Let's Go Bowling - and the Remainder of FCS, Too
- Thread starter SoxJox
- Start date
Well, Auburn, who beat both of the teams who are about to play for the natty.
Miami and Auburn are very good wins
Virginia Tech, South Carolina, NC State are all good wins
Wake Forest, Boston College, Florida State and Louisville are no push overs
9 bowl eligible teams.
It has nothing to do with being a defending champ. There is nothing on Ohio State's resume that makes them more deserving to get in than Clemson.
And even if you make some crazy argument that Ohio State should be in somehow, there is no way in hell you can put Alabama or Georgia's resume over Clemson's.
Clemson had better wins than Alabama and a conference championship. And significantly better wins than Georgia
There is NO scenario where you can leave out Clemson
Clemson had better wins than Alabama and a conference championship. And significantly better wins than Georgia
There is NO scenario where you can leave out Clemson
I'm supposed to give you Virginia Tech, South Carolina and NC State as "good wins." Uggh..
In the last 7 weeks, Ohio State beat #2 Penn State, #4 Wisconsin, #8 USC and #12 Michigan State, not to mention going into Michigan and beating them at home. This week, Penn State beat #11 Washington, Wisconsin beat #10 Miami, and Michigan State beat #18 Washington State.
Like I said, there was no way to keep Clemson out at the time, but anyone who is still downplaying the Big 10 schedule hasn't been paying attention since Christmas. Ohio State's schedule and their wins (and losses), have gotten better by the day. Meanwhile, Clemson's wins have gone the other way.
So we're supposed to include the future that the committee was supposed to know with it's crystal ball?
Even if we let Ohio State in, which is crazy, how are you going to put Alabama in over Clemson?
Yeah, Alabama's the better team, but Vegas doesn't choose the playoff. Clemson had the same amount of losses as Alabama and significantly better wins and a conference championship.
You stated that Clemson "didn't deserve" to be in, which is totally absurd
I wish I had been proven wrong that it was over with the pick 6, since then it's been worse than watching snails fuck
I didn't say Clemson didn't deserve to be here, or maybe I did. I thought I said they shouldn't be here, but that there was no real way to keep them out. They are here because of what they did last year and the year before, more than anything, which is fine, and I understood and accepted it at the time.
But, you keep saying that Clemson had "significantly" better wins than Ohio State and Alabama, and I keep saying that's not true. It wasn't true when the votes were cast, and it's not true now.
Shit, let's just look at bowl eligibility. Clemson played 8 teams that were bowl eligible. You know how those 8 teams did in their bowl games? They went 3-5. The wins? Wake Forest over Texas A&M, NC State over Arizona State and South Carolina over Michigan. Everyone else lost. Zero wins against a ranked opponent.
Ohio State played 7 bowl eligible teams. Those teams went 5-2 in their bowl games. The two losses were Oklahoma and Michigan. The wins were over #10, #11 and #18, as well as Boston College (Iowa) and San Diego State (Army beat them). The teams they beat went 3-1 against ranked teams in Bowl games, with the only loss being Oklahoma to Georgia.
Tell me again how Clemson's schedule was harder than Ohio State's?
Shouldn’t the debate be about UCF?
I just read Wisconsin cancelled their game against UCF before season started. Lolol.
I just read Wisconsin cancelled their game against UCF before season started. Lolol.
Could you post a link? I know Wisconsin moved a game with USF from 2017 to 2019, but didn't know they cancelled a UCF game too.
Well, the fact that TOSU had two losses obviously was not disqualifying... if two losses was the criteria, Alabama would not be in the competition.
That being said, the fact that one of the losses was by OVER 4 TDs probably did not help them in the eyes of the committee.
That being stated... the team that should have been in the semifinals that was not is still undefeated and defeated the one team that BEAT both teams going to the so-called National Championship game this season.
UCF is my National Champion this year.
Last 40 years (after conclusion of the Jan 8th game):
SEC
16 1/2 national championships, with 6 different winners.
B1G
2 1/2 national championships, with one team, OSU, having 80% (2 of 2 1/2) of those.
Not to mention that playing in New Orleans made it a near home game for Alabama.
That being said, Alabama was the better team last night.
The argument for conference champions being a qualifier makes some sense from the standpoint it is an advantage for a team like Bama to rest and recover while the other teams battle it out for another week. It definitely benefitted Bama, who used the time to get healthy. But OSU last year had the same opportunity and got smoked. So while the extra week off benefitted Bama, it may only be because they are an elite team and OSU wasn’t. There’s no easy solution to all of this. But Bama definitely belongs if you are looking for the true 4 best teams in the nation.
