ummmm........
Extremely normal.
The kind of game I imagine that being, the margin of victory may be respectable even if it's not really that close . . .
2016 NCAA football thread
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
Looks like Houston hired Major Applewhite, the former Texas QB. Which is hilarious, considering Texas hired Houston's head coach to create the vacancy in the first place.
I wonder how Alabama vs. the Cleveland Browns would shake out. College rules.
I wonder how Alabama vs. the Cleveland Browns would shake out. College rules.
Cleveland beats Alabama like Alabama would beat a high school team. There is simply too much of a talent gap between the best college team and the worst NFL team for a college team to ever be able to beat an NFL team. You have to remember that even the worst NFL team is filled with the absolute elite from the ranks of college football. Not to mention, a lot of them are seasoned veterans playing against the other elite players from college. There is not a college team out there that could compete with that.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Yeah, the college team has no chance, though it's not from lack of talent. You have to remember that the number of first round picks on an NFL roster is necessarily limited, while the number of first round picks on a college roster are not. But the professional team consists of grown men while the college team features 18-22 year olds. Also, the professional team is more, uh, professional -- not just stronger but more skilled, more disciplined, more experienced. Every advantage that can be attributed to training would favor the professional team . . .
I'd like to see Western Michigan put on a good show. Not necessarily win, but the fan of the underdog in me wants it to at least be close.
And while Commodore's argument for why the Browns would win is solid, this is still the Browns we are talking about. They're so good at losing even when they should win that it's impressive. If FCS Appalachian State can beat #5 Michigan in 2007, I'm sure it's possible that a college team could beat the Browns. Maybe not any other NFL team, but the Browns... I wouldn't put it past them to lose.
I think a lot of people thought neither team was the best in the conference, and quite a few people probably thought neither team was the second-best in the conference either.
Going into the conference championship, you could plausibly rank the teams as follows (in the AP poll, it was OSU-Michigan-Wisconsin-Penn State):
1. Ohio State. Beat Michigan and three other strong teams, close loss to Penn State.
2. Michigan. Convincingly beat Penn State, beat Wisconsin, one other strong team; lost in very close game to Ohio State and close to Iowa (8-4).
3. Penn State. Beat Ohio State, but in a close game; lost out-of-conference to Penn (8-4) and by a lot to Michigan.
4. Wisconsin. 0-2 against the other three, although close.
So if Washington had lost, it wouldn't have been crazy for the selection committee to pick Alabama-Clemson-Ohio State-Michigan, given how close the OSU-Michigan game was this year. The prestige of a conference championship would've made it unlikely, but it would still have made some sense, particularly as the Big Ten Championship game was fairly close - about the margin you'd expect if you thought the above was the rankings going in.
Now, if Penn State had beat Wisconsin 59-0 like Ohio State beat Wisconsin in the Big Ten Championship in 2014, that would've made a case for overlooking their 49-10 loss to Michigan in September, and that perhaps they really were the best team. At that point, the committee would've had to seriously consider whether they were a 2-loss team that had improved enough to warrant selection over a 1-loss team (and the 2-loss team that had beat them by 39). But much as no one really expected that in 2014, I don't think anyone really expected it this year, either, hence the TV numbers.
If there were 8 teams in the playoff, I'd pick Penn State as one of them, but I'd also pick Michigan as one of them. I can't put them above any of the ones picked as top 4 though.
And while Commodore's argument for why the Browns would win is solid, this is still the Browns we are talking about. They're so good at losing even when they should win that it's impressive. If FCS Appalachian State can beat #5 Michigan in 2007, I'm sure it's possible that a college team could beat the Browns. Maybe not any other NFL team, but the Browns... I wouldn't put it past them to lose.
I think a lot of people thought neither team was the best in the conference, and quite a few people probably thought neither team was the second-best in the conference either.
Spoiler Analysis of teams' strengths/weaknesses :
Going into the conference championship, you could plausibly rank the teams as follows (in the AP poll, it was OSU-Michigan-Wisconsin-Penn State):
1. Ohio State. Beat Michigan and three other strong teams, close loss to Penn State.
2. Michigan. Convincingly beat Penn State, beat Wisconsin, one other strong team; lost in very close game to Ohio State and close to Iowa (8-4).
