# College Football



## am1 (Sep 10, 2016)

Are todays matchups the worst in recent memory?  Other then playing at a race track what else is there?  I would do away with counting wins against 1AA teams towards bowl eligibility.  

I am all for Houston and BYU joining the Big 12.


----------



## bnoble (Sep 10, 2016)

The Pitt-Penn State game was entertaining. I went to Michigan-Central Florida, and it was over in the first quarter. UCF is a 1A/FBS team, but only barely.


----------



## am1 (Oct 23, 2016)

Happy OSU lost but wish it was to any other team then Penn State.  I still think they should have been given the death penalty.  But great job to the current players and coaches.  Even if they support something wrong they still did what they were suppose o do.


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 23, 2016)

I thought the OSU game and the Oklahoma game were two of the most entertaining ive seen in quite some time!


----------



## bizaro86 (Oct 24, 2016)

I looked at the score at the end of that OK/Texas Tech game, and was a bit confused. I had been pretty sure I was watching a football game, so I wasn't sure why there was a basketball score on the screen...


----------



## pedro47 (Oct 24, 2016)

How in the world did Penn State beat Ohio State?


----------



## x3 skier (Oct 24, 2016)

pedro47 said:


> How in the world did Penn State beat Ohio State?



THE Ohio State University massive egos prevented them from seeing the other team could play football.

Cheers


----------



## Elan (Oct 24, 2016)

Bigger shocker this weekend was Houston falling to SMU.


----------



## Elan (Oct 28, 2016)

*CFB Fields -- Top 25*

This is largely click-bait, but it's pretty entertaining nonetheless.  Though obviously subjective, it's hard to argue many of the choices listed.

http://www.si.com/college-football/photo/2016/top-25-college-football-field-designs


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 28, 2016)

Elan said:


> This is largely click-bait, but it's pretty entertaining nonetheless.  Though obviously subjective, it's hard to argue many of the choices listed.
> 
> http://www.si.com/college-football/photo/2016/top-25-college-football-field-designs



Ha, my guess for #1 was close... Boise St.  That field grabs your attention on TV.


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 5, 2016)

So is everyone happy with the four playoff teams?


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 5, 2016)

I dont think anyone will ever universally agree on the top 4 teams each year.


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 5, 2016)

Where is Michigan ?


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 5, 2016)

losing to my noles in the orange bowl =D


----------



## am1 (Dec 5, 2016)

csxjohn said:


> So is everyone happy with the four playoff teams?



I wanted UM to make it but the chips did not fall that way.  Maybe one of the 4 best teams but not deserving compared to the others.  The loss to Iowa really hurt them.  A Colorado win and a Clemson loss and I think they would have been in. I am surprised how good the BIG 10 did this year but the league is watered down with their expansion teams.  

Almost wished Penn State came in 4th so they could get destroyed by Alabama.  But I also wanted and still feel they should have received the death penalty.  I am sure the kids work hard but they are believing in a disgraced program.  I would not want that to be my legacy.  

I think I would take Alabama against the field.


----------



## Elan (Dec 5, 2016)

Well, at least the committee didn't screw the Huskies out of a spot.  I was worried that might happen as much as the possibility was discussed on Saturday.  As usual, nearly everything the CFP committee said with regard to the top 4 directly conflicted what they've expressed previously and/or conflicted their ranking elsewhere.

  Would have been a great year to have an 8 (or more) team playoff, which seems to be finally coming.   Using Colley's computer rankings (which are far better than the committee's, as a whole).  

  Quarters:

  1)Alabama vs      8)Oklahoma
  2)Ohio State vs   7)W Michigan
  3)Clemson vs      6)Michigan
  4)Washington vs 5)Penn St


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 5, 2016)

indeed, many wonder why they just dont include all the "teams being argued over" in the playoffs...thus making for some incredible college football games each year...and getting rid of the ridiculousness that surrounds picking the "best 4" that noone can ever agree on.


----------



## am1 (Dec 5, 2016)

Elan said:


> Well, at least the committee didn't screw the Huskies out of a spot.  I was worried that might happen as much as the possibility was discussed on Saturday.  As usual, nearly everything the CFP committee said with regard to the top 4 directly conflicted what they've expressed previously and/or conflicted their ranking elsewhere.
> 
> Would have been a great year to have an 8 (or more) team playoff, which seems to be finally coming.   Using Colley's computer rankings (which are far better than the committee's, as a whole).
> 
> ...




WMU would be at 7?  That would be going against the committee as well (unless all undefeated teams were given a spot and in an 8 team playoff I would agree.  

Wisco and USC have shown they are not worthy.  

That is a lot of extra games though and my guess is teams would take more ooc games easier.  Assistants/ head coaches would be even less likely to stay if they were moving on after the season.  

I am in favour of cutting 4 - 5 bowl games when the contracts come up.  5-7 teams making it is a joke.  I respect teams that turn down bowl invites when the team does not deserve to go.


----------



## Ty1on (Dec 5, 2016)

am1 said:


> WMU would be at 7?  That would be going against the committee as well (unless all undefeated teams were given a spot and in an 8 team playoff I would agree.
> 
> Wisco and USC have shown they are not worthy.
> 
> ...



USC is exactly why the playoff field needs to be expanded.  USC got off to a rough start before landing on an excellent QB who righted the ship, including handing UW its only loss.  To make the four team playoff, you have to either be Alabama or live on a razor's edge the entire season.  There is no room for a team, like USC, that develops itself into one of the strongest teams in the nation by the end of the season.  A more inclusive playoff field would allow a team like USC to get in with a low seed and prove it belongs by battling an Alabama, for example. Penn State could easily fit the same argument.  They lost to Pitt, their only bad loss, very early in the season, and ended the season with only one more loss, to Michigan, and beat tUSO and Wisconsin en route to the B1G championship.

