2014 NCAA Football Thread

[infrared41]

For the sake of argument, let's say everything else remains the same this season except that Baylor and TCU finish the season as Big XII co-champs at 9-3 instead of 11-1. Are we still knee-jerking for an 8 team playoff?

Of course not.

And what happens in an 8-team playoff where conference champions get berths when that 6-6 UCLA team from a couple of years ago wins the PAC-12 title game?

Or maybe a better example — what if Minnesota had beat Wisconsin and then Ohio State for the B1G crown this year? Would you have been okay with 10-3 Minnesota playing for a national title? I wouldn't have.

When push comes to shove, both Baylor and TCU had an opportunity to keep this thing in their control; all Baylor had to do was beat a mediocre, would-have-been-.500 WVU team while all TCU had to do was win a game in which they held a 21-point, fourth-quarter lead.

Also worth noting? Ohio State didn't play an FCS opponent. That's an extra two FBS wins they have over either of the Big XII schools.

There wouldn't be a knee jerk reaction, but you would still have an unpleasant taste in your mouth. It would be more palatable because 3 losses is a lot different than 1 loss in a power 5.

There's no "unpleasant taste in my mouth" now. I may not be entirely sold on how we got the four teams we got, but I'm totally sold on a four team playoff field.

[Balu the Bare]

For the sake of argument, let's say everything else remains the same this season except that Baylor and TCU finish the season as Big XII co-champs at 9-3 instead of 11-1. Are we still knee-jerking for an 8 team playoff?

Of course, if the situation is the same. Around me, the issue isn't that tcu/baylor were left out as much as it's that tcu was jumped by two teams after they were beating a team so badly that they were taking knees with significant time left in the fourth quarter to avoid running up the score -one week after- being ranked above an undefeated Florida State team. The question that keeps being asked is, "what changed?" Is Florida State that much better than tcu now that they are conference champions? Is Ohio State? If so, why wouldn't a system where conference champions get an automatic bid make sense? We've already established that conference champs should get in over non or co-champs, if all other things are equal, this year so it's not that much of a stretch plus i think this whole system would benefit from having at least one concrete criteria. Maybe just say that and keep it at 4 teams? I'd still like to know the committee's reason for picking teams as they do. I don't think anyone will be happy until everyone knows exactly what they were looking for and how they arrive at the rankings they do.

Florida State beat a 10-2 Georgia Tech team. Ohio State beat a 10-2 Wisconsin team. Baylor beat a 9-2 Kansas State team.

TCU beat a 2-9 Iowa State team.

Baylor also is the lone TCU loss. Why is Baylor not in?

Aside from that, this logic also forgets that no teams not named Florida State fell in the rankings for beating losing teams earlier in the season. Oregon didn't fall from their number two spot after beating 5-7 Oregon State when that same week Florida State beat 6-5 Florida. Why didn't Oregon fall that week if opposing records matter so much?

[rams80]

Okay, and when you get a three or four loss power 5 conference champion?

Now that the Big East is done that should be less of an issue. Especially since the NCAA basically isn't punishing crap anymore. Otherwise, happens.

[crashcarson15]

For the sake of argument, let's say everything else remains the same this season except that Baylor and TCU finish the season as Big XII co-champs at 9-3 instead of 11-1. Are we still knee-jerking for an 8 team playoff?

Of course, if the situation is the same. Around me, the issue isn't that tcu/baylor were left out as much as it's that tcu was jumped by two teams after they were beating a team so badly that they were taking knees with significant time left in the fourth quarter to avoid running up the score -one week after- being ranked above an undefeated Florida State team. The question that keeps being asked is, "what changed?" Is Florida State that much better than tcu now that they are conference champions? Is Ohio State? If so, why wouldn't a system where conference champions get an automatic bid make sense? We've already established that conference champs should get in over non or co-champs, if all other things are equal, this year so it's not that much of a stretch plus i think this whole system would benefit from having at least one concrete criteria. Maybe just say that and keep it at 4 teams? I'd still like to know the committee's reason for picking teams as they do. I don't think anyone will be happy until everyone knows exactly what they were looking for and how they arrive at the rankings they do.

Florida State beat a 10-2 Georgia Tech team. Ohio State beat a 10-2 Wisconsin team. Baylor beat a 9-2 Kansas State team.

