# College football 2015



## Elan (Sep 6, 2015)

Someone had to do it.   

Some great games already. Started last week for me with Montana over NDSU.  Classic game.  BYU over Nebraska yesterday was another thriller.  

Anyway, I've got Ohio State, Auburn, TCU and a yet to be determined P-12 team in the playoff.  Subject to change, of course......

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Sep 6, 2015)

Did not watch any games for the first time in 8 years.  Not sure why.  I stopped reading espn in the off season as well.  I hope it changes.


----------



## Talent312 (Sep 7, 2015)

Elan said:


> ... I've got Ohio State, Auburn, TCU and a yet to be determined P-12 team in the playoff....



Ohio State's a given, due to their cream-puff schedule
... Their strength of schedule = #42 or #74 (depending on source).
SEC's rep could be be Auburn, 'Bama or Ole Miss.  <jus' sayin'>
.


----------



## TUGBrian (Sep 7, 2015)

certainly liked what I saw out of the notre dame QB transfer to FSU saturday...he keeps that up he can go back into the heisman race!

my predictions....more overrated SEC teams propped up into the top 10 until they lose (unless they lose to other SEC teams of course).

right now there are only 3, but so many announcers at ESPN seem to be picking texas A&M to run the table and win the SEC...and since they beat a ranked team last week...I expect them to be in the top 10 asap.  :lol:


----------



## csxjohn (Sep 7, 2015)

I think we'll see a change in how games are played this year.  Last year taught us that how you win is just as important as who you win against and I expect to see more teams pour it on in attempt to impress the committee.

I have a feeling VT is going to have a rough time of it tonight against Ohio State.  If OSU gets beat this year I don't think it will be against one of the lesser ranked teams.

I'd like to bet on the game but a $50 bet pays less than $8 in winnings.


----------



## pedro47 (Sep 7, 2015)

Talent312 said:


> Ohio State's a given, due to their cream-puff schedule
> ... Their strength of schedule = #42 or #74 (depending on source).
> SEC's rep could be be Auburn, 'Bama or Ole Miss.  <jus' sayin'>
> .



So you think VA Tech is a cream puff team. I think the VA Tech Hokies defeated Ohio State football team last year @ Ohio State. This is football season and let have some fun.


----------



## colatown (Sep 7, 2015)

pedro47 said:


> So you think VA Tech is a cream puff team. I think the VA Tech Hokies defeated Ohio State football team last year @ Ohio State. This is football season and let have some fun.


They( the team formerly known as VPI ) also lost to Wake Forest, that would mean cream puff status.


----------



## ace2000 (Sep 8, 2015)

Will there be any reason to play out the season this year???  

Who was the last team ranked first from start to finish?  Looking for another top 20 season for Missouri.


----------



## Elan (Sep 8, 2015)

I'll say this about last night's game:  VT not having a 2nd string QB that was more game-ready than that kid was an embarrassment to their program.  Although I think OSU would have still won handily, the Hokies were keeping it interesting until their starting QB broke his collarbone.  

  I honestly felt cheated as a fan to have to watch the remainder of that game, because it immediately went from semi-intriguing to a total mismatch.


----------



## am1 (Sep 8, 2015)

Elan said:


> I'll say this about last night's game:  VT not having a 2nd string QB that was more game-ready than that kid was an embarrassment to their program.  Although I think OSU would have still won handily, the Hokies were keeping it interesting until their starting QB broke his collarbone.
> 
> I honestly felt cheated as a fan to have to watch the remainder of that game, because it immediately went from semi-intriguing to a total mismatch.



And that is college football.  How many other times has the back up come out and led his team to victory and a run after the starter goes down due to injury.  You never know.


----------



## TUGBrian (Sep 8, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> Who was the last team ranked first from start to finish?  Looking for another top 20 season for Missouri.



FSU in 99?


----------



## TUGBrian (Sep 8, 2015)

and it begins.


now 10 SEC teams in the top 25...including every single team from the SEC west.


I think my favorite part of this weekend is how an unranked Texas A&M team beats the #15 ranked Arizona State team....and they wind up putting Texas A&M at 15, and unrank Arizona state.

thus whenever the SEC west teams play each other, they are all ranked teams they are beating/losing to!  its a truly brilliant strategy.

sound logic if you ask me!


----------



## csxjohn (Sep 8, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> Will there be any reason to play out the season this year???
> 
> Who was the last team ranked first from start to finish?  Looking for another top 20 season for Missouri.



In the coach's poll it was Southern California in 2004 so it depends which poll you're talking about.


----------



## beejaybeeohio (Sep 9, 2015)

*3 QBs down in a Season and Nat'l Champs!*



am1 said:


> And that is college football.  How many other times has the back up come out and led his team to victory and a run after the starter goes down due to injury.  You never know.



Like Braxton Miller to JT Barrett to Cardale Jones?


----------



## ace2000 (Sep 9, 2015)

csxjohn said:


> In the coach's poll it was Southern California in 2004 so it depends which poll you're talking about.



I was hoping someone else would know the answer.  I was just wondering when I asked.  I'll give both you and Brian half credit!


----------



## Talent312 (Sep 9, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> ...[N]ow 10 SEC teams in the Top 25...including every single team from the SEC West....



From Yahoo! Sports:
Bret Bielema, now the coach at Arkansas, [on Tuesday] said: "Ohio State's ranked No. 1 and they have one game remaining on their schedule that has anybody ranked right now — Michigan State. We're going to play eight straight opponents that are ranked."... Arkansas does play eight ranked teams (not straight, but whatever) thanks to the fact that the SEC has a record 10 teams ranked in this week’s AP poll...
.


----------



## 1950bing (Sep 9, 2015)

I was there when the H O K I E  qb  went down. It was one of those moments that you just knew he is not going to get past that hit 
By the way, surgery went perfect !


----------



## csxjohn (Sep 9, 2015)

You all can say what you want but OSU blew through the best of the best with their third string QB, that should say something about their character.


----------



## Elan (Sep 9, 2015)

csxjohn said:


> You all can say what you want but OSU blew through the best of the best with their third string QB, that should say something about their character.



  Huh???????


----------



## csxjohn (Sep 10, 2015)

Elan said:


> Huh???????



You don't remember last year how near the end of the season their second string QB went down, a team member committed suicide and with all that they won the Big Ten Title then went on to beat Alabama and Oregon to win the championship?

Maybe those three teams weren't the best out there but they all earned their way to play in those games against OSU.


----------



## Elan (Sep 10, 2015)

csxjohn said:


> You don't remember last year how near the end of the season their second string QB went down, a team member committed suicide and with all that they won the Big Ten Title then went on to beat Alabama and Oregon to win the championship?
> 
> Maybe those three teams weren't the best out there but they all earned their way to play in those games against OSU.



  Yeah, I remember.  I'm just not sure what your comment had to do with anything being discussed.  

  This thread is intended to be about the *current* season.  If you want to start a thread where you revel in the glory of OSU's championship, go ahead.  But I'm pretty sure we already had one of those last season. 

  Have anything to contribute WRT the *current* college football season?  Predictions, observations, comments on rankings, SOS, etc??????


----------



## ace2000 (Sep 10, 2015)

John - one more incident like that, and your posting privileges on this thread will be revoked...


----------



## Elan (Sep 10, 2015)

Hey, anyone remember that 1971 classic between Nebraska and Oklahoma?  What a game!


----------



## csxjohn (Sep 10, 2015)

Elan said:


> Yeah, I remember.  I'm just not sure what your comment had to do with anything being discussed.
> 
> This thread is intended to be about the *current* season.  If you want to start a thread where you revel in the glory of OSU's championship, go ahead.  But I'm pretty sure we already had one of those last season.
> 
> Have anything to contribute WRT the *current* college football season?  Predictions, observations, comments on rankings, SOS, etc??????



My comment was in response to the post below so that's how my post relates to what is being discussed here.  Some teams have good back ups, VT does not.



am1 said:


> And that is college football.  How many other times has the back up come out and led his team to victory and a run after the starter goes down due to injury.  You never know.


----------



## ace2000 (Sep 13, 2015)

Rough week for the SEC.  Arkansas getting beat by Toledo, and OK won againt Tenn.  Auburn and Missouri nearly got beat by two weaker teams.


----------



## TUGBrian (Sep 13, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> Rough week for the SEC.  Arkansas getting beat by Toledo, and OK won againt Tenn.  Auburn and Missouri nearly got beat by two weaker teams.



certainly sounds like that subdivision team that choked away a win vs auburn is just not ranked high enough!

im betting since kentucky won its first SEC game in 18 tries saturday, they find a way into the top 25!


----------



## TUGBrian (Sep 13, 2015)

guess i should have looked at the polls, I always thought they came out tomorrow.

anywhoo...

auburn takes a HUGE nosedive down to 18  but mizzou only down 1? 

arkansas, msu, and tenn all drop out....but all remain the top (non ranked) vote getters...so essentially are 26, 27, 28 etc....and will be easy to move back in with their next wins.


----------



## Talent312 (Sep 13, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> arkansas, msu, and tenn all drop out....but all remain the top (non ranked) vote getters...



It's gonn'a be tuff keeping the numbers up when SEC teams beat up on each other every week. Self-inflicted carnage. But such is life in the SEC.
.


----------



## jme (Sep 13, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> Rough week for the SEC.  Arkansas getting beat by Toledo, and OK won againt Tenn.  Auburn and Missouri nearly got beat by two weaker teams.



Arkansas is a bottom-dweller and underachiever, not relevant. They can't beat their own B team. 

Oklahoma was ranked above Tennessee, and Tennessee has been down for several years. Oklahoma, are you kidding? They SHOULD BE in top 5 every year, which is a mystery, imho. Overdue for them to regain what they used to have. Texas too.....I just can't believe those two schools of late. If I were the ADs, heads would roll every year if need be. 

not surprised by either of those two games.

Guess you missed all the other SEC scores.  and Auburn's squeaking by was ONLY because of my strong prayers for them to lose. I gotta do better.  

SEC has no worries....we'll talk nearer the end of the season, OK? 
Meanwhile, Go Dawgs. (HELP, we need a QB, and fast.)

Most teams schedule powder puff opponents early and definitely play down to their levels.....expected for many.


----------



## Elan (Sep 20, 2015)

Always nice to see Bama lose.


----------



## am1 (Sep 20, 2015)

Elan said:


> Always nice to see Bama lose.



It is not often.  

I was at the miami/nebraska game and left in the 4th quarter before nebraska really started scoring.  Had to make it to Bonnet Creek before 11:45 to cancel reservations.  Just made it.  What a last few minutes it must have been.  This will not help Golden's chances.


----------



## TUGBrian (Sep 20, 2015)

some incredible endings to games yesterday for sure!

im sure alabama coming back in the 4th and making a game of it will go a long way into keeping them in the top 10 despite the loss...and conversely the great performance put on by OleMiss will do wonders for them in the polls!

gotta keep the SEC west ranked high...because they are playing super tough competition (other sec west teams!)


----------



## TUGBrian (Sep 20, 2015)

and just looked....auburn is STILL ranked in the top 25...how is this even possible?

had to laugh at this comment:



> Bama, #2, lost AT HOME to a top fifteen team and jumped to number 11?
> 
> Oregon, #5, lost AWAY to #7 MSU and jumped to number 12?
> 
> ...


----------



## am1 (Sep 20, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> some incredible endings to games yesterday for sure!
> 
> im sure alabama coming back in the 4th and making a game of it will go a long way into keeping them in the top 10 despite the loss...and conversely the great performance put on by OleMiss will do wonders for them in the polls!
> 
> gotta keep the SEC west ranked high...because they are playing super tough competition (other sec west teams!)



Is there a better conference then the sec west year in and year out?   Sure they get ranked higher then some would like and do lose on occasion but overall they deserve it.  I think it is great for the SEC west footprint that their schools dominate college football.  College football is the best thing they have.


----------



## Elan (Sep 20, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> and just looked....auburn is STILL ranked in the top 25...how is this even possible?
> 
> had to laugh at this comment:



  Even though I picked Auburn to make the playoff (thought def would be much better under Muschamp), that they're still ranked is hilarious.  A narrow victory over 0-3 Louisville, an OT win over an FCS school and an ass-whoopin' at the hands of LSU gets you into the Top 25?  

  I would defy anyone to tell me why Auburn is ranked ahead of Temple or Toledo based strictly on what's transpired thus far.


----------



## TUGBrian (Sep 20, 2015)

biggest winners....ole miss jumps 12 spots to number 3

lsu jumps 5 spots for beating a clearly overrated auburn team....

gotta just keep swapping in those sec west teams to keep them propped up!

the SEC west is only considered "the best conference" because of their inflated rankings year after year....yea they play a tough schedule against other overinflated SEC west teams.


----------



## am1 (Sep 20, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> biggest winners....ole miss jumps 12 spots to number 3
> 
> lsu jumps 5 spots for beating a clearly overrated auburn team....
> 
> ...



And winning national championships.   Most likely an SEC west team will win again this year compared to the other conferences let alone divisions.


----------



## TUGBrian (Sep 20, 2015)

certainly helps when the powers that be do their best all year to ensure 1 or more of the teams are still playing for the championship...


----------



## Elan (Sep 20, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> certainly helps when the powers that be do their best all year to ensure 1 or more of the teams are still playing for the championship...


Exactly.  They wouldn't have those championships if they hadn't been picked to play in the games.  Funny that in the first year of a playoff the SEC doesn't even make the championship game.  Strange coincidence.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elan (Oct 1, 2015)

I think I've mentioned the Colley Matrix before.  Although I don't claim to know the full algorithm, I like the Colley ranking method because it does away with ignorant biases.  It ranks teams on their W/L record firstly, and then on the quality of competition that each team has played, where that quality is also based only on W's and L's -- hence a matrix.  Obviously, the more games played, the more representative the ranking becomes, which is how it should be.  

  Current Colley rankings:

http://www.colleyrankings.com/currank.html

1. 	LSU    	0.878199	3-0	0.630331: 10	0	2	W: #35 Mississippi St
2. 	Northwe    	0.862024	4-0	0.543035: 47	0	2	W: #34 Stanford
3. 	Florida    	0.845348	4-0	0.518022: 65	1	1	W: #24 Kentucky
4. 	Utah    	0.840894	4-0	0.511340: 73	0	1	W: #30 Michigan
5. 	UCLA    	0.840156	4-0	0.510234: 74	0	2	W: #44 Arizona
6. 	Tex A&M    	0.839767	4-0	0.509651: 76	0	0	W: #64 Nevada
7. 	Oklahom    	0.838953	3-0	0.564921: 31	0	1	W: #47 Tulsa
8. 	Indiana    	0.832386	4-0	0.498578: 82	0	1	W: #36 West Kentucky
9. 	Ohio St    	0.828023	4-0	0.492034: 85	0	0	W: #58 Hawaii
10. 	TCU    	0.823747	4-0	0.485621: 93	0	2	W: #31 Minnesota
11. 	Mich St    	0.817695	4-0	0.476542: 98	0	0	W: #56 Air Force
12. 	Temple    	0.805164	3-0	0.508607: 77	0	1	W: #38 Penn St
13. 	NC State    	0.804201	4-0	0.456301: 105	0	0	W: #81 South Alabama
14. 	Miss    	0.799509	4-0	0.449264: 111	1	1	W: #25 Alabama
15. 	Notre D    	0.785388	4-0	0.428082: 119	0	0	W: #72 Georgia Tech
16. 	Georgia    	0.773922	4-0	0.410883: 127	0	0	W: #60 South Carolina
17. 	Florida St   0.771239	3-0	0.452064: 108	0	0	W: #53 Boston Coll
18. 	West Va    	0.758184	3-0	0.430306: 118	0	1	W: #48 Georgia Southern
19. 	Iowa    	0.756532	4-0	0.384798: 134	0	0	W: #51 Pittsburgh
20. 	California   0.754774	4-0	0.382161: 138	0	0	W: #76 Washington
21. 	Toledo    	0.753773	3-0	0.422955: 122	0	0	W: #88 Arkansas
22. 	Navy    	0.746298	3-0	0.410497: 128	0	0	W: #61 East Carolina
23. 	Memphis    	0.736510	4-0	0.354764: 145	0	0	W: #68 Bowling Green
24. 	Kentucky    0.735460	3-1	0.603190: 14	0	1	W: #45 Missouri
25. 	Alabama    	0.734545	3-1	0.601818: 16	0	1	W: #37 Wisconsin


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 1, 2015)

a more useful system would simply to go off the vegas oddsmakers....as those are the only people putting their money where their mouth is.

which would look something like this

Ohio State 	9/5
Michigan State 	8/1
Baylor 	9/1
Georgia 	10/1
LSU 	10/1
Ole Miss 	11/1
TCU 	12/1
Notre Dame 	15/1
Texas A&M 	16/1
Alabama 	18/1
USC 	22/1
Clemson 	27/1
Oklahoma 	27/1
Florida State 	30/1
UCLA 	30/1
Stanford 	45/1
Utah 	45/1
Michigan 	50/1
Oklahoma State 	55/1
California 	100/1
Florida 	110/1
Miami, Fl. 	200/1
West Virginia 	200/1
Iowa 	250/1
Kansas State 	300/1
Oregon 	300/1
Wisconsin 	300/1


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 1, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> a more useful system would simply to go off the vegas oddsmakers....as those are the only people putting their money where their mouth is.



It'll never happen, but you are exactly right!


----------



## bogey21 (Oct 1, 2015)

I think TCU is as over rated this year as they were under rated in prior years.  I think they will lose to Texas this week.  In fact I bet $100 on it.  I could have taken Texas plus 15 points but took the ML instead at 5-1 odds.

George


----------



## Elan (Oct 1, 2015)

My point in posting the Colley rankings is that there are those that like to claim that beating other teams that are ranked in the AP or coaches poll means something.  The Colley ranking system is far more objective than either of those polls. Of course, even the Colley system is limited by the relatively small input data set.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Oct 1, 2015)

Those odds are based on demand as well. Also based on who they think the selection committee would take if teams were "tied".

Not objective at all.  



TUGBrian said:


> a more useful system would simply to go off the vegas oddsmakers....as those are the only people putting their money where their mouth is.
> 
> which would look something like this
> 
> ...


----------



## Elan (Oct 1, 2015)

am1 said:


> Those odds are based on demand as well. Also based on who they think the selection committee would take if teams were "tied".
> 
> Not objective at all.


Exactly right.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elan (Oct 1, 2015)

bogey21 said:


> I think TCU is as over rated this year as they were under rated in prior years.  I think they will lose to Texas this week.  In fact I bet $100 on it.  I could have taken Texas plus 15 points but took the ML instead at 5-1 odds.
> 
> George


TCU certainly hasn't been impressive thus far.  What's funny is that TCU used to be one of the best defensive teams in the country when they were in the MWC, and their offense was always marginal.  Now, it's the other way around.
  Having said that, I don't see them losing to the Longhorns.  But, we shall see.....

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 2, 2015)

am1 said:


> Those odds are based on demand as well. Also based on who they think the selection committee would take if teams were "tied".
> 
> Not objective at all.



Only way to know for sure is to let them all play each other (which is impossible).  I've learned that the oddsmakers are more often right than wrong.  I'm sticking with that.  Any of these other polls and calculations are going to be wrong too.  

November 21st - Ohio St. vs Michigan St. (number 1 vs. number 2).  I don't see either of these two losing before then.


----------



## Elan (Oct 2, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> Only way to know for sure is to let them all play each other (which is impossible).  I've learned that the oddsmakers are more often right than wrong.  I'm sticking with that.  Any of these other polls and calculations are going to be wrong too.



  Not so much which is right or wrong.  Ultimately, all the rankings will be proven to be wrong.  My post regarding the Colley Matrix was not an attempt to identify which teams would make the playoffs, but rather to point out that there is a more objective ranking system available for those that like to claim that a given team "beat 4 top 10 ranked opponents", or whatever.  

  For instance, this week's ultra-hyped "big showdown" between AP #8 UGA and AP #13 Bama is, more objectively, a showdown between #16 UGA and #25 Alabama -- when based on wins, losses and quality of opponent.


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 2, 2015)

Elan said:


> Not so much which is right or wrong.  Ultimately, all the rankings will be proven to be wrong.  My post regarding the Colley Matrix was not an attempt to identify which teams would make the playoffs, but rather to point out that there is a more objective ranking system available for those that like to claim that a given team "beat 4 top 10 ranked opponents", or whatever.
> 
> For instance, this week's ultra-hyped "big showdown" between AP #8 UGA and AP #13 Bama is, more objectively, a showdown between #16 UGA and #25 Alabama -- when based on wins, losses and quality of opponent.



Have you looked into the Sagarin rankings?  Very similar and they've been around for years.  They take SOS into account.

They've got the Alabama vs. Georgia game as #1 vs. #5, so you probably won't think they are very objective.


----------



## pedro47 (Oct 2, 2015)

Prediction for this season there will be no undefeated teams this year. Sorry Ohio State fans.


----------



## Elan (Oct 2, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> Have you looked into the Sagarin rankings?  Very similar and they've been around for years.  They take SOS into account.
> 
> They've got the Alabama vs. Georgia game as #1 vs. #5, so you probably won't think they are very objective.



Yeah, I know about most of the computer ranking systems from the BCS era (sadly, I've since forgotten most of it  ).  Most have some form of built in offset.  That's why I refer to Colley more often than the others.  Colley starts all teams equal.  As I said, I don't claim to know the full algorithm, but I do like that it starts with all teams being equal. Sagarin is a predictive ranking system -- his algorithm tries to predict the outcome of any given contest.   Colley is not.  So, to answer your question, no I don't consider Sagarin particularly objective.  Having said that, none are perfect.

  Looking at the Sagarin, he's trying to convince us that Bama would beat Ole Miss if they played tomorrow on a neutral site, yet we already watched Ole Miss beat Bama in Tuscaloosa.  I'll go with reality over perception.  YMMV


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 2, 2015)

Elan said:


> Looking at the Sagarin, he's trying to convince us that Bama would beat Ole Miss if they played tomorrow on a neutral site, yet we already watched Ole Miss beat Bama in Tuscaloosa.  I'll go with reality over perception.  YMMV



Ouch, good point!


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 2, 2015)

indeed, and thus the problem with polls based on statistics!

that said, alabama was a 6.5 point favorite with the oddsmakers in that game!

UGA is a 2.5point favorite over bama (but at home, so this essentially is a pickem game)


----------



## Elan (Oct 2, 2015)

Interesting tidbit (from ESPN.com):

  The over/under for the Texas Tech-Baylor game grew to as high as 90.5 points on Wednesday in Las Vegas, the highest college football total since at least 1990, according to ESPN Stats & Information.


----------



## csxjohn (Oct 2, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> Only way to know for sure is to let them all play each other (which is impossible).  I've learned that the oddsmakers are more often right than wrong.  I'm sticking with that.  Any of these other polls and calculations are going to be wrong too.
> 
> November 21st - Ohio St. vs Michigan St. (number 1 vs. number 2).  I don't see either of these two losing before then.



I don't see Ohio State being ranked #1 once "the committee" sets the rankings.  They will not leave OSU in the top spot if they continue to play the way they have the last few weeks.

And to me that's a good thing, no reason a team should be ranked #1 just because they won it all last year.  The current polls will leave them there until they suffer a loss, the committee won't wait that long.


----------



## am1 (Oct 3, 2015)

How high does Alabama deserve to go after a lot of top teams losing?  My guess is 6 or 7.


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 4, 2015)

am1 said:


> How high does Alabama deserve to go after a lot of top teams losing?  My guess is 6 or 7.



The word _deserve _is an interesting choice of words.  I think Utah gets position 6 and then that means Alabama is fighting Clemson for position 7.  My guess is 7th.  

Contrary to recent popular rumors, Alabama is not dead.

November 3rd is the key date - it's the date of the first real poll.


----------



## Elan (Oct 4, 2015)

It's entirely possible that UGA wasn't very good.  They'd played nobody.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 4, 2015)

it was a great day of football last night for sure!

I think my favorite part was watching all the announcers fawn over ole miss, many calling them the best team in the country and how they could easily jump to 1 given the struggles of the top two teams earlier in the day.

then of course...the game got played...and I am not even kidding...one of those very espn announcers (an FSU grad at that) literally said he felt the gators were the best team in the SEC...and possibly the country.

*facepalm


and in an even bigger suprise, the biggest mover of the week in this mornings poll?  utah...and they were on a bye!


----------



## bogey21 (Oct 5, 2015)

bogey21 said:


> I think TCU is as over rated this year as they were under rated in prior years.  I think they will lose to Texas this week.  In fact I bet $100 on it.  I could have taken Texas plus 15 points but took the ML instead at 5-1 odds.



Talk about a bad bet.  Game was over at the end of the first quarter when TCU was leading 30-0.  I got short changed with 5-1 odds.  It should have been 15-1!!

George


----------



## csxjohn (Oct 5, 2015)

bogey21 said:


> Talk about a bad bet.  Game was over at the end of the first quarter when TCU was leading 30-0.  I got short changed with 5-1 odds.  It should have been 15-1!!
> 
> George



If that were the case you may have bet more.:ignore:

I wanted to bet on Indiana with the points but with my luck OSU would finally wake up so I did not bet.


----------



## csxjohn (Oct 5, 2015)

Something the "unbiased" polls can't take into consideration is emotion.

Everyone who plays against Notre Dame gets up for the game big time.

Same thing when someone goes up against last year's conference champ or national champ.

I think the  rankings need human input to add these kinds of things to the mix.


----------



## Talent312 (Oct 5, 2015)

Check this out:  Florida player dances with Trooper...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug6dlrsQpvg

Cool.


----------



## Elan (Oct 5, 2015)

Colley has the following top 5 after this weekend:

  1) Northwestern
  2) Florida
  3) aTm
  4) Oklahoma 
  5) Utah

  ESPN power rankings:

  1) Utah
  2) TCU
  3) Baylor
  4) Ohio St
  5) Clemson

  Adding Sagarin:

  1) Alabama
  2) USC
  3) Baylor
  4) Stanford
  5) Oklahoma


----------



## Elan (Oct 6, 2015)

Great article today on the power of brand name recognition in CFB (article should be sub-titled "Why the polls and the entire BCS era was a bad joke" ):  

http://espn.go.com/college-football...w-brand-names-figure-college-football-playoff


----------



## lizap (Oct 7, 2015)

Don't understand all the Nick Saban bias.  Why is Alabama ranked ahead of so many unbeaten teams??


----------



## Elan (Oct 9, 2015)

I wonder how long it will take USC to realize that Sarkisian was a bad hire?  It's always cool to see teams like USC get thumped by a squad with considerably less talent.  Nice win for Pete and the Huskies.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elan (Oct 12, 2015)

Elan said:


> *I wonder how long it will take USC to realize that Sarkisian was a bad hire*?  It's always cool to see teams like USC get thumped by a squad with considerably less talent.  Nice win for Pete and the Huskies.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



 I guess that resolved itself quickly...............


----------



## Talent312 (Oct 12, 2015)

So will Florida have to forfeit any games for it's "supplement"-ingesting QB?
Answer seems to be prolly-not, if coaches only found out about it yesterday.
But sadly (for me), our Cinderella Ranking will disappear in the rear-view.
.