An 8 team playoff would result in just 1 more game, which is 2 more than the horrible BCS system.  Cut the regular season by a game, forcing playoff hopefuls to drop one of the FCS cupcake games from their schedules.


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 5, 2016)

The NCAA needs to reduce regular season football games by one or two games and force all teams to play a conference champion game.


----------



## "Roger" (Dec 5, 2016)

Two comments about cutting the NCAA regular season by a game to make room for a eight team playoff:


While this might enrich the NCAA coffers, a lot of teams that do not make the playoffs would lose revenue. If you have a program that does not regularly compete for a top eight slot, why would you vote to give up the revenue that an extra game would provide for your program?
While there is and always will be controversy about which team(s) should have the number four slot, there would be even more controversy about who should make the seventh and eighth slots. There are a lot more teams that are pretty good, contenders for one of the back end slot (teams with two or three loses), but who are not really contenders for the top four.  Most people who argue for eight teams are just really trying to get one team into the playoffs knowing that the other two or three teams that might make the top eight are not credible contenders for being considered the best team in football for a given year.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 5, 2016)

i dont even agree with the "reducing a game off the regular season"

only 2 teams get an "Extra" game...why would you punish the other 13x teams in the league by cutting one of their games?

if any school (or players) feel that they wouldnt play one extra game in a season with that game being for a national title, then they can feel free to opt out of the playoffs before it starts.  I doubt that would ever become an issue.

besides, there is never any crying from the 2 teams in leagues that have championship games every year, and thats an extra game none of the other league members have to play.


----------



## Ty1on (Dec 5, 2016)

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

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


----------



## Elan (Dec 5, 2016)

"Roger" said:


> Two comments about cutting the NCAA regular season by a game to make room for a eight team playoff:
> 
> 
> While this might enrich the NCAA coffers, a lot of teams that do not make the playoffs would lose revenue. If you have a program that does not regularly compete for a top eight slot, why would you vote to give up the revenue that an extra game would provide for your program?
> While there is and always will be controversy about which team(s) should have the number four slot, there would be even more controversy about who should make the seventh and eighth slots. There are a lot more teams that are pretty good, contenders for one of the back end slot (teams with two or three loses), but who are not really contenders for the top four.  Most people who argue for eight teams are just really trying to get one team into the playoffs knowing that the other two or three teams that might make the top eight are not credible contenders for being considered the best team in football for a given year.



  1) If that's an issue, then revenue share.
  2) Nope, don't agree.  Almost every team that's around the 8-12 mark in rankings will have at least two losses, I think most 2 or 3 loss teams would realize that there was a lot they could have done differently to avoid being in the tenuous situation of being on the cut line.  Furthermore, it was only 2 years ago that the #4 team in the playoff (OSU) was a highly controversial pick.  Yet they won it all very convincingly.  So let's not be too quick to put much faith in a committee's ability to discern between the 4th and 5th-8th best teams.


----------



## "Roger" (Dec 5, 2016)

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

Almost everyone in the country believes that Alabama has the best team this year. Could they be beaten in the playoff? Sure. But, in a like manner, consider what would have happened if they had lost last Saturday's game against Florida. Everyone seems to agree that Alabama should still be admitted into the four game playoff. Upsets happen, but that does not mean the team that pulls off the upset is a better team. Apparently those deciding who gets into the playoffs did not think last Saturday's SEC playoff would be decisive as to whether Alabama or Florida had the better team. (They were not about to consider Florida for a playoff spot.)

No playoffs this year would have made all six of the New Year's games more important. Now four of them become somewhat of an afterthought. 

What about years in which there does not seem to be a dominant team? What then? Is it so awful that after a bunch of games on New Years, two or three teams contend that they were the best? A bunch of college kids, most of whom will never make it to the pros, played their hearts out. Let them all celebrate. Meanwhile, there would have been a bunch of bowl games considered meaningful and we could have a great discussion on TUG as to whom we think was the best. A win, win, win situation.


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 5, 2016)

"Roger" said:


> More heresy (on my part): Rather than a two team, four team, or eight team playoff, I preferred the old bowl system with no playoff.
> 
> I like the old way better also but that would cost the NCAA millions to go back to it and that won't be happening.
> 
> ...


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 5, 2016)

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


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 5, 2016)

Ty1on said:


> Both fair arguments against cutting the schedule.  As far as controversy over #4 slot vs controversy over #8 slot, the more teams you get into a playoff, the more likely the true best team is to be in the running.  At this point in the season, USC or Ped State or OU could be the best team in the land, and they'll never have a chance to prove it.
> 
> I'd rather the argument turn into good teams fighting over whether they should have been included instead of the current scenario where great teams are outside looking in.



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


----------



## colatown (Dec 5, 2016)

pedro47 said:


> Where is Michigan ?



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


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 5, 2016)

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

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

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

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


----------



## Elan (Dec 5, 2016)

TUGBrian said:


> I do find the irony of the selection comittee arguing that clemson should be ahead of louisville (before lv started losing other games) because they beat them head to head.
> 
> butttttt....that argument didnt seem to hold much water when applied to osu/penn state.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## x3 skier (Dec 6, 2016)

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

Cheers


----------



## Ty1on (Dec 6, 2016)

TUGBrian said:


> I do find the irony of the selection comittee arguing that clemson should be ahead of louisville (before lv started losing other games) because they beat them head to head.
> 
> butttttt....that argument didnt seem to hold much water when applied to osu/penn state.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## am1 (Dec 6, 2016)

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

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

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






TUGBrian said:


> I do find the irony of the selection comittee arguing that clemson should be ahead of louisville (before lv started losing other games) because they beat them head to head.
> 
> butttttt....that argument didnt seem to hold much water when applied to osu/penn state.
> 
> ...


