winning the PAC 12 Championship handily.

I think they are safely into the final four.

Go Ducks!


----------



## hcarman

For me, it is fingers crossed for TCU.  Mom went there and it is a relatively small school playing with the big guys.  It could be a David and Goliath story.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ampaholic said:


> Well, the Ducks have done their part winning the PAC 12 Championship handily.
> 
> I think they are safely into the final four.
> 
> Go Ducks!



That was a great game to watch!


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> That was a great game to watch!



To me it looked like Az. was a 5 year old playing with a match that finally figured out how to light it.

The Ducks were only on the gas for about 20 min or so - win or loose I'll enjoy watching them play FSU or Bama (THAT would be a game).


----------



## ace2000

hcarman said:


> For me, it is fingers crossed for TCU.  Mom went there and it is a relatively small school playing with the big guys.  It could be a David and Goliath story.



I'm also pulling for TCU.  TCU must win today though and then a Baylor loss would just about guarantee them a place in the final four.  Good luck!


----------



## ace2000

hcarman said:


> For me, it is fingers crossed for TCU.  Mom went there and it is a relatively small school playing with the big guys.  It could be a David and Goliath story.



I'm also pulling for TCU.  TCU must win today and then a Baylor loss would just about guarantee them a place in the final four.  If Baylor and TCU both win then I think Baylor gets the spot.  I'd like to see either of them get in.  Good luck!


----------



## csxjohn

I agree that Oregon is in the top 4 to stay.  The committee will place them where it will give them the most fan appeal in the playoff games. 

When the games go to cable after this weekend they will lose me since I don't subscribe.

If one of the remaining three lose and OSU wins, I will find a place to watch if OSU gets into the top 4.  

You all know I don't follow this closely but how does TCU end up with a cushy game for their last?  The other teams are playing conference championship games, it seems.


----------



## ace2000

John, I think I've mentioned this to you before, but I grew up in NE Ohio myself and am also a Buckeye fan too.  I think the Buckeye chances of getting into the final four are very slim.  They really need to hope for two of three to lose (TCU, Baylor, Florida State) and/or a miracle in Atlanta.  Plus they have to win theirs.  They are probably going to get dinged further since they lost their starting QB.

The Big 12 has chosen to not have a conference championship game.  That's how TCU did it.


----------



## csxjohn

ace2000 said:


> John, I think I've mentioned this to you before, but I grew up in NE Ohio myself and am also a Buckeye fan too.  I think the Buckeye chances of getting into the final four are very slim.  They really need to hope for two of three to lose (TCU, Baylor, Florida State) and/or a miracle in Atlanta.  Plus they have to win theirs.  They are probably going to get dinged further since they lost their starting QB.
> 
> The Big 12 has chosen to not have a conference championship game.  That's how they did it.



Thank you. 

Yes, OSU will have a hard time of it and if they can't win today they of course don't deserve to be there.  I'm happy because we beat Michigan and if we get to play any more, that's a bonus.

My above post about Devin Gardner has tempered my hatred for the school up north, not sure where it really came from but I look at them now like just another opponent.  Of course when I head back to Toledo for a get together and start hearing about how great Michigan is, it'll all come back to me.


----------



## ampaholic

Roll Tide!

I like Nick Saban's quote "To me winning the SEC is a big thing"

Yep.


----------



## ampaholic

WoW - so far (just before 1/2 time) Ohio State has opened an extra large can of "whup ass" on the Badgers.

Man oh Man

And in the second half they opened ANOTHER can!! OMG - I really really really want to see the Buckeyes in the final four!!


----------



## TUGBrian

find it interesting that TCU started kneeling the ball with 4 or 5 minutes to go in the game because it was a blowout...while OSU keeps full throttle on offense.

curious how things play out tomorrow at 12:30!


----------



## ace2000

Now make your predictions folks!

Alabama
Oregon St.
TCU 
Florida St.

And by the way, this also coincides with my prediction of the 3 out of the 4 teams making the playoffs, a couple of weeks ago.  Ahem, guess I was right about that one...


----------



## Clemson Fan

My oh my!  I have no idea what the committee will do with that 4th spot!  If Clemson is not going to get the Orange Bowl anyway, I would find it hilarious if they dropped FSU out although I don't think that would happen.

I personally would exclude the 2 Big 12 teams as a sort of punishment for not having a championship game and for refusing to name a champion although their conference motto is "One True Champion."

I hate to say it, but I would put OSU in.  What's the deal, though, with the Big 10 seemingly always having these blowout championship games!?  59-0 in a championship game!  That's just ridiculous!  Does that speak to the strength of OSU or just the weakness of the Big 10!?

I think it's going to end up:

1. Alabama
2. Oregon
3. OSU
4. FSU

I only place them in that order since I do think they're going to want to match up Alabama and FSU in the Sugar Bowl and a classic Pac 12 vs. Big 10 match-up in the Rose Bowl.


----------



## bogey21

My guess is that Ohio State will knock out TCU.  Their win over Wisconsin was a lot more impressive that TCU's drubbing of an inferior Iowa State team.

George


----------



## Clemson Fan

ace2000 said:


> And by the way, this also coincides with my prediction of the 3 out of the 4 teams making the playoffs, a couple of weeks ago.  Ahem, guess I was right about that one...



Yup, the over looks like it's a winner in that one!


----------



## ampaholic

I don't know what the gang of 12 will do - but I want to see these games:

Alabama vs. FSU 

Oregon vs. Ohio State (almost like a Rose Bowl)

So:

Bama
Oregon
Ohio State
FSU


----------



## TUGBrian

wonder if they switch it up to keep the bowls properly (since its the #1 team that has the choice of bowls to play in)

1. oregon
2. bama
3. fsu
4. ohio state

its a bit ridiculous to keep jumping FSU week after week with random teams...even if it is just to keep the 1-4 matchup in the sugar bowl....and Oregon absolutely hammering Arizona (their only loss of the season) was a far more impressive win to me than Alabama vs mizzou.

if it were a pure ranking (where the seeding didnt matter)...I see them voting  Bama, oregon, fsu, OSU.

however it would appear they believe a bama/fsu matchup in the first round is "in the cards"...so wherever they put bama, fsu will likely sit across from them.

Id think out of all the 3 (bubble teams)...OSU would probably be the best traveling team to face oregon in pasadena.


----------



## ace2000

One conference is going to be really upset today - either the Big 12 or Big 10.  If the Big 12 gets left out, it'll almost be like they decided to penalize the one without the conference championship game [I just noticed that ClemsonFan made the same point a few posts ago].  

The Big 12 was the stronger conference this year than the Big 10, but on a national level, I don't think people are going to get too excited if TCU or Baylor get left out in favor of a tradition rich Ohio St.  It'll be interesting to see how it plays out today.


----------



## pedro47

The dream playoff games are Alabama and Florida State., Orgeon and Ohio State or TCU for the nation title in my opinion.


----------



## csxjohn

If what teams do late in the season counts more than earlier I think OSU should replace TCU some where in the mix.  

I watched 5 of the top 6 teams, couldn't get Baylor and I think OSU beating the number 2 defense in the country who also has the country's best runner 59-0 should help their cause.

Is the committee going to drop FSU another spot for squeaking by again?  It would be a travesty if they do.

And how about that third sting QB starting his fist game and end up scoring 59points against an excellent D?  It was a blow out but I enjoyed every minute.  I kept thinking, well, they'll fall apart now, but they never did.


----------



## ace2000

John, congratulations on your Ohio St. win yesterday... they did what they had to do by dominating Wisconsin.  I would've never dreamed of that scenario when we were discussing the Buckeye's chances yesterday on here.


----------



## pedro47

ace2000 said:


> John, congratulations on your Ohio St. win yesterday... they did what they had to do by dominating Wisconsin.  I would've never dreamed of that scenario when we were discussing the Buckeye's chances yesterday on here.



Congratulation John, Ohio State defeated a team with a third string quarterback. Ohio State should be in the final four.


----------



## am1

I am going to go with:

Bama
Oregon
FSU
OSU  - 12 wins is better then 11.  

I do not want 8 teams but this year there would be a clear 8 to make the playoff.  Even so first 2 teams out would be the only ones to beat 1 and 2.


----------



## "Roger"

A modest proposal...

Since everyone is so in love with playoffs and there is a lot of debate about the final two positions in the championship playoffs with a lot of time before they occur, why not have a separate playoff between Wisconsin, Georgia Tech, Kansas State, and Iowa State? The championship selection committee could use those results to better evaluate the merits of Ohio State, Florida State, Baylor and TCU and their recent wins.

Then again, if we were to go to an eight team playoff, there would be a lot of debate about the last two teams to make it into that playoff (and one of the final two teams could easily win a couple of games making those on the outside angry that they weren't given a chance).  So lets go to a sixteen team playoff.  That would give a team that makes it into the championship game a sixteen game season.  Lots of money generated and the few players with a chance to make it into the NFL would be given better job training by experiencing what a full season in the NFL would be like.

And ...


----------



## beejaybeeohio

*Hope it's the Bucks!*

I was afraid of a blowout in yesterday's BIG championship game after the Bucks lost J.T. Barrett and the team had to face a top defense and an awesome running back, but never imagined the blowout would be by the Bucks!

Hope there's good news for us at 12:30 this afternoon!


----------



## MULTIZ321

Why TCU in the College Football Championship May Cost Dallas Millions - by Robert Tuchman/ SportsMoney/ Forbes.com

"In the most recent College Football Playoff Pool POOL +0.73%, Texas Christian University jumped up to the #3 ranking, placing them in tremendous position to earn a spot in the first-ever college football playoff tournament. The perennial powerhouse Ohio State Buckeyes sat on the outside of the top four looking in, despite looking dominant over the course of their last several games.

While it is true that everyone loves a good Cinderella story, the financial implications of TCU making it into this inaugural postseason tournament rather than OSU are rather significant. For both the NCAA and the city hosting the game, that particular outcome would be relatively catastrophic..."


Richard


----------



## csxjohn

MULTIZ321 said:


> Why TCU in the College Football Championship May Cost Dallas Millions - by Robert Tuchman/ SportsMoney/ Forbes.com
> 
> "In the most recent College Football Playoff Pool POOL +0.73%, Texas Christian University jumped up to the #3 ranking, placing them in tremendous position to earn a spot in the first-ever college football playoff tournament. The perennial powerhouse Ohio State Buckeyes sat on the outside of the top four looking in, despite looking dominant over the course of their last several games.
> 
> While it is true that everyone loves a good Cinderella story, the financial implications of TCU making it into this inaugural postseason tournament rather than OSU are rather significant. For both the NCAA and the city hosting the game, that particular outcome would be relatively catastrophic..."
> 
> 
> Richard



Well, if money is the driving force behind all this as I and others have stated, OSU is a shoe-in.  Yesterday's game will be all the committee needs to justify that choice.

"To have TCU in that game rather than OSU, the difference could easily be tens of millions of dollars for the host city."  From the above link. 

Again, if OSU does not make it I have no complaints with the committee but if you were the host city, which team would you want in the game?


----------



## Elan

"Roger" said:


> A modest proposal...
> 
> Since everyone is so in love with playoffs and there is a lot of debate about the final two positions in the championship playoffs with a lot of time before they occur, why not have a separate playoff between Wisconsin, Georgia Tech, Kansas State, and Iowa State? The championship selection committee could use those results to better evaluate the merits of Ohio State, Florida State, Baylor and TCU and their recent wins.
> 
> Then again, if we were to go to an eight team playoff, there would be a lot of debate about the last two teams to make it into that playoff (and one of the final two teams could easily win a couple of games making those on the outside angry that they weren't given a chance).  So lets go to a sixteen team playoff.  That would give a team that makes it into the championship game a sixteen game season.  Lots of money generated and the few players with a chance to make it into the NFL would be given better job training by experiencing what a full season in the NFL would be like.
> 
> And ...



As I've previously pointed out, at a certain field size there's little probability that the last team in will win it all.  Any decent scientist would tell you that it's not difficult to determine the optimum field size, but it takes time.  Since nobody wants to wait for the data to come in, we're accepting an educated guess.  Science would also tell us that 4 is a poor guess.  This year is not an anomaly, it is the norm.  Actually, if anything, the field this year is likely more clear cut to the average casual fan than most will be.  

  No system is perfect.  And upsets are part of CFB, so they have the capability to destroy any model, regardless of how ideal.  But that doesn't mean the model can't still be improved significantly.


----------



## Elan

If anyone wants to look at a computer algorithm that is probably as unbiased as any of the well know ranking algorithms, go to 

http://www.colleyrankings.com/currank.html

  I don't remember all of the specifics, but back in the BCS days, I looked into many of the computer models used.  The Colley Matrix is (or at least used to be) unbiased in the sense that all teams start as equals.  As the season progresses, when you beat teams, you acquire some of their strength, so beating a strong team gives you a larger bump than beating a weak team, and losing to a strong team isn't as penal as losing to a weak team.  Every week, the entire matrix needs to be recalculated, because past results are influenced by the current week's play.  Very logical.  

  Looking at the Colley Matrix, I have no problem with the top 8 teams being in a playoff.  I think every team in Colley's top 8 has a more than trivial chance of winning 3 games against the others.  I suspect, and this could be easily remedied, if true, that the teams with 13 games are getting an unfair bump/ding from their championship game wins/losses when compared to the teams with only 12 games.  

  To be perfectly honest, I'd be in favor of bumping the field to 8 and replacing the committee with something like an enhanced Colley.  That would be a much more fair, logical, transparent and scientifically sound system.


----------



## TUGBrian

tons of folks bringing up the argument last night of:

Well when we had the BCS and only 2, you guys argued we needed 4 as there are a number of teams left out.

now that we have 4, everyone is arguing we need 8 as there are a number of teams left out....


----------



## Elan

TUGBrian said:


> tons of folks bringing up the argument last night of:
> 
> Well when we had the BCS and only 2, you guys argued we needed 4 as there are a number of teams left out.
> 
> now that we have 4, everyone is arguing we need 8 as there are a number of teams left out....



  People that don't understand logic and statistics argue all kinds of things.  Take it for what it's worth.......