----------



## Elan (Oct 12, 2015)

Wow, first Sark gets fired, and now, according to reports, Spurrier is resigning, effective immediately.  Bad day to be a USC coach. 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Talent312 (Oct 12, 2015)

Elan said:


> Wow, first Sark gets fired, and now, according to reports, Spurrier is resigning, effective immediately.  Bad day to be a USC coach.



Although he ended his coaching-days at South Carolina, Steve Spurrier is still beloved at my school, the University of Florida. I think that most fans there would have given him a lifetime contract. He was the fun in the "fun and gun" offense.  His statue stands outside stadium.


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 13, 2015)

Elan said:


> Bad day to be a USC coach.



Whew, there were no reports that the coach at the University of Southern Connecticut got fired yesterday.


----------



## pedro47 (Oct 13, 2015)

Talent312 said:


> Although he ended his coaching-days at South Carolina, Steve Spurrier is still beloved at my school, the University of Florida. I think that most fans there would have given him a lifetime contract. He was the fun in the "fun and gun" offense.  His statue stands outside stadium.



Today, South Carolina loss a great coach and a fine southern gentleman in Steve Spurrier. I wish him a long retirement and happy trails in retirement.


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 17, 2015)

so much for ole miss and northwestern being top ranked teams!  what a collapse in recent weeks.


----------



## am1 (Oct 17, 2015)

A heartbreaker for Michigan.  Hopefully they continue strong to beat ohio state.  

Alabama continues to impress and get back to the top.


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 17, 2015)

that michigan ending...wow.


----------



## Elan (Oct 18, 2015)

So who would be in the playoffs if the season ended now?  OSU, TCU, Utah, and LSU?  That would be a pretty decent field.  Baylor, MSU?  

  I think this year will provide even more evidence than last that 8 is a much better number for a playoff.  Lots of football left.


----------



## csxjohn (Oct 18, 2015)

Alabama beats Texas A&M but Texas stays ahead of them in the polls???


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 18, 2015)

Thankfully today isn't the day to decide.  Baylor AND TCU deserve it today, but that position will be decided when they play each other at TCU.  After the weekend's lucky win against Michigan, I'd leave Michigan St out for now.


----------



## Elan (Oct 18, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> Thankfully today isn't the day to decide.  Baylor AND TCU deserve it today, but that position will be decided when they play each other at TCU.



  Yes, and MSU plays OSU near the end of the season also.  But I'll go on record now as stating that there won't be a clear cut top 4 at the end of the year.  I'd love to be wrong.  

  Colley Matrix Top 10 :



1. 	Utah    	0.971088	6-0	0.628118: 5	2	4	W: #14 California
2. 	LSU           	0.928695	6-0	0.571593: 25	1	3	W: #9 Florida
3. 	Michigan St    	0.918254	7-0	0.537756: 50	1	1	W: #19 Michigan
4. 	Ohio St    	0.905354	7-0	0.521169: 62	0	1	W: #27 Penn St
5. 	Iowa    	0.903364	7-0	0.518611: 63	2	4	W: #23 Northwestern
6. 	Clemson    	0.871586	6-0	0.495448: 78	1	2	W: #13 Notre Dame
7. 	Florida St    	0.853888	6-0	0.471851: 93	0	1	W: #47 Miami (FL)
8. 	TCU           	0.852008	7-0	0.452582: 106	0	1	W: #42 Texas Tech
9. 	Florida    	0.849638	6-1	0.592392: 15	0	2	W: #34 Mississippi
10. 	Oklahoma St    	0.846327	6-0	0.461770: 97	0	0	W: #52 West Virginia


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 18, 2015)

csxjohn said:


> Alabama beats Texas A&M but Texas stays ahead of them in the polls???



Don't they announce later today?  I'm not sure what poll you're referring to though, but it would be unlikely to see A&M remain ahead of them.


----------



## Elan (Oct 18, 2015)

Coaches Poll:


Coaches Poll
RK	TEAM	        REC	PTS	TREND
1	Ohio State(45)	7-0	1547	—
2	Baylor(12)   	6-0	1488	—
3	TCU(4)	        7-0	1417	—
4	Michigan State	7-0	1334	—
5	LSU(1)	        6-0	1324	—
6	Clemson	        6-0	1271	—
7	Utah(1)	        6-0	1258	—
8	Alabama	        6-1	1123	 1
9	Florida State	6-0	1111	 1
10	Notre Dame	6-1	924	 3


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 18, 2015)

currently most of the teams in the top 10 are scheduled to play each other, so sadly....none of this really means much of anything at the moment.

1 plays 4 later
6 plays 9 later
2 plays 3 later
8 plays 5 later

the only team that i feel doesnt belong is utah....as they have really played noone (michigan in their first game of the season...but have struggled against sub-par competition since).

that said, clearly the voters like the team...and with them unlikely to lose for awahile...id expect them to stay near the top.


----------



## csxjohn (Oct 19, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> Don't they announce later today?  I'm not sure what poll you're referring to though, but it would be unlikely to see A&M remain ahead of them.



Since I don't follow it that closely I thought I was looking at the new poll.


----------



## Elan (Oct 19, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> the only team that i feel doesnt belong is utah....as they have really played noone (michigan in their first game of the season...but have struggled against sub-par competition since).



  Wow, really?  I don't like the Utes, but they have one of the more impressive resumes to this point of anyone that's near the top.  

  Utah gave Cal their only loss.  Had Michigan not gaffed on the last play Saturday, Utah would have given them their only loss.  The only opponent on Utah's schedule thus far with a losing record is Fresno State.  From a "who have you beaten thus far" perspective, Utah is way more deserved of a high ranking than many of the other unbeatens.    

  Utah opponent record: 24-16
  LSU opp record:  22-18
  OSU opp record:  23-24
  MSU opp record:  22-24
  Clemson opp record: 18-21
  FSU opp record:  16-21

  I didn't check every team, but on quick review it appears that, other than LSU, Utah is the only unbeaten with an opponent record over .500.  I'm not saying Utah is great or predicting them to do anything going forward (that's the biased media's job  ).  But, objectively, I'm not sure how anyone could single out Utah as being undeserving of a high ranking when the available data indicates just the opposite.


----------



## csxjohn (Oct 23, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> the only team that i feel doesnt belong is utah....as they have really played noone (michigan in their first game of the season...but have struggled against sub-par competition since).
> 
> that said, clearly the voters like the team...and with them unlikely to lose for awahile...id expect them to stay near the top.



We know from last year that the committee doesn't think the way the AP voters do, so it really doesn't matter now.

The first Committee meeting will be Nov 2-3 this year.


----------



## Elan (Oct 23, 2015)

Speaking of Utah, I wouldn't be totally shocked if they got bumped off soon, maybe even by USC this weekend.  Very seldom that anyone makes it through the P12 undefeated.


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 23, 2015)

my issue was that utah was an afterthought by the pollsters...until they destroyed oregon....then everyone started saying they deserved a top 5 spot.

the problem was...everyone thought oregon was still a top team (because of the tight game with then MSU)....which they have clearly proven they arent.

its the use of "selective logic" vs overall logic that frustrates me in polls...not so much the actual teams themselves.


----------



## Elan (Oct 23, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> my issue was that utah was an afterthought by the pollsters...until they destroyed oregon....then everyone started saying they deserved a top 5 spot.
> 
> the problem was...everyone thought oregon was still a top team (because of the tight game with then MSU)....which they have clearly proven they arent.
> 
> its the use of "selective logic" vs overall logic that frustrates me in polls...not so much the actual teams themselves.



  Yeah, that's why the idea of humans being heavily involved really bothers me.  I think nearly everyone would agree that if the objective is to identify the "best" team, then the first thing to look at would be W/L record.  Should 2 or more teams possess the same record, then the next logical step would to be to attempt to quantify the strength of each team's wins.  Logically, this would be again based on the W/L records of each team's opponents.  

  With specific regard to Utah, they're an afterthought mostly because they aren't one of CFB's bluebloods.  I'd argue that they are top 5 based more on their wins over Michigan and Cal than their win over Oregon (though the way they destroyed Oregon certainly helped).  Regardless of how highly or lowly one thinks of Utah, they do have the most impressive resume of all the unbeatens *at this point in time*.  At least that's what the data says.    I suppose we could ignore the available data, but then it just becomes a media and network manipulated popularity contest, and we're back to something similar to the BCS era, which was a joke.

  Clearly, should Utah lose, or should Cal and Michigan and/or the rest of Utah's opponents start to lose regularly (Cal lost last night), then Utah should drop in the rankings.  Until that time, they're close to where they should be.


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 23, 2015)

Elan said:


> Yeah, that's why the idea of humans being heavily involved really bothers me.  I think nearly everyone would agree that if the objective is to identify the "best" team, then the first thing to look at would be W/L record.  Should 2 or more teams possess the same record, then the next logical step would to be to attempt to quantify the strength of each team's wins.  Logically, this would be again based on the W/L records of each team's opponents.



I'm not sure if you meant for it to come out that way, but I don't think you can go by W/L record as the sole top priority.  At the least, SOS should be ranked just as high.


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 23, 2015)

ive often wondered why they dont have a grade for each game played.

playing a decent (or at least in the opinion of the football world) team well should mean more than wiping the field with a cupcake team.

and vice versa, putting a poor performance out vs a team you were meant to beat should count more against you!

and im not talking about just the final score...anyone who actually watches football knows the difference!


----------



## Elan (Oct 23, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> I'm not sure if you meant for it to come out that way, but I don't think you can go by W/L record as the sole top priority.  At the least, SOS should be ranked just as high.



  I'm saying that if a Martian came to earth  and knew nothing about CFB tradition or SEC bias or E$PN interests or whatever, and thus considered all teams equal at the start of the season, then the most intuitive ranking criteria would be W/L record.  Presumably, not knowing anything else, a team with a 6-0 record is "better" than a team with a 3-3 record.    

  Here are the top 10 teams by SOS and their records (SOS according to Colley, but pick any SOS ranking system):

  Texas 2-4
  Ark    2-4
  Mich   5-2
  L'ville 2-4
  Utah   6-0
  W Va  3-3
  W Mi   3-3
  Mlnd   2-4
  Gtech  2-5
  NW     5-2

  Clearly, that's not the cream of the crop in CFB.  Of the 10 toughest schedules, only 3 of those teams could be considered for the playoff, and even that's stretching it.  

  Here are the remaining 14 teams without a loss:

  Utah 
  OSU
  LSU
  MSU
  Iowa
  Clemson
  FSU
  TCU
  Ok St
  Memphis
  Baylor
  Toledo
  Temple 
  Houston

  That looks more like a potential playoff field to me.


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 23, 2015)

Elan said:


> I'm saying that if a Martian came to earth  and knew nothing about CFB tradition or SEC bias or E$PN interests or whatever, and thus considered all teams equal at the start of the season, then the most intuitive ranking criteria would be W/L record.  Presumably, not knowing anything else, a team with a 6-0 record is "better" than a team with a 3-3 record.
> 
> Here are the top 10 teams by SOS and their records (SOS according to Colley, but pick any SOS ranking system):
> 
> ...



Ah, but now you're saying that SOS is the sole priority (at least in your example here).  I'm saying you have to give SOS and record somewhat of an equal weight.  There are many 5-1 teams that are much better than other 6-0 teams for sure, we all know that.


----------



## Elan (Oct 23, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> ive often wondered why they dont have a grade for each game played.
> 
> playing a decent (or at least in the opinion of the football world) team well should mean more than wiping the field with a cupcake team.
> 
> ...



  So what do you do near the start of the season?  Everyone thinks Oregon is going to be good, so MSU gets a high grade for beating them?  But, it turns out that Oregon is pretty mediocre.  So then what?


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 23, 2015)

Elan said:


> So what do you do near the start of the season?  Everyone thinks Oregon is going to be good, so MSU gets a high grade for beating them?  But, it turns out that Oregon is pretty mediocre.  So then what?



Hey - You tell us, this is your dreamland hypothetical ranking scenario...  

Obviously, there would have to be other criteria involved.  i.e. such as whether a school plays in the SEC or not...  HA!


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 23, 2015)

and for years now you see the top teams continue to schedule (for the most part) very weak competition at the beginning of the season.

because its far better to beat the pants of an annual cupcake, than actually schedule a solid opponent.


----------



## Elan (Oct 23, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> Hey - You tell us, this is your dreamland hypothetical ranking scenario...
> 
> Obviously, there would have to be other criteria involved.  i.e. such as whether a school plays in the SEC or not...  HA!



I already did.  Every team starts out even.  Wins and losses will work themselves out.  At the end, if two teams have identical records, the team with tougher SOS should be ranked higher.  Pretty simple.


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 23, 2015)

That doesnt factor in head to head play, as well as outcome vs shared competition etc.


kinda like how alabama is ranked above ole miss =)


----------



## csxjohn (Oct 23, 2015)

Here's what the NCAA has to say.

"When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:
•Championships won
•Strength of schedule
•Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
•Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)"


This is a good read and I agree with the reasoning that it's an art and not a science.

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/selection-committee-protocol


----------



## Elan (Oct 23, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> That doesnt factor in head to head play, as well as outcome vs shared competition etc.
> 
> 
> kinda like how alabama is ranked above ole miss =)



  Ole Miss has 2 losses.  Bama has 1.


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 23, 2015)

yes but ole miss has proven they are a better team than alabama by beating them in their own stadium...much less a neutral field.


----------



## Elan (Oct 23, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> yes but ole miss has proven they are a better team than alabama by beating them in their own stadium...much less a neutral field.



  To some extent, I agree.  But h2h should be a lower criteria than overall record, particularly when comparing two teams in the same conference (similar  schedules).


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 23, 2015)

I just hear it every year when they are trying to sort out the top slots, "which team do you think would win on a neutral field".

thats the criteria used to determine which teams are better than others....it just frustrates me that its ignored when the opponent you lost to has somehow lost one or two more games than you.

I can promise you that should bama lose to LSU next week....then they will have an equal number of losses as ole miss..but will STILL be ranked higher.

it just annoys me, I think head to head should always matter.  the teams have already played, they had their shot to prove they were better....and barring some major injury, ridiculous weather conditions, or other abnormal situations that could truly impact the performance of either team and change a potential outcome....that head 2 head should mean far more than it does.


----------



## Elan (Oct 23, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> I just hear it every year when they are trying to sort out the top slots, "which team do you think would win on a neutral field".
> 
> thats the criteria used to determine which teams are better than others....it just frustrates me that its ignored when the opponent you lost to has somehow lost one or two more games than you.
> 
> ...



  I agree with that.  It's difficult to say how important h2h should be because there are always other factors at play.  All else equal, it should matter.  But all else is seldom equal.  In the case of Baylor and TCU last year, I think h2h should have mattered.  Meaning the committee should clarify how important it is in deciding a tie.


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 23, 2015)

I thought the baylor tcu example was good as well, but TCU did have a bit of an edge since the game was played at baylor...and baylor only won by 3....in the last seconds on a field goal.

I can at least grip my head around the logic that says on a neutral field....TCU wins that game.


----------



## am1 (Oct 23, 2015)

Do you want the 4 most deserving teams to make the playoffs of the 4 best?  

They can be very different.


----------



## Elan (Oct 23, 2015)

am1 said:


> Do you want the 4 most deserving teams to make the playoffs of the 4 best?
> 
> They can be very different.



  Since you now have complete vision into last year, including the playoffs, which 4 teams were the most deserving and which 4 were the best?  And more importantly, how do you know who was best?


----------



## am1 (Oct 23, 2015)

Elan said:


> Since you now have complete vision into last year, including the playoffs, which 4 teams were the most deserving and which 4 were the best?  And more importantly, how do you know who was best?



Last year I think the 4 best and most deserving teams got in.  I can see an argument where an undefeated conference champion is left out but a 1 lost conference champion or 1 lost non conference champion gets in.  The undefeated conference champion may be one of the 4  most deserving but not one 1 of the 4 best teams.  

Also depends how a team losses or wins. If a team loses two games due to the ref blowing a call they may still be better then a 1 loss team that got blown out but not as deserving as they have two losses.


----------



## Elan (Oct 23, 2015)

If Memphis ends the season as the only undefeated team, do they deserve to be in the playoff?  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Oct 23, 2015)

Elan said:


> If Memphis ends the season as the only undefeated team, do they deserve to be in the playoff?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



Some may say yes but they would not be one of the best 4 teams.  They would be a ratings killer as well.  

I do not think with their schedule they would deserve to make it.  It would be a very impressive season for them though.


----------



## Elan (Oct 23, 2015)

am1 said:


> Some may say yes but they would not be one of the best 4 teams.  They would be a ratings killer as well.
> 
> I do not think with their schedule they would deserve to make it.  It would be a very impressive season for them though.


How do you know they wouldn't be one of the 4 best teams?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Oct 23, 2015)

Elan said:


> How do you know they wouldn't be one of the 4 best teams?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



Most likely they will not win their new years bowl game is reason enough for me.


----------



## Elan (Oct 24, 2015)

am1 said:


> Most likely they will not win their new years bowl game is reason enough for me.



  Well, it's difficult to argue with logic like that.  :hysterical:


----------



## am1 (Oct 24, 2015)

Elan said:


> Well, it's difficult to argue with logic like that.  :hysterical:



I am not trying to argue with you but that fact remains the same.  Also their bowl opponent will not take the game seriously.  

Do you think an undefeated memphis would be one of the best 4 teams?


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 24, 2015)

yikes...clemson appears to be having a good day.


----------



## Elan (Oct 24, 2015)

am1 said:


> I am not trying to argue with you but that fact remains the same.  Also their bowl opponent will not take the game seriously.
> 
> Do you think an undefeated memphis would be one of the best 4 teams?



  Whatever.  Every team that has a decent coach takes a major bowl seriously.  You and I both know that's just a lame-ass excuse for the big school to have in their pocket in case the little school whips their ass.

  I don't know that Memphis would be one of the best 4 teams.  But if they were undefeated, it means there's no definitive empirical evidence that anyone is any better.  That's why they should definitely be included in a playoff.  Until someone has proven that they're not one of the 4 best, they should have every opportunity to prove that they are.


----------



## Elan (Oct 24, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> yikes...clemson appears to be having a good day.



  Baylor, as well.


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 24, 2015)

my team doesnt play baylor in 2 weeks though!  


heres to hoping miami has just "given up" after losing to FSU....


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 24, 2015)

well...guess I dont have to worry about losing to clemson next week.

blah


----------



## Elan (Oct 25, 2015)

That was a pretty shocking way for a game to end.  Maybe not quite as bad as Michigan's loss last week, but pretty close.  
  Should be an interesting week with Utah and FSU both going down.  Russell going out might also doom Baylor soon as they're getting into the meat of their schedule.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elan (Oct 27, 2015)

Latest Colley rankings:

	team	        rating 	       record  	  SOS: rank    top 25 wins  top 50 wins best game
1. 	LSU    	        0.942262	7-0	0.568622: 31	1	       4	W: #11 Florida
2. 	Michigan St    	0.933618	8-0	0.542022: 46	1	       3	W: #21 Michigan
3. 	Clemson    	0.928134	7-0	0.550458: 41	1	       2	W: #9 Notre Dame
4. 	Ohio St    	0.911622	8-0	0.514528: 67	1	       2	W: #23 Penn St
5. 	Iowa    	0.905231	7-0	0.521011: 61	2	       4	W: #18 Northwestern
6. 	Memphis    	0.871042	7-0	0.477055: 89	0	       2	W: #27 Mississippi
7. 	Utah    	0.860804	6-1	0.606748: 13	2	       4	W: #21 Michigan
8. 	Alabama    	0.858518	7-1	0.573148: 27	0	       3	W: #26 Texas A&M
9. 	Notre Dame    	0.856740	6-1	0.601523: 15	0	       3	W: #29 Navy
10. 	TCU    	        0.836653	7-0	0.432839: 112	0	       2	W: #43 Texas


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 27, 2015)

Thank God we don't have to talk about Utah for another week!!!


----------



## Elan (Oct 27, 2015)

What's funny, and truly indicative of the bias inherent in CFB, is that nobody talks about Iowa.  I have no idea how good they are or aren't, but according to Colley, they're very nearly as qualified (based on on-field performance, not that _*that*_ should matter  ) as OSU.


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 27, 2015)

Elan said:


> I have no idea how good they are or aren't, *but according to Colley*, they're very nearly as qualified (based on on-field performance, not that _*that*_ should matter ) as OSU.



Colley??  Are you referring to the same poll that had Utah ranked number 1 last week???


----------



## Elan (Oct 27, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> Colley??  Are you referring to the same poll that had Utah ranked number 1 last week???



  Colley isn't a poll.  It's a computer ranking based on what's transpired up to the point of release.  It isn't predictive in nature, it's only basis is *on-field performance to date*.  Truly a bizarre concept, apparently...........


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 27, 2015)

Speaking of "missing the bus"....how on earth is gameday this week going to the notre dame vs temple game....

that sounds like more of a thursday night game than the premier matchup for saturday afternoon.


----------



## csxjohn (Oct 27, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> Speaking of "missing the bus"....how on earth is gameday this week going to the notre dame vs temple game....
> 
> that sounds like more of a thursday night game than the premier matchup for saturday afternoon.



You don't think there's a little bias out there for ND, do you?

I had a hard time watching the Michigan - Michigan State game last week.  The media is so in love with the Michigan coach that I feel it clouded their coverage as the love fell over to the Michigan team.


----------



## csxjohn (Oct 27, 2015)

I saw a penalty called Sat but don't remember which game.  It was for a "banned gesture" after a TD.   After watching the brief replay I still have no idea what it was called for.

Why couldn't the announcers fill us in, they tell us everything else about everything on and off the field?


----------



## Elan (Oct 27, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> Speaking of "missing the bus"....how on earth is gameday this week going to the notre dame vs temple game....
> 
> that sounds like more of a thursday night game than the premier matchup for saturday afternoon.



  I'd read that it was down to Pullman or Philly for GameDay this week.  

  I actually like that they move it around.  Wasn't it at JMU v Richmond last week?  That's pretty cool, IMO.

  ETA:  Looks like Temple v ND is the only match-up of two ranked teams this week.


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 27, 2015)

Whatever poll (or ranking) ends up being the closest to the selection committee's rankings on November 3rd is the one I'm going with next year.


----------



## Elan (Oct 27, 2015)

Ultimately, none of the polls or rankings matter.  Whatever the committee wants to do, they'll do.  I just like to point out the idiocy of someone touting a game or conference based on the AP poll rankings.  If one is going to refer to a ranking, then they would presumably seek out the most objective one available.  I don't know that Colley is the most objective, but it certainly is more so than a polling of nobody media types.


----------



## csxjohn (Oct 27, 2015)

Am I the only one who agrees with the NCAA when they say, "Ranking football teams is an art, not a science. Football is popular in some measure because the outcome of a game between reasonably matched teams is so often decided by emotional commitment, momentum, injuries and the “unexpected bounce of the ball.”

Using strictly objective polls doesn't take any of this into consideration.

And for those of you that think and 8 team playoff is coming, don't hold your breath. 

Here's the link again.
http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/selection-committee-protocol


----------



## Talent312 (Oct 27, 2015)

*BCS computers still love SEC... LSU would be No. 1*

*NBC Sports - Oct 27, 2015*

The SEC was dominant under the old BCS format, putting together a seven-game winning streak in the BCS Championship Game from 2007 through 2013 and winning nine of the 16 BCS Championship Games... If the old system was still in play today, LSU would be... the top-ranked team in the BCS standings, as determined by five of the computer formulas previously used in the BCS system. Ohio State, currently No. 1, would be ranked No. 4 in the BCS, putting the Buckeyes at risk of missing out on a championship bidd. Clemson would be ranked No. 2, followed by No. 3 Alabama.

SEC teams [currently] fill three of the top 10 spots in the College Football Computer Composite used by USA Today. In addition to No. 1 LSU and No. 3 Alabama, Florida rounds out the top 10.

_<food for thought>_
.


----------



## Elan (Oct 27, 2015)

csxjohn said:


> Am I the only one who agrees with the NCAA when they say, "Ranking football teams is an art, not a science. Football is popular in some measure because the outcome of a game between reasonably matched teams is so often decided by emotional commitment, momentum, injuries and the “unexpected bounce of the ball.”
> 
> Using strictly objective polls doesn't take any of this into consideration.
> 
> ...


I'd say, roughly, more than 90% science and less than 10% art.  Bottom line is that the process needs to be fair and transparent.  To just throw a handful of biased committee members into a room and let them decide is neither.  
  Of course, for those that just want to see Bama, Texas, OSU and Notre Dame every year, I presume being fair isn't a consideration.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## csxjohn (Oct 28, 2015)

Elan said:


> I'd say, roughly, more than 90% science and less than 10% art.  Bottom line is that the process needs to be fair and transparent.  To just throw a handful of biased committee members into a room and let them decide is neither.
> Of course, for those that just want to see Bama, Texas, OSU and Notre Dame every year, I presume being fair isn't a consideration.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



I was pretty much thinking of the MI-MI State game where State won but was on the brink of losing.  The computers don't take that  into consideration, humans can.

Loss of key players also can't be considered by the computers.  Is a team that just won still good if they lose the one player who keeps them winning?

I think if you get the right peeps on the committee, they can come up with the four best teams or close to it.

They consider conference championships highly and two teams got hurt last year by being named co-champs.  That conference should have had a tie breaker in place then maybe OSU doesn't even crack the top four.


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 28, 2015)

csxjohn said:


> They consider conference championships highly and two teams got hurt last year by being named co-champs.  That conference should have had a tie breaker in place then maybe OSU doesn't even crack the top four.



Yes, OSU barely got in and eventually won the championship.  We spend a lot of time on this thread talking about the bias in the polls and the selection committee, but I feel the NCAA currently has the right formula.  Sure, they could expand the group to 8 teams, but I'm very happy with the current setup.


----------



## Elan (Oct 28, 2015)

csxjohn said:


> I was pretty much thinking of the MI-MI State game where State won but was on the brink of losing.  The computers don't take that  into consideration, humans can.
> 
> Loss of key players also can't be considered by the computers.  Is a team that just won still good if they lose the one player who keeps them winning?
> 
> ...



  Actually, the two scenarios you listed are the exact two that came to my mind in allocating the 10% to art.  If Trevone Boykin breaks both his legs on the last play of the regular season, I think it's semi-reasonable to dock TCU's chances of being in the playoff.  Or, if Michigan and MSU were dead even for the last spot, then I think it would be at least semi-rational to give the spot to Michigan, given that were in not for a once-in-a-lifetime type play, they had that game won.  But, bottom line, both those scenarios are rare and still debatable.  That's why I say 10%.

  Reading the link you posted, I have no issue with the verbiage.  But the protocol needs a lot more resolution.  For instance, if they're relying on strength of schedule so heavily, publish how it's computed, estimated or SWAGged, and publish each team's ongoing SOS with the weekly release.  The way it is now, it's like a professor telling students that they're final grade is going to be based X% on weekly quizzes, Y% on midterms and Z% on the final, but not telling the students what X,Y and Z are or revealing any specific test results along the way.  Instead, he just tells them what their final grade would be if the class ended today.  That's not transparent.  And lack of transparency leads to a lack of trust.  

