2013 NCAA College Football

[SloverUT]

Look at that kid's face below.  That look doesn't say "we just dropped from 1st seed to 4th or 5th."  It says "we just blew our entire season."   That's what the BCS does.  It demands perfection in every game.  If you're a tOSU fan, your expression at this moment was the exact opposite:  pure, unadulterated joy.  Not "we just went from third seed to second!" joy, but "WE'RE PLAYING FOR THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP!!!!" joy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

Well then that makes two of us, except yours is football and mine is basketball.  I love March Madness, but I might watch 2 regular season NCAA basketball games per year.

With the 4 team playoff Alabama might have been the only team that could have lost a game and had it not end their season.

If FSU/Ohio State/or Auburn lost they would have most likely fallen out of the playoff picture and thus ended their chance at a N.C. game.

So obviously the regular season would still have major implications and be highly competitive.  It isn't as if we are going to have a bunch of teams in the 4 team playoffs with 3 losses.

The only reason Alabama is #4 is because of who they lost too being ranked #4 at the time.  So only 1 team out of hundreds in college football was able to lose a game and manage to stay in the playoff picture.  And that is no different than when one loss teams have won the whole thing via the current BCS system.

Bottom line is the regular season would still be very important and very entertaining because one loss could still put you outside the top 4 easily.

[MS256]

Do any of you keep track of this from week to week?

http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/strength-of-schedule-by-team

I usually check it every week throughout the season. It's interesting to watch the swings after a game.

[SloverUT]

Sorry I can't edit my previous post on phone. I meant Alabama is one of maybe a handful of teams that could lose and remain in the playoff hunt. Also most importantly to me an expanded playoff system would create more quality matchups on a weekly basis so that we don't have saturdays like we just did this year with no good games on tv.

[phan52]

I'm sticking with:

I think four teams is going to be great.

Eight teams might or might not be better (but would most likely benefit my team).*

*My prediction is that with the expanded conferences, and fully expecting Tennessee and Florida to get back to "normal" like Auburn did, going undefeated in the SEC is going to be a very rare occurrence in the future.

That is already the case in a tough conference like the PAC12 and, with a four team playoff, they will always be left out in the cold. Ain't right. If you win a conference like that you deserve to move on. Same with the Big 10 and Big 12. It could be argued that Florida State didn't play enybody of note, but they get style points for burying weak opponents? Is that the way it is supposed to work?

[MS256]

That is already the case in a tough conference like the PAC12 and, with a four team playoff, they will always be left out in the cold. Ain't right. If you win a conference like that you deserve to move on. Same with the Big 10 and Big 12. It could be argued that Florida State didn't play enybody of note, but they get style points for burying weak opponents? Is that the way it is supposed to work?

I'm way too old school for "style points" to figure much at all into my criteria. I'm perfectly content for the starters to be sitting on the bench after the first quarter in a 20 to 0 win, or for a team with a defense and ball control to win every game 10 to 7.

It's why I would never condone putting a one loss team ahead of an undefeated major conference champion (no matter how many close games they had).

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by SloverUT

With the 4 team playoff Alabama might have been the only team that could have lost a game and had it not end their season.

If FSU/Ohio State/or Auburn lost they would have most likely fallen out of the playoff picture and thus ended their chance at a N.C. game.

So obviously the regular season would still have major implications and be highly competitive. It isn't as if we are going to have a bunch of teams in the 4 team playoffs with 3 losses.

The only reason Alabama is #4 is because of who they lost too being ranked #4 at the time. So only 1 team out of hundreds in college football was able to lose a game and manage to stay in the playoff picture. And that is no different than when one loss teams have won the whole thing via the current BCS system.

Bottom line is the regular season would still be very important and very entertaining because one loss could still put you outside the top 4 easily.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SloverUT

Sorry I can't edit my previous post on phone. I meant Alabama is one of maybe a handful of teams that could lose and remain in the playoff hunt.

