dfwabel

2017-18 NCAA Football Thread

Recommended Posts

I think it’s nothing at all like a shootout. The full fundamentals of the sport are still in play during college OT, and I think it’s a totally fair way of determining a winner. 

 

If the NFL’s new rule was truly equitable, a team would have the opportunity to counter a touchdown if they give one up on the opening possession. 

 

Also, if the first team doesn’t score, they should have to kick off to the second team so they get the same opportunity for a KR and field position. 

 

The argument that special teams are mitigated in the college OT is silly. Good special teams are essential to being a good team, but if special teams are the strength of your team, then you’re not good. Besides - field goals are special teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always preferred college overtime to NFL overtime. I feel it does a better job of decided the worthy winner than the weird gimmicky rules of NFL OT. I think each team should possess the ball index regardless of touchdown. The game can still be decided on a coin flip. At least in college OT, each team gets a shot. 

 

Instead of the 25, let NFL teams start at the 30 or 40. Kickers are generally better from longer distances in the NFL and allows for more strategic play calling to put together a fuller drive. 

 

If you want to make it "exciting", you could make two-point conversions manditory. I wouldn't care less, but it could add another element of strategy. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ~Bear said:

 

 

 

If you want to make it "exciting", you could make two-point conversions manditory. I wouldn't care less, but it could add another element of strategy. 

 

Oh no.

Then you're leaving it all up to officials and their interpretation of Offensive Pass Interference (via a pick of the other DB). It will be the end of Colts@Bills every game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BlackBolt3 said:

Y’all pray for Hedley.

After this and the Super Bowl? I'll certainly pray for his bank account.

 

5 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

I agree that Alabama was one of the four best teams.  But did they have one of the four best bodies of work? 

Well you ended all discussion with the first part. Are they one of the four best teams? Yes? Ok then. They get in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really like college overtime, because (IMO) it disproportionately benefits certain types of teams -- in that the best red-zone offenses and defenses aren't necessarily the best offenses and defenses. Florida finished third in the nation in red-zone scoring percentage, scoring on 33 of 34 trips. I would not say that Florida has one of the best offenses in the country, and wouldn't even classify them as average. Florida's offense was bad, but if you gave them the ball on the 25, they were probably going to score.

 

College overtime takes an entire part of the game (the part played between the 25s) away -- Alabama's winning play is (IMO) a good example of that. On the vast majority of overtime plays, it's literally impossible to get behind the defense for a big play.

 

I've long thought the arena football approach to overtime was best -- you play the full field like the NFL rule, but each team is guaranteed a possession. If the game's tied after that, it's sudden death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams shouldn't be built around a dependence on big plays.  If you can't move the ball inside the 25s, then you're simply not good.  Hell - make the rule that you can take the ball up to  the 25, but if you wanted to be dumb and take it at midfield, then that's your call.

 

Moving the ball between the 25s isn't part of the game.  The game is about scoring - nobody has won or lost a game based on how many yards they gained inside the 25s (nor how many yards they gained period.)

 

I guess there's people that are just dead set against it, but I think it's the most pure way (short of playing full periods until one ends with a broken tie) to settle it, as it's offense vs defense with a legitimate amount of yardage needed to be gained in order to score (albeit long FGs are possible.)  It's still legitimate football - think of it like starting from a touch back, but on the opposite 25.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

 

 

(Side note) - That had to be the worst officiating crew I've ever seen in a championship game. Offsides that weren't there, facemasks that weren't called and allowing two Alabama players to openly hit Georgia players. one should have gotten a 15 yard penalty, the other should have been ejected then kicked off the team for going after his coach.

 

There was one play where the Georgia quarterback was either sacked or tackled after a short loss, and an Alabama player shoved his head violently after the play in full view of an official. It should have at least been 15 yards if not an election. It may have even been a third down when Georgia was in Alabama territory.