  I put little faith in the committee in terms of fairness.  Looking at it's members it's hard to not infer some biases.  So, make the "formula" for getting into the playoff public, and follow it unless there are extraordinary circumstances that can be explained and rationalized by fans.  Of course, if they were to do this, the formula would clearly show that in most years 4 teams isn't enough.


----------



## Elan (Nov 2, 2015)

First CFP ranking come out tomorrow.  For now.....


AP Top 10
RK	TEAM	REC	PTS	TREND
1	Ohio State(39)	8-0	1465	—
2	Baylor(6)	7-0	1408	—
3	Clemson(6)	8-0	1381	—
4	LSU(5)	7-0	1346	—
5	TCU(4)	8-0	1336	—
6	Michigan State	8-0	1249	—
7	Alabama(1)	7-1	1160	—
8	Notre Dame	7-1	1019	 1
9	Stanford	7-1	1014	 1
10	Iowa	8-0	954	—

Coaches Poll
RK	TEAM	REC	PTS	TREND
1	Ohio State(48)	8-0	1574	—
2	Baylor(9)	7-0	1481	—
3	TCU(4)	8-0	1441	—
4	LSU(1)	7-0	1388	—
5	Clemson(2)	8-0	1377	 1
6	Michigan State	8-0	1337	 1
7	Alabama	7-1	1223	—
8	Stanford	7-1	1069	—
9	Notre Dame	7-1	1068	—
10	Oklahoma State	8-0	978	—

Colley
1. 	Michigan St    	0.956830	8-0	0.571038: 28	1	3	W: #17 Michigan
2. 	Clemson    	0.930572	8-0	0.538215: 49	1	3	W: #6 Notre Dame
3. 	LSU    	        0.930302	7-0	0.553245: 41	1	3	W: #10 Florida
4. 	Ohio St    	0.911048	8-0	0.513809: 60	1	2	W: #19 Penn St
5. 	Iowa    	0.905658	8-0	0.507073: 64	1	3	W: #20 Northwestern
6. 	Notre Dame    	0.895641	7-1	0.619551: 9	2	3	W: #21 Temple
7. 	TCU    	        0.875091	8-0	0.468864: 85	0	1	W: #42 Texas Tech
8. 	Memphis    	0.869698	8-0	0.462123: 94	1	3	W: #18 Mississippi
9. 	Utah    	0.863425	7-1	0.579281: 21	1	3	W: #17 Michigan
10. 	Florida    	0.861586	7-1	0.576983: 23	1	3	W: #18 Mississippi


----------



## pedro47 (Nov 2, 2015)

How will Baylor football team play this week without their #1 QB?


----------



## csxjohn (Nov 5, 2015)

This thread got awfully quiet.

I'm surprised Ohio State got ranked as high as they did.  Until the last two games they seemed to struggle.  Could the committee be giving them credit for last year just a little bit?


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 5, 2015)

If Ohio St makes it through the Big 10 undefeated, they are in.  Each of the top four teams have tough games ahead, so they all will have to earn it.


----------



## am1 (Nov 5, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> If Ohio St makes it through the Big 10 undefeated, they are in.  Each of the top four teams have tough games ahead, so they all will have to earn it.



Here is to hoping if Notre Dame wins out that they do not make it.  But my gut says if they win out they are in.  

I hope for Iowa, Baylor, LSU and Bama to make it.


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 5, 2015)

eh, baylor clearly isnt the same potent offense without their qb whos out for the season.

I doubt they make the top 4 even if they finish out the season with no losses.


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 5, 2015)

I take that back...he certainly ended up with a great game tonight!


----------



## Elan (Nov 6, 2015)

Unsurprisingly, I though the first release from the committee was laughable.  For every reason they could possibly conceive to push teams like Alabama up so high, that reasoning was contradicted elsewhere in their very own rankings.  That's the problem with a committee approach, there's no rules to play by, so they can't even be consistent among themselves.  

  At some point we need to get away from lawyers, administrators and washed up football coaches trying to tell us who the best teams are and just let the issue be settled on the field.  Crazy, I know..............


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 6, 2015)

I thought Alabama was questionable, but basically agree on the others in the top 4.  Regardless, it doesn't matter.  I'm willing to bet there will only be one SEC team this year and whoever it is will have to earn it!


----------



## Elan (Nov 6, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> I thought Alabama was questionable, but basically agree on the others in the top 4.  Regardless, it doesn't matter.  I'm willing to bet there will only be one SEC team this year and whoever it is will have to earn it!



  No, nothing matters right now.  But that the committee is so inconsistent, yet spins their release like they're beyond question, is offensive.  If it's ok at this point to have 1 loss and make the top 4 due to strength of schedule, then why isn't Notre Dame ahead of Alabama, as UND's SOS, to date, has been much tougher than Bama's.  Furthermore, Notre Dame (whom I despise, BTW, just to be clear) has only a narrow loss to the committee's #1 team, while Bama has an ugly loss to an unranked team.  The committee would then say that they've "watched the games" and use that as their criteria for ranking.  Do we really want the Condi Rice's of the world telling us who's good at football?  :hysterical:


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 6, 2015)

the reasoning for alabama being that high is obvious....the game this weekend will earn countless millions for espn as a top SEC vs SEC matchup....and gameday location.  its literally their dream game mid-season.  (you know, the ones they tried to bill earlier as the best teams around, before the SEC west started losing)

and again, a win win for the SEC/ESPN....that 600 million dollar investment is paying off!

should LSU win, they clearly win the right to be the best team in the nation, as they just beat an alabama team thats ranked in the top 4 in the nation and is just so good!

should bama win, they clearly win the right to be the best team in the nation, as they just beat an LSU team thats ranked in the top 4 in the nation and is just so good!


----------



## Elan (Nov 6, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> the reasoning for alabama being that high is obvious....the game this weekend will earn countless millions for espn as a top SEC vs SEC matchup....and gameday location.  its literally their dream game mid-season.  (you know, the ones they tried to bill earlier as the best teams around, before the SEC west started losing)
> 
> and again, a win win for the SEC/ESPN....that 600 million dollar investment is paying off!
> 
> ...



  Yep, this was my conclusion as well.  All about marketing, hype and money.  Very little to do with objective selection of the best 4 teams in the country.  

  FWIW, the current Colley rankings have Florida, Utah and Alabama with identical records and very similar SOS.  So, regardless of their absolute rankings, why aren't those 3 teams right next to each other in the CFP committee's rankings?  Even if one wants to dismiss Colley's SOS (presumably because it's based on data  :hysterical: ), it would be difficult to argue that Alabama has played a tougher schedule than Florida or Utah.  Alabama is #4, Florida is #10 and Utah is #12.  One of those teams is mis-ranked.  Not hard to figure out which.


----------



## Elan (Nov 6, 2015)

An honest question for the regulars here:

  Would a final 4 of Utah, Iowa, Baylor and Ole Miss be less appealing, from a fan perspective (to you personally), than a final 4 of USC, Notre Dame, Texas and Alabama?


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 6, 2015)

id have a hard time voting any 2 loss team into the final four.

nothing really says "you arent the best team in the nation" than 2 separate losses.

one can always be a fluke/choke/whatever....but 2 is a problem for me.


----------



## am1 (Nov 6, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> id have a hard time voting any 2 loss team into the final four.
> 
> nothing really says "you arent the best team in the nation" than 2 separate losses.
> 
> one can always be a fluke/choke/whatever....but 2 is a problem for me.



We can agree on that if there are 4 teams more deserving with better records.  A two loss Michigan team may look more impressive then a one loss pac or big 12 champ.   

I do not remember what criteria I wrote last year but would be happy with some suggestions for the powers that be.  

-Undefeated power 5 champ gets in over 1 loss non conference champs.  
-Undefeated and 1 loss teams are looked at first and then after all the undefeated teams are in then 2 loss teams may be looked at.  
-Maximum two teams from one conference 
-Conferences must name a champion (more for the NCAA itself)

I am not sure how the mid majors and Notre Dame should be treated.  

I am in favour of rewarding teams with big wins but not punishing teams as much with loses.  Undefeated is great but universities may need encouragement to play bigger games.  Conference champ gets a little bump because they did the best in their conference.  

Having these things in place before the season and only adjusting year to year would ensure that no matter who is on the selection committee that the selections would be done in the same way.


----------



## am1 (Nov 6, 2015)

Elan said:


> An honest question for the regulars here:
> 
> Would a final 4 of Utah, Iowa, Baylor and Ole Miss be less appealing, from a fan perspective (to you personally), than a final 4 of USC, Notre Dame, Texas and Alabama?



Out of those 8 I would want Notre Dame and USC lose the most.  Throw in ohio state and the 3 teams I want to lose.  

So my opinion is skewed, if both were the top 4 teams then it would not matter.


----------



## Elan (Nov 6, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> id have a hard time voting any 2 loss team into the final four.
> 
> nothing really says "you arent the best team in the nation" than 2 separate losses.
> 
> one can always be a fluke/choke/whatever....but 2 is a problem for me.



  If you're addressing my question, I meant In general, not this year.  If all of the mentioned teams were undefeated, would you care who was in?


----------



## Elan (Nov 6, 2015)

am1 said:


> Out of those 8 I would want Notre Dame and USC lose the most.  Throw in ohio state and the 3 teams I want to lose.
> 
> So my opinion is skewed, if both were the top 4 teams then it would not matter.


OK, what I was asking is whether it's important that the playoff feature CFB's "blueblood" teams?  Or is it just as interesting to you regardless of who makes it?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Nov 6, 2015)

Elan said:


> OK, what I was asking is whether it's important that the playoff feature CFB's "blueblood" teams?  Or is it just as interesting to you regardless of who makes it?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



I would watch whatever.  But the "blueblood" teams have more fans and more people would choose that group of 4.  4 non blue blood teams would be tough and a ratings disaster.  Even if they all ran the tables.


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 6, 2015)

Elan said:


> If you're addressing my question, I meant In general, not this year.  If all of the mentioned teams were undefeated, would you care who was in?



based on name alone?  not at all

i only have problems with undefeated teams with cupcake schedules demanding they get in.

its been YEARS since the BCS was invented...and dumped....but teams know at this point that you have to schedule the right teams (and beat them) to be propped up into the top.


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 6, 2015)

my other pet peeve is "well they played 029834903 ranked teams"

yea, the teams might have been ranked when you played them (coughSECcough)...but finishing the season 7-5 is a much better indication of your "ranking" than the fact you were in the top 10 in week 4.

I really really hate that.


----------



## am1 (Nov 6, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> my other pet peeve is "well they played 029834903 ranked teams"
> 
> yea, the teams might have been ranked when you played them (coughSECcough)...but finishing the season 7-5 is a much better indication of your "ranking" than the fact you were in the top 10 in week 4.
> 
> I really really hate that.



Unless there an injury, suspension, team got exposed or over reason to cause a top 10 team to finish 7-5.


----------



## Elan (Nov 7, 2015)

am1 said:


> I would watch whatever.  But the "blueblood" teams have more fans and more people would choose that group of 4.  4 non blue blood teams would be tough and a ratings disaster.  Even if they all ran the tables.


Maybe a ratings disaster, but if they were more deserving, they should get in, right?  Fans shouldn't care about network ratings.  It bothers me greatly that team's like Baylor and TCU might get screwed again because they're not bluebloods.  Look at Iowa.  I've not even heard them mentioned on one pre-game or other CFB show, and I watch a lot of CFB.  I don't know how good they are, but they're an undefeated team in a P5 conference.  Shouldn't they be getting more attention/respect/consideration? Once the playoff expands to 8 or more, it will become impossible to ignore the Baylors and Iowas (and Memphises and Houstons) of the world.  If they're undefeated, they'll get in, and rightfully so. 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Nov 7, 2015)

Elan said:


> Maybe a ratings disaster, but if they were more deserving, they should get in, right?  Fans shouldn't care about network ratings.  It bothers me greatly that team's like Baylor and TCU might get screwed again because they're not bluebloods.  Look at Iowa.  I've not even heard them mentioned on one pre-game or other CFB show, and I watch a lot of CFB.  I don't know how good they are, but they're an undefeated team in a P5 conference.  Shouldn't they be getting more attention/respect/consideration? Once the playoff expands to 8 or more, it will become impossible to ignore the Baylors and Iowas (and Memphises and Houstons) of the world.  If they're undefeated, they'll get in, and rightfully so.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



It should not matter when it comes to who gets in.


----------



## pedro47 (Nov 7, 2015)

The Clemson Tigers this evening looked like a top four (4) bowl college football team, with their win over Florida State.


----------



## Talent312 (Nov 7, 2015)

pedro47 said:


> The Clemson Tigers this evening looked like a top four (4) bowl college football team, with their win over Florida State.



Agreed.
Also, as a Gator, I didn't mind seeing FSU getting beat.

Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk 2


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 8, 2015)

still scratching my head at why fisher kept the starting qb benched, while the backup had a great game against cupcake syracuse last week...that poor kid was either just flat out not prepared for clemson, or choked in his moment to shine.

awful awful decision to start him over the veteran IMO.


LOTTTA teams losing games this week, should make for a fun ranking release next week!


----------



## csxjohn (Nov 8, 2015)

To me, Baylor did not look all that good.  If FSU hadn't been so inept and made so many mistakes I don't think Baylor would have won.

The team that looked like the no. 1 to me was Alabama.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 8, 2015)

csxjohn said:


> The team that looked like the no. 1 to me was Alabama.



Gee, perhaps the committee actually does know what they're doing???


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 8, 2015)

Elan said:


> Maybe a ratings disaster, but if they were more deserving, they should get in, right?  Fans shouldn't care about network ratings.



It would definitely influence me.  I'm more likely to watch the traditional powerhouses vs. an up and coming newbie into the arena.  However, that is only as long as it's not my team that's getting screwed.  I'd bet that would hold true with most of the football TV viewing population.  In the end, it all needs to be balanced out in some manner when the committee chooses.


----------



## am1 (Nov 8, 2015)

csxjohn said:


> To me, Baylor did not look all that good.  If FSU hadn't been so inept and made so many mistakes I don't think Baylor would have won.
> 
> The team that looked like the no. 1 to me was Alabama.



Baylor = Clemson.

Clemson, Alabama/Florida, ohio state/Iowa, Baylor/OSU are in if they win out.  If LSU wins the SEC they would be in that group as well.  Oklahoma could be in that group too.  

Then there is the winner of Utah, Notre Dame and Stanford.  Notre Dames only loss @ Clemson will make them look good.  

Is Mizzou going to start forfeiting games?  I never knew college players could strike.  I do not know all the details but it should not be college football players trying to force out the president of their university.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 8, 2015)

am1 said:


> Baylor = Clemson.
> 
> Clemson, Alabama/Florida, ohio state/Iowa, Baylor/OSU are in if they win out.  If LSU wins the SEC they would be in that group as well.  Oklahoma could be in that group too.
> 
> ...



Yes, it's what I've been saying for awhile.  The teams currently at the top that end up making the final four will definitely have to earn it by winning out.  That's a tough challenge for all of them.  None have an easy path.

As for Mizzou players, they'll probably work out some type of agreement and play.  The core issues with the university president are much bigger than whether they play the football game or not.  I guess the players need to weigh losing their scholarship vs. taking a stand.  The football season has been a huge failure this year anyway, so in some ways, what do they have to lose.


----------



## Elan (Nov 8, 2015)

Colley:

1. 	Clemson    	0.970848	9-0	0.575481: 31	1	4	W: #3 Notre Dame
2. 	Iowa    	0.922067	9-0	0.515859: 60	2	3	W: #16 Northwestern
3. 	Notre Dame    	0.921675	8-1	0.626492: 7	3	4	W: #13 Navy
4. 	Alabama    	0.919297	8-1	0.623585: 9	2	6	W: #6 LSU
5. 	Ohio St    	0.915643	9-0	0.508008: 63	0	2	W: #29 Penn St
6. 	LSU    	0.879265	7-1	0.599081: 26	2	4	W: #10 Florida
7. 	Oklahoma St    	0.874316	9-0	0.457497: 91	1	2	W: #12 TCU
8. 	Michigan St    	0.868439	8-1	0.561425: 39	1	3	W: #18 Michigan
9. 	Utah    	0.867691	8-1	0.560511: 40	1	3	W: #18 Michigan
10. 	Florida    	0.866757	8-1	0.559370: 41	0	3	W: #28 Mississippi


----------



## Elan (Nov 8, 2015)

am1 said:


> Baylor = Clemson.
> 
> Clemson, Alabama/Florida, ohio state/Iowa, Baylor/OSU are in if they win out.  .



I suspect Notre Dame will get in if they win out.  Huge brand name, and that seems to matter to the committee as much as anything else.


----------



## am1 (Nov 8, 2015)

Elan said:


> I suspect Notre Dame will get in if they win out.  Huge brand name, and that seems to matter to the committee as much as anything else.



If the BIG 10, BIG 12, SEC and ACC champ win out as well then who is left out? If one loses then this year is very easy but if not we will learn where the committee stands a little more.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 8, 2015)

Elan said:


> Colley:
> 
> 1. 	Clemson    	0.970848	9-0	0.575481: 31	1	4	W: #3 Notre Dame
> 2. 	Iowa    	0.922067	9-0	0.515859: 60	2	3	W: #16 Northwestern
> ...



With the exception of Iowa (who I feel that Colley has highly over rated here), those are not far from the College Football Playoff rankings.


----------



## Elan (Nov 8, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> With the exception of Iowa (who I feel that Colley has highly over rated here).



  Perhaps, but they have a better "best win" than OSU, and the same record in the same conference.  Not saying they're a better team, but they're slightly more deserving than OSU based on accomplishments thus far.  And if they both make the B10 championship, then we'll find out who is better on the field.  That's really the beauty of Colley; it's not predictive.  It has a tendency to sort out the teams very logically as the season wears on.  Alabama was not deserving last week.  Now that they've finally beaten someone with a pulse, they move up.  Bizarre concept..........


  FTR, I have never really been opposed to the 4 that the committee picks to get in, but any time an undefeated team gets left out, it's a travesty.  Until someone proves that a team is beatable, that team has earned the right to prove they're not.  I don't care if it's Baylor, or Houston or Louisiana-Monroe.  They should absolutely get a shot at the title, just like in hoops.  If basketball was run like football, we'd have never seen a Butler or George Mason make a run.  To me, those runs are much more exciting and interesting than watching Duke v Kentucky every year.


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 8, 2015)

at this point im rooting for navy =)


----------



## am1 (Nov 9, 2015)

Looks like Mizzou will play in Kansas City.  

It use to be the football coach telling the AD and president what to do now it is the football players.  I guess with a million dollars on the line this Saturday thing happen fast.


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Nov 11, 2015)

College Football Playoff Rankings: A Smarter Way to Look at the Scenarios - by Marc Tracy/ The Upshot/ International New York Times/ The New York Times/ nytimes.com

"When the first College Football Playoff ranking came out last year, Ohio State was ranked 16th. The Buckeyes not only made the tournament but also won it in convincing style, beating Alabama and Oregon.

A failure on the committee’s part? Not exactly. The bigger problem is the way the rest of us analyze the rankings. We pay too much attention to the specific order and not enough to the buckets into which each team falls. It may have been deeply surprising that a team starting at No. 16 rose to become champion. It was less surprising that a one-loss conference champion – which describes Ohio State – won it all.

Our goal here is to give you a guide to this year’s rankings, the latest of which have Clemson at No. 1, followed by No. 2 Alabama, No. 3 Ohio State and No. 4 Notre Dame. The best way to approach the early seeding is to think less about specific teams than about categories of teams. An example is the Southeastern Conference champion. You don’t know who that will be, but you can be reasonably confident that, having won the mighty SEC, that team will make the playoff. By contrast, the Pacific-12 champion, no matter who it is, will be at risk of missing out this year.

Here, we rank categories of teams based on their current chances. We’ll update this list each week until the bracket is revealed, on Dec. 6..."

Richard


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 11, 2015)

I believe winning a major conference championship has always given a team a boost in the rankings....playoff, bcs, or even before that.


----------



## Elan (Nov 11, 2015)

I don't think it's likely that either Baylor or OkSt will get through the rest of their schedules undefeated, but what happens if one of them does?  Is the committee going to screw the B12 again?   Sure looks like it. 

If Stanford wins out, which would mean beating Notre Dame, shouldn't they take UND's place in the top 4?  Alabama took LSU's place in a similar scenario.  

What if Houston wins out?  They'll likely have wins over as many ranked teams as OSU.   

What if Utah wins out?  Is their loss to 3 loss USC any more condemning than Bama's loss to 3 loss Ole Miss?  

Why is OSU ranked so high, anyway?  They haven't beaten anyone in the CFP top 25, and they haven't looked very good in most of their wins.  

And what conference championship game is Notre Dame going to play in?  If lack of a CCG kept Baylor and/or TCU out last year, shouldn't it keep The Irish out this year?  

What makes a conference a "major" or "power" conference anyhow?  The AAC has more teams ranked in the top 25 than the ACC and the P12 and as many as the SEC and B12.    The top 4 teams in the AAC have 3 combined losses, 2 to the 4th ranked team in the country, and 1 self-inflicted.  If we renamed the AAC the SEC, wouldn't we (well, some anyhow  ) be talking about how murderous their conference schedule is?


----------



## pedro47 (Nov 11, 2015)

Elan said:


> I don't think it's likely that either Baylor or OkSt will get through the rest of their schedules undefeated, but what happens if one of them does?  Is the committee going to screw the B12 again?   Sure looks like it.
> 
> If Stanford wins out, which would mean beating Notre Dame, shouldn't they take UND's place in the top 4?  Alabama took LSU's place in a similar scenario.
> 
> ...



The best football team with one lost at this point is still Alabama. Clemson is good but they are not best team in college football.


----------



## am1 (Nov 11, 2015)

pedro47 said:


> The best football team with one lost at this point is still Alabama. Clemson is good but they are not best team in college football.



Who is better of those 2 does not really matter.  When it does matter it will be decided on the field.  

Clemson did beat ND and FSU.  Two very good wins.  They will be hurt by playing a low rank and non respected UNC team in their conference championship games where Alabama will get Florida.   The link above did rank a one loss Sec champ over undefeated Clemson.  Including LSU in that is a stretch as that means that Alabama has to lose which makes LSU's loss to Bama look worse.


----------



## ksqdomer (Nov 16, 2015)

thanks for nothing Stanford and Temple.:annoyed:


----------



## csxjohn (Nov 19, 2015)

I still can't see ND in the top four.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 19, 2015)

csxjohn said:


> I still can't see ND in the top four.



It's a close call right now, but the picture will probably be a lot clearer when they make the final selections.  Then again, perhaps it will be total chaos.


----------



## am1 (Nov 19, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> It's a close call right now, but the picture will probably be a lot clearer when they make the final selections.  Then again, perhaps it will be total chaos.



I am hoping at the least them not being a conference champion keeps them out  .  I would be happy with the BIG 10, Big 12, ACC and SEC champs making it. Outside of chaos and Stanford beating ND.  

Maybe Clemson loses the ACC championship game but still make it or Ohio State loses their championship.  But I am hoping Michigan knocks them off before they even get there.


----------



## Elan (Nov 19, 2015)

As much as I dislike Notre Dame (has there ever been a non-SEC team more consistently over-ranked every preseason?), they do have a decent SOS relative to the other 1 loss teams.  And their close loss to Clemson is helping them tremendously.  Then again, how good is Clemson? 

  I'm hoping -- either MSU, Michigan or Iowa knocks off OSU; UNC knocks off Clemson in the ACC title game; Stanford beats Notre Dame; Ok State and Houston both finish undefeated.  Is that too much to ask for?????


----------



## am1 (Nov 19, 2015)

Elan said:


> As much as I dislike Notre Dame (has there ever been a non-SEC team more consistently over-ranked every preseason?), they do have a decent SOS relative to the other 1 loss teams.  And their close loss to Clemson is helping them tremendously.  Then again, how good is Clemson?
> 
> I'm hoping -- either MSU, Michigan or Iowa knocks off OSU; UNC knocks off Clemson in the ACC title game; Stanford beats Notre Dame; Ok State and Houston both finish undefeated.  Is that too much to ask for?????



Then were looking at Iowa, Ok State, Sec Champ and Clemson, UNC or osu in the 4th spot.  If Iowa wins.  If It is MSU or Michigan who knocks off osu then its possible osu still gets in if they do not make the cc game or even more likely if they do and win.   

It will be interesting down the stretch.


----------



## am1 (Nov 21, 2015)

Big 10 will have 4 top 10 teams going into rivalry week?


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 21, 2015)

just lost ohio state though....moves ND up another spot!


----------



## am1 (Nov 21, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> just lost ohio state though....moves ND up another spot!



Lets not write off 3-7 BC.


----------



## am1 (Nov 21, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> just lost ohio state though....moves ND up another spot!



Nor Oklahoma.


----------



## Talent312 (Nov 21, 2015)

My post from September: _"Ohio State's a given, due to their cream-puff schedule."_
Guess I'll go eat crow... figuratively, not literally.
.
.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 22, 2015)

Talent312 said:


> My post from September: _"Ohio State's a given, due to their cream-puff schedule."_
> Guess I'll go eat crow... figuratively, not literally.



LOL - kudos for admitting it.  Michigan St. won that game and it could've been worse than the score indicated.  Now the team appears to have gone mutiny on Urban Meyer, which is very surprising given his background and stature.  I guess if that can happen to him, it could happen anywhere to anybody.  I think the college football players are starting to think they run these teams anymore and can do and say whatever they want now.


----------



## am1 (Nov 22, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> LOL - kudos for admitting it.  Michigan St. won that game and it could've been worse than the score indicated.  Now the team appears to have gone mutiny on Urban Meyer, which is very surprising given his background and stature.  I guess if that can happen to him, it could happen anywhere to anybody.  I think the college football players are starting to think they run these teams anymore and can do and say whatever they want now.



I would bench the players that spoke out.  But if you do that you better expect to win.  ohio state can very easily go from undefeated in the cfb playoffs to playing in a lesser bowl.  


How is this for journalism.

Jesse Temple, ESPN Staff Writer

MADISON, Wis. -- It was cold on Saturday afternoon, so maybe members of Wisconsin's football student section needed something to keep the blood flowing. Or perhaps they were simply bored with the on-field action. The Badgers were blanked at halftime.

Very classless by the fans and the writer should really call them out on it instead of brushing it off.  

CFB top 12

1. Clemson
2. Alabama
3.  Iowa
4. Notre Dame
5. Michigan State
6. Oklahoma
7.  Baylor
8. osu
9. Oklahoma State
10. Michigan
11. Standford
12. Florida


I would group 3- 5, 6-9 and  10 - 12 very close together. 

After 12 it really drops off.  I guess Florida State. 

Makes for some good matches next week.  

8 and 10
4 and 11
12 and 13ish
6 and 9

With a few others as well.  Since the CFB playoff no one really talks about the non playoff BCS bowls.


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 22, 2015)

id bet michigan state jumps a few after beating the 3 team wiht their backup qb...

cuz you know if that were a game between two top SEC schools it would happen =)

florida laid a huge egg needing overtime to barely beat a division 2 school....perhaps they were just looking ahead to the FSU game next weekend...but they are CLEARLY a very different team with their backup qb.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 22, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> id bet michigan state jumps a few after beating the 3 team with their backup qb...



