2014 NCAA Football Thread

[DS729]

It's annoying that UCLA is probably going to finish in the Top 10 after beating Kansas State in a non-"New Year's Six" Bowl with both of the teams playing being about 10 spots too high. Seriously. Kansas State was a consensus Top-10 team for a few weeks this year, their best win? A 1-point win at "we lost by 30+ to Clemson" Oklahoma. And they've been beat easily in their two games versus real Top-10 teams.

But UCLA hasn't been that bad, except for getting blown out by Stanford and nearly losing to UVA, Cal, and Colorado. The GameDay guys really hit their shot with them didn't they? And Oklahoma too.

[crashcarson15]

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/1/3/7484091/bill-snyder-disappointed-with-length-of-jim-moras-post-game-handshake

Am I the only one that wishes players would dive over on kneels more often? And tried harder on field goal blocks?

I mean, you should be, yeah. Diving over on kneels is pretty much the dumbest thing you can do in that situation. The only way you're getting the ball back is via a botched snap. If you're in the air, flying like an idiot when that happens, someone else will have already fallen on the ball by the time you return to earth.

And on field goals? Blocks are low-percentage as is; why risk a roughing the snapper or roughing the kicker penalty when college kickers are dubious at best to get the three points in the first place?

[dfwabel]

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/1/3/7484091/bill-snyder-disappointed-with-length-of-jim-moras-post-game-handshake

Am I the only one that wishes players would dive over on kneels more often? And tried harder on field goal blocks?

I mean, you should be, yeah. Diving over on kneels is pretty much the dumbest thing you can do in that situation. The only way you're getting the ball back is via a botched snap. If you're in the air, flying like an idiot when that happens, someone else will have already fallen on the ball by the time you return to earth.

And on field goals? Blocks are low-percentage as is; why risk a roughing the snapper or roughing the kicker penalty when college kickers are dubious at best to get the three points in the first place?

The defender must be stationary within the neutral zone to legally leap across the line of scrimmage. That said, the player is at high risk to be called for Targeting if he makes contact.

[HedleyLamarr]

A couple amendments:

Arkansas and A&M weren't bottom feeders. They finished in the bottom two, but the SEC-W was very even this year.

Don't forget that the SEC-E went 0-4 against the ACC on the last week of the season. Add in the Mizzou loss to Indiana and Tennesee's loss to Oklahoma, and the SEC-E doesn't look good either.

All in all, a very strange very for the SEC. They beat each other up throughout the season, which resulted in no team surviving the end of the season as elite. I think Ole Miss would've beaten any team in the country the week they beat Alabama. Same for Mississippi State the week they beat Auburn and for Alabama the week they beat Texas A&M.

That being said, none of them were beating Oregon at end of the season. Or Ohio State, apparently, who I think has a decent shot at beating Oregon come next Monday.

To me, it seems like what may be starting to weaken the SEC is their very strength: their talent. Huh?

Maybe I just don't notice it with the other conferences, but it seems like a lot of juniors in the SEC schools are heading to the NFL early instead of sticking around for their senior season. There's more turnover per year than I can ever remember. With less cohesion and continuity, there's less of a chance for you to have a dominant unit...especially on the defensive side of the ball.

Can't remember seeing the defenses as a whole being so subpar throughout the conference. Only one team didn't allow 30+ points in three or more games this season (Alabama), yet Alabama still had two games where they allowed 40+ points.

[CLEstones]

A couple amendments:

Arkansas and A&M weren't bottom feeders. They finished in the bottom two, but the SEC-W was very even this year.

Don't forget that the SEC-E went 0-4 against the ACC on the last week of the season. Add in the Mizzou loss to Indiana and Tennesee's loss to Oklahoma, and the SEC-E doesn't look good either.

All in all, a very strange very for the SEC. They beat each other up throughout the season, which resulted in no team surviving the end of the season as elite. I think Ole Miss would've beaten any team in the country the week they beat Alabama. Same for Mississippi State the week they beat Auburn and for Alabama the week they beat Texas A&M.

That being said, none of them were beating Oregon at end of the season. Or Ohio State, apparently, who I think has a decent shot at beating Oregon come next Monday.

Can't remember seeing the defenses as a whole being so subpar throughout the conference. Only one team didn't allow 30+ points in three or more games this season (Alabama), yet Alabama still had two games where they allowed 40+ points.

Isn't this one of the arguments that people use to say the SEC is so good though? Isn't it always that the SEC beats each other up so much, that's why a 1 or 2 loss team is better than an undefeated team from another conference?

[pianoknight]

A couple amendments:

Arkansas and A&M weren't bottom feeders. They finished in the bottom two, but the SEC-W was very even this year.

Don't forget that the SEC-E went 0-4 against the ACC on the last week of the season. Add in the Mizzou loss to Indiana and Tennesee's loss to Oklahoma, and the SEC-E doesn't look good either.

