2014 NCAA Football

[saevel25]

Nothing is 100% certain.   But you knew that and you also know that you really have no clue whether they can continue to play at the level they have done this year either, so your argument is no more "legit" than his.

What we do know is, Barrett's replacement has 17 attempts and less than 120 yards all season in game conditions.   The fact Urban had to tell everybody his name at the post game presser is pretty telling about how much experience he has up to now.  Maybe OSU comes out next weekend and plays just as good or better than Barrett and if that is the case then you can argue your point and whether or not OSU is just as good and deserves a place in the top 4.   But as of now, OSU just lost a guy responsible for 34 touchdowns and replaced him with a guy responsible for 2.   Say what you want but when you change QB's, you change the make up of that team if for no other reason than the change in production and experience (there is always a reason the backup is the backup).  Bottom line is the OSU team that will take the field next Saturday is NOT the same team they were this time last week and they should not be ranked this week as if they are.

Barrett's replacement was brought into run down the clock. Not much need to actually throw the ball.

The point is that a team in their final game could lose their QB and do not have the chance OSU has. What if OSU had lost Barrett in the 4 quarter against Wisconsin in the title game. Should they be penalized because of an injury? I do not think a team should be. If a team looks bad winning a game, if a team loses a game. These are things that should ding a team in the standings, not penalties.

In the end, I think the team should be given the benefit of the doubt and given the opportunity to play in the playoffs not taking into consideration penalties. To me if a team earns the spot on the field they earn their spot in the playoffs.

Look at Ohio State, lost Barrett. Michigan was keeping the game close, and besides that last TD were OSU was playing prevent, they dominated Michigan with out Barrett when he left the game. Teams step up.

---

This is the major point we disagree on.  The question is "who is the best team?"  OSU is either better than they were last week, worse, or exactly the same.  There are no other options.  Odds that they're exactly the same quality team are statistically very low.  So, are they better or worse?  It's a guess.  You have to use known facts, and make reasonable inferences based on assumptions.

You may conclude that OSU is better without their star quarterback because they've got a new better stud on the bench.  To believe that, you'd also have to believe:

1.  Urban Meyer is making eleventy hundred million dollars per year and doesn't know who his best quarterback is.

2.  Urban Meyer is making eleventy hundred million dollars and has been benching his best quarterback.

3.  People who make odds in Vegas don't care about money.

I don't believe any of those things.  I assume that OSU has been playing their best QB all season.  The dude who broke records.  I further assume that if the head coach had a better QB on the team, that dude would have been playing.  And I think the Vegas peeps will agree with me until OSU proves they're still just as good, which they very well may do next week against Wisc.

I didn't conclude they were better. I am saying you can't assume they would be worse off, or that the drop would be significant enough to warrant them outside the top 4. In certain situations a team wouldn't be able to prove themselves because they could be out of games. This makes for conflicting situations.

Of course Urban knows, he knew Braxton was his guy. Braxton got hurt, did he know that JT would go out and produce a year he did. No, you never know until the guy gets the reps and actually gets into the game. Yet again, if a guy is out in the last game you will never know. I don't think it is fair to penalize the whole team who made it that far.

This is really a tangential point, but I'll make it anyway.  Saying Big-12 teams should be disadvantaged in front of the committee is BS.  It's a logical reason (the 13 wins vs. 12), but it's still BS.  And this is exactly the same argument my O-HI-O buddies used to make before the expansion when the final BCS rankings came out.  "We get disadvantaged because we haven't played in several weeks.  It's not our fault the Big-10 doesn't have a conference championship game."

Why not, it is one extra win versus a quality opponent. One game is huge. One game could mean one extra loss. In that case if OSU loses the final game next week they shouldn't drop because that was one extra game they played that TCU didn't.

I never believed that BS about waiting. They have practices, manage the time better. I hated that argument and I am an OSU fan.

[teamroper60]

Barrett's replacement was brought into run down the clock. Not much need to actually throw the ball.

The point is that a team in their final game could lose their QB and do not have the chance OSU has. What if OSU had lost Barrett in the 4 quarter against Wisconsin in the title game. Should they be penalized because of an injury? I do not think a team should be. If a team looks bad winning a game, if a team loses a game. These are things that should ding a team in the standings, not penalties.

In the end, I think the team should be given the benefit of the doubt and given the opportunity to play in the playoffs not taking into consideration penalties. To me if a team earns the spot on the field they earn their spot in the playoffs.