----------



## ace2000

TUGBrian said:


> tons of folks bringing up the argument last night of:
> 
> Well when we had the BCS and only 2, you guys argued we needed 4 as there are a number of teams left out.
> 
> now that we have 4, everyone is arguing we need 8 as there are a number of teams left out....



I believed I've made that argument a couple of times in this thread.  

But then again I don't understand logic and statistics and like to argue all kinds of things. Take it for what it's worth....... LOL.


----------



## Elan

ace2000 said:


> I believed I've made that argument a couple of times in this thread.
> 
> But then again I don't understand logic and statistics and like to argue all kinds of things. Take it for what it's worth....... LOL.



  I could argue that we should just let the committee tell us the best team and be done with it.  Screw the playoffs.  That doesn't make sense either.


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> tons of folks bringing up the argument last night of:
> 
> Well when we had the BCS and only 2, you guys argued we needed 4 as there are a number of teams left out.
> 
> now that we have 4, everyone is arguing we need 8 as there are a number of teams left out....



Yup, and people argue about the bubble teams who don't make it into the 65 team field NCAA tournament even though those teams have no chance in hell of winning it.

I just want to see good teams playing good compelling games.


----------



## am1

Clemson Fan said:


> Yup, and people argue about the bubble teams who don't make it into the 65 team field NCAA tournament even though those teams have no chance in hell of winning it.
> 
> I just want to see good teams playing good compelling games.



I am going to say basketball is much different.  Maybe not win it but remember the bottom seeds are the week conference champions and not the bubble teams.  

George Mason had no business in the tourney but made it and went further then anybody thought.


----------



## pedro47

The final four
#1 Alabama vs # 4 Ohio State
#2 Oregon vs #3 Florida State


----------



## ace2000

I can live with that and I believe Oregon is the only one of those teams with any remote possibility of beating Alabama.


----------



## Clemson Fan

It's official.

1. Alabama
2. Oregon
3. FSU
4. OSU
5. Baylor
6. TCU

Sorry Big 12.  Maybe if you didn't refuse to name a conference champion you could've gotten Baylor in.  Baylor got screwed by their own conference IMO.


----------



## Elan

The basketball analogies are relevant.  Someone's always going to bitch about being the first team left out.  But until a 16 seed wins the basketball tourney, those complaints are unfounded.  The lowest seed to ever win the tourney, IIRC, was a #8 'Nova.  That tells anyone with a moderate amount of common sense that the field could easily be reduced to 32 teams without a high probability of screwing anyone.  But 64 teams means lots more money and only cost them two more days of playing, so they stick with it.

  Analogously, in CFB, if we wanted to wait for the data, perhaps it would show that no seed higher than 4 ever won the title, but I'd bet big money against it.  And if it did happen, I'd argue that 4 teams _was_ the right number.  Given that we don't want to wait for data to come in, CFB should do the same thing as basketball and opt for a potentially too large of playoff field over one that's too small.


----------



## Elan

Clemson Fan said:


> I just want to see good teams playing good compelling games.



  Me too.  I'd trade the stupid conference championship games or an early season body bag game for another round of playoffs in a heartbeat.


----------



## TUGBrian

Clemson Fan said:


> It's official.
> 
> 1. Alabama
> 2. Oregon
> 3. FSU
> 4. OSU
> 5. Baylor
> 6. TCU
> 
> Sorry Big 12.  Maybe if you didn't refuse to name a conference champion you could've gotten Baylor in.  Baylor got screwed by their own conference IMO.



think it had more to do with their out of conference schedule than anything.

although I find it amusing that noone mentions one word about alabamas out of conference cupcake schedule.


----------



## Elan

I have no idea whether the committee got it right or not, but what's their justification for dropping a team that wins 55-3 from 3 to 6?  What a joke of a process............


----------



## TUGBrian

the discussion was that the other teams all won a championship game, and played a much better (ie non cupcake) team saturday...thus they dropped.


----------



## Elan

TUGBrian said:


> the discussion was that the other teams all won a championship game, and played a much better (ie non cupcake) team saturday...thus they dropped.



  So then clearly one should be prescient enough to schedule the better teams in your conference for the end of the season.   :hysterical:


----------



## TUGBrian

its the non conference games that were pathetic...


----------



## am1

FSU and OSU got a conference championship boost and a 12th win.  

Oklahoma losing hurts the big XII and helped FSU.  

TCU had no reason to be at number 3 last week just weakens the process.

In basketball it is very easy to play more games and a few games are played at the same arena.  Try that in football and it will not work.  

The solution is to keep to 4.  Have the BIG XII have a conference championship game or at least name a champion and I am sure we can all agree that teams need to boost their OOC schedules.  I would do away with 1A games counting towards bowl eligibility to start.  A university should not send their athletes in to get embarrassed for a payday.  That also would mean less bowl games which is a good thing.


----------



## Elan

TUGBrian said:


> its the non conference games that were pathetic...



  Perhaps, but TCU's "cupcake" game Saturday was a conference game.


----------



## Clemson Fan

Elan said:


> I have no idea whether the committee got it right or not, but what's their justification for dropping a team that wins 55-3 from 3 to 6?  What a joke of a process............



I like the fluidity of it.  The previous polls used to be so rigid that they would only drop a team if they lost.  It made those preseason polls way more important then they should've been.  Now at least they seem to be weighing a lot more variables.  TCU rose to #3 because their resume was more complete at the time then Baylor's.  Once Baylor completed their resume of beating a very good KSU team (something that TCU already had on their resume), then the head to head came into play and they jumped TCU which I thought they would.  If OSU won by say less then a TD, then I think Baylor would've gotten the 4th spot.

People were screaming how the committee put themselves in a bind by putting TCU #3 last week because they thought how could they drop them after they were pretty sure to beat a bad ISU team.  That logic was based on how the AP poll used to operate which as we've seen no longer applicable.


----------



## TUGBrian

samford, minn, and smu werent however.  that said, I put those same 3 cupcakes on the same level as alabamas 3 "bye weeks" as well.

just seems the discussion of strength of schedule and non-conference opponents only applies to non sec schools when discussing them.

It also clearly shows that teams should "front weight" their games....as its super obvious a team can have a bad loss, but erase its meaning by playing well the rest of the season provided the loss comes early enough.


----------



## Elan

Anyone can spin this any way they want, and I'm not saying that the committee got the 4 teams wrong.  But the process is flawed.  I can't imagine how TCU feels after getting promoted to the 3rd slot, blowing out a team on Saturday and waking up to find out they've been passed by a team that gets massive credit for blowing out a team that lost to 5-7 Northwestern.  TCU's lone loss was a questionable loss to the 5th best team in the nation.   Did the committee tell Bowlsby up front that not playing a 13th game was going to ream his conference?  It all reeks, IMO.


----------



## TUGBrian

I myself couldnt swallow putting TCU in and leaving baylor out for the sole purpose of head to head.

if there are any valid metrics of being able to determine team A is better than team B...playing each other has to be at the top.


----------



## ampaholic

Clemson Fan said:


> I like the fluidity of it.  The previous polls used to be so rigid that they would only drop a team if they lost.  It made those preseason polls way more important then they should've been.  Now at least they seem to be weighing a lot more variables.  TCU rose to #3 because their resume was more complete at the time then Baylor's.  Once Baylor completed their resume of beating a very good KSU team (something that TCU already had on their resume), then the head to head came into play and they jumped TCU which I thought they would.  If OSU won by say less then a TD, then I think Baylor would've gotten the 4th spot.
> 
> People were screaming how the committee put themselves in a bind by putting TCU #3 last week because they thought how could they drop them after they were pretty sure to beat a bad ISU team.  That logic was based on how the AP poll used to operate which as we've seen no longer applicable.



I agree - it is a new age with the committee being able to judge in real time rather than standings being sort of cast in stone like the old BCS was.

I think Brian will get to stop whining about this whole thing on Jan 1st when his Noles play some *real* competition.


----------



## am1

If Baylor and TCU played in a defacto conference championship(or co championship) game yesterday I think that winner would have got in.


----------



## TUGBrian

im sure folks will still find a way to downplay the victory if its yet another close FSU win.


----------



## Elan

ampaholic said:


> I agree - it is a new age with the committee being able to judge in real time rather than standings being sort of cast in stone like the old BCS was.



  So then, are you saying that "eye test" is the determining factor?  In other words, we don't care that you got beat by a crappy team in an early season game, you _look_ like one of the 4 best teams *right now*?  Mind you, I'm ok with that.  But if that's the case, why not say that at the outset?  And why rank the teams during the course of the season, if the only thing that matters is how they're playing at the end?


----------



## "Roger"

Elan said:


> .... they've been passed by a team that gets massive credit for blowing out a team that lost to 5-7 Northwestern....


I'm not saying that Ohio State should be in, but the accomplishment of beating Wisconsin by a score of 59 to 0 is better than what you give them credit for.  They shut out a team that was averaging 37 points a game and held a running back averaging something close to eight yards a carry to 2.9 yard a carry. Wisconsin's yardage total of 258 compares with a season average of 482. Admittedly Wisconsin did not have the strongest schedule, but I bet at least three of their prior opponents will be in bowl games.

Also, if you want to pick on the fact that Ohio State's opponent lost to a 5 and 7 Northwestern team, you might then note (as Brian is more than willing to) that Alabama (ranked number 1) LOST (as opposed to beat by the score of 59 to 0) to a team that got blown out (30 to 0) by a 6 and 6 Arkansas team. Transitivity is not a property that applies to sports.

**********

I doubt that the playoffs will be expanded.  College teams can only play so many games, so controversy will always be part of the post season. 

Giving up the bunny games to shorten the non-bowl game season is not feasible.  First of all, every school would then have a shortened season which would destroy the economics of football for the non bowl teams.  (Not enough games to pay for the high cost of football.) Also, the major powers want to play enough bunny games to ensure some sort of bowl appearance during their mediocre seasons.


----------



## Elan

"Roger" said:


> Also, if you want to pick on the fact that Ohio State's opponent lost to a 5 and 7 Northwestern team, you might then note (as Brian is more than willing to) that Alabama (ranked number 1) LOST (as opposed to beat by the score of 59 to 0) to a team that got blown out (30 to 0) by a 6 and 6 Arkansas team. Transitivity is not a property that applies to sports.
> 
> **********
> 
> I doubt that the playoffs will be expanded.  College teams can only play so many games, so controversy will always be part of the post season.
> 
> Giving up the bunny games to shorten the non-bowl game season is not feasible.  First of all, every school would then have a shortened season which would destroy the economics of football for the non bowl teams.  (Not enough games to pay for the high cost of football.) Also, the major powers want to play enough bunny games to ensure some sort of bowl appearance during their mediocre seasons.




  I'm not big on transitivity.  But I'm also not big on margin of victory.  I don't think running up the score is appropriate in any sport.  A 28-0 victory over Wisconsin with the associated stats tells me just as much as 59-0 or whatever.  

  I bet the playoffs do expand.  There's too much money in it for it not to happen.  It may take a while, and as I said previously, it might not happen until the CFB powers have assured that all of the playoff revenue flows their way, but I bet it happens.  The one thing that may prevent it is if they form 4 mega-conferences and just take the 4 winners, but that's a long shot as well.  TV drives college football.  And TV is always looking for content.  CFB playoffs are great content.  

  The big schools don't care if the FCS schools wither.  Hell, they don't even care about the G5 schools.  The B12 would have a playoff spot today if they'd invited BYU and BSU in the last round of realignment, but they're more interested in splitting their money by as small of number as possible than they are about forming a stronger conference.  In that sense, serves them right for getting screwed out of a playoff spot.


----------



## ampaholic

Elan said:


> I'm not big on transitivity.  But I'm also not big on margin of victory.  *I don't think running up the score is appropriate in any sport.*  A 28-0 victory over Wisconsin with the associated stats tells me just as much as 59-0 or whatever.



That is a silly notion - it was 30-0 at half time. Are you suggesting the Buckeyes should have let the Badgers back in the game by intentionally playing worse in the second half?

What if they did and the Badgers came back to win 34-30?

It is up to the Badgers to STOP the attack - I NEVER want to see a "mercy rule" in football.

------- And finally - you should realize - it's JUST a game -----------

"If you can't run with the big dogs - STAY on the porch"


----------



## Elan

ampaholic said:


> That is a silly notion - it was 30-0 at half time. Are you suggesting the Buckeyes should have let the Badgers back in the game by intentionally playing worse in the second half?
> 
> What if they did and the Badgers came back to win 34-30?
> 
> It is up to the Badgers to STOP the attack - I NEVER want to see a "mercy rule" in football.
> 
> "If you can't run with the big dogs - STAY on the porch"



  That wasn't the point.  The point is that OSU seemingly got extra credit for such a lop sided victory, which encourages teams in the playoff hunt to run up the score.  Just like the BCS system did before it attempted to de-emphasize margin of victory.  The fact is OSU beat a decent team by a comfortable margin -- the game was never in doubt.   That's all anyone should need to know.  The committee referred to it as "game control".


----------



## Clemson Fan

I was wrong about Clemson getting the Orange Bowl over GT.  I didn't know that the Orange Bowl selection was also tied into the committee.  The Orange Bowl selection was locked into the next highest ranked ACC team by the committee.  It hasn't been that way in the past and the Orange Bowl selection committee had more leeway in the past.

Oh well, their game against Oklahoma should be a good one.


----------



## csxjohn

I listened to the committee chairman after the selections were announce and some of what he said is that the Big 12 determined that TCU and Baylor are co-champions and that was put in the equation.

What that told me was that the conference hurt both teams chances my not naming  One True Champion.  

Having one less game than the others also hurt them.  
As someone said earlier, 12 wins is better than 11.

I will personally take credit for helping OSU win yesterday, I did not bet on the game.  Had I bet on OSU I'm pretty sure the score would have been reversed.  I doubt they'll give me any credit though.


----------



## kwilson

Being a long time Duck fan  I am  gratified that no one is questioning their right to be in this playoff. Having been outmuscled in the past they have worked hard to bulk up for this season playoffs.We WILL pop the FSU bubble!


