header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?

 (Read 15133 times)

medinabuckeye1

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 3362
  • Liked:
Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
« Reply #504 on: December 06, 2017, 03:45:01 PM »
Since they didn't allow anyone outside of the old Confederacy to participate, perhaps the Union should hold a playoff of its own.
Not true.  Oklahoma was NOT in the Confederacy.  It didn't become a state until 1900.  
I know this because I was driving through Oklahoma once and noticed a GAR (Grand Army of the Republic) cemetery.  I thought that was odd because you most definitely would NEVER see that in neighboring Texas.  A lot of Oklahoma's early settlers were Union veterans from the Civil War.  

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 8462
  • Liked:
Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
« Reply #505 on: December 06, 2017, 04:48:52 PM »
Well.....lessee......pre-playoffs, we had champions from:
confederacy for 9 years
CA (no side)
1 confederacy
1 union
1 confederacy
OK (no side)
2 confederacy

So that's 13 for the south, 1 for the north, and 2 johnny-come-latelies......so let's not poo-poo the playoff selections.  Seems like more of the same, if anything a'tall.
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 5424
  • Liked:
Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
« Reply #506 on: December 06, 2017, 05:11:43 PM »
Not true.  Oklahoma was NOT in the Confederacy.  It didn't become a state until 1900.  
I know this because I was driving through Oklahoma once and noticed a GAR (Grand Army of the Republic) cemetery.  I thought that was odd because you most definitely would NEVER see that in neighboring Texas.  A lot of Oklahoma's early settlers were Union veterans from the Civil War.  
You know this from driving through the state, and not from the (at least) two years of American History you took in junior high and high school?  ;)


Anyway, yeah, Oklahoma was not part of the confederacy and most certainly is not a Southern state in culture, either.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 05:14:44 PM by utee94 »

Brutus Buckeye

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6178
  • Liked:
Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
« Reply #507 on: December 06, 2017, 05:19:09 PM »
Not true.  Oklahoma was NOT in the Confederacy.  It didn't become a state until 1900.  
I know this because I was driving through Oklahoma once and noticed a GAR (Grand Army of the Republic) cemetery.  I thought that was odd because you most definitely would NEVER see that in neighboring Texas.  A lot of Oklahoma's early settlers were Union veterans from the Civil War.  
It may not have been a State, but it was in the CSA. 
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

medinabuckeye1

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 3362
  • Liked:
Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
« Reply #508 on: December 06, 2017, 05:20:09 PM »
Well.....lessee......pre-playoffs, we had champions from:
confederacy for 9 years
CA (no side)
1 confederacy
1 union
1 confederacy
OK (no side)
2 confederacy

So that's 13 for the south, 1 for the north, and 2 johnny-come-latelies......so let's not poo-poo the playoff selections.  Seems like more of the same, if anything a'tall.
California was a Union State.  

medinabuckeye1

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 3362
  • Liked:
Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
« Reply #509 on: December 06, 2017, 05:21:37 PM »

Honestbuckeye

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2058
  • Liked:
Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
« Reply #510 on: December 06, 2017, 05:29:26 PM »
This really is the main remaining question.  The two two-loss champions that got left out both had at least one REALLY bad loss.  
You have said that you believe that it was the bad loss that kept them out.  Fearless has said that they simply count up losses.  I'm not sure.  
Last year I thought (hoped) that the committee was rewarding SoS.  Ohio State's last year was clearly better than PSU's with the OOC blowout road win over a P5 Champion along with a road win over UW, a road loss at PSU, etc.  
This year made clear that it isn't simply SoS.  Bama's SoS was not better than Ohio State's.  That leaves two possibilities:
  • They simply count up losses.  Bama-17 and tOSU-16 got in because they had less losses.  
  • That bad losses are fatal.  PSU-16 and tOSU-17 both had big losses and both got excluded.  

Oh- PSU would probably have gotten in at 12-1- over WASHINGTON!!
it cracks me up that people keep saying OSU got in over them.  NO_ as the committee said 1000 times, the last spot was a debate between those two.
here is what your missing PSU- and are almost all of the talking heads and fans who are reacting:
last year, OSU had arguably THE BEST RESUME OUT THERE. It ended with what was openly referred to as a play in game on the last day of the regular season between two of the CFP top 4- a game OSU won.  They went into the Championship game Weekend already SOLIDLY in the top 4. They were 3 if I recall.
The committee considered putting PSU- a 2 loss Champ, at 4 over a 1 loss champ with a less impressive schedule.
This year- Bama had no such resume. went into the last game against a good team and got beaten convincingly,  and went into the championship weekend NOT IN THE TOP 4.   They moved up by losing their last game soundly, and by not playing at all.
TWO THINGS THAT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE- a team losing last game and getting in, and a team not in top 4, not playing id jumping into top 4.
By the way- that's no great injustice to OSU. If Bama was ranked 4 going in- half this noise would go away.
But lie Typhonic- this is the first year you cant follow what they did and support it with facts, and it does not match what they said- or their rankings on the penultimate weekend.
They never thought Wisky was number 4 - which I also don't understand because they had the least LOSSES  (hello- you said that was it right committee), and gave OSU no credit for winning.
anyway-- different perspective below...
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2017/12/89018/travelers-and-thieves
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
-Mark Twain

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 5424
  • Liked:
Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
« Reply #511 on: December 06, 2017, 07:11:26 PM »
It may not have been a State, but it was in the CSA.

