2016 NCAA Football Thread

[FiddySicks]

This whole thing is such a mess now that it's actually setting up to be worse than it was before. This whole "human committee" thing actually makes me miss the BCS. At least that was an unfeeling calculation, and at least we got different matchups on occasion. This is barely different, but with the added chaos of human error, and it's already more stagnant in terms of matchups. 

 

Just, screw all of this. Have a playoff like they do in DII and fix this nonsense. 

[2001mark]

I mean, to chase my previous post, I'm not adverse to having 2 teams from the same conference either in the playoff.  If they're 2 of the best 4 teams all year, so be it.  I just wonder what the hype is about a playoff bound team losing their conf title game hurting their chances when the f'n voters probably will just put them in anyways if there's more than a game apart or whatever.

[CLEstones]

20 hours ago, HedleyLamarr said:

Ohio State is in big trouble, as far as the playoffs are concerned.  Let's not forget the CFP committee protocols Link:

 

-Championships won

-Strength of schedule

-Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)

-Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)

 

Assuming Alabama, Clemson, and Washington win...those three are in.  It then comes down to the Big Ten title game.  If Penn State wins, the math goes against OSU (PSU beat OSU, PSU won the conference.).  There's no real defending OSU when they lost to the conference champion.  If Wisconsin wins, it basically puts OSU and Wisconsin in a dead heat.  OSU beat WIsconsin in overtime, but Wisconsin won the conference.  If Ohio State got in over TCU/Baylor because OSU clearly won their conference, it would be awfully hypocritical if OSU gets in and their own conference champion doesn't.

 

I think Ohio State's best chance to sneak in the playoffs isn't tied into the Big Ten championship game, but either having Clemson lose to Virginia Tech (better chance of happening, I think) or Alabama losing to Florida.  I believe the Pac-12 winner is definitely in (both Washington and Colorado are top-10), as well as the Wisconsin-Penn State winner (again, both in top 10).

 

 

 

Not trying to be a homer here... but why does everyone ignore the MASSIVE discrepancy the CFP Committee has established between Ohio State and Penn State?  The Committee has repeatedly said they are trying to find the FOUR BEST TEAMS.  If they thought Penn State could realistically jump 5 spots and knock out Ohio State, they wouldn't have put Penn State 8th... They would have done what they did with Michigan (and what they did year 1 with Ohio State) and put Penn State within striking distance.

 

The only way Penn State makes it in OVER Ohio State (meaning Penn State knocks Ohio State out of the Top 4), is if Washington blows the doors off of Colorado by 60+, Clemson blows the doors off Virginia Tech by 60+, thus pushing Ohio State down to 4, and then Penn State beat Wisconsin by 60+, vaulting Penn State into 4th, leaving the rankings as:

1. Alabama

2. Clemson

3. Washington

4. Penn State

5. Ohio State

6. Michigan

7. Oklahoma

8. Wisconsin

[CLEstones]

8 hours ago, crashcarson15 said:

Ohio State beat three top-10 teams. There ain’t another team out there that has a more impressive resume.

 

People forget, Nebraska was a Top 10 team at the time Ohio State beat them as well, ranked between 7-10 depending on the metric.  Even now, Nebraska is still a ranked team, in the top 20, compared to the vaunted PAC-12 who is basing their "quality wins" on teams ranked 20-25, or quality wins being "good losses."

 

I also think people are devaluing atmosphere when they examine Ohio State's resume.  They went on the road to beat Oklahoma and Wisconsin, in prime time.  Then they blew the doors off Nebraska in prime time.  Their lone loss is in Happy Valley, in prime time, during a "white out game," an atmosphere any team in the country (including Alabama) would have struggled in.

 

Compared to say, Michigan, who has 6 of their first 7 at home, and when they finally went on the road (and in prime time) to Iowa, they laid an egg.

 

Not to mention, Ohio State is a warm weather team, with a fan base that travels EXTREMELY well.  Put them under a dome, on a neutral site and see what happens.

