College football 2015

[Elan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Talent312]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[ace2000]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.