College Football 2016 Thread

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:47 pm

So will the committee screw over UW?

Good, dominating win over CU last night. Absolutely ran the ball down the Buff's throats. But I wonder if something is wrong with Browning's arm/shoulder. His passes had no "zip" on them, and looked like they were fluttering. Maybe having a month off before their next game might be a good thing.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:58 pm

DaveInSeattle wrote:So will the committee screw over UW?

Good, dominating win over CU last night. Absolutely ran the ball down the Buff's throats. But I wonder if something is wrong with Browning's arm/shoulder. His passes had no "zip" on them, and looked like they were fluttering. Maybe having a month off before their next game might be a good thing.

if you can make a legitimate case for how UW would get "screwed" I'd love to hear it because it'd be the best mission impossible sequel ever.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:05 pm

Oh come on Houston. Surely you're not gonna interview rhat piece of shit briles.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:16 pm

wlu_lax6 wrote:Loving the fact that if Navy wins the conference title this week it can screw up the Bowl announcements because the Army-Navy game would make a difference.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... owl-system

But who knew that if you had good grades you can be bowl eligible at 5-7 record

They got some work to do to cause chaos.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:16 pm

Brontoburglar wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote:So will the committee screw over UW?

Good, dominating win over CU last night. Absolutely ran the ball down the Buff's throats. But I wonder if something is wrong with Browning's arm/shoulder. His passes had no "zip" on them, and looked like they were fluttering. Maybe having a month off before their next game might be a good thing.
if you can make a legitimate case for how UW would get "screwed" I'd love to hear it because it'd be the best mission impossible sequel ever.

If UW (1-loss/conference championship) gets left out for either a 2-loss conference champ (Wisconsin or Penn State) or a 1-loss, non-conference champ (OSU), then they'll be getting screwed.

But I don't think that will happen. I think, barring the Chaos scenario, the final four will be:

1-Alabama
2-Ohio State
3-Clemson
4-Washington

Depending on how Clemson plays today, I could see UW moving past them into the 3 spot.

rass · Post by **rass** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:20 pm

Heard suggestions yesterday that the committee would like an excuse to put UW at 3 so they can play in Arizona instead of Atlanta (fans would travel better that way, I guess?)

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:21 pm

I think you have to treat all the one loss teams the same regardless of if they win a conference. Then just decide who the best ones are. And Ohio state is probably better that Washington conference title or not.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:37 pm

A_B wrote:I think you have to treat all the one loss teams the same regardless of if they win a conference. Then just decide who the best ones are. And Ohio state is probably better that Washington conference title or not.

DaveInSeattle wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote:So will the committee screw over UW?

Good, dominating win over CU last night. Absolutely ran the ball down the Buff's throats. But I wonder if something is wrong with Browning's arm/shoulder. His passes had no "zip" on them, and looked like they were fluttering. Maybe having a month off before their next game might be a good thing.
if you can make a legitimate case for how UW would get "screwed" I'd love to hear it because it'd be the best mission impossible sequel ever.
If UW (1-loss/conference championship) gets left out for either a 2-loss conference champ (Wisconsin or Penn State) or a 1-loss, non-conference champ (OSU), then they'll be getting screwed.

But I don't think that will happen. I think, barring the Chaos scenario, the final four will be:

1-Alabama
2-Ohio State
3-Clemson
4-Washington

Depending on how Clemson plays today, I could see UW moving past them into the 3 spot.

Would not be surprised to see Ohio State at No. 4 on Sunday with Clemson and Washington at some combination of No. 2 and No. 3 (all that matters is uniforms at that point). Because the committee has talked a big game with conference championships over the first two years of the Playoff's existence. Why not put their money where that mouth is and drop Ohio State for the lack of a title game in a somewhat similar fashion to how the Big 12 teams got hosed two years ago?

rass wrote:Heard suggestions yesterday that the committee would like an excuse to put UW at 3 so they can play in Arizona instead of Atlanta (fans would travel better that way, I guess?)