----------



## Elan (Dec 6, 2016)

x3 skier said:


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


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


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 6, 2016)

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


----------



## Elan (Dec 6, 2016)

TUGBrian said:


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



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


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 6, 2016)

agreed


----------



## am1 (Dec 6, 2016)

Elan said:


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



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


----------



## Ty1on (Dec 6, 2016)

Elan said:


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



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


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 7, 2016)

TUGBrian said:


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


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

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

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

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


----------



## am1 (Dec 7, 2016)

csxjohn said:


> I guess it would depend on who and how badly the losses were to.  And the committee does look at the games, so how and why you lose may also come into play.
> 
> In the case of Penn State, their out of conference loss to a weak Pitt team coupled with Ohio States out of conference win against Oklahoma, and the closeness of the game between the two made the committee think OSU was better.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 7, 2016)

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


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 7, 2016)

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

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


----------



## bnoble (Dec 7, 2016)

csxjohn said:


> out of conference loss to a weak Pitt team


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


----------



## "Roger" (Dec 7, 2016)

TUGBrian said:


> im always frustrated when the refs truly decide the outcome of a game (one way or another) via either a horrible call, or a blatant missed call.
> 
> replay should be about getting the call correct on the field, and should include all major penalties.


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

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

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

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


----------



## bnoble (Dec 7, 2016)

"Roger" said:


> it makes the games frustratingly slow


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


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 7, 2016)

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

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


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 7, 2016)

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

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


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 7, 2016)

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


----------



## x3 skier (Dec 7, 2016)

TUGBrian said:


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



They'd have to plan five hours for games. 

It's entertainment after all, not something important. There're human beings involved so mistakes happen. Football doesn't mean a whole lot in the big picture.

IMHO, when ratings go down like is happening in the No Fun League, replay will get less attention since people are getting tired of endless interruptions and will tune out of tv and stop attending games. 

Cheers.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 7, 2016)

x3 skier said:


> They'd have to plan five hours for games.



whens the last time you DIDNT see a bad call not only pointed out...but explained by the TV announcers right then and there well before the next play even happened.  everyone keeps saying itll extend the games, but fans get far more upset at bad calls than an extra 30min added to a football game.



> It's entertainment after all, not something important. There're human beings involved so mistakes happen. Football doesn't mean a whole lot in the big picture.



refs at the college and pro level get paid, they are not volunteers.



> IMHO, when ratings go down like is happening in the No Fun League, replay will get less attention since people are getting tired of endless interruptions and will tune out of tv and stop attending games.
> 
> Cheers.



I dont think thats the reason why folks are growing weary of watching games, or starting to dislike what the NFL is turning into.


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 8, 2016)

Ref at the NFL level are paid very well.
The average for a NFL ref in 2013 was $173,000 and will go up to $201,000 in 2019 ( this will be the average salary).


----------



## x3 skier (Dec 8, 2016)

I don't care what you're paid, nobody's perfect.

Replay is ok but when I'm sitting in a stadium while the ref takes time to stand around waiting for review while I observe pigeons flying around for lack of anything else to do, it gets old pretty fast. The suggestion to review every major play means more pigeon watching than I care to do.

Cheers


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 8, 2016)

i agree, i think there should be a time limit on replay review.

if the ref has been provided all the possible camera angles and cant tell if it was the right call or not within a few seconds...the call should stand.


----------



## x3 skier (Dec 8, 2016)

TUGBrian said:


> i agree, i think there should be a time limit on replay review.
> 
> if the ref has been provided all the possible camera angles and cant tell if it was the right call or not within a few seconds...the call should stand.



Just for clarity, in college, the ref is just standing there waiting for some anonymous person in the press box to make a decision. That said, a time limit for review is an excellent idea. 

Cheer


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 8, 2016)

its easy to see the annoying ones...where even the announcers are debating if it was one way or the other....in those situations i have no problem whatsoever for the call to stand.

im only referring to things that are so blatantly obvious as bad calls (like even ones all 80,000 people in the stands can see was a bad call on the jumbotron)....and there are those in nearly every single game.


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 12, 2016)

So who will win the OSU - Clemson game?  I want to buy a plane ticket to go down there but don't want to wait until Jan 1 to try.  I also don't want to see Alabama play Clemson  as I did last year so I need to know who will win that game.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 12, 2016)

csxjohn said:


> So who will win the OSU - Clemson game?  I want to buy a plane ticket to go down there but don't want to wait until Jan 1 to try.  I also don't want to see Alabama play Clemson  as I did last year so I need to know who will win that game.



Right now, Ohio St is favored by 3.  But, you probably already knew that.  I'd like to know who on here you trust making this kind of prediction on a Timeshare web site???  Perhaps they can help you out...


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 12, 2016)

ace2000 said:


> Right now, Ohio St is favored by 3.  But, you probably already knew that.  I'd like to know who on here you trust making this kind of prediction on a Timeshare web site???  Perhaps they can help you out...




Really just curious what you all are thinking  I really don't know how OSU is in it again.  I watched them squeak by a couple teams.  I've read and heard that beating Oklahoma then holding their own in the Big 10 did it for them.

Washington took another course, played easy out of conference games then won their conference incurring only one loss on the way, and most of them convincing wins.

I only saw one Clemson game this year near the end of the season and they looked pretty good.

If most of the peeps who follow this closer than I do all say one of them will win I can use that for an excuse to make a move.

So let's hear who you all think will win the OSU-Clemson game.

