2013 NCAA FOOTBALL THREAD

[hailstateunis]

Nah, Utah just had the better game plan. All it comes down to is execution and the Utes did better then the Cardinal. Enough said.

As for today: New polls, and I can now say, with great malicious intent, that the SEC deserves all the hate that it gets

Well, Missouri shouldn't last long in there, not without James Franklin. Ole Miss looks like a Top 25 team, they've just played a tough schedule so far, but I'd definitely say they're better than NIU. Can't believe Tech jumped 5 spots, looking like Tech-Miami will be a Top 15 matchup now.

Auburn beat Ole Miss by 8, and the Rebels never led the entire game. They aren't a top 25 team.

[DS729]

Nah, Utah just had the better game plan. All it comes down to is execution and the Utes did better then the Cardinal. Enough said.

As for today: New polls, and I can now say, with great malicious intent, that the SEC deserves all the hate that it gets

Well, Missouri shouldn't last long in there, not without James Franklin. Ole Miss looks like a Top 25 team, they've just played a tough schedule so far, but I'd definitely say they're better than NIU. Can't believe Tech jumped 5 spots, looking like Tech-Miami will be a Top 15 matchup now.

Auburn beat Ole Miss by 8, and the Rebels never led the entire game. They aren't a top 25 team.

Same team that beat Texas by 21 in DKR, and lost to A&M by 3. Auburn is at least decent this year, plus that game was on the road. Don't let your bias get in the way.

[rams80]

Nah, Utah just had the better game plan. All it comes down to is execution and the Utes did better then the Cardinal. Enough said.

As for today: New polls, and I can now say, with great malicious intent, that the SEC deserves all the hate that it gets

Well, Missouri shouldn't last long in there, not without James Franklin. Ole Miss looks like a Top 25 team, they've just played a tough schedule so far, but I'd definitely say they're better than NIU. Can't believe Tech jumped 5 spots, looking like Tech-Miami will be a Top 15 matchup now.

Auburn beat Ole Miss by 8, and the Rebels never led the entire game. They aren't a top 25 team.

Same team that beat Texas by 21 in DKR, and lost to A&M by 3. Auburn is at least decent this year, plus that game was on the road. Don't let your bias get in the way.

And Saturday notwithstanding, Texas isn't that good this year while A&M's defensive issues (i.e. "not having one") are well documented.

[DS729]

Nah, Utah just had the better game plan. All it comes down to is execution and the Utes did better then the Cardinal. Enough said.

As for today: New polls, and I can now say, with great malicious intent, that the SEC deserves all the hate that it gets

Well, Missouri shouldn't last long in there, not without James Franklin. Ole Miss looks like a Top 25 team, they've just played a tough schedule so far, but I'd definitely say they're better than NIU. Can't believe Tech jumped 5 spots, looking like Tech-Miami will be a Top 15 matchup now.

Auburn beat Ole Miss by 8, and the Rebels never led the entire game. They aren't a top 25 team.

Same team that beat Texas by 21 in DKR, and lost to A&M by 3. Auburn is at least decent this year, plus that game was on the road. Don't let your bias get in the way.

And Saturday notwithstanding, Texas isn't that good this year while A&M's defensive issues (i.e. "not having one") are well documented.

Same team that beat Oklahoma by 16 and is tied for 1st in Big 12, try again.

[rams80]

Nah, Utah just had the better game plan. All it comes down to is execution and the Utes did better then the Cardinal. Enough said.

As for today: New polls, and I can now say, with great malicious intent, that the SEC deserves all the hate that it gets

Well, Missouri shouldn't last long in there, not without James Franklin. Ole Miss looks like a Top 25 team, they've just played a tough schedule so far, but I'd definitely say they're better than NIU. Can't believe Tech jumped 5 spots, looking like Tech-Miami will be a Top 15 matchup now.

Auburn beat Ole Miss by 8, and the Rebels never led the entire game. They aren't a top 25 team.

Same team that beat Texas by 21 in DKR, and lost to A&M by 3. Auburn is at least decent this year, plus that game was on the road. Don't let your bias get in the way.

And Saturday notwithstanding, Texas isn't that good this year while A&M's defensive issues (i.e. "not having one") are well documented.

Same team that beat Oklahoma by 16 and is tied for 1st in Big 12, try again.