I think Michigan St and Iowa now control their own destinies.  Win out and either should be in the final top 4.

I don't watch the Big 12 that closely, but that's starting to get interesting.


----------



## csxjohn (Nov 22, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> id bet michigan state jumps a few after beating the 3 team wiht their backup qb...
> 
> cuz you know if that were a game between two top SEC schools it would happen =)
> 
> florida laid a huge egg needing overtime to barely beat a division 2 school....perhaps they were just looking ahead to the FSU game next weekend...but they are CLEARLY a very different team with their backup qb.





ace2000 said:


> I think Michigan St and Iowa now control their own destinies.  Win out and either should be in the final top 4.
> 
> I don't watch the Big 12 that closely, but that's starting to get interesting.



Ohio State's lackluster play finally caught up with them.  I questioned why they were ranked so high when the committee first met.  I just hope they beat Michigan, to me that's the whole season.

If (when) MSU wins next week they represent the east in the Big 10 title game.  OSU has an outside chance if they trounce Michigan and MSU somehow loses next week.  Then they have to beat the west team badly in the title game.  Even then, they may not make it in but big wins at the end of last season got them in.

I'm still not putting my tix up for sale for the Jan 11 Championship Game.


----------



## pedro47 (Nov 22, 2015)

pedro47 said:


> Prediction for this season there will be no undefeated teams this year. Sorry Ohio State fans.



October 2, 2015, I predicted Ohio State will not go undefeated.


----------



## Elan (Nov 24, 2015)

So what about the Heisman?  The two most consistently impressive players I've watched this year are Boykin and McCaffrey.  Of course, McCaffrey probably won't even get invited because he plays on the wrong coast.


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 24, 2015)

ive been oddly suprised at the lack of "talk" about heisman candidates....probably because fournette has laid eggs in his last few games and they are forced to serve up henry as the only SEC guy worth submitting for the award.

I personally think dalvin cook is in the top 5 for sure (admittedly biased)...but the dude is utterly ridiculous as a sophomore running back...and while folks seem to harp on the "well fsu doesnt play anybody"....8 of their opponents sofar rank in the top 25 in total defense...and that doesnt include florida this weekend.  he also rarely plays full games due to injury.  kid is averaging 8 yards a carry...and has nearly 100 less carries than mcaffrey or henry...its nuts.


----------



## pedro47 (Nov 24, 2015)

prediction Neb. over Iowa this weekend by 2 points.


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 24, 2015)

Id love to see bama choke to auburn too...just to watch ESPN scramble to find another SEC team to promote as "the best in the country"


----------



## CCR (Nov 24, 2015)

I'm just stirring the pot here 
Roll Tide, Roll!!!
I've got to cheer for them as I'm an alumnus 
My boys play football and my husband coaches so they all watch a lot more football than I do.


----------



## am1 (Nov 24, 2015)

I am hoping for as few 6-6 teams as possible.  Then a contraction of the bowls.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 24, 2015)

am1 said:


> I am hoping for as few 6-6 teams as possible.  Then a contraction of the bowls.



Not sure what brought that comment out, but I just read a story that Missouri has a shot at a bowl even if they lose to Arkansas this weekend.  They would finish at 5-7 and qualify based on their academic record.  Evidently they are 9 teams short of qualifying with the automatic 6 wins.


----------



## am1 (Nov 24, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> Not sure what brought that comment out, but I just read a story that Missouri has a shot at a bowl even if they lose to Arkansas this weekend.  They would finish at 5-7 and qualify based on their academic record.  Evidently they are 9 teams short of qualifying with the automatic 6 wins.



Brian above me posted that he is hoping for Alabama lose against Auburn.  When he should be hoping that a mediocre Florida team does not beat FSU and then LSU takes their coach.  

I feel only teams that will end the season with at least a .500 record should be bowl eligible.  So a game over .500 going into bowl season.  Or wins against 1AA teams do not count and need to be .500.  I did not like 6-7 teams getting in but understand their point compared to 6-6 teams.  I am throughly against 5 - 7 teams getting in as well as teams that go 2-6 in their conference but finish 6-6.  

All I can do about it is write it here and not watch the lower level bowls.


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 24, 2015)

the fisher to lsu chatter is nonsense.

fisher isnt an LSU alumni, hes won a national title at FSU and enjoys one of the winningest records as a starting head coach.  his only ties to LSU are as an offensive coordinator eons ago under saban.


----------



## am1 (Nov 24, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> the fisher to lsu chatter is nonsense.
> 
> fisher isnt an LSU alumni, hes won a national title at FSU and enjoys one of the winningest records as a starting head coach.  his only ties to LSU are as an offensive coordinator eons ago under saban.



Unless he looking to get a $15-$20 million retirement package at the end of it.

I do not see it being a better job, also have to beat alabama and the other Sec schools every year to get in.


----------



## Elan (Nov 25, 2015)

So does anyone feel that teams 5 through 8 would have *no chance* of winning an 8 team playoff?


College Football Playoff Rankings
RK	TEAM	REC	TREND	LAST WEEK	NEXT WEEK
1	Clemson	11-0	—	vs Wake Forest W 33-13	11/28 @ South Carolina
2	Alabama	10-1	—	vs Charleston Southern W 56-6	11/28 @ Auburn
3	Okla	10-1	 4	vs #18 TCU W 30-29	11/28 @ #11 Oklahoma State
4	Iowa	11-0	 1	vs Purdue W 40-20	11/27 @ Nebraska
5	Mich St	10-1	 4	@ #3 Ohio State W 17-14	11/28 vs Penn State
6	Notre D	10-1	 2	vs Boston College W 19-16	11/28 @ #9 Stanford
7	Baylor	9-1	 3	@ #6 Oklahoma State W 45-35	11/27 @ #19 TCU
8	Oh St	10-1	 5	vs #9 Michigan State L 17-14	11/28 @ #10 Michigan


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 25, 2015)

I think they would make for some incredible games.

clemson vs ohio state
bama vs baylor
olkahoma vs ND
msu vs iowa

and thats just round 1


----------



## Elan (Nov 25, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> I think they would make for some incredible games.
> 
> clemson vs ohio state
> bama vs baylor
> ...


Me too!  I can't see how anyone wouldn't think this was better.  More fair, and more football!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Nov 25, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> I think they would make for some incredible games.
> 
> clemson vs ohio state
> bama vs baylor
> ...



Most likely we are going to get msu vs. iowa.  Ohio State needs to get past what should have been a 1 loss team.


----------



## pedro47 (Nov 25, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> I think they would make for some incredible games.
> 
> clemson vs ohio state
> bama vs baylor
> ...



This sounds like the college version of the NFL play off to Superbowl !


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 25, 2015)

saw that baylor lost their 2nd string qb for the season today....doubt they hold on to even their current ranking after that.


----------



## x3 skier (Nov 25, 2015)

The best college football player this year is Christian McCaffrey. 2807 All Purpose Yards with one game to go in the regular season. 

Cheers


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 25, 2015)

think his lack of touchdowns is going to keep him out of the winners seat there.


----------



## x3 skier (Nov 25, 2015)

If somebody scores a gazillion touchdowns from 5 yards in and nothing else, it hardly makes them the best football player in the country. 

1540 Rushing
416   Receiving 
845   Returning 
11     TD's (avg 1/game)

His biggest handicap is playing on the Left Coast at night. 

Cheers


----------



## Elan (Nov 25, 2015)

Stanford typically gives Wright the ball near the goal line.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 25, 2015)

x3 skier said:


> If somebody scores a gazillion touchdowns from 5 yards in and nothing else, it hardly makes them the best football player in the country.




indeed, you would think that a player who averages more than 30 yards per touchdown carry with 2x as many touchdowns as that Stanford kid would walk away with it!


----------



## am1 (Nov 29, 2015)

1. Clemson
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma
4. Iowa
5. Michigan State
6. osu
7. Stanford
8. Florida State

Then a big drop to the likes of  UNC, Notre Dame, TCU, Baylor, Northwestern, Ole Miss, Michigan,  Oregon, Oklahoma State, Florida.  Some of those schools are still in the hunt for the BCS level bowls.  Some what ranked 9 -18.

Oklahoma could easily be number 2 but I think after the SEC conference game Alabama would go ahead.  The real questions are where does undefeated Iowa end up if they win out.  Or Michigan state?

osu most likely finishes in 5th place which is a great spot for them even if it means they go to the Rose Bowl.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 29, 2015)

Enjoyed the games yesterday - I got to see the Ohio St and Stanford wins.  

Seems like the picture is clear regarding Iowa and Michigan St.  The winner is easily in the Championship round.


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 29, 2015)

agreed, winner of that game would take the 4th spot.

assuming clemson gets past NC (they sure seemed to be looking ahead yesterday)...florida is just awful on the offensive side of the ball....truly a different team with that backup QB...I cant see them keeping up with alabama at all.


----------



## Elan (Nov 29, 2015)

That Stanford v Notre Dame game was fantastic.  Always felt like it was going to go down to the very end, and it didn't disappoint.  The TCU v Baylor game was entertaining as well -- watching two high powered offenses get stymied by the weather.  

  I don't like predicting outcomes and I generally suck at it, but I've been thinking for about a month now that I wouldn't be surprised if UNC takes out Clemson.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 29, 2015)

yea, didnt get to watch any of that game from the UF stadium(they just showed score updates)...but the silence of the otherwise obnoxiously loud crowd more than made up for it =)

go noles!


----------



## pedro47 (Nov 29, 2015)

Elan said:


> That Stanford v Notre Dame game was fantastic.  Always felt like it was going to go down to the very end, and it didn't disappoint.  The TCU v Baylor game was entertaining as well -- watching two high powered offenses get stymied by the weather.
> 
> I don't like predicting outcomes and I generally suck at it, but I've been thinking for about a month now that I wouldn't be surprised if UNC takes out Clemson.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



That Stanford & Notre Dame game was the best college football game so far this season. I was sorry to see Notre Dame lose another heart breaker.


----------



## Elan (Nov 29, 2015)

Wow.  Just read that UGA is firing Richt.  Hope they have someone better on deck.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 29, 2015)

I hope he returns to FSU as the o-coordinator!


----------



## Elan (Nov 29, 2015)

Richt is a good guy.  Problem was he recruited the typical SEC hood, and then would boot them off the team after they'd been in the program for a couple years.  To his credit, he had the stones/integrity to kick them off the team, but he should have been more selective in his recruiting in the first place. 

Rumor is that mullen and jimbo are the top 2 on UGA's wish list.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## jme (Nov 29, 2015)

Top prospect is actually Kirby Smart, DC for Alabama. Next would be Florida St's Jimbo Fisher (maybe the safest pick, and most successful as a head coach already), and possibly Miss St's Dan Mullen, altho some place Houston's coach Tom Herman higher than Dan Mullen as a prospect. Those are the "top Dawgs" imho.  

Smart is a UGA grad, outstanding UGA football player, and actually worked for the UGA coaching staff in 1999 as an administrative assistant, then again in 2005 under Richt as running backs coach.  If he wants the job, I think it's his. I'd be surprised if UGA fired Richt without a "wink" from Kirby. But any of those top 3 prospects would be a vast, vast, vast improvement over Richt.

As for Richt, I've not been on board since day one.  He personally made a couple of major strategic miscues in his first BIG game against South Carolina in 2001, and lost the game.  And after that, he repeated those same types of miscues over and over throughout his coaching career at UGA, amazingly never learning the lesson, and lost games because of those blunders. He's a wonderful person and inspires his players and coaches, without a doubt, and he's always been a fantastic recruiter. As a person, he could rightly be considered a hero of sorts, as his integrity is as good as it gets, and frankly I strive to be like him in so many ways. These things are not debatable, but we're talking football, not life lessons.  If being a great football coach is part of the man, then the other things are certainly bonuses.  If being a mediocre "football mind" is part of that man, then the other attributes get lost. That is what has been borne out here. 

But never forget that his primary job, for which he was hired, was to coach a major university's football team in the SEC, NOT to do the other things mentioned. He was hired to "coach-up the players" and to be as successful as possible. Success in the SEC is measured in wins and championships, unfortunately or not, right or not.  

With the talent he recruited year after year, he could rightly be considered (somewhat of..) a failure for that which he was hired, even with 9-3 and 10-2 seasons (especially if you remember how UGA lost some of those games). He didn't have to be great to get those records----the talent gave it to him without much coaching genius.  Frankly I'm tired of his saying, "Well, we have overcome a lot of adversity, and we've hung in there". His job was to AVOID adversity, not overcome it, and his losses against "down" SEC teams this year (Tennessee and Florida), and near losses against mediocre teams (Missouri, Ga Southern, and Ga Tech) sealed his fate.  His team at one point in the season went 2 games without scoring a touchdown. Hiring of the current Offensive Coordinator Brian Schottenheimer was a HUGE mistake and bonehead move, because Schottenheimer was a failure at his job with the Rams in the NFL, and they were happy to see him go.  

The powers that be, including Athletic Director Greg McGarity, could not bear it any longer, and made a correct decision. Great guy, average coach, poor "field general".  He couldn't even manage his time-outs, and frequently, if not always, ran out before the end (and critical points) of games. UGA had no designated "special teams" coach under Coach Richt, yet they suffered game after game from "special teams" blunders. blunders that cost them games. And.....he wasn't as strong a disciplinarian as some might think---I've heard stories. In my personal opinion, he's a cerebral lightweight.  A famous philosopher once said, "Stupid is as Stupid does". Good riddance as a head coach.

Wanna know how I really feel?  to put it into one word, happy.





.


----------



## x3 skier (Nov 29, 2015)

pedro47 said:


> That Stanford & Notre Dame game was the best college football game so far this season. I was sorry to see Notre Dame lose another heart breaker.



Strange, I feel exactly the opposite about the outcome. 

Cheers


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 30, 2015)

eh, they said the same thing about fisher when the les miles rumors started...

I cant see him waiting all those years behind bowden, and bringing FSU to this much success (and continuing to do so)...that hed start over at another school.


----------



## Elan (Nov 30, 2015)

Funny how every fan base thinks the next guy up will win them a NC.  Might happen, might not.  I do know that coaches who win 10 games a season and run a reasonably clean program are hard to come by.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 30, 2015)

It looks like an easy year for the selection committee with everything falling into place.  These five teams control their own destinies... if anyone else gets in besides these, they will have to get very lucky.

Clemson
Alabama
Oklahoma (probably a lock since their regular season is over)
Winner of Iowa vs Michigan St



*College Football Playoff scenarios for the remaining contenders*
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...homa-iowa-michigan-state-notre-dame/76484762/


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 30, 2015)

Also read that they are projecting an FSU vs. Notre Dame matchup on New Year's day at the Peach Bowl.  Nice!


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 30, 2015)

ha, both those teams travel really well...that should be a great game.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 30, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> Also read that they are projecting an FSU vs. Notre Dame matchup on *New Year's day* at the Peach Bowl.  Nice!



Correction... December 31st in Atlanta.


----------



## am1 (Nov 30, 2015)

Elan said:


> Funny how every fan base thinks the next guy up will win them a NC.  Might happen, might not.  I do know that coaches who win 10 games a season and run a reasonably clean program are hard to come by.



Is it that or is it just to generate excitement with the fan base with the hopes the new coach will do better.  

The thinking may be doing something is better then nothing.  I think a coach should be kept longer with the winning percentages that Miles and Richt have.  

How many top level jobs are already open this year?


----------



## jme (Nov 30, 2015)

Elan said:


> Funny how every fan base thinks the next guy up will win them a NC.  Might happen, might not.  I do know that coaches who win 10 games a season and run a reasonably clean program are hard to come by.



yes, BUT....

UGA's Coach Richt could have won 10 games without showing up because of the inherent talent he had. Or any of his assistants could have done an equivalent job.  My point is that with the given talent year after year, and with the #1 nationally ranked quarterback recruit coming on board next year, it's a given that THIS coach wasn't going to win a championship ever......in 15 years he hasn't. 

So, being the business that it is, a change is needed, and a better "football mind" is needed on the sideline, not a "good guy". If I did well on 10 out of 12 patients, I'd be gone soon too.


----------



## Elan (Nov 30, 2015)

am1 said:


> Is it that or is it just to generate excitement with the fan base with the hopes the new coach will do better.
> 
> The thinking may be doing something is better then nothing.  I think a coach should be kept longer with the winning percentages that Miles and Richt have.
> 
> How many top level jobs are already open this year?



  I live in a place where the expectations are as high as anywhere else in the country.  As the winningest CFB program of this century, being in the midst of an 8-4 season has the fans besides themselves -- calling for the OC's head on a platter -- all this less than a year removed from a 3rd Fiesta Bowl win.  Makes me wonder sometimes...........

  My main point is there are no assurances that the next guy is going to be any better, particularly if it's a coordinator moving into a HC position.  Lots of great coordinators have fallen on their faces as head coaches.  Totally different job responsibilities.


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 30, 2015)

I think winning your main rivalry games and or conference means more to fans than a national title....as most fans realize that its literally 1:130 chance for a title every year...so if you can at least compete...that is acceptable.

what is NOT acceptable is losing to your in state or major rival year after year...combine that with lack of conference title games...and you are on the hotseat even if you had a solid winning record.

I think even if the bulldogs were 8-4 for the last 5 seasons, but beat tech and florida every year...richt would still have a job.


----------



## Elan (Nov 30, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> I think winning your main rivalry games and or conference means more to fans than a national title....as most fans realize that its literally 1:130 chance for a title every year...so if you can at least compete...that is acceptable.
> 
> what is NOT acceptable is losing to your in state or major rival year after year...combine that with lack of conference title games...and you are on the hotseat even if you had a solid winning record.
> 
> I think even if the bulldogs were 8-4 for the last 5 seasons, but beat tech and florida every year...richt would still have a job.



  For the most part, I agree.  Losing consistently to rivals will cost any coach his job -- drives the fan base nuts.  But there's no reason to expect UGA to beat UF consistently.  Why should there be?  Just because UGA won a NC 35 years ago doesn't mean they're elite now.  Hell, BYU won a NC 30 years ago, and they can't even get into a P5 conference.   

  FTR, over the last 5 years Richt went 4-1 vs GT and 3-2 vs UF.  And went to the SEC title game in 2011 and 2012.


----------



## jme (Nov 30, 2015)

Elan said:


> For the most part, I agree.  Losing consistently to rivals will cost any coach his job -- drives the fan base nuts.  But there's no reason to expect UGA to beat UF consistently.  Why should there be?  Just because UGA won a NC 35 years ago doesn't mean they're elite now.  Hell, BYU won a NC 30 years ago, and they can't even get into a P5 conference.
> 
> FTR, over the last 5 years Richt went 4-1 vs GT and 3-2 vs UF.  And went to the SEC title game in 2011 and 2012.



It was the combination of not only losing to Florida, but being blown out by Florida when Florida was having a down year and UGA was a favorite. Also a loss to lowly Tennessee in a VERY down year, plus BARELY beating Georgia Southern, a team in a lower conference and never a threat under normal circumstances. UGA beat them by only 6 points.  Also only beat a "down" Missouri team by 3 points (score 9-6, no touchdowns).

AND, going two full games without scoring a touchdown, which is unheard of for a team with the high caliber offensive talent-----some of the best running backs in the country, and same for receivers (both of which we recruit annually without fail). We send multiple "specialty position" players to the NFL annually. 

*Anyway, this was not an impulsive decision.* Richt was basically going through the motions, seldom aware of his time-out status during a game, had NO SPECIAL TEAMS COACH for the UGA team while committing multiple special team blunders EACH game, with no remorse and no plans to improve that situation. Not to mention seldom scoring from the 2-yard line with a first down. Of course one of those plays was always a stupidly-called pass, with the big running backs scratching their heads on the sideline. 

Simply time for change, hopefully with someone not complacent with mediocrity. At least for UGA, we were mired in mediocrity, evident for fans and those who follow football.  It was not only the (fairly decent) record, but how we went about it, i.e., very poorly.


----------



## Elan (Nov 30, 2015)

jme said:


> Simply time for change, hopefully with someone not complacent with mediocrity. At least for UGA, we were mired in mediocrity, evident for fans and those who follow football.  It was not only the (fairly decent) record, but how we went about it, i.e., very poorly.



  Certainly nothing wrong with change.  But, if I were UGA and was ditching a consistent 10 win per season coach in search of more on-field success, I'd be targeting a higher probability hire than Smart.  Someone like Larry Fedora.  Guy has won at USM and UNC, neither exactly known for it's football prowess.  

  Maybe Smart takes the UGA to the promised land.  Or maybe UGA is doing this same dance 5 years from now.  Presumably, we'll see.


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 30, 2015)

Elan said:


> For the most part, I agree.  Losing consistently to rivals will cost any coach his job -- drives the fan base nuts.  But there's no reason to expect UGA to beat UF consistently.  Why should there be?  Just because UGA won a NC 35 years ago doesn't mean they're elite now.  Hell, BYU won a NC 30 years ago, and they can't even get into a P5 conference.
> 
> FTR, over the last 5 years Richt went 4-1 vs GT and 3-2 vs UF.  And went to the SEC title game in 2011 and 2012.




eh, last sec title was 10 years ago, and hes 5-6 vs florida in that time frame.

heck FSU got rid of bobby bowden early (although jimbo was already lined up and on the staff) for less than that!


----------



## Elan (Nov 30, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> eh,* last sec title was 10 years ago*, and hes 5-6 vs florida in that time frame.



  Well, I'd argue that's about right for UGA.  They should win the east about 1/3 of the time (1/3 UGA, 1/3 UF and 1/3 "the field") and then beat the west champion about 1/3 of the time that they win the east.  So .33 *.33 =  one SEC championship every 9 or 10 years.


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 30, 2015)

I guess I see it as you can either

1. win a national title

or

2. win a conference title

or

3. regularly beat your main rivals

but failing to do all 3 in a long enough time frame, and any coach is on the hot seat!


----------



## colatown (Nov 30, 2015)

pedro47 said:


> That Stanford & Notre Dame game was the best college football game so far this season. I was sorry to see Notre Dame lose another heart breaker.



Were you sorry to see UVA, Temple and BC lose heartbreakers to ND?


----------



## csxjohn (Nov 30, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> I think winning your main rivalry games and or conference means more to fans than a national title....



You are absolutely right when it comes to me.  As long as Ohio State beats Michigan, nothing else matters.  I especially liked Sat's game because of all the whining Harbaugh does after every penalty flag is thrown.  Hey, the refs get it right some times so wait until you see a replay or two before you get all bent out of shape.

OSU will not be in the Rose Bowl.  If the winner of the conference title makes it to the final four, then the loser of that game will go for the Roses.  I still see OSU cracking the top four if Iowa beats Michigan State and Oklahoma  falters.
If Alabama loses this week I still think they are one of the top four.

How ever it turns out Sat was my season.


----------



## beejaybeeohio (Nov 30, 2015)

*Buckeye Victory 11/28*



csxjohn said:


> You are absolutely right when it comes to me.  As long as Ohio State beats Michigan, nothing else matters.  I especially liked Sat's game because of all the whining Harbaugh does after every penalty flag is thrown.  Hey, the refs get it right some times so wait until you see a replay or two before you get all bent out of shape.
> 
> OSU will not be in the Rose Bowl.  If the winner of the conference title makes it to the final four, then the loser of that game will go for the Roses.  I still see OSU cracking the top four if Iowa beats Michigan State and Oklahoma  falters.
> If Alabama loses this week I still think they are one of the top four.
> ...



Happy that the Bucks beat TTUN on Saturday, but the victory was bittersweet for me.  The game against the Spartans was the turning point of the season, and the entire OSU organization blew it.


----------



## chalee94 (Nov 30, 2015)

csxjohn said:


> I still see OSU cracking the top four if Iowa beats Michigan State and Oklahoma  falters.



Oklahoma's season is over - I don't think they can "falter" at this point.


----------



## x3 skier (Nov 30, 2015)

beejaybeeohio said:


> The game against the Spartans was the turning point of the season, and the entire OSU organization blew it.



Stanford beating ND AND Cal AND Dantonio et al beating THE Ohio State University made a perfect season for me. 

Looks like Stanford will get another chance to whip USC again and then meet the B1G in the Rose Bowl. 

Cheers


----------



## csxjohn (Nov 30, 2015)

beejaybeeohio said:


> Happy that the Bucks beat TTUN on Saturday, but the victory was bittersweet for me.  The game against the Spartans was the turning point of the season, and the entire OSU organization blew it.



I couldn't stand the offensive play calling in that game but my focus was on TTUN.  I worked in Toledo for the last five years of my career and that town is split down the middle on the two teams and they are fanatics.

I always was able to work a double day on the Sat of that game because no one wanted to work.  I would always tell the trainmasters that if they need someone to work, call me.  Our second shift could only be 4 hrs. by law and I got paid for 12, loved that game day.


----------



## am1 (Nov 30, 2015)

If Alabama loses they are out.  If only because the selection team does not want a 2 loss non conference champion.  Their loss is bad as would their loss to Florida.  Their LSU win went sour as did their Wisco, A&M and Miss wins.  No doubt if they win they deserve to be in and if they lose still may be one of the top 4 teams in the country but the people deciding need to be able to justify it.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 1, 2015)

I dont see any shot at alabama making the top 4 if they lose to florida...and rightfully so as florida is an utterly awful team at this point.


----------



## Elan (Dec 1, 2015)

Funny Twitter quote from McMurphy:

If Clemson loses, ACC is out; if Alabama loses, SEC is out. If both lose, @CFBPlayoff immediately expands to 8 teams

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## jme (Dec 1, 2015)

Reports within the last couple of hours are that Alabama Defensive Coordinator Kirby Smart, a graduate and former football player at Georgia, will be named the new head coach of the Georgia bulldogs by early next week, but cannot sign an official contract until after the SEC championship game with Florida. 

This is great news for the bulldog nation, who are still reeling from the dismissal of Mark Richt. The backlash was unexpected, but if reports are true, all is well in Athens.  UGA should retain most all of their Richt recruits, and could perhaps pick up even more uncommitted ones. 

With the returning players at UGA and the new prospects in a most stellar recruiting class, UGA should do well in 2016. Looks better tonight than at this point last night.  I, maybe the only one, was happy about Richt's dismissal, so now the announcement about Kirby Smart is welcome news, and I'll be sleeping a bit better.  

Go Dawgs.  And by the way, congratulations to Clemson on a great year. I'm not a Clemson fan, per se, but I respect what they have done. Alabama is looking unstoppable, imho, and Derek Henry WILL win the Heisman, so not much has changed regarding Nick Saban's team.  But anything is possible, which makes it exciting.  Should be an interesting playoff series.  Glad to see Notre Dame playing well again, too. I like the big old names rising to the top where they once reigned. I want everybody strong....then let the best team win.



.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 1, 2015)

seeing rumors of richt going home to miami (hes an alum)...that would make for some amazing in state rivalry games over the next 10 years...as I believe florida and UM start playing again in the near future as well?


----------



## Elan (Dec 1, 2015)

Should be some fun games to watch this weekend.  Especially like to watch Doughty and Johnson throw it all over.  Good stuff!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## ksqdomer (Dec 2, 2015)

if MSU beats Iowa it is almost guaranteed that it will be ND vs. Iowa in the Fiesta. I guess ND vs FSU would have an interesting spin.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 2, 2015)

ksqdomer said:


> if MSU beats Iowa it is almost guaranteed that it will be ND vs. Iowa in the Fiesta. I guess ND vs FSU would have an interesting spin.