TCU beat a 2-9 Iowa State team.

Baylor also is the lone TCU loss. Why is Baylor not in?

Aside from that, this logic also forgets that no teams not named Florida State fell in the rankings for beating losing teams earlier in the season. Oregon didn't fall from their number two spot after beating 5-7 Oregon State when that same week Florida State beat 6-5 Florida. Why didn't Oregon fall that week if opposing records matter so much?

The poster asked what changed between the set of rankings where TCU was 3rd and the one where they were 6th.

The other three got big, resume-boosting wins Saturday. TCU didn't (in fact, its best two wins both lost).

[rams80]

Additionally, the committee supposedly starts from scratch each week. Which makes the weekly rankings abysmally stupid, but we already know that.

[Balu the Bare]

For the sake of argument, let's say everything else remains the same this season except that Baylor and TCU finish the season as Big XII co-champs at 9-3 instead of 11-1. Are we still knee-jerking for an 8 team playoff?

Of course, if the situation is the same. Around me, the issue isn't that tcu/baylor were left out as much as it's that tcu was jumped by two teams after they were beating a team so badly that they were taking knees with significant time left in the fourth quarter to avoid running up the score -one week after- being ranked above an undefeated Florida State team. The question that keeps being asked is, "what changed?" Is Florida State that much better than tcu now that they are conference champions? Is Ohio State? If so, why wouldn't a system where conference champions get an automatic bid make sense? We've already established that conference champs should get in over non or co-champs, if all other things are equal, this year so it's not that much of a stretch plus i think this whole system would benefit from having at least one concrete criteria. Maybe just say that and keep it at 4 teams? I'd still like to know the committee's reason for picking teams as they do. I don't think anyone will be happy until everyone knows exactly what they were looking for and how they arrive at the rankings they do.

Florida State beat a 10-2 Georgia Tech team. Ohio State beat a 10-2 Wisconsin team. Baylor beat a 9-2 Kansas State team.

TCU beat a 2-9 Iowa State team.

Baylor also is the lone TCU loss. Why is Baylor not in?

Aside from that, this logic also forgets that no teams not named Florida State fell in the rankings for beating losing teams earlier in the season. Oregon didn't fall from their number two spot after beating 5-7 Oregon State when that same week Florida State beat 6-5 Florida. Why didn't Oregon fall that week if opposing records matter so much?

The poster asked what changed between the set of rankings where TCU was 3rd and the one where they were 6th.

The other three got big, resume-boosting wins Saturday. TCU didn't (in fact, its best two wins both lost).

Ah, well since I was that poster, let me clarify. What changed meaning, "why did a resume boosting win matter one week, but not in other weeks."

Rams answered that, the committee starts from scratch each week (I call bs, but i'm not in the room so I can't say for sure).

[Xist2inspire]

For the sake of argument, let's say everything else remains the same this season except that Baylor and TCU finish the season as Big XII co-champs at 9-3 instead of 11-1. Are we still knee-jerking for an 8 team playoff?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd rather have conference pissing matches over which non-conference winners (or mid-majors) get in, as opposed to having conference pissing matches over which conference champion gets left out. It's a big difference, and one reason why I vastly prefer an 8-team format.

And no, I don't think that there would be as much of an outcry if TCU & Baylor were both sitting at 9-3. But, I'm glad that a potential flaw in this system has been exposed in year one, rather than later on after we've all gotten used to it. Like I've said before, with 4 teams there's a much higher chance of someone legitimately getting screwed year after year. With 8, the odds are lowered drastically. Even "win your conference and you're in" has a safety valve, because unlike pro sports, there's no home field advantage to be gained.

Here's another hypothetical: 4 SEC teams were in the Top 4 throughout this season - Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State. Let's say that Alabama's ONLY loss was to Ole Miss, Ole Miss' ONLY loss was to Mississippi State, and Mississippi State's ONLY loss was to Alabama. And so the committee decides that the Top 4 are Florida State, Alabama, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State. Everyone else finishes the same. Is everyone still okay with a 4-team playoff?

[CLEstones]

Additionally, the committee supposedly starts from scratch each week. Which makes the weekly rankings abysmally stupid, but we already know that.

...explains some of the curious leap frogs. Not sure I buy in to it, though. Why else would Florida State consistently get moved from #1 to #4 every week? Seems like they would look at the Seminoles eeking out wins every week, to keep moving them lower and lower.