MDWM

Texas should have lost to Iowa State and has also gotten arse-blasted by BYU. They still have to play TCU, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and of course...

Baylor is going to ing house Bevo.

[DS729]

I agree with you about the Iowa State and BYU games, but TCU can't mount to much, they can hardly beat Kansas for christ sake. Same goes with OSU, they lost to WVU, and Texas Tech hasn't looked that impressive and hasn't really been tested yet. Baylor will run roughshod over Texas, but still Texas isn't that bad, I can't see them going worse than 8-4 at this point.

[NJTank]

Saw on CFB Final Lou Holtz was saying Stanford lost because they had mid-terms...

Come on man this is College Football, why should they need to worry about mid terms? Oh thats right Stanford is not in the SEC.

[Billy B]

Playoff Selection Committee:

Jeff Long (Chair)

Pat Haden

Archie Manning

Oliver Luck

Tom Osborne

Barry Alvarez

Tyrone Willingham

Condoleezza Rice

Mike Gould

Tom Jernstedt

Dan Radakovich

Mike Tranghese

Steve Wieberg

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9834426/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-officially-announced

[dfwabel]

Playoff Selection Committee:

Jeff Long (Chair)

Pat Haden

Archie Manning

Oliver Luck

Tom Osborne

Barry Alvarez

Tyrone Willingham

Condoleezza Rice

Mike Gould

Tom Jernstedt

Dan Radakovich

Mike Tranghese

Steve Wieberg

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9834426/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-officially-announced

I have a problem with the age of everyone.

The youngest person on the committee is Oliver Luck, who is in his early 50s.

They couldn't find a former all American player under 40 who is not a coach or media member?

[rams80]

Things seem to be going poorly at Grambling State.

[rams80]

Playoff Selection Committee:

Jeff Long (Chair)

Pat Haden

Archie Manning

Oliver Luck

Tom Osborne

Barry Alvarez

Tyrone Willingham

Condoleezza Rice

Mike Gould

Tom Jernstedt

Dan Radakovich

Mike Tranghese

Steve Wieberg

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9834426/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-officially-announced

As a general note to Jim Delany, I would advise not mentioning "experience as decision-makers" when discussing a group that includes Condi Rice.

Also the committee is unpaid, and remember you always get what you pay for.

Also the computers only sucked because they were limited in the amount of data they could use. Including margin of victory.

[alxy8s]

I just hope the selection process doesn't turn into a bunch of moaning about the #5 team being left out. I know many people want to see the field expanded to 8, but I'm glad they are starting with 4. How many regular reasons have ended with 4 teams having a legitimate claim to being the best team in college football?

I'm excited for the next chapter of college football. I hope that the big-conference teams look to schedule formidable non-conference opponents in search of "quality wins." It'll be nice that a single loss won't virtually eliminate a team from the playoff as well.

[HedleyLamarr]

I just hope the selection process doesn't turn into a bunch of moaning about the #5 team being left out. I know many people want to see the field expanded to 8, but I'm glad they are starting with 4. How many regular reasons have ended with 4 teams having a legitimate claim to being the best team in college football?

I'm excited for the next chapter of college football. I hope that the big-conference teams look to schedule formidable non-conference opponents in search of "quality wins." It'll be nice that a single loss won't virtually eliminate a team from the playoff as well.

Gee, I've been making this point on here for years. All a playoff does is moves the argument of "We're #2!" to "We're #4, #6, #8, #12, etc.", and you start to include more teams that feel they got shafted.

However, I don't think this will lead to more scheduling more quality non-conference opponents. The opposite will happen, actually....teams will be more concerned about risking losing games and not making as much unshared money (home games and the entire business side of that). With conferences already talking about (or in some cases, already agreeing to) playing 9 conference games and many schools having annual games against their bigger rivals (Florida-Florida State, Georgia-Georgia Tech, Clemson-South Carolina, etc.), there simply isn't enough room on the schedule. Schools will gladly pay the lesser schools to guarantee a home game and a near-certain win over having to deal with a home-and-home and risk getting a loss just because you "played somebody".

[pianoknight]

I just hope the selection process doesn't turn into a bunch of moaning about the #5 team being left out. I know many people want to see the field expanded to 8, but I'm glad they are starting with 4. How many regular reasons have ended with 4 teams having a legitimate claim to being the best team in college football?

