NCAA Football 2019

[dennyjones]

6 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

Here are some I'm really looking forward to. 

LSU-Alabama (LSU's prior wins v. Florida and Auburn well-noted and why LSU is my personal No.1 at the moment)

OSU-Penn State

Alabama-Auburn

OSU-TTUN (Frightening after the pounding they put on Notre Dame)

Georgia-Auburn

LSU over Alabama - close game

That team down south over Penn State - not as close as most people think

Alabama over Auburn- not close

That team down south over Michigan - not close (Michigan is still over rated)

Georgia over Auburn - close game

[klineka]

17 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

College football is so top heavy that people always insist on comparing what teams got creamed by who. It's what the sport, unfortunately, leaves us with for a large part of the season. To me, it's a waste of effort. Arguing about whether a win against Cincinnati is more impressive than Southern Miss or Duke is silly.

I strongly disagree. You can use numbers and facts about Cincinnati and Southern Miss (or whoever) and determine which team is stronger. Just because college football is top heavy doesn't mean all the teams outside of the top are the same. Just like any other sport, there are levels amongst all the teams playing.

Cincinnati is not an elite team, but OSU beating a now 20th ranked and 7-1 Cincinnati 42-0 should 100% without a doubt be considered a more impressive win than LSU beating a now 4-4 Utah State 42-6, or Clemson beating a now 4-5 UNC 21-20, or Alabama beating a 2-7 Arkansas 48-7.

17 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

I'll admit that I thought the Buckeyes' game with Wisconsin was going to be a much closer affair that it turned out. Can't read too much into that now.

Why does the fact that the game wasn't close mean you can't read too much into it? Isn't it possible that OSU is truly that good? 

Does the fact that the Clemson-UNC game came down to the final play mean you can read more into that game since it was close?

Edited November 7, 2019 by klineka
Removed extra words

[mcanadiens]

2 minutes ago, klineka said:

I strongly disagree. You can use numbers and facts about Cincinnati and Southern Miss (or whoever) and determine which team is stronger. Just because college football is top heavy doesn't mean all the teams outside of the top are the same. Just like any other sport, there are levels amongst all the teams playing.

You can look at numbers and facts from the various teams' conquests. You can order them, sort them, project them or use them to pick lottery numbers. 

The teams outside the top are not the same, but what difference is that going to make? Is Ohio State going to be just gushing with confidence because they beat a relatively strong Cincinnati team? Do you think that Alabama's 41-10 win against Fresno State was just what that team needed to handle LSU on Saturday?

I want to see what the big boys do when they are playing another big boy team. You can pretty much throw these little strength-of-schedule comparisons out the window at that point.

 

 

 

[klineka]

1 minute ago, mcanadiens said:

The teams outside the top are not the same, but what difference is that going to make?

It makes a huge difference when comparing two teams with identical records and determining which one should be ranked higher.

It makes a huge difference when only 4 teams make the college football playoff and often times there are 3-4+ teams with identical records trying for the same 1 or 2 spots. 

4 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

I want to see what the big boys do when they are playing another big boy team. You can pretty much throw these little strength-of-schedule comparisons out the window at that point.

Based on your logic the only games that should be played are between elite teams. That's nonsense. 

[Vinsk]

28 minutes ago, klineka said:

Cincinnati is not an elite team, but OSU beating a now 20th ranked and 7-1 Cincinnati 42-0 should 100% without a doubt be considered a more impressive win than LSU beating a now 4-4 Utah State 42-6, or Clemson beating a now 4-5 UNC 21-20,

Right. But wins have to be evaluated as well. Clemson dropped a spot for barely beating UNC. You don’t just get a free pass if you win, or you shouldn’t. Cincinnati barely beat a miserable ECU team yet held their spot. They were blown out by OSU. Not only are they not elite, they’re ....nothing. You can’t get blown out by an elite team AND squeak by a cupcake and hold your position. 

[saevel25]

Just now, Vinsk said:

Right. But wins have to be evaluated as well. Clemson dropped a spot for barely beating UNC. You don’t just get a free pass if you win, or you shouldn’t. Cincinnati barely beat a miserable ECU team yet held their spot. They were blown out by OSU. Not only are they not elite, they’re ....nothing. You can’t get blown out by an elite team AND squeak by a cupcake and hold your position. 

Position where at? How far down would you bump them? 5 spots? So what, that still makes them a 30 to 25th ranked team. It’s not like they should be dropped 40 spots or something. 

