2016 NCAA football thread

[ummmm........]

Also, this seems like as good a time as any to remind everyone that we actually do have meaningful football tonight, with the VaTech/Pitt game going a long way towards telling us who is going to face Clemson in the ACC title game . . .

Did you know that VT has the second best red zone defense in the nation? Bc I did not . . .

 

[tetley]

If I had my way, we would be back to BCS, and Bama would probably be facing Michigan in the lone title game. I don't think I'm a huge fan of the pure old-style the-polls-choose-it-all, though.

 

[ummmm........]

The BCS wasn't really any better. While it didn't devalue the regular season, it did a really bad job of providing compelling matchups in the major bowls outside the national title game. Also, it sometimes included too few -- and once too many -- teams. It looks like the four team playoff is always going to include too many teams, but at least it won't leave anyone with a legitimate claim out. The only real problem with the playoff is that it will inevitably expand, and that will be tragic . . .

Just realized the first CFP rankings come out Tuesday. Snuck up on me this year . . .

 

[tetley]

Someone's always going to complain. If you have two teams, the third team is going to say they were shafted. If you have 4, the fifth team is going to say they were shafted. If you have 3 undefeated teams, the fourth team shouldn't even be there.

 

[ummmm........]

Yep, that's why it's important to consider whether those complaints are actually valid. I think LSU had a valid complaint in 2011 that no one else deserved a shot at them after the regular season. The fact that the system we use forced them to play someone anyway and they lost the title bc of it should have been a cautionary tale for those that favor unfettered postseason expansion, but it seems to have been forgotten. OTOH, there were many years -- perhaps more than not -- during the BCS era where more than two teams had a legitimate claim. I'm not sure I can think of any year where there were four legitimate contenders, and I'm confident that five has never happened in the hundred plus years of the sport . . .

I still think the play-in model would have been the best solution, but that ship has sailed. And now that the playoff has established itself as a revenue monster, there is nothing that can prevent bracket creep either . . .

Listening to gameday right now desperately trying to recreate some of the BCS era drama the playoffs have eliminated when it comes to 'who's in', and it occurred to me that if the committee ever actually picked the four best teams instead of the four best conference champions, that would really go a long way towards changing my opinion of the playoffs. Ofc, playoff expansion would still be the death knell of the sport, but I'd be on board with the playoffs until they expanded at least . . .

 

[ummmm........]

Well that was some pretty good football, within its limitations . . .

The undefeateds . . :

Clemson -- Now needs to lose two of three vs Syracuse, Pitt and Wake to miss the conf title game. Not gonna happen. Pretty strong chance they'll be facing VT there though, who might give them a fight, maybe . . .

Washington -- Big win vs. Utah today but ofc the outcome didn't actually matter bc playoffs. Still looking like Apple Cup winner vs. Utah/Colorado winner for the Pac-12 title game. Fairly easy path to the playoff, as these things go, especially with all the Big XII teams having lost at least once now . . .

Alabama -- Has to beat LSU and Auburn in order to win the division, so I'm glad our games still count at least. OTOH we could rest our starters like those NFL folks do when we play Miss State, and it would have no impact on our title chances, so that's kind of sad. But beating LSU and Auburn is probably easier than beating Ohio State, so I'll put us third . . .

Michigan -- Didn't exactly inspire awe vs. Michigan State today, but Ohio State didn't exactly bounce back vs. Northwestern either. Still a tougher path than Alabama has right now, but it's getting closer . . .

Western Michigan -- Boise losing greatly improves WMU's chances of being the G5 rep in the major bowls. Or they could lose to Toledo and get left out of their conf title game . . .

