CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on December 20, 2020, 02:54:36 PM
-
Now that the playoffs are set what do you think of the match-ups, who is going to win?
As I see it Notre Dame is, by far, the weak link.
My guess, if you played a double round robin with these four teams (six games each) their records would probably be (assumes each team full strength for each game):
- 5-1 and more likely 6-0 than 4-2: Bama: Basically I think that tOSU and Clemson are close enough that in four games against them they would probably lose one.
- 3-3 and more likely 4-2 than 2-4 Clemson: Good enough they could knock off Bama, but could also lose to ND.
- 3-3 and more likely 2-4 than 4-2 tOSU: About the same as Clemson. I gave Clemson the nod based mostly on their demolition of ND yesterday evening but if tOSU's running game is actually as good as it looked against Northwestern's previously stout rush D and Olave is back and Firlds' thumb is 100%, the Buckeyes move up.
- 1-5 and more likely 0-6 than 2-4 Notre Dame. As I said, I see the Irish as definitely the weakest link but they aren't so far behind as to be hopeless against any of the others. If their underdog status motivates them while Bama spends the next two weeks basking in their accolades and/or looking ahead to a chance to avenge previous CFP losses to Clemson and tOSU, the Irish could make the final.
-
Incestuous.
Makes me want teams ranked 5th-8th to have their own playoff each year. For just the illusion of new blood.
-
YAWN.
expand the playoff.
-
If you like big football playoffs, go watch the NFL.
-
I figure even a very good team, say Bama, has maybe a 65% chance to beat other elite teams, OSU/Clmsn, in one game. It's tough to win two in a row against this level of competition. One or two TOs and you're out.
I agree any of the three would be pretty likely to beat Oklahoma/ND/A&M. I'd choose OU to have a bit less controversy.
-
YAWN.
expand the playoff.
If your kid was Sunday bound you wouldn't be good with him playing an extra game or two.Just to satisfy the TV audience,specially at that level of play
-
I agree any of the three would be pretty likely to beat Oklahoma/ND/A&M. I'd choose OU to have a bit less controversy.
We should just let the Egg Lobby sort all of this out
-
I have a tough time seeing ND beat Bammer. I have a less tough but still tough time seeing OSU beating Clemson. OSU's secondary is rough, even if the front seven is pretty strong. Also, Fields has looked like poo against the Hoosiers and Northwestern. Given OSU will not run for 350 yards against Clemson, he needs to play well for them to win. This could happen, but I'll have to see it to believe it.
-
Fields' thumb should be better by then. Bama will probably boat race ND, I hope they do. Clemson-OSU will be a coin toss. Bama and the winner? Close to a coin toss.
-
I have a tough time seeing ND beat Bammer. I have a less tough but still tough time seeing OSU beating Clemson. OSU's secondary is rough, even if the front seven is pretty strong. Also, Fields has looked like poo against the Hoosiers and Northwestern. Given OSU will not run for 350 yards against Clemson, he needs to play well for them to win. This could happen, but I'll have to see it to believe it.
I don't like it specially when tOSU got the knob last season.I doubt the good guys stay with in 2 TDs of Clemson
-
Ohio State should win it all. It should be the most-rested, least-banged-up team by far.
-
We just need OSU and ND to dispatch of the hillbillies, and we can have a nice, Midwestern NCG.
-
I have a tough time seeing ND beat Bammer. I have a less tough but still tough time seeing OSU beating Clemson. OSU's secondary is rough, even if the front seven is pretty strong. Also, Fields has looked like poo against the Hoosiers and Northwestern. Given OSU will not run for 350 yards against Clemson, he needs to play well for them to win. This could happen, but I'll have to see it to believe it.
Well Olave should be playing and Fields did pretty well against them last year.
-
Ohio State should win it all. It should be the most-rested, least-banged-up team by far.
