CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: MaximumSam on December 14, 2020, 07:48:02 AM
-
If you are confused as to what is happening, join the club. But we get one more week of college football before people move to the playoffs and whatever the hell bowl season looks like.
Friday
7:30 pm - Nebraska at Rutgers, BTN
7 pm, CUSA Championship, UAB v. Marshall, CBSSN
7:30, MAC Championship, Ball St. v. Buffalo, ESPN
7:30, Purdue v. Indiana, BTN
8 pm, PAC12 Championship, Oregon v. USC, FOX
Saturday
Noon
B1G Championship, Northwestern v. OSU, FOX
TAMU v. Tennessee, ESPN
Big 12 Championship, Oklahoma v. Iowa State, ABC
3:30, Sun Belt Championship, Louisiana v. Coastal Carolina, ESPN
4 pm
ACC Championship, Clemson v. Notre Dame, ABC
Minnesota v. Wisconsin, BTN
4:15, MWC Championship, Boise St. v. San Jose St., FOX
5:30, Illinois v. PSU, FS1
7 pm, Michigan v. Iowa, ESPN
7:30 pm, MSU v. Maryland, BTN
8 pm, SEC Championship, Alabama v. Florida, CBS
AAC Championship, Tulsa v. Cincinnati, ABC
-
No Oaken Bucket game. Kinda bummed about that.
Gophers are going to crush the Badgers. Really bummed about that.
-
No Oaken Bucket game. Kinda bummed about that.
Gophers are going to crush the Badgers. Really bummed about that.
I know what we all think about Friday college football but Purdue v IU is Friday evening.
-
I read something yesterday AM that said they would not be playing. I guess Max needs to update his post above too.
-
at least they got the brass spittoon in this year.
-
I know what we all think about Friday college football but Purdue v IU is Friday evening.
I knew I was forgetting something
-
Worst MAC CCG since.... 2008, when it was the same two teams.
In that game Ball St was undefeated and favored, but Buffalo rolled 42-24.
Turner Gill was able to springboard into the Kansas job where he did a bang up job following Mangino.
Brady Hoke even in loss was able to ditch the Cardinals for SDSU a few days later, and then went onto restore glory at Michigan.
-
I've heard nothing official about the Bucket game being canceled [again].
But then again, you have to schedule a game before you can cancel it, right?
-
I hope everyone is busy at 8pm on Saturday night. Too busy to watch the carnage.
-
everyone will be busy at 4pm on Friday
that's OK, Huskers deserve this for their performance
-
The Friday before our company's week-long shutdown at Christmas/New Year's, my friends Bald Greg and Imaginary Jeff and I have always taken off the second half of the day, and called it "Liberation Day." This year, Liberation Day happens to fall on this Friday, and the brewery we're going to hang out at, has an outdoor biergarten with plenty of TVs, so I'll be sure to catch the Huskers game.
Go Big Red.
-
Red Rutgers?
They are Scarlet Knights, ya know...
-
Pac swaps Washington out and Oregon in
-
This year, Liberation Day happens to fall on this Friday, and the brewery we're going to hang out at, has an outdoor biergarten with plenty of TVs, so I'll be sure to catch the Huskers game.
Go Big Red.
Sounds like you've already been liberating
-
I wonder how many bowl games will happen.
I wonder how many will think "That was not nearly enough."
-
Apparently IU Purdue is off
-
In lieu of a 16-team playoff, just give me 8 bowl games, total, every year. Each one would be a big deal. Each one would signify a good season.
This is a chance to fix this one thing this year and going forward.
-
Pac swaps Washington out and Oregon in
If no one was told, who would have noticed? lol
-
In lieu of a 16-team playoff, just give me 8 bowl games, total, every year. Each one would be a big deal. Each one would signify a good season.
This is a chance to fix this one thing this year and going forward.
almost EVERYTHING could be fixed if they would simply put me in charge
-
almost EVERYTHING could be fixed if they would simply put me in charge
I keep telling my wife the same. Anyway, I have a list of chores I have to go do
-
Wait, there are bowl games this weekend too? And one just got cancelled this morning?
https://twitter.com/FriscoBowlGame/status/1338866413381976066?s=20
-
Apparently IU Purdue is off
Hoosier's or Boiler's issue? or both?
-
If Michigan can magically get better the day after THE GAME was to have taken place, then the IN teams should be able to as well.
-
Due to the cancellation of the Purdue-Indiana football game on Friday evening, Nebraska's game at Rutgers has been moved to 6:30 PM (CT) on Friday. The game was originally scheduled for 3 PM.
Friday's game will still be shown nationally on the Big Ten Network with radio coverage on the Husker Sports Network.
-
this is good
I'm visisting my daughter that just graduated from UNL on Thursday and Friday
I was wondering about watching the game in Lincoln and then staying another night Friday, but now I can leave Lincoln around 4pm and be home or near home by kickoff!
-
Scratch off Michigan Iowa
-
Bummer. I was looking forward to some payback after last year's offensive shitshow at the Big House.
-
Bummer. I was looking forward to some payback after last year's offensive shitshow at the Big House.
So was Jimmy. Hence...
-
so, Hawks vs Hoosiers?
-
That would be a great game.
-
Apparently Purdue/IU was again a "mutual" cancelation, so I'm not sure Hoosiers could play if they wanted to...
-
Rutgers Nebraska getting moved to 7:30
-
I keep telling my wife the same. Anyway, I have a list of chores I have to go do
😂😂😂😂😂
-
Apparently Purdue/IU was again a "mutual" cancelation, so I'm not sure Hoosiers could play if they wanted to...
This may have been on their minds when they decided to waive the six game minimum. With Indiana unable to play the best available qualifying team would have been 3-5 PSU or RU. Presumably PSU would have gone on the basis of their H2H win over RU.
-
Iowa deserved better than no game.
-
Is there anybody out there Iowa could play in championship week?
-
Texas A&M
the Longhorns
Georgia
BYU
Buffalo?
tell Illinois w/o a coach to stand down - play Penn St
tell Maryland or Michigan St. the stand down and play the other?
-
Kirk says that he doesn't want to swap out opponents this week. Michigan or bust.
-
Hayden always said, never schedule a loss
-
Hayden always said, never schedule a loss
Should have followed his own advice
-
I'd like to see Iowa play UGA, why not? Line it up, TV, no fans, maybe a few.
Might be a really good game.
-
Morons decided B1G has to play with its own kind.
-
Buckeyes should decline the invitation to the playoff
not safe playing those filthy ACC and SEC programs during a pandemic
-
I'd like to see Iowa play UGA, why not? Line it up, TV, no fans, maybe a few.
Might be a really good game.
It would be a really good game, and it is a good thought. Is UGA available for the Outback Bowl?
-
Scratch off Michigan Iowa
Jimmy wants to remain Michigan's head coach and the strategy he's found to do so is duck out on the rest of the season, a strategy aided by hiding behind COVID and close contact tracing. Can't blame him; it's working because a contract extension is somehow, stupidly, on the table.
-
This week's B1G games by current Power Ranking (https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/b1g-power-rankings-week-8-19405/):
- #1 tOSU vs #4 NU, B1GCG in Indianapolis
- #2 Iowa, off due to COVID
- #3 Indiana, off due to COVID
- #5 Wisconsin vs #7 Minnesota
- #6 Penn State vs #14 Illinois
- #8 Rutgers vs #10 Nebraska
- #9 Maryland vs #13 Michigan State
- #11 Purdue, off due to COVID
- #12 Michigan, off due to COVID
-
I heard that you don't have to be "bowl eligible" this year in order to go to a bowl game. Is that right? So Penn State, Michigan, Nebraska et al... all bowling?
-
that's what I've heard
no requirements
-
How are the bowls going to sustain themselves? Are they still going to require each school to buy a huge allotment of tickets and then be in lockdown locales where fans can't travel to games?
-
I don't think very many bowls are actually going to end up being played, plus it looks like a lot of teams are "opting out" anyway, so I don't think we'll end up seeing a lot of 2-6 type teams playing in bowls.
As to how the remaining bowls that actually go forward sustain themselves... it's a great question. I really have no idea. Forcing a team to buy a bunch of tickets to a stadium where a lot of fans aren't likely to travel-- or possibly even legally restricted from travel by local authorities-- doesn't seem like it's going to be possible this year.
That's probably another reason several teams are already stating they'll opt out. Why even entertain the possibility?
-
Exactly. The lesser bowls are often money-losers for the teams themselves. If the bowls try to use the AD budgets as their own piggy bank as usual, in a year where fan engagement will be minimal or nonexistent in some places, I see teams just turning down the bids.
-
Exactly. The lesser bowls are often money-losers for the teams themselves. If the bowls try to use the AD budgets as their own piggy bank as usual, in a year where fan engagement will be minimal or nonexistent in some places, I see teams just turning down the bids.
The problem could arise though, if there are insufficient teams to furnish whatever bowls DO decide to go forward.
The conferences are bound by contracts with the bowls. And the schools are bound by contracts to the conferences.
It's easy in theory to say, "we're opting out."
In practice, if the bowl has a contract with the conference, and wants its appropriately designated school from that conference, and that school "opts out"-- then the conference is in breach of contract with the bowl, and the school is in breach of contract with the conference. This could result in lawsuits.
I don't expect that it will, though-- in reality I think all parties will likely make some allowances for the strangeness of the COVID year.
But I do find it amusing and a tad presumptuous that so many schools assume they can just "opt out" without letting things play out first. That's not how it works. That's not how ANY of this works. :)
-
Good point. Even if this never goes to a lawsuit, some lawyers are going to rack up plenty of billable hours going over those contracts!
-
Good point. Even if this never goes to a lawsuit, some lawyers are going to rack up plenty of billable hours going over those contracts!
Yup, unless we get a perfect match of teams to available bowls, some lawyers, somewhere, are going to be making money. Golderned leeches!
I'd be interested in PiratesRoost's take on this, I wish he were still around.
-
Sounds like OSU has covid issues again. Hoping they can play Saturday.
Sounds like like at least Olave will be out- and who knows who else in the WR group due to contract tracing.
Anyone out now is done- would miss playoff if OSU gets there- due to the Big Ten 21 day rule.
Crappy ending.
-
Sounds like OSU has covid issues again. Hoping they can play Saturday.
Sounds like like at least Olave will be out- and who knows who else in the WR group due to contract tracing.
Anyone out now is done- would miss playoff if OSU gets there- due to the Big Ten 21 day rule.
Crappy ending.
Assuming that the Buckeyes made it to and won a CFP Semi-Final, the NCG is scheduled for Monday, January 11. Three weeks prior to that is Monday, December 21 which hasn't occurred yet so I think it is premature to say that "anyone out now is done".
-
He must be assuming they'll face Alabama in the semis.
-
He must be assuming they'll face Alabama in the semis.
Well that would *probably* make the issue moot but two things:
- My guess is that if tOSU beats NU they'll get the #3 seed and play the Clemson/ND winner, and
- No loss is completely guaranteed.
Beyond that though, something else occurred to me. Would the B1G's 21 day rule even apply in the event that tOSU made the semi's? I think it would depend on the wording of the rule. Is it a rule for B1G teams (probably applies) or a rule for B1G games (probably doesn't apply)?
-
Michigan State/Maryland is gone.
Maryland canceled.
Hopefully some of the teams can come up with a game together.
-
Iowa has not played Rutgers and Nebraska has not played MSU. Maybe they can switch? Too late?
-
Iowa has not played Rutgers and Nebraska has not played MSU. Maybe they can switch? Too late?
Why not? I guess Iowa might be in play for a new year six bowl? But the other three, who cares. If you lose you lose, just treat it like a really high end scrimmage
-
Sun Belt Championship Game cancelled due to issues within CCU
-
Hindsight is 20/20 but Everything would have worked out if the Big Ten would have originally done these pairings this week.
7. MSU-Neb
6. Rutgers-Iowa
5. PSU-ILL
4. MD-Mich
3. Minny- Wiscy
2. Indy- Purdue
1. OSU-NW
-
Sounds like OSU has covid issues again. Hoping they can play Saturday.
Sounds like like at least Olave will be out- and who knows who else in the WR group due to contract tracing.
Anyone out now is done- would miss playoff if OSU gets there- due to the Big Ten 21 day rule.
Crappy ending.
Big ten rules can be changed
-
Iowa has not played Rutgers and Nebraska has not played MSU. Maybe they can switch? Too late?
Kirk has said that Iowa isn't interested in another game
-
Kirk has said that Iowa isn't interested in another game
Makes sense. Given where they are right now another game would probably be an "everything to lose, nothing to gain" situation.
-
This is unfortunate.
Ohio State will reportedly be without multiple players for Big Ten title game due to COVID (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/ohio-state-will-reportedly-be-without-multiple-players-for-big-ten-title-game-due-to-covid/ar-BB1c0NCu?ocid=msedgntp)
-
I have been looking at Texas A & M, and Iowa State as being the next logical teams to move into the CFB Playoffs if Ohio State, or one of the other top 4 do not make it.
But, maybe Northwestern makes more sense as it is a one-loss team with a quality win over Iowa, but devastating loss to MSU.
-
This is unfortunate.
Ohio State will reportedly be without multiple players for Big Ten title game due to COVID (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/ohio-state-will-reportedly-be-without-multiple-players-for-big-ten-title-game-due-to-covid/ar-BB1c0NCu?ocid=msedgntp)
Yes. I believe one of them is there stud receiver Chris Olave.
Who else I have no idea. Next man up
-
Mildly annoyed they moved the Rutgers game. Would have been a nice mid afternoon snack.
-
Herd on the radio Ferentz has the virus
-
Sounds like OSU has covid issues again. Hoping they can play Saturday.
Sounds like like at least Olave will be out- and who knows who else in the WR group due to contract tracing.
Anyone out now is done- would miss playoff if OSU gets there- due to the Big Ten 21 day rule.
Crappy ending.
can the big ten enforce the play off game eligibility? i would think if 10 days pass and Olave has two negative tests and is healthy to play per NCAA rules that would not be a decision the Big Ten can enforce since it most likely would not be against a big Ten team
also were the rules set for big ten play? would make playoffs and bowl games not under the 21 day mandate if the player is said to be tested healthy by doctors
-
GO BIG RED!!!
-
USC starting out looking dreadful.
-
I feel the pain
3 turnovers in the first half by the team capt QB
he'd not start another game if it was my decision
-
Ball St all over big bad Buffalo.
-
USC starting out looking dreadful.
Slovis started worse than a Denver Broncos QB. Can’t say it’s surprising; they’ve started slow all year and are over reliant on airing out the long pass. Oregon is the best DL USC has faced this year, and if USC can’t get its downfield passing going it’s like those baseball teams that live and die by the long ball, those NBA teams that live by the three.
As it stands SC just finished a long TD drive to close in on Oregon’s lead, 21-14. Trojans hanging around after another slow start.
-
Nebraska's helmet decals look like Hell, all ripped up and mangled.
-
tough season
but glad we played and didn't allow COVID to win
-
Ducks win.
-
Ducks win.
Took care of the 6-0 Conference Champ USC Problem.
-
Took care of the 6-0 Conference Champ USC Problem.
This reminded me of something I've come to realize.
We spend all season projecting and wondering. What if this many teams have 1 or 0 losses? Who stacks up and how? And in the end, we only get one final set of teams. And usually, the choice is pretty simple. Like in theory, USC would've been worth discussion, but at the exact point the discussion actually needs to happen, that 6-0 USC team actually doesn't exist.
-
And yet another conference champion that didn't even win their own division.
-
And yet another conference champion that didn't even win their own division.
But in a way this was fair because the Wash-Oregon game last week was supposed to determine the north division champion, but Washington canceled that game, which in a way, was kind of a sneaky way for Washington to win the division in the first place.
So when Washington canceled again for the ccg, in a way, it made up for not giving Oregon a shot to win the division.
-
GO BIG RED!!!
That's a very burnt-orange shade of red there!
But congrats on the Big Red win!
-
So burnt orange that it must've been intentional.
-
So burnt orange that it must've been intentional.
Indeed.
Fearless has talked about moving to Tejas so often, maybe he's thinking like a Horn.
-
At least he is not thinking WITH his horn.
-
I've always said Fearless is a closet Lonhgorn fan. Now he's proven it for sure...
-
Clemons Ohio state
-
A fourpeat? Dang, that's like a whole recruiting cycle.
No Big Ten undergrad has ever seen anyone else win the Big Ten the entire time that they have been in college. Unless of course they are on the 5+ year plan.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpoJPVcUUAAuDUq?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
-
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/zux9XBk011252lfF2GkU2J00Io2IID-DtYpKpI_jmw1ZepDqCsyIkFUq_YVmAI7OTzxwbtzyoyXjDwKKVTLEdOwAV2ZIaXsF7HUY--rmaeOD3vllIRgtfCJkB9957OQ5aiBf3i1NG0LQ6WVd_vDCvIgWSj8H40jOLi4)
-
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/67027068.jpg)
-
Wowwwww, huge strip-INT all for naught. Can't win on outcomes like that.
-
Wowwwww, huge strip-INT all for naught. Can't win on outcomes like that.
Great play to get it but sucked to cough it right back up
-
A. That Emery Jones counter is a beaut
B. These teams feel like they could both have new DCs
-
(https://media.makeameme.org/created/hes-not-a-5b4297.jpg)
-
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/80673147.jpg)
-
Our souped-up Mustang did pretty well against their Ferrari.
-
What happened to "SEC defense"?
Seriously.
We in the Big 12 have heard it for years and we're supposed to be embarrassed about our teams. So much that you--OAM--coined "twelving."
So what's up with the SEC? Does it NOW mean that SEC offenses or so awesome that even NFL defenses would be helpless against them?
-
Penn State and USC opt out of bowl season.
Rose Bowl moved to Dallas.
Not sure if Ohio State makes playoff, but if not I wager they opt out. Again, according to Dabo, Jimbo and Dumbo( Brian Kelly) as well as just about all of the talking heads- the Buckeyes should not be rewarded for avoiding all of those wicked opponents, and the Big needs to be punished.
Seems to be the prevailing thought so I have to agree.
Bama
Clemson
Texas A&M
Norte Dame
Florida
Cincinnati
There is my top 6- Oklahoma just missed the cut.