 

Sorry for the hate post.  Ohio State's resume wouldn't be in question if they just handled their business in Happy Valley.

[FinsUp1214]

9 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

This whole thing is such a mess now that it's actually setting up to be worse than it was before. This whole "human committee" thing actually makes me miss the BCS. At least that was an unfeeling calculation, and at least we got different matchups on occasion. This is barely different, but with the added chaos of human error, and it's already more stagnant in terms of matchups.  

 

Hear, hear!

 

I agree totally. I am not at all impressed with how the system has operated and both as I aforementioned and as you stated, my biggest gripe is the human subjectivity this system hinges on. The fact we're all even having this debate is decent evidence that the system isn't doing its job well. 

 

And I assure all you Ohio State fans this is nothing against you - if in some other universe Alabama or USC or Clemson or whomever was in the same position, I'd be making the same argument. This is an argument against system, not school.

 

I really think if anything can be changed, a divisional championship requirement at the very least really wouldn't hurt as much as the idea is made out to be. I think it'd actually be the perfect counter to the subjectivity problem that's causing this mess; it'd give the human element of the system something to be bound to, and beyond subjectivity it would give teams something to shoot for. And if you're Ohio State or whomever and that hurts you, tough! Win your division! I don't care how it's aligned or about this potential fluke or that potential fluke. It shouldn't be too much to ask for a team to win their division in order to be considered.

 

And if is? Then, well, okay. I'll just stop caring about the regular season then and start paying attention when Bowl Season starts. 

 

 

 

 

(Of course I still think Alabama is making chowder out of whoever they get anyways, but still.... :P)

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

There's no way OSU will be on the outside looking in. The NCAA doesn't have enough guts for that. They'll probably win the whole thing too.

 

The only question is who gets bumped. It should be Wisconsin or Penn State (the latter of which shouldn't even exist!) but it's most likely to be Washington (assuming they win Friday).

 

Of course, the Huskies are as likely to blow it against the Buffaloes as they were the Trojans, which would simplify matters quite a bit.

[MJWalker45]

55 minutes ago, FinsUp1214 said:

 

Hear, hear!

 

I agree totally. I am not at all impressed with how the system has operated and both as I aforementioned and as you stated, my biggest gripe is the human subjectivity this system hinges on. The fact we're all even having this debate is decent evidence that the system isn't doing its job well. 

 

And I assure all you Ohio State fans this is nothing against you - if in some other universe Alabama or USC or Clemson or whomever was in the same position, I'd be making the same argument. This is an argument against system, not school.

 

I really think if anything can be changed, a divisional championship requirement at the very least really wouldn't hurt as much as the idea is made out to be. I think it'd actually be the perfect counter to the subjectivity problem that's causing this mess; it'd give the human element of the system something to be bound to, and beyond subjectivity it would give teams something to shoot for. And if you're Ohio State or whomever and that hurts you, tough! Win your division! I don't care how it's aligned or about this potential fluke or that potential fluke. It shouldn't be too much to ask for a team to win their division in order to be considered.

 

And if is? Then, well, okay. I'll just stop caring about the regular season then and start paying attention when Bowl Season starts. 

 

 

 

 

(Of course I still think Alabama is making chowder out of whoever they get anyways, but still.... :P)

 

Technically speaking, Ohio State isa division champ. They receive a trophy and recognition as such from the Big Ten.  If next year, Ohio State and Michigan went 12-0 and 11-1 respectively and the West champ was 9-3, do we keep Michigan out with a 2 loss Big XII champ, a 1 loss ACC & PAC-12 champ and a 12-1 or 13-0 SEC champ? I think the division title actually helps Ohio State but a lack of one wouldn't hurt Michigan in this scenario. 

[Sykotyk]

The problem I had with BCS and now the new Playoff, is that it's entirely subjective. The computer polls in the BCS included two computer polls whose formulas weren't known, and included two human polls. There's no way 'humans' could watch enough entire games to have a good understanding on whether one team is #5 or #6.