----------



## csxjohn

kwilson said:


> Being a long time Duck fan  I am  gratified that no one is questioning their right to be in this playoff. Having been outmuscled in the past they have worked hard to bulk up for this season playoffs.We WILL pop the FSU bubble!



I'm looking forward to seeing Oregon play Ohio State, they were the best looking teams this past week end.

Of the 5 games I watched, Oregon is the one I thought was the best out of all of them and I think everyone here acknowledges they belong near the top, hence no negative comments about them.


----------



## Clemson Fan

csxjohn said:


> I'm looking forward to seeing Oregon play Ohio State, they were the best looking teams this past week end.
> 
> Of the 5 games I watched, Oregon is the one I thought was the best out of all of them and I think everyone here acknowledges they belong near the top, hence no negative comments about them.



My only negative comment is that we've seen this dance before from Oregon and they've always been disappointing in the end.  Out of the 4 playoff teams, Oregon is actually the one I'll be rooting for.

I'll actually be rooting for your Buckeyes against Alabama, but I have a feeling that 59-0 victory is going to look like fools gold in the end and they'll get rolled by Alabama.


----------



## ace2000

LOL - and I'm really torn now.  I've gone for so many years "hating" the SEC and then pulled for Florida St. last year.  Now that Missouri is in the SEC though, I'm sort of evolving into actually pulling for Alabama this time.   We'll see...  I'll keep you posted, I'm sure you all are dying to know...


----------



## csxjohn

Clemson Fan said:


> ... I have a feeling that 59-0 victory is going to look like fools gold in the end and they'll get rolled by Alabama.



I suspect the lack of film on Cardale is part of the reason they did well but Wisconsin had the #1 defense, 2nd in points against, and the number one runner in the country. 

If anyone can do well against the other three I like our chances with Urban Meyer at the helm.  The pressure is definitely on Alabama.


----------



## Clemson Fan

csxjohn said:


> I suspect the lack of film on Cardale is part of the reason they did well but Wisconsin had the #1 defense, 2nd in points against, and the number one runner in the country.
> 
> If anyone can do well against the other three I like our chances with Urban Meyer at the helm.  The pressure is definitely on Alabama.



Wisconsin racked up those stats against a Big 10 schedule.  Hence the fools gold.

Urban Meyer definitely helps them because he is a great coach.  I don't think Alabama will feel any pressure.  They're used to these games.


----------



## Clemson Fan

ace2000 said:


> LOL - and I'm really torn now.  I've gone for so many years "hating" the SEC and then pulled for Florida St. last year.  Now that Missouri is in the SEC though, I'm sort of evolving into actually pulling for Alabama this time.   We'll see...  I'll keep you posted, I'm sure you all are dying to know...



Oh oh, you're getting that "SEC SEC SEC!" virus that afflicts so many people in the south!


----------



## ace2000

Ha, ha... can somebody help me????  I'm just about over the edge.


----------



## ampaholic

My "hope" is: that Oregon lights up the Noles to the tune of 44-17 and Ohio State beats the tide like a rented mule.....

My *prediction* is: The Ducks squeak past the Noles 44-42 and that Alabama crushes Ohio State's dreams 17-9

And that then the Ducks pull out a trick or two and slip past the Tide 21-20.


----------



## Elan

Decent read on the lack of clarity in the selection process:

http://espn.go.com/college-football...e-college-football-playoff-needs-more-clarity


----------



## chalee94

Elan said:


> Anyone can spin this any way they want, and I'm not saying that the committee got the 4 teams wrong.  But the process is flawed.  I can't imagine how TCU feels after getting promoted to the 3rd slot, blowing out a team on Saturday and waking up to find out they've been passed by a team that gets massive credit for blowing out a team that lost to 5-7 Northwestern.  TCU's lone loss was a questionable loss to the 5th best team in the nation.   Did the committee tell Bowlsby up front that not playing a 13th game was going to ream his conference?  It all reeks, IMO.



yep, TCU lost to a top-5 team.  OSU lost to a juggernaut of a 6-6 virginia tech team (which lost to an awful 3-9 wake forest team by a score of 6-3).

from the article:



> There are former coaches -- Ty Willingham, Barry Alvarez, Tom Osborne -- who would know firsthand how difficult it was to do what Meyer did and would try to convince the rest of the committee of its value.



so that's a mich state grad, former wisconsin HC and former nebraska HC with big 10 ties on the committee making a case for OSU.  who needs computers when you've got human bias and politics involved?

as a side note, it's amusing that every big 10 bowl team is a vegas underdog.  that is some serious fools' gold...


----------



## ampaholic

chalee94 said:


> yep, TCU lost to a top-5 team.  OSU lost to a juggernaut of a 6-6 virginia tech team (which lost to an awful 3-9 wake forest team by a score of 6-3).
> ...



And Baylor got exposed by a 7-5 West Virginia team - do you have an actual point?

Every team in the country save FSU lost at least 1 game this year - shows how hard it is to have a perfect season.

It's even harder if you are playing tough competition - that's why Marshall isn't in the top 4.

I think some of the "other" bowl games will make for good match ups 

Dec. 31	Peach  	TCU (11-1) vs. Ole Miss (9-3)
Dec. 31	Orange  	Georgia Tech (10-3) vs. Mississippi State (10-2)
Jan. 1	Outback  	Wisconsin (10-3) vs. Auburn (8-4)
Jan. 1	Cotton  	Baylor (11-1) vs. Michigan State (10-2)

I've got Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Auburn and Michigan State.

Neener Neener


----------



## csxjohn

chalee94 said:


> yep, TCU lost to a top-5 team.  OSU lost to a juggernaut of a 6-6 virginia tech team (which lost to an awful 3-9 wake forest team by a score of 6-3).
> 
> f.....



And the crying begins.

Why just focus on the one loss by both teams?  Why not look at the wins just for starters.

TCU had five wins over teams that ended above .500

OSU had seven and the margin of victory in both team's wins in those games makes one of them look far superior to the other.


----------



## bogey21

bogey21 said:


> My guess is that Ohio State will knock out TCU.  Their win over Wisconsin was a lot more impressive that TCU's drubbing of an inferior Iowa State team.



Another reason is that the Committee was looking for the matchups that would result it the best TV ratings.  I think they accomplished their goal.

George


----------



## Elan

OT, but have to wonder what's going on at Wisconsin.  Lost their last two coaches to lateral moves.  Mike Riley is a good coach and apparently a really nice guy, but I think OSU came out great on this latest coach swap.  I'd be surprisaed if Andersen doesn't have the Beav's competitive in 2-3 years.


----------



## ampaholic

Elan said:


> OT, but have to wonder what's going on at Wisconsin.  Lost their last two coaches to lateral moves.  Mike Riley is a good coach and apparently a really nice guy, but I think OSU came out great on this latest coach swap.  I'd be surprisaed if Andersen doesn't have the Beav's competitive in 2-3 years.



the problem with that theory is the big dog down the block eating all the top recruits:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLCoRc2Y9BM

Just sayin....


----------



## "Roger"

Elan said:


> OT, but have to wonder what's going on at Wisconsin.  Lost their last two coaches to lateral moves....


Different coaches, different situations.  Bielema has a real ego (and was never accepted by Wisconsin fans for that reason - probably a factor in his interest in moving) and wanted  to complete for a national championship.  Didn't think he could get the players at Wisconsin.  Also, he complained that Wisconsin did not pay his assistant coaches enough money.  He kept losing his best coaches after about two years.  In the SEC, the schools compete in fewer athletic events and pay their assistant coaches almost twice what he was able to.  (How much should football rule a university?)

Anderson's stated reason was he wanted to move back to the west coast where he was more comfortable.  Odd, in that he spent almost his whole life in Utah - Oregon is not exactly like moving home.  I do wonder if his wife was unhappy with the colder climate.  Secondly, Anderson was having trouble accepting that the academic standards at Wisconsin are higher than, not only Utah State, but most of the Big Ten.  (Not Northwestern, obviously.)  He was reportedly very upset about having lost a top (maybe his top) recruit for next year - an athlete from nearby who switched to Michigan State after he was not admitted for academic reasons to Wisconsin. (Again, should Wisconsin make special admissions for the sake of football? From what I can tell, they already do some, but how far should a school bend to keep up with other programs?)

In retrospect, Anderson made what I thought was an odd statement after the Ohio State game ... "I let my players down."  Coaches will often shoulder part of or all of the blame for a loss, but they will say things "We should have prepared our players better for the game" or something like that (suggesting that they did not do as good a job as they might as opposed to suggesting personal failure to having even tried).  I now wonder if the Oregon State move was well into the works and Anderson was acknowledging that he was putting more thought into his next move as opposed to the upcoming game against Ohio State.


----------



## Elan

"Roger" said:


> Different coaches, different situations.  Bielema has a real ego (and was never accepted by Wisconsin fans for that reason - probably a factor in his interest in moving) and wanted  to complete for a national championship.  Didn't think he could get the players at Wisconsin.  Also, he complained that Wisconsin did not pay his assistant coaches enough money.  He kept losing his best coaches after about two years.  In the SEC, the schools compete in fewer athletic events and pay their assistant coaches almost twice what he was able to.  (How much should football rule a university?)
> 
> Anderson's stated reason was he wanted to move back to the west coast where he was more comfortable.  Odd, in that he spent almost his whole life in Utah - Oregon is not exactly like moving home.  I do wonder if his wife was unhappy with the colder climate.  Secondly, Anderson was having trouble accepting that the academic standards at Wisconsin are higher than, not only Utah State, but most of the Big Ten.  (Not Northwestern, obviously.)  He was reportedly very upset about having lost a top (maybe his top) recruit for next year - an athlete from nearby who switched to Michigan State after he was not admitted for academic reasons to Wisconsin. (Again, should Wisconsin make special admissions for the sake of football? From what I can tell, they already do some, but how far should a school bend to keep up with other programs?)
> 
> In retrospect, Anderson made what I thought was an odd statement after the Ohio State game ... "I let my players down."  Coaches will often shoulder part of or all of the blame for a loss, but they will say things "We should have prepared our players better for the game" or something like that (suggesting that they did not do as good a job as they might as opposed to suggesting personal failure to having even tried).  I now wonder if the Oregon State move was well into the works and Anderson was acknowledging that he was putting more thought into his next move as opposed to the upcoming game against Ohio State.



  I think it's safe to say we'll never know everything that goes into a coaches decision to leave.  Andersen is reportedly a high character guy (?), so it surprises me he'd leave after only 2 years, for mostly superficial reasons -- especially when coupled with Bielema's departure.  Makes me wonder if Alvarez meddles more than he should in the football program?


----------



## Elan

ampaholic said:


> the problem with that theory is the big dog down the block eating all the top recruits:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLCoRc2Y9BM
> 
> Just sayin....



  Your theory makes sense if one believes:

1) Oregon's facilities will remain significantly better than the Beavers'
2) Athletes are attracted to a school primarily because of facilities.
3) You can't be competitive with lower ranked recruits.

  I've watched enough CFB and followed recruiting intently enough that I don't believe any of those things.  After all, if what you say is true TCU and Baylor should never be competitive with UT just down the road.  

  Just sayin.............


----------



## ampaholic

Elan said:


> Your theory makes sense if one believes:
> 
> 1) Oregon's facilities will remain significantly better than the Beavers'
> 2) Athletes are attracted to a school primarily because of facilities.
> 3) You can't be competitive with lower ranked recruits.
> 
> I've watched enough CFB and followed recruiting intently enough that I don't believe any of those things.  After all, if what you say is true TCU and Baylor should never be competitive with UT just down the road.
> 
> Just sayin.............



1. Yep - no Mr. Knight at OSU to fund the upgrade.

2. It certainly don't hurt - and the national spotlight is attractive to top recruits.

3. Yea, they will always have a slugger's chance - but there is a reason the Yankees have won more than twice as many World Series as any other team.

Just sayin ...


----------



## am1

Is there any other AD better to step in to coach a bowl game then Wisco has?

Oregon State will probably win some big Pac10 games but I doubt will be lucky to go .500 in league play.  If he can make some noise there I would be happy for the sake of good football.

But people switch regular jobs every day so why should football coaches be any different.


----------



## Elan

ampaholic said:


> 1. Yep - no Mr. Knight at OSU to fund the upgrade.
> 
> 2. It certainly don't hurt - and the national spotlight is attractive to top recruits.
> 
> 3. Yea, they will always have a slugger's chance - but there is a reason the Yankees have won more than twice as many World Series as any other team.
> 
> Just sayin ...



1) OSU is in the process of upgrading their football facilities to the tune of $42 million.  Phil Knight money?  No, but I think the Beavs will do just fine with ceramic tiled showers in lieu of rare Italian travertine.
2) Doesn't hurt, but it isn't a major reason most athletes choose a school.  Far from it.  You'd know that if you followed recruiting.  
3) Certainly, even you can see the irrelevance of your comparison.  Or are you claiming the Yankees won so much because Yankee Stadium was so much nicer than the other facilities, because_ that's_ an accurate analogy.  

  Face it, your inference that a team can't recruit or be competitive simply because they don't have the best facilities is absurd.  Andersen may or may not be successful at OSU, but his success will have little to do with what is or isn't happening in Eugene.


----------



## Clemson Fan

I have to disagree with you on this one and agree with ampaholic. 

Having Nike's money is a huge advantage for Oregon.  They've also built up a reputation of being a perennial Top 5 program (even though they keep failing to win it all in the end - who knows maybe this year) for the past 10 years and they can attract top national recruits and not just northwest recruits.

I've actually been to games in Eugene and Corvallis in the last 10 years and there's really no comparison.

I don't see the Beavers ever reaching the status of a perennial Top 10 team.  They're the type of team that can be in the Top 25 like maybe every 2 out of 4 years and maybe once every 10-20 years actually sneak into the Top 10.  They can also go 3-8 once every 5-10 years as well.