-
We all know Ohio State will be in. Why would you care what Dabo or Jimbo says?
-
We all know Ohio State will be in. Why would you care what Dabo or Jimbo says?
Maybe I’m just to easily influenced these days. It wasn’t just Dabo or Jimbo or Kelly, I also heard Fowler and several of the analysts on ESPN and CBS say the same thing. I have also read several forms of other teams in the Big Ten and other conferences and it seems to be the prevailing thought so I guess maybe I’m coming to the realization that the majority is correct here
-
This is simple:
1 Bama
2 Clemson
3 OSU
4 ND
no rematches
no A&M
Same cast of characters it's been the last few years. Ho-hum.
-
What happened to "SEC defense"?
Seriously.
We in the Big 12 have heard it for years and we're supposed to be embarrassed about our teams. So much that you--OAM--coined "twelving."
So what's up with the SEC? Does it NOW mean that SEC offenses or so awesome that even NFL defenses would be helpless against them?
A - defenses have been behind all year in every conference
B - yes, once Saban started putting 93 octane in his own offense, there's been an admission that offenses can no longer be consistently shut down
-
Rose Bowl cancelled. Now it's the Jerry Bowl.
-
A - defenses have been behind all year in every conference
B - yes, once Saban started putting 93 octane in his own offense, there's been an admission that offenses can no longer be consistently shut down
This! It should be clear by now. The game and the rules are in favor of the offense and the offense for the most part wins championships now.
-
QBs today often are great even in their first year.
-
Not sure if Ohio State makes playoff, but if not I wager they opt out. Again, according to Dabo, Jimbo and Dumbo( Brian Kelly) as well as just about all of the talking heads- the Buckeyes should not be rewarded for avoiding all of those wicked opponents, and the Big needs to be punished.
Herbie nailed when he said if the roles were reversed Dabo would be blabbing we just followed the rules and played who we could,nothing more you can do.With that said last year was the season and we got jobbed vs Deacon Dabo,don't think the Bucks beat LSU but they seemd to think it would have been a better game
-
Rose Bowl cancelled. Now it's the Jerry Bowl.
Ya we'll never know if Kelly was bluffing
-
“Herbie nailed when he said if the roles were reversed Dabo would be blabbing we just followed the rules and played who we could,nothing more you can do.With that said last year was the season and we got jobbed vs Deacon Dabo,don't think the Bucks beat LSU but they seemd to think it would have been a better game”
It’s weird the words we sometimes find ourselves listening to. We know the three coaches in question all have something to gain by politicking and it covers their own asses.
OSU would be in because frankly there isn’t a perfect fourth choice. Notre Dame is good enough, and you’re not gonna make the third choice also difficult just to stand on some dumb principle that no one agreed to
-
Not sure if Ohio State makes playoff, but if not I wager they opt out. Again, according to Dabo, Jimbo and Dumbo( Brian Kelly) as well as just about all of the talking heads- the Buckeyes should not be rewarded for avoiding all of those wicked opponents, and the Big needs to be punished.
Seems to be the prevailing thought so I have to agree.
Bama
Clemson
Texas A&M
Norte Dame
Florida
Cincinnati
There is my top 6- Oklahoma just missed the cut.
You try so hard not to be a homer that you end up on the other end of the spectrum. Right here in this thread two of our own with no dog in this fight said:
This is simple:
3 OSU
We all know Ohio State will be in. Why would you care what Dabo or Jimbo says?
Everybody knows it unless they have an obvious bias (Jimbo, Kelly, etc) or an axe to grind (Fowler, etc).
Your list above suggests that in beating the #14 team on the CFP's list and thus clinching a P5 Championship, the Buckeyes would:
- Get passed by a non-champion that beat a sub .500 team.
- Not pass a non-champion that got absolutely curb stomped in their CG.
- Get passed by a team that lost their CG and now has THREE losses.
- Get passed by a G5 team that just won their "tallest midget" game against a team ranked ten spots behind the team that tOSU just beat.
- Get passed by a team that has two losses including one to a sub .500 team.
Dude, put the crack pipe down.
-
The hatred of the Big is real. The hatred of OSU within the Big is real.
No crack pipe needed to see that. It’s everywhere.
With no Olave and Fields injury- they won’t be competitive anyway.
I am happy they got some games in after the Big screws the pooch, and got their 4th asterisked Big Ten Championship.
The rest of it is pure politics ( talking heads and Commitee) which if you think about it- is stupid and quite disgusting.
-
A - defenses have been behind all year in every conference
B - yes, once Saban started putting 93 octane in his own offense, there's been an admission that offenses can no longer be consistently shut down
Not every conference.
-
Folks hate any conference or team that is of consequence, like say Eastern Michigan...
-
That said, the fight isn't at #3. The Buckeyes will be #3 and will play #2 Clemson in Jerry World.
The question is at #4. The contenders:
- Previous #2 Notre Dame: in their favor they have a win over new #2 Clemson and another quality win over UNC. Against them, Clemson started an equipment manager, two cheerleaders, and the Tiger mascot when losing to them and they have zero hardware.
- Previous #5 aTm: In their favor they have a win over UF and their only loss was to #1 Bama. Against them the loss wasn't close, they have zero hardware, and their second best win is over an unranked team.
- Previous #10 Oklahoma: in their favor they have a P5 Championship and just avenged their earlier loss to ISU. Against them they have two losses including one to a sub .500 team.
It may not be fair, but I think aTm will be hurt by the fact that putting them in would create an uninteresting (outside of aTm's fanbase) rematch.
I think Oklahoma has a shot largely because it gets the committee out of having to explain why they picked ND over aTm (or vice-versa).
Most probable:
- Notre Dame
- Oklahoma
- aTm
- Cincy
-
Buckeyes will be in - then out,not the year I want to see them here.Day's refusal to run the damn ball for 2&1/2 Qtrs is a huge WTF mark.Specially when it was revealed Fields hand was hurting,amazing how clueless these guys can be after alters have been built to them.Fleck was another one yesterday who had a brain fart fantastic,under a half minute that the officials took off 10 secs. more but still had 2 TOs and didn't have the brass to fling it
-
Buckeyes will be in - then out,not the year I want to see them here.Day's refusal to run the damn ball for 2&1/2 Qtrs is a huge WTF mark.Specially when it was revealed Fields hand was hurting,amazing how clueless these guys can be after alters have been built to them.Fleck was another one yesterday who had a brain fart fantastic,under a half minute that the officials took off 10 secs. more but still had 2 TOs and didn't have the brass to fling it
Northwestern had like a top ten run defense heading into that game. It is logical to formulate your game plan around the pass.
Fitz being a defensive guy wanted instead to take away OSU's best weapon (fields) and make Day beat him with the second or third option (OSU's seemingly pedestrian run game).
Day figured it out in time to win the game by double digits, and produce a record setting running back at a school that ran the ball on just about every play up until the 90s.
-
I agree Ohio St is in easy. I feel really queasy about putting them with a 6-0 record while some of these other teams have played 10 or 11 games but they are benefitting from the fact that no one outside of Bama and Clemson looks playoff caliber. If the committee had a 10-0 Oklahoma, or A&M had at least played Bama tough, or ND stayed with Clemson I think they would consider leaving Ohio St out, but everyone else’s warts puts Ohio St in.
I predict the 4th spot goes to ND but I would give it to Oklahoma if I were a one man committee. They have the conference championship. They have two close early season losses but avenged one of them. They have 3 ranked wins in Iowa St, Texas, and Ok St and they avoid potential rematches of blowouts in either the semis or title game.
-
Day figured it out in time to win the game by double digits, and produce a record setting running back at a school that ran the ball on just about every play up until the 90s.
I went to at least 4 other message boards and even non Buckeyes were screaming to grind it out.When seemingly Fields couldn't hit the surf when standing on the shore.Day will be schooled if he farts around in the next round
-
I agree Ohio St is in easy. I feel really queasy about putting them with a 6-0 record while some of these other teams have played 10 or 11 games but they are benefitting from the fact that no one outside of Bama and Clemson looks playoff caliber. If the committee had a 10-0 Oklahoma, or A&M had at least played Bama tough, or ND stayed with Clemson I think they would consider leaving Ohio St out, but everyone else’s warts puts Ohio St in.
I predict the 4th spot goes to ND but I would give it to Oklahoma if I were a one man committee. They have the conference championship. They have two close early season losses but avenged one of them. They have 3 ranked wins in Iowa St, Texas, and Ok St and they avoid potential rematches of blowouts in either the semis or title game.
If you think about the games that Ohio State did not play versus Maryland, Illinois, and Michigan, I would make the argument that it hurt them more than help them to only play six games. Never developing a rhythm, never developing a routine, and three certainly easy wins only hurt them. And to me that was very evident yesterday because so many of their back ups had a little game experience this year
-
Yeah, it might seem obvious to us, but these HCs are stubborn.
"No way these nerds can keep our passing attack on lockdown the whole time"
-
I would pick OU. ND got hammered.
-
If you think about the games that Ohio State did not play versus Maryland, Illinois, and Michigan, I would make the argument that it hurt them more than help them to only play six games. Never developing a rhythm, never developing a routine, and three certainly easy wins only hurt them. And to me that was very evident yesterday because so many of their back ups had a little game experience this year
I mean, I guess but ultimately people know it’s easier to go 6-0 than 10-0. The Big 12 added a ridiculous CCG so they wouldn’t have one less data point to be judged on. Ohio St has 4 or 5 less. Also, it isn’t like Ohio St hasn’t had its “WTF” moments against lesser opponents before.
-
I mean, I guess but ultimately people know it’s easier to go 6-0 than 10-0. The Big 12 added a ridiculous CCG so they wouldn’t have one less data point to be judged on. Ohio St has 4 or 5 less. Also, it isn’t like Ohio St hasn’t had its “WTF” moments against lesser opponents before.
True. Who hasn’t had their WTF moment?
still, they are 4th in strength of record( ahead of Clemson)2nd in total offense, 9th in total defense
-
The hatred of the Big is real. The hatred of OSU within the Big is real.
No crack pipe needed to see that. It’s everywhere.
If it's real, Ohio State won't make it in. And Ohio State will make it in.
And everyone wants to be aggrieved these days. Find the hate, let is simmer, then wonder why we see so much of it.
-
If it's real, Ohio State won't make it in. And Ohio State will make it in.
And everyone wants to be aggrieved these days. Find the hate, let is simmer, then wonder why we see so much of it.
I am watching it right now lol. Stop being so dramatic. 😂😂
the hate is real, that doesn’t mean the committee will pay attention to the haters.
look no further than our forum.
and PUHLEZE, do not associate me with our nation of aggrieved victims. One, I am not a victim of anything. Two, Mr Progressive- I am a white male so in your world I can only be one of the offenders.
-
I like progress.
-
Ya we'll never know if Kelly was bluffing
we all know
-
People who think A&M are in the playoff or that OSU is out of the playoff need to understand that the committee doesn't rank teams like the AP or Coaches. Those polls are more 'what have you done for me lately' while the committee takes each new game as a new data point worth it's share of total games played.
Okay, you've played 9 games and now you beat Tennessee, a dumpster-fire program, great. That win is now 10% of your season total of work and we'll adjust you accordingly (basically not at all).
The committee cares less about WHEN you lose than the other polls. This is more of an evolution over time for them.
-
I would pick OU. ND got hammered.
ND punted very well
OU didn't look great vs Iowa St.
Cincy didn't look great
tough decision on #4
interesting to see what the committee does
I'd pick OU
A&M would be my 2nd pick
-
Hopefully they botch things to the point where the Buckeyes get the Bearcats in the semifinals, and then the Domers in the NCG.
-
My guess is OSU in, and ND.
I have already read several articles and talking heads today saying that Texas A&M should be in as opposed to specifically Ohio State.
-
no talkin heads on the committee
thankfully
-
OU has the least controversy.
-
OU has the least controversy.
Jumping 6 spots in one week would be controversial.
-
which team 6 spots above OU had a more impressive win?
-
Jumping 6 spots in one week would be controversial.
No more so than dropping a team 3 spots after a blowout win like they did TCU in 2014. Again, the CFP doesn’t take into account where they had a team last week. Fans do. The CFP starts each week as if they are evaluating a team for the first time.
Last week OU didn’t have a conference title. Last week they didn’t have an extra top 10-15 win. This week they have those things.
-
no talkin heads on the committee
This ain't no party, this ain't no disco,
This ain't no fooling around
-
No more so than dropping a team 3 spots after a blowout win like they did TCU in 2014. Again, the CFP doesn’t take into account where they had a team last week. Fans do. The CFP starts each week as if they are evaluating a team for the first time.
Last week OU didn’t have a conference title. Last week they didn’t have an extra top 10-15 win. This week they have those things.
Ugh. aggies or sooners for that 4th spot. It's like choosing between roasting in hell, or listening to Kirk Herbstreit 24/7 for ten years. Wait, those are the same thing...
Come on committee, do what your ESPN overlords bid you to do-- put in Notre Dame for the TV ratings. You know you want to!
-
Come on committee, do what your ESPN overlords bid you to do-- put in Notre Dame for the TV ratings. You know you want to!
I guess it's okay now they moved the game from Cali so Kelly would play,drives a hard bargain
-
Come on committee, do what your ESPN overlords bid you to do-- put in Notre Dame for the TV ratings. You know you want to!
Also, ND is just about the most qualified. The only real knock on them is that the loss happened yesterday and not a month ago.
-
😂😂😂
Fowler WHINING about Ohio State getting in. What a douche.
-
Also, ND is just about the most qualified. The only real knock on them is that the loss happened yesterday and not a month ago.
I think the real knock on them is that it was a complete beat-down, and we all know that if Clemson had been full-strength during the first meeting, the domers would now have TWO beat-down losses to Clemson on their resume'.
Regardless, it's the best outcome for me personally, so I can roll with it.
-
Even though the controversy was over the fourth spot, now Reese Davis is whining and trying to get the committee chair to explain why they let Ohio State in. You can’t make this shit up LOL
-
😂😂😂
Fowler WHINING about Ohio State getting in. What a douche.
Even though the controversy was over the fourth spot, now Reese Davis is whining and trying to get the committee chair to explain why they let Ohio State in. You can’t make this shit up LOL
I mean, you know these guys are paid solely to drum up controversy and ideally get more clicks/eyeballs because of it, right?
-
Of course
But why does it ALWAYS have to be directed at the Big? Is that the only thing that gets clicks?
-
Even now the panel is discussing this. They are trying to talk about Texas A&M versus Notre Dame was obviously the Cliffpoint. But Reese Davis keeps bringing back up Ohio State not being deserving.
-
hah, the PAC and Big 12 have it MUCH worse than the B1G
-
Duke W, 27-13
South Florida W, 52-0
Florida State W, 42-26
Louisville W, 12-7
at Pittsburgh W, 45-3
at Georgia Tech W, 31-13
Clemson W, 47-40
at Boston College W, 45-31
at North Carolina W, 31-17
Syracuse W, 45-21
ACC Championship Game - blown out
a much better schedule than Cincy, but not impressive
haven't checked, but I'd guess A&M's sched was more impressive
-
hah, the PAC and Big 12 have it MUCH worse than the B1G
No doubt. ABC, ESPN and CBS are schills for SEC and ACC. FOX seems to be pretty neutral.
That’s why they should never be in the hands of subjective opinions because it becomes purely political.
-
the B1G by forming their own network and siding with FOX, did this knowingly
-
hah, the PAC and Big 12 have it MUCH worse than the B1G
And the ACC would too if it weren't for Clemson.
Sorry HB, I'm not shedding tears for "slights" against the Buckeyes. You went undefeated. You won the B1G. You're in the playoff. Not sure what more you want.
-
I want Tom Herman to get an extension
-
Of course
But why does it ALWAYS have to be directed at the Big? Is that the only thing that gets clicks?
Ohio St’s limited schedule is/was a legitimate talking point. That isn’t picking on OSU. And while you were focusing on Rece Davis questioning it you missed Joey Galloway saying in no uncertain terms Ohio St deserved to be in.
-
I want Tom Herman to get an extension
Hahahaha
eff you
Just kidding and all ;)
-
And the ACC would too if it weren't for Clemson.
Sorry HB, I'm not shedding tears for "slights" against the Buckeyes. You went undefeated. You won the B1G. You're in the playoff. Not sure what more you want.
Truth. And while HB is mad because a couple of people have the audacity to question Ohio St most other fan bases are wondering if they get that same benefit of the doubt going 6-0 with their best wins being non-traditional powers Indiana and Northwestern.
-
I want Tom Herman to get an extension
that's a low shot
-
Ohio St’s limited schedule is/was a legitimate talking point. That isn’t picking on OSU. And while you were focusing on Rece Davis questioning it you missed Joey Galloway saying in no uncertain terms Ohio St deserved to be in.
hah, the ex Buckeye???
homer like Herbie
-
And the ACC would too if it weren't for Clemson.
Sorry HB, I'm not shedding tears for "slights" against the Buckeyes. You went undefeated. You won the B1G. You're in the playoff. Not sure what more you want.
Not looking for any tears or sympathy. Just making comments on a comment board.
-
hah, the ex Buckeye???
homer like Herbie
Actually they both go out of their way to appear objective.Yesterday was the 1st time I heard Herbie defend the alma mater in a while.Kinda got a shot in at Dabo
-
yup, but should never be surprised when they homer up
they, especially Herbie, do a good job
-
Herbie is usually polishing Michigan's knob when he isn't crying like a bitch, but every now and then he gets 'em real good, like derailing the Les Miles hire, or calling them out for waving the White flag.
-
Herbie knows how to polish knob to get paid
the little bitch
-
Truth. And while HB is mad because a couple of people have the audacity to question Ohio St most other fan bases are wondering if they get that same benefit of the doubt going 6-0 with their best wins being non-traditional powers Indiana and Northwestern.
Swing and a miss. Not mad- just perplexed.
