Jump to content

2014 NCAA Football Thread


Chicageaux

Recommended Posts

So basically what I'm understanding is its Ohio State winning 59-0 over #13 with their third QB plus the Big 12 sticking with and presenting co-champions that shaped this.

TCU dropping from 3 to 6, idk, that doesn't sit right with me. This shows that the committee really put stock into the co-champ vs outright champ thing, and, all of a sudden, head to head finally mattered. Just, idk, that doesn't hold water for me.

And I'm really more surprised that they didn't rig the seedlings for these games. We were all convinced that Florida State would be in New Orleans and that Ohio State, if selected, would go to Pasadena for the traditional matchup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You know why OSU got in? Money. They bring the fans in truckloads. TCU and Baylor both were more deserving, and both got royaly screwed.

Pretty much.

Cannot disaree that OSU brings more money but I do feel that this is a viable ranking in the end. My issue is that it is inconsistent with last week's ranking How does Florida State jump TCU? It looks arbitrary.

Florida State beat a highly ranked team on a neutral field. They also went from ACC leaders to ACC champions which the committee is supposed to put a lot of weight on. I think the Big XII backing down from their "One true champion" because TCU was ranked higher hurt the conference the most. Plus Baylor picked up a win over K-State. That might have been the one piece that was keeping TCU above Baylor the whole time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess the Big-12 regrets not having a conference title game now.

I've read rumors that Memphis and Cincinnati will be joining the Big 12, which would bring the conference back to twelve teams and allow the Big 12 to split into two divisions, creating a Big 12 Championship Game.

Regardless, I do agree that the playoffs need to include more than four teams. A virtually all-inclusive, 32 team, March Madness bracket style tournament like that one I outlined in the Pointless Realignment thread would be welcome and of course highly engrossing, but in reality even eight teams would be preferable and would reduce controversy and let all truly deserving teams into the playoffs, in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess the Big-12 regrets not having a conference title game now.

I've read rumors that Memphis and Cincinnati will be joining the Big 12, which would bring the conference back to twelve teams and allow the Big 12 to split into two divisions, creating a Big 12 Championship Game.

Regardless, I do agree that the playoffs need to include more than four teams. A virtually all-inclusive, 32 team, March Madness bracket style tournament like that one I outlined in the Pointless Realignment thread would be welcome and of course highly engrossing, but in reality even eight teams would be preferable and would reduce controversy and let all truly deserving teams into the playoffs, in most cases.

That would be neither welcomed or engrossing. All it would do is turn the regular season into the same who gives a flying :censored: waste of time that the NCAA Basketball regular season is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know why OSU got in? Money. They bring the fans in truckloads. TCU and Baylor both were more deserving, and both got royaly screwed.

Pretty much. Like I said earlier, if you have to screw a fan base, you're going to screw the smaller ones. This is complete bull- :censored:.

I wanted my team to make the playoff, just not like this.

Same here. I went to bed last night thinking, "Okay, Ohio State's not going to be in it. But they don't deserve to be. Alabama, Baylor, TCU, Florida State and Oregon all have equal or better claims to be there. Another Big Ten title isn't all that bad though."

OSU was more deserving.

No... they aren't. Not to a point of leaving either Baylor or TCU, let alone both of them, out.

I'm in agreement with a number of folks here: a four-team format is a bad execution of a good idea. Personally I think a 16-team format would work best, if for no other reason than the fact that the level of controversy as to "who's #17" won't be anywhere near that we're having now, and are going to have for years to come. Sadly the four-team format is locked in for the next decade-plus, so this is only the first of many, many years of this stupidity to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a question for everyone. Let's say that today is the first day we hear a word from the playoff committee. We had no previous rankings, no anything. Based on that idea, did the committee pick the four best teams?

I ask because, based on what I'm hearing on ESPN, the committee took a "hit the reset button every week" approach. If that's really the case, their decision makes a little more sense. Then again, if that's their approach, why bother with weekly rankings in the first place?

Looks like it's time to finally implement my yearly perfect playoff plan after all. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know why OSU got in? Money. They bring the fans in truckloads. TCU and Baylor both were more deserving, and both got royaly screwed.

Pretty much. Like I said earlier, if you have to screw a fan base, you're going to screw the smaller ones. This is complete bull- :censored:.

I wanted my team to make the playoff, just not like this.

Same here. I went to bed last night thinking, "Okay, Ohio State's not going to be in it. But they don't deserve to be. Alabama, Baylor, TCU, Florida State and Oregon all have equal or better claims to be there. Another Big Ten title isn't all that bad though."

OSU was more deserving.

No... they aren't. Not to a point of leaving either Baylor or TCU, let alone both of them, out.

