Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lurker

Off Topic: opening day for college football

Recommended Posts

Sorry guys, but a champion by Poll is not the real deal. You win it on the field.

If NCAA wrestling were done that way Rob Rohn would not have an NCAA title.

Every other sport and every level of College football has an actual playoff. Doing it at the highest level of NCAA football would be a money maker for all concerned and get rid of the "we were left out" we see each year now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WillieBoy said:

Sorry guys, but a champion by Poll is not the real deal. You win it on the field.

If NCAA wrestling were done that way Rob Rohn would not have an NCAA title.

Every other sport and every level of College football has an actual playoff. Doing it at the highest level of NCAA football would be a money maker for all concerned and get rid of the "we were left out" we see each year now.

Agree 100%. Polling has no place in determination of the champion. As long as there is subjectivity involved (such as which 4 teams make the playoff) then the champs will be champs on paper only. I also strongly dislike polls because they encourage creampuff competition in nonconference games, hence we end up with ridiculous matchups like Alabama vs The Citadel (LOL, are you kidding me??).

 

My idea: the playoffs should be extended to the number of conference champions PLUS ONE (the +1 is for independents). There can be stipulations: the plus one team must have at least a 10-2 or better record and meet a competition quality level. All the conference champions qualify. No team that is not a conference champ or the plus one qualifies, period. That would end the stupid arguments of "oh, well UGA is better than OU". Sorry, doesn't matter, you can't win your own conference you miss the playoff, period. Consider it your "play in". There are, I think, 11 conferences and the plus one which make a 12 team playoff.  Straws are drawn or something to determine which 4 teams get a bye in the first round. Easy, peasy, Japanesey. No polling involved, no subjectivity whatsoever, just a system that considers conference championships as something that matters (unlike now) and teams that actually EARNED their way in through meeting the standard established above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Mr Rex - I think you are onto something. The way the second division does it works very well. Conference champs get in. Top seeds get a first round bye and then games at their home stadiums. Great for the schools and their fans. Then the final game for it all. Having the number of teams they do involved gets rid of 99% of the whining of "we should have been involved" as if you are good enough to be ranked, you are included. Gives good hope for those near the top even if they have one or two losses on the record - say to Alabama and Auburn this year. At times the "best team" actually does have a loss. A real playoff would allow them to rise to the top and prove it on the field.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, boconnell said:

Why not?  Because the best team they beat was Cincinnati.  Is anyone trying to put Matthew Schmitt in the NCAA wrestling semis at 133 because he is 10-0 with a win over Louie Hayes?  The system they have has flaws but it doesn't mean you just throw up your hands and put a team in the playoff because 'why not'.  

I don’t disagree what you said about best team they beat was Cincinnati. But you highlighted two words from my post, which was wrapping up other legitimate points, and ran with it as if that was the main point and that I’m just simply saying why not. Not at all the case. 

My point is this. Almost every year a mid-major is griping that they should be in. And this year was the perfect storm of top three being cemented, a wide open for debate for who should be number 4, and one of those on a 25 game winning streak having beaten the SEC West champs in the previous years post season. So if ever there was a time to do it, this was the year. A point would have been proven either way, either they show they belong, or they show they don’t. 

Point is if it was going to happen , this was the perfect year for it to happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lurker said:

I don’t disagree what you said about best team they beat was Cincinnati. But you highlighted two words from my post, which was wrapping up other legitimate points, and ran with it as if that was the main point and that I’m just simply saying why not. Not at all the case. 

My point is this. Almost every year a mid-major is griping that they should be in. And this year was the perfect storm of top three being cemented, a wide open for debate for who should be number 4, and one of those on a 25 game winning streak having beaten the SEC West champs in the previous years post season. So if ever there was a time to do it, this was the year. A point would have been proven either way, either they show they belong, or they show they don’t. 

Point is if it was going to happen , this was the perfect year for it to happen. 

