2016 NCAA Football Thread

[Unocal]

Why is Clemson #2 again?

 

Shakier than Washington/Ohio State, not as good a resume as Ohio State/Penn State, not as dominant in their wins as Washington.

 

If anything, I think you could have changed the 2/3/4 order.

[HedleyLamarr]

5 minutes ago, SabresRule7361 said:

Why is Clemson #2 again?

 

Shakier than Washington/Ohio State, not as good a resume as Ohio State/Penn State, not as dominant in their wins as Washington.

 

If anything, I think you could have changed the 2/3/4 order.

Clemson's no slouch.  Maybe not as good as they were last season, but they do have wins over #11 Florida State, #13 Louisville, #14 Auburn, and #22 Virginia Tech.  All while having the proverbial bull's-eye on them this season.  They got everyone's best effort.

[OnWis97]

12 minutes ago, SabresRule7361 said:

Why is Clemson #2 again?

 

Shakier than Washington/Ohio State, not as good a resume as Ohio State/Penn State, not as dominant in their wins as Washington.

 

If anything, I think you could have changed the 2/3/4 order.

I see what you are saying.  Ironically, though, they may be the most likely team to beat Alabama.  Watson's the type of player that can turn a game around.

 

My take is that since Alabama's the clear #1, then 2/3 don't matter except for uniform color.*  And I feel that Washington is the #4 in this group given schedule strength.

 

*so on this board it DOES matter.  I like Clemson as the #2 over Ohio State.  Clemson's orange uniforms are nice and OSU could pull out throwbacks (with the black TV numbers) in red, so I am content with them in white.  Good call, Committee!

[dfwabel]

7 minutes ago, HedleyLamarr said:

Clemson's no slouch.  Maybe not as good as they were last season, but they do have wins over #11 Florida State, #13 Louisville, #14 Auburn, and #22 Virginia Tech.  All while having the proverbial bull's-eye on them this season.  They got everyone's best effort.

Clemson was in seven "one score" games with a turnover ratio of 0 this season

 

They basically have no room for error, but to their credit, they convert 3rd downs over 52% of the time.

 

[Jimmy!]

Why USC in the Rose Bowl over Colorado?

[OnWis97]

11 minutes ago, Jimmy! said:

Why USC in the Rose Bowl over Colorado?

Colorado did not win the conference, giving some discretion to the selection (unlike in the Big Ten, where the conference champ is not in the playoff, rendering Penn State an automatic).  USC is red-hot...and a bigger draw.  I am not saying which way is right, but I am not surprised.

[dfwabel]

11 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Colorado did not win the conference, giving some discretion to the selection (unlike in the Big Ten, where the conference champ is not in the playoff, rendering Penn State an automatic).  USC is red-hot...and a bigger draw.  I am not saying which way is right, but I am not surprised.

When the Pac 12 champion is in the CFP, the Rose Bowl MUST take the highest ranked Pac 12 team.

[dfwabel]

Big XII Commissioner Bob Bowlsby is confused by the committee.

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18201632/big-12-commissioner-bob-bowlsby-wants-clarity-non-league-champion-ohio-state-buckeyes-washington-huskies-make-playoff

 

Quote

"Obviously I acknowledge the difficulty of the task, but I'm not sure what I advise my members right now, because we've been telling them that nonconference schedules matter, and one of the four has an exceedingly weak nonconference schedule. 

And we've been telling them the 13th data point matters, and we added a conference championship game because of that. We've always heard that conference championships matter and division championships matter, and now it's confusing.

I'm just looking for clarity. We didn't have a team that was a likely participant in the playoff, and so from that standpoint it doesn't make a lot of difference to us this year, but I'd just like to know what we're supposed to advise our members. Does the 13th data point make a difference, or does it not? Does the conference championship game make a difference, or does it not? Are they only used as tiebreakers, or is it other metrics?

 

[MJWalker45]

2 hours ago, Seadragon76 said:

The other New Year's Six games are announced...

 

Orange: Michigan vs. Florida State

Cotton: Western Michigan vs. Wisconsin

Rose: Southern California vs. Penn State

Sugar: Auburn vs. Oklahoma

I would have loved to see a Michigan State Championship at the Cotton Bowl.  Wisconsin might find it hard to stop Western Michigan, I don't think we'll see that blowout like happened to Northern Illinois. I expect Oklahoma to drill Auburn and USC to beat Penn State. The Orange should be the best matchup of all these games.

[MJWalker45]

4 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

Big XII Commissioner Bob Bowlsby is confused by the committee.

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18201632/big-12-commissioner-bob-bowlsby-wants-clarity-non-league-champion-ohio-state-buckeyes-washington-huskies-make-playoff

 

 

Tell them to do what Oklahoma and Texas did as far as scheduling. And losing to a mid-level MAC team doesn't help either.

[dfwabel]

12 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Tell them to do what Oklahoma and Texas did as far as scheduling. And losing to a mid-level MAC team doesn't help either.

Hey, outside of OU, the Big XII does schedule.

 

Big XII teams may add Houston...

Sam Houston.

 

They play SDSU...South Dakota State (TCU)

 

They also schedule Northwestern...