----------



## Elan

Clemson Fan said:


> I have to disagree with you on this one and agree with ampaholic.
> 
> Having Nike's money is a huge advantage for Oregon.  They've also built up a reputation of being a perennial Top 5 program (even though they keep failing to win it all in the end - who knows maybe this year) for the past 10 years and they can attract top national recruits and not just northwest recruits.
> 
> I've actually been to games in Eugene and Corvallis in the last 10 years and there's really no comparison.
> 
> I don't see the Beavers ever reaching the status of a perennial Top 10 team.  They're the type of team that can be in the Top 25 like maybe every 2 out of 4 years and maybe once every 10-20 years actually sneak into the Top 10.  They can also go 3-8 once every 5-10 years as well.



   I didn't say having more money and better facilities wasn't an advantage.  I said it was possible to be competitive without the best facilities, which was to counter amp's inference that OSU couldn't be competitive because Oregon had so much better facilities.  

  Living in Idaho, I follow Boise State pretty closely.  BSU has decent, but not extravagant facilities.  They attract mostly 3 and 2 star recruits.  They have been ranked in the top 25 for 13 years running.  They routinely put players in the NFL, some early, and often many more than the P5 programs.  

  So to try to tell me that a team can't compete with less than top notch facilities is pretty outlandish.  That's like telling me what I've seen isn't real, LOL.  If you follow recruiting, kids don't tweet out that they really loved Oregon's Brazilian hardwood walls or marble tables and that's why they chose the Ducks.  Kids tweet that they love the coach that recruited them, or they loved the staff on their official visit.  Yes, money helps, but it's nowhere near the biggest thing when it comes to being successful on the field.  

  Like every other program, Oregon is one bad coaching hire from being a mediocre program.  Money doesn't guarantee success.   Look at Texas -- biggest football budget in the nation.  They're _maybe_ the 4th best team in the state.  Does anyone think Baylor and TCU can't compete with Texas?  

  FTR, I've been to Autzen and Reser also.  Both fields looked to be about 100 yards between the goal lines.  That's where the game is played.


----------



## TUGBrian

the top recruits are going to pick the place they believe will give them the best shot at playing at the next level.

While I have no doubt "nice facilities" is somewhere on the list...its more icing on the cake than a dealbreaker IMO.


----------



## Elan

TUGBrian said:


> the top recruits are going to pick the place they believe will give them the best shot at playing at the next level.
> 
> While I have no doubt "nice facilities" is somewhere on the list...its more icing on the cake than a dealbreaker IMO.



Yep.  I was going to list the top reasons I've seen recruits list for committing:

1) Loved the guy recruiting them
2) Loved the coaching staff
3) Loved the team vibe/chemistry 
4) School/position coaches rep for putting players in the league.
5) Loved the school, meaning the location and atmosphere, mostly independent of the football program -- campus, environment, downtown life, etc

  Quite frankly, the facilities seldom get mentioned.  All else equal, facilities probably matter.  But all else is never equal.


----------



## Clemson Fan

Elan said:


> Yep.  I was going to list the top reasons I've seen recruits list for committing:
> 
> 1) Loved the guy recruiting them
> 2) Loved the coaching staff
> 3) Loved the team vibe/chemistry
> 4) School/position coaches rep for putting players in the league.
> 5) Loved the school, meaning the location and atmosphere, mostly independent of the football program -- campus, environment, downtown life, etc
> 
> Quite frankly, the facilities seldom get mentioned.  All else equal, facilities probably matter.  But all else is never equal.



Yeah, I agree with that.


----------



## am1

Clemson Fan said:


> Yeah, I agree with that.



But facilities are the wow factor before a recruit even gets on campus and then as soon as they arrive.  Plus it shows the financial commitment the school makes towards the team.

I do think some schools spend too much on facilities.


----------



## "Roger"

Elan said:


> I think it's safe to say we'll never know everything that goes into a coaches decision to leave.  Andersen is reportedly a high character guy (?), so it surprises me he'd leave after only 2 years, for mostly superficial reasons -- especially when coupled with Bielema's departure.  Makes me wonder if Alvarez meddles more than he should in the football program?


This is what Andersen said in a radio interview today ...

“Barry Alvarez is a Hall of Fame head coach,” Andersen said. “He’s a Hall of Fame athletic director in my book and in my mind. The one thing that I just want to make sure that everybody understands, it has nothing to do with the relationship that I had with coach Alvarez. In my opinion, we’ll talk a lot as we continue to move forward. He helped me. He was not nosy in football whatsoever. … I want to make sure that everybody understands that that’s not the fact of me leaving.”

More and more, from different sources, it sounds as his frustration with the admission policies at UW was the main factor.


----------



## Elan

"Roger" said:


> This is what Andersen said in a radio interview today ...
> 
> “Barry Alvarez is a Hall of Fame head coach,” Andersen said. “He’s a Hall of Fame athletic director in my book and in my mind. The one thing that I just want to make sure that everybody understands, it has nothing to do with the relationship that I had with coach Alvarez. In my opinion, we’ll talk a lot as we continue to move forward. He helped me. He was not nosy in football whatsoever. … I want to make sure that everybody understands that that’s not the fact of me leaving.”
> 
> More and more, from different sources, it sounds as his frustration with the admission policies at UW was the main factor.



  Fair enough.  Just coincidence, I guess, that two coaches made lateral moves after short stays.  

  Sounds like Wisconsin is hiring Chryst.


----------



## ace2000

Since the topic of the day appears to be why players choose certain schools... wouldn't it be possible that the players make their choices very similar to how a typical student chooses their college to attend?  And that is probably based on a variety of factors that each student choose to weigh differently.  Some may want to be close to home, others may look at the football history and their likelihood of future success, some may choose based on where their parents went, and others may like the cute girl they noticed during their campus visit.  C'mon now, isn't it possible that every student may see it differently?  Naw, probably not, probably just a crazy idea.


----------



## TUGBrian

on average sure thats true....I thought the discussion was in regards to the top tier prospects.

those are expected to be good enough to play in the NFL...and while I have no doubt some of them are interested in other careers/academics....i doubt its the biggest recruiting perk available at most football powerhouses.


----------



## ace2000

If you guys forced me to choose the important factors, I'd have to guess the following.  I'm sure the athletic facilities help too.

Being close to home (not a huge factor for some, but for many)
Playing for a coaching staff and system that a player is comfortable with
And I'm sure any other perks help too (fully funded by the college boosters, wink, wink)


----------



## ace2000

A new topic, and since we're waiting for the bowl action to start.  Now that it's all over, didn't the playoff selection committee process end up working out pretty well this year?  

I guess you could say that things fell into place for them, but these final four teams seem to be pretty darn good choices to end up with at the end of the year.  Yes, TCU and Baylor can complain a little, but on a national level nobody really cares about those two.  I think the process worked out pretty well this year and yes, the committee got a little bit lucky things played out well in the end.  Next year... let the chaos begin !!!


----------



## Clemson Fan

ace2000 said:


> A new topic, and since we're waiting for the bowl action to start.  Now that it's all over, didn't the playoff selection committee process end up working out pretty well this year?
> 
> I guess you could say that things fell into place for them, but these final four teams seem to be pretty darn good choices to end up with at the end of the year.  Yes, TCU and Baylor can complain a little, but on a national level nobody really cares about those two.  I think the process worked out pretty well this year and yes, the committee got a little bit lucky things played out well in the end.  Next year... let the chaos begin !!!



I thought the committee did an excellent job!

I liked how they ranked teams based on their resumes at that snapshot in time and they didn't project forward.  Once a team's resume changed (like winning a conference championship), they were very willing to be fluid in their rankings and adjust them accordingly despite teams in front of them still winning.  The old AP rankings used to be so rigid that as long as you won (even by 1 point against a bad team) you wouldn't drop at all.

The last week was a great example of this fluidity and completion of resumes.  FSU and OSU won conference championships.  Baylor beat a very good KSU team who was a common opponent to TCU thus completing their resume and making their head to head win against TCU come into play.  Thus, despite TCU winning by 52 points against a bad team they dropped behind FSU, OSU and Baylor.  That was the right thing to do and it never would've happenned with the old rigid AP poll!


----------



## Elan

I propose that next year, in August, we poll America and find out which 4 teams we really care about.  In the event of a tie, the team with the best mascot wins.  Then we can just skip the regular season and get straight to the playoffs.


----------



## ace2000

Elan said:


> I propose that next year, in August, we poll America and find out which 4 teams we really care about.  In the event of a tie, the team with the best mascot wins.  Then we can just skip the regular season and get straight to the playoffs.



I would agree with most of this.  But, instead of the mascot, I think the team with the best looking cheerleaders gets in.


----------



## am1

Turned out well this year.  The controversy of it is what keeps it interesting.  

If MSU won their last game they would have been right in the conversation.  

FSU being so low has been the biggest surprise.  I do think a undefeated power 5 late in the season needs more respect then they got.  

Muschamp to Auburn.  SEC west is getting top tier head coaches to be coordinators.


----------



## Elan

ace2000 said:


> I would agree with most of this.  But, instead of the mascot, I think the team with the best looking cheerleaders gets in.



Believe it or not, there are some of us who are more interested in seeing a fair, logical method employed than watching "America's favorite teams" year after year.  Bizarre, I know.


----------



## ace2000

Elan said:


> Believe it or not, there are some of us who are more interested in seeing a fair, logical method employed than watching "America's favorite teams" year after year.  Bizarre, I know.



And you know I'm not disagreeing with you.  I think this thread has been an interesting read and it actually has increased my interest in College Football this year, thanks to you and the other frequent posters here.  

And thanks ClemsonFan for starting the thread!


----------



## csxjohn

Elan said:


> I propose that next year, in August, we poll America and find out which 4 teams we really care about.  In the event of a tie, the team with the best mascot wins.  Then we can just skip the regular season and get straight to the playoffs.





ace2000 said:


> I would agree with most of this.  But, instead of the mascot, I think the team with the best looking cheerleaders gets in.



If we go off the field for selections, let's pick the best band and send them.  We can then let the football teams play between the performances.


----------



## beejaybeeohio

*well, there you have it!*



csxjohn said:


> If we go off the field for selections, let's pick the best band and send them.  We can then let the football teams play between the performances.



That'd be Ohio State of course!


----------



## Clemson Fan

Woo hoo!  Nice destruction of OU tonight!  It would've been a shutout but for the fact that Clemson's head coach called a timeout with 8 minutes left to pull the whole first team defense for a standing ovation from the crowd!


----------



## TUGBrian

definitely a statement game....glad they did so well...ACC was looking pretty dismal sofar this year in bowl games!


----------



## Clemson Fan

Clemson had the #1 ranked defense in the NCAA this year and tonight they proved it wasn't a fluke!  They completely swallowed up and demolished OU's offense!


----------



## pedro47

Clemson Fan said:


> Woo hoo!  Nice destruction of OU tonight!  It would've been a shutout but for the fact that Clemson's head coach called a timeout with 8 minutes left to pull the whole first team defense for a standing ovation from the crowd!



This game ended a great season for Clemson and their coach showed what a class act coach  is by pulling whole first team defensive unit from the game.


----------



## ace2000

Clemson Fan said:


> Clemson had the #1 ranked defense in the NCAA this year and tonight they proved it wasn't a fluke!  They completely swallowed up and demolished OU's offense!



Congratulations on your team's success Clemson_Fan!  So far, it looks like the SEC and PAC-10 are doing well and the Big 12 is looking weak.  It's probably a good thing TCU or Baylor didn't make it to the playoffs.  

Looking forward to Thursday!


----------



## Elan

Now that the good bowl games are upon us, here's an interesting article regarding the NY6 coaches thoughts on the playoff:

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ear-six-coaches-fans-wonder-playoff-committee


----------



## am1

Elan said:


> Now that the good bowl games are upon us, here's an interesting article regarding the NY6 coaches thoughts on the playoff:
> 
> 
> Worth saying again, why are there so many bowls.  Why is 6-6 with one win against a 1AA acceptable?  Others feel the same way with the lack of fans in the stands.


----------



## Elan

am1 said:


> Now that the good bowl games are upon us, here's an interesting article regarding the NY6 coaches thoughts on the playoff:
> 
> 
> Worth saying again, why are there so many bowls.  Why is 6-6 with one win against a 1AA acceptable?  Others feel the same way with the lack of fans in the stands.



  Has to be money.  When in doubt..........


----------



## am1

Elan said:


> Has to be money.  When in doubt..........



Yes cheap progams for ESPN.  The host cities foot the bill and take the risk.  Making bowls harder to get to would mean more to players and fans.  A 6-6 team that had their sights set on a conference or national championship does not have much to get excited about.


----------



## TUGBrian

guess it has to be TV money, because it sure isnt ticket sale money.

I see the stadiums more than half empty in a number of these bowl games.


----------



## Elan

On a different note, I guess Ole Miss isn't quite used to playing teams with "Big 12 speed”.   LMFAO!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## TUGBrian

yeaaa....SEC top 10 team sure didnt show up to play today!


----------



## ace2000

Maybe TCU does belong after all!


----------



## TUGBrian

or yet another overrated SEC team didnt....


----------



## Elan

Boise State thumps another "power conference" school for  their third Fiesta win in 9 years.  Getting kinda old.......

Nah, that never gets old, LOL.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Clemson Fan

Elan said:


> Boise State thumps another "power conference" school for  their third Fiesta win in 9 years.  Getting kinda old.......
> 
> Nah, that never gets old, LOL.



I've always liked Boise State!  That BSU vs. OU Fiesta Bowl is in the Top 10 of college games that I've seen!  In fact, I always kinda like it when a non traditional power conference team does really well like BSU and TCU have done in the past.  I think it's an excellent example of how football is the ultimate team game and with good coaching and everybody buying in those teams can step up and beat teams with better overal talent.

That's the main reason I'd like to see the playoff expanded.  I don't like the power 5 conferences having a de facto monopoly on it.  I'd like to see some non power 5 teams that gel and play together really well with excellent coaching make it in the mix.


----------



## am1

Clemson Fan said:


> That's the main reason I'd like to see the playoff expanded.  I don't like the power 5 conferences having a de facto monopoly on it.  I'd like to see some non power 5 teams that gel and play together really well with excellent coaching make it in the mix.



They have 4 spots to make it going forward.  If their body of work is in the top 4 then they are in.  

Does the orange bowl always have the lowest turn out of the BCS level bowl games?