All in all, a very strange very for the SEC. They beat each other up throughout the season, which resulted in no team surviving the end of the season as elite. I think Ole Miss would've beaten any team in the country the week they beat Alabama. Same for Mississippi State the week they beat Auburn and for Alabama the week they beat Texas A&M.

That being said, none of them were beating Oregon at end of the season. Or Ohio State, apparently, who I think has a decent shot at beating Oregon come next Monday.

Can't remember seeing the defenses as a whole being so subpar throughout the conference. Only one team didn't allow 30+ points in three or more games this season (Alabama), yet Alabama still had two games where they allowed 40+ points.

Isn't this one of the arguments that people use to say the SEC is so good though? Isn't it always that the SEC beats each other up so much, that's why a 1 or 2 loss team is better than an undefeated team from another conference?

People seem to forget that the worst place team in the B1G beat the SEC East Champ.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=400547918

I'm not saying that the Big Ten is wholesale better than the SEC, because I do realize that teams like Indiana can get fluke wins or pull off upsets. But combine that fact with the rise of The Mississippis this year and you have a recipe for SEC meltdown. A lot of people were trumpeting Ole and State as "just more SEC dominance," but my immediate question was to wonder what the hell happened to Alabama, Auburn, LSU and Texas A&M to allow the Magnolia State to control the SEC West.

I'm sure the hard-core SEC honks will balk at me saying that - and I'm really not trying to detract from the good seasons had in Oxford and Starkville - but flip this around to another conference for a moment and you'll see that the early warning signs were there for the SEC West this year. Imagine if any of these scenarios had played out:

• UVA and Va.Tech are suddenly ruling the roost in the ACC - and either FSU or GT lost to Vanderbilt
• Utah and Colorado are taking names in the Pac12 - and Oregon loses a game to Iowa State
• Purdue and Northwestern are curb-stomping the Big Ten - and Ohio State loses to Wake Forest

Pick any one of those and I guarantee the media would write off that conference as irrelevant by mid-season. When schools starting with the Letter I start winning the Big Ten, the narrative immediately asks why Ohio State, et. at., aren't atop the leaderboards. But when that same perfect storm hits the SEC, we hear nothing but praise for these amazing Cinderella schools who will likely go the distance and bring home a title for the SEC.

Look, I'm not ignorant of the fact that underdogs, do in fact, have amazing seasons from time to time. I'm just a bit sick of hearing the same circumstances applied to a southeastern school as a diamond in the rough while other teams are seen as a fluke, no more than the best of the worst in a dumpster fire conference.

[Sport]

The SEC being so much more dominant that Skip Bayless said they should have 4 teams in the playoffs is a complete farce fabricated by Espen.

We all knew they weren't that much better than every other conference when Missouri and Texas A&M came aboard and had some pretty easy success. It's a good conference, it's probably the best conference, but it's not cartoonishly better. Remember how willmorris used to post top 25 rankings and the top 12 teams was always the 12 SEC schools? This is a better message board without him.

[buckeye]

A couple amendments:

Arkansas and A&M weren't bottom feeders. They finished in the bottom two, but the SEC-W was very even this year.

Don't forget that the SEC-E went 0-4 against the ACC on the last week of the season. Add in the Mizzou loss to Indiana and Tennesee's loss to Oklahoma, and the SEC-E doesn't look good either.

All in all, a very strange very for the SEC. They beat each other up throughout the season, which resulted in no team surviving the end of the season as elite. I think Ole Miss would've beaten any team in the country the week they beat Alabama. Same for Mississippi State the week they beat Auburn and for Alabama the week they beat Texas A&M.

That being said, none of them were beating Oregon at end of the season. Or Ohio State, apparently, who I think has a decent shot at beating Oregon come next Monday.

Can't remember seeing the defenses as a whole being so subpar throughout the conference. Only one team didn't allow 30+ points in three or more games this season (Alabama), yet Alabama still had two games where they allowed 40+ points.

Isn't this one of the arguments that people use to say the SEC is so good though? Isn't it always that the SEC beats each other up so much, that's why a 1 or 2 loss team is better than an undefeated team from another conference?

People seem to forget that the worst place team in the B1G beat the SEC East Champ.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=400547918

I'm not saying that the Big Ten is wholesale better than the SEC, because I do realize that teams like Indiana can get fluke wins or pull off upsets. But combine that fact with the rise of The Mississippis this year and you have a recipe for SEC meltdown. A lot of people were trumpeting Ole and State as "just more SEC dominance," but my immediate question was to wonder what the hell happened to Alabama, Auburn, LSU and Texas A&M to allow the Magnolia State to control the SEC West.

