2016 NCAA Football Thread

[smzimbabwe]

I know I'm in the minority, but I was much happier with the old polls and bowls system. If the Huskies weren't in it, I wouldn't care about the playoff, never have before. I will only watch the games because Washington is in them. If they win and advance, I'm happy because the players would consider it a great accomplishment, but honestly, if I had the power, there'd be no conference championship game and I'd be getting ready to watch the Rose Bowl and/or whatever bowl the Huskies are in.

[FiddySicks]

Any chance the committee leaves Penn state out if they win simply because of all the s**t they've had going on in the last few years? I mean, under the original punishment, wouldn't this have been the last year they were on a bowl ban anyway? 

 

I'd be happy with Penn State being left out and the reasoning being :censored: Penn State. 

[Luigi74]

13 minutes ago, smzimbabwe said:

I know I'm in the minority, but I was much happier with the old polls and bowls system. If the Huskies weren't in it, I wouldn't care about the playoff, never have before. I will only watch the games because Washington is in them. If they win and advance, I'm happy because the players would consider it a great accomplishment, but honestly, if I had the power, there'd be no conference championship game and I'd be getting ready to watch the Rose Bowl and/or whatever bowl the Huskies are in.

I also prefer the old school system and if you go back the bowl set-up of thirty years ago it be a great day of football on Jan. 2, 2017.

 

If all the favorites win this weekend it would look something like this.

 

Sugar Bowl 8:00PM ABC - #1 Alabama (SEC Champs) vs. #2 Ohio State (at-large)

Orange Bowl 8:00PM NBC - #7 Oklahoma(Big 12\8) Champs vs. #3 Clemson (at-large) the ACC didn't have a tie-in for the conference champ until the next season and the Sugar Bowl would have selected Ohio State over Clemson.

Rose Bowl 5:00PM NBC - #4 Washington (PAC-12 Champs) vs. #8 Penn State (Big 10 Champs)

Fiesta Bowl, 1:30PM NBC - #5 Michigan (at-large) vs. #10 USC (at-large) the game 30 years ago was scheduled to be play at 1:30pm eastern but was moved to Jan. 2 after Miami and Penn State accepted their invites.

Cotton Bowl, 1:30PM CBS - #11 Oklahoma State (Big 12 second place) since there's no more SWC the 2nd place Big 12 team gets the slot vs. #9 Colorado (at-large)

Citrus Bowl, Noon ABC - #12 Florida State (at-large) vs. #14 West Virginia (at-large)

[OnWis97]

2 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

Any chance the committee leaves Penn state out if they win simply because of all the s**t they've had going on in the last few years? I mean, under the original punishment, wouldn't this have been the last year they were on a bowl ban anyway? 

 

I'd be happy with Penn State being left out and the reasoning being Penn State. 

Oh man...if they win and get left out they'll be playing the victim by blaming it in the Valley. 

[CLEstones]

13 hours ago, HedleyLamarr said:

....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.

 

Again, nothing you have said is wrong.  We'll know more at the end of this week.

 

If I'm looking at this based on what we know and applying some basic reasoning/logic.  If the committee thought the gap between Ohio State and Penn State was negligible - or even small - they wouldn't have OSU ranked #2 and PSU ranked #7, BEHIND another B1G team that OSU beat (Wisconsin, a la Texas/Oklahoma/Texas Tech).  If the Buckeye-Lion gap was minor, they would have put Ohio State #3 or #4 and Penn State #5 or #6, in essence signaling that PSU is in the discussion based on how good of a team they are, not just because they own the head-to-head over OSU.

 

They did this year 1... they put Ohio State within striking distance, so if they won the B1G title, they could justify vaulting them into the Playoff.  I think the Committee got caught talking out of both side of their mouth.  They wanted Ohio State in over Baylor or TCU at all costs, so they said they put emphasis on Conference Championship for that year.  This year, they want Ohio State in again, at all costs, for numerous reasons, so I think the criteria will change this year.

 

Again, if Penn State wins and they leave them out, they will say "Well, it our opinion, Penn State caught Ohio State on their worst day, when the Lions had their best day.  They went on the road, in prime time, in a hostile environment.  Ohio State was up 14 in the 4Q, and Penn State needed a botched punt and botched field goal to win the game.  In our opinion, the Buckeyes win 8 out of 10 times on a neutral field."  The point of the committee is to ignore a slip up during the season and look at the body of work.  If they can ignore Penn State losing to Pitt, if they can ignore Michigan losing to Iowa, if they can ignore Clemson losing to Pitt, then I think they will recognize PSU's win over OSU, but determine it was the exception and not the rule.

 

Hell, if we are putting the most emphasis on head-to-head instead of entire resume... then someone should make a case for Pitt with wins over Clemson and Penn State, and all their losses being considered "good losses" to ranked teams.

