Wrymouth3
Emperor
South Carolina is either not in any way a convincing top 25 team, or people decided to completely overlook UCF this season. It could be a combination of both as well.
2013 NCAA Football Thread
- Thread starter Wrymouth3
- Start date
MacAttack
Just the tip
Didn't say it was.
What team would want to give away a draft choice for Freeman in the last year of his contract?
Minnesota
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
I think UCF is better than some people thought. They were supposed to be pretty good to begin with. SCAR's not great, but they don't suck. Remember they were missing Shaw for the last fifty-five minutes or whatever . . .
Meanwhile, the near impossibility of converting an onside kick these days is really sucking the suspense out of the end of this OSU/Wisconsin game . . .
Valiant effort though . . .
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
The playoffs have begun! Fewer than twenty-five unbeaten teams remain, so it's time to start taking notice of who they are and how the remaining schedules might shake out. Because it's fun to pretend. I'm not quite ready to rank them 1-20 yet, so I'm just going to rank them within their own conferences for now. The conferences aren't ranked, they're alphabetical . . :
AAC
Louisville -- 27-13 at Kentucky is just embarrassing. Win's a win but it sucked all the momentum they had from last year's bowl win over Florida. Very little chance they will lose any remaining games. They get UCF at home in three weeks . . .
Houston -- will not survive at Louisville November 16th, and should probably have dropped three games by then. Still a good chance to get bowl eligible with Memphis, USF and SMU still on the schedule . . .
ACC
Clemson -- I'm putting Clemson ahead of FSU mostly because I don't think Jameis Winston can get through his freshman year unscathed. Plus Clemson already avoided pulling a Clemson at NC State. No way they slip up twice in one year, right In addition to their Atlantic opponents, SCAR's always a threat on the last weekend of the season . . .
FSU -- No real reason they should lose, but I don't think Winston can be consistently great every week. The defense should keep them in every game, but didn't at BC this week, giving up 200 yards on the ground. They play Miami in the regular season, and close at Florida . . .
Miami -- I'm still not buying Miami, though I admit that's still mostly based on my impression from the Florida game. OTOH that's the only real opponent they've played, so what else am I supposed to judge them on . . ?
Maryland -- I'm not sure they should count. They played UConn too close, but then, so did Michigan. They blew out what I assumed was a bad WVU team, but then WVU beat Okie State this week. I don't think they get past FSU this week, but if they do I'll revisit them . . .
Big XII
Oklahoma -- The magic of the round robin schedule will work this one out for us, but right now Oklahoma looks like the team to beat, I guess . . .
Texas Tech -- No way TT survives the whole conference schedule without dropping one, right? I think beating TCU said more about TCU than TT. OTOH, my bartender went to TT, so there's that . . .
Baylor -- The only thing we know about Baylor so far is that they can blow out Buffalo much more convincingly than Ohio State can. They've only played three games over the first five weeks, with their only week off remaining coming before the Thursday night game vs. Oklahoma. Insufficient data
Big Ten
Ohio State -- They win blowouts, they win shootouts, they win close -- what's not to love? The injury to Bryant makes this week at NW maybe their best chance to lose. They shouldn't be tested through most of the Big Ten slate . . .
Michigan -- I don't really have any reason to believe Michigan will or won't win the Legends, but I really really want them and Ohio State to play each other back to back weeks
lz: lz: lz:
Northwestern -- Went to Cal and came away with a 14-point win. Unfortunately, Ohio State went to Cal and came away with an 18-point win. So this weekend's matchup would appear to be a forgone conclusion -- OSU by 4
MAC
Northern Illinois -- I have absolutely no idea what chance NIU has to make it through their conference schedule unbeaten, nor can I think of any reason it could matter. Except for that kid with the Heisman campaign. It would matter to him I suppose . . .
