College football 2015

[jme]

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]

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]

...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]

A bunch of blow outs today. Yesterday as well.

 

[pedro47]

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

 

[Elan]

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]

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]

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"]

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]

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.

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]

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"]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Inadvertent post


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[jme]

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.