I'm not sure if its the best way to rate teams or not. I would think that you want the 4 best teams all year... not the 4 best teams in the last week of the seasons.

[JMtexan09]

Okay with 4 team playoff? Uhh..... no. I would have preferred TCU and Baylor to be in the playoff along with Top 4 teams. However I would rather to have a 16 teams playoff instead of 4 or 8.

Why 16?

Ok here is the idea of that we have 10 conferences in FBS along with a group of Independents. So best way is that there should be 10 conference champions with automatic playoff berths along with 6 at large teams (unless if again Big XII co-champions were to happened then 11 conference champions with 5 at-large teams).

it would have been like this for a 16 teams playoffs:

Florida State (ACC Champions)

Oregon (PAC-12 Champions)

Alabama (SEC Champions)

Ohio State (B1G Champions)

Baylor (Big XII Co-Champions)

TCU (Big XII Co-Champions)

Marshall (C-USA Champions)

Northern Illinois (MAC Champions)

Georgia Southern (Sun Belt Champions)

Memphis (AAC Champions [three-way champions with UCF and Cincinnati but Memphis have better total PA-PF than UCF and Cinn -- Memphis 211, UCF 123, and Cinn 104]}

At large Teams would have been:

Mississippi State

Michigan State

Arizona

Kansas State

Mississippi

Then anyone cannot complain about these teams in the playoffs no matter what happened in all the weeks but results show the proof that they should be in the playoffs along with these 5 "Mini-Power 5" Conference Champions. But it sucks when they have to say the words "MONEY" and "TIME". So screw them for saying that since EVERYONE want to see a true National Champions in their team!

Ok that is just my theory here. No need to backlash at me about this 16-team playoff thing ok? It is everyone's thoughts and opinions.

[Billy B]

For the sake of argument, let's say everything else remains the same this season except that Baylor and TCU finish the season as Big XII co-champs at 9-3 instead of 11-1. Are we still knee-jerking for an 8 team playoff?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd rather have conference pissing matches over which non-conference winners (or mid-majors) get in, as opposed to having conference pissing matches over which conference champion gets left out. It's a big difference, and one reason why I vastly prefer an 8-team format.

And no, I don't think that there would be as much of an outcry if TCU & Baylor were both sitting at 9-3. But, I'm glad that a potential flaw in this system has been exposed in year one, rather than later on after we've all gotten used to it. Like I've said before, with 4 teams there's a much higher chance of someone legitimately getting screwed year after year. With 8, the odds are lowered drastically. Even "win your conference and you're in" has a safety valve, because unlike pro sports, there's no home field advantage to be gained.

Here's another hypothetical: 4 SEC teams were in the Top 4 throughout this season - Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State. Let's say that Alabama's ONLY loss was to Ole Miss, Ole Miss' ONLY loss was to Mississippi State, and Mississippi State's ONLY loss was to Alabama. And so the committee decides that the Top 4 are Florida State, Alabama, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State. Everyone else finishes the same. Is everyone still okay with a 4-team playoff?

The SEC hypothetical is the big one. We got lucky this year that Bama was the only one loss team. But what happens when there's an undefeated SEC and a one loss team in the same division? Then if you include that team, you're going to leave out conference champions from 2 of the Power 5 conferences.

[Burkell007]

Okay with 4 team playoff? Uhh..... no. I would have preferred TCU and Baylor to be in the playoff along with Top 4 teams. However I would rather to have a 16 teams playoff instead of 4 or 8.

Why 16?

Ok here is the idea of that we have 10 conferences in FBS along with a group of Independents. So best way is that there should be 10 conference champions with automatic playoff berths along with 6 at large teams (unless if again Big XII co-champions were to happened then 11 conference champions with 5 at-large teams).

it would have been like this for a 16 teams playoffs:

Florida State (ACC Champions)

Oregon (PAC-12 Champions)

Alabama (SEC Champions)

Ohio State (B1G Champions)

Baylor (Big XII Co-Champions)

TCU (Big XII Co-Champions)

Marshall (C-USA Champions)

Northern Illinois (MAC Champions)

Georgia Southern (Sun Belt Champions)

Memphis (AAC Champions [three-way champions with UCF and Cincinnati but Memphis have better total PA-PF than UCF and Cinn -- Memphis 211, UCF 123, and Cinn 104]}

At large Teams would have been:

Mississippi State

Michigan State

Arizona

Kansas State

Mississippi

Then anyone cannot complain about these teams in the playoffs no matter what happened in all the weeks but results show the proof that they should be in the playoffs along with these 5 "Mini-Power 5" Conference Champions. But it sucks when they have to say the words "MONEY" and "TIME". So screw them for saying that since EVERYONE want to see a true National Champions in their team!