“couple people”? Another incorrect statement.
and lastly/ no power five conference champ winner has gone undefeated and been left out. Not one. So if other fan bases are wondering about that- they just are ignorant of the facts
man this place went to shit this year. Anything you say gets attacked. FFS
-
Truth. And while HB is mad because a couple of people have the audacity to question Ohio St most other fan bases are wondering if they get that same benefit of the doubt going 6-0 with their best wins being non-traditional powers Indiana and Northwestern.
most other fan bases haven't accomplished as much in the playoffs as the Bucks
respect is earned on the field
in this case vs the top 4 in the nation
obviously most other fan bases are not, Bama and Clemson
-
most other fan bases haven't accomplished as much in the playoffs as the Bucks
respect is earned on the field
in this case vs the top 4 in the nation
obviously most other fan bases are not, Bama and Clemson
Proving it ON THE FIELD. Indeed. Important choice of words there.
And the other teams being compared against tOSU played almost double the number of games. You know, ON THE FIELD.
Questioning whether or not tOSU is worthy based on ON THE FIELD results, this year, isn't something crazy. It's completely valid.
Acting like it's NOT valid, is born of bias and/or homerism.
All that said, I think it's fine they got in. They're likely one of the 4 best teams. But THIS year, they didn't really prove that ON THE FIELD.
-
Swing and a miss. Not mad- just perplexed.
“couple people”? Another incorrect statement.
and lastly/ no power five conference champ winner has gone undefeated and been left out. Not one. So if other fan bases are wondering about that- they just are ignorant of the facts
man this place went to shit this year. Anything you say gets attacked. FFS
You got it. We'll be better.
Everyone is just so, so mean to OSU. As mean as Alabama and Clemson fans feel the media is to them.
-
I gotta say - usually we get this huge break until bowl season. Crazy that we have bowl games tomorrow, and the playoffs in less than two weeks.
Btw - expand the playoffs.
-
Swing and a miss. Not mad- just perplexed.
“couple people”? Another incorrect statement.
and lastly/ no power five conference champ winner has gone undefeated and been left out. Not one. So if other fan bases are wondering about that- they just are ignorant of the facts
man this place went to shit this year. Anything you say gets attacked. FFS
Who is attacking you? Just providing a different POV. In other years one team didn’t literally play 5 games less than others team in the country. It’s not crazy to bring that up.
-
most other fan bases haven't accomplished as much in the playoffs as the Bucks
respect is earned on the field
in this case vs the top 4 in the nation
obviously most other fan bases are not, Bama and Clemson
While technically true, they've gone three times, gone 1-and-out twice. Not a ton of accomplishing outside two programs.
Anyway, it's a year where there aren't a ton of high end options. OSU is a little weak on the resume, in part because a mess of good Big Ten teams were less good than normal. But they kicked the hell out of most teams, they're crazy talented and most of the other options are not inspiring.
-
I gotta say - usually we get this huge break until bowl season. Crazy that we have bowl games tomorrow, and the playoffs in less than two weeks.
Btw - expand the playoffs.
Yes! and Yes.
-
Btw - expand the playoffs.
(https://i.imgur.com/0zoURsU.png)
-
most other fan bases haven't accomplished as much in the playoffs as the Bucks
respect is earned on the field
in this case vs the top 4 in the nation
obviously most other fan bases are not, Bama and Clemson
Right, although technically each year and each version of each team is supposed to be judged in a bubble.
I get the come back to that is “yeah, well maybe it’s supposed to work like that but it doesn’t.” But that should be the goal.
-
Yes, expand! Let's get some more blowouts AND have a 2 or 3-loss national champ! Yaaaay!
-
Yes, expand! Let's get some more blowouts AND have a 2 or 3-loss national champ! Yaaaay!
Let's Have More Games That Mean Something
-
I'm not understanding all of these posts about Ohio State getting in. You're about a month late on that outrage. The very first CFP rankings told you all you needed to know - OSU had played half as many games as ND and Clemson up to that point.
Why start bitching now? You already knew this was happening.
-
Let's Have More Games That Mean Something
Bama being up 42-3 at halftime vs Coastal Carolina won't feel very meaningful, sorry.
-
....and right on cue ole Fro boy shows up in order to give the board a nice, rusty trombone. :great:
-
I'm not understanding all of these posts about Ohio State getting in. You're about a month late on that outrage. The very first CFP rankings told you all you needed to know - OSU had played half as many games as ND and Clemson up to that point.
Why start bitching now? You already knew this was happening.
And it’s been a talking point in the media from the very beginning. What I don’t understand is HB’s surprise that it was brought up again today.
-
Bama being up 42-3 at halftime vs Coastal Carolina won't feel very meaningful, sorry.
So if they are up 42-3 on Notre Dame, you will find meaning? I have a hard time understanding why some blowouts are good and meaningful and some are bad ads meaningless. In any event, my point is about games that aren't payoff games. Giving more teams certain ways to make the playoffs makes more meaningful games. This is good.
-
Yeah, expanding the playoff wasn’t the solution this year. The problem this year was finding a team outside of Bama and Clemson that felt right putting in.
-
Raise your hand if you're excited about the prospect of a 3rd Clemson vs ND game!
.
For those of you who are head-to-head worshippers - it probably would have helped A&M if their sole loss had to be anyone but the #1 team and helped even more if it was to a team ranked outside of the top 6. Sort of defies logic, doesn't it?
-
Yeah, expanding the playoff wasn’t the solution this year. The problem this year was finding a team outside of Bama and Clemson that felt right putting in.
The problem is that you could have guessed these playoff teams at the beginning of the season.
-
Bama being up 42-3 at halftime vs Coastal Carolina won't feel very meaningful, sorry.
But also would hurt nothing. Hell, they do that to historical powers now.
-
So if they are up 42-3 on Notre Dame, you will find meaning? I have a hard time understanding why some blowouts are good and meaningful and some are bad ads meaningless. In any event, my point is about games that aren't payoff games. Giving more teams certain ways to make the playoffs makes more meaningful games. This is good.
I get the logic of that argument, I really do. I can only say for me CFB’s race for 2 or 4 teams has always been more intriguing than other sports’ playoff races.
Seeing which 8-7 team is going to get the final Wild Card has never been must see TV for me. Neither has which 38 win team will get the 8th seed in the Eastern Conference. The race for the 16th spot in the playoffs wouldn’t have the same level of interest, imo.
-
Raise your hand if you're excited about the prospect of a 3rd Clemson vs ND game!
Why would I be excited for the prospect of a game that won't happen?
-
So if they are up 42-3 on Notre Dame, you will find meaning? I have a hard time understanding why some blowouts are good and meaningful and some are bad ads meaningless. In any event, my point is about games that aren't payoff games. Giving more teams certain ways to make the playoffs makes more meaningful games. This is good.
If Alabama is up 42-3 vs ND, it'd be late in the 4th quarter.
Are you wanting to see backups playing in the 3rd quarter of playoff games? If you go to 8 or 16 teams, that's going to happen more than occasionally.
.
When we're discussing who should play high-stakes football and enjoy the game for entertainment purposes, yes, let's be inclusive. The more the merrier.
When you're trying to identify the national champion, you need to be exclusive. I just happen to be on the competition end of the spectrum when it comes to finding a champion.
-
....and right on cue ole Fro boy shows up in order to give the board a nice, rusty trombone. :great:
What'd I do now?!? :88:
-
For those of you who are head-to-head worshippers - it probably would have helped A&M if their sole loss had to be anyone but the #1 team and helped even more if it was to a team ranked outside of the top 6. Sort of defies logic, doesn't it?
I mean, it would defy logic, but A&M's whole situation would be different. Because that loss did keep them out of the title game just because they got beat by someone better.
If they lost to a team outside the top six, it wouldn't be a 1-loss team that shut them out of Atlanta.
(They also didn't play many high level teams and spent too much time not blowing out low-level teams. Their whole argument is 1. Beat really good 8-3 UF 2. 8-3 in the SEC, NO DON'T LOOK AT THE RESULTS GAME BY GAME)
-
I get the logic of that argument, I really do. I can only say for me CFB’s race for 2 or 4 teams has always been more intriguing than other sports’ playoff races.
Seeing which 8-7 team is going to get the final Wild Card has never been must see TV for me. Neither has which 38 win team will get the 8th seed in the Eastern Conference. The race for the 16th spot in the playoffs wouldn’t have the same level of interest, imo.
I agree with that in professional sports. But college basketball has a system designed to give smaller teams a chance, and it's playoff system is the most popular in American sports. College football doesn't need to completely copy it - the regular season should be important. But there is a happy medium that makes more teams and leagues part of the process.
Cincinnati is actually ahead of ND on SP+. They never had any shot of being in the playoffs.
-
Not to mention the more teams there are in the playoff, the less urgent each regular season game becomes. We've already seen this - this weekend, Alabama was in even if it lost. ND, we found out, was in, even in a blowout loss.
That's crap. The very worst regular season of American sports is college basketball. A loss is a shrug. A loss is nothing. You can't name a huge, important regular season college basketball game from the past decade.
.
The more you expand the playoff, the closer you inch to that.
-
If Alabama is up 42-3 vs ND, it'd be late in the 4th quarter.
Are you wanting to see backups playing in the 3rd quarter of playoff games? If you go to 8 or 16 teams, that's going to happen more than occasionally.
.
When we're discussing who should play high-stakes football and enjoy the game for entertainment purposes, yes, let's be inclusive. The more the merrier.
When you're trying to identify the national champion, you need to be exclusive. I just happen to be on the competition end of the spectrum when it comes to finding a champion.
This makes no sense. If we get more blowouts, then we are by definition identifying better teams. Your criteria is explicitly about entertainment instead of finding the best team.
-
Cincinnati is actually ahead of ND on SP+. They never had any shot of being in the playoffs.
What did Cincinnati do to earn a shot of being in the playoff? Avoided a loss?
Austin Peay
Army
USF
SMU
Memphis
Houston
ECU
UCF
Tulsa
That schedule doesn't earn jack shit. Georgia wouldn't have lost vs that schedule, OU wouldn't, my lowly 8-3 Gators wouldn't. Hell, UNC, Iowa, Texas, and Oklahoma State wouldn't have lost vs that schedule. And each and every one of them would have been left out of the playoff - laughed off the national stage at the weakness of the scheudle.
-
This makes no sense. If we get more blowouts, then we are by definition identifying better teams. Your criteria is explicitly about entertainment instead of finding the best team.
Yeah, we've been diametrically opposed this past week you've been posting and now you're showing that you've got it all backwards.
Blowouts mean you've included teams that didn't belong. The teams winning the blowouts are the ones that would be included in a small playoff. That's the point. You have this all backwards.
The more you let in, you do so for entertainment purposes. It's a 3 year-old who gets its hands on the whole gallon of ice cream. More = better, wheeeeee!
.
The more exclusive you make it - to guard against allowing those who don't belong in - the more things are tilted towards competition. Closer games = competitive games.
-
Look at Cincinnati's schedule, seriously. That is a Conference USA, circa 2005 schedule. Look it up.
Someone here is earnestly advocating that it should earn a team a playoff spot? What in the shit?!?
-
I'm not understanding all of these posts about Ohio State getting in. You're about a month late on that outrage. The very first CFP rankings told you all you needed to know - OSU had played half as many games as ND and Clemson up to that point.
Why start bitching now? You already knew this was happening.
Ah, I see why. I was taking a nap and am watching the ESPN show now. The talking heads are obsessing about this thing we have known since the first playoff rankings. Fun.
-
Proving it ON THE FIELD. Indeed. Important choice of words there.
And the other teams being compared against tOSU played almost double the number of games. You know, ON THE FIELD.
Questioning whether or not tOSU is worthy based on ON THE FIELD results, this year, isn't something crazy. It's completely valid.
Acting like it's NOT valid, is born of bias and/or homerism.
All that said, I think it's fine they got in. They're likely one of the 4 best teams. But THIS year, they didn't really prove that ON THE FIELD.
Is the committee to take the four most deserving teams or the four best teams?
I realize what is proven on the field matters, but it's just to help decide who the four best teams are. Who's going to second guess the learned folks on the committee if they say they've got enough evidence after 6 games?
-
Is the committee to take the four most deserving teams or the four best teams?
I realize what is proven on the field matters, but it's just to help decide who the four best teams are. Who's going to second guess the learned folks on the committee if they say they've got enough evidence after 6 games?
HA!
Yeah. Uhhhh....
-
Yeah, we've been diametrically opposed this past week you've been posting and now you're showing that you've got it all backwards.
Blowouts mean you've included teams that didn't belong. The teams winning the blowouts are the ones that would be included in a small playoff. That's the point. You have this all backwards.
The more you let in, you do so for entertainment purposes. It's a 3 year-old who gets its hands on the whole gallon of ice cream. More = better, wheeeeee!
.
The more exclusive you make it - to guard against allowing those who don't belong in - the more things are tilted towards competition. Closer games = competitive games.
You are so close. If you were right, the playoffs would be tight, exciting affairs, and we would be disturbing something of great entertainment. Of course, we have gotten some great games, which would be would get under any playoff format. We have also gotten a lot of duds, which would also happen under any playoff format. Your entire premise, that we must have fewer games to have fewer blowouts, is not based in reality. We are getting plenty of blowouts now, and in fact many are predicting blowouts in both semifinals this year.
Further, you are leaving out the whole premise of sports in the first place. If the best team always won, there would be no reason to watch the games at all. There would be no entertainment, because we already know what's going to happen. Our current system is designed to encourage these types of games. You can pick 6 teams at the beginning of the season and be almost guaranteed get four of them right for the playoffs. That's a problem! There are 127 FBS teams. 121 have almost no shot at the beginning of the season to even play for a championship, much less win won.
Finally, the defense is shameful. The whole thing always comes down to things like, well, they can't beat Alabama, so they shouldn't be in the playoffs. We must reserve the playoffs for other teams who also probably won't beat the best team. No other playoff works this way. And by having this system, you are encouraging it to work this way. No player who wants to be in the playoffs should consider a school that isn't Alabama, Clemson, or Ohio State. You get a handful of other schools up there, and that's it. It would be galactically stupid for a football player to consider other schools, which is why these teams are getting better and better recruits. That's the system you want, and it kind of sucks, and there are better systems.
It's like a three year old who can't imagine anything except the ice cream right in front of him right now.
-
Is the committee to take the four most deserving teams or the four best teams?
I realize what is proven on the field matters, but it's just to help decide who the four best teams are. Who's going to second guess the learned folks on the committee if they say they've got enough evidence after 6 games?
They say "best teams for the playoff", which to me is not the same thing as "the four best teams", at all. They talk about how they weight factors like conference championships heavily, which is fine, but contradictory with "four best teams".
The latter could be stated and nothing else, if it were true.
-
Look at Cincinnati's schedule, seriously. That is a Conference USA, circa 2005 schedule. Look it up.
Someone here is earnestly advocating that it should earn a team a playoff spot? What in the shit?!?
We want the best teams, not the teams that played the best schedule.
-
Giving more teams certain ways to make the playoffs makes more meaningful games. This is good.
Not meaningful to Sunday Bound Kids who've watched the season stretched again for the the benefit of network wonks and not them.You of all people should know this counsel :040:,unless of course you have ABC/ESPN stock.The Play Offs aren't a Participation Trophy
-
We want the best teams, not the teams that played the best schedule.
Better start watching Sundays,too many collegiate teams to satisfy everyone
-
Better start watching Sundays,too many collegiate teams to satisfy everyone
Better tell that to the playoff committee, who may not realize more than 6 teams exist.
-
That have been punching below their weight
-
Better start watching Sundays,too many collegiate teams to satisfy everyone
Also, just some maths.
College Football includes 3 percent of the teams in the playoffs.
The NFL includes 44 percent.
I feel as though we could tick up the playoff participants without magically becoming the NFL. (Also, people still enjoy the NFL)
-
One of them are guaranteed cash - the other isn't and they shouldn't stretch their necks out until they have a contract inked
-
So if they are up 42-3 on Notre Dame, you will find meaning? I have a hard time understanding why some blowouts are good and meaningful and some are bad ads meaningless. In any event, my point is about games that aren't payoff games. Giving more teams certain ways to make the playoffs makes more meaningful games. This is good.
Yeah, expanding the playoff wasn’t the solution this year. The problem this year was finding a team outside of Bama and Clemson that felt right putting in.
And it’s been a talking point in the media from the very beginning. What I don’t understand is HB’s surprise that it was brought up again today.
Not a surprise that it was brought up. As you say it’s been a discussion point, and should be, four weeks.
What surprises me is that the voices of college football like Reese Davis and Richard Fowler, and coaches at several of the biggest universities are completely hung up and obsessed about it. Even after the decision was made in the playoffs selections were announced and their team made it in, they are still obsessing about it.
-
A - defenses have been behind all year in every conference
B - yes, once Saban started putting 93 octane in his own offense, there's been an admission that offenses can no longer be consistently shut down
Well, the score in the Big 12 CCG was 27-21. In the SEC, 52-46.
So, will we switch the insult to "SEC-ing"?
-
I agree Ohio St is in easy. I feel really queasy about putting them with a 6-0 record while some of these other teams have played 10 or 11 games but they are benefitting from the fact that no one outside of Bama and Clemson looks playoff caliber. If the committee had a 10-0 Oklahoma, or A&M had at least played Bama tough, or ND stayed with Clemson I think they would consider leaving Ohio St out, but everyone else’s warts puts Ohio St in.
I predict the 4th spot goes to ND but I would give it to Oklahoma if I were a one man committee. They have the conference championship. They have two close early season losses but avenged one of them. They have 3 ranked wins in Iowa St, Texas, and Ok St and they avoid potential rematches of blowouts in either the semis or title game.
Some day, a 2-loss team will get in the CFP, but never was going to be Oklahoma in 2020. Had OU held on to win either of those two games, it's probably in. The Committee seems to like OU, despite the winless record (so far) in the CFP. But not this year, with those two losses.
I think that OU might be the 4th-best team, but the whole season counts, and those two losses don't go away.
I have concluded that winning your conference championship should be a pre-requisite to playing in the CFP. Notre Dame: Join a conference or be left out. We'd be glad to welcome you as the 11th team in the Big 12.
-
Ugh. aggies or sooners for that 4th spot. It's like choosing between roasting in hell, or listening to Kirk Herbstreit 24/7 for ten years. Wait, those are the same thing...
Come on committee, do what your ESPN overlords bid you to do-- put in Notre Dame for the TV ratings. You know you want to!
The frying pan or the fire for a Texas fan! :57:
-
Of course
But why does it ALWAYS have to be directed at the Big? Is that the only thing that gets clicks?