Ranking changes are not linear when comparing the top teams versus the good teams. One loss can drop you out of the top 10.  Which makes sense when the top teams are outliers. 

[mcanadiens]

2 minutes ago, klineka said:

It makes a huge difference when only 4 teams make the college football playoff and often times there are 3-4+ teams with identical records trying for the same 1 or 2 spots. 

 

And that's the biggest problem with college football.

We pick playoff teams with a system that is part statistical analysis and part popularity contest. So we make these tiresome strength-of-schedule comparisons as if any of it is still relevant to which team is actually better today.

If we just have a playoff of conference champions, everything could get decided on the field and nobody would give a rat's butt whether Youngstown State is stronger that The Citadel.

5 minutes ago, klineka said:

Based on your logic the only games that should be played are between elite teams. That's nonsense. 

Never said anything like that. 

College football programs large and small should play as many games as they want to. Ideally, they generate some revenue for those universities. Hopefully the students, faculty and the population at large enjoy the games. They can even play in the middle of the week (like my alma mater is going to) so that they can get that coveted spot on ESPNU network. 

Especially in Division I college football, I'd hope most programs aren't pinning their hopes on winning a national championship.

  

 

 

[Vinsk]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Position where at? How far down would you bump them? 5 spots? So what, that still makes them a 30 to 25th ranked team. It’s not like they should be dropped 40 spots or something. 

Ranking changes are not linear when comparing the top teams versus the good teams. One loss can drop you out of the top 10.  Which makes sense when the top teams are outliers. 

Well for the numbers types it can matter. If two elite teams are virtually equal and they’re looking for a deciding number, how well these ‘good teams’ are that the elites beat can matter. On paper we see Cincinnati as 7-1. But winning by 3 against total slop doesn’t have the weight of WVU beating KU by 21 for example.  It’s similar to ‘padding a resume.’ I’m not impressed at all by Cincinnati just like I’m not impressed with Baylor despite them having a better record than Cincinnati.

[rehmwa]

2 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

If we just have a playoff of conference champions, everything could get decided on the field and nobody would give a rat's butt whether Youngstown State is stronger that The Citadel.

 

Always a fan of this one.  I think it would also do much to drive up the quality of the 2nd tier conferences - with the visibility and opportunity here, good talent would have a more legit reason to consider other conferences than just ACC/SEC/B12/B10

3 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

 I’m not impressed with Baylor despite them having a better record than Cincinnati.

I hate Baylor

[klineka]

17 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

We pick playoff teams with a system that is part statistical analysis and part popularity contest. So we make these tiresome strength-of-schedule comparisons as if any of it is still relevant to which team is actually better today.

If we just have a playoff of conference champions, everything could get decided on the field and nobody would give a rat's butt whether Youngstown State is stronger that The Citadel.

I think that it would be fine to have a playoff of conference champions as long as there is some sort of wild card slot just like the MLB and NFL have, since almost every year in college football there are multiple elite teams coming out of the same conference that would smoke conference champions from other conferences.

If the top 4 teams in the country are from 2 conferences, I dont think it would make sense to have only 2 of those teams make the playoffs.

Based on your logic of only the conference champions making the playoffs, that would mean that 4 out of the current top 8 ranked teams in the college football playoff rankings would make the playoffs because the other 4 couldnt be conference champs. That's not right. If only the conference champs made the playoffs, that would, in some cases, mean that some conference championship games would matter more and decide more than the playoff games would.

27 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

Never said anything like that. 

But you said that true title contenders only play 2-3 meaningful games a season, and you don't see a point in discussing or comparing wins outside of those games played between elite teams, so then what's the point of playing those other games if they dont mean anything and don't tell us anything about how good/bad the teams are?

[mcanadiens]

6 minutes ago, klineka said:

Based on your logic of only the conference champions making the playoffs, that would mean that 4 out of the current top 8 ranked teams in the college football playoff rankings would make the playoffs because the other 4 couldnt be conference champs. That's not right. If only the conference champs made the playoffs, that would, in some cases, mean that some conference championship games would matter more and decide more than the playoff games would.

Yeah. It probably would mean exactly that. 

The loser of the SEC Championship this year will likely be stronger than a number of teams that would make it. That conference championship game may be more competitive than a playoff game between, say, the SEC champ and the PAC-10 champ for instance. I'd rather see the PAC-10 team get their opportunity and get stomped then to have some computer formula preclude the idea that they could possibly even win.