----------



## Clemson Fan

am1 said:


> Does the orange bowl always have the lowest turn out of the BCS level bowl games?



It's the teams.  GT's fan base never travels well.  I'm surprised how bad MSU's fan base travelled to the game.

That's why I said earlier that if the Orange Bowl had any discretion over the choice of teams then Clemson would've been in this game over GT.  Clemson's fan base travels really well and they would've gotten 20-30k fans to the Ornage Bowl easily.  This year, however, they tied the selection directly into the committee rankings with no discretion allowed.

BTW, Clemson's defense only gave up 14 points to this GT team.  The other 14 points came on pic 6's from our back up QB who was forced into action in the 1st quarter when our star true freshman QB hurt his knee.  If that didn't happen I'm sure that Clemson would've won that game.  Our offense was so anemic that day with our back up QB that our defense was constantly on the field and the defense really played valiantly.


----------



## Clemson Fan

The SEC West is 2-3 now with their only 2 wins coming from the bottom half of the division!


----------



## Clemson Fan

That was a pretty bad coaching job by MSU!  That GT offense is supposed to be the most dangerous when teams only have a week to prepare for it.  With 5 or 6 weeks to prepare that was a pretty pathetic showing!


----------



## Clemson Fan

The "Greatest" division in NCAA history is now 2-4 in bowl games!


----------



## laurac260

Clemson Fan said:


> The "Greatest" division in NCAA history is now 2-4 in bowl games!



Let's get ready to RUMBLE!  Go Bucks!!!


----------



## TUGBrian

overrated SEC top 10 teams dropping like flies to the piddly little acc.


----------



## Clemson Fan

SEC SEC SEC has become sec sec sec!


----------



## am1

Clemson Fan said:


> The "Greatest" division in NCAA history is now 2-4 in bowl games!



Very poor showing.  No head coachs who skipped town to blame either.  

If Alabama wins it all none of this other stuff matters.

Baylor and TCU had great wins.  That is why they were both on the bubble to get into the playoff.


----------



## TUGBrian

am1 said:


> Very poor showing.  No head coachs who skipped town to blame either.
> 
> If Alabama wins it all none of this other stuff matters.
> 
> Baylor and TCU had great wins.  That is why they were both on the bubble to get into the playoff.



baylor game is a 7 point game with 4min left....not sure thats on par with the TCU game by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Clemson Fan

am1 said:


> Very poor showing.  No head coachs who skipped town to blame either.
> 
> If Alabama wins it all none of this other stuff matters.
> 
> Baylor and TCU had great wins.  That is why they were both on the bubble to get into the playoff.



Baylor hasn't won quite yet!

Alabama still may win it all, but I thought it was all about the tremendous depth of the sec!  That's what our simple little ACC folks kept hearing about when FSU won it all last year!


----------



## TUGBrian

indeed...I certainly seem to recall plenty of "the acc is nothing but FSU and a bunch of so-so teams" comments!


----------



## am1

Clemson Fan said:


> Baylor hasn't won quite yet!
> 
> Alabama still may win it all, but I thought it was all about the tremendous depth of the sec!  That's what our simple little ACC folks kept hearing about when FSU won it all last year!



I switched to see Auburn lose in OT and Mizzou win.  Figured Balyor would have it wrapped up.  We will see if they can hang on.


----------



## TUGBrian

WOOOOWWWWWW

strong work MSU!


----------



## ace2000

Nice comeback for Michigan St!  And go Mizzou!!!


----------



## Clemson Fan

am1 said:


> I switched to see Auburn lose in OT and Mizzou win.  Figured Balyor would have it wrapped up.  We will see if they can hang on.



I guess you had your Dewey defeats Truman moment!


----------



## Clemson Fan

ace2000 said:


> Nice comeback for Michigan St!  And go Mizzou!!!



Boy, if it wasn't for those former Big 12 teams the sec would be having a horrible bowl season!


----------



## am1

Clemson Fan said:


> I guess you had your Dewey defeats Truman moment!



I do not get the reference.  But can guess.  

That will be hard to live down.  

What an intense last 24 hours of college football.  With the two biggest matchups to go.  

With such a long layoff bowl games can be unpredictable.  Other teams just decide to self destruct.


----------



## ace2000

The FSU - Oregon matchup should be interesting...


----------



## Clemson Fan

am1 said:


> I do not get the reference.  But can guess.
> 
> That will be hard to live down.



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman


----------



## am1

Clemson Fan said:


> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman



Thanks Im not that old.


----------



## TUGBrian

its still a pretty famous newspaper blunder.


----------



## Clemson Fan

I'm rooting for Oregon to finish the deal and win the NC!


----------



## am1

Clemson Fan said:


> I'm rooting for Oregon to finish the deal and win the NC!



Wishful thinking but they do look impressive against an undefeated reigning national champion.  Not much to be ashamed about this year.

So far oregon has beat every team they played this season.


----------



## pedro47

Oregon is in The Champion Game !!!


----------



## TUGBrian

whew, that was certainly a tough 2nd half to watch.

congrats to oregon, the sure looked good.


----------



## am1

am1 said:


> .  Not much to be ashamed about this year.



Just being poor losers.


----------



## TUGBrian

yea...I was pretty shocked to watch the whole "no means nooooo" mockery of the fsu warchant.

as the game ended I felt the need to root for oregon to win it given their performance on the field....that nonsense afterwards certainly changed that.


----------



## Clemson Fan

TUGBrian said:


> yea...I was pretty shocked to watch the whole "no means nooooo" mockery of the fsu warchant.
> 
> as the game ended I felt the need to root for oregon to win it given their performance on the field....that nonsense afterwards certainly changed that.



What happened?  I missed it.

The only thing I can find on the Internet is Kirk Herbstreit upset that over half of the FSU team didn't bother to Shake hands after the game.


----------



## TUGBrian

and he hasnt bothered to apologize after finding out that the rose bowl staff specifically asked the noles to leave the field except a handfull of players (winston, greene, etc) to shake hands so they could get the field setup for the awards ceremony.

video of the apparent "classy" team

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015...chant-no-means-no-after-beating-florida-state


----------



## Clemson Fan

WOW!!!!  What a game!

The "greatest" division in NCAA history is now 2-5 in bowls and DONE!!!


----------



## laurac260

Okay now, remind me again what y'all were saying about Ohio State???


----------



## Clemson Fan

The last 2 teams to beat Ohio State are from the lowly ACC!


----------



## Elan

Buh-bye SEC! :hysterical:


----------



## Clemson Fan

laurac260 said:


> Okay now, remind me again what y'all were saying about Ohio State???



They were awesome tonight, but they only beat a sec team!  :hysterical::rofl:

It's not like they were facing an ACC team who gave them their last 2 losses!


----------



## TUGBrian

certainly a great game to watch!


----------



## laurac260

Clemson Fan said:


> They were awesome tonight, but they only beat a sec team!  :hysterical::rofl:
> 
> It's not like they were facing an ACC team who gave them their last 2 losses!



I'll let you have that.  Perhaps delaying the game by an hour kept bama up past their bedtime?  

Let's hope we can stop hearing about how "unbeatable" the Sorry Excuse Conference is, now!!  For now, GO BUCKS!!!!


----------



## Elan

The SEC needs to get their conference up to snuff so they're playing tough games week in and week out and not just their intra-conference cupcake schedule.  Maybe nab some more teams from the B12.  They can at least win a bowl game.


----------



## csxjohn

Well, the Big 10 had a pretty good day. 

Minnesota did cost me a  four team parlay but that's what I get for betting three underdogs and Oregon.  It was going to pay 16:1.  I should have put OSU in there instead of Minn but I already had bet them to win it all at 7:1.

I was going to ask the TCU fans if they  wanted some cheese with their whine but we should not be hearing too much from them now.

Go Buckeyes!


----------



## Elan

Tide just couldn't match OSU's "Big 10 Speed".  :rofl:


----------



## Clemson Fan

Seriously speaking, the sec has had an awesome past decade.  There's no taking that away from them.  However, the bold boasting talk had become that the only good football played was in the sec and that in the history of college football (not just the last decade) that the sec was untouchable.  For the last decade - yes - but there are plenty of schools outside of the sec that have very rich and storied histories.

The pendulum has now begun to swing away from the sec and back to the other conferences.  It started with FSU last year and now what was touted as the best division in college football history is 2-5 in their bowl games.  IMO that's a good thing and very healthy for college football.


----------



## Elan

Someone tell me WTF The Urb was thinking on the first down play call after the onside kick.  Perhaps the dumbest coaching decision I've ever seen.  Had Bama scored on that last drive, I would have sworn some sort of fix was in -- it was that bizarre.


----------



## Elan

csxjohn said:


> I was going to ask the TCU fans if they  wanted some cheese with their whine but we should not be hearing too much from them now.
> 
> Go Buckeyes!



In not a TCU fan, but that's a really ignorant statement.  OSU winning doesn't, in any way, justify TCU's exclusion.  I guess you don't know that TCU rolled Ole Miss in their bowl game.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Clemson Fan

Elan said:


> Someone tell me WTF The Urb was thinking on the first down play call after the onside kick.  Perhaps the dumbest coaching decision I've ever seen.  Had Bama scored on that last drive, I would have sworn some sort of fix was in -- it was that bizarre.



My jaw dropped on that one as well!

Also, on Bama's last TD how did that receiver get so wide open for that deep pass to get them down the field!?  What was that safety thinking!


----------



## TUGBrian

I dont think anyone argues that the SEC doesnt have talented teams in it.

I think the issue is that everyone makes it out to seem like the SEC isnt full of terrible teams year after year...and that all other conferences have SO MANY terrible teams...that conference games are a joke.

This picture amused me


----------



## pedro47

That Ohio State QB was ranked third on the roster chart all season. Wow!


----------



## csxjohn

Elan said:


> In not a TCU fan, but that's a really ignorant statement.  OSU winning doesn't, in any way, justify TCU's exclusion.  I guess you don't know that TCU rolled Ole Miss in their bowl game.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk





Yes I do know that TCU won big but that win did not justify saying they belonged in the playoffs instead of OSU.

What was ignorant was the TCU fans (not on this forum)  trying to claim their team should have been in the playoffs because of that win before OSU even played their playoff game.

They were shedding some crocodile tears and I was pointing out that their whining was unjustified.  TCU did not do what they needed to in order to get in, the other four teams did.


----------



## laurac260

pedro47 said:


> That Ohio State QB was ranked third on the roster chart all season. Wow!


Can you imagine, playing your second start, EVER as a college football QB, in the playoffs against the #1 team???  And then BEATING them???


----------



## Elan

csxjohn said:


> What was ignorant was the TCU fans (not on this forum)  trying to claim their team should have been in the playoffs because of that win before OSU even played their playoff game.
> 
> They were shedding some crocodile tears and I was pointing out that their whining was unjustified.  TCU did not do what they needed to in order to get in, the other four teams did.



  No, that wasn't ignorant at all.  Whether or not TCU was qualified to participate in the playoff was totally independent of what OSU did.

  I don't think there are many around that don't now think that TCU is/was capable of winning the playoff.  They absolutely dominated the #9 team that beat the team the committee deemed #1.  TCU *absolutely* did what they needed to do to get into the playoff, they just weren't *picked* to participate.  

  You can claim that *both* TCU and OSU should have made the playoff, but to claim that TCU wasn't qualified is laughable.


----------



## Elan

Clemson Fan said:


> My jaw dropped on that one as well!
> 
> Also, on Bama's last TD how did that receiver get so wide open for that deep pass to get them down the field!?  What was that safety thinking!



  Yeah, that kid was going to jump that route, when all he needed to be doing was back-pedaling.


----------



## Elan

So my wife, who watches most games, but isn't a CFB fanatic like me, asked me last night (after the games had concluded) "So in the BCS system, who would have been playing in the championship game?".  

  I was thinking almost certainly FSU would have been #1 based on being undefeated, and there would have been a lot of gnashing over whether Oregon or Alabama would be #2.  Given the predominant SEC bias that's existed in similar previous scenarios, it's hard to imagine that the title game wouldn't be FSU v Bama.  Anyone see it otherwise?


----------



## Elan

With a few bowl games remaining:

POWER 5 CONFERENCES
Pac-12: 5-1 (wins by Utah, Arizona State, USC, Stanford and Oregon)
Big Ten: 5-4 (wins by Rutgers, Penn State, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Ohio State)
SEC: 5-5 (wins by South Carolina, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Georgia)
ACC: 4-6 (wins by NC State, Virginia Tech, Clemson Georgia Tech)
Big 12: 1-4 (Win by TCU)

THE REST
Conference USA: 4-1 (wins by Marshall, Western Kentucky, Rice, Louisiana Tech)
Independents: 2-1 (wins by Navy, Notre Dame)
Sun Belt: 1-1 (win by Louisiana-Lafayette)
Mountain West: 3-4 (wins by Utah State, Air Force and Boise State)
American: 1-2 (win by Memphis)
MAC: 1-3 (win by Bowling Green)


----------



## csxjohn

Elan said:


> No, that wasn't ignorant at all.  Whether or not TCU was qualified to participate in the playoff was totally independent of what OSU did.
> 
> I don't think there are many around that don't now think that TCU is/was capable of winning the playoff.  They absolutely dominated the #9 team that beat the team the committee deemed #1.  TCU *absolutely* did what they needed to do to get into the playoff, they just weren't *picked* to participate.
> 
> You can claim that *both* TCU and OSU should have made the playoff, but to claim that TCU wasn't qualified is laughable.



You are again missing my point.

When TCU won their bowl game their fans whined about not being picked ahead of OSU because that win somehow "proved" they should have been ahead of OSU.

By knocking off Alabama, OSU showed that they too can win against a good team.

For TCU fans to think they should have been selected, and using that win as proof, should have waited to see what the team that was selected did.

Personally, I never thought the committee would select OSU because they were down to their third string QB.

I don't know what the criteria was for selection but TCU wasn't selected therefore they didn't do what needed to be done to get in.  That doesn't mean that they wouldn't have beat Alabama but if they didn't have that one loss they would have at least played in that game.