For the same reason that the zebras always make bad calls against us and always make tough--but correct--calls against our opponents.
-
I want Tom Herman to get an extension
So do I.
-
How about if he simply uses his name, image and likeness in order to sell Extenze?
-
I agree with that in professional sports. But college basketball has a system designed to give smaller teams a chance, and it's playoff system is the most popular in American sports. College football doesn't need to completely copy it - the regular season should be important. But there is a happy medium that makes more teams and leagues part of the process.
Cincinnati is actually ahead of ND on SP+. They never had any shot of being in the playoffs.
The CBB regular-season has become near-meaningless.
We haven't really defined what we want the playoff to accomplish. Is it to determine the best team, or to crown a national champion, even if not the (by eye test) best team. Or is it to give as many teams as possible access to the process?
We know--as surely as we know that Alabama is one of the best teams--that Cincinnati is not one of the best teams. If we know that in advance, which we do, then what is the objective in expanding the playoff to ensure that a team like Cincinnati gets in?
-
We want the best teams, not the teams that played the best schedule.
Do you think that Cincinnati is one of the four best teams?
If so, would you have thought that Tulsa was top-4 had Cincy gotten that last-play FG blocked and Tulsa had won in OT? After all, Tulsa's only loss then would have been to Oklahoma State, a better team than any Cincy played.
-
UC might well beat an unmotivated UGA, just as UT did a while back.
And UCF beat Auburn.
-
How about if he simply uses his name, image and likeness in order to sell Extenze?
Did they put you in the rubber room again?
-
Has a G5 team EVER beaten a P5 team who was in the top 10 AND hadn't just lost it's chance at a national championship/playoff appearance their previous game?
Ever?
Utah beat an Alabama team that had lost out on it's NC goal the game before.
UCF beat an Auburn team in the same situation.
.
In other words, has a P5 team ever beaten a top 10 P5 team with it's season goals still in play? This might be the reason against an expanded playoff/Cincinnati situation that seems so inherent to me.
-
You could say App State, but that was week 1. Those are the least-accurate rankings possible.
-
The CBB regular-season has become near-meaningless.
We haven't really defined what we want the playoff to accomplish. Is it to determine the best team, or to crown a national champion, even if not the (by eye test) best team. Or is it to give as many teams as possible access to the process?
We know--as surely as we know that Alabama is one of the best teams--that Cincinnati is not one of the best teams. If we know that in advance, which we do, then what is the objective in expanding the playoff to ensure that a team like Cincinnati gets in?
Well, the answer is - what is the point of the playoffs at all? If it is to simply have the "best" teams, then quite obviously there should just be a game between Alabama and Clemson. Of course, we could have avoided the entire season, had those two teams play one game, and call it a day. It would have gotten us to the same point.
The other option on a playoff is providing an opportunity for every team to earn their way in. Cincinnati has no meaningful way to earn their way in, no matter how good they are. Do we want the postseason to be the result of what is earned on the field, or something else? Right now, something else is a big winner. Having teams earn their way in provides games that mean something to the winner. That provides more reason for players to play, which is good, and more entertainment for fans, which is good. While I understand not wanting to cheapen the regular season, there is something to be said for making the regular season more meaningful by making the games mean something.
-
Has a G5 team EVER beaten a P5 team who was in the top 10 AND hadn't just lost it's chance at a national championship/playoff appearance their previous game?
Ever?
Utah beat an Alabama team that had lost out on it's NC goal the game before.
UCF beat an Auburn team in the same situation.
.
In other words, has a P5 team ever beaten a top 10 P5 team with it's season goals still in play? This might be the reason against an expanded playoff/Cincinnati situation that seems so inherent to me.
I find this a very weird and self-defeating goal. We can't include G5 because they aren't good enough, and we also shouldn't count games where they beat a national championship contender. Of course the teams at the very top of the P5 are very good, and have a lot of advantages. The issue isn't so much that this dichotomy exists, because of course it does. The issue is you are saying the games shouldn't even be played, despite strong evidence that you reference that great G5 teams can play with great P5 teams.
-
Proving it ON THE FIELD. Indeed. Important choice of words there.
And the other teams being compared against tOSU played almost double the number of games. You know, ON THE FIELD.
Questioning whether or not tOSU is worthy based on ON THE FIELD results, this year, isn't something crazy. It's completely valid.
Acting like it's NOT valid, is born of bias and/or homerism.
All that said, I think it's fine they got in. They're likely one of the 4 best teams. But THIS year, they didn't really prove that ON THE FIELD.
so, proving it on the field also pertains to the past playoffs.. I know, it's supposed to be based on THIS season only, but we all know better. last season's playoff loss to Clemson by 6 points proved on the field that they belonged. Ohio State's wins over Bama and Oregon in 2014 still carry weight. maybe they shouldn't but we know they do.
this season only??? the Bucks have wins over #14 Northwestern, #11 Indiana, Penn St. and the other 3 wins vs Big Ten teams were blow outs. What team that was left out proved more on the field? Do A&M, OU, or Cincy have more than 2 wins over top 15 teams??? and 3 other wins vs P5 opponents that were blowouts?
-
The problem is that you could have guessed these playoff teams at the beginning of the season.
and the year before and the year before that
funny how some teams are very good 2, 3, 4 years in a row
-
Right, although technically each year and each version of each team is supposed to be judged in a bubble.
I get the come back to that is “yeah, well maybe it’s supposed to work like that but it doesn’t.” But that should be the goal.
let me know how you explain this to the committee
you're not wrong, but.......... that's not how the world works
-
The issue is you are saying the games shouldn't even be played, despite strong evidence that you reference that great G5 teams can play with great P5 teams.
Sam you may get your expanded playoffs.It'll be watered down by vacating talent migrating to prepare for the draft.Asking too much of the top talent to allow the FIELD to play by extending an already long season - longer.Just to prove more often than not they were right in the 1st place.Ask all the those who feel jilted if they wouldn't mind scheduling the blue bloods next season to fill their 25,000 seat stadiums.What we have isn't any worse than the BCS making so called educated guesses.
-
Not a surprise that it was brought up. As you say it’s been a discussion point, and should be, four weeks.
What surprises me is that the voices of college football like Reese Davis and Richard Fowler, and coaches at several of the biggest universities are completely hung up and obsessed about it. Even after the decision was made in the playoffs selections were announced and their team made it in, they are still obsessing about it.
I would say no one except Ohio St fans think the talking heads are obsessing about it. My guess is Ohio St fans are obsessing over them talking about it.
One of things I’ve always liked about the CFP is they wait several weeks into the season to release rankings so the results determine the rankings, not their expectations. The first rankings the CFP ever released had Mississippi St ranked #1 over Florida St despite the fact FSU was undefeated, the defending NC, had the defending Heisman winner, and had been ranked #1 in both preseason polls. Mississippi St was unranked in the preseason. There was an expectation FSU would be much better than MSU but the committee let the results play out and put Mississippi St ahead of them. I liked that.
When the initial polls were released Ohio St was ranked #4 b/c the CFP expected they would be good. Their limited results were good but the ranking had more to do with the CFP’s preconceived notion of them. For the first time the CFP seemed to by saying, “We already believe you’re good, now don’t screw it up.” Give the majority of the teams those same results after 4 games, while other teams had played 7 or 8 at that point, and they don’t start 4 out of the gate. That ranking had as much to do with the 2019 Buckeyes as the 2020 squad.
-
let me know how you explain this to the committee
you're not wrong, but.......... that's not how the world works
How would I explain it? I’d just tell them to discipline themselves and do what they are supposed to do. Judge teams on this year only. Previous versions of the CFP have actually done that. Look at my post regarding Mississippi St’s initial ranking in 2014. That committee didn’t let the previous year’s version of Mississippi St and Florida St come into play where they had them in 2014.
If they could do it this committee could have done it.
-
Has a G5 team EVER beaten a P5 team who was in the top 10 AND hadn't just lost it's chance at a national championship/playoff appearance their previous game?
Ever?
Utah beat an Alabama team that had lost out on it's NC goal the game before.
UCF beat an Auburn team in the same situation.
.
In other words, has a P5 team ever beaten a top 10 P5 team with it's season goals still in play? This might be the reason against an expanded playoff/Cincinnati situation that seems so inherent to me.
Houston and Tom Herman beat the No. 3 team in the country twice in 2016.
(It's weird because obviously most of those games happen early in the year, so teams are still paper tiger-ish to a degree. It obviously can't happen in a bowl and is super rare in the second half of the season).
-
you can explain it to them, but you can't force them to discipline themselves
-
“NEWS: Big Ten players who test positive for COVID-19 will only be required to miss 17 days, a reduction from 21, according to a document obtained by ESPN showing new policy from B1G's return to competition task force medical subcommittee. Same cardiac protocols will remain,” Rittenberg tweeted.
Ohio State play-making wide receiver Chris Olave was one of 22 players out for the Buckeyes ahead of Saturday's Big Ten Championship Game vs. Northwestern. It was unclear why the players were out whether it was due to COVID-19 or injuries or a mix of both.
In addition to Olave, the following players were on Ohio State's status report and listed as out: Cam Brown; Baron Browning; Steele Chambers; Drue Chrisman ;Jacolbe Cowan; Tommy Eichenberg; Tyler Friday; Zaid Hamdan; Jaylen Harris; Gunnar Hoak; Javontae Jean-Baptiste; Cade Kacherski; Jagger Laroe; Corey Rau; Ben Schmiesing; Bryson Shaw; Ryan Smith; Jaxson Smith-Njigba; Alec Taylor; Kourt Williams.
-
“NEWS: Big Ten players who test positive for COVID-19 will only be required to miss 17 days, a reduction from 21, according to a document obtained by ESPN showing new policy from B1G's return to competition task force medical subcommittee. Same cardiac protocols will remain,” Rittenberg tweeted.
Ohio State play-making wide receiver Chris Olave was one of 22 players out for the Buckeyes ahead of Saturday's Big Ten Championship Game vs. Northwestern. It was unclear why the players were out whether it was due to COVID-19 or injuries or a mix of both.
In addition to Olave, the following players were on Ohio State's status report and listed as out: Cam Brown; Baron Browning; Steele Chambers; Drue Chrisman ;Jacolbe Cowan; Tommy Eichenberg; Tyler Friday; Zaid Hamdan; Jaylen Harris; Gunnar Hoak; Javontae Jean-Baptiste; Cade Kacherski; Jagger Laroe; Corey Rau; Ben Schmiesing; Bryson Shaw; Ryan Smith; Jaxson Smith-Njigba; Alec Taylor; Kourt Williams.
Big Ten leadership has come around a little from their original stance back in the summer, huh?
-
it's all about the money
now
wasn't in the summer
-
Houston and Tom Herman beat the No. 3 team in the country twice in 2016.
(It's weird because obviously most of those games happen early in the year, so teams are still paper tiger-ish to a degree. It obviously can't happen in a bowl and is super rare in the second half of the season).
Thank you.
Yeah, after posting, I realized there's probably not much of a sample either way.
-
it's all about the money
now
wasn't in the summer
What was it about back in the summer?
-
How would I explain it? I’d just tell them to discipline themselves and do what they are supposed to do. Judge teams on this year only. Previous versions of the CFP have actually done that. Look at my post regarding Mississippi St’s initial ranking in 2014. That committee didn’t let the previous year’s version of Mississippi St and Florida St come into play where they had them in 2014.
If they could do it this committee could have done it.
About the only thing players aren't opting out of is playoff games and games that could affect the playoffs
-
Houston and Tom Herman beat the No. 3 team in the country twice in 2016.
(It's weird because obviously most of those games happen early in the year, so teams are still paper tiger-ish to a degree. It obviously can't happen in a bowl and is super rare in the second half of the season).
Appy State beat #5 Michigan.
-
About the only thing players aren't opting out of is playoff games and games that could affect the playoffs
I’m not following. What does that have to do with what I posted?
-
I’m not following. What does that have to do with what I posted?
😂 nothing, because I was trying to respond to Nubbz and somehow must have clicked on your post
-
About the only thing players aren't opting out of is playoff games and games that could affect the playoffs
Wait'll they start dragging it out,nothing to gain really.Hell Bradley Roby sat out 7 yrs ago vs Clemson.Ask Jaylyn Smith or Jake Butt(to name just a few) if they'd take that chance again.Here we go again - NFL needs to start a minor league,specially if they can pay a shill like Goodell 50 million a year
-
What was it about back in the summer?
apparently, university academic administrators were asked for their input.
probably jealous of all the $$$ that the Athletic department wastes each year
the really smart folks were trying to save mouth breathing knuckledraggin football players lives
-
Proving it ON THE FIELD. Indeed. Important choice of words there.
And the other teams being compared against tOSU played almost double the number of games. You know, ON THE FIELD.
Questioning whether or not tOSU is worthy based on ON THE FIELD results, this year, isn't something crazy. It's completely valid.
Acting like it's NOT valid, is born of bias and/or homerism.
All that said, I think it's fine they got in. They're likely one of the 4 best teams. But THIS year, they didn't really prove that ON THE FIELD.
I don't think it is ridiculous to question it but it is ridiculous to say, in on uncertain terms, that they didn't prove it. If you look at the six games that Ohio State played, they looked like a CFP Caliber team in about 10 of 12 halves of football (give or take). Nobody (not even Bama/Clemson) looked CFP caliber in every game let alone every half so 10/12 is REALLY good. It is a legitimate point to say "hey, if they had played 10 or 12 games they would have had a greater chance of getting upset to which I would answer with two things:
- While that is true, would it have mattered? Suppose tOSU had played their full (pandemic) schedule of nine games and the CG and gone 9-1 with a loss to either UMD, IL, or M. Ok, they are 9-1 and P5 Champion. #5 aTm is 8-1 and a non-champion with a blowout loss. Would that really beat out a 9-1 Champion? Each would have a bad loss (aTm's due to score, tOSU's due to opponent) but tOSU would have more wins and a league title.
- The price that Ohio State paid for only playing six games was that they had no margin for error. If Ohio State had shown up rusty and unready for their opener against Nebraska and lost a close one, they'd have finished 5-1 and the final spot would have been between 5-1 tOSU, 8-1 aTm, 8-2 OU, and 8-3 UF. In a normal year as a one-loss P5 Champion tOSU would have been 12-1 and obviously in but in this year, I don't think 5-1 gets them over aTm/OU.
-
You got it. We'll be better.
Everyone is just so, so mean to OSU. As mean as Alabama and Clemson fans feel the media is to them.
Eh, give @Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) a little credit. Not long before this exchange I was getting after him for being overly negative on tOSU so he felt like he was getting it from both sides.
-
I don't think it is ridiculous to question it but it is ridiculous to say, in on uncertain terms, that they didn't prove it. If you look at the six games that Ohio State played, they looked like a CFP Caliber team in about 10 of 12 halves of football (give or take). Nobody (not even Bama/Clemson) looked CFP caliber in every game let alone every half so 10/12 is REALLY good. It is a legitimate point to say "hey, if they had played 10 or 12 games they would have had a greater chance of getting upset to which I would answer with two things:
- While that is true, would it have mattered? Suppose tOSU had played their full (pandemic) schedule of nine games and the CG and gone 9-1 with a loss to either UMD, IL, or M. Ok, they are 9-1 and P5 Champion. #5 aTm is 8-1 and a non-champion with a blowout loss. Would that really beat out a 9-1 Champion? Each would have a bad loss (aTm's due to score, tOSU's due to opponent) but tOSU would have more wins and a league title.
- The price that Ohio State paid for only playing six games was that they had no margin for error. If Ohio State had shown up rusty and unready for their opener against Nebraska and lost a close one, they'd have finished 5-1 and the final spot would have been between 5-1 tOSU, 8-1 aTm, 8-2 OU, and 8-3 UF. In a normal year as a one-loss P5 Champion tOSU would have been 12-1 and obviously in but in this year, I don't think 5-1 gets them over aTm/OU.
Playing more games absolutely would have resulted in a greater chance at a loss. It's statistical fact.
You're not one of those science-deniers, are you? :)
-
While technically true, they've gone three times, gone 1-and-out twice. Not a ton of accomplishing outside two programs.
Anyway, it's a year where there aren't a ton of high end options. OSU is a little weak on the resume, in part because a mess of good Big Ten teams were less good than normal. But they kicked the hell out of most teams, they're crazy talented and most of the other options are not inspiring.
On your first paragraph:
There certainly isn't much "accomplishing" outside of Bama/Clemson. They have four CFP semi-final wins each. The entire rest of the universe has four total (one each for tOSU, LSU, UGA, and Oregon).
With that said, the gap after Bama/Clemson is large but tOSU is the CLEAR #3. Oklahoma equals tOSU in appearances but they are 0-4 in CFP games while tOSU is 2-2. LSU equals tOSU in CFP Championships but LSU's one Championship is also their ONLY CFP appearance while tOSU has three others and tOSU was close every time they missed.
On your second paragraph:
I think the weakness after Bama/Clemson (whether perceived or actual) is a big factor here. Ohio State's six games would obviously have done them in if the B12 and P12 had produced 12-0 Champions but that was never possible and even if the B12 and P12 had managed to produce undefeated champions who knows. As it is, your next highest ranked teams were:
- A 10-1 non-Champion ND that got curb-stomped in their last game by Clemson.
- An 8-1 non-Champion aTm that got curb-stomped by Bama.
- An 8-2 B12 Champion OU with a loss to a sub .500 team.
- An 8-3 Florida with a loss to a sub .500 team.
It is one thing to say "6-0 isn't enough", it is another to explain which two of those teams should be in ahead of them. None of them presented a very compelling case.
-
Playing more games absolutely would have resulted in a greater chance at a loss. It's statistical fact.
You're not one of those science-deniers, are you? :)
I'm not denying that it would have increased the chance of a loss, I'm questioning whether or not it would have mattered.
-
- While that is true, would it have mattered? Suppose tOSU had played their full (pandemic) schedule of nine games and the CG and gone 9-1 with a loss to either UMD, IL, or M. Ok, they are 9-1 and P5 Champion. #5 aTm is 8-1 and a non-champion with a blowout loss. Would that really beat out a 9-1 Champion? Each would have a bad loss (aTm's due to score, tOSU's due to opponent) but tOSU would have more wins and a league title.
the 3 games the Bucks missed:::
@ Maryland
@ Illinois
Michigan in the Shoe
from what we know about this 3 teams, there wasn't much chance of losing a game - or improving the Buck's resume
-
the 3 games the Bucks missed:::
@ Maryland
@ Illinois
Michigan in the Shoe
from what we know about this 3 teams, there wasn't much chance of losing a game - or improving the Buck's resume
I think you're right.
