2014 NCAA Football Thread

[HedleyLamarr]

Looking ahead, assuming Alabama and Mississippi State win out pre-SEC Championship game....

Will this football playoff committee do like what the basketball committee has done with conference tournaments....not penalize a team that much should they get felled in the not-a-regular-season game? Should Alabama get punished for a loss (bringing them to 11-2) in the SEC title game to Georgia/Missouri while a 1-loss Mississippi State team sits in the clubhouse at 11-1? And other similar cases (possible 0-loss FSU getting a loss in the ACC Championship, possible 1-loss Oregon losing in the Pac-12 Championship, etc.

Speaking of Florida State, they can't be looking forward to playing a Florida team with a coaching staff that will have literally nothing to lose. The ENTIRE playbook is available for them. Especially when Muschamp has the chance to claim "I beat my three rivals: Tennessee, Georgia, FSU this season" for future job interviews.

[dfwabel]

Looking ahead, assuming Alabama and Mississippi State win out pre-SEC Championship game....

Will this football playoff committee do like what the basketball committee has done with conference tournaments....not penalize a team that much should they get felled in the not-a-regular-season game? Should Alabama get punished for a loss (bringing them to 11-2) in the SEC title game to Georgia/Missouri while a 1-loss Mississippi State team sits in the clubhouse at 11-1? And other similar cases (possible 0-loss FSU getting a loss in the ACC Championship, possible 1-loss Oregon losing in the Pac-12 Championship, etc.

Speaking of Florida State, they can't be looking forward to playing a Florida team with a coaching staff that will have literally nothing to lose. The ENTIRE playbook is available for them. Especially when Muschamp has the chance to claim "I beat my three rivals: Tennessee, Georgia, FSU this season" for future job interviews.

It's not the Florida game which is worrisome, it is playing Georgia Tech on one week's notice.

And to assist FSU is that Florida cannot throw the ball, passing only 38 times in the last three games.

[Billy B]

Looking ahead, assuming Alabama and Mississippi State win out pre-SEC Championship game....

Will this football playoff committee do like what the basketball committee has done with conference tournamnts....not penalize a team that much should they get felled in the not-a-regular-season game? Should Alabama get punished for a loss (bringing them to 11-2) in the SEC title game to Georgia/Missouri while a 1-loss Mississippi State team sits in the clubhouse at 11-1? And other similar cases (possible 0-loss FSU getting a loss in the ACC Championship, possible 1-loss Oregon losing in the Pac-12 Championship, etc.

Speaking of Florida State, they can't be looking forward to playing a Florida team with a coaching staff that will have literally nothing to lose. The ENTIRE playbook is available for them. Especially when Muschamp has the chance to claim "I beat my three rivals: Tennessee, Georgia, FSU this season" for future job interviews.

I think they'll treat it the same as they would if it were a regular season game. Assuming Bama goes into the SEC Championship undefeated, I'd be extremely surprised if a loss to a Top 10 Georgia team dropped them out of the playoffs. It would be a little different for FSU. They'll probably have to be 13-0 to make the playoff because of their schedule.

[CLEstones]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet. Ohio State moved up from #8 to #6, jumping Arizona State (expected) and Baylor (unexpected?). At the time, they played the #25 team in the country, Minnesota, on the road, in 16 degree, snow conditions. The new ranking have Minnesota staying at #25 despite the loss.

I am trying to decipher this. Did they think it was a good win by Ohio State (which is was a really good win), a good loss by Minnesota, or did so many teams in the 18-25 range lose, that it forced Minnesota to stay in the Top 25? Or is it a combination of all 3?

[crashcarson15]

Marshall should've known it was going to be good. And begged every school in the preseason top 10 or 15 to play them. Tell Ohio State or Ole Miss that you'll play them for free. Give yourself a chance.

When do you think Marshall should have known it was going to be good?

Perhaps when they won 10 games last year while returning a majority of their best players for this year?

Here's a post from April 1 talking about Marshall's ability to do something. We've been hearing about them, what, since week two of the season?

You don't just unexpectedly stumble upon "oh, hey, look at that! We have a bunch of really good athletes and really good football players." Give your team a chance. What a failure from the athletic department.

[Balu the Bare]

I would give my complaints...but they all fall on deaf ears. As long as people keep drinking the "strength of schedule" Kool-aid, it'll be like this.

This will be my VERY last statement on this issue:

I love the irony here. Isn't the "'strength of schedule' kool-aid" the very thing that kept teams like Utah and Boise State far away from the National Title?

We've really just traded one popularity contest for another. To me, there's nothing to miss. At least this way we won't get co-champions, right?

[HedleyLamarr]

Marshall should've known it was going to be good. And begged every school in the preseason top 10 or 15 to play them. Tell Ohio State or Ole Miss that you'll play them for free. Give yourself a chance.