Ok that is just my theory here. No need to backlash at me about this 16-team playoff thing ok? It is everyone's thoughts and opinions.

Only thing is where does Boise st fit into this??

[CLEstones]

Okay with 4 team playoff? Uhh..... no. I would have preferred TCU and Baylor to be in the playoff along with Top 4 teams. However I would rather to have a 16 teams playoff instead of 4 or 8.

Why 16?

Ok here is the idea of that we have 10 conferences in FBS along with a group of Independents. So best way is that there should be 10 conference champions with automatic playoff berths along with 6 at large teams (unless if again Big XII co-champions were to happened then 11 conference champions with 5 at-large teams).

it would have been like this for a 16 teams playoffs:

Florida State (ACC Champions)

Oregon (PAC-12 Champions)

Alabama (SEC Champions)

Ohio State (B1G Champions)

Baylor (Big XII Co-Champions)

TCU (Big XII Co-Champions)

Marshall (C-USA Champions)

Northern Illinois (MAC Champions)

Georgia Southern (Sun Belt Champions)

Memphis (AAC Champions [three-way champions with UCF and Cincinnati but Memphis have better total PA-PF than UCF and Cinn -- Memphis 211, UCF 123, and Cinn 104]}

At large Teams would have been:

Mississippi State

Michigan State

Arizona

Kansas State

Mississippi

Then anyone cannot complain about these teams in the playoffs no matter what happened in all the weeks but results show the proof that they should be in the playoffs along with these 5 "Mini-Power 5" Conference Champions. But it sucks when they have to say the words "MONEY" and "TIME". So screw them for saying that since EVERYONE want to see a true National Champions in their team!

Ok that is just my theory here. No need to backlash at me about this 16-team playoff thing ok? It is everyone's thoughts and opinions.

16 is way too many. Now you are just throwing teams in for the sake of throwing teams in. Sure, the Mountain West or Mid-American Conference champs has a chance to beat 1 of the major schools in the first round of the playoffs... but after that, they don't really have a chance to go on a sustained run. Football is a different beast than basketball. 8 teams is the best option of what's available. It makes for the least amount headaches and resolves the most issues without creating many more.

[JMtexan09]

Okay with 4 team playoff? Uhh..... no. I would have preferred TCU and Baylor to be in the playoff along with Top 4 teams. However I would rather to have a 16 teams playoff instead of 4 or 8.

Why 16?

Ok here is the idea of that we have 10 conferences in FBS along with a group of Independents. So best way is that there should be 10 conference champions with automatic playoff berths along with 6 at large teams (unless if again Big XII co-champions were to happened then 11 conference champions with 5 at-large teams).

it would have been like this for a 16 teams playoffs:

Florida State (ACC Champions)

Oregon (PAC-12 Champions)

Alabama (SEC Champions)

Ohio State (B1G Champions)

Baylor (Big XII Co-Champions)

TCU (Big XII Co-Champions)

Marshall (C-USA Champions)

Northern Illinois (MAC Champions)

Georgia Southern (Sun Belt Champions)

Memphis (AAC Champions [three-way champions with UCF and Cincinnati but Memphis have better total PA-PF than UCF and Cinn -- Memphis 211, UCF 123, and Cinn 104]}

Bosie State (MWC Champions)

At large Teams would have been:

Mississippi State

Michigan State

Arizona

Mississippi

Then anyone cannot complain about these teams in the playoffs no matter what happened in all the weeks but results show the proof that they should be in the playoffs along with these 5 "Mini-Power 5" Conference Champions. But it sucks when they have to say the words "MONEY" and "TIME". So screw them for saying that since EVERYONE want to see a true National Champions in their team!

Ok that is just my theory here. No need to backlash at me about this 16-team playoff thing ok? It is everyone's thoughts and opinions.