But a Buckeye might have gotten injured.
IMO, tOSU is the right choice for #3, but playing only 6 games, compared to 10, has left the team relatively fresh and uninjured compared to others.
OTOH, as HB has said, it may have left the team rusty too.
-
I get the logic of that argument, I really do. I can only say for me CFB’s race for 2 or 4 teams has always been more intriguing than other sports’ playoff races.
Seeing which 8-7 team is going to get the final Wild Card has never been must see TV for me. Neither has which 38 win team will get the 8th seed in the Eastern Conference. The race for the 16th spot in the playoffs wouldn’t have the same level of interest, imo.
I agree with this 100%. Consider CBB:
If yours (WVU, right?) or my (tOSU) team is on the bubble we'll want our team to get in, but it is just "to get in" we don't have any illusions that our team has a plausible shot at an NC. We know better, they don't. If they are on the bubble they are probably good enough that it wouldn't be shocking if they won say a 6/11 upset and maybe even took out say a #3 seed to make it to the S16 but we know darn good and well that they have no realistic chance of winning four games the last two weekends of the tournament because they just aren't good enough and we know it.
With the last couple spots in the CFP it is totally different. Ohio State *COULD* win it this year. They did win it as the last team in in 2014 and I think their best team of the CFP era was 2015 when they finished #7. The race for the last few CFP spots is more intense because usually the "bubble" teams for the CFP are good enough to potentially win it.
-
For those of you who are head-to-head worshippers - it probably would have helped A&M if their sole loss had to be anyone but the #1 team and helped even more if it was to a team ranked outside of the top 6. Sort of defies logic, doesn't it?
That is one of the weird things about the CFP and it started back in 2014. Ohio State and Baylor each lost by two TD's to a mediocre team and both wound up ranked ahead of TCU. The Horned Frogs lost by a FG on the road to Baylor. TCU would have been much better off to lose to Kansas (a horrible team that they only beat by 4). It has been true ever since. If aTm's game with Bama had been canceled due to COVID but they had played a mediocre SEC-E team and lost they would be a LOT better off.
-
That is one of the weird things about the CFP and it started back in 2014. Ohio State and Baylor each lost by two TD's to a mediocre team and both wound up ranked ahead of TCU. The Horned Frogs lost by a FG on the road to Baylor. TCU would have been much better off to lose to Kansas (a horrible team that they only beat by 4). It has been true ever since. If aTm's game with Bama had been canceled due to COVID but they had played a mediocre SEC-E team and lost they would be a LOT better off.
Head to head takes some of the guess work out of it, though. So much of this comes down to comparing resumes and looking at teams that haven’t played each other and making assumptions. A head to head matchup gives you a real, tangible result between two teams you are trying to compare.
-
I have concluded that winning your conference championship should be a pre-requisite to playing in the CFP. Notre Dame: Join a conference or be left out. We'd be glad to welcome you as the 11th team in the Big 12.
I would be more apt to support this IF all conferences went to a divisonless format where the best two played in the CG like the B12. The problem in the other leagues is that HFA matters and upsets happen and sometimes (Bama @ Auburn, tOSU @ PSU) the better team goes on the road and loses and in a division format that can keep the best team in the league from winning the league. That is why I like the idea of having at least the possibility of a non-Champion getting in. Losing a game like that matters and it should but IMHO, it shouldn't necessarily be fatal especially when the upset winner (Auburn/PSU) is clearly NOT CFP caliber and it was clearly an upset.
-
Not to mention the more teams there are in the playoff, the less urgent each regular season game becomes. We've already seen this - this weekend, Alabama was in even if it lost. ND, we found out, was in, even in a blowout loss.
That's crap. The very worst regular season of American sports is college basketball. A loss is a shrug. A loss is nothing. You can't name a huge, important regular season college basketball game from the past decade.
.
The more you expand the playoff, the closer you inch to that.
This is always and forever unavoidably true. Bama and ND, as it turns out, were playing for seeding only this past weekend. I'm not a fan of that. Also, Clemson may have been also playing for seeding only. At least two and as many as three teams went into last weekend already locked in.
-
I think you're right.
But a Buckeye might have gotten injured.
IMO, tOSU is the right choice for #3, but playing only 6 games, compared to 10, has left the team relatively fresh and uninjured compared to others.
OTOH, as HB has said, it may have left the team rusty too.
Beyond that, although the probability of winning each of those games is high, the probability of winning all three is much lower. That's the way probability works.
Take the Aggies for example-- they're a much better team than 0-9 Vanderbilit. And yet they struggled to beat Vanderbilt. That was very much a potential loss.
Conversely, the Buckeyes missed out on 3 more opportunities to struggle against, and potentially lose to, a bad team.
It's hard to go undefeated against a P5 schedule over 10-12 games. Clemson didn't do it. Notre Dame didn't do it. Ohio State didn't do it.
Only Alabama did it.
-
Head to head takes some of the guess work out of it, though. So much of this comes down to comparing resumes and looking at teams that haven’t played each other and making assumptions. A head to head matchup gives you a real, tangible result between two teams you are trying to compare.
I get it and I understand why people like H2H so much but there is another way to look at it:
In a normal season each CCG participant plays 13 games and each non-CCG participant plays 12. Those are either 12 or 13 data points.
The unavoidable reality is that the best team doesn't always win. H2H shouldn't be all-powerful because HFA exists and also because sometimes, even if they are at home, the better team just has a bad day.
The problem created by relying on H2H is that by rewarding a team for a good win that team is also effectively rewarded for a bad loss.
Consider if tOSU beats PSU. If they both go undefeated otherwise then tOSU wins but H2H never comes into play because the Buckeyes have a better record (12-0 vs 11-1). H2H only comes into play if tOSU loses to somebody else. The problem I have is that if tOSU and PSU both finish 11-1 and tOSU beat PSU then, by definition, tOSU has a worse loss. Reliance on H2H rewards that good win (tOSU's over PSU) but it also rewards that bad loss (tOSU to say RU).
I see it in our Power Rankings each week. You can't go by H2H because every year you get the same problem. Some 2-10 team beat some 3-9 team that beat some 4-8 team that beat some 5-7 team . . . that beat some 11-1 team. I think in data-points. In a normal season each team has 12 or 13 data points.
-
Right, although technically each year and each version of each team is supposed to be judged in a bubble.
I get the come back to that is “yeah, well maybe it’s supposed to work like that but it doesn’t.” But that should be the goal.
How do you view a team in a bubble?
I mean, part of that "bubble" is what they do solely on the field. But part of that bubble is also who they are. The CFP knows who is on their roster.
When the initial CFP rankings were released, OSU was 4-0 and Northwestern was 5-0. OSU was 4th and Northwestern was 8th.
Northwestern had blown out Maryland, had narrower wins over Iowa and Purdue, a solid defeat over Nebraska, and a convincing win over Wisconsin.
Ohio State had blown out Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, and had a narrower win over Indiana.
On strength of resume, I could see Northwestern possibly edging out Ohio State in the first CFP release. After all, Nebraska and Penn State looked terrible, Rutgers is far below what we normally think of Iowa and Wisconsin, and Indiana is Indiana.
Yet the CFP still ranked OSU 4 spots higher, on one less game and arguably an equal or possibly even lesser resume.
Seems they knew what they were talking about, though, because in the H2H matchup an Ohio State team that was significantly hobbled by players out due to COVID beat Northwestern by double digits.
So how do you judge them in a bubble? I realize "last year's results" shouldn't come into it... And I agree. But typically a pretty high portion of last year's talent is still on the roster, and by recruiting rankings you suspect the incoming talent is just as good as what graduated or went to the NFL. So is it that wrong to give a team the "benefit of the doubt"?
If the committee had ranked Northwestern over Ohio State at that point, would we not all have looked at it and wondered WTF they're smoking?
-
I'm not denying that it would have increased the chance of a loss, I'm questioning whether or not it would have mattered.
It may not have. What is almost undeniable to me is that Ohio St was being judged differently than almost every other team in the nation from the start. In the initial ranking they were 4-0 and ranked #4. Those 4 wins were a blowout of Nebraska, a blowout of Rutgers where the final score was closer than the actual game, a 13 point win over Penn St, and a 7 point win over Indiana.
Oregon started out 3-0 with a 21 point win over Stanford, a 14 point win over Wazzu, and a 3 point win over UCLA. Those 3 victories got Oregon a #15 ranking and behind several one loss teams and even two 2 loss teams.
USC started out 3-0 with close wins over ASU and Arizona and a two touchdown win over Utah. That got them slotted #18 behind a third two loss team.
If you are telling me Ohio St should have been ranked higher than those teams because they looked better and/or had a better resume I can buy that. If you are telling me the gap should have been THAT big right out of the gate between undefeated P5 teams I have trouble believing that. What the committee didn’t have in 2020 results they filled in with 2019 (and maybe even further back) results. I don’t think they did that with any other team.
-
How do you view a team in a bubble?
I mean, part of that "bubble" is what they do solely on the field. But part of that bubble is also who they are. The CFP knows who is on their roster.
When the initial CFP rankings were released, OSU was 4-0 and Northwestern was 5-0. OSU was 4th and Northwestern was 8th.
Northwestern had blown out Maryland, had narrower wins over Iowa and Purdue, a solid defeat over Nebraska, and a convincing win over Wisconsin.
Ohio State had blown out Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, and had a narrower win over Indiana.
On strength of resume, I could see Northwestern possibly edging out Ohio State in the first CFP release. After all, Nebraska and Penn State looked terrible, Rutgers is far below what we normally think of Iowa and Wisconsin, and Indiana is Indiana.
Yet the CFP still ranked OSU 4 spots higher, on one less game and arguably an equal or possibly even lesser resume.
Seems they knew what they were talking about, though, because in the H2H matchup an Ohio State team that was significantly hobbled by players out due to COVID beat Northwestern by double digits.
So how do you judge them in a bubble? I realize "last year's results" shouldn't come into it... And I agree. But typically a pretty high portion of last year's talent is still on the roster, and by recruiting rankings you suspect the incoming talent is just as good as what graduated or went to the NFL. So is it that wrong to give a team the "benefit of the doubt"?
If the committee had ranked Northwestern over Ohio State at that point, would we not all have looked at it and wondered WTF they're smoking?
I would have had zero problem with NW over OSU if the CFP had done that.
-
How do you view a team in a bubble?
I mean, part of that "bubble" is what they do solely on the field. But part of that bubble is also who they are. The CFP knows who is on their roster.
When the initial CFP rankings were released, OSU was 4-0 and Northwestern was 5-0. OSU was 4th and Northwestern was 8th.
Northwestern had blown out Maryland, had narrower wins over Iowa and Purdue, a solid defeat over Nebraska, and a convincing win over Wisconsin.
Ohio State had blown out Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, and had a narrower win over Indiana.
On strength of resume, I could see Northwestern possibly edging out Ohio State in the first CFP release. After all, Nebraska and Penn State looked terrible, Rutgers is far below what we normally think of Iowa and Wisconsin, and Indiana is Indiana.
Yet the CFP still ranked OSU 4 spots higher, on one less game and arguably an equal or possibly even lesser resume.
Seems they knew what they were talking about, though, because in the H2H matchup an Ohio State team that was significantly hobbled by players out due to COVID beat Northwestern by double digits.
So how do you judge them in a bubble? I realize "last year's results" shouldn't come into it... And I agree. But typically a pretty high portion of last year's talent is still on the roster, and by recruiting rankings you suspect the incoming talent is just as good as what graduated or went to the NFL. So is it that wrong to give a team the "benefit of the doubt"?
If the committee had ranked Northwestern over Ohio State at that point, would we not all have looked at it and wondered WTF they're smoking?
I think part of it is that this year is just different because there are so few games.
When the first CFP rankings of 2019 came out each of the 25 ranked teams had either eight or nine games. Their eight or nine opponents each probably had eight or nine games as well. Thus, it was more-or-less possible to rank the teams based solely on 2019 performance. You had eight or nine games each to evaluate each team and eight or nine games each to evaluate each of their opponents. Here are the # of opponents for the top-10 in this years first CFP rankings:
On top of that, this year you had almost zero OOC games so it is nearly impossible to evaluate the relative strength of the conferences. The B1G teams have only played each other. Maybe we all suck and Ohio State is just the tallest midget. Conversely, maybe this conference is all-time great and Ohio State's undefeated trip through it is the product of an all-time great team. I frankly doubt that either of those two extremes are correct but there is no "on the field" way to disprove either.
The SEC and PAC didn't play OOC games either so you can play the same game with them and I think that the ACC and B12 only played one each so that doesn't help much.
-
It may not have. What is almost undeniable to me is that Ohio St was being judged differently than almost every other team in the nation from the start. In the initial ranking they were 4-0 and ranked #4.
except for Clemson and Bama
we all know why
-
Up until this year I had always done my own rankings using the same criteria the CFP uses. I’ve always been more of a resume guy than eye test guy, and I do my best to base it on the current year and not past accomplishments. I may have had NW over Ohio St myself if I had done my rankings this year.
-
I get it and I understand why people like H2H so much but there is another way to look at it:
In a normal season each CCG participant plays 13 games and each non-CCG participant plays 12. Those are either 12 or 13 data points.
The unavoidable reality is that the best team doesn't always win. H2H shouldn't be all-powerful because HFA exists and also because sometimes, even if they are at home, the better team just has a bad day.
The problem created by relying on H2H is that by rewarding a team for a good win that team is also effectively rewarded for a bad loss.
Consider if tOSU beats PSU. If they both go undefeated otherwise then tOSU wins but H2H never comes into play because the Buckeyes have a better record (12-0 vs 11-1). H2H only comes into play if tOSU loses to somebody else. The problem I have is that if tOSU and PSU both finish 11-1 and tOSU beat PSU then, by definition, tOSU has a worse loss. Reliance on H2H rewards that good win (tOSU's over PSU) but it also rewards that bad loss (tOSU to say RU).
I see it in our Power Rankings each week. You can't go by H2H because every year you get the same problem. Some 2-10 team beat some 3-9 team that beat some 4-8 team that beat some 5-7 team . . . that beat some 11-1 team. I think in data-points. In a normal season each team has 12 or 13 data points.
I think H2H should be used when resumes are close, not as a be all, end all.
-
Not to mention the more teams there are in the playoff, the less urgent each regular season game becomes. We've already seen this - this weekend, Alabama was in even if it lost. ND, we found out, was in, even in a blowout loss.
That's crap. The very worst regular season of American sports is college basketball. A loss is a shrug. A loss is nothing. You can't name a huge, important regular season college basketball game from the past decade.
.
The more you expand the playoff, the closer you inch to that.
I've said it before, but I'll repeat.
There is no sport like American Football, whether NFL or college, as it relates to fan engagement. The reason for this is twofold:
- The seasons are short.
- [Almost] All games are played on weekends.
That is the reason we think so much about the "regular season" mattering. That is why so many games are "important" games--because we can arrange our week around watching them.
Football is a body-destroying sport. You can't have 3 games a week over a 6-month season. It just doesn't work. The only thing I can think of offhand that are worse are boxing and MMA, and those guys go months between bouts to recover.
If someone asks you what you're doing on a Saturday, you might answer "watching football." If they ask what you're watching, it might be "well Florida plays at 3:30, but I'll probably catch a few early games at noon while I'm puttering around the house and I'm having buddies over for the big 'Bama-LSU matchup on in prime time." It's a day, and you watch whatever the best football game is on that day.
If Purdue and Michigan State are playing a hoops game on a Tuesday in February, you'd be damn sure I'm watching that. I'll bet a lot of the other hardcore college basketball fans in the Big Ten might watch that too, especially if both teams are in the hunt for the conference championship. Those games are still important--to the teams playing.
The difference is that a college football fan sees a limited number of days called "Saturday" in the fall as appointment television. It's just hard to do that on a random Tuesday night in February. And then it's hard to sustain it through the entire week and weekend because games are played EVERY day. I'd also have a tough time getting "up" for a random Wednesday night game between #1 Bama and #5 LSU as well--it's in the middle of the work week and I have crap to do. Just as even the NFL, which successfully created "Monday Night Football", continues to fall flat on its face with "Thursday Night Football" because fans just don't have time--they're getting ready for the weekend rather than recovering from their first day back at work.
The lack of engagement isn't due to the playoff structure or games "not mattering". It's more due to schedule and number of games.
-
except for Clemson and Bama
we all know why
Go ahead. I’m listening.
-
As I said before any of these threads started, the committee uses their opinion and then reverse engineers their explanation to rationalize their decision. This year is no different and even more controversial because of the weird year that we had.
That’s why I would prefer the old system and just let the coaches pick the national champion or whatever because nobody’s ever happy.
I would have absolutely no problem excluding Ohio State. They didn’t prove anything on the field and don’t look any better than any other team out there.
They don’t pass any eye test and haven’t beaten anybody worth of shit as most of the posters here have already iterated. I have absolutely no problem with that conclusion, sincerely.
I could also see how you could punch big holes in any other team other than Clemson and Alabama.
I’m going to find it hard to imagine that this message gets attacked but I have a feeling it will anyway. It’s getting hard to post anything without smart ass or highfalutin Responses
-
I would have had zero problem with NW over OSU if the CFP had done that.
Let me ask you though... Based on what you knew of both teams, would you have projected Northwestern to beat Ohio State on a neutral field?
If you were pick'em odds (basically a -110 money line on the game), would you have felt comfortably dropping whatever your "big enough to care" betting amount on Northwestern at that point?
Because if you were going to rank Ohio State below Northwestern but didn't trust with your own money that they'd lose to Northwestern in a straight up bet, then I question your rankings...
-
I've said it before, but I'll repeat.
There is no sport like American Football, whether NFL or college, as it relates to fan engagement. The reason for this is twofold:
- The seasons are short.
- [Almost] All games are played on weekends.
That is the reason we think so much about the "regular season" mattering. That is why so many games are "important" games--because we can arrange our week around watching them.