3. Penn State. Beat Ohio State, but in a close game; lost out-of-conference to Penn (8-4) and by a lot to Michigan.
4. Wisconsin. 0-2 against the other three, although close.
So if Washington had lost, it wouldn't have been crazy for the selection committee to pick Alabama-Clemson-Ohio State-Michigan, given how close the OSU-Michigan game was this year. The prestige of a conference championship would've made it unlikely, but it would still have made some sense, particularly as the Big Ten Championship game was fairly close - about the margin you'd expect if you thought the above was the rankings going in.
Now, if Penn State had beat Wisconsin 59-0 like Ohio State beat Wisconsin in the Big Ten Championship in 2014, that would've made a case for overlooking their 49-10 loss to Michigan in September, and that perhaps they really were the best team. At that point, the committee would've had to seriously consider whether they were a 2-loss team that had improved enough to warrant selection over a 1-loss team (and the 2-loss team that had beat them by 39). But much as no one really expected that in 2014, I don't think anyone really expected it this year, either, hence the TV numbers.
If there were 8 teams in the playoff, I'd pick Penn State as one of them, but I'd also pick Michigan as one of them. I can't put them above any of the ones picked as top 4 though.
Last edited:
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Penn State lost to Pitt, not Penn, which is not an irrelevant distinction ;p
And my point was that Penn State/Wisconsin was a much better football game. I watched more of that game than Alabama/Florida, and I'm an Alabama fan . . .
And my point was that Penn State/Wisconsin was a much better football game. I watched more of that game than Alabama/Florida, and I'm an Alabama fan . . .
It may have been a better game, but I think it just boils down to Alabama and Florida both having much larger fan bases than Wisconsin and Penn State.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Happy Bowl Day everybody 
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Spoken like a fan of a lesser sport . . .
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Okay, this one is hard to get up for . . .
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Six Alabama players in the pro bowl . . .
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
First ranked team plays today, hopefully piquing the interest of some of the more casual fans of our sport . . .
Did you see Saban's little rant about how the playoff has made other bowl games meaningless? Apparently he went on that little tangent while commenting about McCaffrey deciding not to play in Stanford's bowl game in order to protect himself from injury and continue training for the NFL.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
I haven't watched it but I'm familiar with the sentiment. He makes the same argument about winning the SEC. And he's not alone. Most of the sport's 'insiders', regardless of how they feel about the playoff or whether it should or will expand at least recognize what it has cost us in terms of the devalued regular season and bowl games . . .
Those extra bowl games do need to disappear though. I mean, what's the point of playing in a "post season" bowl game if you aren't really playing for anything. Any non-playoff or non-BCS title game prior to the switch to the playoff was just a glorified exhibition game. Fans and players alike have both figured this out and simply don't care about those bowl games anymore. That's why we are now seeing players skip out on those games and attendance and TV ratings for those games are plummeting. People want to see games that actually have something at stake besides simple "tradition" or "rivalry". I mean hell, this is the first season I can remember in a long time where not every bowl game was being televised.
Of course, I don't think the bowl games would have fallen out of favor with the fans and players if they didn't add so many. Back when it was only 6 bowl games, it was more exciting but now the market is simply over-saturated with 40 bowl games and 80 of the 128 teams in FBS making it. People also tend to lose interest when there are so many bowl slots that teams with losing records get to play in them. If that doesn't scream "meaningless game", I don't know what does.
Basically, I think Saban is right that bowl games have become meaningless, but I think he's wrong in saying it's because of the playoff. I think this trend of declining interest in extra bowl games has been building for a while now, it just so happens to be coming to a head right as the playoff was implemented, so it just seems like it's the playoff that killed the bowl season. I think the same thing that is killing the bowl season in college football is the same thing that is killing the NFL right now: greed and the over-saturation that comes from it. College football got super huge and all of a sudden everyone wanted a piece of the pie and now there's no pie left.
Of course, I don't think the bowl games would have fallen out of favor with the fans and players if they didn't add so many. Back when it was only 6 bowl games, it was more exciting but now the market is simply over-saturated with 40 bowl games and 80 of the 128 teams in FBS making it. People also tend to lose interest when there are so many bowl slots that teams with losing records get to play in them. If that doesn't scream "meaningless game", I don't know what does.