I guarantee you- if you gave the coaches and players a choice of coming in with 6 games versus 10 they would jump on the 10.
only getting 6, and having those spaced apart, has hurt them badly they have said. Can’t get a rhythm, no opportunity to get snaps for less experienced players, and no routine to build on.
They held 72 practices to play 5 games ( prior to NW game). Nothing could be more frustrating
-
They held 72 practices to play 5 games ( prior to NW game). Nothing could be more frustrating
That's GOT to be some sort of rules violation, lol.
-
If you like big football playoffs, go watch the NFL.
I am torn but evolving ( ha ha) on this.
Anything to NOT be like the NFL has been my opinion.
But as Sam said so well- this is not working. It is creating a monopoly for one thing, and no playoff should EVER be this subjective.
I would like to see the 5 conf champs, The top Group of 5 Team and 2 wild cards based on formula or poll. Reduce the regular season to accommodate the playoff season, and mandate that all leagues play the same number of conference games.
this would level the recruiting to a high degree and crest way more excitement. $$ would follow.
-
Go back to bowls, polls, and arguments about who was really the best team.
-
What are the effective odds that an 8th seeded team beats the 1 seeded team? Presume the seeding is close to being accurate.
-
One interesting way of ranking teams if the Vegas way, you set hypothetical matchups and take the initial line from LV "pros from Dover". Let's say A&M would be a 5 point favorite over ND, ND is out. And that probably is about right.
-
What are the effective odds that an 8th seeded team beats the 1 seeded team? Presume the seeding is close to being accurate.
This is a great question, because if the answer is near either extreme, it's an argument against playing the game at all.
.
If 8 seeds beat 1 seeds more than you'd predict, then an 8-team playoff will yield 2-3 loss champions. That's a negative in my book.
If 8 seeds almost never beat 1 seeds, then there's no real point in playing that game. So then don't play it. Don't expand.
-
(https://i.redd.it/zy05czvyrt341.jpg)
-
I am torn but evolving ( ha ha) on this.
Anything to NOT be like the NFL has been my opinion.
But as Sam said so well- this is not working. It is creating a monopoly for one thing, and no playoff should EVER be this subjective.
I would like to see the 5 conf champs, The top Group of 5 Team and 2 wild cards based on formula or poll. Reduce the regular season to accommodate the playoff season, and mandate that all leagues play the same number of conference games.
this would level the recruiting to a high degree and crest way more excitement. $$ would follow.
I also would like to see the 5 conference champs in the playoffs; with the caveat that champ needs to be ranked in the top 12 to be eligible.
I don't want the playoffs to race to 8 just because opinion theories make it it seem better than 4. Let's try 6 teams for 6~ish years and see how that does. I think a 6 team playoff can work, and cover all the bases that 8 does without having to include two more possibly non-elite teams.
I also don't think we need the conferences to be mirror images of each other in the amount of games played, but have an external qualifier that says each P5 team needs to play 10 P5 opponents. Whether it's in their conference or out. SEC has a point that a lot of their teams plays an P5 OOC opponent so they don't need to play another conference game. It's when OSU (or B1G, or Pac, or B12) play a high profile opponent and that extra conference game that the resumes start to look different. So, if we have an everyone in P5 needs a minimum amount of P5 opponents that covers the making the schedule similar enough to me.
If we just adjust our focus a bit; now including the Conference Championship Game, it actually makes the playoffs a 10 - 13* team affair. The 1st round of the playoffs is just for the conference title too. I really don't need to see the 2nd place team in a conference, or the tallest midget to make the playoffs complete. But leaving out one of the P5 champs because of "beauty pageant" reasons doesn't sit right with me.
*we have a minimum of 10 teams that are playing for the P5 conference titles. But a G5 team may be included in that 6th spot, so their championship game is included, or that 6th spot may be to a non-conference winner, and they get a bye the 1st round. That said, I'm also a big fan of updating Championship Saturday to Seeding Saturday, it would give that extra data point for a 2nd place conference teams resume.
-
I also would like to see the 5 conference champs in the playoffs; with the caveat that champ needs to be ranked in the top 12 to be eligible.