Why do you say "guaranteed"?  This guy has MSU beating Iowa and then the ND/FSU matchup in the Peach.  It's probably a crapshoot right now, but I've seen other stories referencing this source.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/bowls/predictions


----------



## Elan (Dec 2, 2015)

Last I saw, MSU was a 3.5pt favorite over Iowa.  

  Things are set up, unsurprisingly , to make it easy for the committee if Clemson, Bama, and Iowa win.  I'd love to see one of them go down.


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 2, 2015)

It looks like I need Michigan State and Alabama to lose for OSU to get back in the playoffs.

If Mi. State wins and Alabama loses, they may have to go down to Stanford to get the fourth team, assuming they beat USC, to avoid teams playing each other a second time.

If Stanford and Alabama lose, it could go to ND.  I immediately put my tix up for sale if they get in.  Get your bids ready.

Of course Alabama should not lose so none of this matters but stranger things have happened.


----------



## am1 (Dec 2, 2015)

I would think a Michigan State win helps osu.  I am pulling for Iowa.  I do like a scenario where MSU, osu, notre dame and even Stanford are left out. Even better with a USC loss.  



csxjohn said:


> It looks like I need Michigan State and Alabama to lose for OSU to get back in the playoffs.
> 
> If Mi. State wins and Alabama loses, they may have to go down to Stanford to get the fourth team, assuming they beat USC, to avoid teams playing each other a second time.
> 
> ...


----------



## chalee94 (Dec 2, 2015)

Elan said:


> Funny Twitter quote from McMurphy:
> 
> If Clemson loses, ACC is out...



(prefacing by saying that I expect Clemson will win...)

but if the ACC conference champion gets left out after winning 12 in a row (with 10 wins over power 5 schools and their only loss in early September to an SEC team back before their hall of fame coach quit on his kids), the committee might as well be honest and admit they consider the NCAA as the power "4" conferences and put the ACC in the "group of 6."


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 2, 2015)

ksqdomer said:


> if MSU beats Iowa it is almost guaranteed that it will be ND vs. Iowa in the Fiesta. I guess ND vs FSU would have an interesting spin.



certainly would be an even bigger story if golson was still the FSU starting qb!


----------



## Elan (Dec 2, 2015)

chalee94 said:


> (prefacing by saying that I expect Clemson will win...)
> 
> but if the ACC conference champion gets left out after winning 12 in a row (with 10 wins over power 5 schools and their only loss in early September to an SEC team back before their hall of fame coach quit on his kids), the committee might as well be honest and admit they consider the NCAA as the power "4" conferences and put the ACC in the "group of 6."



  That's been my point all along (actually for years).  How Vanderbilt and Indiana are "power schools" and Boise State, BYU, etc aren't is beyond me.  The whole system is rigged, and consequently, I don't put anything past the committee.  It's pretty obvious to me that in the committee's minds the B12 means Oklahoma and Texas, and the ACC means FSU (and possibly Miami and VaTech if either could pull their heads out and win something).  The other schools from those conferences are begrudgingly allowed in *IF*, and probably only if, they go undefeated.  I can almost guarantee that Iowa, and to a slightly lesser extent, Clemson, are a big thorn in their sides.


----------



## am1 (Dec 2, 2015)

Elan said:


> That's been my point all along (actually for years).  How Vanderbilt and Indiana are "power schools" and Boise State, BYU, etc aren't is beyond me.  The whole system is rigged, and consequently, I don't put anything past the committee.  It's pretty obvious to me that in the committee's minds the B12 means Oklahoma and Texas, and the ACC means FSU (and possibly Miami and VaTech if either could pull their heads out and win something).  The other schools from those conferences are begrudgingly allowed in *IF*, and probably only if, they go undefeated.  I can almost guarantee that Iowa, and to a slightly lesser extent, Clemson, are a big thorn in their sides.



No doubt the additions of Rutgers, some ACC schools possibly, Colorado have watered down what Power 5 means.  Thankfully TCU and up until this year Mizzou have been going well.  I think going with the more well known schools is better for ratings but also less likely the team flops and if they do flop that is the bigger story then the selection committee chose the wrong school. If UNC gets in and gets blown out and then Clemson gets blown out on their New Years  bowl then it looks like the selection committee made a mistake in picking the 1 loss ACC champion. 

More likely that not UNC will not be at the same level next year.  So they are less valuable to the committee and espn this year.


----------



## Elan (Dec 2, 2015)

am1 said:


> No doubt the additions of Rutgers, some ACC schools possibly, Colorado have watered down what Power 5 means.  Thankfully TCU and up until this year Mizzou have been going well.  I think going with the more well known schools is better for ratings but also less likely the team flops and if they do flop that is the bigger story then the selection committee chose the wrong school. If UNC gets in and gets blown out and then Clemson gets blown out on their New Years  bowl then it looks like the selection committee made a mistake in picking the 1 loss ACC champion.
> 
> More likely that not UNC will not be at the same level next year.  So they are less valuable to the committee and espn this year.



  Colorado was in the B12 before the P12 and won a NC while in the B12 (1990).  And it's certainly not a matter of a recent "watering down" of P5 conferences.  Only about 1/3 of P5 schools have ever won a BCS/NY6 bowl game.  That's going back 15+ years.  

    BTW, your "flop" theory is completely unfounded.  Know which conference had the highest winning percentage in BCS bowl games?  The Mountain West.  Know which conference was 2nd?  The WAC.    

  Lastly, why should anyone expect UNC to be worse next year (other than statistical probability)?  If you look at Fedora's history, you'll see it took a few years at USM to get them over the hump.  Same thing has happened at UNC.   Typically, success begets success in CFB, as winning programs become more attractive to recruits.  If anything, one should expect UNC to be a consistently legitimate contender in the ACC as long as the staff remains intact.


----------



## am1 (Dec 2, 2015)

Yes Colorado a while ago but is the PAC 10 more competitive because they joined?  

The MWC conference has a good BCS bowl game record because only really good teams from their conference got chosen.  How would their record be if their conference champion was in a BCS game every year?  

UNC is just an example of a good team this year that most likely next year will not be as good.

Good teams usually have a lot of players moving on,  very few injuries,  easy schedule this year (no Notre Dame, Clemson, FSU, a down USC).  Success does bring on more success but whatever happened to the runs of Cal, USF, BC, Rutgers, UK, UL's, Cincy and I am missing a few more.  

The point is that adding more teams to P5 conferences has weakened the conferences teams schedules.  

And the committee picking power power 5 schools is a safer bet then up and comers no matter who is actually the better team.   Even with ratings aside.  



Elan said:


> Colorado was in the B12 before the P12 and won a NC while in the B12 (1990).  And it's certainly not a matter of a recent "watering down" of P5 conferences.  Only about 1/3 of P5 schools have ever won a BCS/NY6 bowl game.  That's going back 15+ years.
> 
> BTW, your "flop" theory is completely unfounded.  Know which conference had the highest winning percentage in BCS bowl games?  The Mountain West.  Know which conference was 2nd?  The WAC.
> 
> Lastly, why should anyone expect UNC to be worse next year (other than statistical probability)?  If you look at Fedora's history, you'll see it took a few years at USM to get them over the hump.  Same thing has happened at UNC.   Typically, success begets success in CFB, as winning programs become more attractive to recruits.  If anything, one should expect UNC to be a consistently legitimate contender in the ACC as long as the staff remains intact.


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 2, 2015)

am1 said:


> I would think a Michigan State win helps osu.  I am pulling for Iowa.  I do like a scenario where MSU, osu, notre dame and even Stanford are left out. Even better with a USC loss.



Hard to say either way.  They want to avoid re-matches so MSU and OSU will not happen.  Iowa and OSU could.

I would consider going to the final game if MSU were in it, I have no interest in the others.  But again, if ND has a chance to get there, I won't be there.

Should be a stressful weekend for a lot of folks.


----------



## chalee94 (Dec 3, 2015)

Elan said:


> Lastly, why should anyone expect UNC to be worse next year (other than statistical probability)?  If you look at Fedora's history, you'll see it took a few years at USM to get them over the hump.  Same thing has happened at UNC.   Typically, success begets success in CFB, as winning programs become more attractive to recruits.  If anything, one should expect UNC to be a consistently legitimate contender in the ACC as long as the staff remains intact.



yeah, the big question is whether UNC ponies up and decides to pay Fedora more than Roy Williams, which has some political issues at a historically "basketball" school.


----------



## Elan (Dec 3, 2015)

am1 said:


> Yes Colorado a while ago but is the PAC 10 more competitive because they joined?
> 
> The MWC conference has a good BCS bowl game record because only really good teams from their conference got chosen.  How would their record be if their conference champion was in a BCS game every year?
> 
> ...



  You realize that when the P12 added Colorado, they also added 24th ranked Utah, correct?  Your conference dilution argument is weak, at best.  Utah, Missouri, aTm, Baylor, WVa, etc have all integrated well into their new conferences.  Not dominating, but certainly not all cellar-dwelling either.  For every team that's struggled, there's a team that's thrived.  

  And you realize that the phenomena of teams quickly falling from mighty to mediocre is not limited to G5 and lesser P5 schools, right?  Do the names Texas, Nebraska, Miami, Penn State, USC, VaTech, Washington, etc ring any bells? 

  Your last sentence is directly contradicted by the data I posted.  Not sure why you can't acknowledge that.  The fact of the matter is that when the G5 schools are allowed to compete with the P5 schools at the highest level, *they've more than held their own*.  Where the G5 conferences typically tend to be weaker is at the bottom, not the top.  But bottom feeders aren't the topic of discussion here.


----------



## CCR (Dec 5, 2015)

Go Bama!!!
No matter how much you guys all hate my team you've got to admit that was an amazing catch.


----------



## ronparise (Dec 5, 2015)

So I have no idea what you guys are talking about. But I do have a question

Who is expected to play in the sugar bowl?


----------



## am1 (Dec 5, 2015)

Regardless of which teams are better.  I prefer that almost all teams in a conference play each other head to head in the regular season.  Elevating more teams to P5 opens up more chances for which teams deserve/ are in the running of a playoff spot.  More teams equal more variables.  

No doubt when a non P5 school makes the BCS bowls they will do well.  To make one of those bowls they had to be much better then the P5 schools they were jumping.  The bowls know they will not draw.  Why make a rule that the best non P5 school gets a new years bowl spot other then charity?  This year it is real charity as a few better teams will be left out.  

The real question is why is there 3 conference championship games on at the same time?  2 being on the same family of channels.  



Elan said:


> You realize that when the P12 added Colorado, they also added 24th ranked Utah, correct?  Your conference dilution argument is weak, at best.  Utah, Missouri, aTm, Baylor, WVa, etc have all integrated well into their new conferences.  Not dominating, but certainly not all cellar-dwelling either.  For every team that's struggled, there's a team that's thrived.
> 
> And you realize that the phenomena of teams quickly falling from mighty to mediocre is not limited to G5 and lesser P5 schools, right?  Do the names Texas, Nebraska, Miami, Penn State, USC, VaTech, Washington, etc ring any bells?
> 
> Your last sentence is directly contradicted by the data I posted.  Not sure why you can't acknowledge that.  The fact of the matter is that when the G5 schools are allowed to compete with the P5 schools at the highest level, *they've more than held their own*.  Where the G5 conferences typically tend to be weaker is at the bottom, not the top.  But bottom feeders aren't the topic of discussion here.


----------



## Elan (Dec 6, 2015)

McCaffrey - *461 all purpose yards tonight* and broke Barry Sanders record for single season all purpose yards.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 6, 2015)

whew...carolina really got hosed on that onside kick penalty!  

both clemson/unc and msu/iowa were outstanding games.


----------



## chalee94 (Dec 6, 2015)

UNC fans weren't too surprised that the game was fixed but we probably wouldn't have pulled it out anyway...

https://twitter.com/ESPNCFB/status/673364850643456000/photo/1

"This was called offsides..."






(on the bright side, Fedora announced a 7 year deal with UNC and most of our talent is in the younger classes, anyway...)


----------



## Elan (Dec 6, 2015)

am1 said:


> No doubt when a non P5 school makes the BCS bowls they will do well.  To make one of those bowls they had to be much better then the P5 schools they were jumping.  The bowls know they will not draw.  Why make a rule that the best non P5 school gets a new years bowl spot other then charity?  This year it is real charity as a few better teams will be left out.
> 
> .



  So it's "charity" when spots get allocated to the teams from conferences that had the overall best winning percentage in BCS bowls (and are 1-0 in NY6 games)?  Wow, that's pure genius!  :hysterical:


----------



## Elan (Dec 6, 2015)

chalee94 said:


> UNC fans weren't too surprised that the game was fixed but we probably wouldn't have pulled it out anyway...
> 
> https://twitter.com/ESPNCFB/status/673364850643456000/photo/1
> 
> ...



  I missed that part of the UNC game (watching Iowa/MSU nail-biter).  Did they recover the kick?


----------



## CCR (Dec 6, 2015)

@ Ron
I think Oklahoma State and Mississippi.


----------



## am1 (Dec 6, 2015)

Elan said:


> So it's "charity" when spots get allocated to the teams from conferences that had the overall best winning percentage in BCS bowls (and are 1-0 in NY6 games)?  Wow, that's pure genius!  :hysterical:



Yes when one gets in every year and does not need to earn it on the field.  There is a big difference between undefeated Utah, TCU and Boise State and what the non power 5 schools are offering this year.   Would  Houston have made a BCS bowl in years past?  They are not going to be higher then one of the conference champions and I doubt they will be in the top 12 when the rankings come out today.


----------



## Elan (Dec 6, 2015)

am1 said:


> Yes when one gets in every year and does not need to earn it on the field.  There is a big difference between undefeated Utah, TCU and Boise State and what the non power 5 schools are offering this year.   Would  Houston have made a BCS bowl in years past?  They are not going to be higher then one of the conference champions and I doubt they will be in the top 12 when the rankings come out today.


   The G5 teams had to meet specific requirements for inclusion that were much tougher than simply winning their conference and yet ended up with the best winning percentage of all conferences in bcs games.  That's not proof that they belonged?  

  Why aren't you questioning whether the acc ever deserved a spot? That conference won less than 30% of their bcs games.  To summarize -- mwc 80%, acc 28% -- so tell me why the g5 schools shouldn't get in and the acc should?  Maybe you should really be asking why the acc champion got an auto bid all those years, as that's clearly a far more logical thing to question.  

Now, back to Houston. We'll see how they do.  But, they had one close (in conference)  loss.  Their star QB (Ward) was on the sidelines that game.  Had he played, it's reasonable to conclude they'd be undefeated.  If they were undefeated, would you feel better?   Just like Alabama and MSU, they are 12-1 with one in-conference loss.  Don't hear you pissing and moaning about those schools getting in.  As I said, we'll see how they do, but there's nothing to indicate that they aren't deserving.  Just because you THINK there are better teams getting left out doesn't make it so.  




Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Dec 6, 2015)

Elan said:


> The G5 teams had to meet specific requirements for inclusion that were much tougher than simply winning their conference and yet ended up with the best winning percentage of all conferences in bcs games.  That's not proof that they belonged?
> 
> Why aren't you questioning whether the acc ever deserved a spot? That conference won less than 30% of their bcs games.  To summarize -- mwc 80%, acc 28% -- so tell me why the g5 schools shouldn't get in and the acc should?  Maybe you should really be asking why the acc champion got an auto bid all those years, as that's clearly a far more logical thing to question.
> 
> ...



That is my point.  In years past the G5 teams had tougher standards to make BCS games then the power 6.  Hence the best record.  Now a G5 team gets a spot every year regardless.  There is more New Years Bowls then BCS bowls but I am in favor of the best teams making the New Years Bowls not reserving a spot for the best G5 team.  

Also Utah and TCU stepped up to play where the big boys play.  While a whole bunch of teams have entered the G5 ranks.  Some who a few years did not even have a football program.


----------



## Elan (Dec 6, 2015)

am1 said:


> That is my point.  In years past the G5 teams had tougher standards to make BCS games then the power 6.  Hence the best record.  Now a G5 team gets a spot every year regardless.  There is more New Years Bowls then BCS bowls but I am in favor of the best teams making the New Years Bowls not reserving a spot for the best G5 team.
> 
> Also Utah and TCU stepped up to play where the big boys play.  While a whole bunch of teams have entered the G5 ranks.  Some who a few years did not even have a football program.


Yes, and my point is that you don't know that Houston isn't one of the best teams, do you?  To someone with no preconceived notions, they look the same as Alabama and MSU -- they're all 12-1.  BSU got the g5 spot last year and pretty easily disposed of Arizona, which won the P12 south and was the only team to beat Oregon prior to the NC game (and that wasn't a particularly great BSU squad).  You seem to think that g5 teams aren't any good just because they aren't in a p5 conference, when, in fact, the data, to date, would indicate that they're typically better than the p5 schools they end up playing in the bcs/ny6 bowls.   If the g5 teams were getting in and getting pounded, I might see your point. But the exact opposite is happening. 

 It's like telling 5'6" guard he can't play basketball because he's too short. Then you put him in and he scores 30 points in 6 straight games, yet afterward you still think he can't play because he's too short, so you bench him. Makes no logical sense.

  You need to clear your mind of the whole p5 v g5 concept.  Conferences were primarily founded on geographical proximity and academic criteria, not football prowess.  All teams put their pads on the same way.  They all play on a 100 yard field.  The differences among the better teams across all conferences is a lot smaller than the p5 schools want you to believe, and the data shows that. 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Dec 6, 2015)

I guess we have to wait to see how the G5 representative will do every year going forward.  My guess is below .500 and a lot worse then in the BCS era.


----------



## Elan (Dec 6, 2015)

am1 said:


> I guess we have to wait to see how the G5 representative will do every year going forward.  My guess is below .500 and a lot worse then in the BCS era.


Worse than 28%. 

 Of course things will change.  That's a given.  How they'll change is anyone's guess.  I'd just like to see the playoff expand to a minimum of 8 teams so that things could be settled on the field.  Even more ideally, we'd realign to 8 16 team conferences and the 8 champions would get in.  Don't see that 2nd part happening.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 6, 2015)

Elan said:


> I missed that part of the UNC game (watching Iowa/MSU nail-biter).  Did they recover the kick?



yes, they recovered it...and then had to rekick it (where they didnt recover) for that offsides penalty. would have left them at midfield with all 3 timeouts and a little over a minute left in the game.

even the overly biased announcers went on and on about how terrible a call it was...and the ref that called it was the one right there on the kickoff line of scrimmage.  easily one of the worst penalties ive seen in a very long time.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 6, 2015)

as for the actual playoffs, I think the writing is on the wall for it to expand to at the very least, 8 teams in the future.


----------



## x3 skier (Dec 6, 2015)

Elan said:


> McCaffrey - *461 all purpose yards tonight* and broke Barry Sanders record for single season all purpose yards.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



That kid is amazing! Ran, caught and passed for a touchdown. (As did Hogan). 

"The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity. Winners epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverance, and hard work."

If hard work means anything, running, receiving and returning kicks (not to mention throwing an occasional touchdown pass) sure looks like the hardest work I've seen being done by anybody in football this year.

Cheers


----------



## am1 (Dec 6, 2015)

Elan said:


> Worse than 28%.
> 
> Of course things will change.  That's a given.  How they'll change is anyone's guess.  I'd just like to see the playoff expand to a minimum of 8 teams so that things could be settled on the field.  Even more ideally, we'd realign to 8 16 team conferences and the 8 champions would get in.  Don't see that 2nd part happening.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



Even with 8 16 team conferences you do not think Iowa, UNC and osu would be deserving of being in a 16 team playoff?


----------



## Elan (Dec 6, 2015)

am1 said:


> Even with 8 16 team conferences you do not think Iowa, UNC and osu would be deserving of being in a 16 team playoff?


Too many unknowns regarding which teams would be in what conferences in that scenario to form an opinion.  Regardless, that type of situation exists in most sports today.  If you're overly concerned about that, then 8 isn't enough teams.  

ETA:  I'm actually in favor of at least 12 teams.  This year, in a 12 team format, presumably the 4 playoff teams would get first round byes, and yes, OSU, Iowa, UNC, Stanford AND HOUSTON, would all get in.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elan (Dec 6, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> yes, they recovered it...and then had to rekick it (where they didnt recover) for that offsides penalty. would have left them at midfield with all 3 timeouts and a little over a minute left in the game.
> 
> even the overly biased announcers went on and on about how terrible a call it was...and the ref that called it was the one right there on the kickoff line of scrimmage.  easily one of the worst penalties ive seen in a very long time.


Wow, that's awful.  All this replay technology, and the ref's can still blatantly screw a team......

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elan (Dec 6, 2015)

x3 skier said:


> That kid is amazing! Ran, caught and passed for a touchdown. (As did Hogan).
> 
> "The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity. Winners epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverance, and hard work."
> 
> ...


Yep.  When you're breaking Barry Sanders records, you're special.  I love to watch him play.  Easily my favorite CFB player, and I typically don't ever have a favorite player. 

ETA:  Kid doesn't even have to fake it.  He's a natural  :






Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## jme (Dec 6, 2015)

in other *NCAA Football* news hot off the wire...

Will Muschamp has accepted the head coaching job for South Carolina Gamecocks.  
(Yippee!!! Thank goodness he won't be UGA's new defensive coordinator as speculated by some, to accompany Kirby Smart's move to Georgia.)

http://espn.go.com/college-football...olina-gamecocks-head-coaching-job-report-says

Whew!!!!  dodged a bullet there! Can't stand that guy.....he's a lunatic. 


Scroll down to see some of his "favorite" facial expressions:
https://www.google.com/search?q=ima...X&ved=0ahUKEwj7roaklsjJAhWCWj4KHYtbDwUQsAQIGw


----------



## Elan (Dec 6, 2015)

I think I read this morning that we're now down to 5 coaching vacancies from around 15 a week or so ago.  

  Found it interesting that Mendenhall left BYU.  But apparently they're really tight with money in Provo, and neither he nor his staff was being paid competitively.  He's a pretty good coach, I think, and I think he'll fit in well and do well at UVA.


----------



## Talent312 (Dec 6, 2015)

jme said:


> In other *NCAA Football* news... Will Muschamp has accepted the head coaching job for South Carolina Gamecocks.



So, no team need worry about South Carolina for several more years.
.


----------



## x3 skier (Dec 6, 2015)

Talent312 said:


> So, no team need worry about South Carolina for several more years.
> .



+1

Seems once you are a head coach someplace in the FBS, you're more or less assured of being a head coach again if you want to be, regardless of your success or failure with a previous team. I suppose the string runs out eventually but it seems to take a while. 

Cheers


----------



## jme (Dec 6, 2015)

Talent312 said:


> So, no team need worry about South Carolina for several more years.
> .



Auburn was ranked # 68 nationally in scoring defense under Muschamp, not exactly reason to celebrate his coaching talent, so yes, you could say that if he holds true to form. 

Also saw where Clemson head coach Dabo Swinney TODAY said "Muschamp was a great hire for South Carolina". Well, of course he did-----he's quite happy about that, because now Clemson will score at will ........uhhh, "Will" Muschamp. 


P.S.....Every few years the NCAA teams play musical chairs with coaches---guess this is the year.  It's certainly interesting, and at least gives out a lot of hope to frustrated fans----a la the proverbial "Wait'll NEXT year" mantra.


.


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 6, 2015)

Well, no surprises in the final top four rankings, everyone that was in last week did what they had to do.

I'm definitely getting rid of my four  tickets.


----------



## Elan (Dec 6, 2015)

x3 skier said:


> +1
> 
> Seems once you are a head coach someplace in the FBS, you're more or less assured of being a head coach again if you want to be, regardless of your success or failure with a previous team. I suppose the string runs out eventually but it seems to take a while.
> 
> Cheers


Yes, so true.  I've never understood why schools would prefer to hire a re-tread fbs coach who's proven himself to not be overly successful to hiring a successful coach from smaller fbs schools or fcs schools.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 7, 2015)

x3 skier said:


> That kid is amazing! Ran, caught and passed for a touchdown. (As did Hogan).
> 
> "The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity. Winners epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverance, and hard work."
> 
> ...



clemson qb totalled 420 yards and 5 tds (both running and passing) on the same night.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 7, 2015)

Elan said:


> Wow, that's awful.  All this replay technology, and the ref's can still blatantly screw a team......
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



agreed, i think its a joke that you cant review penalties that would otherwise result in a change of possession or score in a game.


----------



## am1 (Dec 7, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> agreed, i think its a joke that you cant review penalties that would otherwise result in a change of possession or score in a game.



Very easy to have a computer review this kind of play.  It is the 4th and 1s where we cannot even see the ball or where the players knee touched that I do not understand reviewing.  Clemson most likely would still have won but it took away from a great day of football.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 7, 2015)

I think they should use whatever technology is available to ensure the right call is made on the field.


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 7, 2015)

Check the "bargain deals" forum for tickets to the Championship Game in AZ.


----------



## x3 skier (Dec 7, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> clemson qb totalled 420 yards and 5 tds (both running and passing) on the same night.



Since he handles the ball on every offensive play save kicks, he should have the yards. I didn't notice him running back many kicks or blocking downfield on runs or passes.. Also don't notice him on the All-Pupose yards stats. 

I still like a player who can do it all rather than a specialist. The rare Two-way guys like Jack of UCLA are the most deserving.

Cheers


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 7, 2015)

I think you could make an argument that all the top 5 or so are deserving of the award TBH.

but stanford is a run first offense with nearly 2x the number of rushes vs passes...so clearly hes going to have yardage game after game.


----------



## x3 skier (Dec 7, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> I think you could make an argument that all the top 5 or so are deserving of the award TBH.
> 
> but stanford is a run first offense with nearly 2x the number of rushes vs passes...so clearly hes going to have yardage game after game.



They run because they can and have the horse to ride. Just like others who have the passer and receivers have the horses for their courses.

I agree with the top five being deserving but I still like an offensive player who does all aspects of moving the ball down the field, running, passing and returning as well as blocking for others doing the same. 

If McCaffrey wasn't a returner, he wouldn't rank above the others and it's basically a random selection. Since he is, he gets my vote (which is worth the same as a "promise" in Timeshare Sales Pitch).

Cheers


----------



## Elan (Dec 7, 2015)

Didn't verify this, but it sounds about right since they were all last second wins:  

  According to a post on Twitter MSU led against Michigan, Iowa and OSU for a combined 27 seconds.  So the 3rd ranked team in the country is 30 seconds away from possibly being 9-4.


----------



## am1 (Dec 7, 2015)

Elan said:


> Didn't verify this, but it sounds about right since they were all last second wins:
> 
> According to a post on Twitter MSU led against Michigan, Iowa and OSU for a combined 27 seconds.  So the 3rd ranked team in the country is 30 seconds away from possibly being 9-4.



I guess by hook pr by crook.  With Michigan they took the lead to end the game.  But even just beating Iowa and osu in the last seconds of the game is worthy of being included.