Only thing is where does Boise st fit into this??

Oops I totally forgot about Boise State. me..... Sorry

[OnWis97]

Okay with 4 team playoff? Uhh..... no. I would have preferred TCU and Baylor to be in the playoff along with Top 4 teams. However I would rather to have a 16 teams playoff instead of 4 or 8.

Why 16?

Ok here is the idea of that we have 10 conferences in FBS along with a group of Independents. So best way is that there should be 10 conference champions with automatic playoff berths along with 6 at large teams (unless if again Big XII co-champions were to happened then 11 conference champions with 5 at-large teams).

it would have been like this for a 16 teams playoffs:

Florida State (ACC Champions)

Oregon (PAC-12 Champions)

Alabama (SEC Champions)

Ohio State (B1G Champions)

Baylor (Big XII Co-Champions)

TCU (Big XII Co-Champions)

Marshall (C-USA Champions)

Northern Illinois (MAC Champions)

Georgia Southern (Sun Belt Champions)

Memphis (AAC Champions [three-way champions with UCF and Cincinnati but Memphis have better total PA-PF than UCF and Cinn -- Memphis 211, UCF 123, and Cinn 104]}

At large Teams would have been:

Mississippi State

Michigan State

Arizona

Kansas State

Mississippi

Then anyone cannot complain about these teams in the playoffs no matter what happened in all the weeks but results show the proof that they should be in the playoffs along with these 5 "Mini-Power 5" Conference Champions. But it sucks when they have to say the words "MONEY" and "TIME". So screw them for saying that since EVERYONE want to see a true National Champions in their team!

Ok that is just my theory here. No need to backlash at me about this 16-team playoff thing ok? It is everyone's thoughts and opinions.

I have always liked this idea. We could stop the bellyaching about how conference X cannot compete with conference Y and about whether the Boise States belong with the Alabamas. Every conference race would be interesting and with five at large, the regular season would remain interesting.

I know very few people like this but I like the one auto-bid per conference. OK, so Georgia Southern would get killed. I can live with that...just like they would vs. Duke in basketball.

[smzimbabwe]

I know I'm in the extreme minority here, but am I also the last person around who would prefer going back to the pre-playoff, pre-BCS, pre-BCA system of bowls? This will be the first year since 1982 I have not watched the Rose Bowl, because I simply have no interest in it anymore.

[Still MIGHTY]

I know I'm in the extreme minority here, but am I also the last person around who would prefer going back to the pre-playoff, pre-BCS, pre-BCA system of bowls? This will be the first year since 1982 I have not watched the Rose Bowl, because I simply have no interest in it anymore.

You don't have interest in the National Semifinal?

Sounds like you're the last one, yeah.

[Billy B]

I know I'm in the extreme minority here, but am I also the last person around who would prefer going back to the pre-playoff, pre-BCS, pre-BCA system of bowls? This will be the first year since 1982 I have not watched the Rose Bowl, because I simply have no interest in it anymore.

You don't have interest in the National Semifinal?

Sounds like you're the last one, yeah.

I've seen multiple people post that on an Illinois message board and I just can't comprehend how somebody could think that playing the traditional bowl matchups then having sportswriters vote on who they think is best is better than the current system. The BCS had plenty of problems and it was still 1000 times better than that.

[hailstateunis]

I do think they should've sent Ohio State to the Rose Bowl and Flordia State to the Sugar Bowl. Would've been a closer game for FSU and would've given the Rose Bowl a Pac 12 vs B1G matchup.

[See Red]

How did Mississippi State jump Michigan State in the last poll? Nobody that either team played, save for Oregon, Ohio State, and Alabama, played this last weekend and really, Ohio State moving up would only help Michigan State. Somehow, though, Mississippi State jumped up three spots ahead of Michigan State.

I know it doesn't really matter, but it seems to prove the committee was just making up on the fly, right?

[DS729]

How did Mississippi State jump Michigan State in the last poll? Nobody that either team played, save for Oregon, Ohio State, and Alabama, played this last weekend and really, Ohio State moving up would only help Michigan State. Somehow, though, Mississippi State jumped up three spots ahead of Michigan State.

I know it doesn't really matter, but it seems to prove the committee was just making up on the fly, right?

You could also say the same thing with Wisconsin dropping only 5 spots despite losing 59-0! Baffling!