I'm sure the hard-core SEC honks will balk at me saying that - and I'm really not trying to detract from the good seasons had in Oxford and Starkville - but flip this around to another conference for a moment and you'll see that the early warning signs were there for the SEC West this year. Imagine if any of these scenarios had played out:

• UVA and Va.Tech are suddenly ruling the roost in the ACC - and either FSU or GT lost to Vanderbilt
• Utah and Colorado are taking names in the Pac12 - and Oregon loses a game to Iowa State
• Purdue and Northwestern are curb-stomping the Big Ten - and Ohio State loses to Wake Forest

Pick any one of those and I guarantee the media would write off that conference as irrelevant by mid-season. When schools starting with the Letter I start winning the Big Ten, the narrative immediately asks why Ohio State, et. at., aren't atop the leaderboards. But when that same perfect storm hits the SEC, we hear nothing but praise for these amazing Cinderella schools who will likely go the distance and bring home a title for the SEC.

Look, I'm not ignorant of the fact that underdogs, do in fact, have amazing seasons from time to time. I'm just a bit sick of hearing the same circumstances applied to a southeastern school as a diamond in the rough while other teams are seen as a fluke, no more than the best of the worst in a dumpster fire conference.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

[HedleyLamarr]

A couple amendments:

Arkansas and A&M weren't bottom feeders. They finished in the bottom two, but the SEC-W was very even this year.

Don't forget that the SEC-E went 0-4 against the ACC on the last week of the season. Add in the Mizzou loss to Indiana and Tennesee's loss to Oklahoma, and the SEC-E doesn't look good either.

All in all, a very strange very for the SEC. They beat each other up throughout the season, which resulted in no team surviving the end of the season as elite. I think Ole Miss would've beaten any team in the country the week they beat Alabama. Same for Mississippi State the week they beat Auburn and for Alabama the week they beat Texas A&M.

That being said, none of them were beating Oregon at end of the season. Or Ohio State, apparently, who I think has a decent shot at beating Oregon come next Monday.

Can't remember seeing the defenses as a whole being so subpar throughout the conference. Only one team didn't allow 30+ points in three or more games this season (Alabama), yet Alabama still had two games where they allowed 40+ points.

Isn't this one of the arguments that people use to say the SEC is so good though? Isn't it always that the SEC beats each other up so much, that's why a 1 or 2 loss team is better than an undefeated team from another conference?

I don't know why you chopped off half my post to ask this question. Must be to fit your agenda.

I don't know how to answer this. I can only give my opinion. I don't have the time to play hypotheticals.

My point about the SEC was that their talent is leaving early. If you're talented enough to start for a couple years at Alabama or LSU or Georgia, etc., the mindset has become "Why risk injury starting for a third year as a senior when I can be making some coin?".

Talent-wise...yes, the SEC has the most talent coming through. A quick look at the two-deeps of the NFL rosters support that. However, that talent isn't sticking around for the entirety of their eligibility like they are at other schools. There were so many sophomores and freshmen playing critical roles throughout the conference, more than I can ever recall.

That youth, that shortage of experience, the lack of the offensive and defensive units' consistency could be what has the SEC coming back to the pack. The SEC is still the most talented conference, but the talent doesn't always mirror what happens during a game and the season.

[Thad]

^^^ I agree 100%. It's hard to win when you have inexperience at key positions like QB, OT, and MLB - which is the case at many of the usual SEC players this year.

I had a long post written, but then said tl;dr to myself.

The Mississippi schools competing this year came down to LSU, Alabama, and Auburn losing their Top 5 recruiting classes early, while Ole Miss and Mississippi State had their top #20ish classes sticking around for their sr/r-sr seasons. That makes a difference every time. Not to mention Dak Prescott (who I called being a Heisman candidate in the NCFA Pre-season yearbook) carrying MSU for most of the year.

Like I've said before, I don't get the whole "my conference is better than your conference" mentality, but it's obvious to say the SEC is still one of the better conferences, but it's a three dog race with the ACC and PAC-12 for the "best".

[Unocal]

Gary Patterson has won only two big bowls (Peach Bow, 2011 Rose Bowl) and now he's Mr. Right Way on how to take a snub? He's a two-hit wonder IMO.

And if Michigan State doesn't block 2 field goals, are we still acting like Art Briles is such a horrible, classless whiner because he was talking up Baylor and the playoff?

What's he supposed to do? If he said nothing, everyone would be saying HE'S NOT STANDING UP FOR HIS TEAM

[CLEstones]

A couple amendments:

Arkansas and A&M weren't bottom feeders. They finished in the bottom two, but the SEC-W was very even this year.

Don't forget that the SEC-E went 0-4 against the ACC on the last week of the season. Add in the Mizzou loss to Indiana and Tennesee's loss to Oklahoma, and the SEC-E doesn't look good either.

