2014-2015 College Football Discussion Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

That's not crazy, that's how it should be. That's the entire point of having a committee that assesses every team, not just mindless computers that are only allowed to factor in wins and losses.

Florida State is undefeated, but they haven't played at a level that makes them obviously one of the top 2 teams in the country. Guess what! They're still in, right now. And I'm pretty confident that if they continue to go undefeated, they'll continue to be in.

Unlike, say, Marshall, who can go undefeated but doesn't have a likely chance, even if they blew out Southern Miss by practically the same score Alabama did. :D

---

They are still winning though and have done for quite a long time. Ugly, amost...still wins.

Not even sure if the argument "all they need to do is keep winning and they will be fine" even matters because you know Alabama will keep climbing if they win and it's obvious that a 1 loss team can pass an undefeated team. Should Alabama win against Mississippi State I don't see them dropping any lower than 4. And Alabama would likely be included in the 4 then...atleast with the line of thinking the committee is using.

Just needs to be more than 4 teams I think. Top seeds go to teams who win their major conference. Others are left for debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by souljahbill

The playoffs should be 16.

Every conference champ gets in automatically to give little guys a chance and wild cards to fill out the rest. You'll still need a committee, the regular season still matters (because winning conference is automatic), and you'll still need a good resume when compared to teams with similar records.

---

I don't think the little guys deserve an automatic bid. The winner of the MAC would be a bottom feeder at a big boy conference. Four teams is plenty imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy

I don't think the little guys deserve an automatic bid. The winner of the MAC would be a bottom feeder at a big boy conference. Four teams is plenty imo.

---

I bet that's what Oklahoma was thinking vs. Boise St.

By that logic, why do we even have playoffs in other sports? We can just put the 2 best records in the championship right after the season ends. Why do we need 64 teams (or 68 or whatever it is) in the NCAA tournament? What's the point of 1/2 the team's even playing football if only the Power 5 matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skipwondah33

Just needs to be more than 4 teams I think.

---

1) There's still plenty of time (and upsets) to come. The season tends to work itself out, at least in terms of eliminating undefeated teams :D
2) A year ago at this time FSU would be out of the BCS NCG. It's progress that we now have 4 teams to debate.

Everyone, both pro-playoff expansion and against, needs to keep in mind that the FCS championship began with four teams in 1978. It now has 24. March Madness started in 1939 with 8 and now has 68. Expansion is inevitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by souljahbill

I bet that's what Oklahoma was thinking vs. Boise St.

By that logic, why do we even have playoffs in other sports? We can just put the 2 best records in the championship right after the season ends. Why do we need 64 teams (or 68 or whatever it is) in the NCAA tournament? What's the point of 1/2 the team's even playing football if only the Power 5 matter?

---

That's exactly my point. The NCAA basketball tournament is largely a farce for TV money. We don't need 68 teams. Playoffs are far more about money that what is right in virtually every sport. Large playoffs completely cheapen the regular season, particularly in sports where teams can get in with a record of .500 or less. I'm not interested in giving a 9-7 NFL team a shot at the title even if it means the Dolphins sit at home. It's unimpressive and ugly when 8 seeds in the NHL make strong runs at the Cup. I hate it. A true champion dominates the regular season imo.

I was on record saying that I liked the BCS. It was hard to pick the best two sometimes largely because schedule strength is so different. I do like 4 but want no more than that.

I like the NBA, Baseball and NHL models of having to beat a team more than once to advance. Though unrealistic for Football.

Even if teams get in with weak records it works itself out. Sure the Giants weren't as sexy as the Patriots the year they ruined the perfect season...but they were by all accounts the better team and did what no one did all that season..which was harass and hit Brady all game.

Just think selection committees leave room for human error. I like simple wins and losses method.

If that happened in the NFL some of the past champions wouldn't have even been in the playoffs to win the SB because they wouldn't have been worthy by a committee (Giants, Ravens to name a few).

One thing I haven't heard much this year is debating over who is #1 in college football. There is some chatter but normally at this time of the year that discussion is very heated and passionate. It was a HUGE debate. Same went for BCS busters. People were on the edge of their seats watching a lot of November games knowing how huge they were. It doesn't have the same feel this year. Bama loses and "Oh well. They won't need help, just win the SEC title game and you are back in no problem." I loved the pressure the BCS put on teams to go undefeated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy

One thing I haven't heard much this year is debating over who is #1 in college football. There is some chatter but normally at this time of the year that discussion is very heated and passionate. It was a HUGE debate. Same went for BCS busters. People were on the edge of their seats watching a lot of November games knowing how huge they were. It doesn't have the same feel this year. Bama loses and "Oh well. They won't need help, just win the SEC title game and you are back in no problem." I loved the pressure the BCS put on teams to go undefeated.

---

Yep

I've heard more talk about teams losing early or in general and still being ok to make it in.

That was near insane during the BCS to say that so confidently. I know it still happened but I've heard it explained differently this year. Oregon losing wouldn't have had a shot over some of these other teams when it was the computers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by souljahbill

I bet that's what Oklahoma was thinking vs. Boise St.

---

We were saying F this matchup. If we win we were supposed to, if we lose people would still be bringing it up in 2014. Now had it been a playoff game, that gives OU a bit more motivation.