 

That said, the head official had a Frank Drebin thing going on that was kind of fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Moving the ball between the 25s isn't part of the game.  The game is about scoring - nobody has won or lost a game based on how many yards they gained inside the 25s (nor how many yards they gained period.)

Sure it is -- if moving the ball between the 25s isn't part of the game, then Florida would've had an elite offense this year, since they were the third-best offense in the country once they gained the red zone. But we know that's not true, because Florida had the 108th-best scoring offense in the country this year, the metric that the game is "about."

 

Maybe the fact that they only gained the red zone 34 times had something to do with that latter number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Teams shouldn't be built around a dependence on big plays.  If you can't move the ball inside the 25s, then you're simply not good.  Hell - make the rule that you can take the ball up to  the 25, but if you wanted to be dumb and take it at midfield, then that's your call.

 

Moving the ball between the 25s isn't part of the game.  The game is about scoring - nobody has won or lost a game based on how many yards they gained inside the 25s (nor how many yards they gained period.)

 

I guess there's people that are just dead set against it, but I think it's the most pure way (short of playing full periods until one ends with a broken tie) to settle it, as it's offense vs defense with a legitimate amount of yardage needed to be gained in order to score (albeit long FGs are possible.)  It's still legitimate football - think of it like starting from a touch back, but on the opposite 25.

I tend to agree with this. OT, obviously, has to be a smaller sample size.  One team pulling off a big play (which is maybe a 45-yard pass interference on an under-thrown ball) is probably less of an indication of who ought to win an OT game than the ability to score on the shorter field.  One big play in a 60-minute game doesn't decide the whole game like it would in OT.  

 

1 hour ago, crashcarson15 said:

I don't really like college overtime, because (IMO) it disproportionately benefits certain types of teams -- in that the best red-zone offenses and defenses aren't necessarily the best offenses and defenses. Florida finished third in the nation in red-zone scoring percentage, scoring on 33 of 34 trips. I would not say that Florida has one of the best offenses in the country, and wouldn't even classify them as average. Florida's offense was bad, but if you gave them the ball on the 25, they were probably going to score.

 

College overtime takes an entire part of the game (the part played between the 25s) away -- Alabama's winning play is (IMO) a good example of that. On the vast majority of overtime plays, it's literally impossible to get behind the defense for a big play.

 

I've long thought the arena football approach to overtime was best -- you play the full field like the NFL rule, but each team is guaranteed a possession. If the game's tied after that, it's sudden death.

Most of my below argument relates to the old NFL OT, which I realize you are not advocating for.  But I do feel like that remains the most popular and fans are pissed that "fairness" was included.

 

In football where you have the options of playing a very long OT (impractical and unsafe) or bastardizing the game somewhat, I think you're bound to favor certain types of teams.  The old OT favored strong kickers (creating a touchback; making a 50+ FG) and great kick returners.  During the period of time when the kickoffs were at the 30 yard line, touchbacks were rare.  I'm not sure what average starting field position was, but it seemed like the team that won the coin flip could win the game on a decent kickoff return, a couple of eight-yard plays, a pass interference and a 45-yard field goal.  I personally value red zone offense and defense over kickers and returners as an indication of a good team.

 

The other thing with the old NFL OT is that it probably resembled real football less than college OT in that once a team got into field goal range, they became ultra-conservative and basically tried to get into the middle of the field and not lose yards.  That left a bad taste in my mouth when the other team never had the ball.

 

I think the current OT mitigates this quite a bit.  A team can still lose without getting the ball (which punishes teams with great offenses and below-average defenses; not really highlighting the "whole" game), but at least a TD is needed.  I suppose you could still let both teams get the ball no matter what, but the coin flip is still huge.  The college OT is the best way anyone's come up with to negate most of the advantage of the coin-flip.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

@SabresRule7361

Stop it. Just...just stop it. Your constant whining makes it a chore to have to read through every Stanley Cup, Super Bowl, World Series, NBA Finals, and National Championship thread. 