[rams80]

18 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

Any chance the committee leaves Penn state out if they win simply because of all the s**t they've had going on in the last few years? I mean, under the original punishment, wouldn't this have been the last year they were on a bowl ban anyway? 

 

I'd be happy with Penn State being left out and the reasoning being Penn State. 

 

Fortunately Wisconsin will probably burn them to the ground.

[rams80]

On 11/26/2016 at 9:52 AM, DNAsports said:

It seems like the Big Ten is trying to force a rivalry between Maryland and Rutgers.

 

Well, none of the rest of the league wants to be rivals with you....

[rams80]

On 11/26/2016 at 11:06 PM, BlackBolt3 said:

(I don't like what the Big 12 does and I do think the Western deserves a shot, but I digress.)

 

The thing about the four "best" teams is that, once again, it's subjective. One might see Ohio State as a better team than Penn State, but there's no real way to quantify that, except that game that they played, which by score, showed that PSU was the better team. It's not perfect, and it's surely not clean, but things like head-to-head and conference championships are things that can't be disputed. Ohio State is a great team, but they lost the one game that ultimately cost them the division. And in my mind, OSU can't go in without the Big Ten champ, and leave out either Clemson or Washington, neither of which you can take a spot away from if they win their conference.

 

OSU isn't playing in the championship because Michigan lost to Iowa.  That's what cost them the division.  I'm not entirely sure we should fully penalize them in light of the unbalanced conference schedule.  Absent that Michigan loss, there'd be a 3-way circle of death for the title because each team held serve at home in their mutual matchups, which Ohio State would win because overall record is a tiebreak in a 3-way tie and Penn State lost to Pitt.  Granted that's not much better because it still involves events outside of the division, but the tiebreak after that is "random draw".

[rams80]

On 11/28/2016 at 0:00 PM, BlackBolt3 said:

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.

 

If you have that many Top 10 wins, you should be in.

[dfwabel]

Pac-12 Championship Game tickets for $22 (inc. fees).
https://seatgeek.com/2016-pac-12-foo...2-6-pm/3094196

ACC Championship Game tickets from $28 and this was moved from Charlotte to Orlando in September
https://seatgeek.com/2016-acc-footba...3-8-pm/3540566

American Athletic Championship Game from $47
https://seatgeek.com/temple-owls-at-...-12-pm/3633036

B1G Championship Game tickets for $48
https://seatgeek.com/2016-big-ten-fo...3-8-pm/3047280

[FinsUp1214]

Something interesting I'm noticing in Bowl Projections from various outlets (ESPN, CBS Sports, etc.) is that most seem to be split on who's going to the Rose from the Pac-12: Colorado or USC? 

 

I would assume these take take into account that Washington is pretty favored to win (considering these same projections all have Washington winning and making the playoff), so it's interesting that despite that unanimous consideration, these projections are still varied. Why is that? Varied predictions on final rankings or something?

 

I get where the USC camp is coming from with their head-to-head over Colorado and their Washington win, but I'm still an advocate for division titles meaning something, even if a non-Playoff Bowl has room to be a bit more lenient. A conference runner-up heading to the Alamo makes sense if the champ is in the Rose. It doesn't seem entirely right though if the Rose slot is open for them. Picking USC wouldn't be horrible and at least would have some merit to the choice, but in my personal opinion the Rose would do right to select the division winner. While Colorado did lose to USC, I still see a division title as "earning it" in this case. 

 

And also...I think I'd be more intrigued by Colorado vs. Penn State/Wisconsin anyways. USC went to so many Rose Bowls when I was a kid/teen that I'm still even now sick of seeing them there  But hey if it's USC instead, then good for them and I'll still watch all the same. 

[dfwabel]

25 minutes ago, FinsUp1214 said:

Something interesting I'm noticing in Bowl Projections from various outlets (ESPN, CBS Sports, etc.) is that most seem to be split on who's going to the Rose from the Pac-12: Colorado or USC? 

 

I would assume these take take into account that Washington is pretty favored to win (considering these same projections all have Washington winning and making the playoff), so it's interesting that despite that unanimous consideration, these projections are still varied. Why is that? Varied predictions on final rankings or something?

 

 

 

If the Pac-12 champion is in the College Football Playoff, the Rose Bowl is contractually obligated to select the second highest ranked Pac-12 team in the final committee rankings.

[CLEstones]

Not to gloat, but as I said, as the CFP Committee has said, the gap between Ohio State and Penn State is large. 

 

The real debate is if the winner of the B1G should get a spot over Washington or Clemson. 

[FinsUp1214]

22 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

If the Pac-12 champion is in the College Football Playoff, the Rose Bowl is contractually obligated to select the second highest ranked Pac-12 team in the final committee rankings.

 

Ah gotcha. I wasn't aware of that bind in the contract! Makes much more sense.

 

So then...don't lose too badly, Colorado?

 

[dfwabel]

29 minutes ago, FinsUp1214 said:

 

Ah gotcha. I wasn't aware of that bind in the contract! Makes much more sense.