Look at Ohio State, lost Barrett. Michigan was keeping the game close, and besides that last TD were OSU was playing prevent, they dominated Michigan with out Barrett when he left the game. Teams step up.

First, to address the italicized parts...   I didn't see this game.  I saw highlights and read some stuff online.

You are trying to convince me that with a 7 point lead in the middle of the 4th quarter, in a rivalry game against a team that , as you put it, "was keeping it close", your coach was just trying to run down the clock?  Really?  That doesn't sound like a smart strategy if you really believe the team is just as good with this backup as they were with Barrett.     Furthermore, if I recall correctly, OSU got a rushing touchdown (that, according to the highlights I saw was real close to a tackle at the line of scrimmage) and recovered a fumble to get the two scores that happened with the replacement in the game.   That doesn't on face value sound like domination to me but again, I didn't see the game..

On to the other highlighted comment...   Benefit of the doubt is not what the committee is after.   They are attempting to come up with the best 4 teams.   So they are going to have to take a lot of things into consideration and yes, the loss of a key player is one of the things they have to look at.   Given that all three teams ranked 4-6 are very close, it would be anything BUT fair to give "benefit of the doubt" to a team that loses it's star, over another team who hasn't and thus is a known commodity.

BTW, according to those Sagarin rankings you seem so fond of (updated to reflect yesterday's results), every team currently above OSU in the CFB rankings is also above OSU in those rankings as well.  Correct me if I am wrong (and admittedly I don't know for sure) but those rankings don't reflect injuries or benefit of the doubt either.

And it is complete BS to say if they lose next week they shouldn't drop.    Losing would be absolute proof they should drop as  they clearly will not be the same quality of team that won the other games.    You can stop talking about logic and reason now because you have resorted to just being a homer and grasping at straws...

[saevel25]

On to the other highlighted comment...   Benefit of the doubt is not what the committee is after.   They are attempting to come up with the best 4 teams.   So they are going to have to take a lot of things into consideration and yes, the loss of a key player is one of the things they have to look at.   Given that all three teams ranked 4-6 are very close, it would be anything BUT fair to give "benefit of the doubt" to a team that loses it's star, over another team who hasn't and thus is a known commodity.   BTW, according to those Sagarin rankings you seem so fond of (updated to reflect yesterday's results), every team currently above OSU in the CFB rankings is also above OSU in those rankings as well.  Correct me if I am wrong (and admittedly I don't know for sure) but those rankings don't reflect injuries or benefit of the doubt either.

I have no problem with OSU being left out if the committee believe the other teams considered did more to warrant the better ranking. I am not arguing for OSU. I arguing against the use of injury to keep a team out of the playoff. Really to me sports has always been, you compete to win and to prove yourself through winning that you can reach the playoffs. Still winning is winning. Never have I seen in sports a team being excluded from a playoff due to an injury. Heck why not drop a MLB team if their star pitcher blows his elbow right before the playoffs. It's just stupid sounding. Only in NCAA football will you get such stupidity. That would be like saying if Lebrun got hurt in the last game of the regular season the Heat should be dropped from the playoffs. Really, why does it sound stupid when talking about other sports, but not NCAA football.

[teamroper60]

I have no problem with OSU being left out if the committee believe the other teams considered did more to warrant the better ranking. I am not arguing for OSU. I arguing against the use of injury to keep a team out of the playoff.

Really to me sports has always been, you compete to win and to prove yourself through winning that you can reach the playoffs. Still winning is winning. Never have I seen in sports a team being excluded from a playoff due to an injury. Heck why not drop a MLB team if their star pitcher blows his elbow right before the playoffs. It's just stupid sounding.

Only in NCAA football will you get such stupidity.

That would be like saying if Lebrun got hurt in the last game of the regular season the Heat should be dropped from the playoffs. Really, why does it sound stupid when talking about other sports, but not NCAA football.

Because in all of those cases, the teams are not picked by a committee or some computer, they get there by qualifying.  You don't see weekly rankings on them either, just wins/losses.   Thanks for making my point that the ranking system should be eliminated and the playoffs should be limited to conference champions!

BTW, the baseball analogy isn't a good one.   No pitcher at the MLB level pitches every game and in fact, it is very rare for them to pitch a complete game.    QB's typically play every game and every offensive snap unless they game is out of reach..

[saevel25]

Because in all of those cases, the teams get there by qualifying to be there.   They are not picked by a committee or some computer.   Thanks for making my point that the playoffs should be limited to conference champions!:beer:

Conference champs doesn't mean qualified. No one would agree Georgia Tech is more qualified than FSU if they beat them in the ACC championship game.