Mountain West
Fresno State -- NIU only more (less?) so. Their OOC wins are maybe a little better. Maybe a little better chance to make noise nationally based on the MWC's history as the 'BCS buster' conference. Also, Fresno State didn't get squished in a BCS game last year. OTOH, they just squeaked past Hawai'i by five after giving up twenty unanswered in the fourth quarter . . .
Pac-12
Oregon -- zOMGsrslyerk!1!!!!111 Howdoesanyoneeverstopthem? I actually ask myself that every time I see them, but somehow, someone always seems to. Still, I haven't seen a . They fumbled twice versus Cal, and those were the first two turnovers they've committed this year. To be fair, they really haven't played anyone yet. They get UCLA and Arizona from the other division, so they may have to beat the same team again in the conference title game. They might be the best team in the country, but they have more chances to lose than a lot of other contenders . . .
Stanford -- it's tough for me to shake out the other undefeateds in the Pac-12, but Stanford seems like they're kind of catching their stride after a sketchy start. They play UCLA and UW over the next three weeks anyway, so it will resolve itself soon enough . . .
UCLA -- Not much of a resume, but they play Stanford later in the year than Washington does, so I think they'll be undefeated longer . . .
Washington -- I don't really know much about Washington. I know they beat Boise to start the season, but meh, Boise. Then I know they won at Illinois, but meh, Illinois. Now they beat Arizona. Might they actually be pretty good. They get Stanford this week, so we'll soon know . . .
SEC
Alabama -- The defense looked so bad at A&M, and then pitched a shutout vs. Ole Miss. The offense can't do anything consistently, but it out video-gamed Manziel & Co. and put up 218 yards on the ground in the second half vs. Ole Miss. I don't really know what to think, but I don't think we look that good. This should bring joy to the hearts of those hoping to end the SEC's streak, since we are the only SEC team with a realistic shot of running the table. LSU will be a test, and so will presumably Georgia again in the Title game. We'll probably play some of the other teams closer than we should. I'm looking at you Arkansas . . .
Missouri -- Wow, have they not played anybody! They did beat Indiana worse than Navy did. That's literally all you can say for them at this point . . .
And that's it! Twenty teams left representing eight different conferences. Head to head matchups will whittle that down to at most seventeen by next week, when I'll probably try to start ranking them one to whatever overall . . .
EDIT: Your please smiley has displeased me
I guess the sentiment still kind of works though
AAC
Louisville -- 27-13 at Kentucky is just embarrassing. Win's a win but it sucked all the momentum they had from last year's bowl win over Florida. Very little chance they will lose any remaining games. They get UCF at home in three weeks . . .
Houston -- will not survive at Louisville November 16th, and should probably have dropped three games by then. Still a good chance to get bowl eligible with Memphis, USF and SMU still on the schedule . . .
ACC
Clemson -- I'm putting Clemson ahead of FSU mostly because I don't think Jameis Winston can get through his freshman year unscathed. Plus Clemson already avoided pulling a Clemson at NC State. No way they slip up twice in one year, right
In addition to their Atlantic opponents, SCAR's always a threat on the last weekend of the season . . .FSU -- No real reason they should lose, but I don't think Winston can be consistently great every week. The defense should keep them in every game, but didn't at BC this week, giving up 200 yards on the ground. They play Miami in the regular season, and close at Florida . . .
Miami -- I'm still not buying Miami, though I admit that's still mostly based on my impression from the Florida game. OTOH that's the only real opponent they've played, so what else am I supposed to judge them on . . ?
Maryland -- I'm not sure they should count. They played UConn too close, but then, so did Michigan. They blew out what I assumed was a bad WVU team, but then WVU beat Okie State this week. I don't think they get past FSU this week, but if they do I'll revisit them . . .
Big XII
Oklahoma -- The magic of the round robin schedule will work this one out for us, but right now Oklahoma looks like the team to beat, I guess . . .
Texas Tech -- No way TT survives the whole conference schedule without dropping one, right? I think beating TCU said more about TCU than TT. OTOH, my bartender went to TT, so there's that . . .