 

Plus, human polls result in 'lemmings'. Once one team is established in a spot, the rest of the voting bloc move their votes to be within a spot or two of what the consensus agrees. Nobody wants to be the outlier.

 

Another aspect, with the AP poll, was that the AP poll was designed to sell newspapers. Controversy sells. When the AP demanded to be removed as they're to 'report' the news rather than make it, the BCS created the Harris Poll just to fill in and was even worse.

 

And it was always true the coaches could never handle voting responsibility by spending all their time on their team's next game. Not watching dozens of games to know who else is great.

 

The problem with the Playoff is that the general public STILL bases the results of the playoff rankings WITH the polls and if they deviate, their ire grows over the situation.

 

Because there's still no 'clear' way to qualify for the playoff. This is figure-skating on turf. We're at the mercy of the 'judges' who we have no discernible way of judging the judging on their following some sort of scoring metric.

 

This is why there needs to be an eight team playoff with automatic qualifiers. The Power 5 champions get in no matter what their 'ranking' is, as everyone knows going in the goal. You know your path to the playoffs.

 

Then one Group of 5 champions (chosen by the Group of 5 schools only, and only choosing a league champion not theirs to avoid larger conferences colluding against smaller conferences) and two at-large from all of Division I-FBS.

[OnWis97]

1 hour ago, FinsUp1214 said:

 

Hear, hear!

 

I agree totally. I am not at all impressed with how the system has operated and both as I aforementioned and as you stated, my biggest gripe is the human subjectivity this system hinges on. The fact we're all even having this debate is decent evidence that the system isn't doing its job well. 

 

And I assure all you Ohio State fans this is nothing against you - if in some other universe Alabama or USC or Clemson or whomever was in the same position, I'd be making the same argument. This is an argument against system, not school.

 

I really think if anything can be changed, a divisional championship requirement at the very least really wouldn't hurt as much as the idea is made out to be. I think it'd actually be the perfect counter to the subjectivity problem that's causing this mess; it'd give the human element of the system something to be bound to, and beyond subjectivity it would give teams something to shoot for. And if you're Ohio State or whomever and that hurts you, tough! Win your division! I don't care how it's aligned or about this potential fluke or that potential fluke. It shouldn't be too much to ask for a team to win their division in order to be considered.

 

And if is? Then, well, okay. I'll just stop caring about the regular season then and start paying attention when Bowl Season starts. 

 

 

 

 

(Of course I still think Alabama is making chowder out of whoever they get anyways, but still.... :P)

 

But isn't Ohio State co-division champ?

 

That's part of my beef with conference champs; the greed-based Conference Title games make the conference champ a bit more arbitrary.  There are two one-loss B1G teams, OSU and PSU.  Shouldn't they be playing for the title?

 

23 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

There's no way OSU will be on the outside looking in. The NCAA doesn't have enough guts for that. They'll probably win the whole thing too.

 

The only question is who gets bumped. It should be Wisconsin or Penn State (the latter of which shouldn't even exist!) but it's most likely to be Washington (assuming they win Friday).

 

Of course, the Huskies are as likely to blow it against the Buffaloes as they were the Trojans, which would simplify matters quite a bit.

I'd argue that putting them in takes some "guts."  If they get in (particularly if America's Team beats Wisconsin) there will be a TON of outcry about favoring the big-name program.  I think the gutsy thing to do would be to put in the team with the better body of work regardless of tiebreakers, etc.

 

What if Penn State had gone 0-3 in the non-conference?  Then would non-conference count?  Because it does not seem to now. 

[Sport]

I'm of the belief that Ohio State is one of the four best teams in the nation with the best resume and that's the system we have now so you have to put them in the playoff based on those rules. However, I'm also an advocate that you shouldn't be able to win the national championship unless you've won your conference so if that were the system then I'd be perfectly fine with OSU sitting out, but that's not the system. 

 

The playoff should be the four best conference champions. We're making it more complicated than it needs to be. 

