College football 2015

[csxjohn]

.....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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

well, to make up for for the snoozers in the big bowls...these last few games have been outstanding!

 

[Elan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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




.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.