Baylor -- The only thing we know about Baylor so far is that they can blow out Buffalo much more convincingly than Ohio State can. They've only played three games over the first five weeks, with their only week off remaining coming before the Thursday night game vs. Oklahoma. Insufficient data
Big Ten
Ohio State -- They win blowouts, they win shootouts, they win close -- what's not to love? The injury to Bryant makes this week at NW maybe their best chance to lose. They shouldn't be tested through most of the Big Ten slate . . .
Michigan -- I don't really have any reason to believe Michigan will or won't win the Legends, but I really really want them and Ohio State to play each other back to back weeks
lz: lz: lz:Northwestern -- Went to Cal and came away with a 14-point win. Unfortunately, Ohio State went to Cal and came away with an 18-point win. So this weekend's matchup would appear to be a forgone conclusion -- OSU by 4
MAC
Northern Illinois -- I have absolutely no idea what chance NIU has to make it through their conference schedule unbeaten, nor can I think of any reason it could matter. Except for that kid with the Heisman campaign. It would matter to him I suppose . . .
Mountain West
Fresno State -- NIU only more (less?) so. Their OOC wins are maybe a little better. Maybe a little better chance to make noise nationally based on the MWC's history as the 'BCS buster' conference. Also, Fresno State didn't get squished in a BCS game last year. OTOH, they just squeaked past Hawai'i by five after giving up twenty unanswered in the fourth quarter . . .
Pac-12
Oregon -- zOMGsrslyerk!1!!!!111 Howdoesanyoneeverstopthem? I actually ask myself that every time I see them, but somehow, someone always seems to. Still, I haven't seen a . They fumbled twice versus Cal, and those were the first two turnovers they've committed this year. To be fair, they really haven't played anyone yet. They get UCLA and Arizona from the other division, so they may have to beat the same team again in the conference title game. They might be the best team in the country, but they have more chances to lose than a lot of other contenders . . .
Stanford -- it's tough for me to shake out the other undefeateds in the Pac-12, but Stanford seems like they're kind of catching their stride after a sketchy start. They play UCLA and UW over the next three weeks anyway, so it will resolve itself soon enough . . .
UCLA -- Not much of a resume, but they play Stanford later in the year than Washington does, so I think they'll be undefeated longer . . .
Washington -- I don't really know much about Washington. I know they beat Boise to start the season, but meh, Boise. Then I know they won at Illinois, but meh, Illinois. Now they beat Arizona. Might they actually be pretty good. They get Stanford this week, so we'll soon know . . .
SEC
Alabama -- The defense looked so bad at A&M, and then pitched a shutout vs. Ole Miss. The offense can't do anything consistently, but it out video-gamed Manziel & Co. and put up 218 yards on the ground in the second half vs. Ole Miss. I don't really know what to think, but I don't think we look that good. This should bring joy to the hearts of those hoping to end the SEC's streak, since we are the only SEC team with a realistic shot of running the table. LSU will be a test, and so will presumably Georgia again in the Title game. We'll probably play some of the other teams closer than we should. I'm looking at you Arkansas . . .
Missouri -- Wow, have they not played anybody! They did beat Indiana worse than Navy did. That's literally all you can say for them at this point . . .
And that's it! Twenty teams left representing eight different conferences. Head to head matchups will whittle that down to at most seventeen by next week, when I'll probably try to start ranking them one to whatever overall . . .
EDIT: Your please smiley has displeased me
I guess the sentiment still kind of works though
I think you're being a little too hard on some of these teams. Oregon went TO UVA and won by a billion, and crushed an at least *okay* Tennessee squad. Holding a very explosive offense like Cal to only 16 points is a significant achievement as well.
I'm inclined to think that Maryland is actually good (good enough to beat FSU or Clemson if they have a bad day), and they just earned the 25 ranking in the AP poll. Advanced stats are very high on Baylor and UCLA. UCLA went TO Nebraska (not an easy place to play btw) and beat the CRAP out of them. That's impressive.
