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.


« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 22   Go Down
Author

Topic: Rank these teams

 (Read 25495 times)

bayareabadger

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 9366
  • Liked:
Re: Rank these teams
« Reply #252 on: December 17, 2020, 01:21:27 PM »
Quote from: bwarbiany on December 17, 2020, 12:58:37 PM
I know how much you hate Rutger, but would you really ditch them to pick up Cincinnati? It's not even close.
If that trade was offered, I’d take it. 
Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 83057
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rank these teams
« Reply #253 on: December 17, 2020, 01:23:07 PM »
Maybe UC is dilutive NOW but perhaps not in the future?  Imagine the B12 invites say Houston and decides they need an even number of teams.  Memphis?  Cincy?  I could envision a situation where a conference would look for a team to round things out.

Maybe.

But it might take a situation where said conference is desperate as happened last time with UL et al.

Logged

bayareabadger

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 9366
  • Liked:
Re: Rank these teams
« Reply #254 on: December 17, 2020, 01:28:02 PM »
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on December 17, 2020, 01:15:52 PM
Cincinnati is 0-8 vs ranked OOC teams the past 12 years.  That might have something to do with the lack of respect for this year's squad, who couldn't play any OOC games (and thus, has a high school schedule).


It doesn’t. You’ve done more thinking than they have. And for working in a school, you don’t seem to ever know how they work. 
Logged

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 21808
  • Liked:
Re: Rank these teams
« Reply #255 on: December 17, 2020, 01:39:36 PM »
Quote from: bayareabadger on December 17, 2020, 01:28:02 PM
It doesn’t. You’ve done more thinking than they have. And for working in a school, you don’t seem to ever know how they work.
What's the connection between the playoff committee and a school again?  Or how college athletic department scheduling and financing compares to teaching in an elementary school?  I'm all ears.
Logged
“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

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 31210
  • Liked:
Re: Rank these teams
« Reply #256 on: December 17, 2020, 01:55:17 PM »
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on December 17, 2020, 01:18:59 PM
Not 10?  Aside from being a helmet program, had Penn State made itself at home and belong in the B1G?
PSU can stay. 11 is a good number to play 10 conference games.
Logged
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

MaximumSam

  • Guest
Re: Rank these teams
« Reply #257 on: December 17, 2020, 02:40:34 PM »
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on December 17, 2020, 09:02:03 AM
Seriously, let's do this and then the charade of G5 programs having a shot can be put to rest. 
They don't have a shot, but they're told they do.  It's dishonest.  They're in purgatory.  It's 2020, everything is upside-down.  Give the G5 half the spots and watch the carnage.
It wouldn't differ much from the playoffs now. Have we had one year where at least one game wasn't a blowout?
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10655
  • Liked:
Re: Rank these teams
« Reply #258 on: December 17, 2020, 02:45:57 PM »
Quote from: bayareabadger on December 17, 2020, 01:21:27 PM
If that trade was offered, I’d take it.
I wouldn't.  
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10655
  • Liked:
Re: Rank these teams
« Reply #259 on: December 17, 2020, 02:59:45 PM »
Quote from: MaximumSam on December 17, 2020, 02:40:34 PM
It wouldn't differ much from the playoffs now. Have we had one year where at least one game wasn't a blowout?
Ok, but they haven't all or even nearly all been blowouts.  I'll ignore the NC games because any team that got there already won a semi-final.  In the semis we have had:
  • 39 point win (Oregon over FSU in 2014)
  • 38 point win (Bama over MSU in 2015)
  • 35 point win (LSU over OU in 2019)
  • 31 point win (Clemson over tOSU in 2016)
  • 27 point win (Clemson over ND in 2018)
  • 20 point win (Clemson over OU in 2015)
  • 18 point win (Bama over Clemson in 2017)
  • 17 point win (Bama over Washington in 2016)
  • 11 point win (Bama over OU in 2018)
  • 7 point win (tOSU over Bama in 2014)
  • 6 point win (Clemson over tOSU in 2019)
  • OT win (UGA over OU in 2017)


So in 12 semi-finals we have:
  • 4 five+ possession games
  • 1 four possession game
  • 3 three possession games
  • 1 two possession games
  • 3 one possession games

That isn't all that bad.  One quarter of the games have been great.  UGA's and OU's OT thriller along with tOSU's one TD win over Bama and six point loss to Clemson were all great games.  Even the four two and three possession games aren't all that bad.  Those, for the most part, represent reasonably competitive games where the loser wasn't all that far off.  Less than half have been just complete blowouts.  

Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 83057
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rank these teams
« Reply #260 on: December 17, 2020, 03:02:24 PM »
If we think a 17 point win is a noncompetitive game (arguably), more than half fall into that group.
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10655
  • Liked:
Re: Rank these teams
« Reply #261 on: December 17, 2020, 03:34:33 PM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on December 17, 2020, 03:02:24 PM
If we think a 17 point win is a noncompetitive game (arguably), more than half fall into that group.
You are right at least some of the time.  I didn't dig into it.  Obviously a 17 point game could be either of two extremes (highly competitive, winner scored a bunch right at the end or not competitive at all, loser scored a bunch right at the end) or anything in between.  

The examples I always use when we talk MOV are two Ohio State games that I attended:
  • In 2006 the Buckeyes beat Penn State by 22 points, 28-6.  Sounds like a blowout, right?  Not so fast.  The Buckeyes trailed at the half (3-0) and led by just four points (7-3) entering the fourth quarter.  In the fourth quarter the Buckeyes scored a second TD to stretch their lead to 14-3 but PSU answered with another FG to make it a one-possession game at 14-6 mid-way though the final period.  The game was a fairly evenly matched defensive struggle and with a little over two minutes remaining PSU was driving near midfield.  At that point it still could have gone either way.  Then PSU threw pick-6's on back-to-back possessions and the Buckeyes won by the comfortable-looking final score of 28-6.  
  • Way back in 1995 while I was a student the Buckeyes beat Iowa by 21 points, 56-35.  Sounds closer than the aforementioned PSU game, right?  Not so fast.  The Buckeyes absolutely obliterated Iowa in that game.  Shortly before halftime the Buckeyes led 56-0 and HC John Cooper started pulling starters.  That year's Heisman winner didn't see the field again after scoring Ohio State's eighth TD of the game.  The starting QB, TE, and a starting WR also didn't play for Ohio State in the second half and it showed.  After building up a 56-0 lead the Buckeyes got outscored 35-0 in the final 31 minutes to win by the much-closer-than-it-was score of 56-35.  


The actual game in question is Bama's 17 point win over Washington in 2016.  Washington scored first and it was tied going into the second quarter.  Bama scored a TD late in the second quarter to take a 10 point lead into halftime (17-7) and that carried though the scoreless third quarter.  The stats are pretty lopsided but watching it live I didn't feel like Washington was completely hopeless until Bama scored their final TD early in the fourth quarter.  Ie, it seemed reasonably competitive to me.  

The 18 point win (Bama over Clemson) also felt reasonably competitive to me.  Bama opened up a 10-0 lead early but Clemson clawed their way back to within four points (10-6) early in the third quarter.  Bama scored a TD late in the third quarter to stretch their lead out to 11 points (17-6) but it still didn't feel completely hopeless until Clemson threw a Pick-6 on the ensuing possession and fell behind by the 24-6 final score.  

I would consider both of those games to be "reasonably competitive".  FWIW, I define "reasonably competitive basically by asking the question:
  • If you were a neutral fan watching the game (I was for both of those), at what point would you have decided that it was hopeless for team that eventually lost.   
The answer to that question defines blowout, reasonably competitive game, or thriller:
  • Before halftime or early in the third quarter:  Blowout.  
  • Mid-third to early fourth quarter:  Reasonably competitive game.  
  • Later in the fourth quarter:  Good game.  

Those two games became hopeless for the eventual loser  late in the third (Clemson) and early in the fourth (Washington) so I consider both to be reasonably competitive.  

Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 83057
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rank these teams
« Reply #262 on: December 17, 2020, 03:38:33 PM »
Perhaps we might agree half the games  were not very competitive, it's not a bright line distinction.
Logged

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14563
  • Liked:
Re: Rank these teams
« Reply #263 on: December 17, 2020, 03:50:23 PM »
Quote from: 847badgerfan on December 17, 2020, 01:09:44 PM
I'd rather go back to 11.
So that makes life even harder on Cincinnati (and other G5 programs trying to get into the P5), which is the point. 