 

So just stop. Stop whining. You’re creating a negative experience for many a CCSLC user. 

 

EDIT- and should you consider ignoring this, like you do with every other post that calls you out? Consider this a warning from a mod. Ignoring it will force us to consider further disciplinary actions. 

 

Thank you for your expected cooperation. 

 

You're right.

 

I do complain too much.

 

I'm just not a fan of seeing the same teams win too much.

 

That's on me.

 

I'm gonna take a hiatus from posting on the Sports in General section of this board for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

After this and the Super Bowl? I'll certainly pray for his bank account.

 

Oh I'm sure he and his super hot girlfriendwife or whatever have it covered no problem and losing wasn't that big of a deal because he watches sports for the entertainment and is super cool and chill. 

 

Quote

 

Well you ended all discussion with the first part. Are they one of the four best teams? Yes? Ok then. They get in.

 

Right because that's the rules as they are now so that's the way they have to stick to it, but the rules are very flawed and they should change them. If you can't make it to your conference title game I don't see why we even need to listen to your case for one of the 4 best teams in the nation. It's the only sport that demands perfection except when Alabama and Ohio State are "eh close enough". By putting Alabama in the playoff you render the SEC Championship mostly pointless and you render the Iron Bowl completely pointless. If you make a conference championship a prerequisite for a playoff bid then both of those games are almost always guaranteed to act as playoff games of their own. How is that not better? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

Right because that's the rules as they are now so that's the way they have to stick to it, but the rules are very flawed and they should change them. If you can't make it to your conference title game I don't see why we even need to listen to your case for one of the 4 best teams in the nation. It's the only sport that demands perfection except when Alabama and Ohio State are "eh close enough". By putting Alabama in the playoff you render the SEC Championship mostly pointless and you render the Iron Bowl completely pointless. If you make a conference championship a prerequisite for a playoff bid then both of those games are almost always guaranteed to act as playoff games of their own. How is that not better? 

It's not better because lesser teams can get in.  Who should have gotten in last year over Ohio State?  I guess Penn State (and I think I can talk about this while setting aside my distaste for that program and the fact that it exists).  But they lost two games (including getting manhandled by a Michigan Team Penn State beat) and to have given the bid to them would have been to effectively consider the non-conference games exhibitions.  Those games count.  The top seven were: Alabama, Clemson, OSU, Washington.  Then we have Penn State (2 losses including to Pitt), Michigan (2 losses, including to OSU), Oklahoma (two losses).  Everyone else had at least three losses.

 

Using your philosophies, the answer is either Penn State or Oklahoma.  Penn State won the division on the head-to-head tiebreaker in a close game at home.  They also were hammered at Michigan.  OSU lost one game, a tight one to a top-ten team on the road.  Head-to-head matters, but I don't think it's everything.  The other option would be Oklahoma.  They won their conference, including a conference title game.  They had two losses (early, to whatever degree that matters) to Houston (who was ranked) and at home to Ohio State (by 21).   

 

Either way, the conference champ rule leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Ohio State was one of four one(or zero)-loss (power-5) teams.  They lost their division on a tiebreaker.  And they have to be bumped in favor of a two loss team with a lesser resume.  I just don't think we have the luxury to have a conference champion rule given the lack of schedule integrity, tiebreakers, and other randomness.  Also, how do we deal with independents (specifically, Notre Dame)?  A conference title includes an extra game vs. a good team.  Does Notre Dame just get a pass?  Realistically, yes. We're not barring them.

 

I know this is an extreme example, but let's say this happened last season:

  • Penn State loses all three of its non-conference games and then has the same BigTen season it had.  9-4.  Conference champs.
  • Oklahoma drops its game to Louisiana Monroe and a game to, say, Texas Tech.  9-4.  Conference Champs.
  • There were no independents in the top-25 (this is true).

Nobody would argue that Ohio State did not have a better resume than those teams.  But our hands our tied.  So either Oklahoma or Penn State gets in?