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 7, 2015)

Elan said:


> Didn't verify this, but it sounds about right since they were all last second wins:
> 
> According to a post on Twitter MSU led against Michigan, Iowa and OSU for a combined 27 seconds.  So the 3rd ranked team in the country is 30 seconds away from possibly being 9-4.



The fluke play at the end of the MSU and MI game cost OSU a trip to the Big 10 championship game.  That and the fact that OSU couldn't win their game against MSU.:hysterical:

At the time I was rooting for MSU because I dislike Michigan so much.  It turns out that had Michigan won that one, OSU would have been the east winner.

I think Stanford is a better team than MSU but we will never know.


----------



## am1 (Dec 7, 2015)

csxjohn said:


> I think Stanford is a better team than MSU but we will never know.



If MSU wins their first game and Stanford loses their bowl game we could have a pretty good idea.  

1 loss vs two

MSU beat Oregon who beat Stanford

Nebraska beat MSU by 1 point.  Being outscored by 12 in the 4th quarter.


----------



## Elan (Dec 7, 2015)

And if Arkansas hadn't stayed alive with a miracle lateral against Ole Miss, Alabama would not be in the playoff.  Game of inches.


----------



## Elan (Dec 7, 2015)

Heisman finalists announced:

  Watson, McCaffrey and Henry


----------



## Elan (Dec 7, 2015)

Bama is 9.5 point favorite over MSU, and OU is a 2.5 point favorite over Clemson.


----------



## am1 (Dec 7, 2015)

Is that the real odds or the money talking?  



Elan said:


> Bama is 9.5 point favorite over MSU, and OU is a 2.5 point favorite over Clemson.


----------



## Elan (Dec 7, 2015)

am1 said:


> Is that the real odds or the money talking?


I just posted what I read on ESPN.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Dec 7, 2015)

Okay.  But are those odds based on who the odds makers think are going to win or in an attempt to get the same money bet on both sides.  My guess is Alabama and Oklahoma would get more money bet on their side with the correct odds. There odds are an attempt to even it up.  




Elan said:


> I just posted what I read on ESPN.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 7, 2015)

the opening line is generally the most accurate way of determining who is truly favored.

its how the line changes that shows you where the money is being placed as the oddsmakers adjust the spread to ensure both sides are covered and they make money regardless of the outcome =)

9.5 is pretty large for a championship game for sure!


----------



## am1 (Dec 8, 2015)

Win or lose hopefully he never gets back into coaching:

http://espn.go.com/college-football...iles-wrongful-termination-lawsuit-usc-trojans

What a poor hire.


----------



## Elan (Dec 8, 2015)

am1 said:


> Win or lose hopefully he never gets back into coaching:
> 
> http://espn.go.com/college-football...iles-wrongful-termination-lawsuit-usc-trojans
> 
> What a poor hire.



  Bad situation for all involved.  From what I've heard, as odd as it sounds, his suit has merit.  I also heard that it's likely that USC anticipated the suit, budgeted accordingly, and went ahead with the dismissal, knowing that a settlement could cost them later should he pursue legal action.  

  I guess Sark doesn't want to coach again, because he certainly shot up a giant red flag to perspective employers with this lawsuit.  

  What's kind of funny is that supposedly USC wasn't interested in Petersen after interviewing him prior to Sark's hiring.  Could have had coach Pete, and now they've got an unknown for a head coach and a lawsuit.  Nice job, Pat Haden!


----------



## am1 (Dec 8, 2015)

His suit may or may not have merit.  He may or may not win.  I hope not but I cannot control it, I have no affliation with USC and do not live in the state of California.  I hope he does not coach again and especially does not get an injunction to get his USC job back.  He does have a pretty good argument about loss of future earnings as what school would touch him after his problems then filing a lawsuit?

How many kids have been kicked off the team for far less?  




Elan said:


> Bad situation for all involved.  From what I've heard, as odd as it sounds, his suit has merit.  I also heard that it's likely that USC anticipated the suit, budgeted accordingly, and went ahead with the dismissal, knowing that a settlement could cost them later should he pursue legal action.
> 
> I guess Sark doesn't want to coach again, because he certainly shot up a giant red flag to perspective employers with this lawsuit.
> 
> What's kind of funny is that supposedly USC wasn't interested in Petersen after interviewing him prior to Sark's hiring.  Could have had coach Pete, and now they've got an unknown for a head coach and a lawsuit.  Nice job, Pat Haden!


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 31, 2015)

I still think Alabama is the best team out there so I see Alabama playing Oklahoma in the big game on Jan 11.

I think Michigan State's end of game luck will run out today.

I'm looking for Ohio State to beat ND handily tomorrow.


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 31, 2015)

csxjohn said:


> I still think Alabama is the best team out there so I see Alabama playing Oklahoma in the big game on Jan 11.
> 
> I think Michigan State's end of game luck will run out today.
> 
> I'm looking for Ohio State to beat ND handily tomorrow.



Clemson is going to lose big time.

Alabama is in and so is Oklahoma.

I also agree Ohio State over The Irish. Only time will tell the true outcome.

Happy New Year to all college football fans across America.


----------



## chalee94 (Dec 31, 2015)

pedro47 said:


> Clemson is going to lose big time.
> 
> Alabama is in and so is Oklahoma.



I think so, too.

(although for the ACC's sake, I hope Clemson keeps it respectable.)


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 31, 2015)

Come on, three posts in a row that all agree????


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 31, 2015)

well, that was painful to watch.


----------



## Elan (Dec 31, 2015)

Total domination by Houston.  Not really surprised, tbh.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 31, 2015)

Elan said:


> Total domination by Houston.  Not really surprised, tbh.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



youd be the only one, even the sports books had fsu favored by a td.


----------



## Elan (Dec 31, 2015)

TUGBrian said:


> youd be the only one, even the sports books had fsu favored by a td.


Perhaps.  So be it.  The sports books set the lines to attract money from the general betting public, probably most of which had never once watched Houston play.  And, of course, a G5 school with a cupcake schedule can't hang with a P5 school....everyone knows that.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Dec 31, 2015)

Elan said:


> Perhaps.  So be it.  The sports books set the lines to attract money from the general betting public, probably most of which had never once watched Houston play.  And, of course, a G5 school with a cupcake schedule can't hang with a P5 school....everyone knows that.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



That would mean that the FSU line was for more than a touchdown but was pushed down to a touchdown because of the demand.  

FSU was outplayed and outcoached.


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 31, 2015)

Clemson over Oklahoma what a game. Watching Alabama and Michigan State what is up with Bama defense?


----------



## am1 (Dec 31, 2015)

I guess no need for a playoff this year.


----------



## Elan (Jan 1, 2016)

am1 said:


> I guess no need for a playoff this year.


There's always a need for a playoff.  Houston has as many losses as Alabama, but only Alabama gets to play again.  Need a bigger playoff, if anything.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## jme (Jan 1, 2016)

*Year in review, tug prognosticators' report cards:*

.



*YEAR IN REVIEW, TUG PROGNOSTICATORS' REPORT CARDS:*





pedro47 said:


> Prediction for this season there will be no undefeated teams this year.



Hmmmm, must not have been watching Clemson (I'm not a fan, per se, but I know them well). To give them their proper respect (an example in general, aside from tonight's matchup) the historical fact is that Clemson has always matched up well with SEC teams and had good success against them, as they typically play at least one SEC team during a season. They're a very good non-SEC team, recruit from the same fertile grounds of the SEC states, and of late certainly didn't get the respect from fans who didn't know or follow them. QB Deshaun Watson is a bit underrated, imho, despite finishing 3rd in the Heisman race. He'll be a fairly high draft pick, definitely going in the first round (I also think OK's QB will go high in a few years when he comes out). 




lizap said:


> Don't understand all the Nick Saban bias.  Why is Alabama ranked ahead of so many unbeaten teams??



Well I believe your answer certainly came tonight, and in a big way. After watching a game of total domination and near perfection, in a game (not tonight's game necessarily but in the overall game of football) which seldom produces both, the genius of Nick Saban grew to higher heights. 
.......If anyone has a chance to watch a replay of golf analyst David Feherty's show where he interviews Nick Saban on the Feherty Show (on the Golf Channel), do it!  You will quickly see why Saban is at the pinnacle of his profession, and not by a small margin. One of most interesting and telling interviews I've EVER witnessed regarding sports. 
.......He's far superior in his philosophy regarding "all things football" because he's got a certain deeper wisdom about life and work ethic, all of which translate to a high level of success on the football field. It's the best explanation of HOW a football coach should "think" and coach than anything I've ever heard.  
.......He's far more intellectual than people realize, and certainly more than I realized myself. I'm saying this, if Saban stays healthy, and remains in coaching, he WILL go down in history as college football's all-time best coach in every category. Sky's the limit with that guy.  (Too bad I'm just a lowly UGA bulldog fan. )  At least he's sending us his offensive coordinator (who blanked a very good football opponent tonight, as Mich St didn't score a single point).




x3 skier said:


> The best college football player this year is Christian McCaffrey. 2807 All Purpose Yards with one game to go in the regular season. Cheers


Not exactly, and that by a large margin. I've said all season that Alabama's Derek Henry was a beast, and also predicted that he would win the Heisman, even before AL played LSU. In that AL-LSU matchup of SEC power brokers, Henry was the man and LSU's running back Fournette was the mouse, and at that point Fournette happened to be the leading contender for the Heisman in most minds. After that game, he wasn't heard from again. 

Derek Henry excelled when he faced the better teams (despite the down game against Ole Miss, where AL lost when they shouldn't have due to stupid mistakes). Great teams respond to challenges, though, and we saw evidence of that in the Al-LSU game, and again tonight in the AL-Mich St game. 



pedro47 said:


> Clemson is going to lose big time.
> Alabama is in and so is Oklahoma.


50/50 there. Clemson is stronger than folks realize. Lots of superb talent. 




chalee94 said:


> I think so, too.
> (although for the ACC's sake, I hope Clemson keeps it respectable.)


That's hilarious, because I thought they DID keep it respectable. 
They COULD HAVE won by a larger margin, if only the refs hadn't made a couple of wrong calls in OK's favor. Thanks Clemson for keeping it respectable. 





jme said:


> Top prospect is actually Kirby Smart, DC for Alabama.


above prediction posted on Nov 29, when several names were being floated for new head coaching position at UGA, after Mark Richt was fired. 




jme said:


> Reports within the last couple of hours are that Alabama Defensive Coordinator Kirby Smart, a graduate and former football player at Georgia, will be named the new head coach of the Georgia bulldogs by early next week......... I, maybe the only one, was happy about Richt's dismissal, so now the announcement about Kirby Smart is welcome news, and I'll be sleeping a bit better.
> 
> And by the way, congratulations to Clemson on a great year. I'm not a Clemson fan, per se, but I respect what they have done.
> 
> Alabama is looking unstoppable, imho, and Derek Henry WILL win the Heisman, so not much has changed regarding Nick Saban's team.



above posted Dec 1,
Good job, jme, good job.

my predictions came true.
1.  re Kirby Smart: They listened to me for ONCE. Come on home doggie, Kirby Smart, UGA grad!  Richt was a good man but a mental midget on the field. Don't make me explain again, I'm over him.   If anyone were to do an "in-depth" interview with Mark Richt (as opposed to Nick Saban mentioned above), they'd get only two inches in. Not much between the ears, poor Mark Richt. 

2. re Clemson: That was not a prediction FOR Clemson, necessarily, but instead a simple recognition that they deserve respect. They have proved me right in that regard, and how.  They were underdogs against OK but beat them handily.  Great game.  

3. re Alabama: Alabama does indeed look unstoppable, and I believe they'll win the national championship over Clemson.  

4. re Heisman winner:  Derek Henry DID win the Heisman. No contest really. Tonight's contest proved why I made my choice. He's a certified beast, and no one can hold him back. Huge, strong, above-average speed and agility for a big man.  He'll be a great pro, assuming his good health.


----------



## ace2000 (Jan 1, 2016)

jme said:


> *YEAR IN REVIEW, TUG PROGNOSTICATORS' REPORT CARDS:*



LOL - love it!  I guess since you didn't include any of my predictions, I was right on all of mine???  (as usual )


Anyway, I miss Clemson_Fan around here.  It would have been fun to hear his perspective.  I recall him predicting last year how good Clemson was going to be in 2015.  Hope he's doing well...


----------



## x3 skier (Jan 1, 2016)

I didn't say McCaffrey would win the Heisman. I said he was the best offensive player in College Football and as he broke Barry Sanders All Purpose Yards record, he was. 

The Heisman is a popularity contest, nothing more, as are all the other media voting awards/polls.

Cheers


----------



## Elan (Jan 1, 2016)

ace2000 said:


> LOL - love it!  I guess since you didn't include any of my predictions, I was right on all of mine???  (as usual )
> 
> 
> Anyway, I miss Clemson_Fan around here.  It would have been fun to hear his perspective.  I recall him predicting last year how good Clemson was going to be in 2015.  Hope he's doing well...


Forgot about ClemsonFan.  I knew this thread was missing someone.  Where is he?  Anyone know?  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## csxjohn (Jan 1, 2016)

Clemson looked very good yesterday.  The game seemed to completely change on the fake punt.  It appeared to me to totally deflate Oklahoma.

I think Alabama will have an answer for the running of the Clemson QB and win the game.  I still have my tix and may go to see what should be a very good game.  If nothing else I may go to tailgate since I have a parking pass in a stadium lot.

I hope I'm not wrong about OSU today, I put $80 on them to win.


----------



## momeason (Jan 1, 2016)

pedro47 said:


> Clemson is going to lose big time.
> 
> Alabama is in and so is Oklahoma.
> 
> ...



NOT! Alabama is in but Clemson WON big time. We were there. GO TIGERS!


----------



## jme (Jan 1, 2016)

Guys, I was just having some fun with the yearlong thread, that's all ----everybody had a dog in the race (or Dawg, LOL)------or should I say HaHa------- and it was great fun to read all the ongoing stuff people were saying.... some insightful observations and some partisan BS, but it's always like that, and I'm as guilty as the next guy. Makes it more fun, and lightens the heavy load if our team crashes and burns.... whatever. 

As usual, it's been another wild season, but this year we witnessed some of the most difficult-to-believe and bizzare game endings ever (wildest was MichSt-Mich--totally insane). 

And frankly, deep deep down in my innermost football being I'm beyond shocked that OSU is not around in these playoffs....they should be. Hate him, but Urban Meyer is one great coach.....I'd be OK to place him in the same sentence with Nick Saban, altho more of a parenthetical reference, mind you. 

But those two alone stand out as the great college coaches of this era, imho. Many other very very good ones, but those two are superior, bordering on legendary. It all boils down to philosophy and ability to put that philosophy to work on the field, and those two simply think differently than the others.  They will both be Hall of Famers when their careers are over. I think either of them would fear ANY team fielded by the other one, just on coaching ability alone.  What a game that would have been had it transpired. 

Can't take anything away from Clemson this year though. Lots of talent, lots of speed, minimal injuries and minimal mistakes (might as well also add minimal jail time for stars....HaHa).  Kills Auburn and Fla St every year, but that's par for the course.
Anyway, Clemson's characteristics mentioned above "could be" a good recipe for gold accessories, shall we say.... we'll see.
(see https://www.google.com/search?q=nca...X&ved=0ahUKEwiwuJP-tYnKAhXIVT4KHVZgCJcQsAQIGw

so Clemson had a phenomenal season, and Alabama will have a tough time with them (MAYBE?? I'm trying to be gracious). But I'm sticking with my gut feeling, there in full force since the opening game of the season, never wavering, and I say Alabama is the best team in the country.  Not even close. Anything is possible, but if they get beat by anyone at any time, it'll be 1 out of 10 that they might lose to that "other" team if they were to play 10 times. That's the nature of sports' unpredictability, but long seasons with playoffs tend to prove which team is ultimately worthy.  That's what the playoff season is trying to achieve, anyway. And I think AL will send more players to the NFL AGAIN than any other team....many whose names were seldom mentioned, but they're that deep. It's almost like an all-star team. 

And sorry, but if I had to pick one great offensive player, I'd still take Alabama's Derek Henry over McCaffrey all day long.  It's like this, in a pick-up game, give me the first pick and you'll never beat me. 

*[Uhhhhhh, LATE EDIT inserted here]*, 5:16pmEST, just watched McCaffrey catch and run to the house on first play from scrimmage, so.....can I change my first pick?  HaHa,  gonna have to think about it.....
*[Uhhh, Uhhhh, Another LATE EDIT inserted here]*, 6pm EST.......McCaffrey fields punt and returns untouched for another touchdown.  OK, OK, he's a player. good call, x3 skier. 
*3rd EDIT added:* and thankfully for me, at 6:12 pmEST, another TD by McCaffrey, but called back by penalty. wow.

Whomever you're for (or not at all?), enjoy the year-end feast of bowl games, and enjoy the family time together if that's part of it.  Remember there's always next year......   HaHa  

but what shall we do in the mean time??? Oh dread.  Vacations maybe? Must be how timesharing got started.  





.


----------



## x3 skier (Jan 1, 2016)

No change to your pick.

75 receiving to the house, 62 punt return to the house, over 200 All Purpose Yards with 12 minutes to go *in the first half*. I tell you again, McCaffery is the best player in College Football. 

Cheers


----------



## Elan (Jan 1, 2016)

x3 skier said:


> No change to your pick.
> 
> 75 receiving to the house, 62 punt return to the house, over 200 All Purpose Yards with 12 minutes to go *in the first half*. I tell you again, McCaffery is the best player in College Football.
> 
> Cheers



Everyone who actually watches the games knows that.  It's really not even close.  Kid is unbelievable.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## pedro47 (Jan 1, 2016)

JME, the team with The Force Behind Them will win The NCAA Championship.


----------



## jme (Jan 1, 2016)

x3 skier said:


> No change to your pick.
> 
> 75 receiving to the house, 62 punt return to the house, over 200 All Purpose Yards with 12 minutes to go *in the first half*. I tell you again, McCaffery is the best player in College Football.
> 
> Cheers



Didn't you see my 3 LATE EDITS in color added to previous post #343? 
Wanted to be fair and also to acknowledge your choice, which I respect immensely. 

I've watched a lot of multi-purpose guys in NFL and in college over the years, and also a lot of power RBs (I personally watched every minute of every game Herschel Walker played at UGA--greatest I ever saw perhaps excepting OJ Simpson), and it's a tough decision. Long term I think the power RB is more valuable, but it's definitely a tough choice. For college it's really fun to watch the multi-purpose guys because it's so rare. 

But I guess the topic was best college player, right? so that's why Henry and McCaffrey were the top two Heisman candidates, and the vote went to Henry....what can I say?  they were wrong? McCaffrey got a ton of votes, but not enough. 

Still New Year's Day, so DOUBLE CHEERS!


----------



## x3 skier (Jan 1, 2016)

jme said:


> But I guess the topic was best college player, right? so that's why Henry and McCaffrey were the top two Heisman candidates, and the vote went to Henry....what can I say?  *they were wrong?* McCaffrey got a ton of votes, but not enough.
> 
> Still New Year's Day, so DOUBLE CHEERS!



Yes they were wrong.   He does have a weakness. His major is still undeclared. I think he's leaning toward Astro and nuclear physics or molecular biology or maybe 18th century lesser poets.  

What an end to the bowl season! 

Wonder who will be the surprise next season. 

Cheers and health, happiness and good fortune in 2016 to all.


----------



## Elan (Jan 1, 2016)

Yep, they were wrong.  Wasn't the first time and won't be the last.  

McCaffrey gained an average of 15 yards per touch tonight.  Henry averaged 3 yards per touch last night.  Iowa's defense was slightly higher rated than MSU's, so perhaps Henry's season numbers were artificially inflated from facing SEC defenses?  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Jan 1, 2016)

No. 2 Alabama Crimson Tide Opens as 7-Point Favorite Over Clemson in CFP Title Game - by David Purdum/ ESPN Staff Writer/ Chalk/ espn.go.com

I don't think it will stay as high as 7 by the end of the week.


Richard


----------



## jme (Jan 1, 2016)

x3 skier said:


> No change to your pick.
> Cheers
> Steven Wright



OK, got a little New Year's Day "football riddle" for you, Steven Wright.

I have a friend who lives around the corner, also named Steven Wright. 
Do you know what he has that you don't? 

(Scroll down)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
My good neighborhood friend Steven Wright 
(much older than me, by the way)
has a humongous ring on his finger with 3 VERY large diamonds....
KNOW WHY? 
.
.
(Scroll down)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
He has a unique distinction:

having played for both Bear Bryant at Alabama when they won the '65 national championship, and then for Vince Lombardi and the Green Bay Packers when they won *3 consecutive NFL championships* in '66, 67, & '68....hence a diamond for each NFL championship!!! 

1966----last strictly "NFL" Championship prior to merging with the AFL for the start of the Super Bowls the following year)...beat Cleveland Browns.
1967----Super Bowl I----beat Kansas City (after beating Dallas in famous "Ice Bowl" game to advance to Super Bowl I).
1968----Super Bowl II----beat Oakland Raiders. 

Alabama's national championship in 1965 led into the 3 consecutive NFL championship seasons---back to back to back to back.

Hope you guessed that.  

I first met Steve at our neighborhood Christmas Party about 12 years back, as he was busy complaining about his arthritic knee condition as he held a glass of wine. That led into his mentioning casually that it was due to the fact that he had "once played professional football".
Well, I thought that was pretty cool, so I said to him, "OK, to save time please tell me the name of your quarterback and maybe I'll be able to place you and the approximate time you played."  

He very calmly said, "Bart Starr" in a low almost whispering voice. I almost fell on the floor, literally, and my mouth was open in disbelief. I shook his hand upon that revelation and thought I felt something in his hand----looked down and saw a large ring, so I asked him about it. To say the least the ring was pretty noticeable. 

He held it up to show me and that's when I first saw the 3 huge diamonds.  We then talked for about two hours about those seasons, mostly about the famous divisional "Ice Bowl" game of '67 between Green Bay and Dallas at Lambeau field (in which GB beat Dallas to advance to Super Bowl I against Kansas City). He never once talked about any of that previously in the evening's conversations, according to the other guests---no one knew except for the couple who hosted the party, dear friends of his----but Steve was quite the humble guy. 

I do remember that at one point---when he held up the ring----his still beautiful wife Sandy walked over, listened a second and then casually winked lightly at me.  That was her way of telling me she had heard this story before, but I could tell she was immensely proud of her husband, and so she hung around a few minutes to revisit the telling of the story. She put her arm in his as he talked....his eyes were glistening as if he were on the field again. It was all true, and all fascinating to the point of being surreal. I had never been in the presence of anyone who had participated in anything as historic or as iconic as those momentous, legendary games.....

I realized I was listening to a living legend, and it was as though, in the telling of the story, that he was representing all of his teammates of long ago.  Very few people on this earth ever KNEW those coaches, either one or both, much less played and won championships for them, and more so winning during that golden era of football. He rubbed elbows and dined with the greats, Wow. He was not the legend that the others were---he was a lineman, but he played alongside them all, and was obviously good enough to deserve the accolades. 

Kind of a cool little story.  I like stories.  

Happy New Year everyone, from one armchair quarterback to another, whoever you are.




.


----------



## mariamintonwa (Jan 1, 2016)

Elan said:


> There's always a need for a playoff.  Houston has as many losses as Alabama, but only Alabama gets to play again.  Need a bigger playoff, if anything.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


Yessss, that's right, I am a fan of Alabama and I try to come to watch them whenever I can


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Jan 1, 2016)

jme said:


> ...1966----last strictly "NFL" Championship prior to merging with the AFL for the start of the Super Bowls the following year)...beat Cleveland Browns...
> 
> 
> ...Happy New Year everyone, from one armchair quarterback to another, whoever you are.



and for some football trivia about that 1966 Championship game between Green Bay and the Cleveland Browns:
Player shares:
The Packer players each received $7,500 and the Brown players about $4,600 each. (From Wikipedia)

Certainly a different era in player salaries.


Richard


----------



## am1 (Jan 1, 2016)

A bunch of blow outs today.  Yesterday as well.


----------



## pedro47 (Jan 2, 2016)

JME, Did Ohio State play a warm up game last night?


----------



## Elan (Jan 2, 2016)

am1 said:


> A bunch of blow outs today.  Yesterday as well.


Yeah, that is one thing I hate about the bowl season.  The long layoff seems to take some teams completely out of their rhythm, resulting in lopsided scores that I don't believe would happen if the bowls/playoffs started immediately after conference play ended.  
  Yet another reason to expand the playoff field.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Jan 2, 2016)

An expanded playoff would produce more mismatches in the first round.  

I would prefer to limit the amount of bowls so it means something.  Teams would play harder in the regular season to get to 7-5 (not sure if a 1AA win should still count).  Those schools can use the cash but it comes at the expense of the players.  

5-7 and 6-7 for sure have no right playing in a bowl game.

Other then posting my thoughts all I can do is not watch those games.  With the tv landscape the stadium can be 3/4 empty and ESPN is still happy for the programming.  Easy to do when you force the schools to purchase so many tickets.


----------



## csxjohn (Jan 2, 2016)

jme said:


> As usual, it's been another wild season, but this year we witnessed some of the most difficult-to-believe and bizzare game endings ever (wildest was MichSt-Mich--totally insane).
> 
> And frankly, deep deep down in my innermost footll being baI'm beyond shocked that OSU is not around in these playoffs....they should be. ...
> .



That play is one big reason OSU did not make the playoffs.  If TTUN wins and gives Michigan State another loss, OSU plays in the Big 10 championship game.

I don't think OSU would have beat Alabama if they would have played in the semi finals.


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 2, 2016)

Elan said:


> Yeah, that is one thing I hate about the bowl season.  The long layoff seems to take some teams completely out of their rhythm, resulting in lopsided scores that I don't believe would happen if the bowls/playoffs started immediately after conference play ended.
> Yet another reason to expand the playoff field.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


If there is controversy as to who belongs in the top four, it just gets worse as you move to the left of the bell shaped curve and try to pick the top eight teams.  Which two loss team do you drop for Houston (ranked eighteen going into the bowl season)? Stanford? Notre Dame? Sure Stanford beat Notre Dame, but the game was basically a tossup.  Notre Dame's only other loss was to Clemson in a close game while Stanford lost to Oregon and _Northwestern_.  There would have been a lot of controversy about the other two loss teams (some legitimately claiming to be better than some of the one loss teams), not to mention some three loss teams. (Oregon's three losses were in the first half of the season and they did beat Stanford.)

In general, I don't have confidence in playoffs and head to head competition determining who has the best team. I have mentioned this before, but if one team is good enough to beat any of the other seven top ranked teams four out of five times that they play, they would only have a fifty percent chance of winning an eight game playoff.  The pollsters would probably have a better chance of picking them as the superior team than that.  (To illustrate, most everyone, including those who participated in this thread think Ohio State has the best team in the Big Ten, but they did not make it though a quasi playoff system? For that matter, was Michigan State really better than Michigan?)

Personally, I liked the old bowl system the best.  No tragedy if it ends with some controversy.  Most players are college kids, not semi-pro players.  (Well perhaps not in the SEC.) Is it so terrible if they graduate thinking that they might have been on the best or one of the best teams in the country? Why does college football have to be pro sports?