I'm personally not very worried about Northwestern. Their offensive line can be bullied, their major skill players are fighting injuries, and they've not going to get any homefield advantage in Evanston (there are more OSU graduates in Chicago than Northwestern grads, and by a LOT).
Also, Kiffykins is finally gone! I wonder who USC gets, and I wonder if ANYBODY gives Kiffy another chance. I hope he goes to Miami (OH)
Also, if either Fresno or NIU win out, they're going to another BCS Bowl
I'm inclined to think that Maryland is actually good (good enough to beat FSU or Clemson if they have a bad day), and they just earned the 25 ranking in the AP poll. Advanced stats are very high on Baylor and UCLA. UCLA went TO Nebraska (not an easy place to play btw) and beat the CRAP out of them. That's impressive.
I'm personally not very worried about Northwestern. Their offensive line can be bullied, their major skill players are fighting injuries, and they've not going to get any homefield advantage in Evanston (there are more OSU graduates in Chicago than Northwestern grads, and by a LOT).
Also, Kiffykins is finally gone! I wonder who USC gets, and I wonder if ANYBODY gives Kiffy another chance. I hope he goes to Miami (OH)
Also, if either Fresno or NIU win out, they're going to another BCS Bowl
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
On any given Saturday, there are invariably top 25 teams who struggle against lesser opponents. Did you claim any others weren't a "convincing top 25 team"?
I have been lauding UCF for quite a while now. They have an excellent football program and will likely go to a bowl this year. It shouldn't be surprising at all that they almost managed to make a huge upset.
Getting back to targeting, I thought there were two clear incidents later in the day. One was overturned and the other wasn't even called. The NCAA really needs to address this issue.
I'm not sure that Oregon's win over us means that much. We actually have our nastiest defense in years--top 20 I'd guess--but I think we have the worst offense in the BCS. We also have very little home field advantage.
Wrymouth3
Emperor
Absolutely that South Carolina isn't the only non-convincing top 25 team, I realize there are a handful that struggle every week against top 25 teams. The reason I was stating South Carolina is non-convincing is because they look like the most vulnerable of the Top 25 teams besides Notre Dame. For a so-called "national championship team" (Steve Spurrier and Lou Holtz) to almost blow a 20 something point lead in the 4th quarter alone against a pretty awful Vanderbilt team is certainly going to raise some questions. Almost losing to a very good, but not elite/great UCF team is also going to raise some questions. Again, please see what I said about UCF also being good and that could have caused this close upset.
Wrymouth3
Emperor
I imagine a bunch of USC fans are relieved the Kiffin era is over, but let's take time to appreciate the most glorious and douchiest way to get canned from your job: https://twitter.com/InsideUSC/statuses/384313476547485697
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Well, I did say I thought they were the best team in the country, and listed them first in the Pac-12. I also mentioned that I didn't see a racial slur for a Chinese person, but the site deleted it. They were supposed to win by a billion at UVA, Tennessee is a bad, bad football team, and I agree that Oregon's defense doesn't get nearly the credit it should. They perform consistently week to week despite facing tons of possessions from their opponents. But none of that changes the fact that Oregon is always this good, and always seems to slip up. Hopefully this is the year they make it, I'd like to see Alabama/Oregon.
Which reminds me of an Alabama fun fact. Last Thursday a fan asked Saban on his radio show about his short yardage philosophy on offense. Saban said basically whether you run a qb sneak or not, you need to have your qb under center either way so that you can get the ball to the ball carrier faster. He then mentioned how offenses like Oregon's that don't allow the qb to line up under center are at a disadvantage in short yardage and in the shadow of their own end zone for this reason, and specifically referenced plays from Auburn/Oregon that highlighted this deficiency. Then in the Ole Miss game, we got a safety on 1st & 10 from the 1 and stopped them in short yardage on three different series, because Hugh Freeze's offense doesn't have a package where the qb lines up under center. All those national titles and it turns out he's psychic too . . .