Unless somehow the B12 finds that it's only way back to 12 is to take Nebraska and Cincinnati is the best second team to pair with Nebraska. It's also assuming that Nebraska wants to go crawling back to Texas the Big 12. I think they'd go independent for a while before they did that. 

Maybe conferences start contracting as a whole, and then we have room for a P6 again. Maybe Cincinnati finds a home there? 
Logged

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14563
  • Liked:
Re: Rank these teams
« Reply #264 on: December 17, 2020, 04:03:42 PM »
Quote from: bayareabadger on December 17, 2020, 01:21:27 PM
If that trade was offered, I’d take it.
Not a chance. Rutgers is a fine academic institution. 63rd in the US News & World Reports ranking. Flagship state university of NJ. Fits academically in the B1G. Has history--was the birthplace of college football, even if it appears stillborn now. 

Cincinnati is 143rd in the national rankings. Not a flagship in their own state. Not academically or culturally a fit for the conference, despite being in OH. 

Maybe Cincy has more recent football relevance, but they're not B1G material.

Quote from: Cincydawg on December 17, 2020, 01:23:07 PM
Maybe UC is dilutive NOW but perhaps not in the future?  Imagine the B12 invites say Houston and decides they need an even number of teams.  Memphis?  Cincy?  I could envision a situation where a conference would look for a team to round things out.

Maybe.

But it might take a situation where said conference is desperate as happened last time with UL et al.
Exactly. Cincinnati won't get into P5 "by winning a lot". They might get into P5 by winning a lot in the situation where some P5 conference is desperate to add teams, and Cincinnati is the best fit of the premier G5 schools. 

And even then, it depends on the conference. Let's say that Northwestern, as a private liberal arts school, decides to cancel their football program due to CTE. Do you think the B1G would rather ask Cincinnati to join, or play with only 13 teams? I'm guessing they'd look for a MUCH better fit to stay at 14, and if they couldn't get anyone, would live with 13 rather than accept Cincy.

If the whole system blows up, and let's say TX/OU go to the SEC to get to 16, and KS/ISU go to the B1G to get to 16, and suddenly the B12 is looking for Cincy (and several other teams) to come  keep their conference alive? Well then Cincy won't end up in the P5, they'll end up in the G6 while the SEC/ACC/B1G/PAC will become the P4. 

Cincy dilutes a conference. Nobody is salivating to add them, even if they string together a decade of good seasons. Boise State strung together a decade of good seasons, but they don't have the academics for the PAC and weren't a good fit for the B12. Hence on the field results didn't overcome everything else. 

Cincy's best opportunity is a restart of truly disruptive conference realignment -- and even that doesn't guarantee that the conference they land in doesn't get decimated to the point where it's no better than where they are now.
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10655
  • Liked:
Re: Rank these teams
« Reply #265 on: December 17, 2020, 04:20:09 PM »
Quote from: bwarbiany on December 17, 2020, 04:03:42 PM
KS/ISU go to the B1G to get to 16
no, No, and NO!

Kansas BB is great but this is about money, academics, money, fit, money, football, and did I mention money?  

Kansas is #124 in the USNWR rankings.  Not even close.  

On the money side, Kansas is a state of <3M people.  That isn't enough to move the needle.  It would dilute the pool.  The pie would get bigger but each slice would get smaller.  

Iowa State is #118 in the USNWR rankings, no.  

Iowa is a state of just over 3M people but we already have the flagship school from that state.  It would never make sense to add a second school from Iowa.  It already arguably doesn't make sense to have two schools each from Indiana (pop 6.7M), Michigan (pop 9.9M), and Illinois (pop 12.7M) and those states are twice, three times, and four times as populous as Iowa.  Same as Kansas, the pie would get bigger (maybe, I'm not even sure of that) but the slices would get smaller.  

The B1G already effectively turned down Mizzou and they are the flagship in a state of 6.1M.  If we didn't want Mizzou, there is no way we'd want Kansas of ISU.  If and when we expand it will be either to get Texas (and maybe Oklahoma along with) or to a fast-growing Atlantic Coast State to the South of Maryland (UVA, VaTech, UNC, NCST, GaTech).  

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 22   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
USN Coat of Arms Carving/Clock

Custom Garden Signs!