All in all, a very strange very for the SEC. They beat each other up throughout the season, which resulted in no team surviving the end of the season as elite. I think Ole Miss would've beaten any team in the country the week they beat Alabama. Same for Mississippi State the week they beat Auburn and for Alabama the week they beat Texas A&M.

That being said, none of them were beating Oregon at end of the season. Or Ohio State, apparently, who I think has a decent shot at beating Oregon come next Monday.

Can't remember seeing the defenses as a whole being so subpar throughout the conference. Only one team didn't allow 30+ points in three or more games this season (Alabama), yet Alabama still had two games where they allowed 40+ points.

Isn't this one of the arguments that people use to say the SEC is so good though? Isn't it always that the SEC beats each other up so much, that's why a 1 or 2 loss team is better than an undefeated team from another conference?

I don't know why you chopped off half my post to ask this question. Must be to fit your agenda.

Its not really an agenda as it is just not having massive quotes within quotes.

The narrative is that the SEC is soooo good that they deserve to have 2 or 3... maybe even 4 team in the College Football Playoff. The SEC is so good that the only reason teams finish with 1 loss or multiple losses is because they have to play each other and beat each other up. Shouldn't that be why the defenses gave up 30+ per game because the SEC is SO good?

I'm not trying to attack the SEC and say they are a terrible conference. I'm just trying to make a point. People can't sit there and say the SEC is so good, that a 1 and 2 loss teams deserves to be rated higher than undefeated teams because the SEC beats each other up.

[HedleyLamarr]

I don't know what point you're trying to make, other than exaggerating someone's opinion. I don't think anyone here (or anyone at all, really) honestly believes that the 4-team playoffs should have 4 SEC teams. If someone did say that, I'm sure it was in obvious satire.

If you're trying to paint me as an SEC fanboy, good luck. I've been pretty consistent throughout my tenure here on being a Georgia fan, not an SEC fan. And many on here can vouch for that.

I don't even know why you mentioned that "a 1-2 loss SEC team is better than an undefeated non-SEC team". Certainly wasn't anything I've said or alluded to. I merely stated that the defenses in the conference just haven't been as good as they've been in years past, and what my explanation for that may be.

[CubsFanBudMan]

There was legitimate discussion of 3 SEC teams in the playoff, but that was way too early in the process and cynics like me figured Alabama would end up being the SEC rep anyway and the two Mississippi schools would falter. The narrative-driven ESPN jumped on those two schools hard, propping them up as the new blood of the SEC when in reality it was a sign of a down year. Pianoknight's post above outlines the scenario perfectly, IMO.

Looking at how it played out, it's fairly clear that one conference will never have 3 teams in a 4-team playoff -- and probably never even two.

When Alabama-LSU happened, the BCS was finished. Look how angry the Big XII was this year. Imagine if two conferences get left out on the assumption that a second-place SEC team is better than two "Power 5" champions.

To be honest, I'm a bit outraged that an undefeated, defending champion Power 5 team was jumped in the rankings, but at least the playoff allowed for it to be settled on the field instead of a BCS championship between Alabama and Florida State. Because as others said, you can't leave the Seminoles out. But in a way, that's why it's okay to leave them No. 1, too. Let them get knocked out on the field if they're unworthy, as they ultimately were. It sure wouldn't happen to Alabama if they had the same resume and close wins, though. Remember when the idea of no SEC team making it was floated because they could all have 2 losses? Panic. Is it really Power 5 or the Power 1+4?

This system works in my book. Keep it at 4.

[Unocal]

Jameis is making a mistake.

I don't think the NFL money is worth it and quite frankly, when you go pro after your sopohomore year.... how many times has it worked?

Being a top 3 draft pick is overrated, anyway.

[pianoknight]

I'll bet a dollar that FSU decides to suspend Jameis now that he's declared.

[FiddySicks]

Jameis is making a mistake.

I don't think the NFL money is worth it and quite frankly, when you go pro after your sopohomore year.... how many times has it worked?

Being a top 3 draft pick is overrated, anyway.

What is this I don't even.

[infrared41]

Jameis is making a mistake.

I don't think the NFL money is worth it and quite frankly, when you go pro after your sopohomore year.... how many times has it worked?

Being a top 3 draft pick is overrated, anyway.

No kidding. What kind of moron would take millions of dollars to go to the NFL when he could stay in school, make no money, and possibly suffer a career ending injury? Yup. He's making a HUGE mistake.

[NJTank]

Jameis Winston risks getting away with more trouble by staying in Tallahassee and hurting his draft stock.

[CLEstones]

Winston staying in college can only hurt him. One year of good/decent behavior isn't going to change much perception... especially not after the Johnny Football debacle this year in Cleveland. Its the NFL. Its high risk, high reward. If he stays in school and either gets hurt, has a down year, or gets in to more trouble... then he is costing himself money. Who are we to tell a kid he can't go make a living.