I discounted Maryland because I don't think they have a very good chance of getting through the season undefeated. I'm just rating the undefeated teams, so I didn't bother really looking at them since I don't expect them to be here next week. If they prove me wrong, I'll actually research them . . .
Baylor has played Wofford, Buffalo and La-Monroe. I can't get anything from that. UCLA has been impressive and the Nebraska road win is nice, but again they've only played three games so far. Also, they play at both Oregon and Stanford in the regular season, then would have to face one of them again in the Pac-12 title game. I don't give them a good chance to get through their schedule without a loss . . .
Well I didn't say they had a good chance to lose, just that it was their best chance to lose . . .
Poor Kiffin, what did he ever do to anyone? Oh, right, yeah . . .
Sure, there's no way around it. But will either deserve it, and if both win out, who gets the nod . . ?
Finally, CBS had first pick of the SEC slate this week and they went with UGA/Tennessee. Now, it's a fairly weak slate and you can see how they might pass on the best game -- Auburn/Ole Miss -- for teams that will draw more eyeballs, but how do they go UGA/Tennessee over Florida/Arkansas? Florida is great for ratings, and Arkansas' running game has a chance of pulling the upset over a Florida team that can't score. If UGA/Tennessee is close it means we're watching an awful football game by Georgia. I guess they figured viewers like touchdowns . . ?
madviking
north american scum
we lead the nation in 3 and outs forced. take it as you will.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Wrymouth3
Emperor
On that note, I have never seen so much public requests and petitions to get one coach fired as much as Mack Brown this season: http://espn.go.com/college-football...ampbell-calls-texas-longhorns-fire-mack-brown
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
This is essentially why the whole rating system is incredibly suspect and is really not much more than a popularity contest. It leads to many of the top teams only playing a handful of games where their status is in jeopardy. They end up padding their schedule with teams that should disqualify them from even being on any national poll.
Far too much weight is placed on having a perfect or near-perfect win-loss record, while I think it should be based on even contending in matches that really test their capabilities to the fullest. Losses to these teams with similar abilities should negatively affect their rating only minimally, such as swapping places in the ratings. If the other team is ranked higher it shouldn't have any negative effect at all on their ranking. Instead, they should get credit for playing another highly ranked team.
There are some classic examples in this week's rankings. LSU lost 4 positions for losing to a team they were expected to lose to based on the rankings. And Notre Dame fell completely out of the rankings by doing the same along with Wisconsin.
I dunno, I don't see what the big deal is with South Carolina. UCF is pretty good...they were hovering in the low 30s in the AP Poll, they have a likely NFL draft pick at QB, and they were playing at home in the most important regular season game in school history. Vegas only made South Carolina a 7 point favorite. Winning that game by 3 is hardly the worst thing in the world. UCF isn't a cupcake, and winning on the road is hard. .
You'll get no argument from me that the polls are often silly, but thankfully, they don't mean all that much anymore. The AP poll has zero influence on bowl selections, and the Coaches (er...SID) poll is only one element of the BCS selection process. Moving into next season, polls will matter even less, since we shift to a selection committee.
We're still at an early enough part of the season that it's still difficult to evaluate the strength of some of these wins. If we acknowledge the ranking system as broken or inefficient, wouldn't relying on it when determining what a 'good' win is also be broken? Should we use point spreads? Historical data? F+ efficiency stats?
Over the course of the year, this sort of thing typically balances itself out. Setting up football schedules typically happens years in advance, so mismatches are going to happen. Fortunately, thanks to the playoff system, the incentives for major squads to dial down their schedules is decreasing significantly. Other than maybe Florida, I can't think of a major program that isn't scheduling very difficult games for the playoff era.