Are you really arguing that having 4 weeks off instead of 3 really benefits a team? If it was say 2 weeks off vs. 1 week I could buy it, but 4 vs. 3 is hard to accept, unless you are making the argument that the extra game leads to more injuries and hurts a team - that part of the argument I could buy. But I'd argue the more time off the less sharp a team gets.
Last edited:
I’m saying its a combination of both. The extra week allows you to heal, something Bama clearly needed with the LB injuries late in the season, plus you didn’t subject your team to additional wear and tear and possible more injuries from that game. I don’t think the extra week put any rust on Bama, they hadn’t played a D1 team since 11/25 and didn’t appear rusty at all.
Fair enough. The rust argument is kind of a difficult one to make either way since both teams are off for 3+ weeks, which is not normal in football. I do agree that by not playing a high intensity game it can have a benefit. But we have also seen that work both ways, like for instance in the NFL when Baltimore played Pittsburgh in 2014 and then still was able to play a hell of a game against the Pats the following week and didn't look any worse for the wear.
This is all obviously extreme SSS. I think Clemson was unlucky to have to play the same team for the 3rd straight season, even though rosters have turned over to a degree.
I agree with you there. I posted something with about a month to go in the season stating I didn’t think Clemson was going to do any post season damage to due offensive inconsistency. They did have better offense the last 2-3 games, but only one team was legit. As for last night, they managed to get a bit of momentum before the 2 turnovers, but couldn’t get any rhythm at all, so I don’t know if they would have been able to score TD’s even if they didn’t turn it over.
I think the Bama-UGA game is going to be a pretty easy game for Bama. Don’t see anyone doing anything against them based on last night.
Agreed.
Interesting that this would be the second time in four seasons of the CFP that the four seed is the champ if Bama wins. Not sure what that says about the system - whether that means we should have more, fewer, or the same amount of teams. Maybe too SSS to say anything.
I was 11 years old...got to see it in color, which was a rarity for me at the time (and a lot of other people).
All I remember is that Wisconsin scored a bunch of points in the fourth quarter (23 according to Wikipedia) to lose by a then-unheard-of score of 42-37. The thing I remember better than the game itself was that the Rose Bowl had no lights and the last few minutes were played in twilight. A typical game in those days didn't last nearly as long as this one did.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=2a1c577a46&view=att&th=160b8d9567e8f2f0&attid=0.1&disp=safe&zw
Pretty much as American as it gets.
Pretty much as American as it gets.
I'm an Alabama fan (obviously) but I'm still pretty ambivalent about being in the playoff at all (only helped by thae fact the alternative was an OSU which got blown out twice). It feels like it rendered the Iron Bowl, which is probably my favorite day of the year, a complete afterthought.
There's always the tension between "Let's reward what actually happened on the field" and "Let's find the best team." What should voters do with
Look, I'm an Alabama fan (obviously). If you ask me whether one-loss Bama or two-blowout-loss OSU would win on a neutral field, I'm gonna say Bama and might even do a decent job of pretending that belief is in someway objective. I want them to win the playoff now, because I always want them to win. But this playoff bid does feel kinda cheap relative to other years.
There's always this tension between "Trying to pick the best team" and rewarding what actually happens on the field. Imagine you have a team with a superstar Quarterback, Brady Rodgers. If BR goes down for three games, and they lose two of them, they might win every game he plays after he comes back. They might even be favored over every other team in the country at the end of the regular season, when he's fully healthy. But should we just pretend those two losses that happened with him out never occurred?
The apparent preference to favor fewer losses over conference titles probably does mean, on average, you'd get better teams in the playoff and better playoff games. But this year, it's meant that the Iron Bowl, which is probably my favorite day of the year, basically didn't matter in the final reckoning. CFB has always had the best regular season of any sport. Letting in teams that didn't win their conference devalues that at least some. Losing to your arch-rival and conceding the division to them should end your season.
That's the case for "Conference title or GTFO."
There's always the tension between "Let's reward what actually happened on the field" and "Let's find the best team." What should voters do with
I don't think that's the argument for conference titles to be a qualifier.
Look, I'm an Alabama fan (obviously). If you ask me whether one-loss Bama or two-blowout-loss OSU would win on a neutral field, I'm gonna say Bama and might even do a decent job of pretending that belief is in someway objective. I want them to win the playoff now, because I always want them to win. But this playoff bid does feel kinda cheap relative to other years.
There's always this tension between "Trying to pick the best team" and rewarding what actually happens on the field. Imagine you have a team with a superstar Quarterback, Brady Rodgers. If BR goes down for three games, and they lose two of them, they might win every game he plays after he comes back. They might even be favored over every other team in the country at the end of the regular season, when he's fully healthy. But should we just pretend those two losses that happened with him out never occurred?