Also most importantly to me an expanded playoff system would create more quality matchups on a weekly basis so that we don't have saturdays like we just did this year with no good games on tv.  (And I know you don't mean this last weekend.  This might have been the greatest weekend in college football ever.  Top 10 teams struggling for dear life everywhere in marquis matchups.  Oregon.  Bama-Aub.  OSU-Mich.  Baylor-TCU.  Aggy-Mizz.)

I agree with a 4-team playoff.  Actually, I'm most in favor of a +1 where we pick #1 and #2 after the four BCS bowls are played.  But I disagree that a 4-team playoff (or a +1) gets you a true national champion.  To get a true national champion what you're really arguing for is at least 8 teams IOT ensure all of the major conference champions are accounted for, strong conferences get a chance to field 2 teams, and undefeated independents have a shot to appear.

Look at the week 15 rankings for the last several years.  You've got to go out 10 spots to account for small-conference undefeateds.  5 of the last 10 years the #2 team had a loss.  9 of the last 10 years the #3 team had a loss.  That means that those #3-8 spots are going to be occupied by 1 or 2 loss majors, or undefeated minors, every year.

Again, the only way to get even close to a "true champion" is to go out 8 spots minimum.

So what does that mean for Texas, Bama, OU, USC, LSU, etc?  It means that you can have a loss and survive.  How many 1-loss SEC teams have been outside the Top-8 on week 15 in the last 10 years?  I'll bet the answer is 0 or 1.  It means Crabtree's catch in the final seconds of the 2008 Texas-TTU game means nothing, because both teams are still going to the big show.  It means no huge debate and hundreds of articles written about the Big-12 threesome that year.  It means that Auburn-Bama last weekend--though a very good game--doesn't have a national audience hanging on every play because it decides the fate of both the ACC and the Big-10.  BTW how awesome is the SEC ranting going to be this year when there is no SEC representation in the NC game?  The conference that has won 7 straight is going to get shut out this year, even though they might have the 3 best teams in college football?  That makes for very, very interesting football.  If you have an 8-team playoff, then none of that discussion matters, and it's far less interesting.

I like college football, and I really like having interesting things to talk about in college football.  I honestly don't care much at the end of the day who wins the NC (unless it's Texas).  But every single year I get to debate the ins and outs of conferences, and I root for Minnesota over Mich St (even though I care about neither team) because it creates an interesting situation where OSU might get jumped by Mizz (a team I do care about a little) in the race for BCS top-2.

And again, I think there is a lot more to a college football season than having an undisputed Champion in January.  Interestingly my two favorite sports to watch (as measured by my viewing hours) are college football and golf.  Neither of those sports are set up to give you a true "champion" at the end of the season, but that fact doesn't lessen my enjoyment a single bit.

[Golfingdad]

And again, I think there is a lot more to a college football season than having an undisputed Champion in January.  Interestingly my two favorite sports to watch (as measured by my viewing hours) are college football and golf.  Neither of those sports are set up to give you a true "champion" at the end of the season, but that fact doesn't lessen my enjoyment a single bit.

Could not agree more.  Tack onto that the fact that "undisputed champion" means different things to different people, which immediately renders the phrase an oxymoron.  ;) No matter what they do, not everybody will agree its the best way, but that's OK.  College football is awesome to watch and fun to talk about!

[GaijinGolfer]

Of course ND did. They just beat 4 top 25 teams on their way to an undefeated season.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/schedule/_/id/87/year/2012/notre-dame-fighting-irish

I can see you must really hate Ohio State when your copying Brady Hoke by not using the word "State".

Here's the thing, you can n ot know for sure they are better. That is subjective. Can you say one team is more deserving, Yes. You can not say one team is BETTER. Until they play each other, you don't know. Even then, do you think Alabama is not a better team than Auburn. Of course Alabama is the better team, not on that night, but they are a more complete team. Loosing one game doesn't make a team better, it just means they were on that night. If we all assumed that beating a team makes them a better team, than there should be no underdogs.

Well Northern Illinois is ranked number 2 in one of the computer rankings. So someone thinks that their season has proven they should be considered a top 5 team, at least by the production on the field.