I think Alabama will win the other one and go on to win the next one too.


----------



## am1 (Dec 12, 2016)

csxjohn said:


> Really just curious what you all are thinking  I really don't know how OSU is in it again.  I watched them squeak by a couple teams.  I've read and heard that beating Oklahoma then holding their own in the Big 10 did it for them.
> 
> Washington took another course, played easy out of conference games then won their conference incurring only one loss on the way, and most of them convincing wins.
> 
> ...



Not sure who will win as after such a long time off things happen.  But I will be hoping that osu losses.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 13, 2016)

Well, since the Big 10 is the premier conference in the land (I just looked at the rankings), I would think that indicates Ohio St., right???   LOL


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 13, 2016)

One OSU hater and one for OSU with his tongue in his cheek.  Brian?? you have a pick?


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 13, 2016)

lol..i cant stand OSU...

well, more specifically urban meyer.


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 13, 2016)

I am predicting an upset either Alabama or Ohio State.


----------



## x3 skier (Dec 13, 2016)

I think the Cleveland Browns should be in the college playoff so they don't end the year 0-16. 

Cheers


----------



## "Roger" (Dec 13, 2016)

x3 skier said:


> I think the Cleveland Browns should be in the college playoff so they don't end the year 0-16.
> 
> Cheers


0-17???


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 14, 2016)

I had two extra tix to a Browns game so I left them under my windshield wipers with a note "free."  When I got back to the car after the game there were 8 more left there with mine.

As bad as it seems, I don't think any college team would stand a chance against any NFL team.  I think it would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight.


----------



## Elan (Dec 14, 2016)

csxjohn said:


> As bad as it seems, I don't think any college team would stand a chance against any NFL team.  I think it would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight.



  Absolutely.  It always makes me chuckle when rabid fans of some college team think their team could compete with _any_ NFL team.  It would be a blowout.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 14, 2016)

someone once pointed out that even the BEST college team has maybe a handful of NFL level talent at the most...

while even the worst NFL team has its entire roster as NFL level talent.


----------



## x3 skier (Dec 14, 2016)

TUGBrian said:


> while even the worst NFL team has its entire roster as NFL level talent.



Well, maybe not the "entire" Cleveland roster

But they would definitely win against any College team. 

Cheers


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 15, 2016)

ace2000 said:


> Well, since the Big 10 is the premier conference in the land (I just looked at the rankings), I would think that indicates Ohio St., right???   LOL


Ok, I'm going on your prediction and booking a flight.

Last night I checked Spirit Air and round trip was $76 to Orlando. I couldn't pass it up.  If someone buys my package of tix and lodging I'll still make the trip to visit friends.  If the pkg doesn't sell, I'll have an extra ticket for the game.

I'll be staying for seven night on Anna Marie Island at Resort 66 in Holmes Beach, a Bluegreen resort on the water.  Should be a good trip.


----------



## am1 (Dec 15, 2016)

csxjohn said:


> Ok, I'm going on your prediction and booking a flight.
> 
> Last night I checked Spirit Air and round trip was $76 to Orlando. I couldn't pass it up.  If someone buys my package of tix and lodging I'll still make the trip to visit friends.  If the pkg doesn't sell, I'll have an extra ticket for the game.
> 
> I'll be staying for seven night on Anna Marie Island at Resort 66 in Holmes Beach, a Bluegreen resort on the water.  Should be a good trip.



If osu wins then the tickets are going to sell for more.  Sounds like either way you will have a good time.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 15, 2016)

csxjohn said:


> Ok, I'm going on your prediction and booking a flight.



Great... We'll both be pulling Ohio St. through this year!  Seriously, good luck.  Hopefully this year's plan will work exactly how you want it to.


----------



## Elan (Dec 17, 2016)

Bowls start today.  Pumphrey from SDSU goes for NCAA all-time rushing record against Houston in the LV bowl.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elan (Dec 18, 2016)

Anyone else catch the EWU/YSU FCS semifinal game last night?  One of the most impressive game-winning catches I've ever seen.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Dec 18, 2016)

What is with the double standard in college sports?  U of Minnesota get some of the players suspended while Harvard soccer, Washington U soccer, Colombia wrestling, Amherst College cross-country and others get their season cancelled.  I would have preferred that the football team in this case stuck to their boycott if they felt their teammates were not guilty.  But that is their decision and I respect that.  

In the latter cases is it a new problem or a problem that is finally coming to light because of the internet.


----------



## Talent312 (Dec 19, 2016)

am1 said:


> What is with the double standard in college sports?



Simple... The schools make millions from football, while minor sports drain $$.
I suspect the U of Minn players were told how a forfeiture would affect their scholarships.

.


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 19, 2016)

Football and basketball games  (football bowl games & the new NCAA ChampionShip Football Tournaments and the Huge NCAA Basketball tournaments games)   are about Big, Big Money;  while the other sports played looks good for the NCAA on paper.

How much is that one bowl game played by the University of Minn worth to the University and their conf???  How many millions of dollars would be loss to the University and also, the Minn football team coaching staff would also, lose that extra bonus check for "not"  playing that one bowl game. Money! Money! Money!


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 19, 2016)

Let's look at money for a 2017 regular football game between Alabama and Auburn that will be played  next 11-25-2017. Cheap Tickets Seats starts at $309 with the High End Seats are only $2,427 per seat.

The Auburn Jordan - Hare Stadium, capacity is only 87,451.

Look at the money and follow the money. Now you know why some college football coaches earn more than the University Presidents.


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 19, 2016)

I am an Alabama fan. Loved that Crimson and White


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 20, 2016)

sad state of affairs now that star athletes are skipping bowl games to "focus on the NFL"....

while I certainly dont blame them for it...its not a good sign for lesser bowls!