The perfect year for it to happen is when one of the G5 schools has the resume to be a top 4 school.  If UCF wanted to compete for national titles then they should have scheduled non-conference games with someone other than South Carolina St., Florida Atlantic, and Pitt.  The University of Houston fancies themselves a National Contender (they are wrong).  But built on that fancy they play Washington and Oklahoma next year.  If they go undefeated and those teams win conference championships again, then they will have a legitimate claim.  When you have a terrible conference schedule and then choose to play terrible non-conference games you have no gripe.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TobusRex said:

Agree 100%. Polling has no place in determination of the champion. As long as there is subjectivity involved (such as which 4 teams make the playoff) then the champs will be champs on paper only. I also strongly dislike polls because they encourage creampuff competition in nonconference games, hence we end up with ridiculous matchups like Alabama vs The Citadel (LOL, are you kidding me??).

 

My idea: the playoffs should be extended to the number of conference champions PLUS ONE (the +1 is for independents). There can be stipulations: the plus one team must have at least a 10-2 or better record and meet a competition quality level. All the conference champions qualify. No team that is not a conference champ or the plus one qualifies, period. That would end the stupid arguments of "oh, well UGA is better than OU". Sorry, doesn't matter, you can't win your own conference you miss the playoff, period. Consider it your "play in". There are, I think, 11 conferences and the plus one which make a 12 team playoff.  Straws are drawn or something to determine which 4 teams get a bye in the first round. Easy, peasy, Japanesey. No polling involved, no subjectivity whatsoever, just a system that considers conference championships as something that matters (unlike now) and teams that actually EARNED their way in through meeting the standard established above.

You're still posting in this thread with no sig even after I quoted our sig bet up above and gave you your new sig.  Quit welshing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2019 at 5:07 AM, boconnell said:

"I sometimes talk about things I know.  And by sometimes I mean always, and by things I know I mean things I don't know."

 

I'd use it, but it's not about wrestling. That was your stipulation, btw. (" If you want a sigbet I'll take it even though I'm no Texas fan, but I'll take it just to have a rooting interest and a reason to occasionally chat football with you (and let you know how wrong you are).  But the signature itself has to be wrestling related. ")

 

Come up with something appropriate.

Edited by TobusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, boconnell said:

The perfect year for it to happen is when one of the G5 schools has the resume to be a top 4 school.  If UCF wanted to compete for national titles then they should have scheduled non-conference games with someone other than South Carolina St., Florida Atlantic, and Pitt.  The University of Houston fancies themselves a National Contender (they are wrong).  But built on that fancy they play Washington and Oklahoma next year.  If they go undefeated and those teams win conference championships again, then they will have a legitimate claim.  When you have a terrible conference schedule and then choose to play terrible non-conference games you have no gripe.  

Fact of the matter is this: UCF wasn't legit, and furthermore they KNEW they weren't legit. They play a  creampuff schedule, in a creampuff conference. Like you said if they scheduled legit heavyweight teams they'd get a lot more traction. UCF is a pretty good team, but they would be a 4th or 5th place team in the SEC and maybe a 3rd or 4th in the Big 12. At least they kept it close vs LSU (the 3rd best team in the SEC).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, boconnell said:

The perfect year for it to happen is when one of the G5 schools has the resume to be a top 4 school.  If UCF wanted to compete for national titles then they should have scheduled non-conference games with someone other than South Carolina St., Florida Atlantic, and Pitt.  The University of Houston fancies themselves a National Contender (they are wrong).  But built on that fancy they play Washington and Oklahoma next year.  If they go undefeated and those teams win conference championships again, then they will have a legitimate claim.  When you have a terrible conference schedule and then choose to play terrible non-conference games you have no gripe.  

Maybe you’re misunderstanding me. I don’t believe they have a legitimate gripe, I don’t believe they were a top four team this year or last. I agree with what you say regarding their schedule. Maybe I should have worded it differently (I was being nice), this was the perfect year to shut them up  (G5 gripers). Two years undefeated and the four playoff teams being the only unbeaten teams in the country. They would have gotten blasted, and put things in perspective for those who need it. 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TobusRex said:

 

I'd use it, but it's not about wrestling. That was your stipulation, btw. (" If you want a sigbet I'll take it even though I'm no Texas fan, but I'll take it just to have a rooting interest and a reason to occasionally chat football with you (and let you know how wrong you are).  But the signature itself has to be wrestling related. ")

 

Come up with something appropriate.