 

[crashcarson15]

The silly thing about this is that the scenario only exists because Michigan laid an egg at Iowa a couple weeks ago. Generally speaking, “lose to the third-best team in your division, but beat the second-best” is a fine tactic to win your division — given, yes, had Michigan beat Iowa, we’d be looking at Ohio State in Indianapolis and wouldn’t be having this discussion at all. Neither Ohio State nor Penn State did the thing that really created this situation.

 

Related: Small-sample divisions are going to create this problem moving forward, especially when enough conferences — Big Ten, ACC, SEC — concentrate their best schools on one half of the conference.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

11 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

I'm of the belief that Ohio State is one of the four best teams in the nation with the best resume and that's the system we have now so you have to put them in the playoff based on those rules. However, I'm also an advocate that you shouldn't be able to win the national championship unless you've won your conference so if that were the system then I'd be perfectly fine with OSU sitting out, but that's not the system. 

 

The playoff should be the four best conference champions. We're making it more complicated than it needs to be. 

 

 

I don't follow college football enough to know, but I'd assume they didn't require conference champions precisely so they could drop in sexier names.

 

But if you view the Playoff as a sort of Champions League, it really should require a championship to be there. The only excuse not to is to allow flexibility to protect the NCAA's gilded class.

[dfwabel]

43 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

There's no way OSU will be on the outside looking in. The NCAA doesn't have enough guts for that. They'll probably win the whole thing too.

 

The only question is who gets bumped. It should be Wisconsin or Penn State (the latter of which shouldn't even exist!) but it's most likely to be Washington (assuming they win Friday).

 

Of course, the Huskies are as likely to blow it against the Buffaloes as they were the Trojans, which would simplify matters quite a bit.

NCAA has nothing to do with the College Football Playoff. 

 

In 2014, the College Football Playoff committee dropped their #3 ranked TCU team following a final week 55-3 win over Iowa State out of the playoff for Ohio State. It didn't help that the Big XII did not declare which of the two tied teams were to be named champion.

1 minute ago, DG_Now said:

 

I don't follow college football enough to know, but I'd assume they didn't require conference champions precisely so they could drop in sexier names.

 

But if you view the Playoff as a sort of Champions League, it really should require a championship to be there. The only excuse not to is to allow flexibility to protect the NCAA's gilded class.

The gilded class, aka the Power 5 conferences, are the ones who created the playoff and created the value in the contract with ESPN.  This is essentially for the big brand teams and why over 20 universities lobbied to join the Big XII. 

[OnWis97]

17 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

 

I don't follow college football enough to know, but I'd assume they didn't require conference champions precisely so they could drop in sexier names.

 

But if you view the Playoff as a sort of Champions League, it really should require a championship to be there. The only excuse not to is to allow flexibility to protect the NCAA's gilded class.

I don't agree at all.

 

In college basketball, they may as well include all the conference champs (even though they decide their champs in a terrible way) because that does not bump out true contenders.

 

But in football, the "at large" team that gets bumped could be a legit contender.  Therefore, I'd prefer four best (bodies of work, I suppose).

 

Remember, OSU is a "division champ" but due to a tiebreaker, they don't have the chance to be "conference champ." OK, that tiebreaker is head-to-head but they nevertheless did exactly what Penn State did.  And Penn State did not win at Oklahoma or at Wisconsin.*  And they lost an extra game against a middling program.

 

*Of course PSU can rectify the Wisconsin part.

 

And what if Wisconsin wins the game this weekend?  Conference Champs!  Are they really more deserving than an Ohio State team with one less loss, just as tough of a schedule, and the head-to-head edge?  Just because the division aliment put Wisconsin in that position?  I don't think so.*

*I suspect those who know my history of negativity will accuse me of ripping my own team.  I'm not.  Wisconsin entered the year unranked because voters were projecting a 6-6 record with that schedule.  And they've had a great year.  The beat LSU, Nebraska, Iowa, and some other plucky teams like Northwestern and Minnesota.  They controlled the game vs. OSU (it will haunt me for years if we win this weekend) and while you never had a sense that they were going to beat Michigan, they played 'em tough and kept it close.  Great season against great odds.  And if they'd been able to finish off OSU, I'd be soooooo excited right now.  All that said, if the Badgers do beat PSU and get into the playoff on the strength of what I see as a somewhat arbitrary conference title, I'll take it and enjoy it and be super pumped if they find a way to win it all.  

