Week 14 College Football Game Thread
- Thread starter mabrowndog
- Start date
Meh, Baylor didn't do itself any favors tonight with its performance against KSU if you want to use it as a differentiating factor for the top four. Baylor was good tonight, but to make a good claim for top four they would have had to obliterate KState, and they didn't. Beat them fair and square, but the visual inspection of that game tells me Baylor is not top-four material.
Not that they had any real shot at it.
Not that they had any real shot at it.
The argument is that Baylor had home turf for its toughest games and played a non-existent non-conference schedule. TCU and OSU had mediocre schedule strength, but Baylor's was near the bottom of the power conferences.
When you have 128 teams playing widely variant schedules, it's very difficult to determine a final four. Both the Big Ten and the Big Twelve were down this year. I'd put two SEC teams in if it were possible, but they cannibalized each other too much down the stretch.
For me, Oregon and Alabama are way out in front, FSU has to get the nod because it would make the system look ridiculous not to take the only undefeated major, and I'd give the edge to OSU over TCU. I wouldn't even consider Baylor*.
* ETA: If I got some of that media money Baylor seems to have paid ESPN for their constant support, I'd be happy to throw a positive word in for the Bears.
When you have 128 teams playing widely variant schedules, it's very difficult to determine a final four. Both the Big Ten and the Big Twelve were down this year. I'd put two SEC teams in if it were possible, but they cannibalized each other too much down the stretch.
For me, Oregon and Alabama are way out in front, FSU has to get the nod because it would make the system look ridiculous not to take the only undefeated major, and I'd give the edge to OSU over TCU. I wouldn't even consider Baylor*.
* ETA: If I got some of that media money Baylor seems to have paid ESPN for their constant support, I'd be happy to throw a positive word in for the Bears.
The game was razor-close, and Baylor lost to a worse team. If Baylor's loss was to a top 10 team, I'd probably put them ahead. They also played a terrible non-conference schedule.twibnotes said:
 
I want 11 with first-round byes for the major college champions.
 JCizzle said:
I want 11 with first-round byes for the major college champions.
I trust that the committee will fuck the selection this year up so thoroughly that eight teams is inevitable pretty soon. Then sixteen.JCizzle said:
An 8-team playoff would mean more money for everyone except the bowl games. Are the bowls really that influential, or is there a reason I'm missing to keep the smaller tourney?
Not sure why the committee is getting blamed. Whoever they slot at #4, they are going to get complaints from the two other teams and a bunch of other people. No win situation.
Regardless of who # 4 is, would you be shocked if the final is not Alabama vs. Oregon? I would be.
Regardless of who # 4 is, would you be shocked if the final is not Alabama vs. Oregon? I would be.
Well, that's the point - there's no reasonable way to choose a number four. Or a number eight. A sixteen-team playoff is coming.shawnrbu said:
It's not the committee's fault that there are only four teams to choose, but it is a shitty choice.
Not really, but I'd love to see it "earned".shawnrbu said:
I could easily see either losing in the semi...
That doesn't seem to sway the other college football divisions, so no. Why pretend football players do anything but play football during the fall semester? It's not like they can catch up in December. Give them a week off and start the tournament.
twibnotes said:
That doesn't seem to sway the other college football divisions, so no. Why pretend football players do anything but play football during the fall semester? It's not like they can catch up in December. Give them a week off and start the tournament.
FCS and D3 manage 16 team playoffs, no problem. And they're at least as serious academically as FBS.twibnotes said:
shawnrbu said:
I think Alabama and Oregon will be strong favorites but either could easily lose. I don't think this is one of Saban's best Alabama teams, although they've improved a lot, especially on offense, over the course of the year. Oregon looks great but they've shown in the past that if they run into a team that can handle them up front, everything can fall to shit with their system, so who knows.
Chemistry Schmemistry said:
Yup, that's what so silly about the current system. Even real college students don't do much of anything from about December 10th to January 10th.
SumnerH said:
RedOctober3829 said:
As is NCAA Div II.
Div III is a 32-team format.
The argument that we have to limit the games played by Div I (FBS) athletes is complete horseshit.
I don't really see what is better about an expanded playoff but I don't really like what mlb is doing either with the playoffs so I'm probably an outlier. People seem to love brackets.
maufman said:
Abso fuckng lutely. The money involved is what keeps that archaic system afloat.
Logical humans have been pushing FBS (1-A) for a playoff for decades. What we got instead was the BCS.
Bowl game promoters argue that in order to ensure huge crowds, you need several weeks to allow fans & boosters of each school to make travel plans. Which is also horseshit, since only the major bowls ever approach sellout status, and that's because of their prestige more than anything else. And those are the bowls that would be hosting playoff games.
I never found her beautiful, but cute and seems like a lot of fun. Sort of the Anna Kendrick of sideline reporting.BigMike said:
luckiestman said:
What's better is that the more teams involved, the less subjectivity there is in anointing a "champion" based on two or four teams deemed worthy of consideration. It levels the playing field and allows the winner of every conference to have a shot at the title. Sure, there would be debates over seeding and matchups, and which team plays at which venue. But giving those teams a chance, rather than locking them out because they don't "look" like championship material, is what matters the most.
