2013 NCAA football thread

[GirlySports]

Would you make the same argument for Mizzou?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Mizzou doesn't have as impressive a resume. Their best win would be over #3 (or #2) and that's it for top 10 wins. Unfortunately for them the SEC East is very weak outside South Carolina, whom they lost to. Auburn gets the benefit of beating the 2-time defending national champ when ranked #1 while also beating #4 the next week. I can't remember anytime in recent history that has happened in CFB (beating two top-5 teams in a row in the regular season)

Mizzou is the most heartbroken here. Had they beaten South Carolina, a game they led by 17 in the 4th and missed a 24 yard FG to tie in 2OT, we'd have a play-in game between Mizzou and Auburn. No way Auburn beating the #1 team twice in a row (which undefeated Alabama then undefeated Mizzou would be) prevents them from going with 1 loss.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I would also add if I was an OSU supporter I'd be spending this week trying to bring down FSU's resume. Outside of a Clemson team that is always overrated (albeit a totally dominating performance) and a Miami team that turned out to be supremely overrated, they really haven't beaten anyone either.

Basically if everything was judged fairly with Auburn at 12-1, FSU at 13-0 and OSU at 13-0, Auburn deserves to be #1. Its 2 most impressive wins are better than what the other two have combined.

[GirlySports]

If this is your logic then an SEC champion Mizzou should be ahead of the 13-0s who beat no one.

[transplant99]

LOL..what a complete and utter clusterfata the BCS system is.

[Senator Clay Davis]

New AP Poll is out. FSU, OSU and then Auburn, but Auburn got two first place votes, OSU got none. Auburn is also closer to OSU than OSU is to FSU. Be interesting to see if the coaches poll is similar, although OSU will get at least 1 first place vote, as they have ranked themselves #2 all year.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by transplant99

LOL..what a complete and utter clusterfata the BCS system is.

You get your 4 team playoff next year which would have Alabama in it

[Senator Clay Davis]

And then we get to argue over #4 and #5. This year would be bad too. FSU, OSU and the SEC winner, but then who? Alabama? Oklahoma State? What if Michigan State wins? Just a new system to produce new controversies.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

You get your 4 team playoff next year which would have Alabama in it

Considering the way Bama lost yesterday on the road to a top 5 team, i cant imagine there would be a whole lot of outrage if they were in a playoff game....they are still, without question, one of the top teams in the county.

[GirlySports]

I would be outraged. They didnt make they're conference final.

The 4 teams should be 4 conference champs.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Controversy is guaranteed without defined criteria to making the playoff

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Controversy is guaranteed without defined criteria to making the playoff

Yup. Here's is where we stand now if there were a 4 team playoff.

There are 2 undefeateds and six 1-loss teams in the top 4 conferences. Keep in mind: the intention of a playoff is to eliminate the ambiguity of determining a champion. There are significantly blurred lines in determining which of those 8 teams deserve a chance to play in the playoffs -- which really defeats the purpose of having a playoff at all.

And I haven't even brought up Northern Illinois, who is 12-0. Or UCF and Louisville, who also have 1 loss.

Now, you could find a way to incorporate one or several of those teams into a playoff system, but does anyone truly believe that South Carolina, Stanford, Oregon or other 2 loss teams wouldn't beat those "mid-majors" 6 times out of 10?

Here's the reality: the more teams you open up to the National Championship picture, the muddier the waters get.

Now next week if a team (like OSU or Mizzou) loses a championship game, it would seem to me unfair to penalize them for losing a game that they earned the right to play in whereas Alabama gets rewarded for not even winning their division and not having to play (and risk losing) and extra game.

I think only teams who qualified to Conference Championship games can qualify for the semis.. they will become de facto quarterfinals. In my 4 team playoff system, Alabama and Baylor have already been eliminated.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

New AP Poll is out. FSU, OSU and then Auburn, but Auburn got two first place votes, OSU got none. Auburn is also closer to OSU than OSU is to FSU. Be interesting to see if the coaches poll is similar, although OSU will get at least 1 first place vote, as they have ranked themselves #2 all year.

Coaches Poll is out, too. OSU got four first-place votes, and Auburn didn't get any. However, Auburn is much closer to OSU than OSU is to FSU. If Auburn and OSU both win next weekend, the final BCS standings should be very close. Also of note, Alabama is ranked ahead of Missouri. If Michigan State and Missouri both win, I'd have to think that Missouri will jump Alabama, but I'm curious to see what the margin is between those two teams in the BCS rankings now.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Yup. Here's is where we stand now if there were a 4 team playoff.

There are 2 undefeateds and six 1-loss teams in the top 4 conferences. Keep in mind: the intention of a playoff is to eliminate the ambiguity of determining a champion. There are significantly blurred lines in determining which of those 8 teams deserve a chance to play in the playoffs -- which really defeats the purpose of having a playoff at all.

And I haven't even brought up Northern Illinois, who is 12-0. Or UCF and Louisville, who also have 1 loss.