Another factor is Ohio State played in Arizona last year for the Fiesta Bowl. But... so did Clemson in the national title game. So there's going to be one of the two heading back.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:54 pm

A_B wrote:I think you have to treat all the one loss teams the same regardless of if they win a conference. Then just decide who the best ones are. And Ohio state is probably better that Washington conference title or not.

If conference championships don't matter, why have them? We hear all the time about how what makes College Football special is that the "Regular Season still means something!". It just seems odd to me that OSU didn't even win their division, and they are automatically given a bye into the Final Four.

(*I'm not saying the UW is better then OSU. OSU is probably the 2nd best team in the country...I'm just arguing that the conference championship has to mean something in the criteria for making the playoffs)

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:28 pm

A_B wrote:Ohio state is probably better that Washington conference title or not.

I'd disagree. Colorado played Michigan much better than they played Washington, and Michigan was better than OSU for most of their game.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:38 pm

This conference USA game is headed towards 150 points

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:42 pm

sancarlos wrote:
A_B wrote:Ohio state is probably better that Washington conference title or not.
I'd disagree. Colorado played Michigan much better than they played Washington, and Michigan was better than OSU for most of their game.

Well just have to agree disageee but Ohio state has looked better to me. And I haaaaaaate Ohio state. Admittedly I've seen more tosu too.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:06 am

sancarlos wrote:
A_B wrote:Ohio state is probably better that Washington conference title or not.
I'd disagree. Colorado played Michigan much better than they played Washington, and Michigan was better than OSU for most of their game.

That CU game was a shit show. Worried that CU is going to fall back next year and they are extremely senior heavy. Felt good having a sort of tie to a CFB team in the Top25/10. Lord knows UNM is not going to get there anytime soon.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:14 am

So, the only debate here is seeding 2-4, right? I'm sure ESPN will talk up Michigan and Penn State's chances to build suspense but this is a no-brainer to me. I'm no Condoleeza Rice but if you have a 4-team playoff and exactly 4 P5 teams have 1 loss or less, it's a pretty simple process.

Post by **brian** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:16 am

Yeah, it'll be Alabama vs. Washington and Clemson vs. Ohio State. (Though I have to admit OSU vs. Alabama in the semifinal would be fascinating.)

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:37 am

Joe K wrote:So, the only debate here is seeding 2-4, right? I'm sure ESPN will talk up Michigan and Penn State's chances to build suspense but this is a no-brainer to me. I'm no Condoleeza Rice but if you have a 4-team playoff and exactly 4 P5 teams have 1 loss or less, it's a pretty simple process.

The only debate would be Washington's really weak schedule but if they were already #4 going into this week it would make absolutely no sense to move them down after a 41-10 beat down in the conference final. Also that Big 10 final was really sloppily played and shouldn't convince anyone of anything.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 8:32 am

brian wrote:Yeah, it'll be Alabama vs. Washington and Clemson vs. Ohio State. (Though I have to admit OSU vs. Alabama in the semifinal would be fascinating.)

I wouldn't be shocked if they bump OSU down to 4 on the grounds that it didn't win its conference. But the real reason would probably be to ensure monster TV ratings for that semi. Clemson-OSU would be a good game though. Clemson seems to play up or down to their competition/scoreline a bit and I think they could easily win that one.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:51 am

No Hypocrite Quite Like A Religious Hypocrite

Former Baylor AD bringing his values to Falwell's Liberty University. I really had trouble getting through this column without throwing things around the room.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:35 am

In a similar vein, Gus Johnson had one of the all-time tone deaf announcing moments last night, when he called Penn State winning the B1G "a milestone in the healing process." If anything that happened this week could be viewed as part of the Penn State "healing process," it was the university being ordered to pay Mike McQueary $12 million in damages for its attempt to make him a scapegoat.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:36 pm

Joe K wrote:
brian wrote:Yeah, it'll be Alabama vs. Washington and Clemson vs. Ohio State. (Though I have to admit OSU vs. Alabama in the semifinal would be fascinating.)
I wouldn't be shocked if they bump OSU down to 4 on the grounds that it didn't win its conference. But the real reason would probably be to ensure monster TV ratings for that semi. Clemson-OSU would be a good game though. Clemson seems to play up or down to their competition/scoreline a bit and I think they could easily win that one.