When do you think Marshall should have known it was going to be good?

Perhaps when they won 10 games last year while returning a majority of their best players for this year?

Here's a post from April 1 talking about Marshall's ability to do something. We've been hearing about them, what, since week two of the season?

You don't just unexpectedly stumble upon "oh, hey, look at that! We have a bunch of really good athletes and really good football players." Give your team a chance. What a failure from the athletic department.

So....roughly January 2014, at the earliest? That's what you're saying, right?

Now, you do realize non-conference schedules are made up years in advance, right? Unless conference realignment or conference scheduling took place over the summer (don't think Marshall was a victim of either), you don't schedule games less than 12 months before they happen. You actually think Marshall had the ability to place calls to Ohio State or Auburn or Texas, or even Clemson or Utah or Cincinnati at the beginning of the year and say, "Hey, we might be good this year. We know you're paying Eastern Michigan $800,000 to play a game in 8 months, but can you pay them an additional $500,000 to buyout that game so you can play us instead? We need some beef on the schedule."? Doesn't work that way. And Marshall doesn't have the coin to handle schedule buyouts.

[Balu the Bare]

Marshall should've known it was going to be good. And begged every school in the preseason top 10 or 15 to play them. Tell Ohio State or Ole Miss that you'll play them for free. Give yourself a chance.

When do you think Marshall should have known it was going to be good?

Perhaps when they won 10 games last year while returning a majority of their best players for this year?

Here's a post from April 1 talking about Marshall's ability to do something. We've been hearing about them, what, since week two of the season?

You don't just unexpectedly stumble upon "oh, hey, look at that! We have a bunch of really good athletes and really good football players." Give your team a chance. What a failure from the athletic department.

That post was in April when the schedules were already set. In fact, the way schedules are usually made, I'm going to assume that this year's schedule was set sometime before the 2013 season. Reason for that line of thinking? There's a website that shows all the teams out of conference schedules until 2017. I don't know when it happened, but Marshall's 2015 out of conference schedule is tentatively set as is most of 2016. Since a lot of teams schedules are set years in advance, I don't think the argument of 'just schedule better that year if you think you're going to be good' applies until schedules are set on a single year basis.

FBSschedules.com

[crashcarson15]

Marshall should've known it was going to be good. And begged every school in the preseason top 10 or 15 to play them. Tell Ohio State or Ole Miss that you'll play them for free. Give yourself a chance.

When do you think Marshall should have known it was going to be good?

Perhaps when they won 10 games last year while returning a majority of their best players for this year?

Here's a post from April 1 talking about Marshall's ability to do something. We've been hearing about them, what, since week two of the season?

You don't just unexpectedly stumble upon "oh, hey, look at that! We have a bunch of really good athletes and really good football players." Give your team a chance. What a failure from the athletic department.

So....roughly January 2014, at the earliest? That's what you're saying, right?

Now, you do realize non-conference schedules are made up years in advance, right? Unless conference realignment or conference scheduling took place over the summer (don't think Marshall was a victim of either), you don't schedule games less than 12 months before they happen. You actually think Marshall had the ability to place calls to Ohio State or Auburn or Texas, or even Clemson or Utah or Cincinnati at the beginning of the year and say, "Hey, we might be good this year. We know you're paying Eastern Michigan $800,000 to play a game in 8 months, but can you pay them an additional $500,000 to buyout that game so you can play us instead? We need some beef on the schedule."? Doesn't work that way. And Marshall doesn't have the coin to handle schedule buyouts.

Not in the slightest. If the public understood it then, the coaching staff and athletic department should've realized that capability was there long beforehand.

I mean, if you're a coach, do you just aimlessly recruit players with no real goal or timeframe in mind?

One would think that Marshall's coaching staff sat there in January 2013 and said, "Alright. We've got a team that can challenge for the conference title this year and that should peak in 2014."

The natural line of thought from there should be "let's make sure we have a quality opponent on the schedule."

Plus, Marshall's played money games in the past — they played in Blacksburg last year. It's not as if there's some aversion from top programs to playing them.

Look, if you don't give your team even the slightest of chances of getting a good win in a season, you have zero room to complain when they aren't respected.

[CLEstones]

I would give my complaints...but they all fall on deaf ears. As long as people keep drinking the "strength of schedule" Kool-aid, it'll be like this.

This will be my VERY last statement on this issue:

We've really just traded one popularity contest for another. To me, there's nothing to miss. At least this way we won't get co-champions, right?

Unless Mississippi State wins and Alabama loses in the Playoffs...

[rams80]

This will be my VERY last statement on this issue:

And I'm going to hold you to it. Please, stop beating the dead horse.