Why 12?
-
We just need OSU and ND to dispatch of the hillbillies
That's Hill Williams - try to keep up with the PC
-
Why 12?
Plus, in your plan, a bunch of teams who finished 2nd in their division will get in ahead of division winners who lost their CCG.
Cause I'm including the conference championship game as the 1st round of the playoffs, so we want teams ranked in the top 12.
Maybe I didn't explain my plan well: I want the 5 conference champs in, 6 teams in total. So no I'm not advocating 2nd place teams to get in.
-
Now that the playoffs are set what do you think of the match-ups, who is going to win?
As I see it Notre Dame is, by far, the weak link.
guessing ND gets a beating (hope so)
I see 3 good games, Ohio St vs Clemson and that winner vs Bama
of course, rooting for some upsets and craziness
-
Old-timey 2020 postseason:
Sugar Bowl: 1 Alabama vs 2 Clemson
Rose Bowl: 3 Ohio State vs 25 Oregon
Orange Bowl: 6 Oklahoma vs 7 Florida
Cotton Bowl: 5 Texas A&M vs 4 Notre Dame
Fiesta Bowl: umm....10 Iowa State vs 8 Cincinnati??
I realize the Fiesta and Cotton weren't really both big-boy bowls simultaneously for very long, if at all
.
Not a sexy RB, btw.
.
Citrus: 9 Georgia vs 11 Indiana
Holiday: 16 BYU vs 17 USC
-
Cause I'm including the conference championship game as the 1st round of the playoffs, so we want teams ranked in the top 12.
Maybe I didn't explain my plan well: I want the 5 conference champs in, 6 teams in total. So no I'm not advocating 2nd place teams to get in.
No, you explained it well. I re-read it and edited my post.
Thank you.
-
What are the effective odds that an 8th seeded team beats the 1 seeded team? Presume the seeding is close to being accurate.
Short term, very little chance that an 8th seed beats a 1 seed. However, look at what the playoffs have done to competition in CF. The haves (Bama, Clemson, Ohio State) are getting ALL of the talent they want and the rest is being dispersed amongst the rest. This is a self serving formula. Those 3 teams will all be well represented in the playoffs for the next few years at the very least. The blue chip players are going to head to those three schools because they will be the most high profile and in the playoffs.
Expanding the playoff does not cure this, but it does at least expand the number of teams that will share in the talent. Some of the 5 stars may decide that instead of trying to compete for playing time in their sophomore or junior season at Bama, they could go to Auburn, start right away and still maybe make it to a playoff game.
It won't happen overnight, but anything that could be done to give incentive to recruits to head to other schools, will help to alleviate the issue we have now of being able to look at the season before it starts and name 3 of the 4 playoff contenders. And if we don't do it, it will KILL college football as teams like North Carolina are going to say what is the point if we are not able to recruit at that level and make a playoff game because of the monster that is Clemson.
-
There are unintended consequences to everything we do.
There is no guarantee that expanding the playoff will help have-nots become haves.
Having a playoff seems to be what has caused this problem. Expanding the playoff could make it worse, not better.
Go back to bowls and polls and accept some ambiguity.
-
There are unintended consequences to everything we do.
There is no guarantee that expanding the playoff will help have-nots become haves.
Having a playoff seems to be what has caused this problem. Expanding the playoff could make it worse, not better.
Go back to bowls and polls and accept some ambiguity.
I'm all for that. I wish it were something that could realistically happen.
I'd also like to go back to conference alignments from about 1983 while we're at it.
And get rid of the 24/7 sports news cycle and the push for nationalization of the sport, which I think has actually done the most damage of all of these things.
-
I'm all for that. I wish it were something that could realistically happen.
I'd also like to go back to conference alignments from about 1983 while we're at it.