Perhaps the Civil War Sooner will appear and enlighten us on the true nature of Oklahoma's involvement in the Civil War.  Pretty sure he'd know the details of it.

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13721
  • Liked:
Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
« Reply #512 on: December 06, 2017, 07:24:25 PM »
most recruits can't remember Scott Frost as a player

the Civil War is REALLY going to be a stretch
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

CWSooner

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3991
  • Liked:
Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
« Reply #513 on: December 06, 2017, 11:30:45 PM »
Quote
Perhaps the Civil War Sooner will appear and enlighten us on the true nature of Oklahoma's involvement in the Civil War.  Pretty sure he'd know the details of it.
Speak of the devil . . . .

Oklahoma history is not really my subject, but Oklahoma was Indian Territory at the time.  The only federal officials prior to the war were just there to oversee the various Plains Indian tribes that had been relocated there, other than the "Five Civilized Tribes" relocated from what is now called the Southeastern U.S.

The Confederacy gained the loyalty of most of the tribes by granting them representation in the C.S. Congress, and because the Civilized Tribes were slaveholders, like their former white neighbors back in the South.  The Cherokees were notably split.  The more assimilated, more intermarried-with-whites faction, led by former chief John Ross (7/8 Scotch-Irish, IIRC) stuck with the Union.  The less-assimilated, more pure-blood faction, led by principal chief Stand Watie, went with the Confederates.  Stand Watie would go on to be the last Confederate general to surrender in 1865.

There were a fair number of small battles fought in Indian Territory.  Several of them were inter-tribal Cherokee fights.  Indian Territory was more or less secured for the Union with the Battle of Honey Springs, near modern-day Checotah, in July 1863, same month as Gettysburg.  There is a re-enactment held there every year.  Even though it was the biggest battle fought in the territory, it was still a small affair, with fewer than 10,000 total troops involved.  The losing Confederates were the larger force.  Both sides contained mostly black and Indian troops.

After the war, the Indians lost more of their land for having sided with the Confederates.  The Cherokees got no break for having been split.  The western part of Indian Territory was opened to white settlement with a series of land runs beginning in 1889 and ending in 1895.  This part of the state was designated Oklahoma Territory, while the eastern part, where the 5 Civilized Tribes and Osages lived, remained Indian Territory.  The two sections merged into the State of Oklahoma, the 46th state, in 1907.
Play Like a Champion Today

rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1366
  • Liked:
Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
« Reply #514 on: December 07, 2017, 11:25:18 AM »
Oh- PSU would probably have gotten in at 12-1- over WASHINGTON!!
it cracks me up that people keep saying OSU got in over them.  NO_ as the committee said 1000 times, the last spot was a debate between those two.
here is what your missing PSU- and are almost all of the talking heads and fans who are reacting:
last year, OSU had arguably THE BEST RESUME OUT THERE. It ended with what was openly referred to as a play in game on the last day of the regular season between two of the CFP top 4- a game OSU won.  They went into the Championship game Weekend already SOLIDLY in the top 4. They were 3 if I recall.
The committee considered putting PSU- a 2 loss Champ, at 4 over a 1 loss champ with a less impressive schedule.
This year- Bama had no such resume. went into the last game against a good team and got beaten convincingly,  and went into the championship weekend NOT IN THE TOP 4.   They moved up by losing their last game soundly, and by not playing at all.
TWO THINGS THAT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE- a team losing last game and getting in, and a team not in top 4, not playing id jumping into top 4.
By the way- that's no great injustice to OSU. If Bama was ranked 4 going in- half this noise would go away.
But lie Typhonic- this is the first year you cant follow what they did and support it with facts, and it does not match what they said- or their rankings on the penultimate weekend.
They never thought Wisky was number 4 - which I also don't understand because they had the least LOSSES  (hello- you said that was it right committee), and gave OSU no credit for winning.
anyway-- different perspective below...
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2017/12/89018/travelers-and-thieves