----------



## am1 (Dec 21, 2016)

TUGBrian said:


> sad state of affairs now that star athletes are skipping bowl games to "focus on the NFL"....
> 
> while I certainly dont blame them for it...its not a good sign for lesser bowls!



Not good at all but the players choice.  An injury can cost a lot of money as insurance does not cover it all.  Maybe it is time that the bowls open up the checkbook for graduating seniors.  Allow them to turn "pro" after the last regular season game.  Also eliminate enough bowl games to make them mean something.  Does Alabama, Texas and Florida need as many bowl games as they have?  Either exclude wins against 1AA schools at least for power 5 schools.  Or make 7 wins the minimum to advance. 

I am more upset with coaches leaving/ getting fired before the bowl games are over. This a reason why adding more playoff games is not good for college football.


----------



## Elan (Dec 21, 2016)

TUGBrian said:


> sad state of affairs now that star athletes are skipping bowl games to "focus on the NFL"....
> 
> while I certainly dont blame them for it...its not a good sign for lesser bowls!


Another good reason to expand the playoff and eliminate some bowl games.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 27, 2016)

Well, the DB from Clemson didn't tell us anything we all don't already know, but why would he even say that the OSU QB is not the best his team has faced this year?


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 31, 2016)

well that was a helluva bowl game for sure!

GO NOLES!


----------



## am1 (Dec 31, 2016)

TUGBrian said:


> well that was a helluva bowl game for sure!
> 
> GO NOLES!




Good game even though the outcome did not go the way it should have.  

Fairly full but the ticket prices were soft compared to the prices originally charged.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 31, 2016)

eh, fsu outplayed michigan for all but 3 minutes of that game...id say the outcome was dead on!


----------



## csxjohn (Jan 1, 2017)

I hate to root for TTUN but I did because they are in the Big 10, the outcome was the way it should have been.  I was watching in a bar while listening to one of my fav bands so did not hear any interviews.  Who did Harbaugh blame for the loss this time?

I think the two best teams in the county are in the final game and my son in law will be flying down to join me to see.  I know we will have a great team.

I don't know how Meyer did not have OSU better prepared.  Is he going to quit coaching, again?


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 1, 2017)

hard to imagine playing "who should be in" at this point with those first two semifinal games being shall we say "less than competitive".

guess if PennState rolls in their game they could have a legitimate gripe!


----------



## pedro47 (Jan 1, 2017)

It is Alabama & Clemson for the national finals.


----------



## Spartans (Jan 1, 2017)

I'm a huge Michigan State fan. So I watch a lot of Big ten games. The Big ten was way over rated this year. I thought Wisconsin, Penn State, and Northwestern were the only big surprise's this year. Michigan and Ohio State were very beatable this year. Ohio State had like 9 or 10 freshman and sophomores starting to Clemson having none.  I agree Alabama and Clemson are the best two teams.


----------



## beejaybeeohio (Jan 1, 2017)

Well, as a Buckeye fan, last night was a disaster EXCEPT for the fact that #1 Grandson, a sophomore at Clemson does videography for the Tigers, and he ran out with the team wearing a grey vest with the number 205.  We got to see his back on TV!

Go Clemson and avenge last year's loss to Alabama!


----------



## Spartans (Jan 1, 2017)

beejaybeeohio said:


> Well, as a Buckeye fan, last night was a disaster EXCEPT for the fact that #1 Grandson, a sophomore at Clemson does videography for the Tigers, and he ran out with the team wearing a grey vest with the number 205.  We got to see his back on TV!
> 
> Go Clemson and avenge last year's loss to Alabama!


Sorry about your Buckeyes. I think they were just the youngest team in college football. I hope Alabama doesn't do what Alabama does. They start out slow and then spread you out and shut you down defensively in the second half. Clemon has the best chance to beat the tide.


----------



## x3 skier (Jan 1, 2017)

THE Ohio State Univesity = THE Flop of the Post Season

Cheers


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 2, 2017)

pretty sure this usc/psu game is eclipsing the fsu/um game as the best of the season sofar! wow!


----------



## am1 (Jan 2, 2017)

Not happy about hoping for a usc come back.  But I prefer their team much more then the alternative.  Who I still feel should have received the death penalty.


----------



## Elan (Jan 2, 2017)

Rare that I pull for USC, but when the opponent is Ped State, it's a lot easier to do so.  

Great game.  Darnold is pretty impressive for a freshman.


----------



## Elan (Jan 2, 2017)

Not that bowl performance is the ultimate measure, but the fact that the Big10 went 3-7 (with wins by Northwestern and Minnesota) is more proof that the "experts" perception of conference strength can be way off.  Yet more fuel for an expanded playoff.  Still think it should be at least 12 teams, but I'll settle for 8 as a first step.


----------



## am1 (Jan 2, 2017)

Elan said:


> Not that bowl performance is the ultimate measure, but the fact that the Big10 went 3-7 (with wins by Northwestern and Minnesota) is more proof that the "experts" perception of conference strength can be way off.  Yet more fuel for an expanded playoff.  Still think it should be at least 12 teams, but I'll settle for 8 as a first step.



Very poor performance from the Big 10.  Making it to 4 of the 6 big bowls was impressive.  If the teams each played a bowl down from where they played the results could be different.

I am not liking having to watch an 8-4 team in the Sugar Bowl.  Even if the regular season was bookend by loses to the teams in the national championship.  Any limit to how low a SEC or Big 12 rep can be ams still be in the Sugar Bowl?  Instead of elevating the Cotton and Peach bowl the 2 of the former BCS bowls not hosting the playoff have been devalued.