 

So then...don't lose too badly, Colorado?

 

After reading writers like Jon Wilner and hearing Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott say highest ranked team last year, I'm pretty confident about it being in writing, so I don't expect it to change.

 

FYI, last year, UNC remained at #10 after losing to #1 Clemson and Iowa only dropped one slot after losing to Michigan State in the conference title game. However in 2014, Wisconsin dropped from #13 to #18 after losing 59-0 to Ohio State.

[HedleyLamarr]

2 hours ago, CLEstones said:

Not to gloat, but as I said, as the CFP Committee has said, the gap between Ohio State and Penn State is large. 

 

The real debate is if the winner of the B1G should get a spot over Washington or Clemson. 

This past weekend and the weekend before....nothing changed.  Still don't have any conference champions.  Ohio State was a 10-1 team, now they're an 11-1 team.

 

After this coming weekend's games, we will now have some distinctions placed on teams, one of the four protocols the CFP committee uses to determine the four playoff teams.  It bears repeating.....things will change once we have conference champions.  Alabama, Clemson, and Washington aren't going to drop out of the top 4 if they win their conference championship games, especially if their opponents are currently in the top 25.  Their schedule strengths aren't going to drop.  And, one of Wisconsin or Penn State will rise in the rankings.  They'll have beaten a top-7 team on a neutral site in a championship game.  They're getting to add to their resumes.  And if it's Penn State?  It's awfully tough to argue against "We won our conference that has teams #2 and #5 and #6, we won the division that has the #2 and #5 teams in the nation, and we beat the #2 team on the field."  Of the four Big Ten teams, Penn State (should they beat Wisconsin) will have an equal record to Ohio State in these common opponents (OSU & PSU & Michigan 2-1, Wisconsin 0-3).

 

The committee, in their two years of work, has shown a deep desire for their playoff participants to be conference champions.  They'll drop a team out in their final rankings, even if they won their last game by 50+ points the previous day...while inserting a team that won their championship game.  Now Ohio State will have an argument that they should belong, but that can be quickly retorted with "Well, don't lose a game against the team that won your conference."

[rams80]

I think the Baylor/TCU precedent had as much to do with "the committee doesn't want to pick one of two identical teams with virtually the same resumes, especially when you can grab a team that just eviscerated the #11 team in the country by almost 60 points" as "they put a premium on outright Conference titles."

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Plus, in hindsight, eff Baylor.

[rams80]

4 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

Plus, in hindsight, eff Baylor.

 

Well, there was a bit of that at work too, although that was more because Baylor's non-conference schedule had 5 FBS wins between it than because of what they did off the field.

[Still MIGHTY]

4 hours ago, HedleyLamarr said:

The committee, in their two years of work, has shown a deep desire for their playoff participants to be conference champions.  They'll drop a team out in their final rankings, even if they won their last game by 50+ points the previous day...while inserting a team that won their championship game.  Now Ohio State will have an argument that they should belong, but that can be quickly retorted with "Well, don't lose a game against the team that won your conference."

 

Except in the previous two years, we haven't had these circumstances before. This is one of those weird college football years with some weird losses that screwed up conference standings with tiebreakers. If you listened to what the committee spokesperson said, they think that despite the losses Ohio State and Michigan are that much of better teams than than peers below them. Heck, he even went as far as to say the difference between Washington at #4 and Michigan at #5 was negligible. Just for laughs, I half expect Washington to lose to Colorado and have Ohio State AND Michigan in AND the Big 10 champ out.

 

The only thing even close is that first year with Baylor and TCU. And as I believe rams80 alluded to, in hindsight, it feels almost as if instead of picking between TCU and Baylor and drawing a line, the committee just said "screw it, we pick neither" and threw Ohio State in instead. Whether they meant to or not, it seemingly set a precedent. A precedent they might have to walk back on due to this year's circumstances. Kicking out TCU from #3 is also easy in the grand scheme. Kicking out Ohio State from #2, that might be a taller order. If that was Oklahoma or Texas at #3 that year, you think they get dropped?

 

And you know what? Maybe two years isn't enough to decipher a pattern as to how the committee will actually go about things. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern, right? We can't run multiple simulations to try it out like the BCS computers. The only way to sort this out is real world experience, and we're getting it in real time with the committee. A committee that hasn't even had a consistent roster of members in its first three years. There's a lot of factors going into all this, and really, none of us know for sure how the committee will react next week.

 

It depends on the results and the opinions of the 12 different individuals on the committee.

 

Me? I'm more of the traditional opinion that conference championships matter when it comes to these things. But as a college football observer, I also think Ohio State is clearly one of the best four teams in the country, better than Wisconsin and better than Penn State, despite the actual head-to-head result. So I'm torn in that regard.... However, I also don't think any of these prospective opponents actually has what it takes to beat Alabama this year, so maybe none of this matters too much.