 

But honestly, if the requirement was "four best conference champs" I'd be inclined to make the B1G the odd conference out if the final Saturday goes as planned.

[BlackBolt3]

Let me ask this: Would people be having this conversation if we replace Ohio State with a less sexy and smaller brand, let's say Cal, but with a similar resume. I feel like if we did, we might have a different feeling about this.

[HedleyLamarr]

7 hours ago, CLEstones said:

 

Not trying to be a homer here... but why does everyone ignore the MASSIVE discrepancy the CFP Committee has established between Ohio State and Penn State?  The Committee has repeatedly said they are trying to find the FOUR BEST TEAMS.  If they thought Penn State could realistically jump 5 spots and knock out Ohio State, they wouldn't have put Penn State 8th... They would have done what they did with Michigan (and what they did year 1 with Ohio State) and put Penn State within striking distance.

 

The only way Penn State makes it in OVER Ohio State (meaning Penn State knocks Ohio State out of the Top 4), is if Washington blows the doors off of Colorado by 60+, Clemson blows the doors off Virginia Tech by 60+, thus pushing Ohio State down to 4, and then Penn State beat Wisconsin by 60+, vaulting Penn State into 4th, leaving the rankings as:

1. Alabama

2. Clemson

3. Washington

4. Penn State

5. Ohio State

6. Michigan

7. Oklahoma

8. Wisconsin

The biggest difference between all these lead-up rankings and the final rankings is....we now have conference champions.  Clearly defined, definitively won, conference champions.

 

The first playoff season....TCU was #3 in the next-to-last rankings, then won their last game by 50+ points.  Yet, they fell to #6 in the rankings the next week.  Why?  For one, Baylor also won and both teams finished with 8-1 conference records.  Baylor jumped ahead of TCU because they beat TCU on the field.  Secondly, both didn't play that 13th game like Ohio State did.  Thirdly, the conference did neither any favors with the co-champions declaration.

 

OSU will still be #2 this week.  But they're done on the field.  Teams #1, #3, #4, #5, etc. get that 13th game (or in Oklahoma's case, finishing their regular season, but if OSU is hard-pressed to get in, Oklahoma's not in before them) with the distinction of being a conference champion.  Ohio State, despite being a damn good team, will have the stigma of not winning their own division (with another top 10 team that is) and not winning their conference.  These two demerits are going to be huge, especially if they're compared with Penn State.  2 losses vs. 1 loss won't be as big as the on-field result.

 

Sucks for Ohio State, but they lost the one game they couldn't afford to lose because of what that loss meant.  If they had to lose just once, they would have been better off losing to Oklahoma or Wisconsin.

[CLEstones]

41 minutes ago, HedleyLamarr said:

The biggest difference between all these lead-up rankings and the final rankings is....we now have conference champions.  Clearly defined, definitively won, conference champions.

 

The first playoff season....TCU was #3 in the next-to-last rankings, then won their last game by 50+ points.  Yet, they fell to #6 in the rankings the next week.  Why?  For one, Baylor also won and both teams finished with 8-1 conference records.  Baylor jumped ahead of TCU because they beat TCU on the field.  Secondly, both didn't play that 13th game like Ohio State did.  Thirdly, the conference did neither any favors with the co-champions declaration.

 

OSU will still be #2 this week.  But they're done on the field.  Teams #1, #3, #4, #5, etc. get that 13th game (or in Oklahoma's case, finishing their regular season, but if OSU is hard-pressed to get in, Oklahoma's not in before them) with the distinction of being a conference champion.  Ohio State, despite being a damn good team, will have the stigma of not winning their own division (with another top 10 team that is) and not winning their conference.  These two demerits are going to be huge, especially if they're compared with Penn State.  2 losses vs. 1 loss won't be as big as the on-field result.