 

[Commodore]

I'm starting to get genuinely worried about the Buckeyes. The tight game against Wisconsin and the loss to Penn State can be excused away by saying the Buckeyes had two tough road games back-to-back against teams that were coming off bye-weeks. However, a home game against a very bad Northwestern team (come on, they lost to a damn FCS team at home) should have looked like the Bowling Green game at the beginning of the season (or at the very least, like the Oklahoma game). But the fact that the Buckeyes struggled against Northwestern shows me that the problems they have been having lately aren't anomalies, they are real problems that need to be figured out. If not they are going to end the season with at least three losses and will probably lose whatever bowl game they get.

 

[ummmm........]

I'm not sure anyone looks like a world beater this year, so I still give Ohio State as good a chance as anyone. I don't think they would lose to Nebraska, Michigan State or Maryland, as much bc of who those teams are as who Ohio State is. Michigan is obviously a threat and may be a better team this year, but until they get over the hump and actually win one vs. Ohio State I'm not going to be a believer. Gun to my head I'd still pick Ohio State to represent the Big Ten in the playoffs this year and once they're in I think they have as good of a shot as anyone . . .

 

[tetley]

Alabama is the frontrunner. Big red target on their chest. They're the only team unbeaten and unchallenged, even though they have faced well-ranked opponents. I have no dog in this race, but Alabama is the frontrunner.

 

[ummmm........]

Well obviously. That's why we get the bye week before the national title game while the other teams have to play each other . . .

 

[Commodore]

I'm not sure anyone looks like a world beater this year, so I still give Ohio State as good a chance as anyone. I don't think they would lose to Nebraska, Michigan State or Maryland, as much bc of who those teams are as who Ohio State is. Michigan is obviously a threat and may be a better team this year, but until they get over the hump and actually win one vs. Ohio State I'm not going to be a believer. Gun to my head I'd still pick Ohio State to represent the Big Ten in the playoffs this year and once they're in I think they have as good of a shot as anyone . . .

It's just that after those first five games, I was confident that all the talent the Buckeyes lost after last season hadn't affected them in the slightest. In fact, it seemed like a lot of these new guys would be even better, and they probably will be once they are juniors and seniors. However, these last three games have shattered that confidence and now every remaining game seems like a toss up. Are we going to get the Buckeye team that crushed Oklahoma, or are we going to get the Buckeye team that got pushed around by Penn State and looked like garbage against Northwestern?

I mean, I get that this is a rebuilding year for the Buckeyes, and they are still doing pretty damn good for a team that's supposed to be rebuilding, but they were the first national champion in the playoff era and now there is a very real possibility that they will miss out on the playoff for the second straight season after winning that national championship.

 

[ummmm........]

Well, first of all, that's a pretty dramatic swing in opinion. I mean, have a little faith. Hoping for the best is a big part of fandom and OSU still has a very very good chance of making the playoff . . .

Second, this is sort of another drawback of having a definitive national champion. With the playoff -- and the BCS before it -- there are a few teams with a meaningful postseason and many teams who play in what are now totally meaningless bowls. On balance I'll take the definitive national champ, but one of the many things we have lost is half the teams that make bowls ending their season on a high note . . .

 

[Commodore]

Well, first of all, that's a pretty dramatic swing in opinion. I mean, have a little faith. Hoping for the best is a big part of fandom and OSU still has a very very good chance of making the playoff . . .

I do hope for the best. I just also recognize that OSU seems to be having some very real problems right now that could cost them at least two more games if they don't start figuring them out. I also don't ever want to see Michigan make the playoff, and right now the Buckeyes are the only team that has any real chance of preventing that from happening. That right there is a huge source of my frustration with how the Buckeyes are playing right now.

 

[ummmm........]

The first CFP rankings are out, and I would like everyone to note that earlier this season the team currently ranked #13 fired their head coach after he lost to the team currently ranked #9. Carry on . . .

 

[Commodore]

I find it odd that the committee puts out a full top 25 for the playoff rankings. At most, they should only be ranking 8 teams, since that's about the number of teams that are really in the "playoff picture". Any team below number 8 really doesn't have that much of a shot of making the playoff unless something drastic happens.