If the BCS was still around, they'd be in that barren wasteland that Northern Illinois was in and a few other MAC schools have been a win away from — get highly-ranked to play the worst power-five team that's there in a game that nobody cares about. Yawn.

Marshall should've known it was going to be good. And begged every school in the preseason top 10 or 15 to play them. Tell Ohio State or Ole Miss that you'll play them for free. Give yourself a chance.

Hell, pull in markers in the legislature to get West Virginia on the schedule again. Even that would have been an upgrade.

[martymcfry]

Could I add this scenario to the mix? Let's say Alabama loses the Iron Bowl; they finish 10-2. Mississippi St loses the Egg Bowl; they finish 10-2. Of course at this point, Ole Miss and Auburn each have three loses, and Alabama has head to head against M State. If Alabama loses the SEC Championship Game, Georgia or Missouri would be a three-loss SEC Champion. How would a three loss SEC champion get in ahead of an undefeated Florida St, 1-loss Oregon, Baylor/TCU, and Ohio St? It's still possible we could see a non-SEC playoff.

[hailstateunis]

Georgia would get in with 2 losses. ^^

I would give my complaints...but they all fall on deaf ears. As long as people keep drinking the "strength of schedule" Kool-aid, it'll be like this.

This will be my VERY last statement on this issue:

We've really just traded one popularity contest for another. To me, there's nothing to miss. At least this way we won't get co-champions, right?

Unless Mississippi State wins and Alabama loses in the Playoffs...

Wouldn't be any different than 2011. I don't see LSU claiming anything from that.

[crashcarson15]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet. Ohio State moved up from #8 to #6, jumping Arizona State (expected) and Baylor (unexpected?). At the time, they played the #25 team in the country, Minnesota, on the road, in 16 degree, snow conditions. The new ranking have Minnesota staying at #25 despite the loss.

I am trying to decipher this. Did they think it was a good win by Ohio State (which is was a really good win), a good loss by Minnesota, or did so many teams in the 18-25 range lose, that it forced Minnesota to stay in the Top 25? Or is it a combination of all 3?

If you're the 25th-ranked team playing at home against the (then) 8th-ranked team, wouldn't a one-touchdown loss be the expected result? Thus validating the idea that Minnesota is the 25th-best team in the country?

It can be both. If #5 beat #10 by a field goal, we'd say that it's a really good win for #5 so maybe bump them up but it'd also tell us that we had #10 in the right spot. Should it be different here?

One of the things that's always frustrated me about polls is their tendencies to drop teams after losing games that they were expected to lose.

[CLEstones]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet. Ohio State moved up from #8 to #6, jumping Arizona State (expected) and Baylor (unexpected?). At the time, they played the #25 team in the country, Minnesota, on the road, in 16 degree, snow conditions. The new ranking have Minnesota staying at #25 despite the loss.

I am trying to decipher this. Did they think it was a good win by Ohio State (which is was a really good win), a good loss by Minnesota, or did so many teams in the 18-25 range lose, that it forced Minnesota to stay in the Top 25? Or is it a combination of all 3?

If you're the 25th-ranked team playing at home against the (then) 8th-ranked team, wouldn't a one-touchdown loss be the expected result? Thus validating the idea that Minnesota is the 25th-best team in the country?

It can be both. If #5 beat #10 by a field goal, we'd say that it's a really good win for #5 so maybe bump them up but it'd also tell us that we had #10 in the right spot. Should it be different here?

One of the things that's always frustrated me about polls is their tendencies to drop teams after losing games that they were expected to lose.

Well, yes, it was a 7 point win. But watching the game, it should have really been at least a 3 touchdown win... possibly 4. A true freshman fumbled twice in terrible field position... one was as he literally was crossing the goal line before half time, making the score 21-7 at half instead of 17-14. The other was taking a punt off his face mask inside the Ohio State 20 yard line. Both leading to easy score for the Golden Gophers.

I guess I was just curious after seeing how systematic/cookie cutter the BCS/CFP is with losses.

[dfwabel]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet. Ohio State moved up from #8 to #6, jumping Arizona State (expected) and Baylor (unexpected?). At the time, they played the #25 team in the country, Minnesota, on the road, in 16 degree, snow conditions. The new ranking have Minnesota staying at #25 despite the loss.

I am trying to decipher this. Did they think it was a good win by Ohio State (which is was a really good win), a good loss by Minnesota, or did so many teams in the 18-25 range lose, that it forced Minnesota to stay in the Top 25? Or is it a combination of all 3?

If you're the 25th-ranked team playing at home against the (then) 8th-ranked team, wouldn't a one-touchdown loss be the expected result? Thus validating the idea that Minnesota is the 25th-best team in the country?

It can be both. If #5 beat #10 by a field goal, we'd say that it's a really good win for #5 so maybe bump them up but it'd also tell us that we had #10 in the right spot. Should it be different here?