Well that is what a lot of OSU players were saying on the bus back to Columbus. Then Philly Brown got up and shut them all up telling them they have one more game to go. Good sign for OSU, they got some leaders who don't let the team get carried away. That would have been bad if they let that simmer for a few days and got relaxed, but the had their 15 30 seconds of excitement and refocused.

I love college basketball. NBA can go rot for all I care, it's horrible. NCAA is the way to go. I'll watch every OSU game. I will try to catch all the Duke versus NC games as well. I watch as many March Madness games as I can.

I call Ohio State, "Ohio" because I think its funny that Ohio fans get all bent out of shape about it.  My main argument against people who say Ohio is deserving is style points.  If you want to be considered a top team, you need to bury average teams and Ohio hasnt done that.  They barely beat Northwestern and Wisconsin and even against some of the worst teams in the B1G, they didnt win comfortably and it wasnt until the final minutes of the game that they sealed the deal.  When you struggle against Iowa, you arent a BCS championship team.

[saevel25]

I call Ohio State, "Ohio" because I think its funny that Ohio fans get all bent out of shape about it.  My main argument against people who say Ohio is deserving is style points.  If you want to be considered a top team, you need to bury average teams and Ohio hasnt done that.  They barely beat Northwestern and Wisconsin and even against some of the worst teams in the B1G, they didnt win comfortably and it wasnt until the final minutes of the game that they sealed the deal.  When you struggle against Iowa, you arent a BCS championship team.

Doesn't bother me. Its a rivalry thing, I get it. I just find it funny that a non- ichigan fan is using it.

[Golfingdad]

If you want to be considered a top team, you need to bury average teams and Ohio hasnt done that.

Except for the fact that you are 100% wrong here, I'd say you are correct ... because Ohio STATE (I'm not an OSU fan, but you referring to them by the name of another actual school is still annoying) is absolutely considered a "top team" by those who matter.  They are currently ranked #2 and deservedly so.

They barely beat Northwestern and Wisconsin and even against some of the worst teams in the B1G, they didnt win comfortably and it wasnt until the final minutes of the game that they sealed the deal.  When you struggle against Iowa, you arent a BCS championship team.

Again, except for the fact that they are one win away from being in the BCS championship game, then I guess you are right.  But, for humors sake, if not OSU, who besides FSU is a BCS championship team?

Auburn?  - The team that LOST to LSU by 2 touchdowns?  The team that needed a hail mary fluke to beat Georgia?  The team that snuck by Alabama with the help of several missed field goals and another miracle finish?

Or how about Alabama?  The team that just LOST to aforementioned Auburn?

Missouri maybe?  The team that LOST to South Carolina?  (Who, by the way, lost to Tennessee and Georgia)

Or Oklahoma State?  The team that LOST to West Virginia?  West Virginia!!

You see the theme here???  All of these other teams LOST games.  They didn't "struggle" to WIN a game.  Well, actually, they all had struggles here and there, but these teams( and NOT Ohio State) also all lost.  They freakin' LOST !!!

When there are multiple teams from power conferences** that are undefeated and everybody else has lost, then those teams are "not BCS championship teams."  (Until next year ;))

I think the consensus is that the AAC is the weakest of the AQ's, and then the Big 10 is probably next, although that is still debatable.  Could be the ACC or could even be the Big 12.  Regardless, winning all of your games in one of those top 5 conferences (not counting the AAC) means something.

[k-troop]

Except for the fact that you are 100% wrong here, I'd say you are correct ... because Ohio STATE (I'm not an OSU fan, but you referring to them by the name of another actual school is still annoying) is absolutely considered a "top team" by those who matter.  They are currently ranked #2 and deservedly so.

Again, except for the fact that they are one win away from being in the BCS championship game, then I guess you are right.  But, for humors sake, if not OSU, who besides FSU is a BCS championship team?

Auburn?  - The team that LOST to LSU by 2 touchdowns?  The team that needed a hail mary fluke to beat Georgia?  The team that snuck by Alabama with the help of several missed field goals and another miracle finish?

Or how about Alabama?  The team that just LOST to aforementioned Auburn?