Now, you could find a way to incorporate one or several of those teams into a playoff system, but does anyone truly believe that South Carolina, Stanford, Oregon or other 2 loss teams wouldn't beat those "mid-majors" 6 times out of 10?

Here's the reality: the more teams you open up to the National Championship picture, the muddier the waters get.

Now next week if a team (like OSU or Mizzou) loses a championship game, it would seem to me unfair to penalize them for losing a game that they earned the right to play in whereas Alabama gets rewarded for not even winning their division and not having to play (and risk losing) and extra game.

I think only teams who qualified to Conference Championship games can qualify for the semis.. they will become de facto quarterfinals. In my 4 team playoff system, Alabama and Baylor have already been eliminated.

In your system anyone in the Big 12 would be eliminated because they don't have a conference championship game. So I will say to you that your system will never be as the NCAA isn't going to keep the Big 12 out of the playoffs.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

You get your 4 team playoff next year which would have Alabama in it

And the iron bowl would have been a Complete waste of time.

How many times did Vern lundquist and danielson say "for all the marbles"?

The bcs screwed auburn in 04, outside if that it nailed it. It's never easy with 118 teams and 12 weeks. But now we need to start to cater to the lowest common denominator, start with 4, then probably 8 and then we end up with basketball. No massive iron bowl games. Just 3 months of mildly important football but never, ever huge games they was have been used to over the decades.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

And the iron bowl would have been a Complete waste of time.

How many times did Vern lundquist and danielson say "for all the marbles"?

The bcs screwed auburn in 04, outside if that it nailed it. It's never easy with 118 teams and 12 weeks. But now we need to start to cater to the lowest common denominator, start with 4, then probably 8 and then we end up with basketball. No massive iron bowl games. Just 3 months of mildly important football but never, ever huge games they was have been used to over the decades.

If Alabama won yesterday, then every game played this year not involving Alabama and Florida state (and I guess Oregon) was a waste of time, because no one else had a chance to go to the nc game.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

And the iron bowl would have been a Complete waste of time.

How many times did Vern lundquist and danielson say "for all the marbles"?

The bcs screwed auburn in 04, outside if that it nailed it. It's never easy with 118 teams and 12 weeks. But now we need to start to cater to the lowest common denominator, start with 4, then probably 8 and then we end up with basketball. No massive iron bowl games. Just 3 months of mildly important football but never, ever huge games they was have been used to over the decades.

Yeah, but it wasn't for all the marbles. If Alabama won, they probably still need to beat Missouri to get to the NC, assuming Florida State and Ohio State win out. Next week's SEC championship has a claim to be for all the marbles too, because the winner has a shot at jumping into the top two, even though we don't know for sure how the BCS is going to score it.

The system has the appearance of making games more important because it keeps the effects of outcomes unknown until after they happen. The iron bowl game seemed more important than it was because people thought that it might be enough to vault Auburn ahead of Ohio State. When you're inside the narrative, a lot of things seem huge. But in retrospect, few games are actually as large as they seemed. The Oregon/Stanford game seemed huge when it happened. Now it's a 'meh' moment of the season. If Auburn fails to reach the NC game, then the importance of this game will shrink significantly. Yeah, it took someone out of the championship picture, but it didn't get anyone into the championship. So it's definitely not an all-the-marbles game.

I'm not saying the new system is better. Actually, it's a lot worse. I hate it. Not because the games count for less, but because we'll have even less idea what the actual repercussions of particular results are, even after they happen. Media will hype up these games just as much, because nobody can tell them with authority that they don't have massive implications. We'll get the same 'all the marbles' lines, and they'll still be false 90% of the time. Fans will get caught up in these narratives and be just as into it, and then be outraged when their signature win didn't sway the selection committee as much as they thought it would.

That said, I do think there will be less controversy overall under the new system. Because ultimately people only care about the winner, and the winner will have legitimacy by surviving a playoff with three other elite teams. The team that finished 12-1 and with an okay schedule but lost out on a playoff berth to another 12-1 okay schedule team will be forgotten by the start of next year.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

And the iron bowl would have been a Complete waste of time.

How many times did Vern lundquist and danielson say "for all the marbles"?

The bcs screwed auburn in 04, outside if that it nailed it. It's never easy with 118 teams and 12 weeks. But now we need to start to cater to the lowest common denominator, start with 4, then probably 8 and then we end up with basketball. No massive iron bowl games. Just 3 months of mildly important football but never, ever huge games they was have been used to over the decades.

Meh I wouldn't say they nailed it. 2008-2009 was another one that would have been much better with a playoff. Utah dominated their way to an undefeated season by kicking Alabama's butt in the Sugar Bowl. A one loss Florida team won it all though. That year also had the 3 way tie in the Big 12 and a damn good USC team.

[PIMking]

washingtons Steve Sarkisian accepted the USC head coaching job

[Senator Clay Davis]

Has Sarkisian really done anything at UDub to deserve the USC job? None stop mediocrity suggests no, but he is connected to the program and was an ace recruiter there. But being a great recruiter has little to do with being a great coach (see Kiffin, Lane)