It would have also ensured that one of the two teams providing the biggest audience would be in the championship game.

I think putting tOSU at #4 would have subjected them to more scrutiny of "the importance of winning your conference". So much second guessing would have come from PSU winning the Big Ten and beating tOSU head-to-head, but not beating out tOSU for #4.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:43 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote:
Joe K wrote:
brian wrote:Yeah, it'll be Alabama vs. Washington and Clemson vs. Ohio State. (Though I have to admit OSU vs. Alabama in the semifinal would be fascinating.)
I wouldn't be shocked if they bump OSU down to 4 on the grounds that it didn't win its conference. But the real reason would probably be to ensure monster TV ratings for that semi. Clemson-OSU would be a good game though. Clemson seems to play up or down to their competition/scoreline a bit and I think they could easily win that one.
It would have also ensured that one of the two teams providing the biggest audience would be in the championship game.

I think putting tOSU at #4 would have subjected them to more scrutiny of "the importance of winning your conference". So much second guessing would have come from PSU winning the Big Ten and beating tOSU head-to-head, but not beating out tOSU for #4.

But then PSU winning the championship makes both OSU's and Michigan's resumes better.
The College Football selection committee tries to solve 5 issues at once and can't achieve all of them every time.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 3:44 pm

degenerasian wrote:The College Football selection committee tries to solve 5 issues at once and can't achieve all of them every time.

For all the talk about the process, it's pretty hard to question the committee's decisions for the first 3 years. The only controversial decision was Ohio State over Baylor two years ago, and that decision was obviously vindicated by what happened after. And I think it's hard to argue with any of their decisions this year. Ohio State's resume is much better than Penn State's -- especially because they beat Michigan and hammered Oklahoma on the road. And as a general rule, I don't think you can take a 2-loss team over a 1-loss team unless there are much different circumstances than were present this year.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:05 pm

Joe K wrote:
degenerasian wrote:The College Football selection committee tries to solve 5 issues at once and can't achieve all of them every time.
For all the talk about the process, it's pretty hard to question the committee's decisions for the first 3 years. The only controversial decision was Ohio State over Baylor two years ago, and that decision was obviously vindicated by what happened after. And I think it's hard to argue with any of their decisions this year. Ohio State's resume is much better than Penn State's -- especially because they beat Michigan and hammered Oklahoma on the road. And as a general rule, I don't think you can take a 2-loss team over a 1-loss team unless there are much different circumstances than were present this year.

what about the resume issue. Was Washington's schedule too weak?

Post by **Shirley** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:15 pm

Nobody asked me, but if I were in charge, I'd select potential playoff teams something like this:

1. Take the champions of the 5 power conferences.
2. Add in any highly-rated undefeated teams outside the power conferences (unlikely)
3. If no additional teams in #2, add in any highly-ranked one-loss teams

This year, that would give you Alabama, Penn State, Washington, Clemson, Oklahoma from step 1. No teams for Step 2 (sorry WMU). Step 3 would add in Ohio State.

Now, you have 6 teams to argue over. Any teams not included from step 1 have to have a really strong case to leap any conference champions. I think it's pretty easy to choose OSU over Oklahoma, given their respective records, rankings, and the head-to-head game.

Now, you're down to 5, and the decision of whether to bump any of the remaining champions for OSU. Penn State is really the only one to consider. In my opinion, PSU wins that head-to-head. They played in the same conference - PSU was the champion. They played head-to-head - PSU won that game. Decision made.

My four would be Alabama, Clemson, Washington, Penn State - in that order.