I am hoping it jumps to 8 at some point, 4 is a good start. They should limit the season to 10 games max. Limit non-conference matchups, this way most games (conference games) matter. All conferences have a championship game (played on home field of the top team). Winner of the big 5 Championship games go to playoff. Only the Champion can go to the playoffs, no at-large for these conferences.

3 at large selected from the other conferences and independent. Home field advantage to the higher seeds, Championship game played at neutral site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skipwondah33

Oregon losing wouldn't have had a shot over some of these other teams when it was the computers.

---

That would be incorrect. USA Today actually runs a weekly BCS Computer Composite based on what the ranks would be under the old system. Oregon is #4.

http://i.usatoday.net/sports/college...-composite.pdf


Edit just look at some of those Sagarin Ratings.

3-loss OU at #6? That puts us ahead of undefeated Miss St and Florida St. What we really need is a playoff based on Sagarin Ratings. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy

I loved the pressure the BCS put on teams to go undefeated.

---

There were 16 BCS Championships. Ten of those featured one loss teams. One featured a 2 loss team (LSU who beat Ohio St in the Championship). Three times there was not an undefeated team in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdoughty

There were 16 BCS Championships. Ten of those featured one loss teams. One featured a 2 loss team (LSU who beat Ohio St in the Championship). Three times there was not an undefeated team in the game.

---

But one loss meant you were at the mercy of others. Yes you could still get in but you no longer controlled your destiny. The only way to truly take care of business was to never lose. Was that an incredibly tough standard and at times unfair? Yes and I loved it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy

But one loss meant you were at the mercy of others. Yes you could still get in but you no longer controlled your destiny. The only way to truly take care of business was to never lose. Was that an incredibly tough standard and at times unfair? Yes and I loved it.

---

Same scenario applies to the current setup. There are two undefeated teams and if they stay that way will be in the playoffs. Continue and win two more and you are champion. In either system you no longer control your destiny with a loss. The problem is when you have no control of your destiny without a loss, due to not being a power conference.

Bear in mind that this is coming from an OU fan, "the team who snuck our way into two BCS games where we were not the best one loss team." USC claimed a dual national title the year we lost to LSU by the AP. Many smaller teams went undefeated over those years and took care of business, going undefeated and how was their destiny greeted by the BCS? I want to give the little guy a chance, not make some BCS Bowl sad they ended up with Marshall. The best example against the BCS is TCU. They had an undefeated season a few years back but while in the MWC. So they went to a Rose Bowl and won. What did they get for their reward? #3 in all polls. No shot at a title. Now? They got into the Big 12, thanks to a couple of defectors, so they actually have a shot at the 4 team playoff, with a loss to boot. That 2010 Dalton led team was as good if not better than this one. They had a far better defense than this years team.

That is why the 8 team playoff is the best. Underdogs! Playing on the road or neutral site, against a mighty Big 5 conference. There is a reason the first two days of March Madness is the most popular. Still dreaming to see that 16 seed take Duke down. :nod:

Todd Graham wants 8 teams (champs of Power 5, 3 wild cards)
http://www.azcentral.com/story/sport...eams/18875285/

Of course, this would still leave undefeated Marshall out this year but who cares, right?

#16Teams #ALLConferenceChamps #PullingForThe LittleGuy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy

One thing I haven't heard much this year is debating over who is #1 in college football. There is some chatter but normally at this time of the year that discussion is very heated and passionate. It was a HUGE debate. Same went for BCS busters. People were on the edge of their seats watching a lot of November games knowing how huge they were. It doesn't have the same feel this year. Bama loses and "Oh well. They won't need help, just win the SEC title game and you are back in no problem." I loved the pressure the BCS put on teams to go undefeated.

---

That's largely because of Alabama wins the SEC they'd have to beat the current #1 and Auburn. So there's a built in assumption that for them to even get to the title game, it's going to build their resume for them.

Also, the "pressure" for an SEC West team to go undefeated hasn't existed since the LSU/Bama title game rematch. It's everyone else that has pressure to go undefeated, which is still largely true. Less so this year because this year is like 2007, with mass destruction across the entire landscape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdoughty

3-loss OU at #6? That puts us ahead of undefeated Miss St and Florida St. What we really need is a playoff based on Sagarin Ratings. :D

---

I hate the Sagarin ratings. They're heavily influenced by strength of schedule, which leads to the top conferences having the top schedules and being too teams based on their performance against those top schedules. It's self perpetuating at best.

I remember one year when one conference, I think it was the Pac 10 in USC's heyday, swept the toughest schedules. That just doesn't pass the sniff test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdoughty

That would be incorrect. USA Today actually runs a weekly BCS Computer Composite based on what the ranks would be under the old system. Oregon is #4.

http://i.usatoday.net/sports/college...-composite.pdf


Edit just look at some of those Sagarin Ratings.

3-loss OU at #6? That puts us ahead of undefeated Miss St and Florida St. What we really need is a playoff based on Sagarin Ratings. :D

---

Correct

But they aren't #2 and wouldnt be in the National Championship game either at the #4 spot correct with the computers?

Wonder if Alabama goes to #1 having the same record as Oregon and beating the #1 team

FSU is the luckeist/clutch team I've ever seen lol

Auburn would be on 3 game losing streak if it weren't for that fuckery ending in Ole Miss http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/for...pple/1f612.png

FSU gonna be one and done in the playoff tho