Football is a body-destroying sport. You can't have 3 games a week over a 6-month season. It just doesn't work. The only thing I can think of offhand that are worse are boxing and MMA, and those guys go months between bouts to recover.
If someone asks you what you're doing on a Saturday, you might answer "watching football." If they ask what you're watching, it might be "well Florida plays at 3:30, but I'll probably catch a few early games at noon while I'm puttering around the house and I'm having buddies over for the big 'Bama-LSU matchup on in prime time." It's a day, and you watch whatever the best football game is on that day.
If Purdue and Michigan State are playing a hoops game on a Tuesday in February, you'd be damn sure I'm watching that. I'll bet a lot of the other hardcore college basketball fans in the Big Ten might watch that too, especially if both teams are in the hunt for the conference championship. Those games are still important--to the teams playing.
The difference is that a college football fan sees a limited number of days called "Saturday" in the fall as appointment television. It's just hard to do that on a random Tuesday night in February. And then it's hard to sustain it through the entire week and weekend because games are played EVERY day. I'd also have a tough time getting "up" for a random Wednesday night game between #1 Bama and #5 LSU as well--it's in the middle of the work week and I have crap to do. Just as even the NFL, which successfully created "Monday Night Football", continues to fall flat on its face with "Thursday Night Football" because fans just don't have time--they're getting ready for the weekend rather than recovering from their first day back at work.
The lack of engagement isn't due to the playoff structure or games "not mattering". It's more due to schedule and number of games.
Your point is valid but so is OAM’s. We obviously can’t watch 4 hours of college basketball every night but we also know we can sorta tune it out until March.
-
As I said before any of these threads started, the committee uses their opinion and then reverse engineers their explanation to rationalize their decision. This year is no different and even more controversial because of the weird year that we had.
That’s why I would prefer the old system and just let the coaches pick the national champion or whatever because nobody’s ever happy.
I would have absolutely no problem excluding Ohio State. They didn’t prove anything on the field and don’t look any better than any other team out there.
They don’t pass any eye test and haven’t beaten anybody worth of shit as most of the posters here have already iterated. I have absolutely no problem with that conclusion, sincerely.
I could also see how you could punch big holes in any other team other than Clemson and Alabama.
I’m going to find it hard to imagine that this message gets attacked but I have a feeling it will anyway. It’s getting hard to post anything without smart ass or highfalutin Responses
Well I'm going to attack your post, because I think that your team HAS looked better than plenty of other teams out there. :)
I won't speak for anyone else on this thread, but my only "questioning" of Ohio State, was about the people that were questioning the questioning, know what I mean? I think it's a reasonable point to bring up that Ohio State played a considerably shorter season. I think that's a valid consideration when choosing the beauty pageant winners for the 4-team tourney. But that doesn't mean I think Ohio State doesn't beloing-- personally I think they're most likely one of the 4 best (3 best, actually) teams in the country.
So I have no problem with putting them into the CFP. But at the same time, I don't think people that are pointing out the issues with the shortened season, are being unreasonable nor do I think they're attacking Ohio State or the B1G in any specific way. It's all about the schedule.
-
Let me ask you though... Based on what you knew of both teams, would you have projected Northwestern to beat Ohio State on a neutral field?
If you were pick'em odds (basically a -110 money line on the game), would you have felt comfortably dropping whatever your "big enough to care" betting amount on Northwestern at that point?
Because if you were going to rank Ohio State below Northwestern but didn't trust with your own money that they'd lose to Northwestern in a straight up bet, then I question your rankings...
No, of course not. I rank teams below a team I think they would beat all the time. Why? What I “think” has been proven wrong a lot in the past. I had Iowa like 2 or 3 in 2015 right up until they lost to Michigan St. I probably would have picked most of my top 10 to beat them on a neutral field.
-
That is one of the weird things about the CFP and it started back in 2014. Ohio State and Baylor each lost by two TD's to a mediocre team and both wound up ranked ahead of TCU. The Horned Frogs lost by a FG on the road to Baylor. TCU would have been much better off to lose to Kansas (a horrible team that they only beat by 4). It has been true ever since. If aTm's game with Bama had been canceled due to COVID but they had played a mediocre SEC-E team and lost they would be a LOT better off.
I don't think those situations are totally on the same level.
The first part is about floor and ceiling to a degree. You have 12-13 games. If you lose one, if it's a good one, it costs a chance at a good win. If it's a worse one, you have a better win vs the same slate (plus as you said tie-breakers). It replaced the "how close are you to undefeated" metric that was king for so long. I can see bad loss avoidance as good, but let's face it, it seems like it's less of a feat then slaying better teams.
If A&M is 8-1 with an SEC-E loss, it's worse off than now because attention just shifts to the lack of good teams on the schedule. It's still shut out of the conference title game. It's still been middling at trampling people. The only way that would help if they traded a bad loss for an upset of Bama. Which, yeah, that would be better for them.
-
Your point is valid but so is OAM’s. We obviously can’t watch 4 hours of college basketball every night but we also know we can sorta tune it out until March.
I think we can partially tune it out until March because the Tournament is one of the most awesome things in all of sports. It's an event. Even the CFP never really managed that, partly (IMHO) due to doing their championship game on a weeknight.
I'd venture to say that the Tournament, and the Super Bowl, carry the same thing for most fans--you really don't care who wins the whole thing. For the Super Bowl it's a party and a communal watch event and about the food and about the commercials and drinking way too much on a Sunday and feeling it the next day at work. Hell, it's the only real "holiday" (as in something you celebrate with others) between New Year's Eve and Memorial Day. For the Tournament it's brackets and Cinderella stories and who get into [or misses] the Final Four. Who actually wins? I mean, for the most part who cares? Unless it's your own team, obviously. But out of 32 NFL teams only two fan bases are represented in the SB, and out of 300+ NCAA teams only 4 are represented in the Final Four.
-
I think we can partially tune it out until March because the Tournament is one of the most awesome things in all of sports. It's an event. Even the CFP never really managed that, partly (IMHO) due to doing their championship game on a weeknight.
I'd venture to say that the Tournament, and the Super Bowl, carry the same thing for most fans--you really don't care who wins the whole thing. For the Super Bowl it's a party and a communal watch event and about the food and about the commercials and drinking way too much on a Sunday and feeling it the next day at work. Hell, it's the only real "holiday" (as in something you celebrate with others) between New Year's Eve and Memorial Day. For the Tournament it's brackets and Cinderella stories and who get into [or misses] the Final Four. Who actually wins? I mean, for the most part who cares? Unless it's your own team, obviously. But out of 32 NFL teams only two fan bases are represented in the SB, and out of 300+ NCAA teams only 4 are represented in the Final Four.
I agree with what you said about the NFL/SB but lets ignore that for a minute and just compare CFB/CBB:
The differences are ingrained and, I guess, "baked in" to our viewing of the sport. I don't think that fans "hate" great CBB programs as much as they "hate" great CFB programs simply because they aren't conditioned by YEARS and DECADES of rooting against the top teams where it mattered and this is true regardless if you are a fan of a major helmet program like me or a fan of a team that hasn't been seriously in the NC conversation in years.
If Purdue and Ohio State were NC contenders in CBB this year neither your team nor mine would "need" UNC/Kansas/Kentucky/Dook et al to lose. It wouldn't matter if they all went undefeated (I know they can't ALL go undefeated but that isn't the point). So what. No matter how good those blue-bloods are, each of our teams can still get into the postseason tournament. In fact, both of our teams can still get in the postseason tournament.
In CFB it is (and certainly was) different. If Purdue and Ohio State were NC contenders in CFB this year there are only four spots. Our teams can't get in unless they are in the top-4. If our teams have to play each other (which, with the CG they necessarily would if both were NC contenders) then in order for both to get in we NEED Bama/Clemson/Oklahoma/USC to lose a game or two. This was even more of an issue prior to 2014 when only two teams made the playoff and a bigger still issue prior to 1998 when there was no playoff. For decades we have been conditioned to ALWAYS root against the top teams because we needed them to get cleared out to make room for our team to win the final poll (then make the final top-2, now make the final top-4).
-
No, of course not. I rank teams below a team I think they would beat all the time. Why? What I “think” has been proven wrong a lot in the past. I had Iowa like 2 or 3 in 2015 right up until they lost to Michigan St. I probably would have picked most of my top 10 to beat them on a neutral field.
Sorry, I got caught up in the ranking of a 4-0 OSU vs 5-0 NU and didn't really extrapolate wider.
I guess the better question...
You're on the committee. You have selected three of the four [obvious] CFP choices, and you're down to the last one. By whatever manner of hell that brought you there, your two best choices are that 4-0 Ohio State team and that 5-0 Northwestern team. Your job is to pick the best team between those two for the playoff.
Who do you pick and why?
-
so, your buddy Dabo voted Ohio St. at #11?
apparently, he doesn't want to face them on the field
-
so, your buddy Dabo voted Ohio St. at #11?
apparently, he doesn't want to face them on the field
Who TF here likes Dabo like that?
-
Sorry, I got caught up in the ranking of a 4-0 OSU vs 5-0 NU and didn't really extrapolate wider.
Hey clean it up fer crying out loud
-
I agree with what you said about the NFL/SB but lets ignore that for a minute and just compare CFB/CBB:
The differences are ingrained and, I guess, "baked in" to our viewing of the sport. I don't think that fans "hate" great CBB programs as much as they "hate" great CFB programs simply because they aren't conditioned by YEARS and DECADES of rooting against the top teams where it mattered and this is true regardless if you are a fan of a major helmet program like me or a fan of a team that hasn't been seriously in the NC conversation in years.
If Purdue and Ohio State were NC contenders in CBB this year neither your team nor mine would "need" UNC/Kansas/Kentucky/Dook et al to lose. It wouldn't matter if they all went undefeated (I know they can't ALL go undefeated but that isn't the point). So what. No matter how good those blue-bloods are, each of our teams can still get into the postseason tournament. In fact, both of our teams can still get in the postseason tournament.
In CFB it is (and certainly was) different. If Purdue and Ohio State were NC contenders in CFB this year there are only four spots. Our teams can't get in unless they are in the top-4. If our teams have to play each other (which, with the CG they necessarily would if both were NC contenders) then in order for both to get in we NEED Bama/Clemson/Oklahoma/USC to lose a game or two. This was even more of an issue prior to 2014 when only two teams made the playoff and a bigger still issue prior to 1998 when there was no playoff. For decades we have been conditioned to ALWAYS root against the top teams because we needed them to get cleared out to make room for our team to win the final poll (then make the final top-2, now make the final top-4).
That's true. But with a 31-game season + conference tourney and undefeated UNC/Duke are playing each other on a random Wednesday night in late February, am I going to tune in to that game even if I'm rooting for both teams to lose?
I get that individual games are more important for the MNC/BCS/CFP. And for the 6-7 teams each year in the sport that have realistic aspirations of being there, I can see why they might root against other helmets. I've never been in that position, but I suppose it's nice on that perch.
As a fan of a program that will never sniff the CFP in its current form, I also get that individual games are ALSO more important for conference standings and bowl placement even if you're not in the CFP. That's what you get when you only have 12 games.
I think that most of us when we have a CBB team that is REALLY good, we absolutely ARE sweating out our own wins/losses and opposing top teams' wins/losses though. Tournament seeding is HUGE for your chances to get into both the FF and win the championship. The difference between a 1 seed and a 2 seed is pretty significant. If you're a 2-seed, you're facing a 1-seed in the EE almost 70% of the time. If you're a 1-seed, you're only facing a 2-seed in the EE 47% of the time. (http://bracketodds.cs.illinois.edu/seedadv.html) I've seen arguments on H&R where fans are hoping that Purdue (in a middling year) are hoping that Purdue slips from a 5 to a 6 seed simply to avoid the 1-seed in the S16--they'd rather face a 3-seed in the R32 and a 2-seed in the S16 and hope that someone else has broken that 1-seed in the bracket before the EE.
Hardcore CBB fans are looking at resumes and seed lines and what's going on in the rest of the sport all through late Feb and early Mar when everything is firming up. Because those games in Feb and Mar matter when it comes to how far you might advance in the tourney, which is dependent on your seed line.
-
so, your buddy Dabo voted Ohio St. at #11?
apparently, he doesn't want to face them on the field
I think Dabo is playing with fire here. He may genuinely believe that Ohio State's six game resume should only entitle them to 11th but to vote it that way publicly does nothing but potentially provide additional motivation for his teams' next opponent.
He always overdid it to the point of being comical but I think that old Lou Holtz had the right idea here. I still remember Holtz interviews when his top-ranked Irish team was getting ready to play some hopeless directional school and, without fail, Holtz would be talking about some player on that opposing team that he just didn't think Notre Dame could contain. Then they'd win easily and he'd do the same thing the next week.
-
Who TF here likes Dabo like that?
OAM for sure
-
OAM for sure
It's the Orange
-
That's true. But with a 31-game season + conference tourney and undefeated UNC/Duke are playing each other on a random Wednesday night in late February, am I going to tune in to that game even if I'm rooting for both teams to lose?
I get that individual games are more important for the MNC/BCS/CFP. And for the 6-7 teams each year in the sport that have realistic aspirations of being there, I can see why they might root against other helmets. I've never been in that position, but I suppose it's nice on that perch.
As a fan of a program that will never sniff the CFP in its current form, I also get that individual games are ALSO more important for conference standings and bowl placement even if you're not in the CFP. That's what you get when you only have 12 games.
I think that most of us when we have a CBB team that is REALLY good, we absolutely ARE sweating out our own wins/losses and opposing top teams' wins/losses though. Tournament seeding is HUGE for your chances to get into both the FF and win the championship. The difference between a 1 seed and a 2 seed is pretty significant. If you're a 2-seed, you're facing a 1-seed in the EE almost 70% of the time. If you're a 1-seed, you're only facing a 2-seed in the EE 47% of the time. (http://bracketodds.cs.illinois.edu/seedadv.html) I've seen arguments on H&R where fans are hoping that Purdue (in a middling year) are hoping that Purdue slips from a 5 to a 6 seed simply to avoid the 1-seed in the S16--they'd rather face a 3-seed in the R32 and a 2-seed in the S16 and hope that someone else has broken that 1-seed in the bracket before the EE.
Hardcore CBB fans are looking at resumes and seed lines and what's going on in the rest of the sport all through late Feb and early Mar when everything is firming up. Because those games in Feb and Mar matter when it comes to how far you might advance in the tourney, which is dependent on your seed line.
This is WAY more than you asked for but you know I'm a big stats guy so here you go, 35 years (1985-2019) of NCAA Tournament performance by seed:
(https://i.imgur.com/85TC7zU.png)
explanation:
- Seed: The seed in question.
- R64: The number of that seed (out of 140) that have won their first round game.
- R32: The number of that seed that have won their second round game to make it to the S16.
- S16: The number of that seed that have won their S16 game to make it to the E8.
- E8: The number of that seed that have won their E8 game to make it to the F4.
- F4: The number of that seed that have won their national semi-final to make it to the National Final.
- NF: The number of that seed that have won the NC.
-
Sorry, I got caught up in the ranking of a 4-0 OSU vs 5-0 NU and didn't really extrapolate wider.
I guess the better question...
You're on the committee. You have selected three of the four [obvious] CFP choices, and you're down to the last one. By whatever manner of hell that brought you there, your two best choices are that 4-0 Ohio State team and that 5-0 Northwestern team. Your job is to pick the best team between those two for the playoff.
Who do you pick and why?
If I’m just picking between Ohio St and NW then I probably go with Ohio St. The resumes (albeit small) are close enough that I would still go with what I “think.” At that point, I probably would have also considered Indiana the best win for either team and taken into consideration how bad each team beat Nebraska.
-
Exactly. So let's say you're a strong 4 seed. There's a HUGE advantage to jumping up even to the last 3 seed. Your odds of running into a 2 seed are significantly lower as a 3 than your odds of running into a 1 seed as a 4. And obviously a 2 is generally an easier team to beat than a 1.
Now, if you're right on the 5/6 boundary, it's harder. Because you're asking whether you should make yourself face a stronger team in the R32 to give yourself a weaker opponent in the S16. You can see that 47 of the 5-seeds have gone to the S16, while only 42 of the 6-seeds have done so. However, 14 of the 6-seeds have then made it to the E8 whereas only 9 of the 5-seeds have done so. So if you can beat the 3-seed, you've got a rough road if you face the 2-seed, but they're more likely to have fallen to the 15 or to the 7/10 winner than the 1-seed is to have fallen to the 16 or the 8/9 winner.
Which of course we're getting into the weeds. My point is that every tourney bound or bubble team is sweating those things late in the regular season.
- If you're at the top, you're looking around to see what you need to do to be one of the coveted 1 seed spots.
- If you're in the middle, you're trying to figure out brackets, what regions might line up (due to who the top seeds are and where they'll be geographically protected), and how you might be able to make a run even if you're probably not going to win it all. A Final Four is rare from those middle seeds, but with a broken bracket and a little luck it's not out of the question. And while it's not a NC, a Final Four or even an Elite Eight finish are pretty solid accomplishments.
- If you're on the bubble, you're sweating everything out hoping that you get invited [which is itself an honor] and then hope you can at least win 1 game and maybe get lucky enough to see the 2nd weekend.
Whereas in CFB, by early November (or usually mid-September in Purdue's case) the question of who might have something to play for on the national level becomes academic to the "rest of us" mere mortals.
-
Exactly. So let's say you're a strong 4 seed. There's a HUGE advantage to jumping up even to the last 3 seed. Your odds of running into a 2 seed are significantly lower as a 3 than your odds of running into a 1 seed as a 4. And obviously a 2 is generally an easier team to beat than a 1.
Three seeds are better than four seeds at every level:
- 119-111 first round wins
- 74-66 S16 appearances
- 36-21 E8 appearances
- 17-13 F4 appearances
- 11-3 NF appearances
- 4-1 NC's
That said, you make a good point here (and moreso later) in the example where you are concerned about YOUR individual team as a one-off thing, this isn't the right comparison. If your team is right on the 3/4 border then they aren't an average 3 seed or an average 4 seed. Thus, it is more about who you play:
- 1st round #3's have it easier, playing 14 instead of a 13.
- 2nd round #3's play a #6 62.86% of the time or a #11 37.14% of the time while a #4 plays a #5 64.29% of the time or a #12 35.71% of the time.