----------



## Elan (Jan 2, 2016)

am1 said:


> An expanded playoff would produce more mismatches in the first round.
> 
> I would prefer to limit the amount of bowls so it means something.  Teams would play harder in the regular season to get to 7-5 (not sure if a 1AA win should still count).  Those schools can use the cash but it comes at the expense of the players.
> 
> ...


I don't know that that's true.  You're assuming that the committee has some perfect way to quantify the quality of teams they select, which they don't.  I doubt that the game featuring 1 vs 8 or even 1 vs 16 would have much different results than 1 vs 4.  In an ideal world, I might agree with you, but not in a world where lawyers, politicians, washed up coaches and AD's select and rank the playoff teams.  I think if you studied the results of professional sports with larger playoff fields, you'd realize you'd have little evidence to support your claim.  Are the first round of the NFL playoffs more likely to produce blowouts than the super bowl?  I don't know the answer, but I do know that there have been many, many close games in the earlier rounds, and many blowouts in the super bowl.  In baseball, the wild card teams have not only typically not been blown out, they've actually fared disproportionately well when it comes to reaching the WS.  
Regardless, I do think the long layoff has an adverse effect on the quality of football for some teams.  I do think Stanford was a much better team than Iowa, but had they played in early December, I believe it would have at least been a watchable game.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elan (Jan 2, 2016)

"Roger" said:


> If there is controversy as to who belongs in the top four, it just gets worse as you move to the left of the bell shaped curve and try to pick the top eight teams.  Which two loss team do you drop for Houston (ranked eighteen going into the bowl season)? Stanford? Notre Dame? Sure Stanford beat Notre Dame, but the game was basically a tossup.  Notre Dame's only other loss was to Clemson in a close game while Stanford lost to Oregon and _Northwestern_.  There would have been a lot of controversy about the other two loss teams (some legitimately claiming to be better than some of the one loss teams), not to mention some three loss teams. (Oregon's three losses were in the first half of the season and they did beat Stanford.)
> 
> In general, I don't have confidence in playoffs and head to head competition determining who has the best team. I have mentioned this before, but if one team is good enough to beat any of the other seven top ranked teams four out of five times that they play, they would only have a fifty percent chance of winning an eight game playoff.  The pollsters would probably have a better chance of picking them as the superior team than that.  (To illustrate, most everyone, including those who participated in this thread think Ohio State has the best team in the Big Ten, but they did not make it though a quasi playoff system? For that matter, was Michigan State really better than Michigan?)
> 
> Personally, I liked the old bowl system the best.  No tragedy if it ends with some controversy.  Most players are college kids, not semi-pro players.  (Well perhaps not in the SEC.) Is it so terrible if they graduate thinking that they might have been on the best or one of the best teams in the country? Why does college football have to be pro sports?



  I believe we discussed this last year.  The "Bell curve theory" only really holds if there's some way to absolutely quantify the quality of teams, which there isn't.  At best, at the end of the regular season, we can really only say that there are some obviously poor teams, lots of mediocre teams and some good teams.  As csxjohn pointed out, OSU was likely a fluke play from being in the playoff, and Alabama was a fluke play from being left out.  I don't see where the significance of those fluke plays is greatly increased if they happen in the playoff rounds.  Actually, I'd personally much prefer that type of excitement in the playoff than outside.  Like "The Immaculate Reception", those plays might go down in history if they're part of an expanded playoff.  

  WRT the old bowl system, I have no quarrels either.  What I do take issue with is a bunch of nobody's telling me that they've deemed 4 select teams, and only those 4 teams, capable of winning a "National Championship", when it's not obvious to fans that those are clearly the best teams in the country.  The BCS system of identifying a "National Champion" was an insult to everyone with an ounce of analytical ability, and a 4 team playoff is only marginally better.


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 2, 2016)

College football teams DO fall on a Bell Shape curve.  (There are not that many teams that have any claim to being the best, with more competing to say they should be considered in the top ten, and so forth.) 

As you say, there is no well to absolutely measure the quality of teams and even if there were, there is no guarantee in sports that the better team will win an individual game. 

This is not unique to sports. The most well known references to the bell shape curve is for student grades. But there is no absolute way to measure among 250 students which are the four best, the eight best, (or as you expand the number and move across the curve, you just end up with more students who can claim to be the 64th best student in class). One student might really do well one day on a history test, but have an off day the next. Then again, is a multiple choice test really an accurate measure of how good a student is at American history?  That can be called into question.

[In general, if you have doubts about a statistical outcome, the first thing you should do is ask how were the original measurements done.  Almost always room for controversy.]

Just out of curiosity, how would you (transparently) have chosen the best eight teams?  Which ones? If Temple had finished with one loss, would you have put them ahead of Stanford and Notre Dame?


----------



## Elan (Jan 2, 2016)

"Roger" said:


> College football teams DO fall on a Bell Shape curve.  (There are not that many teams that have any claim to being the best, with more competing to say they should be considered in the top ten, and so forth.)
> 
> As you say, there is no well to absolutely measure the quality of teams and even if there were, there is no guarantee in sports that the better team will win an individual game.
> 
> ...


I posted earlier about the Colley matrix.  I'd use something similar to determine the 12 or 16 most deserving teams.  There would have to be modifications made to account for padding one's resume with non-conference games against FCS schools.  But it's a good place to start.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## pedro47 (Jan 2, 2016)

am1 said:


> An expanded playoff would produce more mismatches in the first round.
> 
> I would prefer to limit the amount of bowls so it means something.  Teams would play harder in the regular season to get to 7-5 (not sure if a 1AA win should still count).  Those schools can use the cash but it comes at the expense of the players.
> 
> ...



Are these college students; are they semi-pro players. How many games can a true students play in a season; plus maintain they their classes/grades?


----------



## Elan (Jan 2, 2016)

pedro47 said:


> Are these college students; are they semi-pro players. How many games can a true students play in a season; plus maintain they their classes/grades?


I think we all know the answer to that.  As much as we love to call them student athletes, their academic routine is not comparable to that of a typical student.  There's a reason many college athletes are Communications or PE majors.  Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of admiration for their ability to even get through classes given the demands on their time and bodies, but, generally speaking, they are athletes first and students second.  At least when their sport is "in season".

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elan (Jan 2, 2016)

"Roger" said:


> College football teams DO fall on a Bell Shape curve.  (There are not that many teams that have any claim to being the best, with more competing to say they should be considered in the top ten, and so forth.)
> 
> As you say, there is no well to absolutely measure the quality of teams and even if there were, there is no guarantee in sports that the better team will win an individual game.



College teams might fall on a bell curve, but you can't definitively place any given team on the curve without using a much larger sample size to compare them.  With 128 FBS schools, there's just not enough data at the end of a 12 game season (which is more like a 10 game season after taking out games against FCS teams) to absolutely place any given team.  That's kind of been my point all along -- with an insufficient sample size, it's better to err on the side of including teams with a lesser shot of winning it all than it is to exclude teams that might have a legitimate shot at winning it all.  

  For comparison, let's look at the NFL:

 There's only 32 teams, yet they play 16 games -- all of which are meaningful, and still take about 35% of the teams into the playoffs.   Yet 6 wild card teams have still managed to win the Super Bowl! CFB has 4 times the teams, plays roughly 2/3 as many meaningful games, and then takes roughly 3% of the teams into the playoffs.  Even the most mathematically challenged can see the deficiency of such a small field.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Jan 2, 2016)

pedro47 said:


> Are these college students; are they semi-pro players. How many games can a true students play in a season; plus maintain they their classes/grades?



A smaller playoff would be better then.  As well as fewer teams making bowl games.  

The timing of the end of the season is not great with school exams and the holidays.  I would prefer to see the championship game be the first Monday after New Years.  Not January 11.


----------



## am1 (Jan 2, 2016)

Elan said:


> College teams might fall on a bell curve, but you can't definitively place any given team on the curve without using a much larger sample size to compare them.  With 128 FBS schools, there's just not enough data at the end of a 12 game season (which is more like a 10 game season after taking out games against FCS teams) to absolutely place any given team.  That's kind of been my point all along -- with an insufficient sample size, it's better to err on the side of including teams with a lesser shot of winning it all than it is to exclude teams that might have a legitimate shot at winning it all.
> 
> For comparison, let's look at the NFL:
> 
> ...



The 32 NFL teams are a lot closer in ability then the top 32 college football teams let alone 128 or whatever amount they have expanded to.


----------



## Elan (Jan 2, 2016)

am1 said:


> The 32 NFL teams are a lot closer in ability then the top 32 college football teams let alone 128 or whatever amount they have expanded to.


How do you know that?  Do you have any data to support your claim or is it, yet again, just your opinion?   I don't agree.  

  Regardless, the NFL takes 12 teams into their playoffs.  And wild cards have won the SB multiple times.  That should tell you something significant about the inadequacy of a 4 team field in CFB.  If it doesn't, I can't help you.  

As I've explained before, a highly logical way to determine the "correct" size of a playoff field is to make it overly large, and then begin to whittle it down as the data comes in. For instance, in NCAA basketball no team higher than an 8 seed has ever won it all, so one could reasonably reduce the field from the current 64(68) to 32, and possibly even smaller based on what the data suggests.  Starting out with a field that's too small really proves nothing.  Do you think that the 4 chosen playoff teams are really the only teams capable of winning an 8,12 or 16 team playoff?  Did you think that last year, even after OSU, which barely made it in as the 4th team, quite easily won it all?  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Jan 2, 2016)

Elan said:


> How do you know that?  Do you have any data to support your claim or is it, yet again, just your opinion?   I don't agree.



If you do not know that I cannot help you.  The depth is much deeper in the NFL.  It comes down to they are all professionals and more than 1 dimensional teams.  

I like limiting the playoff size to make the regular season meaningful every week.  Do you not think that the conference playoff games and back heavy scheduling in the Big 12 are not play in games?  

If anyone feels like they got left out they should not have lost a game or scheduled better teams.


----------



## Elan (Jan 2, 2016)

am1 said:


> If you do not know that I cannot help you.  The depth is much deeper in the NFL.  It comes down to they are all professionals and more than 1 dimensional teams.
> 
> I like limiting the playoff size to make the regular season meaningful every week.  Do you not think that the conference playoff games and back heavy scheduling in the Big 12 are not play in games?
> 
> If anyone feels like they got left out they should not have lost a game or scheduled better teams.


So you're claiming that the likelihood of  3-12 Cleveland (or whomever is the worst team in the NFL) beating 14-1 Carolina is higher than that of #32 8-4 UCLA  beating Clemson?  I couldn't disagree more.   
  Regardless, we're talking about the top 8 to 16 teams, not first to last.  Or even 1 to 32, for that matter.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elan (Jan 2, 2016)

am1 said:


> If you do not know that I cannot help you.  The depth is much deeper in the NFL.  It comes down to they are all professionals and more than 1 dimensional teams.
> 
> I like limiting the playoff size to make the regular season meaningful every week.  Do you not think that the conference playoff games and back heavy scheduling in the Big 12 are not play in games?
> 
> If anyone feels like they got left out they should not have lost a game or scheduled better teams.


For the record, conference championship games existed far before the playoff system.  They were designed to generate more revenue.  Everyone knows that.  The B12 back loaded because they got penalized for not having a championship game.  It was their work-around for not having 2 divisions.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Jan 2, 2016)

Elan said:


> So you're claiming that the likelihood of  3-12 Cleveland (or whomever is the worst team in the NFL) beating 14-1 Carolina is higher than that of 8-4 UCLA  beating Clemson?  I couldn't disagree more.
> Regardless, we're talking about the top 8 to 16 teams, not first to last.  Or even 1 to 32, for that matter.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



More upsets happen in college football.  That is a given and why I like it more.  Every player in the NFL is a good player and they have more depth with their backups and can sign new players if needed.  

The point being is the 32 best team in the NFL even at 3-12 is a good team.  The same cannot be said in college.  They may be the 32 best team because of a weak schedule.  

The NFL having such a large playoff is so they can make money.  Making money is not very high on the list of what I want from college football.  I would rather a team earn their playoff spot over 12 or 13 games then limp in by default and then have a few upsets.  

I do think if teams toughened up their schedules we would benefit from it and the top teams would rise up for all to see.


----------



## Elan (Jan 2, 2016)

Inadvertent post


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## jme (Jan 3, 2016)

*Incredible bowl game*

.....was watching Oregon Ducks run up the score in first half against TCU to the tune of 31-0. now it was Halftime! 

BORRRRRRINNNNNNG!!!!  so we set the recorder for 2nd half and went to see Star Wars.

when we got back I quickly ran thru the fast forward (maybe too fast) and saw the score 38-31 TCU !!!!  

WHAT????????? 

How can that be?  That's one of the most ridiculously insane comebacks in history, and probably the all-time record, who knows. 

Then TCU and Oregon went into overtime and TCU ended up winning. 
WOW that takes the cake.  What the heck happened? 

did the Oregon team mistakenly get on the team bus at halftime? 
did they lose all their starters to injury? 
did they get a call from a Vegas Bookie with an "offer"? 
did they put on blindfolds as part of the bowl's "mercy" policy? 
or did they get kidnapped? 

just WHAT?  

I then watched only the recorded game "overtime period", but man, what a game. I would have lost my house AND SUV on that bet. How can TCU do that after failing to score a single point in the first half? and how can Oregon NOT score a single point in the second half?

Has that ever happened, that is, one team scores zero,zip,nada in a half (giving up over 30), then the other team doesn't score a point in the next half (giving up over 30)? or put another way, has any game ever seen one team score over 30 consecutive points, then the opposite team scores over 30 consecutive points? 
I'll bet never. 

I'm still in shock because I respect Oregon and their incredible speed, but I have to admit, I'm happy as heck. Glad duck season finally opened.


----------



## csxjohn (Jan 3, 2016)

jme said:


> .....was watching Oregon Ducks run up the score in first half against TCU to the tune of 31-0. now it was Halftime!
> 
> BORRRRRRINNNNNNG!!!!  so we set the recorder for 2nd half and went to see Star Wars.
> 
> ...



I woke up today to post that if anyone turned the set off at halftime they missed the biggest turnaround I've ever seen.

The game was on one set in the bar where we went to see one of our fav bands and I was seated in a booth facing away from the band.  All the other sets in the place had the Cavs on so I was casually watching the game.

TCU scored a FG and I commented that at least it won't be a shut out.  As I kept glancing up I'd keep seeing TCU with the ball and scoring.  They had to go for a 2pt conversion when they got to 26-31 and made it.  I thought they were going to take the lead but had to settle for a tie.

I would love to hear or see what was said in each of the locker rooms at half time!  I was joking with a friend that Oregon probably opened the champagne and had some beers and were yucking it up in the locker room while TCU coaches explained that they were screwed but to go on and see what they could do.

I'm probably not too far off.  We were also wondering how both the offense and the defense of both teams had such different games in the two halfs.


----------



## Elan (Jan 3, 2016)

Adams went out.  Not all that mysterious. 
The real question was how did TCU's offense get shut out for so long against that defense?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## csxjohn (Jan 3, 2016)

Elan said:


> Adams went out.  Not all that mysterious.
> The real question was how did TCU's offense get shut out for so long against that defense?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



That partly explains why Oregon only got 18 yds in the second half of regulation.

Remember, TCU was playing with their back up QB due to alcohol related misconduct.


----------



## Elan (Jan 3, 2016)

csxjohn said:


> That partly explains why Oregon only got 18 yds in the second half of regulation.
> 
> Remember, TCU was playing with their back up QB due to alcohol related misconduct.


Yes, Boykin was out.  But TCU has known that for a while.  Oregon is a mess without Adams.  Even they knew they didn't have a QB after Mariotta, and that why they went the FCS transfer route.  When Lockie was forced to play earlier this, they were horrible.  Sad thing is that UO is right back in the same boat again.  They have a transfer coming in from Montana State to compete for the starting job next year. 

ETA: 2 of UO's 3 losses this year were with Lockie at QB.  They were in the Utah game until Adams went out, then got shellacked once he was gone.  So no real surprise in what happened last night.  There was precedence.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## bogey21 (Jan 3, 2016)

Great game.  Best Bowl Game so far.  Of course I live in Fort Worth where TCU is located.

To answer the question about whether it has ever happened before that one team wins the first half and loses the 2nd half 31 -0, I remember an Eagles - Redskins game when I was a kid where the Eagles won the first half 28-0 and lost the 2nd half 28-0 (they didn't kick many field goals in those days).

George


----------



## csxjohn (Jan 3, 2016)

bogey21 said:


> Great game.  Best Bowl Game so far.  Of course I live in Fort Worth where TCU is located.
> 
> To answer the question about whether it has ever happened before that one team wins the first half and loses the 2nd half 31 -0, I remember an Eagles - Redskins game when I was a kid where the Eagles won the first half 28-0 and lost the 2nd half 28-0 (they didn't kick many field goals in those days).
> 
> George



In college football I read that the 31-point comeback to win tied the record for a bowl game, matching Texas Tech in the 2006 Insight Bowl against Minnesota.

It was 28-0 at the half but Minn. went ahead 31-0 in the third quarter.

You just can't keep those Texas teams down.


----------



## ace2000 (Jan 3, 2016)

One problem I see on expanding the current playoff system is the impact on the bowl games.  Just look at this year's Rose bowl for an example where you had Stanford playing probably the third best Big 10 team, and the result was a blowout win for the Pac10.  

I think we're going to be stuck with the 4 team format for a long time, and I'm happy with the current plan and think it's a great improvement from the past.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 3, 2016)

well, to make up for for the snoozers in the big bowls...these last few games have been outstanding!


----------



## Elan (Jan 3, 2016)

ace2000 said:


> One problem I see on expanding the current playoff system is the impact on the bowl games.  Just look at this year's Rose bowl for an example where you had Stanford playing probably the third best Big 10 team, and the result was a blowout win for the Pac10.
> 
> I think we're going to be stuck with the 4 team format for a long time, and I'm happy with the current plan and think it's a great improvement from the past.


Not sure I follow.  How does expanding the playoff field affect the bowls?  I mean more than it already has?  If you're referring to the P12 champ always playing the B10 champ in the Rose,  that went bye-bye years ago.  

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## ace2000 (Jan 3, 2016)

Elan said:


> Not sure I follow.  How does expanding the playoff field affect the bowls?  I mean more than it already has?  If you're referring to the P12 champ always playing the B10 champ in the Rose,  that went bye-bye years ago.



The two champs played each other unless one made the championship game.  It started with 2 teams and now it's 4 teams in the playoffs.  The bowl games have been watered down to a certain degree due to the new format.  I think 8 teams would make the bowl games even less significant.  

I'd go for 8 playoff teams, but I'm doubtful the NCAA will come up with the right combination and rotations to make it all work.  I don't see it happening soon.


----------



## am1 (Jan 3, 2016)

ace2000 said:


> The two champs played each other unless one made the championship game.  It started with 2 teams and now it's 4 teams in the playoffs.  The bowl games have been watered down to a certain degree due to the new format.  I think 8 teams would make the bowl games even less significant.
> 
> I'd go for 8 playoff teams, but I'm doubtful the NCAA will come up with the right combination and rotations to make it all work.  I don't see it happening soon.



Not until the next contract is up. 

I want teams to earn the right over the first 12 - 13 games of the season.  Not back their way into a larger playoff and advance on a fluke play or bad refs.


----------



## Elan (Jan 4, 2016)

am1 said:


> Not until the next contract is up.
> 
> I want teams to earn the right over the first 12 - 13 games of the season.  Not back their way into a larger playoff and advance on a fluke play or bad refs.


Alabama got into a 4 team field this year on a fluke play.  Fluke plays are a part of football, and really have no impact on determining the proper size of the playoff field.  It really come down to mathematical probability more than anything.  I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you to understand.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## csxjohn (Jan 4, 2016)

I really like the old, old way best, before the playoffs and the BCS.

Watching the bowl games this year really lost their luster for me.  Other than the two semi final games, none of the others really counted for anything so it was kind of ho-hum for me.

I really don't need any playoff system and would prefer to not have one.  It's only purpose is to make more money.  I don't really care about the polls during the season or who the "committee" thinks is deserving.  Expanding to more teams won't change anything.

Peeps are still debating which team or teams is/are the best so nothing has changed from the pre playoff days.

Let the Big10 play the Pac10 in the Rose Bowl and how ever the others were determined and let everyone argue about who's the best for a year.

We already know that the best team doesn't always win a tournament, any tournament, so why go through all this?


----------



## ace2000 (Jan 4, 2016)

csxjohn said:


> I really like the old, old way best, before the playoffs and the BCS.
> 
> Watching the bowl games this year really lost their luster for me.  Other than the two semi final games, none of the others really counted for anything so it was kind of ho-hum for me.



I was thinking the exact same thing regarding the bowl games.  Some of that was probably due to Iowa laying the big egg in the Rose Bowl, but I had virtually zero interest in any of the other games outside of Ohio St and Notre Dame.

Of course, I'll be watching the final game with interest, so that may make up for some of that.


----------



## Elan (Jan 4, 2016)

csxjohn said:


> I really like the old, old way best, before the playoffs and the BCS.
> 
> Watching the bowl games this year really lost their luster for me.  Other than the two semi final games, none of the others really counted for anything so it was kind of ho-hum for me.
> 
> ...



  You know, I don't disagree with anything you said here.  

  I'm only a proponent of an expanded playoff because the powers that be (ESPN) keep trying to tell us that the winner of a 4 team or 2 team (BCS era) "playoff" is the National Champion.  Given the size of the potential field (128 teams) it's *simply not statistically possible* to get a logical, fair playoff field of 4 teams from 8 weeks of conference play.  Call it what you want, but the winner of a 4 team, effectively hand-picked "playoff" isn't a national champion.  If the system doesn't improve, I'd readily endorse going back to the old method of bowls and post-bowl bickering.  But, as you pointed out, the playoff is all about money, and therefore, that old ship has sailed.

  While I have some interest in the playoff, I don't find those games any more interesting than many of the other bowls.  I watch CFB more for interesting offenses and schemes, and special players like McCaffrey.  Sure, the Rose Bowl was a flop, but it was interesting to see that kid look like a professional playing with high schoolers.  Or Mahomes from TT.  Don't even remember which bowl game it was, but some of the cross body, cross field throws that kid made while running for his life were pretty amazing and entertaining.  Or watching an unknown like Kohlhausen, who was obviously hurting, lay it all out to bring TCU back from the dead against Oregon.  That was cool.


----------



## csxjohn (Jan 4, 2016)

Elan said:


> You know, I don't disagree with anything you said here.
> 
> I'm only a proponent of an expanded playoff because the powers that be (ESPN) keep trying to tell us that the winner of a 4 team or 2 team (BCS era) "playoff" is the National Champion.  Given the size of the potential field (128 teams) it's *simply not statistically possible* to get a logical, fair playoff field of 4 teams from 8 weeks of conference play.  Call it what you want, but the winner of a 4 team, effectively hand-picked "playoff" isn't a national champion.  If the system doesn't improve, I'd readily endorse going back to the old method of bowls and post-bowl bickering.  But, as you pointed out, the playoff is all about money, and therefore, that old ship has sailed.
> 
> While I have some interest in the playoff, I don't find those games any more interesting than many of the other bowls.  I watch CFB more for interesting offenses and schemes, and special players like McCaffrey.  Sure, the Rose Bowl was a flop, but it was interesting to see that kid look like a professional playing with high schoolers.  Or Mahomes from TT.  Don't even remember which bowl game it was, but some of the cross body, cross field throws that kid made while running for his life were pretty amazing and entertaining.  Or watching an unknown like Kohlhausen, who was obviously hurting, lay it all out to bring TCU back from the dead against Oregon.  That was cool.



Now that I think about it, the reason the semis interested me is because I have tix to the big game.  Not having them I more than likely would have only watched the MSU game and not the other.

Having the bowl games on cable doesn't help me either since I don't have any of that. My daughter is staying with us for a while and she has access to her cable account so I was able to watch some of the games through my computer.


----------



## Elan (Jan 4, 2016)

ace2000 said:


> *The bowl games have been watered down to a certain degree due to the new format.*  I think 8 teams would make the bowl games even less significant.



  So, simply for arguments sake, what if there was a 32 team playoff?   Then at least 32 of the gazillion bowl eligible teams would be playing meaningful "bowl" games.


----------



## jme (Jan 4, 2016)

Elan said:


> Alabama got into a 4 team field this year on a fluke play.  Fluke plays are a part of football, and really have no impact on determining the proper size of the playoff field.  It really come down to mathematical probability more than anything.  I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you to understand.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



Actually it was Michigan State who got into the mix on *THE* fluke play, then got soundly thrashed in the playoffs. After seeing Michigan's latest victory coupled with Mich St's loss, I'm thinking Michigan was more deserving of a playoff spot. A fluke play can certainly change things, that's why I tend to agree with some who think the "old way" had its merits, based on multiple factors exclusive of only W's and L's. 

Also I don't understand the "Alabama *got into* a 4 team field" comment. All along they were the best overall team in the NCAA (those of us who live and breathe SEC football know this in our gut whether we're AL fans or not, and I'm not), and the late season prowess of AL proved it. I laughed at any notion otherwise all season long. 

I can't imagine their not being there. They only had one loss (to another top-ranked & undefeated SEC team at the time, a fact which is significant), and Ole Miss benefitted from its own fluke play to win----a "football off-the-helmet". 

Alabama is rightly in the playoffs, and has firmly established themselves as the favorite (people know Alabama, and they know Clemson, and they know the difference despite records). Despite Clemson's perfect season, AL's season was more impressive, and the Tide displayed their prowess against more difficult teams. Not taking anything away from Clemson because they definitely deserve a "top 2" billing, but they haven't faced anyone as tough as AL yet. They are the only team I think that could beat Alabama "here and today", but it would take a real off-day for AL, and more than one turnover.  

Is there anyone on the planet who seriously thinks Alabama should NOT have been in the playoffs? I don't believe you're intending to mean that at all, but I'm just saying.... 


Margins of victory over "major" teams in 2016:

*ALABAMA*: ...............................*CLEMSON*:
........Auburn...16_______________Louisville.......3
........LSU......14________________Notre Dame...2
........Ark.......13________________Ga Tech........19
........Tenn.....5_________________Bost Col........17
........Tx A&M.....18______________Fl St.............10
........Florida.......14_____________Syracuse.......10
........Miss St.....25______________North Car......8
........Ga.........28_____________OKLAHOMA....20
........Wisc.......18
....MICHIGAN ST....38

Aside from Alabama and Clemson, it was a toss-up for the remaining playoff spots, imho.  Sounds more and more like a "good ole days" decision would have resulted in the same two teams, so......let's just have a drink. Cheers




.


----------



## Elan (Jan 4, 2016)

jme said:


> Actually it was Michigan State who got into the mix on *THE* fluke play, then got soundly thrashed in the playoffs. After seeing Michigan's latest victory coupled with Mich St's loss, I'm thinking Michigan was more deserving of a playoff spot. A fluke play can certainly change things, that's why I tend to agree with some who think the "old way" had its merits, based on multiple factors exclusive of only W's and L's.
> 
> Also I don't understand the "Alabama *got into* a 4 team field" comment. All along they were the best overall team in the NCAA (those of us who live and breathe SEC football know this in our gut whether we're AL fans or not, and I'm not), and the late season prowess of AL proved it. I laughed at any notion otherwise all season long.
> 
> ...