Secondly, if you don't even win your conference championship, do you really deserve to be a national champion? ... Why? Because you got hot in the playoffs?

16 minutes ago, klineka said:

But you said that true title contenders only play 2-3 meaningful games a season, and you don't see a point in discussing or comparing wins outside of those games played between elite teams, so then what's the point of playing those other games if they dont mean anything and don't tell us anything about how good/bad the teams are?

There have surely got to be a lot better reasons to play a football game then whatever bearing it may have on the national championship. Bowling Green, for example, is currently playing a 12-game schedule that has absolutely nothing to do with who makes the playoffs. They find it worth their time for some reason. 

 

 

[klineka]

7 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

The loser of the SEC Championship this year will likely be stronger than a number of teams that would make it. That conference championship game may be more competitive than a playoff game between, say, the SEC champ and the PAC-10 champ for instance. I'd rather see the PAC-10 team get their opportunity and get stomped then to have some computer formula preclude the idea that they could possibly even win.

But it's not a computer formula anymore, it's people who have a defined set of criteria they use to rank the teams. In pretty much every other major sport, the top X teams make the playoffs regardless of if they won their division or conference.

3 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

Secondly, if you don't even win your conference championship, do you really deserve to be a national champion? ... Why? Because you got hot in the playoffs?

Yes... That quite literally happened to the Washington Nationals this season in the MLB. They didn't win their division but still won the World Series. I haven't heard anyone saying they are undeserving champions.

[mcanadiens]

16 minutes ago, klineka said:

But it's not a computer formula anymore, it's people who have a defined set of criteria they use to rank the teams. In pretty much every other major sport, the top X teams make the playoffs regardless of if they won their division or conference.

Yes... That quite literally happened to the Washington Nationals this season in the MLB. They didn't win their division but still won the World Series. I haven't heard anyone saying they are undeserving champions.

Right. It isn't even a computer formula. It's goofballs voting. Even better. ... You seemed to be championing the more analytical approach to things so I wrote "computer formula", but "people who have a defined set of criteria" is probably worse.

As far as the Washington Nationals and their World Series go ... At least gaining a wildcard in the MLB or NFL is based on wins and losses on the field. Nobody gathered in a little room and decided the Nationals were going to make the playoffs instead of the Mets or Pirates or the Reds (Ha-Ha). The Nationals outperformed all the other teams that did not make the playoffs on the field.

I'm old, so I remember the old West and East Divisions, with one NL Championship Series and then the World Series. That would be my preference, but those baseball guys like money, so there it is.

 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by mcanadiens
Cards made playoffs. Shows what I know.

[BamaWade]

15 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

At least gaining a wildcard in the MLB or NFL is based on wins and losses on the field. Nobody gathered in a little room and decided the Nationals were going to make the playoffs instead of the Mets or Pirates or the Reds (Ha-Ha). The Nationals outperformed all the other teams that did not make the playoffs on the field.

The thing with that, though, is that the professional leagues are a limited number of *generally* equal-opportunity teams, with standardized schedules and conferences/divisions that make win-loss records a fair determinant for playoff fields.

In college football, you have 130+ teams with wildly different ceilings, resources, definition of "student"-athletes, etc., who self-schedule (to some degree) into ~12 game seasons.  Already, too much variance for a W-L or statistically-based model.  That's without even considering conferences, and their unregulated design, their exposure, their $$$, etc.

All in all, there's just no "fair" way to cram the reasonable contenders into 4 spots with stats and numbers (if at all).  And so what can you do besides rely on a subjective system, and go with the "diverse committee determines the four best teams" approach, which by nature relies on as much "eye test" as data?

  And yet, somehow, I actually think the committee has shown to have gotten it right through the CFP years so far.  And I promise there isn't any Bama Bias behind my opinion .

[Vinsk]

15 minutes ago, BamaWade said:

The thing with that, though, is that the professional leagues are a limited number of *generally* equal-opportunity teams, with standardized schedules and conferences/divisions that make win-loss records a fair determinant for playoff fields.

In college football, you have 130+ teams with wildly different ceilings, resources, definition of "student"-athletes, etc., who self-schedule (to some degree) into ~12 game seasons.  Already, too much variance for a W-L or statistically-based model.  That's without even considering conferences, and their unregulated design, their exposure, their $$$, etc.