I also never said TCU isn't good enough to win it all but OSU's big win in a major conference title game probably put them over the top to get in.

I also never said OSU's win showed they were better qualified than TCU.  What I did say was that TCU's win did not show they were better qualified and all their complaining took place before OSU played.


----------



## BocaBum99

Elan said:


> With a few bowl games remaining:
> 
> POWER 5 CONFERENCES
> Pac-12: 5-1 (wins by Utah, Arizona State, USC, Stanford and Oregon)
> Big Ten: 5-4 (wins by Rutgers, Penn State, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Ohio State)
> SEC: 5-5 (wins by South Carolina, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Georgia)
> ACC: 4-6 (wins by NC State, Virginia Tech, Clemson Georgia Tech)
> Big 12: 1-4 (Win by TCU)
> 
> THE REST
> Conference USA: 4-1 (wins by Marshall, Western Kentucky, Rice, Louisiana Tech)
> Independents: 2-1 (wins by Navy, Notre Dame)
> Sun Belt: 1-1 (win by Louisiana-Lafayette)
> Mountain West: 3-4 (wins by Utah State, Air Force and Boise State)
> American: 1-2 (win by Memphis)
> MAC: 1-3 (win by Bowling Green)



This year was better than it has been in the past, but it didn't solve all of the issues related to identifying a number 1 team in the country based on what happens on the field.

What needs to happen is that there needs to be an 8 team playoff with 4 games feeding into the system we have now that happens 10 days prior to the Jan 1 games.   The 8 teams should all be conference champions.  This means "The Rest" need to join one of the other Power 5 conferences or form 3 other conferences.   Then, and only then, can a real national champion be determined on the field.  Win your conference and you are in the playoff.   Win 3 playoff games and you are the national champion.


----------



## laurac260

csxjohn said:


> You are again missing my point.
> 
> When TCU won their bowl game their fans whined about not being picked ahead of OSU because that win somehow "proved" they should have been ahead of OSU.
> 
> By knocking off Alabama, OSU showed that they too can win against a good team.
> 
> For TCU fans to think they should have been selected, and using that win as proof, should have waited to see what the team that was selected did.
> 
> Personally, I never thought the committee would select OSU because they were down to their third string QB.
> 
> I don't know what the criteria was for selection but TCU wasn't selected therefore they didn't do what needed to be done to get in.  That doesn't mean that they wouldn't have beat Alabama but if they didn't have that one loss they would have at least played in that game.
> 
> I also never said TCU isn't good enough to win it all but OSU's big win in a major conference title game probably put them over the top to get in.
> 
> I also never said OSU's win showed they were better qualified than TCU.  What I did say was that TCU's win did not show they were better qualified and all their complaining took place before OSU played.



I wonder what Mark May would say to all this???


----------



## Elan

csxjohn said:


> You are again missing my point.
> 
> When TCU won their bowl game their fans whined about not being picked ahead of OSU because that win somehow "proved" they should have been ahead of OSU.
> 
> By knocking off Alabama, OSU showed that they too can win against a good team.
> 
> For TCU fans to think they should have been selected, and using that win as proof, should have waited to see what the team that was selected did.
> 
> Personally, I never thought the committee would select OSU because they were down to their third string QB.
> 
> I don't know what the criteria was for selection but TCU wasn't selected therefore they didn't do what needed to be done to get in.  That doesn't mean that they wouldn't have beat Alabama but if they didn't have that one loss they would have at least played in that game.
> 
> I also never said TCU isn't good enough to win it all but OSU's big win in a major conference title game probably put them over the top to get in.
> 
> I also never said OSU's win showed they were better qualified than TCU.  What I did say was that TCU's win did not show they were better qualified and all their complaining took place before OSU played.



  TCU fans were complaining well before their bowl game, and justifiably so.


----------



## laurac260

Elan said:


> TCU fans were complaining well before their bowl game, and justifiably so.






I don't agree with how the rankings are decided either, but lord knows the Bucks have been on the receiving end of being dissed by the committee, MANY TIMES.  But you know what we do, we just ROLL with it, baby!


----------



## am1

All we can do now is see where the ranking come out.  As well as speculate.  Baylor looked liked they deserved to be in the playoff as well until the 4th quarter.  TCU or Baylor would have been in the playoff if there was a CCG.  

The two semi final games were great to watch but I would like to see the games with less down time between the end of the regular season and playoff.  A bowl game after a long layoff is one thing but not right for a playoff.  The players will be thrown a few bones but they deserve more than that for packing the Superdome and Rose Bowl and then ATT Stadium.  It may take 5-10 years for some players to earn what the coach may earn for winning the game.


----------



## Elan

am1 said:


> All we can do now is see where the ranking come out.  As well as speculate.  Baylor looked liked they deserved to be in the playoff as well until the 4th quarter.  TCU or Baylor would have been in the playoff if there was a CCG.
> 
> The two semi final games were great to watch but I would like to see the games with less down time between the end of the regular season and playoff.  A bowl game after a long layoff is one thing but not right for a playoff.  The players will be thrown a few bones but they deserve more than that for packing the Superdome and Rose Bowl and then ATT Stadium.  It may take 5-10 years for some players to earn what the coach may earn for winning the game.



  Basically, you're making my argument for an 8 team playoff.  It will pack stadiums, regardless of game location, and should fill the dead spot between the end of the regular season and Jan 1.  If the logistics deem that one early season OOC game needs to be wiped away, so be it.  Does anyone really want to see Alabama play Georgia State on Sep 5th, anyway?


----------



## Elan

laurac260 said:


> I don't agree with how the rankings are decided either, but lord knows *the Bucks have been on the receiving end of being dissed by the committee, MANY TIMES*.  But you know what we do, we just ROLL with it, baby!



  The committee approach was new to CFB this year...........


----------



## laurac260

Elan said:


> The committee approach was new to CFB this year...........



ok, let me reword… we have been on the receiving end of being dissed in the rankings many times…  but again, we just ROLL with it.


----------



## "Roger"

So, if we went to the old bowl system (before the BCS), Oregon would be playing Ohio State (in the Rose Bowl).  How ironic.

In addition, TCU would have had a big time game (as would Alabama and Florida State) - one that would have given them an opportunity to claim bragging rights as the real number one.

I know that I am a oner, but I would have no problem with the fact that there would have been controversy over who deserved the number one ranking after the bowl games. These are college kids, very few of whom will play pro bowl. No harm in lingering controversies over who was really the best.  As far as a clear determination of who is best, I doubt that if a four team (or eight team playoff) could be played several times, the outcome would be same.  Finally, much like the NFL playoff, the most interesting games are not the final one (and I am not talking about whether the individual game is a good one or not). Most of the most intriguing match ups come before the final game.  In that vein, I have much less interest in the Oregon - Ohio State match up than I did in this week's games.


----------



## chalee94

Elan said:


> TCU fans were complaining well before their bowl game, and justifiably so.



i'm not even a TCU fan and i thought it was garbage that political maneuvering got OSU into the playoffs over TCU (which had higher sagarin/computer ratings).

but at least the SEC is out of the championship game...


----------



## laurac260

chalee94 said:


> i'm not even a TCU fan and i thought it was garbage that political maneuvering got OSU into the playoffs over TCU (which had higher sagarin/computer ratings).
> 
> but at least the SEC is out of the championship game...



Good lord.  Political maneuvering?   

The game comes on, I watch it.  I cheer for my team, win or lose.  Ya'll come on here and suck the FUN out of the sport with your analysis paralysis.  

Sigh… I think I will sign off and enjoy our win. After all, our 3rd string quarterback *deserves* his accolades, political maneuvering or not.


----------



## Elan

"Roger" said:


> So, if we went to the old bowl system (before the BCS), Oregon would be playing Ohio State (in the Rose Bowl).  How ironic.
> 
> In addition, TCU would have had a big time game (as would Alabama and Florida State) - one that would have given them an opportunity to claim bragging rights as the real number one.
> 
> I know that I am a oner, but I would have no problem with the fact that there would have been controversy over who deserved the number one ranking after the bowl games. These are college kids, very few of whom will play pro bowl. No harm in lingering controversies over who was really the best.  As far as a clear determination of who is best, I doubt that if a four team (or eight team playoff) could be played several times, the outcome would be same.  Finally, much like the NFL playoff, the most interesting games are not the final one (and I am not talking about whether the individual game is a good one or not). Most of the most intriguing match ups come before the final game.  In that vein, I have much less interest in the Oregon - Ohio State match up than I did in this week's games.



  Actually, I'm not as opposed as you would think.  What I took issue with was the corrupt BCS era where teams were nebulously selected to play in a game for the "National Championship".  Call it what you want, but effectively hand picking two teams to play in one game is never going to be a National Championship.  So any change away from that system is an improvement, whether it's a evolutionary change to a real (8 or more team) playoff, or a reversion to numerous good bowl games with the associated post bowl season bickering as to who is #1.


----------



## Elan

laurac260 said:


> Good lord.  Political maneuvering?
> 
> The game comes on, I watch it.  I cheer for my team, win or lose.  Ya'll come on here and suck the FUN out of the sport with your analysis paralysis.



  Just because you're not as passionate about CFB as some of us doesn't mean we don't have fun with it.  It's just at a different level.  Maybe if you'd been to 150+ CFB games in the past 20ish years, you'd feel the same?


----------



## laurac260

Elan said:


> Just because you're not as passionate about CFB as some of us doesn't mean we don't have fun with it.  It's just at a different level.  Maybe if you'd been to 150+ CFB games in the past 20ish years, you'd feel the same?



Here's what Luke Fickell, defensive coordinator for the Bucks said after OSU was banned from post season play, “To me it’s just another thing, it’s just another hurdle,” Fickell said. “If it happens you have to get over it. What are you going to do, cry and whine about it? We can’t do that.”

So yea, that.


----------



## Clemson Fan

csxjohn said:


> You are again missing my point.
> 
> When TCU won their bowl game their fans whined about not being picked ahead of OSU because that win somehow "proved" they should have been ahead of OSU.
> 
> By knocking off Alabama, OSU showed that they too can win against a good team.
> 
> For TCU fans to think they should have been selected, and using that win as proof, should have waited to see what the team that was selected did.
> 
> Personally, I never thought the committee would select OSU because they were down to their third string QB.
> 
> I don't know what the criteria was for selection but TCU wasn't selected therefore they didn't do what needed to be done to get in.  That doesn't mean that they wouldn't have beat Alabama but if they didn't have that one loss they would have at least played in that game.
> 
> I also never said TCU isn't good enough to win it all but OSU's big win in a major conference title game probably put them over the top to get in.
> 
> I also never said OSU's win showed they were better qualified than TCU.  What I did say was that TCU's win did not show they were better qualified and all their complaining took place before OSU played.



If TCU was "picked" over OSU then you would be shedding those same "crocodile" tears!

BTW, for the record I think the committee got it right!


----------



## Clemson Fan

laurac260 said:


> I don't agree with how the rankings are decided either, but lord knows the Bucks have been on the receiving end of being dissed by the committee, MANY TIMES.  But you know what we do, we just ROLL with it, baby!



Now that's NOT true!  In their 2 previous BCS NC games OSU got absolutely rolled and destroyed.  This year, they lost by 14 points at home to a lousy ACC team.  They did earn their way in, but to say when they were being evaluated and compared to the other teams being evaluated that they were being "dissed" is just ridiculous!


----------



## Clemson Fan

laurac260 said:


> ok, let me reword… we have been on the receiving end of being dissed in the rankings many times…  but again, we just ROLL with it.



That's laughable!  The Big 10 has been down over the last decade, but by virtue of being undefeated OSU has been "picked" by the rankings to make 2 NC games where they just got bludgeoned!


----------



## Clemson Fan

Elan said:


> So my wife, who watches most games, but isn't a CFB fanatic like me, asked me last night (after the games had concluded) "So in the BCS system, who would have been playing in the championship game?".
> 
> I was thinking almost certainly FSU would have been #1 based on being undefeated, and there would have been a lot of gnashing over whether Oregon or Alabama would be #2.  Given the predominant SEC bias that's existed in similar previous scenarios, it's hard to imagine that the title game wouldn't be FSU v Bama.  Anyone see it otherwise?



Yup, that's exactly right!

The committee really changed how a poll was done with allowing for so much fluidity.  It wasn't until AFTER the committee began to drop FSU that the other polls followed suit and did the same thing.  Without that, I'm convinced FSU would've finished #1 in the polls and Alabama would've been #2.


----------



## Clemson Fan

Just an observation:

Over the last 2 years...

Alabama is 0-2 in their bowl games against OSU and OU

Clemson is 2-0 in their bowl games against OU and OSU


----------



## am1

Because of the amount of time off between games and other factors winning or losing a bowl does not justify if team deserved a better spot.  With every game there is a winner and loser.  Do people really think the SEC West is as bad as they have played in the bowl games?  Is ohio state really a better team than Alabama?  

How does catching a deflected hail mary pass with no time left on the clock mean one team is better than the other?  

It is just that winning and losing is the best we have to go with and is why people watch the games and not a scrimmage.  College Football is unpredictable and that is what makes it great.


----------



## Clemson Fan

Give Nick Saban a month to prepare and...what?  He now 8-8 in bowl games!


----------



## am1

Clemson Fan said:


> Give Nick Saban a month to prepare and...what?  He now 8-8 in bowl games!



I would take his record over anyone elses.


----------



## Elan

Clemson Fan said:


> Yup, that's exactly right!
> 
> The committee really changed how a poll was done with allowing for so much fluidity.  It wasn't until AFTER the committee began to drop FSU that the other polls followed suit and did the same thing.  Without that, I'm convinced FSU would've finished #1 in the polls and Alabama would've been #2.



  Unlike you, I find the committee approach only marginally more palatable than the grossly biased "pick an SEC team and one other" BCS era system.  

  But it is a small step forward.  If nothing else, it increases the likelihood that a team will have to beat 2 different schemes to win it all.  Imagine having to shut down the triple option in the semi-final, and then getting 10 days to prepare for the run-and-shoot or the pistol.