 

Sucks for Ohio State, but they lost the one game they couldn't afford to lose because of what that loss meant.  If they had to lose just once, they would have been better off losing to Oklahoma or Wisconsin.

 

Not that anything you said was wrong, but I think this isn't apples to apples.  Baylor, TCU, and OSU were all considered on the same level, so the benefit of the extra game provided the tie-breaker, in essence.  This year, the committee has made it clear that Ohio State has the second best resume in the country, with or without a 13th game.  I wouldn't be surprised if Clemson jumps them in the rankings, but Ohio State won't fall farther than 4th... and I'd be shocked if they dropped them under Washington.

[Sport]

3 hours ago, DG_Now said:

 

I don't follow college football enough to know, but I'd assume they didn't require conference champions precisely so they could drop in sexier names.

 

But if you view the Playoff as a sort of Champions League, it really should require a championship to be there. The only excuse not to is to allow flexibility to protect the NCAA's gilded class.

 

They wanted to allow for the possibility of ohhh let's say Alabama and ohhh let's say Florida playing each other in a championship game rematch. I get that. 

 

But that's sort of why I stopped following NCAA football after that farce of a BCS championship game between Alabama and LSU in the 2011 season. The playoff brought me back to the sport. Now if a rematch happens in the NCG at least the two teams will have earned their place or if it happens in the semifinal then at least the other one still has to win another game. Now there's a structure in place that protects against the affected voters who could easily be wrong.

[HedleyLamarr]

2 hours ago, CLEstones said:

 

Not that anything you said was wrong, but I think this isn't apples to apples.  Baylor, TCU, and OSU were all considered on the same level, so the benefit of the extra game provided the tie-breaker, in essence.  This year, the committee has made it clear that Ohio State has the second best resume in the country, with or without a 13th game.  I wouldn't be surprised if Clemson jumps them in the rankings, but Ohio State won't fall farther than 4th... and I'd be shocked if they dropped them under Washington.

....to date.  The committee has said it before....they reshuffle the deck each week.  And they don't take into consideration the schedule that has yet to be played.  They only consider what's taken place to date.

 

But Ohio State doesn't get to add to their resume.  Alabama, Clemson, Washington, and Penn State/Wisconsin get to add to their resumes, along with putting a distinction on their season.

 

When it comes to comparing similar teams (and really, the top 8 are going to be the ones in consideration), the committee starts to break ties however they can.  This is where their four principles come in: championships won, schedule strength, head-to-head, games vs common opponents.

 

I think we're all of the belief that Alabama, Clemson, and Washington are locks if they win.  So let's assume they do.  So we're left with one spot.  OSU is in the clubhouse, 11-1 record, wins over Wisconsin, Michigan, Oklahoma.  Wisconsin could be the Big Ten champion, with their two losses being a 1-score deficit to Michigan and in OT to OSU.  Penn State has two losses, but a win over OSU, winning the division with OSU and Michigan, and winning the conference that OSU, Wisconsin, and Michigan are in.

 

When it comes to the committee's principles, Penn State would hold a decided edge over OSU in two big categories (championships won, head-to-head), OSU with a slimmer edge in schedule strength, and an even slimmer edge for OSU in games vs common opponents.

 

For these reasons, this is why I feel OSU needs help to get in.  I don't see OSU getting in without the Big Ten champion also getting in, which is why OSU needs an upset or two to happen.  I'm not sure a Washington loss helps because Colorado is also in the top 10...they'll get a boost from beating a likely top-4 team in a neutral site championship game.  Penn State or Wisconsin will beat a top-10 team at a neutral site championship game, which will give either a boost.  So, they need Florida to beat Alabama or Virginia Tech to beat Clemson...or perhaps both.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I really don't trust a college football voting body to resist putting OSU in a position where they might win a national championship. If the BCS experience (and even the Playoff to day) proved anything, is that there's always room for Ohio State and Oklahoma.