I'm excited for the next chapter of college football. I hope that the big-conference teams look to schedule formidable non-conference opponents in search of "quality wins." It'll be nice that a single loss won't virtually eliminate a team from the playoff as well.

Gee, I've been making this point on here for years. All a playoff does is moves the argument of "We're #2!" to "We're #4, #6, #8, #12, etc.", and you start to include more teams that feel they got shafted.

However, I don't think this will lead to more scheduling more quality non-conference opponents. The opposite will happen, actually....teams will be more concerned about risking losing games and not making as much unshared money (home games and the entire business side of that). With conferences already talking about (or in some cases, already agreeing to) playing 9 conference games and many schools having annual games against their bigger rivals (Florida-Florida State, Georgia-Georgia Tech, Clemson-South Carolina, etc.), there simply isn't enough room on the schedule. Schools will gladly pay the lesser schools to guarantee a home game and a near-certain win over having to deal with a home-and-home and risk getting a loss just because you "played somebody".

That's a solid point.

I personally hope that the committee puts a much stronger emphasis on strength of schedule than what we've seen in the past. Hypothetically, an 11-1 USC (loss to Oregon) is a much better team than a 12-0 record from SunBelt or MAC. Generally, those schools might managed one big upset win over a Virginia Tech or Minnesota, but it's just not the same as playing a Big 5 conference schedule.

How much they stress SoS will can affect the number of quality non-conference matchups, but with 4 teams in the playoffs you also have that opportunity for a Boise State to sneak in there and get a Cinderella season.

[OnWis97]

I just hope the selection process doesn't turn into a bunch of moaning about the #5 team being left out. I know many people want to see the field expanded to 8, but I'm glad they are starting with 4. How many regular reasons have ended with 4 teams having a legitimate claim to being the best team in college football?

I'm excited for the next chapter of college football. I hope that the big-conference teams look to schedule formidable non-conference opponents in search of "quality wins." It'll be nice that a single loss won't virtually eliminate a team from the playoff as well.

Gee, I've been making this point on here for years. All a playoff does is moves the argument of "We're #2!" to "We're #4, #6, #8, #12, etc.", and you start to include more teams that feel they got shafted.

However, I don't think this will lead to more scheduling more quality non-conference opponents. The opposite will happen, actually....teams will be more concerned about risking losing games and not making as much unshared money (home games and the entire business side of that). With conferences already talking about (or in some cases, already agreeing to) playing 9 conference games and many schools having annual games against their bigger rivals (Florida-Florida State, Georgia-Georgia Tech, Clemson-South Carolina, etc.), there simply isn't enough room on the schedule. Schools will gladly pay the lesser schools to guarantee a home game and a near-certain win over having to deal with a home-and-home and risk getting a loss just because you "played somebody".

While I think you are correct that this will not make teams go out and play better non-conference opponents, I don't know that the opposite is going to happen because I think it's already happening. I don't imagine it will make things all that much worse.

[Sport]

I just hope the selection process doesn't turn into a bunch of moaning about the #5 team being left out. I know many people want to see the field expanded to 8, but I'm glad they are starting with 4. How many regular reasons have ended with 4 teams having a legitimate claim to being the best team in college football?

I'm excited for the next chapter of college football. I hope that the big-conference teams look to schedule formidable non-conference opponents in search of "quality wins." It'll be nice that a single loss won't virtually eliminate a team from the playoff as well.

Gee, I've been making this point on here for years. All a playoff does is moves the argument of "We're #2!" to "We're #4, #6, #8, #12, etc.", and you start to include more teams that feel they got shafted.

Yeah and as many times as you and others have said this I've never worried about it. There will always be a legit reason to leave the fifth best team out of the tournament. If they go to a field of 8 then the 9th best team has even fewer claims to be able to compete for a national title.

The #3 team is often left out because of conference politics, schedules drawn a decade earlier, and other external factors and in many years they have a real claim and real grips at being excluded. It's about devising a system where deserving teams aren't left out. The fifth best team in the country is far less deserving than the usual #3.

[DS729]

I just hope the selection process doesn't turn into a bunch of moaning about the #5 team being left out. I know many people want to see the field expanded to 8, but I'm glad they are starting with 4. How many regular reasons have ended with 4 teams having a legitimate claim to being the best team in college football?