Third round (S16 game to get to E8):
#3 seeds play:
- #2 63.57% of the time
- #7 19.29% of the time
- #10 16.43% of the time
- #15 0.71% of the time
#4 seeds play:
- #1 85.71% of the time
- #8 9.29% of the time
- #9 5% of the time
- #16 . . . hasn't happened yet
Fourth round (E8 game to get to F4):
#3 plays:
- #1 69.29% of the time
- #4 15% of the time
- #5 6.43% of the time
- #8 5.71% of the time
- #9 2.86% of the time
- #12 0.71% of the time
- #13 . . . hasn't happened yet
- #16 . . . hasn't happened yet
#4 plays:
- #2 45.71% of the time
- #3 25.71% of the time
- #6 10% of the time
- #7 7.14% of the time
- #10 5.71% of the time
- #11 5.71% of the time
- #14 . . . hasn't happened yet
- #15 . . . hasn't happened yet
The only level at which the #4 has an advantage is the E8 game and that is only because #4 already played #1 (most times) the game prior to that.
Now, if you're right on the 5/6 boundary, it's harder. Because you're asking whether you should make yourself face a stronger team in the R32 to give yourself a weaker opponent in the S16. You can see that 47 of the 5-seeds have gone to the S16, while only 42 of the 6-seeds have done so. However, 14 of the 6-seeds have then made it to the E8 whereas only 9 of the 5-seeds have done so. So if you can beat the 3-seed, you've got a rough road if you face the 2-seed, but they're more likely to have fallen to the 15 or to the 7/10 winner than the 1-seed is to have fallen to the 16 or the 8/9 winner.
This is where it gets a LOT more interesting than simply wanting your team to be higher seeded. I've long said that I'd rather have my team seeded #11 than #8 or #9. There is good reason for this. The #8 and #9 seeds are each close to 50/50 in the first round and they obviously average .500 in the first round. It is the second round where 8/9 are awful. Out of 140 #8 seeds and 140 #9 seeds only a grand combined total of 20 of them have made it to the S16. By comparison the #7's are much better (27) but the #10's (23), #11's (22), and #12's (21) are each better than the 8/9 seeds COMBINED.
Statistically, there are three BIG gaps in the general downward progression as you move down through the seeds in terms of making the S16:
- There is a humongous gap of 19 spots between the #4 seeds that make the S16 (66 or 47.14%) and the #5 seeds that make the S16 (47 or 33.57%).
- There is a humongous gap of 14 spots between the #7 seeds that make the S16 (27 or 19.29%) and the #8 seeds that make the S16 (13 or 9.29%).
- There is a humongous gap of 15 spots between the #12 seeds that make the S16 (21 or 15%) and the #13 seeds that make the S16 (6 or 4.29%).
#1 and #3 are the inverse of each other. IMHO, these large gaps exist because there is a MAJOR decline in quality shortly after the committee runs out of decent at-large teams. Starting with the #1 seeds and extending roughly to the #11 seeds the committee is selecting the next best team at each slot. Then they run out of at-large teams so instead of selecting the next best team they start to be forced to select the next best auto-bid. The first few of those are still pretty good (roughly the rest of the #11 and some or all of the #12 and maybe a few #13 seeds) but the rest are just dreadful. From then on they are stuck seeding teams that clearly DO NOT belong on a BB Court with the best CBB teams in the nation.
#2 is simply a reflection of the fact that the #1 seeds are REALLY good. Even at the #2 seed level (certainly by the end of it) we are talking about teams with flaws. They are good, but they have losses and not just one or two, they have been defeated multiple teams and by at least some teams that are nowhere near the #1/2 level. These teams are much more beatable than the #1 seeds just one line above them.
The low seeds are cute and people like the Cinderella stories but the fact is that they have ZERO impact on the determination of the National Champion. In 35 years no #13, #14, #15, or #16 has EVER won a second weekend NCAA game. If they had used a 48 rather than 64 team bracket (excluding the worst 16 league champs) from 1985 to 2019 they wouldn't have excluded a single team that was capable of winning a second weekend NCAA game. Those 13-16 seeds are nothing more than window dressing.
In terms of what I hope for for my own team, I don't look past the second round for two reasons:
- From your example, the idea of wanting my team to slip from #5 to #6 to get an easier S16 game just doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather have a better chance of getting to the S16 (33.57% for a #5, 30% for a #6) and then worry about what happens once they get there.
- I really don't make a major distinction historically between past tOSU teams that made the S16 and past tOSU teams that made the E8. WRT to the NCAA tournament, I make distinctions at NC (once, before I was born), F4 (several times in not only my lifetime but my living memory including one that I attended), S16, made tournament. Everything else is of lesser note to me. Maybe that is just me.
-
Whereas in CFB, by early November (or usually mid-September in Purdue's case) the question of who might have something to play for on the national level becomes academic to the "rest of us" mere mortals.
Just for clarity:
Football I have always viewed as a fan of a blue-blood that is typically in the NC race most years. I realize that isn't what most people (rest of you) do but that is my perspective.
Basketball I have viewed from every possible major conference perspective:
- The Buckeyes were great when I was finishing up HS (Jackson, Jent, Funderburke, Dudley). Their best team of that era, unfortunately, lost in the Regional Final to a team that had a higher payroll than most NBA teams (hint: It was Michigan).
- The Buckeyes were flat awful the entire time I was in school.
- The Buckeyes had some really good years under Jim O'Brien shortly after I graduated.
- The Buckeyes had some good, some great, and some mediocre under Thad Matta.
- The Buckeyes have finished 2nd, 8th, and 5th in the B1G so far under Holtmann.
I've been a fan of a team nowhere close to the Tournament. I've been a fan of a bubble team (both that made it and that didn't). I've been a fan of a mid-range Tournament team. I've been a fan of a team fighting for a #1 seed (both that made it and that didn't).
In all honesty, I can probably relate better to other fans in CBB than in CFB because no matter where you come from in CBB, my team has been there within my memory. In CFB, not so much.
-
Thanks Medina. I think we beat that one to death.
My only point was that CBB games are not "meaningless". Yes, each individual game may not carry the same weight as far as determining eligibility for the NC as they do in football... But for any serious CBB fan, they understand that every game matters. You want to avoid the "bad losses" that can keep you off the bubble, you want to "hold serve" elsewhere, and if you can gather a couple "signature wins" it can really propel you up a few seed lines.
Sure, it's not like there's one game that determines whether you're NC material or out of the tournament in the regular season; it's not that binary. But every game still matters.
-
I would be more apt to support this IF all conferences went to a divisonless format where the best two played in the CG like the B12. The problem in the other leagues is that HFA matters and upsets happen and sometimes (Bama @ Auburn, tOSU @ PSU) the better team goes on the road and loses and in a division format that can keep the best team in the league from winning the league. That is why I like the idea of having at least the possibility of a non-Champion getting in. Losing a game like that matters and it should but IMHO, it shouldn't necessarily be fatal especially when the upset winner (Auburn/PSU) is clearly NOT CFP caliber and it was clearly an upset.
Is that an argument for shrinking conferences back down to a size where a round-robin schedule is feasible?
-
FCS
The 2021 WAC CCG
Dixie defeats Tarleton in their first ever D1 game, for an unofficial WAC Title.
Tarleton was coming off of a 43-17 win over New Mexico State last week, in their first ever D1 season as well.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EvRQUmwVkAEkMpc?format=jpg&name=small)
-
@betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19)
Not sure why this thread got resurrected but I recently saw this YouTube clip related to what we had been talking about here:
https://youtu.be/4a1TUszkMfI
I thought some of the stats in this were interesting and the opening massive list of teams that have never won an NCAA Tournament game despite appearing is one of my reasons for expansion, to give every team a winnable game.
-
It got resurrected because there is CFB going on, and I had to sift through multiple pages in order to find a thread that was general enough to banter about it.
-
Thanks Medina. I think we beat that one to death.
My only point was that CBB games are not "meaningless". Yes, each individual game may not carry the same weight as far as determining eligibility for the NC as they do in football... But for any serious CBB fan, they understand that every game matters. You want to avoid the "bad losses" that can keep you off the bubble, you want to "hold serve" elsewhere, and if you can gather a couple "signature wins" it can really propel you up a few seed lines.
Sure, it's not like there's one game that determines whether you're NC material or out of the tournament in the regular season; it's not that binary. But every game still matters.
How harmful is a loss to your national championship odds?
From 2000:
In football, 11 undefeateds, 9 one-losses, and 1 two-loss champs.
If you're a P5 program and you go undefeated, you're virtually guaranteed a shot to play for the NC (unless you're Auburn in 04) or on probation.
If you lose once, your odds plummet about 50%. Still good odds, if you ask me.
If you lose again, GULP. You're virtually out of the hunt for a NC. Although LSU showed us in 07 that it could happen. It's even more likely now, with 4 teams instead of 2...yet highly unlikely.
If you lose 3 times, you're not going to be the national champ.
.
In basketball, the national champ has averaged 5.05 losses since 2000.
A high of 9! and a low of 2.
A national champion lost 9 games one year. And another "champion" lost 8. In fact, there have been FIVE "champions" with 9+ losses since the last undefeated NC in '76 (IU).
.
No, every game doesn't matter. You can lose 5 before you even need to start to sweat. You can lose NINE or more and still "get in."
Admittedly, this isn't very scientific, but we can get more mathematically valid if you want.
.
Basketball teams that play 6 games in the tournament wind up playing 40 games total. Very often 40 or within a game of 40. So that 5-loss average by the past 20 NCs is 1/8, or 12.5%. Compared to the average of 0.5 losses for the past 20 NCs in football...in a 12-game season (not even including the 13th, 14th, or potential 15th games) = 4.2%
.
So in science-speak, football champs' games are about 3x more important than the round balls'. And while you can virtually wave bye-bye to any chance at a NC in football after losing 16.6% of your games (2 out of 12+), in basketball, you can lose 25% of them and still have hope.
.
Pretty huge differences.
-
How harmful is a loss to your national championship odds?
From 2000:
In football, 11 undefeateds, 9 one-losses, and 1 two-loss champs.
If you're a P5 program and you go undefeated, you're virtually guaranteed a shot to play for the NC (unless you're Auburn in 04) or on probation.
If you lose once, your odds plummet about 50%. Still good odds, if you ask me.
If you lose again, GULP. You're virtually out of the hunt for a NC. Although LSU showed us in 07 that it could happen. It's even more likely now, with 4 teams instead of 2...yet highly unlikely.
If you lose 3 times, you're not going to be the national champ.
.
In basketball, the national champ has averaged 5.05 losses since 2000.
A high of 9! and a low of 2.
A national champion lost 9 games one year. And another "champion" lost 8. In fact, there have been FIVE "champions" with 9+ losses since the last undefeated NC in '76 (IU).
.
No, every game doesn't matter. You can lose 5 before you even need to start to sweat. You can lose NINE or more and still "get in."
Admittedly, this isn't very scientific, but we can get more mathematically valid if you want.
.
Basketball teams that play 6 games in the tournament wind up playing 40 games total. Very often 40 or within a game of 40. So that 5-loss average by the past 20 NCs is 1/8, or 12.5%. Compared to the average of 0.5 losses for the past 20 NCs in football...in a 12-game season (not even including the 13th, 14th, or potential 15th games) = 4.2%
.
So in science-speak, football champs' games are about 3x more important than the round balls'. And while you can virtually wave bye-bye to any chance at a NC in football after losing 16.6% of your games (2 out of 12+), in basketball, you can lose 25% of them and still have hope.
.
Pretty huge differences.
If college football played 31 regular-season games -- or heck, 30 plus a CCG ;-) -- I would expect you'd see more multi-loss national champions.
That doesn't mean the regular season means nothing. In the past 35 NCAA tournaments, the national championship has been won by a #1 seed 22 times. That's the top 4 teams in the nation having won about 2/3 of all championships. If you expand, the top three seeds have won the national championship 31 of 35--almost 90%.
The top 3 seeds comprise 12 teams out of 330, which is pretty darn close percentage to CFB, where you're taking the top 4 teams out of 130. So... The best teams almost always win. It's only rare occasions that you get a Cinderella--and isn't it damn exciting when you do?!
Seeding is very important. When you're angling for a 1-3 seed, every win DOES matter. You're looking for quality wins and looking to avoid bad losses.
-
If college football played 31 regular-season games -- or heck, 30 plus a CCG ;-) -- I would expect you'd see more multi-loss national champions.
That doesn't mean the regular season means nothing. In the past 35 NCAA tournaments, the national championship has been won by a #1 seed 22 times. That's the top 4 teams in the nation having won about 2/3 of all championships. If you expand, the top three seeds have won the national championship 31 of 35--almost 90%.
The top 3 seeds comprise 12 teams out of 330, which is pretty darn close percentage to CFB, where you're taking the top 4 teams out of 130. So... The best teams almost always win. It's only rare occasions that you get a Cinderella--and isn't it damn exciting when you do?!
Seeding is very important. When you're angling for a 1-3 seed, every win DOES matter. You're looking for quality wins and looking to avoid bad losses.
I get where you are coming from and I think you have a point but I still agree with OAM because even though a loss in BB does hurt your NC Chances, it doesn't tank them the way a loss in FB does. Furthermore, it DEFINITLY doesn't end them, it can still be overcome.
Example:
If my FB team goes 11-1 (very good) and gets to the B1GCG, a loss there is almost certain to eliminate any hope of an NC. Look, an 11-2 non-Champion is probably never going to get into a 4-team playoff so my team is out despite being a very good team.
If my BB team has roughly the same percentage record 30-3 heading into the BTTCG then the game is probably irrelevant. If my team gets to the B1G Tournament Championship with only three losses they are almost certain to be a #1 seed. The only thing that the B1GCG *MIGHT* impact is which #1 seed my team gets and even that is fairly unlikely (mostly only if their B1GCG opponent is a similar/interchangeable team).
The more important issue though is the opportunity to overcome a boneheaded loss. I'm sure you remember that a few years ago (2018 to be exact) a very good Ohio State team had a dreadful day in West Lafayette against your Boilermakers. Looking at the season as a whole, nobody could reasonably argue that Purdue was better than Ohio State. Purdue finished 6-7 including three losses to teams that Ohio State beat (NU, MN, MSU). Despite that, on Saturday, October 20 for about 3.5 hours the Boilermakers were a much better team. They beat the Buckeyes 49-20.
Compare a loss like that in FB to a loss like that in BB. You can't, there is no comparison. In football that loss kept Ohio State out of the CFP which meant no chance at an NC despite winning all the rest of their games and beating the Champion of Purdue's Division in the B1GCG. Didn't matter. In BB a loss like that wouldn't even be a blip on the radar. A BB team equivalent to tOSU's 2018 FB team would be at least a #2 seed.
As a more general thing, you are right that each seed line decreases the chances of winning an NC, but there is still a chance until your team gets so low that they didn't really have a chance anyway.
Losses in BB don't prevent your team from winning an NC, instead losses in BB are nothing more than mounting evidence that your team wasn't good enough to win an NC anyway. Eventually one of four things happens:
- Your team wins the NC, or
- Your team gets to the Tournament in a position where there isn't enough evidence to prove that they aren't good enough to win an NC, but they lose somewhere in the Tournament, or
- Your team gets the the Tournament only after accumulating enough evidence to convince pretty much anyone that they aren't good enough to win the NC and this is confirmed when they inevitably lose in the Tournament, or
- Your team produces a mountain of evidence that they are not good enough to win the NC and because that mountain is large, they fail to make the Tournament.
In my lifetime the football Buckeyes have had multiple teams that were probably or at least possibly good enough to win an NC that were deprived of the opportunity based on a single regular season loss. The basketball Buckeyes have not faced anything even close to an analogous situation.
-
Well, I find enjoyment in football seasons even beyond the chance for the NC...
...of course, that might be because Purdue will never win one in football. So I have to.
-
same, hopefully not same
I hope the Huskers can somehow find past glory and at least have a shot at a title, but if not, oh well, it was fun while it lasted
-
I can as to my team. It's other teams where I struggle. I'm way more likely to watch a February game between two decent teams (like Oklahoma-Oklahoma State tonight) than a comparable football game in November.
-
We all gripe and debate the playoff committee simply seeding 4 teams....(yeah, I know they rank more, but only 4 matter now), but the basketball committee is tasked with ranking 68 teams accurately. They're far more likely to rank some teams poorly, right?
Your tournament draw is heavily reliant on a committee ranking 68 teams accurately.....it's just not feasible. In a region with the weakest 1-seed, the 2,3,and 4 are salivating at their odds of getting to the final 4.
.
Anyway, besides that point, it's all about the sliding scale of entertainment vs competition - as I've said many times. Basketball skews far on the entertainment side and football towards the competition side, but is trending towards learning more entertainment. If/when the playoff expands, it'll inch further over towards entertainment.
-
I can as to my team. It's other teams where I struggle. I'm way more likely to watch a February game between two decent teams (like Oklahoma-Oklahoma State tonight) than a comparable football game in November.
Still gotta go grid iron
-
I can as to my team. It's other teams where I struggle. I'm way more likely to watch a February game between two decent teams (like Oklahoma-Oklahoma State tonight) than a comparable football game in November.
My brain doesn't understand this.
And that's okay.
-
I understand it completely.
Sparty has much more interest in hoops than the gridiron, because of much more success, therefore interest
-
I understand it completely.
Sparty has much more interest in hoops than the gridiron, because of much more success, therefore interest
No. Just that a game between a pair of 7-3 teams has no bearing on anything. If MSU is one of those teams, then sure. But if it's a Big XII game, meh. I'm not sure what the perfect answer is. I'm not saying I don't get the opposing view point, the counter is that a game between two top 5 teams in extremely meaningful in football, and in basketball is arguably less important than a game between two bubble teams.
-
I guess I understand it if it's a bout the bubble and what matchups there might be on a bracket
all my brackets get busted
in my view, a game between two 7-3 football teams might decide bowl pairings
kinda the same thing, only different
-
No. Just that a game between a pair of 7-3 teams has no bearing on anything. If MSU is one of those teams, then sure. But if it's a Big XII game, meh. I'm not sure what the perfect answer is. I'm not saying I don't get the opposing view point, the counter is that a game between two top 5 teams in extremely meaningful in football, and in basketball is inarguably less important than a game between two bubble teams.