You'll get no argument from me that the polls are often silly, but thankfully, they don't mean all that much anymore. The AP poll has zero influence on bowl selections, and the Coaches (er...SID) poll is only one element of the BCS selection process. Moving into next season, polls will matter even less, since we shift to a selection committee.
We're still at an early enough part of the season that it's still difficult to evaluate the strength of some of these wins. If we acknowledge the ranking system as broken or inefficient, wouldn't relying on it when determining what a 'good' win is also be broken? Should we use point spreads? Historical data? F+ efficiency stats?
Over the course of the year, this sort of thing typically balances itself out. Setting up football schedules typically happens years in advance, so mismatches are going to happen. Fortunately, thanks to the playoff system, the incentives for major squads to dial down their schedules is decreasing significantly. Other than maybe Florida, I can't think of a major program that isn't scheduling very difficult games for the playoff era.
Kraznaya
Princeps
i wouldnt take anything scott wolf says at face value
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
@DT Florida schedules FSU every year . . .
@Formaldehyde By your own measure, UCF should be a top twenty-five team. You devalue SCAR for playing them close on the road after losing their staring QB in the first series, but you give UCF no credit for their performance in the loss. Their resume was a lot like many other ranked teams this early in the season. They blew out two non-AQ foes before winning by three at Penn State. They were outscoring their opponents 110-38 entering the South Carolina game. The only thing they really have going against them is that their name is 'UCF' instead of 'insert AQ team' . . .
I love college football, so I love the mystique of the undefeated season which is so much a part of its history. And it is very difficult to have an undefeated season, no matter who you play. Remember all those years when Bobby Bowden had the only actual football team in the ACC? Ran it up on everybody every week? He went undefeated exactly once in thirty-four seasons. And a lot of those were eleven and twelve game seasons including the bowl game, not the fourteen game seasons every division champion plays these days.
Reading Formaldehyde's posts, I think he -- like many other college football fans -- would like to see college football model itself after the NFL, with a regular season geared towards parity and then a single elimination playoff system to decide a champion. And they're not alone. Saban has advocated for a system where the top sixty-four teams only play among themselves. He values it because he sees it as a system where no one would ever survive undefeated, and teams would be graded more on their 'body of work' over the season, how they won and lost, quality of wins and losses, etc. Actual win-loss record, while important, wouldn't be decisive. Note that Saban comes from the NFL. But even I admit this is a pretty good idea, if we could keep the playoffs minimized. I'd miss the undefeated seasons, but 126 teams is just silly in a sport where you only play twelve games.
But even if one person were given absolute power to pick the teams, it would be impossible. You'd make mistakes. But that doesn't matter because no one could actually pick with absolute discretion. You'd have to consider current conference affiliations and media footprints and so on. And once you made your picks you'd have a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as your new 64 team league would have all the money, facilities, players, etc., and therefore be better, but they wouldn't have actually earned it. The alternative would be a promotion/relegation system, but then you run into DT's point about making future schedules based on past results. There's no guarantee that the team that was good enough to get promoted last year would be good enough to compete this year. This is particularly true in college with all the player turnover.
But to a degree all of that is beside the point. The question that matters is whether that would actually yield a more entertaining game. The obvious answer is YES!!!, but it's wrong.
Consider first that there would be fewer games. Right now we get about sixty games a week. With half as many teams, we'd get thirty games a week. The games would be more competitive, but Alabama vs. Fresno State (1v64 this week) isn't that much more interesting than Alabama vs. GSU or Fresno State at Idaho (the actual games this week) unless you're a fan of one of the schools involved. Fresno State has a much better chance of upsetting Alabama than GSU, but you wouldn't actually watch the game, you'd just watch the highlights on sportscenter if there was an upset. BTW, the median game of the week would be 32 USC vs. 33 TCU. Would you schedule your Saturday around that? As it is, thanks mostly to tv, we're getting one quality top 25 matchup in each time slot every Saturday. That couldn't happen if the top 25 teams didn't get 'off' weeks vs. weak opponents.