All in all, there's just no "fair" way to cram the reasonable contenders into 4 spots with stats and numbers (if at all).  And so what can you do besides rely on a subjective system, and go with the "diverse committee determines the four best teams" approach, which by nature relies on as much "eye test" as data?

  And yet, somehow, I actually think the committee has shown to have gotten it right through the CFP years so far.  And I promise there isn't any Bama Bias behind my opinion .

This Is kinda where I’m at. OSU was given ( earned?) a playoff spot when they were having a good season just like they usually do in 2016. What happened? Clemson literally humiliated them. 31-0. Yet the very same arguments made in this thread were made for them then. Then comes 2017 and they lost to Iowa and even then it’s ‘ let’s not count OSU out yet!’ Had OU lost to Iowa late in the season..done. Zero chance to make the Playoffs. Same thing again in 2018...Not only did OSU lose to Purdue late in the season, but OU destroyed them at their own field. Yet despite this there were still Big10 talking heads suggesting OSU should get a spot before OU. Huh? Here we are again and OSU is at the top. No question they’ll stay in the top four unless they totally drop the ball ( which they’ve done two years straight.)  I can certainly see why nobody wants to talk about the history....

So here it is again. I’m really excited to see how it pans out. Numbers, charts...blah blah. Put up or shut up. Once OSU plays a team of the top four caliber then and only then will we know if they’re up to the hype they’ve been given. I want to see good football first and foremost which is why I’m fine with OU dropping. They don’t have the defense to be a top four team and losing to KSU just won’t cut it. IMO OSU won’t have any problem with PSU or Michigan. LSU, Alabama or Clemson? Big trouble for them.

[klineka]

3 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

This Is kinda where I’m at. OSU was given ( earned?) a playoff spot when they were having a good season just like they usually do in 2016. What happened? Clemson literally humiliated them. 31-0. Yet the very same arguments made in this thread were made for them then. Then comes 2017 and they lost to Iowa and even then it’s ‘ let’s not count OSU out yet!’ Had OU lost to Iowa late in the season..done. Zero chance to make the Playoffs. Same thing again in 2018...Not only did OSU lose to Purdue late in the season, but OU destroyed them at their own field. Yet despite this there were still Big10 talking heads suggesting OSU should get a spot before OU. Huh? Here we are again and OSU is at the top. No question they’ll stay in the top four unless they totally drop the ball ( which they’ve done two years straight.)  I can certainly see why nobody wants to talk about the history....

Like has been mentioned to you multiple times in this thread, what does any of that have to do with the 2019-2020 season?

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, klineka said:

Like has been mentioned to you multiple times in this thread, what does any of that have to do with the 2019-2020 season?

Seriously.

[saevel25]

6 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

This Is kinda where I’m at. OSU was given ( earned?) a playoff spot when they were having a good season just like they usually do in 2016. What happened? Clemson literally humiliated them. 31-0.

Actually, I never considered that a humiliating loss for OSU. If you consider that Clemons held the ball for 35 minutes and only scored 31 points. When that team had Deshaun Watson as the QB! Watson had more INT's than TD's. If OSU had any semblance of offense that year they hang with Clemson. I will also say that OSU should not have been in the college playoff that year. 

9 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Then comes 2017 and they lost to Iowa and even then it’s ‘ let’s not count OSU out yet!’ Had OU lost to Iowa late in the season..done. Zero chance to make the Playoffs.

Maybe OU needs to have better PR? 

Also, ESPN has to make some news about it. Why not sell OSU has an option. They have to talk about something. 

10 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Same thing again in 2018...Not only did OSU lose to Purdue late in the season, but OU destroyed them at their own field. Yet despite this there were still Big10 talking heads suggesting OSU should get a spot before OU.

Again, B10 has to sell a team for the playoff. They wouldn't be doing their due diligence otherwise. Why does this upset you so much? 

11 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

So here it is again. I’m really excited to see how it pans out. Numbers, charts...blah blah. Put up or shut up. Once OSU plays a team of the top four caliber then and only then will we know if they’re up to the hype they’ve been given.

They did, they crushed Wisconsin. 

12 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

LSU, Alabama or Clemson? Big trouble for them.

Why? 

OSU has a top 5 defense and top 5 offense. They have played a tougher schedule than Alabama and have a higher scoring margin. Again, you are basing your opinions on past seasons. You have nothing to back up this claim except your own distain for OSU.