 

(NOTE: during the course of this I realized that Western Michigan was undefeated heading into bowl season...so under the "reality" scenario, you can put them in, though I think it's a stretch to say they were better than Oklahoma or Penn State.  And under my "extreme" scenario, give them a couple of losses, too.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

It's not better because lesser teams can get in. 

 

I don't care about that. The Ravens and Chargers were probably better teams than the Bills, but is anyone sweating the fairness of them missing the playoffs? Didn't win games they needed to as laid out by the system. I want the system to be a set, fixed, predetermined target that everyone is shooting for instead of this fluid, moving target it is now. The excitement of the games in the playoffs might suffer every once in a while, but most years wouldn't matter and it's not like we've only ever had great games in this playoff anyways. What it would do is make the conference championship games more intense and meaningful than they've ever been. It would essentially turn this thing into the 8 team playoff so many people want without massive overhaul. 

 

Quote

Who should have gotten in last year over Ohio State?  I guess Penn State (and I think I can talk about this while setting aside my distaste for that program and the fact that it exists).  But they lost two games (including getting manhandled by a Michigan Team Penn State beat) and to have given the bid to them would have been to effectively consider the non-conference games exhibitions.  Those games count.  The top seven were: Alabama, Clemson, OSU, Washington.  Then we have Penn State (2 losses including to Pitt), Michigan (2 losses, including to OSU), Oklahoma (two losses).  Everyone else had at least three losses.

 

Using your philosophies, the answer is either Penn State or Oklahoma.  Penn State won the division on the head-to-head tiebreaker in a close game at home.  They also were hammered at Michigan.  OSU lost one game, a tight one to a top-ten team on the road.  Head-to-head matters, but I don't think it's everything.  The other option would be Oklahoma.  They won their conference, including a conference title game.  They had two losses (early, to whatever degree that matters) to Houston (who was ranked) and at home to Ohio State (by 21).   

 

Easy. You take the four best conference champions which were Clemson, Alabama, Washington, and Oklahoma. Was Ohio State better than Oklahoma and Penn State? They beat Oklahoma and barely lost to Penn State but they didn't do everything they were asked so I don't have a hard time leaving them out of the conversation. 

 

Quote

Either way, the conference champ rule leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Ohio State was one of four one(or zero)-loss teams.  They lost their division on a tiebreaker.  And they have to be bumped in favor of a two loss team with a lesser resume.  I just don't think we have the luxury to have a conference champion rule given the lack of schedule integrity, tiebreakers, and other randomness.  Also, how do we deal with independents (specifically, Notre Dame)?  A conference title includes an extra game vs. a good team.  Does Notre Dame just get a pass?  Realistically, yes. We're not barring them.

 

I know this is an extreme example, but let's say this happened last season:

  • Penn State loses all three of its non-conference games and then has the same BigTen season it had.  9-4.  Conference champs.
  • Oklahoma drops its game to Louisiana Monroe and a game to, say, Texas Tech.  9-4.  Conference Champs.
  • There were no independents in the top-25 (this is true).

Nobody would argue that Ohio State did not have a better resume than those teams.  But our hands our tied.  So either Oklahoma or Penn State gets in?

 

(NOTE: during the course of this I realized that Western Michigan was undefeated heading into bowl season...so under the "reality" scenario, you can put them in, though I think it's a stretch to say they were better than Oklahoma or Penn State.  And under my "extreme" scenario, give them a couple of losses, too.)

 

Not to get all Willmorris here, but in that case I would have no problem with Penn State getting in because they won when they had to, won the conference title game with all the pressure that entails, and followed the rules as laid out and understood by everyone. It wouldn't be the moving target it is now. You lost the division on a tiebreaker? Well, tough boogers, you knew the score, should've not done that, etc etc. It's the only sport that demands perfection and now we're putting in all these back doors and loss forgivenesses. Alabama can lose at their biggest rival, not even care, and in hindsight be gifted an advantage (due to playing one fewer game), because they know they're going to the playoff regardless. How's that okay? If we're playing the conference championship games either they need to mean something or they need to mean nothing as in we don't play them and just go with a field of the 8 best teams. And since we're not getting rid of the conference championship games anytime soon I think we make them matter as much as possible. 