Is OSU a better team than any of those four? Probably. But maybe they should have won their league - or at least played in the title game - if they wanted to guarantee a shot at the MNC.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:19 pm

I don't want any scenario where Pitt beat two playoff teams.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:49 pm

Shirley: you'd have to put Michgan somewhere in your equation too. They were #3 going to #2's stadium and lost in double OT. If PSU are the conference champs that beat OSU, Michigan beat that conference champ by 40.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:14 pm

degenerasian wrote:Shirley: you'd have to put Michgan somewhere in your equation too. They were #3 going to #2's stadium and lost in double OT. If PSU are the conference champs that beat OSU, Michigan beat that conference champ by 40.

He eliminated all two loss teams that weren't title winners.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:20 pm

degenerasian wrote:
Joe K wrote:
degenerasian wrote:The College Football selection committee tries to solve 5 issues at once and can't achieve all of them every time.
For all the talk about the process, it's pretty hard to question the committee's decisions for the first 3 years. The only controversial decision was Ohio State over Baylor two years ago, and that decision was obviously vindicated by what happened after. And I think it's hard to argue with any of their decisions this year. Ohio State's resume is much better than Penn State's -- especially because they beat Michigan and hammered Oklahoma on the road. And as a general rule, I don't think you can take a 2-loss team over a 1-loss team unless there are much different circumstances than were present this year.
what about the resume issue. Was Washington's schedule too weak?

No. Their nonconference schedule was very soft but they have wins over Colorado (currently #10 in CFP rankings) Stanford (#18), Utah (#19) and Washington State (#29 in the AP voting). Three of those games were routs and the wins over Utah, Colorado and WSU were either on the road or at a neutral site. Plus Washington's only loss was to a red hot top-10 team.

In comparison, Penn State also has 4 wins over current teams in the top 30 or so (OSU, Wisconsin, Iowa and Temple). But none of those wins were on the road, with only the Wisconsin one at a neutral site. And of Penn State's four quality wins, only the Iowa win was by more than 7 points. (Washington beat Colorado by 31, Stanford by 38 and WSU by 28.) I don't think Penn State's resume is so much better than Washington's (if at all), that you should overlook the fact that they have 2 losses.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:36 pm

To go further as to why I think the four teams were a no-brainer this year, here are the wins that the #2-6 ranked teams have over teams currently ranked in the CFP top-2 or AP top-30:

Clemson: @ Auburn (CFP #14); Louisville (CFP #13); @ FSU (CFP #11); neutral VT (CFP #22)
OSU: @ Oklahoma (CFP #7); @ Wisconsin (CFP #8); Nebraska (AP #24); Michigan (CFP #6)
Washington: Stanford (CFP #18); @ Utah (CFP #19); @ Washington St. (AP #29); neutral Colorado (CFP #10)
PSU: Temple (CFP #24); OSU (CFP #3); Iowa (AP #21); neutral Wisconsin (CFP #8)
Michigan: Colorado (CFP #10); Penn State (CFP #5); Wisconsin (CFP #8)

So you'll see that all these teams have 4 such wins, with the exception of Michigan which has only 3. And neither PSU nor Michigan has a single such win on the road, while Clemson, OSU and Washington have 2 each. I don't see how you can credibly argue for a 2-loss PSU or Michigan team over any of the 1-loss teams.

Post by **brian** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:18 pm

This kind of shit is so idiotic.

Ohio State curb-stomped Oklahoma in Norman and has only one loss, which ended up being to the Big 10 champion on the road. On what planet does Oklahoma deserve to be in a four-team playoff over Ohio State? (And I fucking hate Ohio State, fuck you for making me defend them Bowelsby)

Post by **Shirley** » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:42 pm

degenerasian wrote:Shirley: you'd have to put Michgan somewhere in your equation too. They were #3 going to #2's stadium and lost in double OT. If PSU are the conference champs that beat OSU, Michigan beat that conference champ by 40.