-
I think for me it's that I just don't care very much about the "national championship" chase.
I like football. I watch Purdue whenever they're on. On a typical Saturday outside of the Purdue game, I'll generally have the TV on to whatever game most interests me, but that's often amongst whatever else I'm doing--just as it is on Sunday with the NFL games.
But do I really care all that much about which configuration of OSU/Alabama/Clemson and a few other helmets manages to make that CFP each year? Nah. Can I stomach the ENDLESS coverage on ESPN from early October on that deals only with who will make the CFP... It bores the piss out of me.
This is, of course, because my team is irrelevant to the NC chase except for our propensity to act as spoiler for the Buckeyes. As I've said before, Purdue would get in at 13-0, but Purdue will never be 13-0. Purdue could get in at 12-1 and conference champion, but if there were 4 other 1-loss or better teams (conference champion or not), Purdue will always get the short end of that stick by the committee. So... Why should I worry about it?
Purdue has never won the NCAA tournament, and it's been 40 years since we made the Final Four. But I believe we can do both, so I actually DO spend time thinking about it.
-
I always respected PU in my brackets under Keady. Even if they were 19-13 or something like that, I knew they'd be a sonofabitch to beat.
-
in my view, a game between two 7-3 football teams might decide bowl pairings
Except at best, it determines a matchup for an exhibition game, at worst (at most of the time) it doesn't because bowl selections are based on tv draws, fan base sizes and no repeat rules.
-
I always respected PU in my brackets under Keady. Even if they were 19-13 or something like that, I knew they'd be a sonofabitch to beat.
That's the opposite of Purdue's MO. They've had WAY more success than most casual fans would think, simply because they almost always underperform in the tournament.
Since Keady got there (80-81), Purdue was 6-17 against top 6 seeds (despite being the higher seeded team in until Carsen Edwards put them on his back)
Keady himself lost 8 of his first 9 games against top 6 seeds, despite being the higher seeded team in all but 1 of them.
From 1984-96, Purdue won the Big Ten title in 6 out of 13 years...and made it out of the first weekend twice.
-
one could consider 1st and 2nd round NCAA basketball tourney games as exhibitions. Sure there are some upsets, but things don't really get serious until the sweet 16.
it's all just games of entertainment
the hoops tourney is wildly entertaining because of upsets and cinderellas and brackets
they could easily just invite the top 16 seeds.
I understand there have been a few champions and teams that played in the final that were outside the 4 seed number, but......... that doesn't seem right to OAM
-
one could consider 1st and 2nd round NCAA basketball tourney games as exhibitions. Sure there are some upsets, but things don't really get serious until the sweet 16.
But I mean they aren't.
You can certainly say it's not a fair system, and I don't disagree. But they are part of a tournament to consider a national champion. At best a game between two middling Big XII teams determines who goes to the Alamo Bowl, where most of the best players likely won't play, and really, there is very little merit involved in bowl selection beyond the New Years Six, so in reality, there isn't even that much on the line.
-
I agree
I also think that the #1 vs #16 seed games plus, #2 vs 15, #3 vs 14, and #4 vs 13 games aren't much more meaningful than the Alamo Bowl.
I suppose they could be
-
one could consider 1st and 2nd round NCAA basketball tourney games as exhibitions. Sure there are some upsets, but things don't really get serious until the sweet 16.
it's all just games of entertainment
the hoops tourney is wildly entertaining because of upsets and cinderellas and brackets
they could easily just invite the top 16 seeds.
I understand there have been a few champions and teams that played in the final that were outside the 4 seed number, but......... that doesn't seem right to OAM
Upsets are great, just not when you're crowning a champion.
You did make me consider something else, though - many of the same guys here who poo-poo the idea of a team not winning their own division/conference being in the playoff or (like in 2011) winning the NC in football are the same guys who love Cinderella in March and have no problem with a team who finished 4th in their conference winning it all (like 2013-4).
UConn finished 4th in the AAC (not a great conference) and was Louisville's bitch, going 0-3 vs their own conference's champion. But they won the NC. I wouldn't call their tournament run weak, but after beating a 1-seed, only had to face an 8-seed in the final.
.
And that's celebrated. Don't get me wrong, I don't care, but if we're having the conversation....that's celebrated?!?
So no, it's not for me. And that's perfectly fine. But ick.
-
well, to be fair...
many were rooting for upsets in the 4-team playoff
and many more would be rooting for a #8 seed FCS team to take down #1, but it would be like rooting for a #16 to take down a #1 seed in hoops
-
Upsets are great, just not when you're crowning a champion.
You did make me consider something else, though - many of the same guys here who poo-poo the idea of a team not winning their own division/conference being in the playoff or (like in 2011) winning the NC in football are the same guys who love Cinderella in March and have no problem with a team who finished 4th in their conference winning it all (like 2013-4).
UConn finished 4th in the AAC (not a great conference) and was Louisville's bitch, going 0-3 vs their own conference's champion. But they won the NC. I wouldn't call their tournament run weak, but after beating a 1-seed, only had to face an 8-seed in the final.
.
And that's celebrated. Don't get me wrong, I don't care, but if we're having the conversation....that's celebrated?!?
So no, it's not for me. And that's perfectly fine. But ick.
So 2018 OSU, which very well might have been the best team in the nation (i.e. just try to prove that negative) and won their conference, was excluded from the CFP because of one bad upset to a team that legitimately didn't belong on the same field with them. It was just a night where everything went wrong for OSU and everything went right for Purdue.
So upsets are meaningful when they're in the regular season and keep great teams out of the "tournament" i.e. CFP, but they shouldn't be used to crown a champion when you actually have a tournament with legitimate and fair entry criteria (winning your conference)?
-
there you go, now you understand ;)
-
Upsets are great, just not when you're crowning a champion.
You did make me consider something else, though - many of the same guys here who poo-poo the idea of a team not winning their own division/conference being in the playoff or (like in 2011) winning the NC in football are the same guys who love Cinderella in March and have no problem with a team who finished 4th in their conference winning it all (like 2013-4).
UConn finished 4th in the AAC (not a great conference) and was Louisville's bitch, going 0-3 vs their own conference's champion. But they won the NC. I wouldn't call their tournament run weak, but after beating a 1-seed, only had to face an 8-seed in the final.
.
And that's celebrated. Don't get me wrong, I don't care, but if we're having the conversation....that's celebrated?!?
So no, it's not for me. And that's perfectly fine. But ick.
I don't think it's celebrated.
I think most people enjoy the early upsets, and then like things to sort themselves out.
I also think there is a major difference when you are discussing the purpose of each. I don't think many people would argue the purpose of the NCAA tournament is to determine the best team, it's to crown a champion. So whatever. The CFP is so small, it's supposed to (I guess) determine the best team. If that's the case I'm not sure how a team that wasn't the best in a small pool could be the best team in a larger pool...which includes everyone from the smaller pool.
-
So 2018 OSU, which very well might have been the best team in the nation (i.e. just try to prove that negative) and won their conference, was excluded from the CFP because of one bad upset to a team that legitimately didn't belong on the same field with them. It was just a night where everything went wrong for OSU and everything went right for Purdue.
So upsets are meaningful when they're in the regular season and keep great teams out of the "tournament" i.e. CFP, but they shouldn't be used to crown a champion when you actually have a tournament with legitimate and fair entry criteria (winning your conference)?
When I said "upsets are great," I meant entertaining and harmless. Now, the upset loss to PU wasn't harmless to OSU, but it was entertaining to everyone else.
Getting into whatever postseason your sport has is up to you. If there were no upsets during the regular season, there'd be no use to playing out the season. Today, sure, playoffs are largely for entertainment and aren't interested in crowning the best team having the best season. There are tiny baby steps like byes and such, but still, no, it's for fun. Otherwise, you'd just have as long a regular season as possible, and the team at the top would be the champ.
.
However, I think we forget how the idea of a postseason was born in the U.S. It started with baseball and 2 entirely separate leagues. The teams never played each other. You had 2 champions of 2 leagues, neither of which had any divisions. THAT made sense. THAT was a true playoff/championship to find out the best team.
The NFL started that same way, with the Super Bowl vs the AFL. Hell, in both cases, you had an upstart proving its mettle vs the more established league. As long as it was 2 separate entities, it made sense from a purely competitive standpoint. "Who is best?" was answered.
.
Once leagues combined and had interplay between each other, that went out the window, and any postseason became an entertainment deal.
.
So for college football to be anything like back then, we'd probably need 4 conferences (oh, oh, realignment!) of 14 teams where you play everyone in your own conference and no OOC games. Those 4 champs would then play if off (playoff) to see who is the best. And it would create genuine discovery of who is best, perceived upsets or not.
-
IMHO, in the NFL, in college football (or the college basketball tournament) it's impossible to use the postseason to determine "who is best". All you get is "who is best on THAT day".
Any single-elimination format is still incomplete information. You're not actually determining who is best; you're determining who gets to call themselves the champion. I think the CFP does a good job of winnowing down the field to teams that have a legitimate claim they *might* be "the best", but a 4-team single-elimination playoff format doesn't actually conclusively prove that--it just tells us which one gets to call themselves National Champion.
In 2007, the New York Giants were not the best football team in the NFL... But they're the Super Bowl Champions nonetheless.
Baseball/basketball/hockey, where you have a 7-game series, gets you a LOT closer to actually determining who is legitimately the best. Obviously a 7-game series is actually still incomplete, but it's close enough for government work. You can't do that in football due to the violence of the sport. Yet whether it's the NFL or college football, the one who emerges victorious is still champion even if we're never quite sure they're "the best".
-
yes, any playoff or end of the season tournament can only crown a tournament champion
if you want a season champion, go back to the polls. Either pre-bowl or post bowl
I prefer post-bowl with a BCS type of bowl pairing system
-
Old bowl system, +1 (if necessary)
-
https://www.cleveland.com/osu/2021/03/which-big-ten-football-teams-are-the-greatest-long-term-threats-to-the-ohio-state-buckeyes.html?fbclid=IwAR1KIgNV0bWq8R26C7u8PnMAoUWUZlrj7GLRSjt8Q5_7dxTdxDH77CQys94 (https://www.cleveland.com/osu/2021/03/which-big-ten-football-teams-are-the-greatest-long-term-threats-to-the-ohio-state-buckeyes.html?fbclid=IwAR1KIgNV0bWq8R26C7u8PnMAoUWUZlrj7GLRSjt8Q5_7dxTdxDH77CQys94)
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The big Wednesday Buckeye Talk is about Threat Level, and it’s relative.
There is a general question about how much any Big Ten teams are true threats to what Ohio State football is doing right now. But even as the Buckeyes dominate the conference, and as Ryan Day enters Year 3 of his tenure without a conference loss yet, the Buckeyes still have to keep their eyes open.
Short-term threat was designated as over the next three seasons, 2021, 2022 and 2023.
Long-term was over four to 10 years from now, starting in 2024, and, I suppose, beyond.
1. Michigan, Threat Level 8
2. Penn State, Threat Level 7
3. Northwestern, Threat Level 5
4. Illinois, Threat Level 4
5. Maryland, Threat Level 4
6. Indiana, Threat Level 4
7. Michigan State, Threat Level 4
8. Minnesota, Threat Level 3
9. Purdue, Threat Level 3
10. Wisconsin, Threat Level 2
11. Rutgers, Threat Level 1.5
12. Nebraska, Threat Level 1
13. Iowa, Threat Level 1
-
If that's the case I'm not sure how a team that wasn't the best in a small pool could be the best team in a larger pool...which includes everyone from the smaller pool.
You obviously aren't the only person to make this argument. I'm not arguing with you here, I'm arguing with the concept.
Your comment here presupposes that each league champion IS the best team in their league but the fact is that they aren't, especially with divisions and a CG. The bottom line is that the best team simply doesn't always win for a variety of reasons including HFA, the superior team having a bad day, the inferior team having a great day, etc.
Auburn wasn't better than Bama the year they beat Bama on the kick-6 and your Spartans weren't better than Ohio State in 2015. Both of those results deprived the best team in that league that year of a chance to go to the CG and thus of a chance to win the league title. In both cases the superior/losing team ended up tied with the inferior/winning team in the final standings due to the superior/losing team winning all of their other games while the inferior/winning team lost to a team not nearly as good as the one that the superior team lost to.
In 2013 Auburn lost by 2TD's to an LSU team that Bama beat by 3TD's. In 2015 MSU lost to a Nebraska team that didn't even finish .500.
I understand WHY we use H2H to break ties but I'm not sure that it actually gives the Championship to the better team in a lot of cases. In cases like these where the tied teams finished "and 1" it is inherent that the H2H winner had a worse loss. Ie, Auburn's loss to LSU in 2013 was worse than Bama's loss to Auburn that year and MSU's loss to UNL in 2015 was obviously worse than tOSU's loss to MSU that year.
By using H2H we reward the team with the best win but we also punish the team with the best loss.
Most of this would be mitigated if everybody used a B12 type system without divisions.
My point is simply that the "league champion" isn't always the best team from that league. Usually it is, but it is also frequently just the team that had their bad day at a good time or the team that got the easier schedule or the team that got HFA in the key game, etc. That is why I think there should be at least one at-large spot.
-
Ranking college football's 25 best facilities in 2021
https://247sports.com/college/nebraska/LongFormArticle/college-football-recruiting-2021-facilities-Alabama-Clemson-Ohio-State-LSU-Texas-Georgia-Florida-160189814/#160189814_1 (https://247sports.com/college/nebraska/LongFormArticle/college-football-recruiting-2021-facilities-Alabama-Clemson-Ohio-State-LSU-Texas-Georgia-Florida-160189814/#160189814_1)
25. USC
24. Texas Tech
23. Arkansas
22. Washington
21. Florida Gators
20. TCU Horned Frogs
19. Auburn Tigers
18. Georgia Bulldogs
17. North Carolina Tar Heels
16. Notre Dame Fighting Irish
15. Michigan Wolverines
14. Kentucky Wildcats
13. Illinois Fighting Illini
12. Tennessee Vols
11. Oklahoma State Cowboys
10. Oklahoma
9. Texas
8. Northwestern
7. LSU
6. Ohio St.
5. South Carolina
4. Texas A&M
3. Alabama
2. Oregon
1. Clemson
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p526x296/157530457_3744726798976420_3210856948445295563_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=9267fe&_nc_ohc=MXdxhLSdcO8AX_DQ-3N&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&tp=6&oh=7e9c210191f43994a12a9af6f70a7179&oe=606A863C)
-
Click bait for people born after 2000?
-
[img width=259.091 height=526 alt=May be an image of 1 person, playing a sport and text that says 'MOST EXCITING CFB PLAYERS OF ALL-TIME Reggie Bush (USC) 2 Tavon Austin (West Virginia) 3 Saquon Barkley (Penn .tate) Christian McCaffrey (Stanford) 5 Johnny Manziel (TAMU) Lamar Jackson (Louisville) 7 Braxton Miller (Ohio State) Peter Warrick (Florida State) adidas LOUNVILLE 9 Michael Vick (Virginia Tech) ------- ------- 10 Jabrill Peppers (Michigan) VIA TAVON AUSTIN']https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p526x296/157530457_3744726798976420_3210856948445295563_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=9267fe&_nc_ohc=MXdxhLSdcO8AX_DQ-3N&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&tp=6&oh=7e9c210191f43994a12a9af6f70a7179&oe=606A863C[/img]
Lol, how modest of Tavon Austin, to put himself #2
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p526x296/157530457_3744726798976420_3210856948445295563_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=9267fe&_nc_ohc=MXdxhLSdcO8AX_DQ-3N&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&tp=6&oh=7e9c210191f43994a12a9af6f70a7179&oe=606A863C)
I don't think it's clickbait if there's nothing to click on.
It's just some weird graphic that gets shared because it tweaks people.
-
A list like that is wholly dependent on how old you are and which teams you happened to watch, lol.
-
if you didn't really do any research .......
-
defensive "Stop Rate"
LINCOLN — According to an annual analysis from The Athletic, Nebraska’s Blackshirts consistently struggled to get opposing offenses off the field last season.
They ranked 92nd nationally and 12th in the Big Ten in stop rate, which measures the percentage of drives in which an opponent punts, commits a turnover or gives the ball up on downs.
NU’s stop rate over eight games in 2020 was 57.1%. That’s down from 2019 (66.5%, ranked 54th) and 2018 (62.2%). It's somewhat expected with the absence of nonconference games, which tend to inflate many statistics. Illinois, for example, experienced a similar drop from 2019 to 2020.
Iowa, on the other hand, did not. The Hawkeyes finished as the nation’s leader in stop rate at 81%. They’ve finished in the top 20 in each of the last three years. Wisconsin was No. 2 at 78.9%. Indiana (ninth) and Northwestern (12th) also finished in the top 15.
On the other end of the spectrum, Illinois finished 98th, and head coach Lovie Smith was fired before the end of the season. Michigan finished 105th, and the Wolverines fired defensive coordinator Don Brown, who landed at Arizona, which finished 112th.
Nebraska was closer to that end, allowing 2.35 points per drive. Some of the reason — perhaps a great deal of it — is related to the messes the Husker offense and special teams left the defense to clean up.
https://omaha.com/sports/huskers/football/mckewon-a-key-for-husker-football-in-2021-stop-serving-up-points-on-a-silver/article_231d14b4-7d28-11eb-9d28-a7dda4846b6e.amp.html (https://omaha.com/sports/huskers/football/mckewon-a-key-for-husker-football-in-2021-stop-serving-up-points-on-a-silver/article_231d14b4-7d28-11eb-9d28-a7dda4846b6e.amp.html)
-
Big Ten Spring Power Rankings and Storylines to Watch in 2021
1. Ohio State
https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-football-spring-power-rankings-and-storylines-watch-2021 (https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-football-spring-power-rankings-and-storylines-watch-2021)
2. Wisconsin
3. Iowa
4. Indiana
5. Penn St.
6. Michigan
7. Northwestern
8. Minnesoota
9. Nebraska
10. Maryland
11. Purdue
12. Michigan St.
13. Rutgers
14. Illinois
-
Tarleton wins the unofficial WAC title, going a combined 3-0 vs Dixie St and New Mexico St.