----------



## Elan

am1 said:


> Because of the amount of time off between games and other factors winning or losing a bowl does not justify if team deserved a better spot.  With every game there is a winner and loser.  Do people really think the SEC West is as bad as they have played in the bowl games?  Is ohio state really a better team than Alabama?
> 
> How does catching a deflected hail mary pass with no time left on the clock mean one team is better than the other?
> 
> It is just that winning and losing is the best we have to go with and is why people watch the games and not a scrimmage.  College Football is unpredictable and that is what makes it great.



  Well which is it?  

  Your claim all along has been that the SEC is so great based presumably on 7 select bowl game wins, but now, because the SEC west got hammered in bowls, bowl games are insignificant and flukish in nature?  Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.  I pointed out before that the largest recent data set says that the SEC wins about 53% of the time when playing OOC games against comparable opponents.  That data is more representative of the relative strength of the conference than any stand alone bowl data.  The SEC is slightly better than average.  Nothing more.  

  And yes, I do think OSU is better than Bama.  Go look a the box score.  OSU outgained the Tide by 130 yards, which will typically translate into roughly 7-10 points score differential all else equal.  Well, turnovers were even, penalties were even and so was TOP.  There weren't any overly flukish plays, so why wouldn't everyone conclude OSU was better.  Had OSU been able to punch their first few posessions in for TD's instead of FG's, it likely would have been a route.  The best team won.


----------



## am1

The SEC has been the best conference the last 10 years, not just because of winning the national championship that they have but by getting invited to the dance as many times as they have.  Has any conference been better in any measurable way?  

Winning or losing the last game of the year does not determine how good or bad a team is but doing it that many times in a row is a statement of dominance.  

This year which conference played in the most big games and the pressure that goes with that?

It is  likely the tide is changing or at least evening out.


----------



## Elan

am1 said:


> The SEC has been the best conference the last 10 years, not just because of winning the national championship that they have but by getting invited to the dance as many times as they have.  Has any conference been better in any measurable way?
> 
> Winning or losing the last game of the year does not determine how good or bad a team is but doing it that many times in a row is a statement of dominance.
> 
> This year which conference played in the most big games and the pressure that goes with that?
> 
> It is  likely the tide is changing or at least evening out.



  Have you considered a job at ESPiN?


----------



## Clemson Fan

am1 said:


> I would take his record over anyone elses.



Saban is a great coach!  I would take him over most others.

However, he does meticulously manipulate his schedule to give himself either a bye week or a cupcake team the week before any what he considers highly challenging games.  He does whatever he can to give himself whatever advantage he can.  There's nothing wrong with that and I commend him for it.  That's what a great college coach should do!

It is a myth though that he's unbeatable and can shut anybody down given a month to prepare.  In fact, when things are as equal as they can be across the board (neutral site, same amount of time to prepare, relatively evenly matched opponent, etc.), he's just a very pedestrian 8-8.

I think that's why he couldn't really succeed in the NFL.  In the NFL you can't influence and tip the competitive balance in your favor like you can in college.


----------



## pedro47

Ohio State or Oregon.I am going to pick the Team that starts with the letter "O."


----------



## csxjohn

Clemson Fan said:


> If TCU was "picked" over OSU then you would be shedding those same "crocodile" tears!
> 
> BTW, for the record I think the committee got it right!



Not a chance, you haven't been paying attention.  

I really thought that OSU losing to lowly VAT then losing their QB just before the Big 10 conference game they would not have been considered and I've stated before that I'd be fine with that.  That's what the committee is supposed to do, consider all the circumstances.

I think the thrashing of a pretty good Wisconsin team got them in even with the third string QB in there for the up coming semi final game.

No tears at all if TCU or Baylor got in ahead of us, I don't fret over things I can't control. What got me going was all the renewed crying from the TCU fans after their wonderful bowl game win, somehow pointing to that win as proof that they should have been in and not OSU.

After OSU couldn't score a touchdown on two first and goals, had an interception and fumble that resulted in 14 pts for Bama I was getting ready to write that I didn't think we needed the committee or the playoffs, the number one and two were going to be playing anyhow.  The coach even tried to give the game away with a pass on the first down of the last series when running out the clock was more important than a long play.


----------



## Clemson Fan

csxjohn said:


> Not a chance, you haven't been paying attention.
> 
> I really thought that OSU losing to lowly VAT then losing their QB just before the Big 10 conference game they would not have been considered and I've stated before that I'd be fine with that.  That's what the committee is supposed to do, consider all the circumstances.
> 
> I think the thrashing of a pretty good Wisconsin team got them in even with the third string QB in there for the up coming semi final game.
> 
> No tears at all if TCU or Baylor got in ahead of us, I don't fret over things I can't control. What got me going was all the renewed crying from the TCU fans after their wonderful bowl game win, somehow pointing to that win as proof that they should have been in and not OSU.
> 
> After OSU couldn't score a touchdown on two first and goals, had an interception and fumble that resulted in 14 pts for Bama I was getting ready to write that I didn't think we needed the committee or the playoffs, the number one and two were going to be playing anyhow.  The coach even tried to give the game away with a pass on the first down of the last series when running out the clock was more important than a long play.



OK, not you then.

However, I can guarantee you that the collective OSU fan base would of been no different then the TCU fan base had TCU been picked over OSU!


----------



## Clemson Fan

pedro47 said:


> Ohio State or Oregon.I am going to pick the Team that starts with the letter "O."



I'll be rooting for da local boy dun good Marcus!


----------



## laurac260

csxjohn said:


> Not a chance, you haven't been paying attention.
> 
> I really thought that OSU losing to lowly VAT then losing their QB just before the Big 10 conference game they would not have been considered and I've stated before that I'd be fine with that.  That's what the committee is supposed to do, consider all the circumstances.
> 
> I think the thrashing of a pretty good Wisconsin team got them in even with the third string QB in there for the up coming semi final game.
> 
> No tears at all if TCU or Baylor got in ahead of us, I don't fret over things I can't control. What got me going was all the renewed crying from the TCU fans after their wonderful bowl game win, somehow pointing to that win as proof that they should have been in and not OSU.
> 
> After OSU couldn't score a touchdown on two first and goals, had an interception and fumble that resulted in 14 pts for Bama I was getting ready to write that I didn't think we needed the committee or the playoffs, the number one and two were going to be playing anyhow.  The coach even tried to give the game away with a pass on the first down of the last series when running out the clock was more important than a long play.


Ha, you missed the very FIRST blunder, the first play of the game, where the Bucks left a live ball to sit in THEIR end zone, just waiting for some random Buckeye to pick it up and do a touchdown dance.  My husband pointed that out to me immediately.  The sportscasters caught up to it sometime during the 2nd quarter.   I just wrote it off, no one seemed to notice (including us). Imagine if Bama HAD scored on that hail mary, or otherwise managed to beat us by a touchdown.  We would all been saying the "if only's".  Did I think OSU was ready for primetime last night?  NOOO.  I did not.  I was very apprehensive when I found out we were going to the Sugar Bowl, and am feeling equally apprehensive about going to the big game.  But no one asked me my opinion before they picked the teams.  I held my breath, rooted for my team, kept my trash talking to myself (I didn't have enough confidence to do any), and silently prayed that we COULD beat 'bama, cuz everyone said we COULDN'T.  And guess what?  We did.  

I am nothing but impressed with Cardale.  He took awhile to settle in, and his nerves may have gotten the better of him in the 4th, but all in all, all things considered, I thought he stepped up to the plate and delivered more than anyone could expect, given his lack of a seasons preparation.  So, as far as I am concerned, the naysayers can shut up now.  Let's see what happens on the 12th, and may the best team win.


----------



## am1

Clemson Fan said:


> OK, not you then.
> 
> However, I can guarantee you that the collective OSU fan base would of been no different then the TCU fan base had TCU been picked over OSU!



I would say would have been worse.  Even by what other OSU homers have said on this thread.  

For me OSU made their statement game and became the true champion of their conference.  

The BIG XII decided to hurt one of their long time members in trying to increase the chance of getting one team in.


----------



## laurac260

um…nevermind, it's not worth it.


----------



## Talent312

As a fan of the SEC, I'm prepared to admit that several teams cam up short and the overall bowl results were mediocre at best...

The Western Division did not live up to the hype. Alabama, two Mississippi's, Auburn & LSU all lost. OTOH, the "weaker" Eastern Division held it's own with wins by Georgia, South Carolina, Missouri & Tennessee. For now, I'll concur with those who say that the other conferences have teams that can play as well... a few, anyway.
.


----------



## SunSand

Since the Big Ten Network is affiliated with FOX, and the Pac 12 is an independent, ESPN might be forced to be unbiased.  The hype has ended.


----------



## pedro47

Clemson Fan said:


> I'll be rooting for da local boy dun good Marcus!



Last year the QB from Clemson was from the 757 telephone area code Hampton Roads Virginia. I am waiting for this football season for the Clemson Tigers to play the new VA Tech and the new "The University of Virginia" football teams in 2015.

Did VA Tech defeat Ohio State last year ?


----------



## csxjohn

laurac260 said:


> Ha, you missed the very FIRST blunder, ....



Oh, I did not miss it, I was going  crazy over here while it was live.  I saw the Bama player heading toward the ball and nonchalantly pick it up at the same time I was screaming at the OSU player to dive for the ball.  (The players, coaches, refs, and announcers never listen to me through the TV set.

I didn't put it in that post, I couldn't get it worded right but I was sitting here bemoaning the fact that it could have been 7-0 with no or very little time off the clock.

What I did not know is that in college ball, once the ball lands in the end zone untouched, it is a dead ball.  I thought maybe the announcer got it wrong but I've been doing some reading and it looks like in 1972 this rule was changed. In the NFL, I believe, it's still a live ball until downed by someone or goes out of bounds.

As the play was going on my wife just scratched her head and asked "how do you know theses things.?  When you've been watching football for over 60 years you pick up a few things out of the ordinary.


----------



## csxjohn

Clemson Fan said:


> OK, not you then.
> 
> However, I can guarantee you that the collective OSU fan base would of been no different then the TCU fan base had TCU been picked over OSU!



Around my area, at least, there was a sigh of relief when the final standings came out.  Many of us didn't expect us to be in but that big win against Wisc gave us hope.  I did hear commentary that the Big 12's failure to name a champion probably hurt both co-champions during he selection process.

As someone already mentioned it's back to the Big 10 against the Pac 12 like the Rose Bowls of old.  I'm lovin' it.

Once again, I don't think the team from Ohio can win but I hope they do.


----------



## csxjohn

Elan said:


> Have you considered a job at ESPiN?



Good one!

I wish we had "like" buttons on this forum, I think this post would have gotten a few.


----------



## MULTIZ321

*Oregon Football Players Chant "No Means No" After Beating FSU*

Oregon Players Should Be Celebrated, Not Punished for Chanting "No Means No!" - by Rebecca Leber/ Sports/ New Republic.com

"Several University of Oregon football players used their brief moment in the spotlight Thursday, after routing Florida State 59-20 in a College Football Playoff semifinal, to simultaneously mock the Seminoles' racist war chant and taunt losing quarterback Jameis Winston over rape allegations against him..."


Richard


----------



## Elan

Here's a good read on the upcoming NFL playoff expansion.  The article details the mathematical breakdown and implications of adding more teams to the NFL playoffs, and echoes a lot of what I've posted here regarding CFB playoff expansion.  The part regarding an "accidental champion" is particularly interesting as it pertains to college football.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/201...nclude-14-16-teams-various-seeding-strategies

  I think it's pretty clear that if 14 teams is a near optimal number in a 32 team league that plays 16 regular season games, that 4 is woefully inadequate for a 124 team "league" that plays 12 regular season games.

From the article:

---
Paine, a senior writer for FiveThirtyEight.com, published research earlier this year suggesting that a 16-team format would increase the randomness of champions far more than a move to 14 teams. In a more recent post in conjunction with this story, Paine used Elo ratings as a measure of team quality to examine the impact of playoff expansion.

Similar results emerged: If the NFL wants a playoff "tournament," where the championship odds of all seeded teams are as close as possible, it should expand the postseason to 16 games. If it wants to provide incentive to finish with a conference-best record and guide the top seeds to the Super Bowl, it should stop expansion at 14.

"Based on my research, *14 teams really does appear to be the sweet spot* between letting teams *settle it on the field* and putting the *better team in position to succeed*," Paine said.
---


----------



## am1

Michigan State is a good team this year but lost to the two teams playing for the championship and beat the first team left out of the playoff.  If any team has a case to expand the playoff it is them.  But only if we are trying to figure out the 3rd best team in the country.  Michigan state has not shown they deserve to be in the championship game as they already their chance and lost. 

Lets remember the NFL teams do not have to worry about final exams, getting the players home for Christmas and then back to campus then to the playoff site, coaches leaving, coaches recruiting, getting ready for the NFL combine, having both teams traveling to playoff sites, etc.


----------



## ace2000

IMO, I don't care about who finishes third.  Let the other bowls sort that out.  The committee and the new playoff system have been a major upgrade this year.  I wouldn't mind if they expanded the format, but I'm content with where we're at now.  

By the way, I haven't seen this posted, so I'll post it here...

*Mega ratings for ESPN's college football playoffs make cable TV history*



> The two highest-rated broadcasts in cable TV history now belong to ESPN thanks to the new college football playoffs.



http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/02/media/college-football-playoff-ratings/


----------



## Elan

I think that TCU has a very legitimate claim to a playoff spot.  There's no doubt in my mind that they could (not saying would, but could) beat Oregon and/or OSU.  

  But more importantly, in the very first year, the playoff proved that the committee's selection process is not precise.  Given that, I'd much rather err on the side of letting in a potentially undeserving team (if you can call a 11-1 or 10-2 team "undeserving") than excluding a deserving team. 

  As far as logistics, scrap a meaningless opening OOC game.  The first round could be played on what's now the last game of the regular season.   Then the layoff would be identical to what it is currently.  Although I'm not sure that's the best solution, it's certainly a workable one.    

  As ace2000 pointed out, the ratings for the playoff were huge.  I said that they would be years ago on these boards.  Yes, a 4 team playoff is much better than the fraud that was the BCS system.  But it can be even better.  I don't know about you guys, but I think another week of games of the same caliber of this year's semi's would be fantastic.  