Great minds and all that :111:.The only way to settle the issue is to expand the playoffs.But this could have consequences of screwing some kids out of a Sunday pay check because of injury.So even if expansion happens the field will be dilluted because of defections,so stick to what we have at least head to head and strength of schedule is factored in at the top wrung
-
I'm all for that. I wish it were something that could realistically happen.
I'd also like to go back to conference alignments from about 1983 while we're at it.
the only way this happens is equal sharing of $$$ by all P5 programs
there's enough to go around and then the TV contracts would be with the P5 and not individual conferences
Then the conferences could go back to regional alignments w/o costing them $$$
but, alas, it'll never happen
unless they all come to their senses and put me in charge
-
Go back to bowls and polls and accept some ambiguity.
I'm fine with that. I think the answer has to be either doing that, OR doing a playoff right, which I define as 8 teams, with the 5 PF Champs, 2 at-large, and tallest midget.
The BCS, and the CFP, are both beauty pageants that try to claim they're objectively legitimate. At least the old way of bowls and polls was unapologetic about being a beauty pageant.
-
And get rid of the 24/7 sports news cycle and the push for nationalization of the sport, which I think has actually done the most damage of all of these things.
So, I will cop to being young and not coming around until the early BCS era.
But back in the day, was there a national discourse about local teams? Like did ESPN radio just delve on OSU or Texas? Or do we just have more national outlet visibility and access, so we keep looking at it?
I think about this with TV and radio a lot. Like it used to be a thing to pull out even recent tape. Now, if Herbie says something slighting someone, it's part of the record, highly accessible and there to parse. Shoot, back in the day, you got your weekly polls in the paper and maybe you had some friends to talk about it with. Now, it sets off 35 fanbase hurricanes the second it drops each week.
-
the only way this happens is equal sharing of $$$ by all P5 programs
there's enough to go around and then the TV contracts would be with the P5 and not individual conferences
Then the conferences could go back to regional alignments w/o costing them $$$
but, alas, it'll never happen
unless they all come to their senses and put me in charge
Next thing you know, the G5 will want some sharing. :)
-
but, alas, it'll never happen
unless they all come to their senses and put me in charge
Well they were but couldn't find you power slamming runza's and tossing back schooners
-
Next thing you know, the G5 will want some sharing. :)
they will get theirs when they earn it
-
So, I will cop to being young and not coming around until the early BCS era.
But back in the day, was there a national discourse about local teams? Like did ESPN radio just delve on OSU or Texas? Or do we just have more national outlet visibility and access, so we keep looking at it?
I think about this with TV and radio a lot. Like it used to be a thing to pull out even recent tape. Now, if Herbie says something slighting someone, it's part of the record, highly accessible and there to parse. Shoot, back in the day, you got your weekly polls in the paper and maybe you had some friends to talk about it with. Now, it sets off 35 fanbase hurricanes the second it drops each week.
There was no 24-hour news cycle, much less a 24-hour sports-news cycle.
So, no, there was no national discourse except in the "letters to the editor" in Sports Illustrated.
We raced out to get the newspaper on Tuesday morning to see the latest AP and UPI polls. We didn't know which anonymous jackasses didn't vote our teams high enough. And then we had to wait until the next Saturday.
After the bowl season was over and the final polls were out, we had to wait through winter and spring, and into summer, before Street and Smiths college football preview came out. And then SI. And then the Playboy All-American Team.
There was no ESPN.
-
Ever since the two-team BCS was expanded to the 4-team CFP, I have assumed like it or not, that we will be expanding to an eight-team playoff in the near future. I further assume that the set up will be:
- Five auto-bids for the P5 Champions
- One auto-bid for the highest ranked G5 Champion*
- Two at-large teams
- Quarter-finals at campus sites of the top-4 Conference Champions
If that existed this year the Quarter-Final match-ups would be (assuming the rankings were the same):
- #25 Oregon at #1 Bama
- #8 Cincinnati at #2 Clemson
- #5 aTm at #3 Ohio State
- #4 Notre Dame at #6 Oklahoma
So the best team left out would be a 3-loss UF team that already lost to two of the eight playoff teams.