[teamroper60]

Conference champs doesn't mean qualified. No one would agree Georgia Tech is more qualified than FSU if they beat them in the ACC championship game.

Ok then, let's just forget the whole playoff system and hand the trophy to FSU now.  Would that satisfy you?   After all, they are the only undefeated team in FBS.   Why bother playing anymore games if beating them doesn't make you deserving of being called champion.   Qualified means you met a set of specified criteria, as opposed to some objective criteria that seems to shift each week on the whims of some committee.  Furthermore, saying that a GT team that beats FSU in the conference championship game wouldn't deserve to move on in a champions only playoff is absolutely dumb.  That is like saying the 6 loss New York Giants didn't deserve to be Super Bowl Champs after beating the previously undefeated Patriots (who had also beaten the Giants during the regular season).    Ludicrous.

[saevel25]

Ok then, let's just forget the whole playoff system and hand the trophy to FSU now.  Would that satisfy you?   After all, they are the only undefeated team in FBS.   Why bother playing anymore games if beating them doesn't make you deserving of being called champion.   Qualified means you met a set of specified criteria, as opposed to some objective criteria that seems to shift each week on the whims of some committee.  Furthermore, saying that a GT team that beats FSU in the conference championship game wouldn't deserve to move on in a champions only playoff is absolutely dumb.  That is like saying the 6 loss New York Giants didn't deserve to be Super Bowl Champs after beating the previously undefeated Patriots.    Ludicrous.

Nope, I'm talking about who gets to play in the playoffs, not crowning the nation champs. The NYG did, they ended up 9-7, they where still the Sixth best team overall in the NFC. So they were actually good enough to make the playoffs even with out the division winner requirements. They would have been in, let's say they took the best six teams by record in the NFC.

[teamroper60]

Nope, I'm talking about who gets to play in the playoffs, not crowning the nation champs.

The NYG did, they ended up 9-7, they where still the Sixth best team overall in the NFC. So they were actually good enough to make the playoffs even with out the division winner requirements. They would have been in, let's say they took the best six teams by record in the NFC.

But we are talking about crowning a national champ.   You have to be in the playoff to have a chance to win the NC.   So who gets in and why is very important.   Leaving that up to a beauty contest or other bias is what is wrong with the current system.   Set up specific criteria and eliminate the polls and human bias altogether.   You think OSU should be in there regardless of the fact they are on their third string QB.   Many disagree.   Ultimately, it could be decided based on a guess made by a committee.   But the Giants got into those playoffs because the NFL has a specific criteria for determining who is in.   Everybody knows what that criteria is and what they have to do to be in the playoffs.   No beauty contest, no human bias, no guess about future performance.

There are 8 times as many teams in FBS as the NFL, so we can't really stand to have wild card teams as there could be way too many teams with identical records and no real definitive system to choose who should be in among those.  Since the object should be to elminate the beauty contest or bias that is inherent is a system where the participants are chosen by potentially shifting criteria, we restrict it to conference champs, which also limits the field to a manageable number.  No need for polls until the season is over (and that would only be for seedings if there were multiple champs with identical records).  Hell, we could even consolidate conferences and come up with just 8 (there are 128 teams, which divides up evenly to eight 16 team conferences), leaving you with the 8 team playoff you want.   Problem solved and injury or not, OSU would be in the playoff if they beat Wisconsin, even if that meant their punter had to play QB in the playoffs.

[trickyputt]

If you think about it, this new playoff system is able to encompass 100% more teams into a formalized playoff than the system was able to handle previously. There are still all the entertainment bowls at the lower levels so too much change has not occured. And Bama is just finding now itself with the unusual (for Bama anyway) dual threat QB. I hope that this system produces the best teams as contenders, because Bama is headed toward peak performance at the right time for this inaugral playoff.

[saevel25]

If you think about it, this new playoff system is able to encompass 100% more teams into a formalized playoff than the system was able to handle previously. There are still all the entertainment bowls at the lower levels so too much change has not occured. And Bama is just finding now itself with the unusual (for Bama anyway) dual threat QB. I hope that this system produces the best teams as contenders, because Bama is headed toward peak performance at the right time for this inaugral playoff.

It would be hilarious to watch them crash and burn :)

ROLL!!! OVER BAMA!!

[smellysell]

@saevel25 Seems like our views of the B1G championship are equally biased (I'm a Michigan fan)! Haha Should be a good game, Go Badgers!