I also see a lot of complaining about Texas A&M being placed above Washington. Their argument is that Washington is undefeated while Texas A&M has a loss. What those complainers fail to mention though is that Washington plays in a very weak Pac-12 and their non-conference schedule was pretty weak as well, while Texas A&M's only loss was to the number 1 team in the country and they have had a much, much tougher schedule than Washington. Put those two teams on the field and Texas A&M romps all day. And I say this as someone who does not hold a favorable opinion of the SEC. Washington simply has not faced a true test yet and that is reflected in their ranking.

 

[tetley]

With the playoff -- and the BCS before it -- there are a few teams with a meaningful postseason and many teams who play in what are now totally meaningless bowls. . . .

I'm actually okay with meaningless bowls. It's the Christmas season, it's a renewal of football after a 1-month respite, and the postseason is a reward and a chance to travel for the winning teams. It's a festival. On one level, they're not meaningless at all: they determine the season FINAL rankings (even though people don't even look at them much after the season's over).

On another level, though, this entire thread is meaningless. NCAA football is meaningless. The only thing that assigns it any meaning is the utter religion people make out of it. This is all about the fans, who are entertained. The alumni foundations pay the coaches and the scholarships, the networks pay to deliver the games to them (who get advertising money from their own customers). The fans are the customers, the college teams are the providers. And if the bowl games are providing that yearly outing, then they serve their purpose.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

All I want is a WMU New Years bowl and I will be happy, this is the best team they've ever had and it's not even close. I don't even care if they draw some uber-power and get kicked around a bit.

 

[ummmm........]

I find it odd that the committee puts out a full top 25 for the playoff rankings. At most, they should only be ranking 8 teams, since that's about the number of teams that are really in the "playoff picture". Any team below number 8 really doesn't have that much of a shot of making the playoff unless something drastic happens.

Aw, c'mon man you know better than that. Ohio State was 16th in the first 2014 poll, Oklahoma was 15th in the first 2015 poll. If things follow the script this year then the playoff contenders will all come from the first top five, but there are a number of teams -- Utah, Colorado, VT, Baylor, etc -- hanging out down there in the teens that have real paths to work themselves in. Plus they have to fill the non-playoff bowls and take the highest G5 team, so they've got to rank down that far at least . . .

I'm actually okay with meaningless bowls. It's the Christmas season, it's a renewal of football after a 1-month respite, and the postseason is a reward and a chance to travel for the winning teams.

Oh, sure. As a fan I love the bowls. I also love all these meaningless regular season games that used to impact the postseason picture but don't anymore. The point is that now the postseason is all about crowning the national champion, while in the past every bowl mattered and teams were -- for the most part -- pretty motivated to be there. I know we're talking about twenty years ago and there were fewer bowls then, and again as I said I prefer having a definitive national champ to that old system, but the opportunity for all those teams to finish with a positive experience is something we have lost . . .

All I want is a WMU New Years bowl and I will be happy, this is the best team they've ever had and it's not even close. I don't even care if they draw some uber-power and get kicked around a bit.

It's just four games away, with I guess Toledo being the biggest threat? And the only game y'all have played that was decided by one possession was that NW win way back in week one, so I'm guessing y'all will be fine . . .

FUN FACT . . :

Three teams are tied for the most twenty-plus yard rushing plays this season, with twenty-two apiece: Auburn, Alabama and LSU . . .

 

[tetley]

No way both Texas A&M and Alabama are going to playoff. The SEC gets one team. Even if A&M gets ranked #4, they effectively got knocked out in an earlier round of the playoff: the SEC championship. That happens sometimes: two better teams face early, and the winner faces a not-as-good team next.

 

[ummmm........]

Ofc. That's what makes all these games so meaningless -- only conference champions matter. So A&M is only like the fifth most likely team in the SEC to make the playoffs at this point. Alabama, LSU, Auburn and Florida all more likely, at minimum . . .