Second round (Bowl site) games would be:
- Bama/Oregon vs ND/OU
- Cincy/Clemson vs aTm/tOSU
And the CG would be:
- Bama/ND/OU/Oregon vs Clemson/tOSU/aTm/Cincy
*There might be some kind of qualifier like "if in the top-12" or "if ranked higher than the lowest ranked P5 Champion" but either of those would have been met this year.
If you instead just had the top-4 host regardless of league titles then it would be:
- #25 Oregon at #1 Bama
- #8 Cincy at #2 Clemson
- #6 Oklahoma at #3 Ohio State
- #5 aTm at #4 Notre Dame
-
Funny, I was watching MLBTV's off-season coverage and I thought: "Why isn't there a college football channel?" There's only 30 MLB teams - FBS college football literally has 100 more than that. College football's history extends back just as far as baseball's does, too.
.
I could produce enough content for a college football channel, easy.
.
Anyway, about the G5 issue - the NCAA could just be honest and tell them they're not citizens. Cinci and the like might as well have a 3/5 compromise.
-
I'm also enamored with this top-12 cutoff that is often cited. Talk about arbitrary.
-
I'm also enamored with this top-12 cutoff that is often cited. Talk about arbitrary.
FWIW, I'm kinda borrowing it but I don't remember the exact source. Wasn't there a rule at some point during the BCS that the top G5 got one of the major bowl slots but it was only if they were either top-12 or higher ranked than the lowest ranked P5 Champion on something like that?
I think there was but I could be wrong.
Also note, when I share that it isn't per-se what I WANT, it is what I think WILL happen. Also, the powers that be are constrained at least to some extent by external forces. Remember that there was talk of congressional and/or anti-trust action if they didn't open the door to the G5? That is the major reason that I assume the top G5 WILL get a slot in the 8-team playoff that I assume IS coming.
I think you and I are close enough to the same page to agree that if the top G5 is going to get a guaranteed slot we'd rather have it conditional on being top-12 (or something) than not.
-
Sure.
In the old days, OU would be going to the Orange Bowl a 6th straight time. Alabama to New Orleans 6 of the last 9 years. At least the ACC champ had some variety. Clemson would have been hopping between Miami and New Orleans the past 6 years.
OSU's seniors would be going to Pasadena every year of their careers.
The Cotton would have had some real, good variety, though.
-
In the Old Days the Big Ten had a rule that a team couldn't go to the Rose Bowl in consecutive years
-
In the Old Days the Big Ten had a rule that a team couldn't go to the Rose Bowl in consecutive years
I think that 1975 was the first year that a second Big Ten team was allowed to go to a bowl. OU played Michigan in the Orange Bowl after that season.
I remember being disappointed that the Wolverines didn't wear their maize britches.
-
Who won?
-
Michigan's players on the beach in Miami.
-
In the Old Days the Big Ten had a rule that a team couldn't go to the Rose Bowl in consecutive years
My "old days" aren't as old as some of yours.
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wuFeqg86YYE
This says it all. Hilarious!
-
My "old days" aren't as old as some of yours.
Ya I can tell. :celebrate: Happy Kwaanza
-
In the Old Days the Big Ten had a rule that a team couldn't go to the Rose Bowl in consecutive years
same type of brilliant leadership we saw this season from that office
-
Ya I can tell. :celebrate: Happy Kwaanza
Ugh.
You'll be pleased to know that's been replaced by Diwali in many schools. You've seen Slumdog Millionaire, right? Dots, not feathers. Get it?
-
I keep waiting for an NCAA hammer to one day fall down on Goober. Nick Saban at Alabama at least computes. Gomer Pyle at Clemson just doesn't make any sense to me. A one off here and there? Sure. But what he has going on there right now is just nuts.
-
Dabo was on MNF?
-
Who won?
Sooners, and backed into the MNC because of losses earlier in the day.
It was a dud sort of game, 14-6.
Les Miles played for Michigan.