That's super weak as an excuse.  The sig I put isn't non-wrestling.  If you want to lawyer out of it go ahead, I won't say anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, boconnell said:

That's super weak as an excuse.  The sig I put isn't non-wrestling.  If you want to lawyer out of it go ahead, I won't say anything else.

It doesn't mention wrestling at all. That was YOUR stipulation. I'm holding you to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the FCS Playoffs. From Wikipedia.

The FCS is the highest division in college football to hold a playoff tournament sanctioned by the NCAA to determine its champion. The four-team playoff system used by the Bowl Subdivision is not sanctioned by the NCAA.

 

In its ninth season of 1986, the playoffs expanded to a 16-team format, requiring four post-season victories to win the title. Eight conference champions received automatic bids, with the remaining eight bids available on an at-large basis. The field is traditionally set the Sunday before Thanksgiving and play begins that weekend. The top four teams are seeded; however, the matchups are not strictly set up by these seedings as geographic considerations are also taken into account to minimize travel.

In April 2008, the NCAA announced that the playoff field would expand to twenty teams in 2010, with the number of conferences receiving automatic bids increasing to ten. The structure then adopted included eight teams playing in four first-round games. The four first round winners advance to the second Round of Sixteen where they play the top four seeds. The playoffs expanded to 24 teams beginning with the 2013 season. The number of conferences whose champions receive automatic bids increased to eleven with the addition of a bid for the Pioneer Football League and the number of first-round games increased from four to eight.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A system like this would eliminate a lot of now questionable decisions as to just which four teams get in. Any outliers would have no reason to complain. Conference Champions would be in and with the numbers their other top rated teams would still be in the mix. Single elimination, one and done - every team has a chance. Then we would finally have an actual NCAA champion on the highest level of football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would they call one of the first round games the TaxSlayer Bowl or something?

It does seem like some of these crappy bowl games have jumped the shark, so one reason the NCAA may want to consider a larger playoff is to prevent things like all these players that have been sitting out their bowl games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

So would they call one of the first round games the TaxSlayer Bowl or something?

It does seem like some of these crappy bowl games have jumped the shark, so one reason the NCAA may want to consider a larger playoff is to prevent things like all these players that have been sitting out their bowl games.

 

I'm not sure that would stop players from sitting out their final game(s). The guys who didn't bowl this year with their teams, especially the QB from WVU, didn't want to risk career ending injuries. I think those dudes would've not played anyway. For the record I think it's pretty low rent, a guy should have loyalty to his team and at least finish out the year.

 

Regarding the bowls, I'd have no problem in theory if the bowls now in place hosted playoff games. I'd prefer not, though, because all the revenue for the games should go to the schools, not a huge chunk to the bowl organizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the divisions have it right with how many make the playoffs,  but DII I know pisses me off because they do 4 regions....what if the best two teams are from the same regional area?   Seed the top 16 and let everyone else travel and then highest seed always hosts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 11:30 AM, TobusRex said:

 

I'm not sure that would stop players from sitting out their final game(s). The guys who didn't bowl this year with their teams, especially the QB from WVU, didn't want to risk career ending injuries. I think those dudes would've not played anyway. For the record I think it's pretty low rent, a guy should have loyalty to his team and at least finish out the year.

 

Regarding the bowls, I'd have no problem in theory if the bowls now in place hosted playoff games. I'd prefer not, though, because all the revenue for the games should go to the schools, not a huge chunk to the bowl organizations.