  An expanded playoff is coming.  It's only a matter of when, not if.


----------



## BocaBum99

Elan said:


> I think that TCU has a very legitimate claim to a playoff spot.  There's no doubt in my mind that they could (not saying would, but could) beat Oregon and/or OSU.
> 
> But more importantly, in the very first year, the playoff proved that the committee's selection process is not precise.  Given that, I'd much rather err on the side of letting in a potentially undeserving team (if you can call a 11-1 or 10-2 team "undeserving") than excluding a deserving team.
> 
> As far as logistics, scrap a meaningless opening OOC game.  The first round could be played on what's now the last game of the regular season.   Then the layoff would be identical to what it is currently.  Although I'm not sure that's the best solution, it's certainly a workable one.
> 
> As ace2000 pointed out, the ratings for the playoff were huge.  I said that they would be years ago on these boards.  Yes, a 4 team playoff is much better than the fraud that was the BCS system.  But it can be even better.  I don't know about you guys, but I think another week of games of the same caliber of this year's semi's would be fantastic.
> 
> An expanded playoff is coming.  It's only a matter of when, not if.



I'll say it again.   8 conferences, 16 teams per conference.   Each conference can name its conference champion any way it wants.   Each of the 8 conference champions are entered into an 8 team, 3 round playoff starting 7-10 days after the conference championship game.   First round of the play offs happens 7-10 days prior to New Year.   Semis is on New Year's day.   National Championship game is 7-10 days after that.   All 128 Division 1 teams have a chance to win it all.   Just win your conference and 3 more games and you are the national champion.

I am fine with scrapping meaningless OOC games which are most meaningless in the SEC.


----------



## TUGBrian

I dont much mind beginning of the year warm up games...which essentially amount to nothing more than glorified scrimmages.

however the mid season cupcakes are getting silly...and certainly take away from the whole "we dont want kids to have to play more games" argument.

that said, taking away those noncon games from the big schools means less overall regular season games...which means less games for all schools across the board.

doubt you get many (if any) athletic department agreeing to that.  even in middle tier schools football brings in lots of money.


----------



## Elan

FCS has had a 16+ team playoff for years (now 24 teams -- too many, IMO).  With as much money as 4+ more playoff games would bring in, I'm pretty sure someone will figure out a way to make it work in FBS as well.


----------



## Clemson Fan

Time to bump this back up.  2 more days until the big game!


----------



## pedro47

Clemson Fan said:


> Time to bump this back up.  2 more days until the big game!



Ohio State has beaten Oregon eight (8) consecutive times; odds prediction it is time for Oregon to win one.


----------



## Elan

Ducks just lost their 2nd best receiver to go along with the loss of their All American CB a few weeks ago.


----------



## crew

Elan said:


> Ducks just lost their 2nd best receiver to go along with the loss of their All American CB a few weeks ago.



Just heard that he tested positive by the NCAA for marijuana. Unbelievable that he put himself in this position. Now he'll be watching the biggest game of his life from home.


----------



## csxjohn

crew said:


> Just heard that he tested positive by the NCAA for marijuana. Unbelievable that he put himself in this position. Now he'll be watching the biggest game of his life from home.



That's why they call it Dope.


----------



## csxjohn

Oregon is still favored by 6 1/2.  A straight bet on them will win $.50 for a $1 bet.  A straight bet on Ohio State wins $1.70 for a $1 bet.

A couple weeks ago before the semi final games I bet on Ohio Stat to take it all winning $6 for a $1 bet, if they pull it off.

The over under is 74.  What's interesting is if you take Ohio St +6 1/2 or Oregon -6 1/2, the payoff is the same, $.91 for a $1 bet.


----------



## ace2000

What's going on around here - we're still playing tonight, aren't we???  

My heart says Ohio St. and my head tells me it's got to be Oregon.  I would guess the crowd will be in favor of Oregon since they're closer?


----------



## TUGBrian

id think that columbus is closer to dallas than eugene is?


----------



## csxjohn

TUGBrian said:


> id think that columbus is closer to dallas than eugene is?



When I was in the service I had a Texan tell me, and believe, that Texas is so big it's further from El Paso to Texarkana than it is from Texarkana to New York City.

He must have been using the same map as Ace.


----------



## Talent312

crew said:


> Just heard that he tested positive by the NCAA for marijuana. Unbelievable that he put himself in this position. Now he'll be watching the biggest game of his life from home.



Prolly gettin' high, too.
Maybe he forgot which State he was in.


----------



## ace2000

TUGBrian said:


> id think that columbus is closer to dallas than eugene is?



True... I was thinking Phoenix for some reason.  Guess I got it mixed up with the pros.


----------



## ace2000

csxjohn said:


> When I was in the service I had a Texan tell me, and believe, that Texas is so big it's further from El Paso to Texarkana than it is from Texarkana to New York City.
> 
> He must have been using the same map as Ace.



LOL - I did live in Texas for 6 years.


----------



## Clemson Fan

Well, that was a butt whooping of the ultimate paper tiger in Oregon!  OSU even lost the turnover battle 4-0 and they still put it on them!

Congrats to The buckeys!  They deserved it!


----------



## laurac260

Wow, that was kind of easy, but fun!  Who do we play next week!  :whoopie:


----------



## Clemson Fan

OSU has the best coach in college football and its frankly not very close!  Saban is 8-8 in bowls and Meyer is now 9-2 (0-1 vs Clemson)!  He's bought OSU to another level!  OSU now should just avoid the ACC!


----------



## laurac260

Clemson Fan said:


> Well, that was a butt whooping of the ultimate paper tiger in Oregon!  OSU even lost the turnover battle 4-0 and they still put it on them!
> 
> Congrats to The buckeys!  They deserved it!


turnover battle finished 4-1  Not that matters.  Go Bucks!


----------



## TUGBrian

geez, where was that pitiful looking oregon team 2 weeks ago.

also odd that noone pointed out repeatedly on national TV the huge % of "classless" oregon players who left for the locker room vs staying on the field to shake hands.


----------



## laurac260

722 posts of analyzing, proselytizing, and talking about how this team coulda, shoulda, etc, sometimes you just gotta watch, root, and have faith .  The naysayers can go quiet now.

Go Bucks!


----------



## TUGBrian

oh and giving credit where credit is due...OSU played a fantastic game on both sides of the ball.  well deserved win there.


----------



## Clemson Fan

laurac260 said:


> 722 posts of analyzing, proselytizing, and talking about how this team coulda, shoulda, etc, sometimes you just gotta watch, root, and have faith .  The naysayers can go quiet now.
> 
> Go Bucks!



Really, you're going to go down that route!?

It was a great college season and the playoff was a huge success IMO!  I also really enjoyed the back and forth in this thread quite a bit!

Your team just won!  Enjoy it and try not to look petty!


----------



## Clemson Fan

laurac260 said:


> turnover battle finished 4-1  Not that matters.  Go Bucks!



I did that post before the game was actually over.


----------



## laurac260

Clemson Fan said:


> Really, you're going to go down that route!?
> 
> It was a great college season and the playoff was a huge success IMO!  I also really enjoyed the back and forth in this thread quite a bit!
> 
> Your team just won!  Enjoy it and try not to look petty!



Not trying to BE petty.  I listened to naysayers from everywhere, all season, but especially the last three weeks.  Sometimes you just gotta have faith!


----------



## pedro47

TUGBrian said:


> oh and giving credit where credit is due...OSU played a fantastic game on both sides of the ball.  well deserved win there.



Brian, a third string QB beat the best QB in college this football season.


----------



## ace2000

Clemson Fan said:


> It was a great college season and the playoff was a huge success IMO!  I also really enjoyed the back and forth in this thread quite a bit!



Loved it Clemson Fan - thanks to you and the other regulars on this thread!  I probably would've had zero interest in college football this year if it wasn't for this thread on TUG.


----------



## csxjohn

For this OSU fan it was a very nerve wracking game to watch.

Oregon wins the toss and elects  to receive, OSU defers so that is what the team wanted anyhow.

Oregon drives down with ease and scores on their first possession, sick feeling in my stomach.

Then I see the size of those two ginoumous defensive ends of Oregon's and am thinking there is no way OSU will be able to run the ball.  They ended up getting pretty worn out with OSU's speed game.

OSU is up 14-7 and driving to make it 21-7 and turns the ball over, Oregon drives to the 2 yd line and gives the ball up on downs, feeling better.

Once again OSU is driving to make it 21-7 and turns it over again.

21-10 at half time and feeling better but listening to all the broadcasters talk about how Oregon will come out in the second half and put a whoopin' on the Buckeyes.

21-20 and feeling sick again.

35-20 and starting to feel better but knowing Oregon can score in 6 seconds, I realized why OSU did not take a knee at the end, Oregon still had time outs and 2 scores is not impossible for that team in under a minute.

It's too bad that last Oregon pass was intercepted for the sake for their QB but for me that's better than being completed for a touchdown.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How well OSU fans travel was brought up earlier in this thread and during the game I kept asking myself "why am I not there?"

One announcer said he estimates the crowd was 70% OSU fans.  I have a friend I could have stayed with and I'm sure getting a ticket would not have been difficult.

I'm going to find out where it's going to be played next year and see if I can get some kind of TS trade and see that game no matter who's in it.


----------



## Elan

Yes, thanks to CF, Brian, ace2000, am1 and others for the thread.  In spite of the recent snide comments that a few non-CFB fans have chimed in with, it was a great season-long spirited discussion.  

  I think this season showed us a lot of things:

1) A 4 team playoff is a step in the right direction - more fair competition and a new level of enthusiasm surrounding the championship game.

2) How *wrong* the BCS system got it all those years.  This year, the BCS would have pitted FSU vs Alabama, who both got whipped in the semi's.

3) *How close the line is to not qualifying for the playoff and winning it all.*  Let's not forget that OSU was very close to not making the playoff.  We have proof that the playoff field, at least as determined by the current process, has to be at least 4 teams deep to get the right team in.  If the 4th ranked team can win it all, is there now really any doubt that the 5th ranked team could do the same?  I would hope not.

  Fun season.  Fun thread.  Let's do it again next year!


----------



## csxjohn

Elan said:


> ...  Fun season.  Fun thread.  Let's do it again next year!



We can start now, OSU will be ranked #1 until they lose a game or when the committee kicks in.

How will your fav team fare this year?

I'm interested in seeing what's going to happen at QB this year and how well Michigan is going to do under the new coach.

It won't be an easy season for OSU, everyone will be up for them.  They may need an 8 team playoff to get in next year.


----------



## ace2000

csxjohn said:


> We can start now, OSU will be ranked #1 until they lose a game or when the committee kicks in.
> 
> How will your fav team fare this year?



I'm in... LOL - is it too early to change my favorite team to Ohio St?  I'm sure they'll be a force to be reckoned with for awhile.

Kinda strange what happens to your favorite teams as you move away.  I've gone from a Buckeye fan to a Miami fan to a Big 12 fan and now to a Mizzou fan, all in the span of about 40 years.  I was a strong Buckeye fan growing up, but that was many years ago.  A lot of it depends on what sport pages you read on a regular basis (though my son attends Mizzou and gets me free tickets, so that's a factor now).  

One thing for sure, where ever I move, I'll always pull for the baseball Cardinals!  And I do find myself still pulling for the Cleveland pro teams.


----------



## Clemson Fan

I have some close ties to The University of Washington.  My brother in law, whom I'm close with, his dad was the UW trainer for the football team for 25 years.  As a teenager my brother in law was on the Rose Bowl sideline when they won their NC.  Anyhow, they hate Oregon and are having a field day today.

I was actually rooting for Oregon last night as I did in their other NC game.

However, I do personally find Oregon's fanbase to be one of the more obnoxious ones around, but that's just me.  UW has had a down decade which just hapenned to coincide with Oregon's best decade and man has Oregon's fanbase given it to UW's fanbase over the last decade.

My impression of Oregon is that they're a gimmicky paper tiger that runs up the score way too often.  When they get punched in the mouth they actually end up folding like they did last night.


----------



## Elan

Clemson Fan said:


> However, I do personally find Oregon's fanbase to be one of the more obnoxious ones around, but that's just me.  UW has had a down decade which just hapenned to coincide with Oregon's best decade and man has Oregon's fanbase given it to UW's fanbase over the last decade.



  Yes, the UO fan base whines a lot.  

  In 2008, BSU went into Autzen, one of the toughest places to play in the country, with a freshman QB and thumped the Ducks.  All we Bronco fans heard for a year was what a fluke that win was (BSU led 37-13 entering the 4th, some fluke).  Then the Ducks got to come to Boise to play on The Blue the next year.  This was a Duck team with Masoli, LaGarrett Blount, LaMichael James, etc that ultimately won the Pac-12 and played in the Rose Bowl.  The Broncos totally dominated the Ducks, holding their offense to 150 total yards and not allowing the Ducks a first down until mid way through the 3rd quarter!  Then, we got to hear again what a fluke _that_ game was.  

  Duck fans don't take losing particularly well.


----------



## ace2000

Another record for the TV ratings.  

*Ohio State’s Victory Delivers ESPN Ratings Record*


> It was a championship night on every level for not just Ohio State but ESPN as well. Monday night’s primetime inaugural College Football Playoff National Championship gave the sports cablers its highest metered market result in its 35-year history and the best ever in cable history. The Buckeyes’ 42-20 win over Oregon delivered a 18.5 overnight rating for ESPN. That a 21% jump for the  National Championship game  over last year’s Florida State vs. Auburn in the BCS National Championship, which the CFPNP replaced.



http://deadline.com/2015/01/ohio-state-espn-ratings-record-1201348915/


----------



## laurac260

ace2000 said:


> Another record for the TV ratings.  Even beating the ESPN NFL playoff game - Carolina vs. Arizona.
> 
> *Ohio State’s Victory Delivers ESPN Ratings Record*
> 
> 
> http://deadline.com/2015/01/ohio-state-espn-ratings-record-1201348915/


Cincinnati only posted a ratings of 26.5?  Did they notice we had BOTH of our tv's on the game???


----------