Northwestern State (Baylor)

[FinsUp1214]

Of course Colorado had to drop two spots to 10 so USC could conveniently jump two spots to 9 and the Rose Bowl.

 

 

I expected it, but still held out hope Colorado could've stuck it out instead. Oh well. Butts in seats and TV ratings! Woo!

[dfwabel]

8 minutes ago, FinsUp1214 said:

Of course Colorado had to drop two spots to 10 so USC could conveniently jump two spots to 9 and the Rose Bowl.

 

 

I expected it, but still held out hope Colorado could've stuck it out instead. Oh well. Butts in seats and TV ratings! Woo!

I warned you earlier in the week.

 

Either play better defense or score more points. You had the entire committee watching the Buffs on one night...and you gacked.

 

[FinsUp1214]

14 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

I warned you earlier in the week.

 

Either play better defense or score more points. You had the entire committee watching the Buffs on one night...and you gacked.

 

 

I don't disagree with you. As I said, I expected this. I just had hoped the division title would've edged them out anyways.

[MJWalker45]

Oklahoma State vs Colorado in the Alamo Bowl. I might have to get tickets this year, especially if it's as crazy as last year.

[CLEstones]

16 hours ago, SabresRule7361 said:

Why is Clemson #2 again?

 

Shakier than Washington/Ohio State, not as good a resume as Ohio State/Penn State, not as dominant in their wins as Washington.

 

If anything, I think you could have changed the 2/3/4 order.

 

I was more comfortable with Clemson being in the Top 4 than Washington.

 

I think Clemson leap frogged Ohio State to #2 just because the committee did want to show SOME sort of benefit for playing the extra game and winning their conference, outright.

[FinsUp1214]

2 hours ago, CLEstones said:

I think Clemson leap frogged Ohio State to #2 just because the committee did want to show SOME sort of benefit for playing the extra game and winning their conference, outright.

 

If that was their intent (which, to be clear, very well may have been), then it's a pretty empty move and means nothing. 2-3 is still the same matchup if the seeds are switched, so it's easier to switch that up and be like "hey guys look Conference titles DO matter lol!" than, you know, put a certain conference champion in. 

 

Listening to the committee chair talk on ESPN about what the criteria was in this year's selections sounded like no criteria at all. Heather Dimich asked him about different factors (which favored Penn State) and he kept answering "well, heh, that's one factor.....of many...", but when asked point blank why Ohio State was on over Penn State he was very quick and free to answer with, basically, "we just thought they were better".

 

Now I'm not crying "conspiracy" or anything because these people in the committee genuinely believe Ohio State deserves it, so fine, that's their opinion. But that's exactly the problem in my eyes - major criteria logic such as head to head and conference championships favor Penn State, but the committee still ran with pure subjectivity anyway. If those things can't provide a check and balance in this system to something as intangible, fleeting, and susceptible to error as human subjectivity, what will? If you don't establish a consistent criteria year after year, then there's no standard. I fear this will create a bigger mess down the road in future years than is being anticipated.

[CLEstones]

4 minutes ago, FinsUp1214 said:

Now I'm not crying "conspiracy" or anything because these people in the committee genuinely believe Ohio State deserves it, so fine, that's their opinion. But that's exactly the problem in my eyes - major criteria logic such as head to head and conference championships favor Penn State, but the committee still ran with pure subjectivity anyway. If those things can't provide a check and balance in this system to something as intangible, fleeting, and susceptible to error as human subjectivity, what will? If you don't establish a consistent criteria year after year, then there's no standard. I fear this will create a bigger mess down the road in future years than is being anticipated.

 

I'm obviously happy Ohio State is in, but I wouldn't have been upset if they put in Penn State, based strictly on "we took the winner of the best conference in football."

[vicfurth]

Ohio State making it in over Penn State is a joke. There needs to be a objective system in place to ensure that junk like that doesn't happen. Not only did the Buckeyes not win their conference, they didn't even compete for it. They even lost to Penn State during the season. 

 

The rankings need to be treated either like basketball's RPI or as Power Rankings for the fans' enjoyment. You want in the playoffs, you do it by record, not "feels". 

 

For example, I really can't stand Alabama, but I respect that they've earned the right to play for another title. These Buckeyes? Not even close. 

[CLEstones]

4 minutes ago, vicfurth said:

Ohio State making it in over Penn State is a joke. There needs to be a objective system in place to ensure that junk like that doesn't happen. Not only did the Buckeyes not win their conference, they didn't even compete for it. They even lost to Penn State during the season. 

 

The rankings need to be treated either like basketball's RPI or as Power Rankings for the fans' enjoyment. You want in the playoffs, you do it by record, not "feels". 

 

For example, I really can't stand Alabama, but I respect that they've earned the right to play for another title. These Buckeyes? Not even close. 

 

So, in your system, it only comes down to Conference Title?  We had that "objective" system, and all we did was bitch about the 2 teams being selected.  Now we are bitching about 4 teams.  The criteria is, and always has been, "The 4 Best teams in the Country," its a "body of work." 

 

Sounds like sour grapes.