 

As for Notre Dame, they can fall in a hole. Just join the ACC already or we go back to the BCS rule where they have to be undefeated to be considered. I don't actually hate Notre Dame at all. I just hate that we always have to make special accommodations for them because of something of their choosing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 things: the NCAA isn’t a league, it’s a governing body, so these things are pretty tough to sort out.  The “leagues” are the conferences, and can name their champs however they see fit. It really has no bearing on the cfp tournament. 

 

The tournament ppl can make a rule that all conference champs get an invite, but really, who wants to see a champ of a weak conference play over a team that everyone just “knows” is better - if not the best - that just caught a bad break or ran into a hot team at the wrong time? 

 

Its totally a flawed system, and letting more teams in is really the only solution, but I don’t think it’s as easy as having a set formula for who gets in (i.e. conference champs plus 1) for many reasons, especially since that would impact teams decisions for joining a strong conference vs remaining in a weak one, despite other advantages it might gain. 

 

College sports at the national level will will always be arbitrary, and that’s just how it is, and kinda how it needs to be. It’s also why it sucks. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

I don't care about that. The Ravens and Chargers were probably better teams than the Bills, but is anyone sweating the fairness of them missing the playoffs? Didn't win games they needed to as laid out by the system. I want the system to be a set, fixed, predetermined target that everyone is shooting for instead of this fluid, moving target it is now. The excitement of the games in the playoffs might suffer every once in a while, but most years wouldn't matter and it's not like we've only ever had great games in this playoff anyways. What it would do is make the conference championship games more intense and meaningful than they've ever been. It would essentially turn this thing into the 8 team playoff so many people want without massive overhaul. 

 

 

Easy. You take the four best conference champions which were Clemson, Alabama, Washington, and Oklahoma. Was Ohio State better than Oklahoma and Penn State? They beat Oklahoma and barely lost to Penn State but they didn't do everything they were asked so I don't have a hard time leaving them out of the conversation. 

 

 

Not to get all Willmorris here, but in that case I would have no problem with Penn State getting in because they won when they had to, won the conference title game with all the pressure that entails, and followed the rules as laid out and understood by everyone. It wouldn't be the moving target it is now. You lost the division on a tiebreaker? Well, tough boogers, you knew the score, should've not done that, etc etc. It's the only sport that demands perfection and now we're putting in all these back doors and loss forgivenesses. Alabama can lose at their biggest rival, not even care, and in hindsight be gifted an advantage (due to playing one fewer game), because they know they're going to the playoff regardless. How's that okay? If we're playing the conference championship games either they need to mean something or they need to mean nothing as in we don't play them and just go with a field of the 8 best teams. And since we're not getting rid of the conference championship games anytime soon I think we make them matter as much as possible. 

 

As for Notre Dame, they can fall in a hole. Just join the ACC already or we go back to the BCS rule where they have to be undefeated to be considered. I don't actually hate Notre Dame at all. I just hate that we always have to make special accommodations for them because of something of their choosing. 

Like forgiving losing to multiple unranked teams in the non-conference?

 

Honestly, if non-moving goalposts is the key, then I'd rather the BCS scoring system (or something like it) just be expanded to include a top-4.  Then (in theory, of course) the best four teams get in.  Either way, I'm much more for Alabama getting away with losing at Auburn than Penn State getting away losing a home game to Pitt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OnWis97 said:

Like forgiving losing to multiple unranked teams in the non-conference?

 

If they still manage to achieve the conference championship as set out in front of them, as understood by every team they play in the conference, and win the big games when they need to then, yeah, I don't give a :censored:. Otherwise, what is even the point of the conference championships, what is even the point of the conferences? 