I'm excited for the next chapter of college football. I hope that the big-conference teams look to schedule formidable non-conference opponents in search of "quality wins." It'll be nice that a single loss won't virtually eliminate a team from the playoff as well.

Gee, I've been making this point on here for years. All a playoff does is moves the argument of "We're #2!" to "We're #4, #6, #8, #12, etc.", and you start to include more teams that feel they got shafted.

Yeah and as many times as you and others have said this I've never worried about it. There will always be a legit reason to leave the fifth best team out of the tournament. If they go to a field of 8 then the 9th best team has even fewer claims to be able to compete for a national title.

The #3 team is often left out because of conference politics, schedules drawn a decade earlier, and other external factors and in many years they have a real claim and real grips at being excluded. It's about devising a system where deserving teams aren't left out. The fifth best team in the country is far less deserving than the usual #3.

Well all tournaments are going to leave someone out unless you let everyone in. I like the fact that they are keeping it at 4, it keeps the intensity and meaningfulness of the regular season. I still think there will be cupcakes on the schedule, for tune-up games and an (almost certain) W. But that can depend on conference schedules. An SEC team is more likely to schedule a cupcake than an ACC squad due to the skill of the conference in general. Especially a team like Virginia Tech, who doesn't have any big out of conference rivals and a not-so-taxing in conference schedule. They'll still be looking to schedule the USC's, Alabama's and Ohio States of the world, I'm just hoping to be able to get the best teams to play each other in the playoff, something that should have been established in 1998.

[Raysfan12]

I just hope the selection process doesn't turn into a bunch of moaning about the #5 team being left out. I know many people want to see the field expanded to 8, but I'm glad they are starting with 4. How many regular reasons have ended with 4 teams having a legitimate claim to being the best team in college football?

I'm excited for the next chapter of college football. I hope that the big-conference teams look to schedule formidable non-conference opponents in search of "quality wins." It'll be nice that a single loss won't virtually eliminate a team from the playoff as well.

Gee, I've been making this point on here for years. All a playoff does is moves the argument of "We're #2!" to "We're #4, #6, #8, #12, etc.", and you start to include more teams that feel they got shafted.

However, I don't think this will lead to more scheduling more quality non-conference opponents. The opposite will happen, actually....teams will be more concerned about risking losing games and not making as much unshared money (home games and the entire business side of that). With conferences already talking about (or in some cases, already agreeing to) playing 9 conference games and many schools having annual games against their bigger rivals (Florida-Florida State, Georgia-Georgia Tech, Clemson-South Carolina, etc.), there simply isn't enough room on the schedule. Schools will gladly pay the lesser schools to guarantee a home game and a near-certain win over having to deal with a home-and-home and risk getting a loss just because you "played somebody".

That's a solid point.

I personally hope that the committee puts a much stronger emphasis on strength of schedule than what we've seen in the past. Hypothetically, an 11-1 USC (loss to Oregon) is a much better team than a 12-0 record from SunBelt or MAC. Generally, those schools might managed one big upset win over a Virginia Tech or Minnesota, but it's just not the same as playing a Big 5 conference schedule.

How much they stress SoS will can affect the number of quality non-conference matchups, but with 4 teams in the playoffs you also have that opportunity for a Boise State to sneak in there and get a Cinderella season.

If they're going to point an emphasis on strength of schedule, they must also consider margin of victory. Margin of victory should be considered because it rewards teams for playing a complete game on both sides of the ball against opponents and is especially important with the committee emphasizing strength of schedule. This also almost eliminates the "Just win and you'll move up" mantra and forces teams to take every game seriously. Finally, the polls and rankings would reflect on which team played most impressive victory each week instead of just focusing on the W-L record. It would eliminate undeserving teams for entering the playoffs and would also improve TV ratings. The only issue I see from this is that it might encourage running up the score, but I think the benefits outweigh the risks.

[Burkell007]

Things seem to be going poorly at Grambling State.

Oh poorly is a VAST understatement they Fired there intern coach.....after 4 GAMES!!! So that just might be a first, what a mess

[Lights Out]

Am I the only one who sees a major conflict of interest in letting current AD's be on the playoff committee? Of course, this was probably by design, as they could never do without conference politics or ridiculous "controversy."