Missouri maybe?  The team that LOST to South Carolina?  (Who, by the way, lost to Tennessee and Georgia)

Or Oklahoma State?  The team that LOST to West Virginia?  West Virginia!!

You see the theme here???  All of these other teams LOST games.  They didn't "struggle" to WIN a game.  Well, actually, they all had struggles here and there, but these teams( and NOT Ohio State) also all lost.  They freakin' LOST!!!

When there are multiple teams from power conferences** that are undefeated and everybody else has lost, then those teams are "not BCS championship teams."  (Until next year ;))

I think the consensus is that the AAC is the weakest of the AQ's, and then the Big 10 is probably next, although that is still debatable.  Could be the ACC or could even be the Big 12.  Regardless, winning all of your games in one of those top 5 conferences (not counting the AAC) means something.

For all your examples, I'd say that Bama and Mizz have the strongest arguments that they deserve to be ahead of OSU based on resume.

These losses aren't all that damaging:

Mizz lost to SoCar in 2OT in the middle of a stretch of ranked opponents, and SoCar is ranked #8 in the nation after a full season.

Bama lost to the team that's now #3, after a full season of football.  They lost on a fluke last-second play and on the road.  The biggest factors that push Bama down are losing late in the season, and not being eligible for their own conference championship game.

The BCS is probably getting it wrong this year.  I think that the SEC, a team with 7 straight NCs and 3 of the best 5 teams in college football this year, deserves to have a shot at the national title if "true champion" is what you're looking for.

[Golfingdad]

For all your examples, I'd say that Bama and Mizz have the strongest arguments that they deserve to be ahead of OSU based on resume.

These losses aren't all that damaging:

Mizz lost to SoCar in 2OT in the middle of a stretch of ranked opponents, and SoCar is ranked #8 in the nation after a full season.

Bama lost to the team that's now #3, after a full season of football.  They lost on a fluke last-second play and on the road.  The biggest factors that push Bama down are losing late in the season, and not being eligible for their own conference championship game.

The BCS is probably getting it wrong this year.  I think that the SEC, a team with 7 straight NCs and 3 of the best 5 teams in college football this year, deserves to have a shot at the national title if "true champion" is what you're looking for.

Yeah, based on the research I did to write that post, I'd probably agree ... and give Missouri the edge over Bama.

The main point, though, is that you can't just dismiss an undefeated Ohio State team because you feel like it.  (Nevermind the fact that "you" are a Wisconsin fan.  I'm sure that has nothing to do with it ;))

Its fun to debate all of this (with some people ;) ... not so much with others) but it would be just as fun if the playoffs started this year.  On that note, lets assume that OSU and FSU win their title games this weekend and that the other OSU beats Oklahoma.  Whoever wins between Mizz and Auburn is taking the third playoff spot and the other team is definitely out.

That leaves Alabama and Oklahome State as the remaining two teams vying for the 4th slot.  Who should get it?  The team that lost once to a shitty non-conference opponent early in the season?  Or the team that lost once and didn't even make their league championship game?

See?  No solutions ... just different problems. ;)

[Phil McGleno]

Come on @Golfingdad -When have you ever known the facts to get in the way of an @GaijinGolfer argument.He is just under pressure isnce he lives in the belly of the beast now-a-days-Maybe an OSU fan once insulted @Mizuno.

[phan52]

For all your examples, I'd say that Bama and Mizz have the strongest arguments that they deserve to be ahead of OSU based on resume.

These losses aren't all that damaging:

Mizz lost to SoCar in 2OT in the middle of a stretch of ranked opponents, and SoCar is ranked #8 in the nation after a full season.

Bama lost to the team that's now #3, after a full season of football.  They lost on a fluke last-second play and on the road.  The biggest factors that push Bama down are losing late in the season, and not being eligible for their own conference championship game.

And Ohio State didn't lose to anybody. That trumps them all. Hell, they've won 24 straight games.

The BCS is probably getting it wrong this year. I think that the SEC, a team with 7 straight NCs and 3 of the best 5 teams in college football this year, deserves to have a shot at the national title if "true champion" is what you're looking for.