And all that ignores the economic impossibility of all this. The FCS teams require their payday games to stay afloat. Ditto the AQ cellar dwellers and their conference affiliations.
So, okay, that was fun to think about, but how about an actual solution?
Reduce scholarships.
Barrett Jones does a local radio bit every week and he was asked about the difference between playing for Alabama and playing for the Rams. The first thing he said was that the Rams fed him a lot more -- the NCAA limits how much food an institution can give a player, the NFL does not. The second thing he said was that everything was a lot smaller. With only fifty three players on the roster, traveling parties were smaller, weight rooms were smaller, facilities were smaller. The third thing he said is that there was a lot less flash. You've got a draft instead of a signing day, so you don't need to impress anyone.
But let's focus on that second one. Alabama has 85 legally paid players. St. Louis has 53. Why? Back in the day, there wasn't a limit on how many players you could sign. Coach Bryant was famous for signing players he knew would never see the field just so he could keep them away from opponents. Now we have an 85 scholarship limit to combat that. We've recently introduced a 25 scholarship per class limit to discourage institutions from taking risks on marginal academic qualifiers.
Why not bring those down?
If we're going to have 126 schools, what's the harm in spreading the talent out a little bit? How about 60 and 20? 70 and 20? 65? The way I see it it benefits everyone. Fewer football scholarships means fewer compensatory Title IX scholarships, which brings us closer to paying players. Fewer offers means more second tier players starting at second tier schools instead of sitting at contenders. Fewer backups on those contenders means more uncertainty and less ability to deal with injuries and suspensions, and therefore more drama and uncertainty.
I'm a genius! I think the NCAA is going to offer me Emmert's job any second now.
Just waiting on the post to go viral . . .
Oh, it's going to happen, believe me . . .
They're just keeping it all below the radar. Very hush hush. Any second now . . .
@Formaldehyde By your own measure, UCF should be a top twenty-five team. You devalue SCAR for playing them close on the road after losing their staring QB in the first series, but you give UCF no credit for their performance in the loss. Their resume was a lot like many other ranked teams this early in the season. They blew out two non-AQ foes before winning by three at Penn State. They were outscoring their opponents 110-38 entering the South Carolina game. The only thing they really have going against them is that their name is 'UCF' instead of 'insert AQ team' . . .
I love college football, so I love the mystique of the undefeated season which is so much a part of its history. And it is very difficult to have an undefeated season, no matter who you play. Remember all those years when Bobby Bowden had the only actual football team in the ACC? Ran it up on everybody every week? He went undefeated exactly once in thirty-four seasons. And a lot of those were eleven and twelve game seasons including the bowl game, not the fourteen game seasons every division champion plays these days.
Reading Formaldehyde's posts, I think he -- like many other college football fans -- would like to see college football model itself after the NFL, with a regular season geared towards parity and then a single elimination playoff system to decide a champion. And they're not alone. Saban has advocated for a system where the top sixty-four teams only play among themselves. He values it because he sees it as a system where no one would ever survive undefeated, and teams would be graded more on their 'body of work' over the season, how they won and lost, quality of wins and losses, etc. Actual win-loss record, while important, wouldn't be decisive. Note that Saban comes from the NFL. But even I admit this is a pretty good idea, if we could keep the playoffs minimized. I'd miss the undefeated seasons, but 126 teams is just silly in a sport where you only play twelve games.
But even if one person were given absolute power to pick the teams, it would be impossible. You'd make mistakes. But that doesn't matter because no one could actually pick with absolute discretion. You'd have to consider current conference affiliations and media footprints and so on. And once you made your picks you'd have a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as your new 64 team league would have all the money, facilities, players, etc., and therefore be better, but they wouldn't have actually earned it. The alternative would be a promotion/relegation system, but then you run into DT's point about making future schedules based on past results. There's no guarantee that the team that was good enough to get promoted last year would be good enough to compete this year. This is particularly true in college with all the player turnover.