I'm in agreement with a number of folks here: a four-team format is a bad execution of a good idea. Personally I think a 16-team format would work best, if for no other reason than the fact that the level of controversy as to "who's #17" won't be anywhere near that we're having now, and are going to have for years to come. Sadly the four-team format is locked in for the next decade-plus, so this is only the first of many, many years of this stupidity to come.

I bet they revise it to 8 teams in 3 years, after each bowl had hosted a semi-final once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with their final four, but way they got to that final four is where they screwed up. Baylor and TCU were hurt by their own conference and it's lack of a true champion, which still doesn't make sense. Oklahoma losing to a bad Oklahoma State team didn't help matters any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know why OSU got in? Money. They bring the fans in truckloads. TCU and Baylor both were more deserving, and both got royaly screwed.

Pretty much. Like I said earlier, if you have to screw a fan base, you're going to screw the smaller ones. This is complete bull- :censored:.

I wanted my team to make the playoff, just not like this.

Same here. I went to bed last night thinking, "Okay, Ohio State's not going to be in it. But they don't deserve to be. Alabama, Baylor, TCU, Florida State and Oregon all have equal or better claims to be there. Another Big Ten title isn't all that bad though."

OSU was more deserving.

No... they aren't. Not to a point of leaving either Baylor or TCU, let alone both of them, out.

I'm in agreement with a number of folks here: a four-team format is a bad execution of a good idea. Personally I think a 16-team format would work best, if for no other reason than the fact that the level of controversy as to "who's #17" won't be anywhere near that we're having now, and are going to have for years to come. Sadly the four-team format is locked in for the next decade-plus, so this is only the first of many, many years of this stupidity to come.

I bet they revise it to 8 teams in 3 years, after each bowl had hosted a semi-final once.

They can't, unless they revise a boatload of contracts that took years to negotiate in the first place. The deal that brought about the playoff is locked in, with the 4-team format, until 2025.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with their final four, but way they got to that final four is where they screwed up. Baylor and TCU were hurt by their own conference and it's lack of a true champion, which still doesn't make sense. Oklahoma losing to a bad Oklahoma State team didn't help matters any.

Exactly. (Shamless plug alert) On Basically a Football Show, Zach and I spent most of the season thinking the Big 12 had pretty much no chance of putting a team in the playoff. I don't like how Ohio State got here, but I also think that the Buckeyes probably do have a better case than TCU and Baylor. If the committee really thought Ohio State was better, then they should have adjusted their rankings accordingly before today. All three teams won their final game. What changed? Moving Ohio State ahead of TCU and Baylor after Ohio State curb stomped Michigan State would have been a lot easier to swallow than this is. It sucks that we had to screw someone to get here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know why OSU got in? Money. They bring the fans in truckloads. TCU and Baylor both were more deserving, and both got royaly screwed.

Pretty much. Like I said earlier, if you have to screw a fan base, you're going to screw the smaller ones. This is complete bull- :censored:.

I wanted my team to make the playoff, just not like this.

Same here. I went to bed last night thinking, "Okay, Ohio State's not going to be in it. But they don't deserve to be. Alabama, Baylor, TCU, Florida State and Oregon all have equal or better claims to be there. Another Big Ten title isn't all that bad though."

OSU was more deserving.

No... they aren't. Not to a point of leaving either Baylor or TCU, let alone both of them, out.

I'm in agreement with a number of folks here: a four-team format is a bad execution of a good idea. Personally I think a 16-team format would work best, if for no other reason than the fact that the level of controversy as to "who's #17" won't be anywhere near that we're having now, and are going to have for years to come. Sadly the four-team format is locked in for the next decade-plus, so this is only the first of many, many years of this stupidity to come.

I bet they revise it to 8 teams in 3 years, after each bowl had hosted a semi-final once.

They can't, unless they revise a boatload of contracts that took years to negotiate in the first place. The deal that brought about the playoff is locked in, with the 4-team format, until 2025.

I think the contracts will be revised. This season has shown that 8 teams works much better than 4, and ESPN will push for it (they already are).

The only revisions that would be make is you would add play in games to both semifinals that would be held at the home stadium of the higher-ranked team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess the Big-12 regrets not having a conference title game now.

I've read rumors that Memphis and Cincinnati will be joining the Big 12, which would bring the conference back to twelve teams and allow the Big 12 to split into two divisions, creating a Big 12 Championship Game.

Regardless, I do agree that the playoffs need to include more than four teams. A virtually all-inclusive, 32 team, March Madness bracket style tournament like that one I outlined in the Pointless Realignment thread would be welcome and of course highly engrossing, but in reality even eight teams would be preferable and would reduce controversy and let all truly deserving teams into the playoffs, in most cases.

