Seriously. Disband the CFB committee.Gary Barta on Indiana: “We had a long discussion about who earned their way into that top 10... (IU) didn’t have the quality wins that Iowa State had.”
WtfView: https://twitter.com/skrajisnik3/status/1340746832570413056
Seriously. Disband the CFB committee.
what type of backwards logic is this?
I can see the logic. Iowa State played four more games than Indiana, which meant it had four more chances to embarrass itself than Indiana did. Maybe the committee decided not to ding teams for having bad losses, but rather to focus mostly on their positive achievements? (And Louisiana wound up with a pretty darn good resume anyway.)what type of backwards logic is this?
Lol and we get screwed even more. We don’t even get invited to the fucking citrus bowl?Wtf
Iowa state lost to Ragin Cajuns by 17
He was the real deal when he had two intact legs. I'll be rooting for him.Any McKenzie Milton takes? He’s moving to Tallahassee. I like Jordan Travis but I don’t know about Milton.
we need less. Playoff is already boringBy the way, 2020 - messed up as the college football season was - is more evidence that we need more than four teams in the playoff. Plenty of articles out there that agree with me...e.g.:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/30563882/college-football-playoff-2020-committee-remains-disappointingly-predictablehttps://bleacherreport.com/articles/2923279-the-college-football-playoff-system-needs-an-overhaul-because-this-format-stinks
I'm not sure I'd automatically give a bid to the best Group of 5 team - maybe it should need to meet certain criteria to get in (e.g., be ranked at least in the Top 20, or have no more than one loss) - but the general idea of five conference champions + one Group of 5 + two at-large seems to make plenty of sense to me.
Unlikely, but they'd still get in on the basis that they'd have at least played P5-level opponents all year. (They might get the #8 seed, but they'd still be guaranteed to get in.)What happens if the Pac 12 champion isn't in the Top 20 or has no more than one loss?
I might argue that one of the reasons the playoff semifinals tend to be boring is that the best coaching staffs get ages to prepare for - and get their players up for - each game. Maybe, just maybe, having to play three playoff games in four weeks might mitigate those advantages at least a little bit?we need less. Playoff is already boring
1st won't happen by matter of having more games (than this year) and by matter of USC's and ORegon's boosters.What happens if the Pac 12 champion isn't in the Top 20 or has no more than one loss?
And feed Disney brand names like Iowa State.It's not that they don't use logic, it's that they come up with the result they want and then construct the logic afterward. The only reason it exists is to protect Disney from non-brand name teams. "Corrupt" sort of implies it ever existed for any other reason.
He was the real deal when he had two intact legs. I'll be rooting for him.
Actually, was he? If Clemson's defense played like they did the first time (poorly), it's a close rematch, not a blowout.I think a simple answer to the ridiculous way playoff teams are selected is having a 'you're inellible for the playoffs if you've previously lost to another playoff team by 3+ touchdowns' rule.
Things then become real simple. If you want to be a playoff team then just don't lose to another playoff team by 3+ touchdowns. It's a clear, objective bar. If you've been blown out already then step aside and let someone else have a crack at it.
If we're worried about injuries or what not then fine, throw in an exception for blow out losses with extenuating circumstances like when a starting QB can't play. But how many of those types of situations ever actually occur? Trevor Lawrence appears to have been a 3 TD+ difference maker for Clemson vs. Notre Dame, but there are not many Trevor Lawrence's across college football in any given year. You might still get some non-sense from the committee about what are or are not extenuating circumstances but at least they'll be building a track record over time and have to defend current decisions against previous decisions.
A team like Notre Dame would be out. They had their shot, they got blown out. They wouldn't have had to win to stay in the playoff field, they'd just have to show they could be competitive. Same with Texas A&M. Sure they'll say that their blow out loss to Alabama was early in the season that they are a better team now then they were early in the season. But by that logic all teams also get better as the season goes on. So tough luck A&M. Next time, don't get crushed.
Exactly.I think a simple answer to the ridiculous way playoff teams are selected is having a 'you're inellible for the playoffs if you've previously lost to another playoff team by 3+ touchdowns' rule.
Things then become real simple. If you want to be a playoff team then just don't lose to another playoff team by 3+ touchdowns. It's a clear, objective bar. If you've been blown out already then step aside and let someone else have a crack at it.
He was not.Actually, was he?
Well it’s not that they are allowed to block, it’s that they are allowed to exist. OPI rules would still apply to any offensive lineman who is blocking downfield.Really interesting article here on exploding offenses and the impact of new rules allowing the RPO to go nuts:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/with-spread-offenses-still-dominating-college-football-coaches-wonder-whether-theyll-ever-be-stopped/
"Defensive coaches continue to curse RPOs. The run-pass option evolved by capitalizing on an obscure rule from the 1960s. It allowed offensive linemen to block 1 yard beyond the line of scrimmage and drive the defender 3 yards downfield. In 2009, that rule was amended. Linemen could be up to 3 yards downfield (without blocking) when the pass is released.
"That was a trigger point that allowed the RPO to gain new momentum," said Steve Shaw, secretary-editor of the NCAA rules committee.
Ask any defensive coach. He'll tell you that the 3-yard rule is violated on any given RPO by the offense. An RPO essentially allows a quarterback to change the play after the snap with the ball in his hands. What might look like a running play at the mesh point (handoff point between the quarterback and runner) can quickly turn into a pass if the quarterback keeps the ball. At that point, defenders are theoretically fooled by being committed to the run."
- - -
So I get that everyone wants points, but why do they allow offensive linemen to block ANYWHERE past the line of scrimmage on a pass play? That seems decidedly unfair to defenses. Make offensive linemen block at or behind the LOS until a ball is thrown. Simple. That will even things out considerably.
Gets proposed every year but gets rejected by the coaches. Similar to the blocking below the waist rule, where they want to basically get rid of it but can't due to the triple option offenses. Without coach support the rules committee has to use extra-legal "officials mechanics" maneuvers to try and limit it. Right now they've changed the mechanics to a strict "pane of glass" at the 3 yard line. They want it called if a player's pinky finger touches the line. But the NCAA and rules committees can make all the changes they want. Officials are going to call what their supervisors tell them to. And the officiating supervisors report to the conferences, aka the coaches.Why don't they just make it the LOS instead of ANY number of yards downfield? As the article suggests, it's the fact that they can go several yards downfield that really has opened up the offenses and made it nearly impossible for defenses. I'm all for fireworks, but it's really pretty out of control.