The apparent preference to favor fewer losses over conference titles probably does mean, on average, you'd get better teams in the playoff and better playoff games. But this year, it's meant that the Iron Bowl, which is probably my favorite day of the year, basically didn't matter in the final reckoning. CFB has always had the best regular season of any sport. Letting in teams that didn't win their conference devalues that at least some. Losing to your arch-rival and conceding the division to them should end your season.
That's the case for "Conference title or GTFO."
I think that's a better argument for getting rid of conference title games. Without the SECCG, Auburn wins the SEC via head-to-head tiebreakers over Bama and Georgia.
Not sure where to post this but Rich Rod out at Arizona.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/arizona-fires-coach-rich-rodriguez-amid-misconduct-allegations/
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/arizona-fires-coach-rich-rodriguez-amid-misconduct-allegations/
Well, if I’m a Bama fan I’m not apologizing for being in the CFP this year.
There is precedent for this scenario, just prior to this year OSU went instead of the conf champ. SEC just has both.
And while you don’t want to say it I will. If you put Bama on a bus and drop them off in Iowa City, even if they drove all night and didn’t get any sleep the Hawkeye’s don’t hang 55 on them.
IMO opinion the committee got it right. The seeds are somewhat tied the to weeks leading up to the final standings, but I think they got those right based on schedule strength, quality of wins, etc. Doesn’t mean 1 is the best or 4 is the worst. That’s why they play the games. Congrats on another natty. I know you don’t want me to jinx you, but seriously, congrats.
BTW, I had a blast in NOLA. Take out the temps and the loss and it was a perfect 3 days.
There is precedent for this scenario, just prior to this year OSU went instead of the conf champ. SEC just has both.
And while you don’t want to say it I will. If you put Bama on a bus and drop them off in Iowa City, even if they drove all night and didn’t get any sleep the Hawkeye’s don’t hang 55 on them.
IMO opinion the committee got it right. The seeds are somewhat tied the to weeks leading up to the final standings, but I think they got those right based on schedule strength, quality of wins, etc. Doesn’t mean 1 is the best or 4 is the worst. That’s why they play the games. Congrats on another natty. I know you don’t want me to jinx you, but seriously, congrats.
BTW, I had a blast in NOLA. Take out the temps and the loss and it was a perfect 3 days.
As for expansion, this was the first year we had a competitive semi over the last few years. Until these first round games get really competitive, I don’t see 8 on the horizon. CFP is top heavy, really top heavy, and there is a huge difference between the top 2, 3-4, and 5-8. And again, 6 of the 8 played each other in conf champ games. So we don’t need a round 1 redo. Since conf champ games aren’t going anywhere, I don’t think we see 8.
So Saban is complaining about the schedule for the CFP - and he has a point. Alabama didn't leave the building until after 1am Tuesday, had to stay in New Orleans over night, will be home on campus for 3 days, and then head out to Atlanta for the title game. That doesn't seem like nearly enough time. And next year, Jan 1 is a Tuesday, so if they want to put the National Championship game on Monday night again, they either need to wait 13 days, or do it on a short week. Otherwise what is the potential solution? Play the title game on maybe a Thursday night? Thursday is a popular TV night, right? Would the TV ratings do worse on Thursday vs. Monday?
That's more time than teams that do away Saturday night games and then away Thursday games though.
To me the difference is that with the CFP games you are expected to be on site for a few days prior to the game. During the regular season you travel the day before the game.
Next year the semis are the Cotton & Orange and will be played on 12/29.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17163763/college-football-playoff-moves-some-new-year-eve-dates
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17163763/college-football-playoff-moves-some-new-year-eve-dates
Ah thanks. Interesting. I guess the NFL doesn't have Saturday games in week 17 so this makes a lot of sense.
I get his point. Pretty sure they had about 10 days last year. But the first weekend is the tight fit, working around the other bowl games, NFL, and NY Day. So they pushed this one together because the games were played on Monday which is unusual. Georgia had to fly back from Cali and re-adjust to the time zone, so I'd think Bama still has the advantage here even though Georgia has a shorter trip to ATL.
Yeah last year December 31 was a Saturday, then they played Monday January 9, so 9 days. That's enough time IMO
They luckily avoided a disaster for fan travel getting two teams close to Atlanta with only one week between games. Imagine if a Pac 12 team was the 4th seed. West coast->New Orleans->west coast->Atlanta in 7 days.