Maybe it’s partly because there’s only 4 teams,  but I don’t believe any player that made the playoff has intentionally sat out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2019 at 9:00 AM, TobusRex said:

Agree 100%. Polling has no place in determination of the champion. As long as there is subjectivity involved (such as which 4 teams make the playoff) then the champs will be champs on paper only. I also strongly dislike polls because they encourage creampuff competition in nonconference games, hence we end up with ridiculous matchups like Alabama vs The Citadel (LOL, are you kidding me??).

 Couple problems with this paragraph. 1) once again just because you don’t agree with how it’s determined doesn’t make it unreal. The national championship trophy, universal acknowledgement (except from the gripers), and listing on the NCAA website as national champions is much much more than “paper only”. Sorry, your dislike of it doesn’t change the facts. Stop fooling yourself. 2) Alabama opens the season with a big dog non conference game every year. You barked up the wrong tree there my friend. In the last ten years they have opened with the likes of Michigan, USC, Virginia Tech, Wisconsin, Florida State, Clemson, etc.  Saban does this purposely so they have a big game to look forward to in the pre-season. Now is there a cupcake in there, yes, just like everyone else. But where else you are wrong is the assertion that the current format promotes cupcakes. Wrong, in fact it was designed to do just the opposite. And SOS is a major component in the ranking of the final four (UCF anyone?) 

I don’t disagree with your premise. I’d like to see an expanded playoff myself (although I don’t want it to go past 8. If you go to 16, SOS will mean even less). I’d like to see someone other than Bama in the national championship game. I’m just saying, use facts, don’t make ish up that’s simply not truth. And don’t take what are facts and turn them into something else. Your argument would be more productive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2019 at 8:17 PM, Lurker said:

 Couple problems with this paragraph. 1) once again just because you don’t agree with how it’s determined doesn’t make it unreal. The national championship trophy, universal acknowledgement (except from the gripers), and listing on the NCAA website as national champions is much much more than “paper only”. Sorry, your dislike of it doesn’t change the facts. Stop fooling yourself. 2) Alabama opens the season with a big dog non conference game every year. You barked up the wrong tree there my friend. In the last ten years they have opened with the likes of Michigan, USC, Virginia Tech, Wisconsin, Florida State, Clemson, etc.  Saban does this purposely so they have a big game to look forward to in the pre-season. Now is there a cupcake in there, yes, just like everyone else. But where else you are wrong is the assertion that the current format promotes cupcakes. Wrong, in fact it was designed to do just the opposite. And SOS is a major component in the ranking of the final four (UCF anyone?) 

I don’t disagree with your premise. I’d like to see an expanded playoff myself (although I don’t want it to go past 8. If you go to 16, SOS will mean even less). I’d like to see someone other than Bama in the national championship game. I’m just saying, use facts, don’t make ish up that’s simply not truth. And don’t take what are facts and turn them into something else. Your argument would be more productive. 

 First of all, since you essentially agree with me on the playoffs, except for the number of teams let's address the other issue which steamed you in my comments: that Alabama load up on a creampuff schedule. You argued that Alabama plays a "big dog" every year. Let's check it out Alabama's non-conference opponents:

 

Louisville  2-10, dead last ACC (Atlantic Div) with a 0-8 record.

Arkansas Sate, 8-5, Sun Belt Conf West Div Co-Champ (for the record Appalachian State won the conference)

Louisiana Tech, 7-7, Sun Belt Conf West Division Co-Champ

The Citadel, 5-6, 5th in Div2 Southern Conference.

 

Those are all of Bama's non-conf opponents. I'm curious as to which one of those is the "big dog"? One of the Sun Belt Co-Champs, perhaps? Because Sun Belt teams (and ALL Sun Belt teams) are generally considered to be "creampuffs" by even average P5 teams. The Citadel...well, Bama scheduling them is just a goddamn disgrace, I don't care what you say. So that leaves 2-10 Louisville.

Yeah. Is Arkansas State the "big dog" this year? Or La Tech?

You may have an argument about non-conf creampuffs some years. But certainly not this year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, TobusRex said:

 First of all, since you essentially agree with me on the playoffs, except for the number of teams let's address the other issue which steamed you in my comments: that Alabama load up on a creampuff schedule. You argued that Alabama plays a "big dog" every year. Let's check it out Alabama's non-conference opponents:

 

Louisville  2-10, dead last ACC (Atlantic Div) with a 0-8 record.