----------



## Elan (Jan 2, 2017)

am1 said:


> I am not liking having to watch an 8-4 team in the Sugar Bowl.  Even if the regular season was bookend by loses to the teams in the national championship.  Any limit to how low a SEC or Big 12 rep can be ams still be in the Sugar Bowl?  Instead of elevating the Cotton and Peach bowl the 2 of the former BCS bowls not hosting the playoff have been devalued.



If they'd ditch the stupid conference bowl ties, we'd end up with much better bowl games across the board.


----------



## Talent312 (Jan 2, 2017)

At least we'll get a free Bloomin' Onion at Outback tomorrow, due to Florida taking that bowl.

.


----------



## am1 (Jan 4, 2017)

I feel bad for Tracy Claeys.  He was in a tough spot and gets fired for supporting his players.  If he lost his team he would have been fired as well.


----------



## pedro47 (Jan 4, 2017)

am1 said:


> I feel bad for Tracy Claeys.  He was in a tough spot and gets fired for supporting his players.  If he lost his team he would have been fired as well.



Sorry, but he was in a no win situation because of his comments on sexual assaults. He loss support of the faculty and students at the university.


----------



## Elan (Jan 10, 2017)

SEC! SEC! SEC! 


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## pedro47 (Jan 10, 2017)

Crimson Tigers are the NCAA Football  Champion


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 10, 2017)

that game certainly made up for the previous two blowouts!  (and the crappy nfl playoff games sofar as well)

wow!


----------



## pedro47 (Jan 11, 2017)

The ACC conference won more bowl games this year nine (9) than any other conference.


----------



## Ty1on (Jan 11, 2017)

My college football teams are UNLV and whoever is playing Alabama.


----------



## am1 (Jan 11, 2017)

Would anyone of felt bad if Saban got all the defenders to take a holding penalty with 6 seconds left? Would have forced Clemson to kick a field goal to tie the game or risk losing it on the 2 yard line.  

How about Alabama not scoring so soon?  Easy to look back now and one way or the other not as bad as what Les Miles has done managing the clock.


----------



## Elan (Jan 11, 2017)

am1 said:


> Would anyone of felt bad if Saban got all the defenders to take a holding penalty with 6 seconds left? Would have forced Clemson to kick a field goal to tie the game or risk losing it on the 2 yard line.
> 
> How about Alabama not scoring so soon?  Easy to look back now and one way or the other not as bad as what Les Miles has done managing the clock.


You'd have to think Clemson would still prevail had it gone OT.  They were dominating Alabama's defense, especially late in the game.  21 4th quarter points and about 50% more yards from scrimmage despite losing the turnover battle.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elan (Jan 11, 2017)

Ty1on said:


> My college football teams are UNLV and whoever is playing Alabama.


Exactly.  So many bandwagon fans with zero ties to the school or area.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ty1on (Jan 11, 2017)

am1 said:


> Would anyone of felt bad if Saban got all the defenders to take a holding penalty with 6 seconds left? Would have forced Clemson to kick a field goal to tie the game or risk losing it on the 2 yard line.
> 
> How about Alabama not scoring so soon?  Easy to look back now and one way or the other not as bad as what Les Miles has done managing the clock.



You score when you can score so I don't fault them for that.

Tackling every single receiver has been done before, and maybe he should have done it.  Consider that it also ties up the secondary and once the QB sees the flag it gives him free reign to try to run it in without concern for the clock running out of time.  There are a lot of variables involved.


----------



## colatown (Jan 11, 2017)

Ty1on said:


> My college football teams are UNLV and whoever is playing Alabama.


Mine is South Carolina and whoever is playing Clempson. The world may return to its natural order next year or the next or the next .


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 11, 2017)

am1 said:


> Would anyone of felt bad if Saban got all the defenders to take a holding penalty with 6 seconds left? Would have forced Clemson to kick a field goal to tie the game or risk losing it on the 2 yard line.
> 
> How about Alabama not scoring so soon?  Easy to look back now and one way or the other not as bad as what Les Miles has done managing the clock.



eh, had clemson still scored they could decline the penalty...so it wouldnt have helped in that situation.


----------



## Talent312 (Jan 11, 2017)

And I thought we'd be debating the pick-play that Clemson used to score.
Maybe the no-call was technically correct, and certainly there were others, but it is what it is.

Having been to Clemson's dinky stadium, it's interesting to see they can field a national-caliber team.

.


----------



## Elan (Jan 11, 2017)

Don't think the winning TD was a pick, given that the outside defender grabbed the outside receiver and pulled him into the inside defender.  The first one, however......
There were blown calls both ways.  Evened out in the end, IMO.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elan (Jan 12, 2017)

Casual observation:  The CFP #1 seed is now 0 for 3 in winning the championship.


----------



## am1 (Jan 12, 2017)

Elan said:


> Casual observation:  The CFP #1 seed is now 0 for 3 in winning the championship.



That can happen in 1 off playoff games.  A case can be made that Alabama is still the best football team this year.  But Clemson won the national championship by beating them head to head.


----------



## Ty1on (Jan 12, 2017)

am1 said:


> That can happen in 1 off playoff games.  A case can be made that Alabama is still the best football team this year.  But Clemson won the national championship by beating them head to head.



To me, it's a validation of the play-off process over the previous post-bowl ranking votes.  It is unlikely clemson would have been matched with Alabama under the old bowl system.  And the more teams in the bracket, the more legitimate the national champions will become.  As it stands today, Alabama, Ohio State, and Washington have no claim to #1, and that wouldn't necessarily be the case under either the old bowl system or the previous two-team championship bowl.