With the bowl pairings always east/west (Sugar/Rose, Orange/Fiesta, Peach/Cotton) they might want to think about sending westernmost teams west and easternmost teams east. This year it wouldn't really matter much (Bama and Georgia would switch) but other years it might. In any event they should always have at least ten days off. I'd also like to see the Final on a Saturday but with NFL playoffs that's probably tough.
With the bowl pairings always east/west (Sugar/Rose, Orange/Fiesta, Peach/Cotton) they might want to think about sending westernmost teams west and easternmost teams east. This year it wouldn't really matter much (Bama and Georgia would switch) but other years it might. In any event they should always have at least ten days off. I'd also like to see the Final on a Saturday but with NFL playoffs that's probably tough.
I'd love for the final to be on a weekend, hate the Monday night late start (agree that the NFL playoffs complicate things though)
This is a complete joke by UCF. How embarrassing it is to claim a national championship when you didn't make the playoff. They are going as far as to have a championship parade, are getting the team title rings, hanging a national title banner in their stadium, and paying their coaches bonuses in their contract that trigger when they win a national title.
"If you take the long view of the history of college football, there's an awful lot of national championships being claimed by universities that didn't accomplish what we accomplished this year in those respective seasons, so we feel we're more than justified to claim our first national championship, and we think it'll be the first of many," White told ESPN. "I don't think our kids should be penalized because we weren't respected by the College Football Playoff committee, nor should our program be penalized because we weren't around 20 or 30 years ago when people were claiming national championships left and right.
"We're trying to build our program, and we feel very strongly as the only undefeated team and having beat Auburn, who beat both teams competing for the national championship, that we have an extremely sound case to claim the crown."
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/21951014/ucf-knights-raise-national-championship-banner?sf178064441=1
"If you take the long view of the history of college football, there's an awful lot of national championships being claimed by universities that didn't accomplish what we accomplished this year in those respective seasons, so we feel we're more than justified to claim our first national championship, and we think it'll be the first of many," White told ESPN. "I don't think our kids should be penalized because we weren't respected by the College Football Playoff committee, nor should our program be penalized because we weren't around 20 or 30 years ago when people were claiming national championships left and right.
"We're trying to build our program, and we feel very strongly as the only undefeated team and having beat Auburn, who beat both teams competing for the national championship, that we have an extremely sound case to claim the crown."
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/21951014/ucf-knights-raise-national-championship-banner?sf178064441=1
I’m somewhat sympathetic to their situation because they’re getting Boise’d. They have a very good team but their conference schedule isn’t strong and Power 5 teams don’t need to schedule them to burnish their resumes. So they only get a chance to prove they “belong” in a bowl game against a ranked Power 5 team, when it’s too late. A victim of their comparatively weak conference, which isn’t their fault, but also not the committee’s. We’ll see if they can parlay this season’s success into a high rank next year and earn a spot in the CFP, but they didn’t deserve one this year.
They have every right to complain about the system, but don’t do what they’re doing. It’s childish, petty, and frankly embarrassing.
Yeah, I agree it’s rather childish. I’ll give them some props for paying the coaches their bonuses, though, and throwing a parade to celebrate the players, and not just putting up a banner.
I admire it---the BCS (and current, and all the other) systems have been rigged to favor power conference schools. Say what you want about UCF's opponents, but fact is they went undefeated---and the teams in the playoff did not. What message is there in a system where most of the schools cannot, no matter what they actually do on the field, even get a chance to compete for the title? The joke is the current system, not UCF mocking it.
How can anyone say UCF claiming a championship is a joke or embarrassing when the 1984 BYU team, who had an inferior set of opponents overall, is considered a legitimate champion? http://www.tiptop25.com/fixing1984.html . They played zero ranked opponents and beat a Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl who finished 6-6. If that is a legitimate national championship team, UCF can at least argue they are.
Obviously, the counter is to say they 'agreed' to the current system, but that's not really true---the power conferences imposed this on everyone else.
How can anyone say UCF claiming a championship is a joke or embarrassing when the 1984 BYU team, who had an inferior set of opponents overall, is considered a legitimate champion? http://www.tiptop25.com/fixing1984.html . They played zero ranked opponents and beat a Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl who finished 6-6. If that is a legitimate national championship team, UCF can at least argue they are.
Obviously, the counter is to say they 'agreed' to the current system, but that's not really true---the power conferences imposed this on everyone else.
Last edited:
They had a chance for a stronger non-conference schedule by signing up to play a road game at Texas, but UCF dropped the Texas game and instead scheduled....Maine.
http://www.fbschedules.com/2016/09/ucf-2017-non-conference-football-schedule/
I agree its childish in the day and age where there is a singular crowned champion. But they are right about teams claiming titles having done less.