[Golfingdad]

1.  Urban Meyer is making eleventy hundred million dollars per year and doesn't know who his best quarterback is.

2.  Urban Meyer is making eleventy hundred million dollars and has been benching his best quarterback.

3.  People who make odds in Vegas don't care about money.

I don't believe any of those things.  I assume that OSU has been playing their best QB all season.  The dude who broke records.  I further assume that if the head coach had a better QB on the team, that dude would have been playing.  And I think the Vegas peeps will agree with me until OSU proves they're still just as good, which they very well may do next week against Wisc.

For the record, I still think the whole argument you guys are having is silly because we will get to see first hand this weekend what OSU looks like with their next QB.

But I do have to take exception with this argument.  If Braxton Miller didn't get hurt at the beginning of the year, then he would still be the QB.  And based on what we know now (and only know because he got hurt) the answer to all of your hypotheticals above is exactly the opposite of what you think.  They would have had a great QB but would have been using a Heisman trophy candidate as a clipboard holder.

Seeing as how they "lucked" into finding out just how good Barrett is ... how can you make the argument that it's not possible for the exact same thing to happen again?

Certainly it's highly unlikely, but you can't say it's not possible.

BTW, I haven't read it yet, but this is the ESPN cover story right now: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/page/BMOC141201/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-punish-ohio-state-injury

[k-troop]

For the record, I still think the whole argument you guys are having is silly because we will get to see first hand this weekend what OSU looks like with their next QB. But I do have to take exception with this argument.  If Braxton Miller didn't get hurt at the beginning of the year, then he would still be the QB.  And based on what we know now (and only know because he got hurt) the answer to all of your hypotheticals above is exactly the opposite of what you think.  They would have had a great QB but would have been using a Heisman trophy candidate as a clipboard holder. Seeing as how they "lucked" into finding out just how good Barrett is ... how can you make the argument that it's not possible for the exact same thing to happen again? Certainly it's highly unlikely, but you can't say it's not possible. BTW, I haven't read it yet, but this is the ESPN cover story right now: [URL=http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/page/BMOC141201/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-punish-ohio-state-injury]http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/page/BMOC141201/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-punish-ohio-state-injury[/URL]

It is silly, and I've conceded a few times that OSU has a chance to prove they are still in the discussion after the QB switch. So i agree with that part. But right now, Monday December 1st 2014 it's a mystery. We're predicting how the loss will affect OSU. So we have to go with what's more likely. It's far more likely that the kid coming off of the bench won't play as well. He doesn't have the reps or the big game experience. The fact that he wasn't playing represents the coaches' collective judgment that he wasn't as good.

[saevel25]

It is silly, and I've conceded a few times that OSU has a chance to prove they are still in the discussion after the QB switch. So i agree with that part.

But right now, Monday December 1st 2014 it's a mystery. We're predicting how the loss will affect OSU. So we have to go with what's more likely. It's far more likely that the kid coming off of the bench won't play as well. He doesn't have the reps or the big game experience. The fact that he wasn't playing represents the coaches' collective judgment that he wasn't as good.

Wasn't as good does not mean significant drop off. Lets not forget that Jones was the 2nd string QB with about a 2 weeks left in summer practice before the season. Barrett edged him out late and won the starting role.

How does that equate to in season performance, no clue. It isn't like there was a huge separation in running the offense during the pre-season. I'm not saying Barrett hasn't just blew past Jones. To me at least there is some history of Jones actually being as good as or better than Barrett in practice before the season. Shows he does have his own abilities that make the offense run at a good level.

---

It will be interesting to see how the offense changes. The primary differences between the two is that Jones if 4" taller, and about 25 lbs heavier. He is less accurate, but he is a better runner. He looks to be faster than Barrett, long legs that can eat up a lot of space. He also has a stronger arm than Barrett. He's not as shifty as Braxton. I would say he's in that Pryor mold, maybe a better passer than Pryor, but not as good of a runner.

My guess Urban will rely on the rushing game more. Probably more of the Braxton Miller playbook.

Lots of rushing attacks that go after A gap, with some mis-direction counter plays that attack the B & C gaps. Then I'd probably see a good helping of Jet Sweeps or Options to the edge. Try to force the front seven of Wisconsin to cover a lot of ground horizontally in the run game. Then I see some play action with taking shots with vertical routes.

If the O-line blocks the same, I don't see much drop off in production in the run game. OSU has demolished teams with running the ball upwards of 60-70%. I'm not sure if that is a good thing or not for Ohio State.