But to a degree all of that is beside the point. The question that matters is whether that would actually yield a more entertaining game. The obvious answer is YES!!!, but it's wrong.
Consider first that there would be fewer games. Right now we get about sixty games a week. With half as many teams, we'd get thirty games a week. The games would be more competitive, but Alabama vs. Fresno State (1v64 this week) isn't that much more interesting than Alabama vs. GSU or Fresno State at Idaho (the actual games this week) unless you're a fan of one of the schools involved. Fresno State has a much better chance of upsetting Alabama than GSU, but you wouldn't actually watch the game, you'd just watch the highlights on sportscenter if there was an upset. BTW, the median game of the week would be 32 USC vs. 33 TCU. Would you schedule your Saturday around that? As it is, thanks mostly to tv, we're getting one quality top 25 matchup in each time slot every Saturday. That couldn't happen if the top 25 teams didn't get 'off' weeks vs. weak opponents.
And all that ignores the economic impossibility of all this. The FCS teams require their payday games to stay afloat. Ditto the AQ cellar dwellers and their conference affiliations.
So, okay, that was fun to think about, but how about an actual solution?
Reduce scholarships.
Barrett Jones does a local radio bit every week and he was asked about the difference between playing for Alabama and playing for the Rams. The first thing he said was that the Rams fed him a lot more -- the NCAA limits how much food an institution can give a player, the NFL does not. The second thing he said was that everything was a lot smaller. With only fifty three players on the roster, traveling parties were smaller, weight rooms were smaller, facilities were smaller. The third thing he said is that there was a lot less flash. You've got a draft instead of a signing day, so you don't need to impress anyone.
But let's focus on that second one. Alabama has 85 legally paid players. St. Louis has 53. Why? Back in the day, there wasn't a limit on how many players you could sign. Coach Bryant was famous for signing players he knew would never see the field just so he could keep them away from opponents. Now we have an 85 scholarship limit to combat that. We've recently introduced a 25 scholarship per class limit to discourage institutions from taking risks on marginal academic qualifiers.
Why not bring those down?
If we're going to have 126 schools, what's the harm in spreading the talent out a little bit? How about 60 and 20? 70 and 20? 65? The way I see it it benefits everyone. Fewer football scholarships means fewer compensatory Title IX scholarships, which brings us closer to paying players. Fewer offers means more second tier players starting at second tier schools instead of sitting at contenders. Fewer backups on those contenders means more uncertainty and less ability to deal with injuries and suspensions, and therefore more drama and uncertainty.
I'm a genius! I think the NCAA is going to offer me Emmert's job any second now.
Just waiting on the post to go viral . . .
Oh, it's going to happen, believe me . . .
They're just keeping it all below the radar. Very hush hush. Any second now . . .
Wrymouth3
Emperor
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/preview?gameId=332780333
Like Spain vs Tahiti in soccer earlier this year, this has to be in the top 5 for most unfair matchups in sports history. Does anyone have a solid idea what the spread on this game is, and is that spread even being nice to GSU?
Like Spain vs Tahiti in soccer earlier this year, this has to be in the top 5 for most unfair matchups in sports history. Does anyone have a solid idea what the spread on this game is, and is that spread even being nice to GSU?
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
I think it opened at 57. I'd say GSU is a pretty safe bet to cover there . . .
In other news, Clinton-Dix is suspended indefinitely. No reason was given, but the rumor is it's an agent issue that will take him out for the year, and that Adrian Hubbard is also at risk. That's just rumor though. We won't really miss him until the LSU game, which is over a month away . . .
In other news, Clinton-Dix is suspended indefinitely. No reason was given, but the rumor is it's an agent issue that will take him out for the year, and that Adrian Hubbard is also at risk. That's just rumor though. We won't really miss him until the LSU game, which is over a month away . . .
Similar threads