first, i won't pretend to know or understand what the committee was thinking when the said it was really close 1 week before ccgames and then not really all that close the week after. i would suggest it was simply a lie to garner ratings, cause saying 'it's the winners of seccg, acccg, ou and wisk if they win, bama if one loses' won't build suspense.
based on what they said prior to ccgames, i said i suspected osu was in with a win. if what they said was true, then osu should have been in. but apparently it wasn't true and they though bama was simply clearly better. simply, they lied prior to the ccgame, imo.
i also don't disagree with the thought of how bama could possibly move up having not played. but to counter argue, teams move up and down all the time having not played due to results of those around them. that's how bama moved up. agree with that movement or not, matters not (and i won't argue with either sentiment), it's the simple truth of why/how.
having said that, i don't put much stock into "NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE" things. this cfp is in its infancy and every year there will be a 'never happened before'. with osu this year, there'd be at least 2 never happened before's with the 2 losses and a blow out loss. last year they had a big one with the non-champ thing (maybe paving the way for bama to oust them this year, in some form of irony). i said all along there would eventually be 2 from same conf, and we hit that this year as well. the only thing i'm not sure will eventually happen that is commonly discussed is a g5 team getting in. i think it's possible, and last year there was a chance had houston not crapped themselves. but unless it's expanded i won't say it will happen for sure. but everything else (2 loss team, team blown out, teams from same state, repeat champ, rematch from reg season, etc.) will eventually happen. many sooner than we likely think.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 11:30:11 AM by rolltidefan »

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10314
  • Liked:
Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
« Reply #515 on: December 07, 2017, 11:52:36 AM »
Speak of the devil . . . .

Oklahoma history is not really my subject, but Oklahoma was Indian Territory at the time.  The only federal officials prior to the war were just there to oversee the various Plains Indian tribes that had been relocated there, other than the "Five Civilized Tribes" relocated from what is now called the Southeastern U.S.

The Confederacy gained the loyalty of most of the tribes by granting them representation in the C.S. Congress, and because the Civilized Tribes were slaveholders, like their former white neighbors back in the South.  The Cherokees were notably split.  The more assimilated, more intermarried-with-whites faction, led by former chief John Ross (7/8 Scotch-Irish, IIRC) stuck with the Union.  The less-assimilated, more pure-blood faction, led by principal chief Stand Watie, went with the Confederates.  Stand Watie would go on to be the last Confederate general to surrender in 1865.

There were a fair number of small battles fought in Indian Territory.  Several of them were inter-tribal Cherokee fights.  Indian Territory was more or less secured for the Union with the Battle of Honey Springs, near modern-day Checotah, in July 1863, same month as Gettysburg.  There is a re-enactment held there every year.  Even though it was the biggest battle fought in the territory, it was still a small affair, with fewer than 10,000 total troops involved.  The losing Confederates were the larger force.  Both sides contained mostly black and Indian troops.

After the war, the Indians lost more of their land for having sided with the Confederates.  The Cherokees got no break for having been split.  The western part of Indian Territory was opened to white settlement with a series of land runs beginning in 1889 and ending in 1895.  This part of the state was designated Oklahoma Territory, while the eastern part, where the 5 Civilized Tribes and Osages lived, remained Indian Territory.  The two sections merged into the State of Oklahoma, the 46th state, in 1907.
Thank you for this, CW. Fascinating stuff.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

CWSooner

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3991
  • Liked:
Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
« Reply #516 on: December 07, 2017, 02:24:45 PM »
No sweat, Badge.  This "Civil War of College Football" is sort of an interesting distraction.

Territorial governments were creations of the U.S. government.  They had no standing to announce secession.  The most secessionist thing that could happen would be for them to be occupied by Confederate forces and a brand-new pro-Confederate "territorial government" installed. But that would be because of military conquest, not because the lawful territorial government chose to side with the Confederacy.

Maybe this map will provide additional clarification.


The legend won't post as an image, but what it says is:
US Secession map 1863.
The Union vs. the Confederacy.
[dark blue] Union states
[light blue] Union territories prohibiting slavery
[yellow] Border union states permitting slavery
[tan] Union territories permitting slavery
[brown] Union territories permitting slavery (claimed by Confederacy)
Play Like a Champion Today

medinabuckeye1

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 3362
  • Liked:
Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
« Reply #517 on: December 07, 2017, 02:31:56 PM »
No sweat, Badge.  This "Civil War of College Football" is sort of an interesting distraction.

Territorial governments were creations of the U.S. government.  They had no standing to announce secession.  The most secessionist thing that could happen would be for them to be occupied by Confederate forces and a brand-new pro-Confederate "territorial government" installed. But that would be because of military conquest, not because the lawful territorial government chose to side with the Confederacy.

Maybe this map will provide additional clarification.


The legend won't post as an image, but what it says is:
US Secession map 1863.
The Union vs. the Confederacy.
[dark blue] Union states
[light blue] Union territories prohibiting slavery
[yellow] Border union states permitting slavery
[tan] Union territories permitting slavery
[brown] Union territories permitting slavery (claimed by Confederacy)
I just want to add/clarify that both Nevada and obviously West Virginia became states during the War.  

 

Associate Links/Search