-
Score guesses:
Bama 42 ND 17
Clemson 31 Ohio State 27
Bama 38 Clemson 35
-
Ugh.
You'll be pleased to know that's been replaced by Diwali in many schools. You've seen Slumdog Millionaire, right? Dots, not feathers. Get it?
My understanding is that the modern PC replacement for this phrase is "Call Center not Casino". I could be wrong.
-
I've heard both in the past year
but I'm in Casino country
-
My understanding is that the modern PC replacement for this phrase is "Call Center not Casino". I could be wrong.
Yeah, well, you know....whichever one is more offensive. People tend to go with it.
-
Sooners, and backed into the MNC because of losses earlier in the day.
It was a dud sort of game, 14-6.
All games played in the 70s could be described as such. It was basically rugby.
-
I've heard it both ways from my friend Robert from Minneapolis. He's a casino Indian that grew up in Lincoln and his family has had Husker season tickets for over 60 years.
good guy, and funny
-
Who would prevail in a brawl between American Indians and Indian-Americans?
-
the better shots
-
Some generalizations:
The Natives here spend all week doing roughneck jobs down here in Phoenix, then go back up to the Rez on the weekends.
Indian Americans are IT nerds who will make a lot of money and can't put on weight.
I'd put my money on the Natives.
-
Yeah, but by sheer numbers the Indian Americans would have to be heavily favored.
It was like when Kramer took the Karate Class he could easily beat up all the kids when they were sparring one on one, but when they ganged up on him after class he was done for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCX_N3P9EpA&ab_channel=BrandonBarclay
-
All games played in the 70s could be described as such. It was basically rugby.
:smiley_confused1:
-
(https://i.imgur.com/RpnSEnw.jpg)
These players on '78 Michigan could have all changed jerseys and no one would know. Consistent OL play, though.
-
Yeah, but by sheer numbers the Indian Americans would have to be heavily favored.
It was like when Kramer took the Karate Class he could easily beat up all the kids when they were sparring one on one, but when they ganged up on him after class he was done for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCX_N3P9EpA&ab_channel=BrandonBarclay
You asked about a brawl. 1.3 billion people don't brawl.
-
All games played in the 70s could be described as such. It was basically rugby.
Barry Sweatshirt would hang half a hundert on you by the half and then rest his starters
-
You asked about a brawl. 1.3 billion people don't brawl.
There might be that many people in India, but they aren't "Indian-Americans" unless they live here. In America. Hence the term.
If there was a brawl involving ALL of the Indian-Americans vs ALL of the American Indians.... well, there are an awful lot of Indian-Americans and there are not very many American Indians. So even if we are to ascribe the stereotype to the entire population as you suggested, on shear numbers alone the IT types would overwhelm the skilled laborers.
jmho, obviously.
-
Ohio State needs to take it up a couple notches to beat Clemson. Clemson looks better than last year. Don’t think the same is true of the Buckeyes. Clemson has a respectable chance to beat Alabama.
-
Last year the Bucks were better,this year will be a woodshed affair.Bama will bitch slap Dabo and Lady Clairol
-
Ohio State needs to take it up a couple notches to beat Clemson. Clemson looks better than last year. Don’t think the same is true of the Buckeyes. Clemson has a respectable chance to beat Alabama.
From what we have seen so far, I agree.
That said, as an Ohio State fan, I don't feel hopeless. Ohio State's main problem this year has been that Fields hasn't looked very good in their two most closely contested games (IU and NU).
The QB position is obviously HUGE in CFB and Fields is capable of a great game. If he has one, Ohio State has at least a 50/50 shot against Clemson. If not then obviously not. Same goes for Clemson/Lawrence though. At this point I would guess that whichever QB has the better game wins. From what we have seen so far this season that is likely to be Lawrence/Clemson but I don't think it would be completely shocking if it was Fields/Ohio State.
-
Ohio St. in my mind has a good chance
gotta play well obviously and avoid mistakes