No, I don't think I do. Michigan didn't win their conference. They didn't even play in the title game. Missing that, they'd have to have a really special season. Losing twice means the season wasn't good enough. They are out of the debate.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:16 am

As a known M homer, the way these games shook out, there's absolutely no case for MI in this final 4.

I do think the process is going to push them into expanding the field to at least 6 in the coming years. If they are the Power 5, it's pretty difficult to make a case that winning your conference doesn't get you into the Playoffs. Chips away at the credibility.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:51 am

A_B wrote:Oh come on Houston. Surely you're not gonna interview rhat piece of shit briles.

Thank you Jeebus they said he would not be part of their search.

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:14 am

I think that in practice, a 6-team tournament would always end up with the 5 conference winners and the next best team. The current format gives the selection committee some cover to leave a conference completely out--because what choice do you have--but that cover would be lost under a 6-team system. So this wouldn't solve this year's problem--it would only make Michigan's ultimate exclusion look sillier.

Personally, I don't think 4 or 6 or 8 is a meaningful improvement over 2, and I don't think 2 is a meaningful improvement over having polls or computers decide who should be named the champion.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:36 am

let's just have a 68 team tournament

Post by **brian** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:54 am

This is the time of year when it's vogue to retort with expanding the field "if you have 8 teams the 9th team will complain" and so on and so, but at a certain point you can make a legitimate argument that you're not including teams with a chance to win the title. Also, when you're talking the resumes of team that plan only 12 games and almost none against each other, it's pretty difficult to fairly evaluate.

So that said I think a 6 or 8 team tournament is fairest. If you look at an 8 team field this year it would include additionally (most likely) Penn State, Oklahoma, Michigan and probably either Wisconsin or USC. Alabama would obviously be favored against any of those teams (and already curb-stomped USC, albeit early in the season), but I wouldn't bet my life on Alabama beating any of those teams.

If you're the 9th team and you get left out of an 8-team field you have a lot less to complain about than the 5th team left out of a 4-team field.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:00 pm

Does Oklahoma get an automatic berth or are they as conference champs still the 7th or 9th team on the outside?
Some are arguing the AAC should be the 6th power conference? do they get an automatic berth?

Post by **brian** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:06 pm

I don't think there should be any automatic berths unless you go to a 16-team field and then I think all 10 conferences should get an auto-bid. That scenario actually rewards the Alabamas and Clemsons as well since they get what amounts to a bye more or less in the first round.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:33 pm

I think you could get away with an 8 team field with P5 champs getting autobids and then 3 at large with priority given to highest ranking G5 champion for one of those slots.

For the record, I'm totally on board with a 16 team field.

I've said it before, so apologies if you've heard this tune before: Back in the day, the bowl games used to really mean something. Then they started adding in a bunch of nonsensical bowls, and then they implemented the BCS, which started to chip away at the traditions of the major bowls. At this point, going to the Rose Bowl is a consolation prize.

FCS plays a 24 team playoff. Starts in December, ends first week of Jan. They play an 11 game regular season and then whatever comes down the pike with the postseason. Spare me all the "protect the student athlete" crap. That is bullshit put out by the pro Bowl folks.

Post by **brian** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:41 pm

Even in a 16-team field it's not as if the bowls have to cease to exist anyway. Could either leave the structure as it is now with the semifinals being "bowl" games. Other bowl games could be played for teams who qualify and there wouldn't be competition those weeks with the playoff. Imagine a world with a 16-team playoff.

First, as much as I appreciate the history of the Army-Navy Game make them play that shit in the regular season so it doesn't play havoc with the bowl/tournament selection process. Have it the week before the conference championship games if they want.

Dec. 10 - 8 games (Round 1) at campus sites
Dec. 17 - 4 games (Quarterfinals) at campus sites
Dec. 17 to Jan. 2 - Various bowls played by whomever want to license and host a bowl as it is now.
Dec. 31/Jan. 1 - Semifinals.
Jan. 10/11 - Title game as usual.

If you want to make it 8 games, then fine. Just have a three-week layoff between the quarterfinals a week after the conference title games and the semifinals.