As do I. Give me the girl next door, and if those two lived next door, so much the better.BigMike said:
I'd watch every minute of this.
This is a quick-and-dirty estimate of the teams involved. Baylor over TCU because the Big 12 should use head-to-head to determine its champion, even though TCU should be the higher-rated team. And one spot should be reserved for a mid-major that reaches the top 20.
I'd be against any expansion over 6 (two byes). I think four is perfect (get a conference championship, Big 12). I think anything over six teams would dilute the regular season.
mabrowndog said:
Div 3 only plays 10 regular season games, FBS teams that play conference title games play 13. So it's actually the same number of games, 15, for teams that make the finals. D-2 plays 11 games, so only a team that plays in the play-in round could play 16 games, anyone else would play 15 max. FCS plays either 11 or 12, so it could be max one or two more games. Usually the 12th game is a pay game, and a lot of teams skip those
I suppose. But I rarely feel convinced the best NCAA basketball team is the champ because they win some wacky tournament. I'd rather the top 4 seeds play best of five series or something. The conference system is already a quasi playoff system in college football. I don't really feel the need to watch bama blowout the number 32 team then blowout the number 16 team to get down to 8 just because PLAYOFFS.mabrowndog said:
Money is going to determine it, so I'm going to be doing that stupid tomahawk chop and eating gator either way.
luckiestman said:
But college sports are about excitement and smack talk and school loyalty and emotions. We know the worst pro teams would crush the "champs", so bring on the one-and-done brackets, and George Mason to the Final Four--what can you do when given one shot, loser goes home? Make sure everyone with a potential claim at the title has a shot at getting there on the field of play.
At the pro level I'm with you for the longer series, that's where you're actually trying to find out who the best in the world is (at least for MLB/NBA/NFL; I don't know how to compare the NHL with the KHL or others).
Fresno St. not going away. Down by 21 in the 4th, score a TD and then recover an onside kick at the Boise 40.
SumnerH said:
I only know what the KHL is because one of my students played over there.
I sort of agree with you, that is why I was fine with the system even pre bcs. Every week is wild. And it is only amateur sports,
I'll be fine with a playoff too but I don't really see the reasoning for it especially beyond 4 teams.
This pretty quickly will go to 8 teams. The playoff was the big barrier, and now that this is breached they will fill in. There will always be controversy, and they like and proposer from it. But I think this year will prove the norm, and some years it may be damn near impossible to differentiate between nos 4 through 7.
Once you start arguing about nos 8 through 11, the outrage level goes down.
Once you start arguing about nos 8 through 11, the outrage level goes down.
8 teams would also allow automatic bids for power 5 conference champs, which would blunt the criticism that a playoff renders the regular season moot. Can you imagine the intensity if teams like Georgia Tech and Mizzou had a chance to clinch playoff berths in those games yesterday?
The committee is specifically instructed to consider SoS, conference championships, and H2H play when deciding between otherwise similar teams. OSU didn't play TCU, both won or shared their conference, and OSU has a weaker schedule by any metric out there. It's hard to find a reason to elevate OSU over TCU under those criteria.
I have no clue what will happen but my guess is TCU because (a) the above criteria and (b) the committee boxed themselves in a bit by jumping TCU to 3rd last week. It would be easier to switch 4 and 5 than it will be 3 and 5, especially when 3 won by 50 points.
I have no clue what will happen but my guess is TCU because (a) the above criteria and (b) the committee boxed themselves in a bit by jumping TCU to 3rd last week. It would be easier to switch 4 and 5 than it will be 3 and 5, especially when 3 won by 50 points.
It is pretty easy to see the Big 12 getting shut out here. It avoids the whole Baylor/TCU mess.
EDIT.
And I agree with Morgan on the merits. It's just that this would be a convenient duck and easy way to reward a compelling OSU story.
Counter argument: somebody in that room will note that this QB is third string for a reason. That one of the three other teams will be quickly on to him, and that the specter of OSU again soiling itself in the national spotlight is too much of a risk.
EDIT.
And I agree with Morgan on the merits. It's just that this would be a convenient duck and easy way to reward a compelling OSU story.
Counter argument: somebody in that room will note that this QB is third string for a reason. That one of the three other teams will be quickly on to him, and that the specter of OSU again soiling itself in the national spotlight is too much of a risk.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
Cosine! I'll also note that, if you want to talk about style points, OSU probably should have lost to 6-6 Penn State, and only a screwjob by the officials, combined with bad clock management by James Franklin, let OSU pull it out in overtime rather than lose in regulation. And that's before you get into the loss to VA Tech, which is a lot less impressive than the loss by TCU to Baylor or even the loss by Baylor to an unranked WVU.
I see the rankings remaining unchanged, unless Baylor moves up to #5.
I would be really, really disappointed if OSU jumped into the top 4. It would show why the BCS went to a computer system in the first place. The desire to elevate a name school like OSU over a less known but more deserving team (TCU in this case), is always going to be pretty strong for a committee. We'll see how it shakes out.