Lets say it plans out like this, Ohio State 45, Wisconsin 21.

Lets say Ohio State rushes for 350 yards, and only passes for 150 yards. Yet they didn't prove that Jones can match Barrett's production in the passing game. Maybe Jones has an average rushing game compared to Barrett.

Does that hurt Ohio State, or does it prove that there was that much depth supporting Barrett that allowed him to have his break out season? Maybe Ohio State is that good of a team they can lose Barrett and still dominate a game.

Should Jones have to match Barrett's production? Does he need to be Barrett 2.0?

This is why I am a bit confused on the rationale behind the Injured player logic. Do they need to have a guy who fits the exact mold he is replacing, or does the team just have to step up and win a good game? Winning a good game doesn't necessarily prove that the Jones plays at the same level as Braxton. Then is it fair to punish Ohio State for winning a good game just because they found a different way to win it, h ypothetically?

[Golfingdad]

My guess is Ohio State is going to be 5th this week, behind Alabama, Oregon, FSU and TCU.

Followed by two other teams that still have a realistic shot at the playoff: Baylor and Arizona.  Everybody else is (for most intents and purposes) out of the conversation.

I feel like Alabama is going to win and lock up that 1 seed, and TCU is going to win and lock up their ticket.  Certainly if OSU or Baylor impresses this weekend they could pass them, but I'm guessing they won't.

The intriguing issues are what happens if Oregon or FSU loses.

If FSU loses, then things can get really juicy depending on the OSU and Baylor outcomes.  If Baylor looks good and beats K-State and OSU squeaks by Wisconsin, then what?  Or if OSU loses?  Is Florida State still in the conversation or do they go with 2 Big 12 teams?

If Oregon loses, then I would contend that the outcome of that is a little easier:  Arizona deserves that spot.  They have a 10 point road loss to a good UCLA team, and a 2 point home loss (and not that it really matters, but it included not one, but two kicker-icing last second timeouts.  The kind where the play still runs.  And in both cases - one as time expired for halftime and one as time expired at the end of the game - he made the first one and then missed the second.)  Besides those 2 losses - and at least the UCLA one falls into the "good" category - they will have a big win over ASU and TWO huge wins over Oregon.  I feel like that is enough to propel them past past the others UNLESS ... Ohio State impresses against Wisconsin.  If they win and look good doing so, nobody is passing them and they'll fill any spot that is vacated in front of them.

[mcanadiens]

Baylor jumped OSU in the AP poll for what it's worth. Who knows what those guys do tomorrow, but Wisconsin is what's important right now.

I'll remain optimistic that Jones will do ok. He hasn't had a lot of snaps in live action, but he's a sophomore, got a ton of practice time with Braxton out and should know the playbook solid. My bigger concern lies with the Buckeye defense. Watching them just over the last 3 weeks against Minnesota, Indiana and TTUN, has me worried. From what I've seen, there hasn't been much pressure on opposing quarterbacks. Receivers seem to have a lot of room to work against the secondary and that seems to be opening up more running room in turn.

Supposing OSU does beat Wisconsin, they ought to get some consideration. Still, I hate to think what an Alabama or Oregon would do to them if they get there.

[Golfingdad]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11964184/big-12-present-tcu-baylor-co-champions

I think that is smart of the league, to simply say that TCU and Baylor are co-champions.  It completely nullifies the whole "but they didn't win their conference" argument that people have been preparing towards TCU.

In an ideal world, the Big 12 also has a championship game like the other 4 conferences, so they are all basically on the same footing.

[saevel25]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11964184/big-12-present-tcu-baylor-co-champions

I think that is smart of the league, to simply say that TCU and Baylor are co-champions.  It completely nullifies the whole "but they didn't win their conference" argument that people have been preparing towards TCU.

In an ideal world, the Big 12 also has a championship game like the other 4 conferences, so they are all basically on the same footing.

To me, you either go Big 12's route and say, we are going to have our teams play and you pick from the results. We won't name a champion. If they want to live with that, then they have to live with the fact that other teams play more more game that is taken into consideration and that is a risk we are taking because our best team could lose one more game.

It sounds to me like Big-12 is conceding that point, and they are trying to diminish the importance of a conference champion. Yet the committee has already stated they take into consideration conference championship game results. So really, if the other 4 conferences are willing to take the risk in having their two best teams, or their only best teams play each other for a title, then they should be rewarded for that win.