Arkansas Sate, 8-5, Sun Belt Conf West Div Co-Champ (for the record Appalachian State won the conference)

Louisiana Tech, 7-7, Sun Belt Conf West Division Co-Champ

The Citadel, 5-6, 5th in Div2 Southern Conference.

 

Those are all of Bama's non-conf opponents. I'm curious as to which one of those is the "big dog"? One of the Sun Belt Co-Champs, perhaps? Because Sun Belt teams (and ALL Sun Belt teams) are generally considered to be "creampuffs" by even average P5 teams. The Citadel...well, Bama scheduling them is just a goddamn disgrace, I don't care what you say. So that leaves 2-10 Louisville.

Yeah. Is Arkansas State the "big dog" this year? Or La Tech?

You may have an argument about non-conf creampuffs some years. But certainly not this year.

 

I’m far from being “steamed”, but nice try. 

To respond though, I listed a long line of big dogs they have been opening with for nearly a decade. I did not mention Louisville because they were not good this year, yet out of all the big dogs they have opened with, that is what you chose to focus on. And to that I will say, look at when the game was scheduled, and answer me where was Louisville at that point, and what control does Alabama have in them going in the toilet since. You choose to ignore my other points, like all the other teams they have opened with, the fact that the new system encourages tough out of conference scheduling. I’m a Gator fan, and they have ALWAYS scheduled cream puffs, until now. Why do you think that is??

No need to keep going back and forth. We each have our own perspective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may suggest for FBS (1-A) 16 team bracket. The SEC, B1G, ACC, PAC-12 championship games are round of 16 games. (PAC 12 would need to find 2 more teams to hold that status. No Big 12 Championship game (unless that league expands to 12-4) the 5 lesser leagues would send there champs(I would suggest the ones with 12 teams have a championship the weekend before, possibly divisional match-ups that weekend.(usually thanksgiving) 1 v 1, 2 v 2, 3 v 3,.... 7 v 7. The other two spots would be wildcards(obviously Notre Dame this year..

I would sure like to see at least one of the quarterfinal sights be in the north. If Alabama, wants to prove they are the best in the nation, they need to win a game in the cold.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RichB said:

If I may suggest for FBS (1-A) 16 team bracket. The SEC, B1G, ACC, PAC-12 championship games are round of 16 games. (PAC 12 would need to find 2 more teams to hold that status. No Big 12 Championship game (unless that league expands to 12-4) the 5 lesser leagues would send there champs(I would suggest the ones with 12 teams have a championship the weekend before, possibly divisional match-ups that weekend.(usually thanksgiving) 1 v 1, 2 v 2, 3 v 3,.... 7 v 7. The other two spots would be wildcards(obviously Notre Dame this year..

I would sure like to see at least one of the quarterfinal sights be in the north. If Alabama, wants to prove they are the best in the nation, they need to win a game in the cold.      

This is good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RichB said:

If I may suggest for FBS (1-A) 16 team bracket. The SEC, B1G, ACC, PAC-12 championship games are round of 16 games. (PAC 12 would need to find 2 more teams to hold that status. No Big 12 Championship game (unless that league expands to 12-4) the 5 lesser leagues would send there champs(I would suggest the ones with 12 teams have a championship the weekend before, possibly divisional match-ups that weekend.(usually thanksgiving) 1 v 1, 2 v 2, 3 v 3,.... 7 v 7. The other two spots would be wildcards(obviously Notre Dame this year..

I would sure like to see at least one of the quarterfinal sights be in the north. If Alabama, wants to prove they are the best in the nation, they need to win a game in the cold.      

I have been a strong proponent of an 8 team playoff with all P5 champs + best non P5 + the remaining 2 highest ranked Teams. Seeded 1 thru 8.

With that being said, your suggestion is interesting and has merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×