Of course it's a one-off game.  That's a problem with football in general.  It is too physical and requires too much recovery time to be able to pull off even a best-of-three series.  Bottom line, the champions should win when the chips are down and they have one shot, and Clemson did that this year.


----------



## Elan (Jan 12, 2017)

am1 said:


> That can happen in 1 off playoff games.  A case can be made that Alabama is still the best football team this year.  But Clemson won the national championship by beating them head to head.


 
  Sure.  As I said, casual observation.  But, it is yet another data point against the committee's ability to decide the absolute "worthiness" of playoff teams.  In only 3 years we've seen the #1 seed go 0-3, and the #4 seed (and barely the #4 seed, at that) win it all once.  That doesn't conclusively prove anything, but it's not simply coincidental, either.

  As far as Alabama being the best team this year, I sure didn't see that Monday night.  Clemson dominated statistically despite losing the turnover battle and Watson having a sub-par first half.  Having now seen how they match up, I'd take Clemson to win at least 5 of 10 head to head contests.  Alabama gets by with a sub-par secondary partly because they have a great D-line, but mostly because there are few QB's in the SEC competent enough to exploit the weakness. When they play a decent passing QB, they struggle to stop the opposition.  There's a reason Bama has struggled against Ole Miss the past few years, and his name is Chad Kelly -- one of the few decent passing SEC QB's the Tide has had to face.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 12, 2017)

I think even in the BCS rankings...clemson would have played alabama for the title game.


----------



## Elan (Jan 12, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> I think even in the BCS rankings...clemson would have played alabama for the title game.


  Perhaps, but nearly everyone realizes the BCS era was a joke.


----------



## Elan (Jan 12, 2017)

Ty1on said:


> To me, it's a validation of the play-off process over the previous post-bowl ranking votes.  It is unlikely clemson would have been matched with Alabama under the old bowl system.  And *the more teams in the bracket, the more legitimate the national champions will become*.



  Absolutely!!


----------



## Ty1on (Jan 12, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> I think even in the BCS rankings...clemson would have played alabama for the title game.



But the point is that Washington and Ohio State would have argued that they should be the champions and were denied a chance.  They can't make that argument today.


----------



## am1 (Jan 12, 2017)

Letting too many teams in a playoff increases the chance that the best team wins but also that the best team that year does not win.  More so for the latter and especially with a jump from 4 - 8.


----------



## Ty1on (Jan 12, 2017)

I'll never care whether the best team actually wins until UNLV is the best team, which will never, ever happen.  At least more teams in a play-off means fewer whiny fanbases about exclusion.

My very favorite NCAA Toournaments have been the ones in which the champions are not really the best teams.  With the exceptions of 1987 and 1991.


----------



## Elan (Jan 12, 2017)

am1 said:


> Letting too many teams in a playoff increases the chance that the best team wins but also that the best team that year does not win.  More so for the latter and especially with a jump from 4 - 8.


There hasn't been anything fluky about the playoff results in the first 3 years.  And, as we've discussed here before, is anyone going to really argue that a team that beats 3 other top teams in consecutive weeks isn't deserving of the title?  I'd certainly hope not.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Jan 12, 2017)

Elan said:


> There hasn't been anything fluky about the playoff results in the first 3 years.  And, as we've discussed here before, is anyone going to really argue that a team that beats 3 other top teams in consecutive weeks isn't deserving of the title?  I'd certainly hope not.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk




If they 7th ranked team going into the playoffs with 3 losses and beats number 1 in the finals then it easily could be argued they were not the best team that year.  They did win the championship tournament and in pro sports and most others is what has always mattered.  But I would say college football is different as scheduling is very different then other sports/levels.


----------



## Elan (Jan 12, 2017)

am1 said:


> If they 7th ranked team going into the playoffs with 3 losses and beats number 1 in the finals then it easily could be argued they were not the best team that year.  They did win the championship tournament and in pro sports and most others is what has always mattered.  But I would say college football is different as scheduling is very different then other sports/levels.


What?? Number 1 and 7 by whose judgement?  If the 7th SEED in the CFP wins it all by beating the #1 seed, then they've beaten the #2 seed in the first round, either the#3 or #6 seed in the second round, and then the #1 seed all in a 3 week span.  You're trying to tell me that team isn't deserving of a national championship???  That's just crazy....

As usual, you put way too much emphasis on what the talking heads tell you about how good a team is.  You seem to think the committee telling you a team is #1 is more convincing than beating 3 of the top 8 teams in the country.  Again, just crazy.....

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Jan 12, 2017)

Elan said:


> What?? Number 1 and 7 by whose judgement?  If the 7th SEED in the CFP wins it all by beating the #1 seed, then they've beaten the #2 seed in the first round, either the#3 or #6 seed in the second round, and then the #1 seed all in a 3 week span.  You're trying to tell me that team isn't deserving of a national championship???  That's just crazy....
> 
> As usual, you put way too much emphasis on what the talking heads tell you about how good a team is.  You seem to think the committee telling you a team is #1 is more convincing than beating 3 of the top 8 teams in the country.  Again, just crazy.....
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



No it means they got better towards the end, scheduled weak teams out of conference, other team had injuries, some luck.  If the number 7 teams wins the playoff they were the best team in that playoff not the best team throughout the season.  Also this year we have seen it depends on the team wins.  

Should the team that wins an 8 team playoff automatically be number 1 in the final polls that were voted on by humans?  

In pro sports and/or a balanced schedule I have no problem with it as the goal is winning the championship.  In college 1a football it is a little different.  Playing osu every year can hurt Michigans chances of making the playoff (once in a while) they are happy to play osu every year.


----------



## Elan (Jan 12, 2017)

I don't care what human polls say.  If there's REAL, OBJECTIVE data to evaluate (wins on the field), I'll take that over subjective polls all day, every day.  What rational person wouldn't?  





Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ty1on (Jan 12, 2017)

am1 said:


> No it means they got better towards the end, scheduled weak teams out of conference, other team had injuries, some luck.  If the number 7 teams wins the playoff they were the best team in that playoff not the best team throughout the season.  Also this year we have seen it depends on the team wins.
> 
> Should the team that wins an 8 team playoff automatically be number 1 in the final polls that were voted on by humans?
> 
> In pro sports and/or a balanced schedule I have no problem with it as the goal is winning the championship.  In college 1a football it is a little different.  Playing osu every year can hurt Michigans chances of making the playoff (once in a while) they are happy to play osu every year.



If they scheduled weak teams out of conference and have 3 losses, they are not ranked #7.


----------



## pedro47 (Jan 15, 2017)

There were only 70,000 fans at the football stadium celebrating Clemson NCAA Football Title.


----------



## csxjohn (Jan 16, 2017)

Well, back to the big game.  I was there with my son in law and we were sitting high in the corner of the stadium and loved the seats.  We could see everything going on.

It was nice because we could see the replays on the giant screens on either end and they were crystal clear.

I had no skin in the game but was pulling for Clemson partly because they were the underdog and because they had lost the same game last year.

It was the most exciting game I've ever been to.  Alabama scored first and their fans around us became very obnoxious after that.  One more reason to pull for the Tigers.

I have never watched a game or been to one where I  said, this play is critical for both teams as often as I did here, it truly was exciting.  Exciting to the point of being very stressful for fans of either team.

So Alabama is in the lead the whole game until one second left.  It got crazy after that touchdown.  I thought the tigers mismanaged the clock but they had it perfect.

Everyone, both sides, went wild after that play, some cheering, others crying but there was still a kick off to come.  After Clemson recovered the onside kick, the place went crazy again but many did not realize that there was still one second on the clock and someone was going to get one more play.  Because of the booth review, that seemed to me to take forever, we did not know who was going to have that last snap.

By this time many of the Bama fans had left the stands thinking it was over but the review when on.  Finally they said the call stands and it's Clemson's ball.  It is still exciting writing about it.

I have not yet seen the game replay but will be getting a copy.


----------



## x3 skier (Jan 16, 2017)

As THE Ohio State Univesity proved convincingly, reputation can get you into the playoff but talent and coaching will determine the winner.

Cheers


----------



## beejaybeeohio (Jan 16, 2017)

csxjohn said:


> Well, back to the big game.  I was there with my son in law and we were sitting high in the corner of the stadium and loved the seats.  We could see everything going on.
> 
> It was nice because we could see the replays on the giant screens on either end and they were crystal clear.
> 
> ...


Our dear GS, a Clemson Sophomore, had a sideline pass for the game with the team I love, but for the game in Tampa, the passes were given to seniors. He drove down anyhow with a buddy who did have a ticket, but he never got into the stadium. Nevertheless, he joined the many others outside, and celebrated Clemson's victory!! I was relieved to hear that they did not attempt the 9 hour drive back to campus in one shot, but spent the night in a hotel.

I have great respect for Dabo & Deshaun. Will be interesting if Deshaun goes to the Browns, although Q-backs drafted by us might as well kiss their pro career goodbye!


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 22, 2017)

csxjohn said:


> Alabama is in the lead the whole game until one second left.  It got crazy after that touchdown.  I thought the tigers mismanaged the clock but they had it perfect.



Not to be picky, but Clemson did take a 28-24 lead with a little over 4 minutes left only to surrender it on a ridiculous Alabama drive just a few minutes later.

I too, was at the game and I'm sure in my lifetime I'll never be to a better game and result than this one!  I took my nephew who's a senior at Clemson.  I paid $2400 for the pair of tickets.  I actually flew in from Hawaii to go to the game.  I was away from Hawaii for 50 hours and 30 of those 50 hours were spent in the air or in airports.  My brother and my nephew drove down and met me.  My brother wasn't able to get a ticket and he watched it in the parking lot with a bunch of other people he met up with from his town that also could not get tickets.  I'm a 1993 alumnus and my brother is a 1988 alumnus.

I also traveled to the Fiesta Bowl this year and I took my 12 year old son and Dad to that game.  That game took away some of the sour memories my Dad and I had from our last game in Arizona which was the previous NC game that I took him too as well.

I'm still on a high from Clemson Football and where Dabo has bought this program that I love!


----------



## csxjohn (Jan 23, 2017)

Thanks for reminding me about the way the scoring went.  I still have not had time to see a replay of the game.  Resale ticket prices got crazy high and I'm glad I was not tempted to sell mine last minute.   I did have them advertised for sale with a weeks lodging at Resort 66 in Holmes Beach for $4,000.  I came down to $3600 for an interested fellow but he did not want the lodging and I was not going to fly down there and not see the game, it was all or nothing.  I'm glad he did not take it.

You and your nephew will never forget that great game.  The tailgating in Tampa was much nicer than in Glendale last year.  The lot I was in had dead end rows so once cars went in no others came in that row so the party was set up in the driving lanes with no traffic to worry about.

I've told the family that I'm not going to try to get tix next year but I may change my mind.  I really did not enjoy the game indoors last year.


----------



## am1 (Jan 26, 2017)

Good news.  

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...tia-bowl-dropped-holiday-bowl-move-petco-park

Hopefully a few more are dropped/not renewed.


----------



## Elan (Jan 26, 2017)

Even better news:

http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id...n-brent-musburger-end-play-play-duties-jan-31

Never could stand the guy.  One big hype machine.  Mellowed the hype a little as he got older, but his earlier days calling games were atrocious.


----------