One of the things that's always frustrated me about polls is their tendencies to drop teams after losing games that they were expected to lose.

Well, yes, it was a 7 point win. But watching the game, it should have really been at least a 3 touchdown win... possibly 4. A true freshman fumbled twice in terrible field position... one was as he literally was crossing the goal line before half time, making the score 21-7 at half instead of 17-14. The other was taking a punt off his face mask inside the Ohio State 20 yard line. Both leading to easy score for the Golden Gophers.

I guess I was just curious after seeing how systematic/cookie cutter the BCS/CFP is with losses.

BUT IT WASN'T!

[CLEstones]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet. Ohio State moved up from #8 to #6, jumping Arizona State (expected) and Baylor (unexpected?). At the time, they played the #25 team in the country, Minnesota, on the road, in 16 degree, snow conditions. The new ranking have Minnesota staying at #25 despite the loss.

I am trying to decipher this. Did they think it was a good win by Ohio State (which is was a really good win), a good loss by Minnesota, or did so many teams in the 18-25 range lose, that it forced Minnesota to stay in the Top 25? Or is it a combination of all 3?

If you're the 25th-ranked team playing at home against the (then) 8th-ranked team, wouldn't a one-touchdown loss be the expected result? Thus validating the idea that Minnesota is the 25th-best team in the country?

It can be both. If #5 beat #10 by a field goal, we'd say that it's a really good win for #5 so maybe bump them up but it'd also tell us that we had #10 in the right spot. Should it be different here?

One of the things that's always frustrated me about polls is their tendencies to drop teams after losing games that they were expected to lose.

Well, yes, it was a 7 point win. But watching the game, it should have really been at least a 3 touchdown win... possibly 4. A true freshman fumbled twice in terrible field position... one was as he literally was crossing the goal line before half time, making the score 21-7 at half instead of 17-14. The other was taking a punt off his face mask inside the Ohio State 20 yard line. Both leading to easy score for the Golden Gophers.

I guess I was just curious after seeing how systematic/cookie cutter the BCS/CFP is with losses.

BUT IT WASN'T!

No yit. But the point I was trying to make was if the BCS/CFP ranking actually focused on JUST the score results, or do they look farther in to stats, farther in to the eye test, farther in to conditions, farther in to actual dominance throughout the game.

[dbadefense1990]

I would give my complaints...but they all fall on deaf ears. As long as people keep drinking the "strength of schedule" Kool-aid, it'll be like this.

This will be my VERY last statement on this issue:

I love the irony here. Isn't the "'strength of schedule' kool-aid" the very thing that kept teams like Utah and Boise State far away from the National Title?

We've really just traded one popularity contest for another. To me, there's nothing to miss. At least this way we won't get co-champions, right?

When the BCS came out, it was assumed that co-champions wouldn't be possible...then 2003 happened. I'm pretty sure co-champions can be possible in this CFP era, in the form of the tournament winner winning close games and the #5 team (1st team left out of the CFP) blowing the hell out of their bowl game.

[crashcarson15]

When the BCS came out, it was assumed that co-champions wouldn't be possible...then 2003 happened. I'm pretty sure co-champions can be possible in this CFP era, in the form of the tournament winner winning close games and the #5 team (1st team left out of the CFP) blowing the hell out of their bowl game.

Yeah, just... no. Ohio State blowing Georgia Tech the hell out this year in the Orange Bowl would not — in any circumstances — earn them a share of the national title.

[DS729]

Looking ahead, assuming Alabama and Mississippi State win out pre-SEC Championship game....

Will this football playoff committee do like what the basketball committee has done with conference tournaments....not penalize a team that much should they get felled in the not-a-regular-season game? Should Alabama get punished for a loss (bringing them to 11-2) in the SEC title game to Georgia/Missouri while a 1-loss Mississippi State team sits in the clubhouse at 11-1? And other similar cases (possible 0-loss FSU getting a loss in the ACC Championship, possible 1-loss Oregon losing in the Pac-12 Championship, etc.

Speaking of Florida State, they can't be looking forward to playing a Florida team with a coaching staff that will have literally nothing to lose. The ENTIRE playbook is available for them. Especially when Muschamp has the chance to claim "I beat my three rivals: Tennessee, Georgia, FSU this season" for future job interviews.

It's not the Florida game which is worrisome, it is playing Georgia Tech on one week's notice.

And to assist FSU is that Florida cannot throw the ball, passing only 38 times in the last three games.

Except for the fact that Duke still controls their own destiny thanks to 31-25 win earlier this year in Atlanta. It also helps that both of the teams on their remaining schedule have a combined conference record of 3-9. Even though Georgia Tech probably is a better team anyway.