  Alabama would not have even won the SEC West had Arkansas not beat Ole Miss on a fluke play.  Bama would not have gotten in without even making their conference championship game.

  WRT your other comment, while I agree that Alabama appears to be the best team this year, it was just last year when everyone knew in their gut that Alabama and FSU were the 2 best teams and would have been *PICKED* to play in a BCS era championship game.  Yet, when those teams actually had to prove it on the field, neither one could.  So yeah, some years it works out, some years it doesn't.  As I've said, I don't have a problem with who DOES make the 4 team field as much as I do with who DOESN'T.  I will never be convinced that one can sample a 128 team data set 8-10 times (effectively) and say that there are only 4 "special" teams.  

  Hypothetically, let's say Greg Ward doesn't get hurt and Houston finishes undefeated.  Should they have made the playoff?   Do we know, unequivocally, that they would have been any less deserving or capable of winning the championship than the other playoff teams?  Because I can almost guarantee that they still would have been left out.  What's so wrong with expanding the field and letting the teams settle things on the gridiron instead of letting a committee settle the same issue in a room?


----------



## ace2000 (Jan 4, 2016)

Elan said:


> So, simply for arguments sake, what if there was a 32 team playoff?   Then at least 32 of the gazillion bowl eligible teams would be playing meaningful "bowl" games.



Ok, just for arguments sake (since this isn't a huge deal for me as it is you ), I think the number of teams should depend on what is necessary to give all potential #1 teams a shot.  This year, the question would be how many teams could legitimately beat Clemson or Alabama?  I feel the four teams selected this year were the right amount of candidates and some could've legitimately argued that there were none.  I'm sure there will be years in the future where it won't be so easy though.


----------



## am1 (Jan 4, 2016)

Michigan may have been the better team but still lost to Utah and osu.  osu probably was the best team in the big 10.  The rankings will reflect that but could not get it done when they needed to.  Either poor coaching or a few players quit when it counted.  Michigan State just got by Iowa who we really do not know how good they are.  If MSU did not lose to a very bad Nebraska team are they in the number two spot going into the playoff?  The result would have been the same with them losing to Alabama.  But how close would Iowa have been to number 4 Oklahoma?  

It is all speculation and does not matter now but a larger playoff field is not needed.  Just beat the teams in front of you and have a good schedule and you should be 1 of the top 4.  

Maybe more criteria are needed to decide the top 4.  Lose to a team that is below .500 at the end of the season and you are out of the playoff contention.


----------



## Elan (Jan 4, 2016)

ace2000 said:


> Ok, just for arguments sake (since this isn't a huge deal for me as it is you ), I think the number of teams should depend on what is necessary to give all potential #1 teams a shot.  This year, the question would be how many teams could legitimately beat Clemson or Alabama?  I feel the four teams selected this year were the right amount of candidates and some could've legitimately argued that there were none.  I'm sure there will be years in the future where it won't be so easy though.



  It's not as big of deal to me as it appears.  I don't lose sleep over it  .  But, as a scientist, the idea that the playoff field selection process is fair or logical is laughable.  Secondarily, having watched undefeated teams be left out of national championship discussions really rubs me the wrong way.  Particularly when there's data that shows that some of the common biases that influence the process are complete bullshit.

  ETA:  Yeah, a dynamically sized playoff field would work, but that's not practical.  I just can't see why so many are opposed to expanding the field in lieu of that.  I mean, is it a huge crisis if a Houston gets in and gets waxed in the first round?  MSU "legitimately" got in and got waxed.  Or wouldn't it be exciting if a Cinderella got in and actually won it or even made it to the championship (like Butler in basketball)?  There's little that's more compelling in the sports world than David vs Goliath.  I think even Hollywood would agree.


----------



## Elan (Jan 4, 2016)

am1 said:


> Michigan may have been the better team but still lost to Utah and osu.  osu probably was the best team in the big 10.  The rankings will reflect that but could not get it done when they needed to.  Either poor coaching or a few players quit when it counted.  Michigan State just got by Iowa who we really do not know how good they are.  If MSU did not lose to a very bad Nebraska team are they in the number two spot going into the playoff?  The result would have been the same with them losing to Alabama.  But how close would Iowa have been to number 4 Oklahoma?
> 
> It is all speculation and does not matter now but a larger playoff field is not needed.  Just beat the teams in front of you and have a good schedule and you should be 1 of the top 4.
> 
> Maybe more criteria are needed to decide the top 4.  Lose to a team that is below .500 at the end of the season and you are out of the playoff contention.



  The problem with your suggestions is that they always vary to suit your case.  Obviously, a workable solution needs to fit many cases.  Let's just say there's a year where all P5 champions are undefeated and there's a G5 school that is also undefeated.  Or two P5 undefeateds, 3 P5 1-loss and a G5 undefeated.  4 team playoff -- big controversy.  8+ team playoff -- little to no controversy.  Plus we all get to watch more top caliber football games.  It's a win-win, IMO.


----------



## chalee94 (Jan 4, 2016)

ace2000 said:


> This year, the question would be how many teams could legitimately beat Clemson or Alabama?  I feel the four teams selected this year were the right amount of candidates and _some could've legitimately argued that there were none._



last year was interesting.  but this year, I definitely think it doesn't make sense to argue for expansion since all we added from the BCS days was a chance for #1 and #2 to skulldrag a pretender before playing each other...


----------



## Elan (Jan 4, 2016)

chalee94 said:


> last year was interesting.  but this year, I definitely think it doesn't make sense to argue for expansion since all we added from the BCS days was a chance for #1 and #2 to skulldrag a pretender before playing each other...



  Yes, but that's easy to say now.  As much as many here want to claim how good Alabama looks (which I now agree with), I don't think that was so apparent prior to the playoff game.  I watched them struggle offensively in many of their games against mediocre teams.  The other aspect is that many feel that in spite of not making the playoff, OSU was the best B10 team.  In an expanded playoff, perhaps they would have gotten in as an at-large along with MSU, and perhaps the Buckeyes could have thumped the Tide like they did last year (when nearly everyone expected Alabama to win).  Again, there's a ton of data out there that supports the notion that the outcome isn't as clear-cut as ESPN would like us all to believe.  As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on Clemson.  After watching UNC give up 600 rushing yards to Baylor, and watching FSU fall to Houston -- combined with the ACC's overall record in BCS era bowls, I'm not sure Clemson is "all that".  Having said that, I hope they prevail.  But I'm not betting on it.


----------



## csxjohn (Jan 4, 2016)

jme said:


> ..  Sounds more and more like a "good ole days" decision would have resulted in the same two teams, so......let's just have a drink. Cheers.



Just to clarify, when I'm looking for the good ole days, I'm talking before the BCS and there would be no top two team playoff.

Teams played in bowls by who knows what criteria, the only one I know is the Rose Bowl, and then let everyone figure out who they think is #1 if that's necessary.

I do enjoy this thread because it has let me get to know other teams and conferences that were too much for me to follow on  my own in the past. 

I'm all for having that drink though.


----------



## Elan (Jan 4, 2016)

csxjohn said:


> Just to clarify, when I'm looking for the good ole days, I'm talking before the BCS and there would be no top two team playoff.
> 
> Teams played in bowls by who knows what criteria, the only one I know is the Rose Bowl, and then let everyone figure out who they think is #1 if that's necessary.
> 
> ...



Right.  In the "good ole days" Alabama would have been in the Sugar Bowl and Clemson would have gone to the Orange Bowl.


----------



## ace2000 (Jan 4, 2016)

chalee94 said:


> last year was interesting.  but this year, I definitely think it doesn't make sense to argue for expansion since all we added from the BCS days was a chance for #1 and #2 to skulldrag a pretender before playing each other...



But last year, the four team playoff allowed Ohio St to be national champs...


----------



## Elan (Jan 4, 2016)

Here are the teams that made BCS bowls during the last 5 years of that era.  How many of these years is it clear cut which *4* teams should make a playoff?  Then decide again after you digest the outcomes of these games.  Not so easy, is it?  


-------------------------

  2009–10 season[edit]
See also: 2009–10 NCAA football bowl games
These BCS games were played following the 2009 regular season:

Friday, January 1, 2010 – Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi: No. 8 Ohio State (10–2, Big Ten champion) 26, No. 7 Oregon (10–2, Pac-10 champion) 17
Friday January 1, 2010 – Allstate Sugar Bowl: No. 5 Florida (12–1, At-large) 51, No. 3 Cincinnati (12–0, Big East champion) 24
Monday, January 4, 2010 – Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: No. 6 Boise State (13–0, WAC champion, At-large) 17, No. 4 TCU (12–0, MWC champion, Automatic non-AQ) 10
Tuesday, January 5, 2010 – FedEx Orange Bowl: No. 10 Iowa (10–2, At-large) 24 vs No. 9 Georgia Tech (10–2, ACC champion) 14
Thursday, January 7, 2010 – Citi BCS National Championship: No. 1 Alabama (13–0, BCS No. 1, SEC champion) 37 vs No. 2 Texas (13–0, BCS No. 2, Big 12 champion) 21
-------------------------

2010–11 season[edit]
See also: 2010-11 NCAA football bowl games
These BCS games were played following the 2010 regular season:

Saturday, January 1, 2011 – Rose Bowl Game presented by Vizio: No. 3 TCU (12–0, MWC champion, Automatic non-AQ) 21 vs. No. 5 Wisconsin (11–1, Big Ten champion) 19
Saturday, January 1, 2011 – Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: No. 7 Oklahoma (11–2, Big 12 champion) 48 vs. Connecticut (8–4, Big East champion) 20
Monday, January 3, 2011 – Discover Orange Bowl: No. 4 Stanford (11–1, Automatic "3–4 Rule"[28]) 40 vs. No. 13 Virginia Tech (11–2, ACC champion) 12
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 – Allstate Sugar Bowl: No. 6 Ohio State* (11–1, At-Large) 31 vs. No. 8 Arkansas (10–2, At-Large) 26
Monday, January 10, 2011 – Tostitos BCS National Championship: No. 1 Auburn (13–0, BCS No. 1, SEC champion) 22 vs. No. 2 Oregon (12–0, BCS No. 2, Pac-10 champion) 19
[29]

* Ohio State later vacated the win
-------------------------

2011–12 season[edit]
See also: 2011–12 NCAA football bowl games
These BCS games were played following the 2011 regular season:

Monday, January 2, 2012 – Rose Bowl Game presented by Vizio: No. 5 Oregon (11–2, Pac-12 champion) 45 vs. No. 10 Wisconsin (11–2, Big Ten champion) 38
Monday, January 2, 2012 – Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: No. 3 Oklahoma State (11–1, Big 12 champion) 41 vs. No. 4 Stanford (11–1, Automatic "3–4 Rule"[28]) 38 (OT)
Tuesday, January 3, 2012 – Allstate Sugar Bowl: No. 13 Michigan (10–2, At-Large) 23 vs. No. 11 Virginia Tech (11–2, At-Large) 20 (OT)
Wednesday, January 4, 2012 – Discover Orange Bowl: No. 23 West Virginia (9–3, Big East champion) 70 vs. No. 15 Clemson (10–3, ACC champion) 33
Monday, January 9, 2012 – Allstate BCS National Championship: No. 2 Alabama (11–1, BCS No. 2, Automatic) 21 vs. No. 1 LSU (13–0, BCS No. 1, SEC champion) 0
-------------------------

2012–13 season[edit]
See also: 2012–13 NCAA football bowl games
These BCS games were played following the 2012 regular season:

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 – Rose Bowl Game presented by Vizio: No. 6 Stanford (11–2, Pac-12 champion) 20 vs. Wisconsin (8–5, Big Ten champion) 14
Tuesday, January 1, 2013 – Discover Orange Bowl: No. 12 Florida State (11–2, ACC champion) 31 vs. No. 15 NIU (12–1, MAC champion, Automatic non-AQ) 10
Wednesday, January 2, 2013 – Allstate Sugar Bowl: No. 21 Louisville (10–2, Big East champion) 33 vs. No. 3 Florida (11–1, Automatic "3–4 Rule"[28]) 23
Thursday, January 3, 2013 – Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: No. 4 Oregon (11–1, At-Large) 35 vs. No. 5 Kansas State (11–1, Big 12 champion) 17
Monday, January 7, 2013 – Discover BCS National Championship: No. 2 Alabama (12–1, BCS No. 2, SEC champion) 42 vs. No. 1 Notre Dame (12–0, BCS No. 1, Automatic[24]) 14
-------------------------

2013–14 season[edit]
See also: 2013–14 NCAA football bowl games
These BCS games were played following the 2013 regular season:

Wednesday, January 1, 2014 – Rose Bowl Game presented by Vizio (Pasadena, CA): No. 4 Michigan State (12-1, Big Ten champion) 24 vs. No. 5 Stanford (11-2, Pac 12 champion) 20
Wednesday, January 1, 2014 – Tostitos Fiesta Bowl (Glendale, AZ): No. 15 UCF (11–1, American Athletic Conference champion) 52 vs. No. 6 Baylor (11-1, Big 12 champion) 42
Thursday, January 2, 2014 – Allstate Sugar Bowl (New Orleans, LA): No. 11 Oklahoma (10–2, At-Large) 45 vs. No. 3 Alabama (11–1, Automatic "3–4 Rule"[28]) 31
Friday, January 3, 2014 – Discover Orange Bowl (Miami Gardens, FL): No. 12 Clemson (10–2, At-Large) 40 vs. No. 7 Ohio State (12–1, At-Large) 35
Monday, January 6, 2014 – Vizio BCS National Championship (Pasadena, CA): No. 1 Florida State (13–0, ACC champion) 34 vs. No. 2 Auburn (12–1, SEC champion) 31


----------



## jme (Jan 4, 2016)

csxjohn said:


> Just to clarify, when I'm looking for the good ole days, I'm talking before the BCS and there would be no top two team playoff.
> 
> Teams played in bowls by who knows what criteria, the only one I know is the Rose Bowl, and then let everyone figure out who they think is #1 if that's necessary.
> 
> ...



Then we both agree on when the "good ole days" were!

...and yes the bowls had wacky criteria for participants sometimes. At the end of the day (when the bowls were over), it certainly made for some great conversations.....sort of like this thread now......and I kinda liked that. 

I could argue my case with no definitive evidence to back it up.    HaHa





Elan said:


> Right.  In the "good ole days" Alabama would have been in the Sugar Bowl and Clemson would have gone to the Orange Bowl.



exactly.......brilliant.

....and then both victors claimed the #1 spot.......exactly indeed. 

best part, instead of one scowl & one smirk, both parties raised a glass.


----------



## CCR (Jan 12, 2016)

Roll Tide Roll!!!  Come on guys score!!


----------



## jme (Jan 12, 2016)

jme said:


> ....Alabama is looking unstoppable, imho, and Derek Henry WILL win the Heisman, ...
> .






yep, and yep  

Alabama 45 ......  Clemson 40


----------



## am1 (Jan 12, 2016)

The SEC is once again at the top.  Even in a down year.


----------



## lizap (Jan 12, 2016)

Why don't they ask Nick Saban how much longer he is going to be at AL and go ahead and award them the NC for that many years??


----------



## pedro47 (Jan 12, 2016)

Some months ago I predicted that their would be no undefeated college football team for the 2015-2016 season.

Last night there were two (2) great football teams on the field one was 14-0.

The other team had been defeated during the regular football season.

After the game the Alabama football team were again the NCAA College Football Champion.

The players on both team looked and active like young college "students."

Great game and great players on both teams.


----------



## ace2000 (Jan 12, 2016)

Alabama wins the national title for the fourth time in seven years!  

Thanks Elan, for getting the thread going and keeping it alive throughout the season.  I enjoyed reading all the comments from everyone.

Csxjohn - did you get to go the game or did you sell the tickets?


----------



## csxjohn (Jan 12, 2016)

ace2000 said:


> ...
> Csxjohn - did you get to go the game or did you sell the tickets?



I went to the game, sold three tix to friends I met in Phoenix.  I was in the end zone away from the bands, the left side on the TV screen.

I was rooting for Clemson because I was befriended by a group of their cheerleaders downtown Sat night and I was tailgating with a bunch of Clemson peeps in the parking lot before the game.

I was still really neutral going inside and did not bet a penny on the game because then I knew I would not enjoy the game.  I would have bet on Alabama because all year I stated I thought they were the best.

When I got in I was seated near some very obnoxious Ala fans so I was leaning back toward Clemson.  The only time they were quiet was when Clem. had a good drive.

When the game was over they showed their lack of class by singing a song to the tiger fans rubbing in that they got beat by Ala.  Everyone knew the outcome, why sing a song about it??

As many times as the secondary let the tigers down and the awful play on the special teams, they were still in the game to the end.

My final feeling is that I think that the way it went at the end of the season, OSU would have beaten either of these teams.  That's what makes this fun.


----------



## jme (Jan 12, 2016)

csxjohn said:


> My final feeling is that I think that the way it went at the end of the season, OSU would have beaten either of these teams.



actually, neither. 

not in same class this year. AL and Clemson much superior.

OSU should have been in playoffs, but that's all I'm giving 'em.

OMG here we go again.


----------



## csxjohn (Jan 12, 2016)

jme said:


> actually, neither.
> 
> not in same class this year. AL and Clemson much superior.
> 
> ...



That's why for me, we don't need the playoffs, I know OSU is better and you know differently.  That's the way I like it.


----------



## colatown (Jan 12, 2016)

csxjohn said:


> I went to the game, sold three tix to friends I met in Phoenix.  I was in the end zone away from the bands, the left side on the TV screen.
> 
> I was rooting for Clemson because I was befriended by a group of their cheerleaders downtown Sat night and I was tailgating with a bunch of Clemson peeps in the parking lot before the game.
> 
> ...


You haven't spent enough time around Taters if you think Bammer fans are obnoxious.


----------



## csxjohn (Jan 12, 2016)

colatown said:


> You haven't spent enough time around Taters if you think Bammer fans are obnoxious.



You're right, I haven't.  From the two days I spent around both leading up to this game I feel both sets of fans were great until the few loud mouths sitting around me at the game.  I really disliked the "you got your azz's kicked by Ala" song.

They really weren't all that bad, the normal stuff, every play Clemson committed a foul and Ala never did anything wrong.  It just got on my nerves play after play.

When I pulled in the parking lot I saw some fans with a table set up and decided to park next to them.  They happened to be Clemson fans.  I introduced myself, shared some beers, they shared their foods and snacks with me.  I really had a great time with them and am sure if I had parked near Ala fans it would have been the same.

This was the first time I saw a football game in a dome and I really didn't like it.  I felt like I was at a hockey game with a bigger playing area.  Just didn't have the right feel for a football game.

I was really impressed with the way the grass held up to the players cleats. What a great idea to let the grass grow outdoors then wheel it in for the games.

One thing I did not like was that everyone stood up for every play.  If you didn't stand up you couldn't see.  I have trouble staying on my feet too long and getting up and down is not easy.  I was glad to read in the game guide that standing for every play would not be allowed but when the game started it was not that way.  You could really see everything nicely while sitting and I can see standing when a real exciting play took place but every play??  Oh well, I'll know next time.


----------



## am1 (Jan 12, 2016)

An ohio state fan criticizing other fan bases.  That takes the cake. You do know what the rest of the Big 10 fan bases think about ohio state fans?

I am glad you enjoyed the game.  It is amazing what they can do with moving grass in and out of domes.  



csxjohn said:


> You're right, I haven't.  From the two days I spent around both leading up to this game I feel both sets of fans were great until the few loud mouths sitting around me at the game.  I really disliked the "you got your azz's kicked by Ala" song.
> 
> They really weren't all that bad, the normal stuff, every play Clemson committed a foul and Ala never did anything wrong.  It just got on my nerves play after play.
> 
> ...


----------



## csxjohn (Jan 13, 2016)

am1 said:


> An ohio state fan criticizing other fan bases.  That takes the cake. You do know what the rest of the Big 10 fan bases think about ohio state fans?
> 
> ....



No, I really don't.   I'm not in Columbus, a couple of hours north, and I've seen this mentioned here on TUG before.  I am unaware of what it's like at their games.

I do know that the five years I lived in Toledo the city was split down the middle between TTUN and OSU.  It was a healthy rivalry with a lot of kidding back and forth but fun just the same.  People's office would get painted with the opposing teams colors when they weren't around and things like that.

OSU has the chant O-H then form someone else I-O and they have the spelling out of Ohio with their arms.  Other than that I don't know what they do that would rub someone the wrong way.

I guess it depends on where and when you run into OSU fans on how you perceive their actions


----------



## am1 (Jan 14, 2016)

You do know that they ran their biggest supporter out of town?  
Every other BIG 10 school, (not sure of the new ones) agree that osu fans are the worse.  You know how hard it is to get college football fans to agree on anything? At least 10 fan bases. 



csxjohn said:


> No, I really don't.   I'm not in Columbus, a couple of hours north, and I've seen this mentioned here on TUG before.  I am unaware of what it's like at their games.
> 
> I do know that the five years I lived in Toledo the city was split down the middle between TTUN and OSU.  It was a healthy rivalry with a lot of kidding back and forth but fun just the same.  People's office would get painted with the opposing teams colors when they weren't around and things like that.
> 
> ...


----------



## csxjohn (Jan 15, 2016)

am1 said:


> You do know that they ran their biggest supporter out of town?
> ....



Nope.  Fill me in.  I only follow during the season and occasionally someone on FB will post something, and I don't follow all that closely.

Could all the other Big10 fan bases be jealous of OSU's recent success and thus put hate on the fans?  In most sports, fans of one team hate the fans of a teams that constantly beat them.

They may be the worst fans around but I've not been aware of it.


----------



## am1 (Jan 15, 2016)

Kirk Herbstreit  left Columbus a few years ago because he could not stand the homers of osu. 

The other Big 10 team fan bases do not like osu fans because of how their fans act.  Urban Meyer was disliked by the fan base until he joined them.  Then all of a sudden he could do no wrong. 





csxjohn said:


> Nope.  Fill me in.  I only follow during the season and occasionally someone on FB will post something, and I don't follow all that closely.
> 
> Could all the other Big10 fan bases be jealous of OSU's recent success and thus put hate on the fans?  In most sports, fans of one team hate the fans of a teams that constantly beat them.
> 
> They may be the worst fans around but I've not been aware of it.


----------



## Elan (Jan 26, 2016)

I love this time of year immediately prior to LOI day.  All of the stupid articles about who has the top recruiting classes, etc.  If I had a nickel for every 5 star recruit that never played a down or every walk-on that went pro.........

  Yet another over hyped aspect of CFB driven by the media primarily to provide mindless content.


----------



## jme (Jan 26, 2016)

Elan said:


> I love this time of year immediately prior to LOI day.  All of the stupid articles about who has the top recruiting classes, etc.  If I had a nickel for every 5 star recruit that never played a down or every walk-on that went pro.........
> 
> Yet another over hyped aspect of CFB driven by the media primarily to provide mindless content.



You are so right.............that is, except for Alabama's 

My team UGA has had several "best running back in country" signees in last decade, and most have been huge disappointments, or got injured and were non-factors. Not to mention our 350-lb linemen signees who can't even block sunburn.

It's just as mindless as listening to the pre-game "match-ups" debate, whether college or NFL.  (That said, I still love watching "College Game Day" with Kirk Herbstreit and Lee Corso purely for entertainment.)

Write down all they say pre-Super Bowl, then see how much was relevant.  

Basically the team with the most points wins, and not much else is predictable. That's why I avoid the pre-game NFL shows like the plague.


----------



## Elan (Jan 26, 2016)

jme said:


> You are so right.............that is, except for Alabama's
> 
> My team UGA has had several "best running back in country" signees in last decade, and most have been huge disappointments, or got injured and were non-factors. Not to mention our 350-lb linemen signees who can't even block sunburn.
> 
> It's just as mindless as listening to the pre-game "match-ups" debate, whether college or NFL.  (That said, I still love watching "College Game Day" with Kirk Herbstreit and Lee Corso purely for entertainment.)



  Even Alabama can't recruit a QB.  

  Yeah, Game Day is good entertainment, but primarily because Corso keeps them from taking themselves too seriously.

  Speaking of linemen, I remember watching the BSU v UGA game when UGA had what was supposedly the biggest O-line ever in the SEC -- presumably 4 and 5 star recruits -- and they couldn't keep BSU's mostly 2-star D-line out of the backfield.  All of that D-line went on to the NFL.


----------



## jme (Jan 26, 2016)

Elan said:


> Even Alabama can't recruit a QB.
> 
> Yeah, Game Day is good entertainment, but primarily because Corso keeps them from taking themselves too seriously.
> 
> Speaking of linemen, I remember watching the BSU v UGA game when UGA had what was supposedly the biggest O-line ever in the SEC -- presumably 4 and 5 star recruits -- and they couldn't keep BSU's mostly 2-star D-line out of the backfield.  All of that D-line went on to the NFL.



Does Alabama NEED a quarterback?  I wasn't aware that they did.

......AND, that UGA O-line you're referring to....it was the largest in FOOTBALL that year, including the NFL.  

Like I said previously, they can't block sunburn. I've seen Maple Syrup move faster than those guys. It was like watching rabbits running through a school bus parking lot. 




.


----------



## Elan (Jan 26, 2016)

The starting center for Denver in the upcoming Super Bowl, regarded by many to be Denver's best O-lineman this year (with Clady out), played 8-man football in high school and was a walk-on in college.  Clady, who's a 4-time Pro Bowler, was a 2-star recruit.


----------



## Elan (Jan 26, 2016)

The most amusing part of recruiting to me is that a recruit's rating will often change based solely on who's offered.


----------



## jme (Jan 26, 2016)

Elan said:


> The most amusing part of recruiting to me is that a recruit's rating will often change based solely on who's offered.



Of course.

For that reason, it SHOULD change.  I'm assuming that the coaches have done their due diligence, and the more highly-rated schools offering, the better chance that the player is a great one. It makes good sense. 

If they're recruited by USC, OSU, FL St, LSU, MI, FL, Auburn, Alabama, then you can bet he's going to have a higher rating. 

WHO ELSE watches and judges films and decides?


----------



## Elan (Jan 26, 2016)

jme said:


> Of course.
> 
> For that reason, it SHOULD change.  I'm assuming that the coaches have done their due diligence, and the more highly-rated schools offering, the better chance that the player is a great one. It makes good sense.
> 
> ...



  Scout and Rivals issue the star ratings.  There are lots of people paid to do just that.  

  Missouri just flipped a BSU commit.  Kid went from 4 stars to 3 on Rivals.  Silly.


----------



## colatown (Jan 26, 2016)

Elan said:


> Even Alabama can't recruit a QB.
> 
> Yeah, Game Day is good entertainment, but primarily because Corso keeps them from taking themselves too seriously.
> 
> Speaking of linemen, I remember watching the BSU v UGA game when UGA had what was supposedly the biggest O-line ever in the SEC -- presumably 4 and 5 star recruits -- and they couldn't keep BSU's mostly 2-star D-line out of the backfield.  All of that D-line went on to the NFL.



There were at least 10 SEC teams that wished they had Coker this year.


----------



## Elan (Jan 26, 2016)

colatown said:


> There were at least 10 SEC teams that wished they had Coker this year.



  Coker was a transfer.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 26, 2016)

from FSU =)


----------