Nobody "deserves" anything. They have to earn it. "3 of the best 5 teams in college football" all lost, and not all to each other.

Just win, baby.

[dsc123]

I think its hard to argue against OSU.  Sure the big 10 is down, but its not like they play in a minor conference.  24-0 is impressive anyway you cut it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/urban-meyer-teaches-marcus-hall-and-his-teammates-the-wrong-lesson/2013/12/03/4374918a-5c22-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html

[k-troop]

And Ohio State didn't lose to anybody. That trumps them all. Hell, they've won 24 straight games.

Nobody "deserves" anything. They have to earn it. "3 of the best 5 teams in college football" all lost, and not all to each other.

Just win, baby.

True.  Auburn lost to #15 ranked LSU.  Bama lost to #3 ranked Auburn.  And Mizzou lost to #8 ranked SoCar.  And those are all end-of-season rankings.  All three teams lost to other SEC teams ranked higher than any opponent OSU has faced, and with better resumes than OSU.

So it's one thing to say just win, but what does that mean when "winning" isn't a leveling achievement?

Again, the BCS is probably getting it wrong this year.  But I'm not arguing that the BCS needs to be changed.  I don't care if OSU vs. FSU is a true national championship game.  It's going to be a good game.  And the discussion that gets us there is even better than that.

[Golfingdad]

True.  Auburn lost to #15 ranked LSU.  Bama lost to #3 ranked Auburn.  And Mizzou lost to #8 ranked SoCar.  And those are all end-of-season rankings.  All three teams lost to other SEC teams ranked higher than any opponent OSU has faced, and with better resumes than OSU.

So it's one thing to say just win, but what does that mean when "winning" isn't a leveling achievement?

Again, the BCS is probably getting it wrong this year.  But I'm not arguing that the BCS needs to be changed.  I don't care if OSU vs. FSU is a true national championship game.  It's going to be a good game.  And the discussion that gets us there is even better than that.

I tend to agree with Phan on this.  Nobody "deserves" anything, they have to earn it.  Or, if I put it another way ... OSU "deserves" to not be discredited just because their opponents aren't as good as they, perhaps, should be.  That is not their fault.  Or perhaps its not even their opponents fault.  Perhaps they aren't as "bas" as we're making them out to be at all ...

The other, and perhaps better, argument is your argument as to how the rankings are so circular.  Go look at the preseason rankings ... which, remember are based on a sophisticated analysis of  ... wait, what am I saying.  They're based on absolutely NOTHING!  Complete and total guesses, using previous seasons results and percentage of returning players and coaches as the basis for those guesses, but they are guesses nonetheless.  This season there were 6 SEC teams ranked in the Top 12, and there was one Big 10 team.  You flip those numbers around and since all the teams in all of the leagues just beat up on each other, then we're talking about how strong of a conference the Big 10 is, and how weak the SEC is.

[saevel25]

I tend to agree with Phan on this.  Nobody "deserves" anything, they have to earn it.  Or, if I put it another way ... OSU "deserves" to not be discredited just because their opponents aren't as good as they, perhaps, should be.  That is not their fault.  Or perhaps its not even their opponents fault.  Perhaps they aren't as "bas" as we're making them out to be at all ...

The other, and perhaps better, argument is your argument as to how the rankings are so circular.  Go look at the preseason rankings ... which, remember are based on a sophisticated analysis of  ... wait, what am I saying.  They're based on absolutely NOTHING!  Complete and total guesses, using previous seasons results and percentage of returning players and coaches as the basis for those guesses, but they are guesses nonetheless.  This season there were 6 SEC teams ranked in the Top 12, and there was one Big 10 team.  You flip those numbers around and since all the teams in all of the leagues just beat up on each other, then we're talking about how strong of a conference the Big 10 is, and how weak the SEC is.

Isn't that the truth. You have preseason rankings, which put majority of the SEC in the top 25. Then they beat up on each other, and people proclaim, "OH they faced top 25 opponents each weak".

There is a term for that in poker, its called STACKING THE DECK.