That would be neither welcomed or engrossing. All it would do is turn the regular season into the same who gives a flying :censored: waste of time that the NCAA Basketball regular season is.

Exactly. No one wants to see that, I think 6 or 8 is probably the max you can go to keep the regular season important. But I think this system is perfect as is, I would wish a lot more consistency from the committee, they've always seemed to be very sketchy to me all season.

-

I, personally, thought TCU is the best of these 3, they have the best loss, which is a fluke in it's own way (losing 58-61 on the road just tells me that Baylor got the ball last) TCU had a better matchup against a common opponent than Ohio State (Minnesota). TCU has 7 results against common opponents against Baylor's two. I thought TCU looked the best to me, despite what Ohio State did last night, TCU didn't have a god-awful loss to weigh them down either. But their really isn't a "right" answer here, it's all an opinion. So you can't really blame the committee for their decision.

I just can't wait for Ohio State to beat Alabama, and then have a field day with the Transitive property. The thought that Wake Forest could beat Alabama is simply astounding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a question for everyone. Let's say that today is the first day we hear a word from the playoff committee. We had no previous rankings, no anything. Based on that idea, did the committee pick the four best teams?

I ask because, based on what I'm hearing on ESPN, the committee took a "hit the reset button every week" approach. If that's really the case, their decision makes a little more sense. Then again, if that's their approach, why bother with weekly rankings in the first place?

Looks like it's time to finally implement my yearly perfect playoff plan after all. B)

Yes, they did. I think them releasing weekly rankings was a stupid idea. And it was a purely money grab idea, they just did that so that each week people would talk about it.

Wait until the very end, and then release a final rankings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of an eight-team playoff. Michigan State would make that field this year and play for a national title. That's not a good thing.

The ideal scenario is being able to set the number of teams each year based on how many teams might have claims to being the nation's best. This year, that's six.

If you look at the last 10 years, the number of one-loss or undefeated, power-five/six teams (and maybe undefeated non-P5 teams?) were...

2014 (6): Florida State; Alabama, Baylor, Ohio State, Oregon, TCU

2013 (6): Florida State; Alabama, Auburn, Michigan State, Baylor, Ohio State

2012 (5): Notre Dame; Alabama, Florida, Kansas State, Oregon

2011 (4): LSU; Alabama, Oklahoma State, Stanford

2010 (6/7): Auburn, Oregon; Michigan State, Ohio State, Stanford, Wisconsin; TCU

2009 (4/6): Alabama, Cincinnati, Texas; Florida; Boise State, TCU

2008 (7/8): Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Penn State, Texas, Texas Tech, USC; Utah

2007 (2/3): Kansas, Ohio State; Hawai'i

2006 (5/6): Ohio State; Florida, Louisville, Michigan, Wisconsin; Boise State

2005 (5): Texas, USC; Oregon, Penn State, West Virginia

Granted, there's a level of rawness to this but 8 teams would've been needed maybe once — in 2008 — and that's if you would've backed Utah to be in a playoff (which I would've agreed with). 6 seems to be a much better solution most years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of an eight-team playoff. Michigan State would make that field this year and play for a national title. That's not a good thing.

The ideal scenario is being able to set the number of teams each year based on how many teams might have claims to being the nation's best. This year, that's six.

If you look at the last 10 years, the number of one-loss or undefeated, power-five/six teams (and maybe undefeated non-P5 teams?) were...

2014 (6): Florida State; Alabama, Baylor, Ohio State, Oregon, TCU

2013 (6): Florida State; Alabama, Auburn, Michigan State, Baylor, Ohio State

2012 (5): Notre Dame; Alabama, Florida, Kansas State, Oregon

2011 (4): LSU; Alabama, Oklahoma State, Stanford

2010 (6/7): Auburn, Oregon; Michigan State, Ohio State, Stanford, Wisconsin; TCU

2009 (4/6): Alabama, Cincinnati, Texas; Florida; Boise State, TCU

2008 (7/8): Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Penn State, Texas, Texas Tech, USC; Utah

2007 (2/3): Kansas, Ohio State; Hawai'i

2006 (5/6): Ohio State; Florida, Louisville, Michigan, Wisconsin; Boise State

2005 (5): Texas, USC; Oregon, Penn State, West Virginia

Granted, there's a level of rawness to this but 8 teams would've been needed maybe once — in 2008 — and that's if you would've backed Utah to be in a playoff (which I would've agreed with). 6 seems to be a much better solution most years.

It isn't, though. Six teams creates a pretty glaring issue itself -- bye weeks. Bye weeks are meant to benefit the higher ranked teams, but the result would be a team that's had over a month off playing against a team that also had a pretty large amount of time off but also had a game a week prior to shake their rust off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.