 

1 minute ago, OnWis97 said:

 

Honestly, if non-moving goalposts is the key, then I'd rather the BCS scoring system (or something like it) just be expanded to include a top-4.  Then (in theory, of course) the best four teams get in.  Either way, I'm much more for Alabama getting away with losing at Auburn than Penn State getting away losing a home game to Pitt.

 

We either need to expand to 8 and use computers and/or selection committee to pick the 8 best teams regardless of conference or actually use the conferences. Doing both makes no sense. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2018 at 1:54 AM, SabresRule7361 said:

Maybe the committee should have had different top 4 rankings/matchups;

 

1. Why give Bama a virtual home game in the Sugar Bowl?

2. Why not make Oklahoma #1 and have Bama play THEM instead?

3. Why not have Bama play in Pasadena?

 

Clemson-Georgia and OU-Bama I think would have worked out better.

Playoff site is designated by the #1 team and location priority (travel distance) is given to the #1.  Based on this years final 4, I would assume that no matter who was the #1, they wouldve gone to the Sugar Bowl.  The only way the #1 would go the Rose Bowl this year would be if it was a Pac12 school or maybe even a Big Ten school for historical reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

2 things: the NCAA isn’t a league, it’s a governing body, so these things are pretty tough to sort out.  The “leagues” are the conferences, and can name their champs however they see fit. It really has no bearing on the cfp tournament. 

 

The tournament ppl can make a rule that all conference champs get an invite, but really, who wants to see a champ of a weak conference play over a team that everyone just “knows” is better - if not the best - that just caught a bad break or ran into a hot team at the wrong time? 

 

Its totally a flawed system, and letting more teams in is really the only solution, but I don’t think it’s as easy as having a set formula for who gets in (i.e. conference champs plus 1) for many reasons, especially since that would impact teams decisions for joining a strong conference vs remaining in a weak one, despite other advantages it might gain. 

 

College sports at the national level will will always be arbitrary, and that’s just how it is, and kinda how it needs to be. It’s also why it sucks. 

 

 

Even more important, the NCAA has no control over the top conferences outside of teams outside of player eligibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

Playoff site is designated by the #1 team and location priority (travel distance) is given to the #1.  Based on this years final 4, I would assume that no matter who was the #1, they wouldve gone to the Sugar Bowl.  The only way the #1 would go the Rose Bowl this year would be if it was a Pac12 school or maybe even a Big Ten school for historical reference.

Is it automatic that #1 gets the shorter distance or does #1 have a choice?  Suppose Clemson is #1 and LSU is #4.  Clemson may prefer the Rose Bowl to avoid playing LSU in their home state.  Vs. Alabama, I'm not convinced that it mattered so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Is it automatic that #1 gets the shorter distance or does #1 have a choice?  Suppose Clemson is #1 and LSU is #4.  Clemson may prefer the Rose Bowl to avoid playing LSU in their home state.  Vs. Alabama, I'm not convinced that it mattered so much.

 

From this link, I feel like it's not a choice by the teams. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/04/24/college-football-playoff-questions-and-answers/2111419/

 

Q: How will geography factor in?

A: The selection committee's goal will be to protect the top two seeds from playing in road environments in semifinal games. For instance, if Southern Cal was the No. 1 seed and LSU was the No. 4 in 2014, that semifinal could be played in the Rose Bowl but not the Sugar Bowl.

 

Over the past 4 seasons of the playoff, the #1 team has played in the semifinal closest to campus.

 

2017: Clemson @ Sugar

2016: Alabama @ Peach

2015: Clemson @ Orange

2014: Alabama @ Sugar

 

I'm sure if we see Big10 or Pac12 in the #1 slot, and the Rose Bowl is an option they'd go there or if #1 is playing a team from the state the game is in (for example if Bama was #1 this year and LSU was #4, you'd likely see that game in the Rose Bowl)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now