Basically, I think Saban is right that bowl games have become meaningless, but I think he's wrong in saying it's because of the playoff. I think this trend of declining interest in extra bowl games has been building for a while now, it just so happens to be coming to a head right as the playoff was implemented, so it just seems like it's the playoff that killed the bowl season. I think the same thing that is killing the bowl season in college football is the same thing that is killing the NFL right now: greed and the over-saturation that comes from it. College football got super huge and all of a sudden everyone wanted a piece of the pie and now there's no pie left.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
I agree that the playoffs have hurt the other bowls . . .
I agree that the BCS hurt the other bowls before that . . .
I agree that the proliferation of bowls hurt the already existing bowls before that . . .
And I agree that teams with losing records shouldn't be going to bowl games. I'm not super excited about teams with even records going to bowl games either . . .
But one thing I do like about the increase in the number of bowls is that it gives the G5 teams an opportunity for a nice game to end the season. In the past, you could go 10-2 and win your G5 conference and then you could sit home and watch all the 7-5 P5 teams play in the bowl games. It is nice that now everyone that deserves a chance at a bowl gets one, even if it means lots of teams that don't deserve it get it too . . .
Another thing I like about the bowls is just that they're there. They're like the NFL playoffs -- it might be crap football, but it's all I've got left before an eight month drought so I'm willing to give it a look . . .
And it is good that more bowls means more teams get bowl practice. In the past, it was easier for elite teams to stay elite bc they got extra practice time every year and the lesser teams could never make it up . . .
And a lot of the time bowls are really fun football, even if they're not really good football. The Potato Bowl, for example. Score thirty-six fourth quarter points and still lose by eleven? Sure, why not . . ?
But none of that has anything to do with players sitting out their final bowl game, which I'm totally fine with. I'm fine with the players on the playoff teams sitting out too, if they want. Pretty much any time there is an issue of what a player wants and what someone else wants, I'm going to side with the player bc they get screwed all along the line until they finally get paid in the NFL, if they get paid in the NFL. So how could anyone not side with them? I don't really care what their coaches have to say about it either, unless all they have to say is 'thanks'. The only people who are entitled to an opinion about it other than the player sitting are that player's teammates, and even then it's between them and that player, doesn't have anything to do with me . . .
I agree that the BCS hurt the other bowls before that . . .
I agree that the proliferation of bowls hurt the already existing bowls before that . . .
And I agree that teams with losing records shouldn't be going to bowl games. I'm not super excited about teams with even records going to bowl games either . . .
But one thing I do like about the increase in the number of bowls is that it gives the G5 teams an opportunity for a nice game to end the season. In the past, you could go 10-2 and win your G5 conference and then you could sit home and watch all the 7-5 P5 teams play in the bowl games. It is nice that now everyone that deserves a chance at a bowl gets one, even if it means lots of teams that don't deserve it get it too . . .
Another thing I like about the bowls is just that they're there. They're like the NFL playoffs -- it might be crap football, but it's all I've got left before an eight month drought so I'm willing to give it a look . . .
And it is good that more bowls means more teams get bowl practice. In the past, it was easier for elite teams to stay elite bc they got extra practice time every year and the lesser teams could never make it up . . .
And a lot of the time bowls are really fun football, even if they're not really good football. The Potato Bowl, for example. Score thirty-six fourth quarter points and still lose by eleven? Sure, why not . . ?
But none of that has anything to do with players sitting out their final bowl game, which I'm totally fine with. I'm fine with the players on the playoff teams sitting out too, if they want. Pretty much any time there is an issue of what a player wants and what someone else wants, I'm going to side with the player bc they get screwed all along the line until they finally get paid in the NFL, if they get paid in the NFL. So how could anyone not side with them? I don't really care what their coaches have to say about it either, unless all they have to say is 'thanks'. The only people who are entitled to an opinion about it other than the player sitting are that player's teammates, and even then it's between them and that player, doesn't have anything to do with me . . .
Yeah, I agree with this. While I am against the idea of college players getting paid, I also think that means the player doesn't really owe the university anything and should act in their own best interest, not the best interest of the university or the team. So yeah, if a star player who is definitely going to the NFL wants to sit out to protect themselves from injury and prep for the NFL, I'm completely fine with that. Hell, even if they just want to sit out because they don't feel like playing football anymore, I'm fine with that too.
College bowl games (the non-NY6 ones) seem a bit like the NFL Pro Bowl to me.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
S-E-C! S-E-C! S-E-C ! ! !
I mention this now bc it's probably the last time this bowl season we'll be over .500
I mention this now bc it's probably the last time this bowl season we'll be over .500
