College Football Playoff

[DaveW]

And down goes Notre Dame! Who still failed to beat NO ONE.

 

Oklahoma is now a stone cold lock for the playoffs.

Clemson, Bama, Mich State and Iowa all get in with a win as well.

 

If I were setting the odds I would put the odds as following to "win it all"

 

Bama: 3:2

OU: 2:1

Clemson 4:1

Mich State: 6:1

Iowa: 10:1

[kab21]

Looks like the top 4 are pretty much locked in (w/ the Big Ten champ).

 

The only drama left will be what happens if Clemson or Alabama loses in their conference championships. 

 

Who would you put in that scenario?

NC (if they beat Clemson)

Ohio State (two big teams)

Stanford 2 losses (if they win the conf champ)

 

A different 2 loss team?

[ashbury]

Not Stanford. I met my wife there so I'll always root for them. But this year's team would have only a "puncher's chance" against a top team, as their defense is so deficient. And against a better defense than Notre Dame's, their chance of landing enough killing blows would be very small.

[DaveW]

Bama won't lose. 17 point favorite, Saban won't allow it.

 

Clemson has a shot to lose for sure though. I think I would take a one loss Ohio State over a two loss Stanford in a heartbeat. I can't take North Carolina seriously even with a win as well to be honest. But it wouldn't be the end of the world if they made it.

 

Too bad there isn't an undefeated mid major this year to make it really interesting.

[bluechipper]

Well there goes all of the drama and potential controversy. Oklahoma beat another backup quarterback (That's three weeks in a row now if you're counting.)

[DaveW]

 

Well there goes all of the drama and potential controversy. Oklahoma beat another backup quarterback (That's three weeks in a row now if you're counting.)

 

LOL, keep hating. How did Notre Dame by the way?

 

The Sooners almost scored half a hundred on them prior to half time, it doesn't matter who the QB was for OSU, they were going to win that game.

 

The Sooners likely have the best QB, best RB and best WR in all of the NCAA currently, the defense has given up some points here and there but their record and schedule stands for itself.

 

The scary thing for the rest of football is this team will only get better, dynasty in the making.

[kab21]

Here is the one thing that doesn't really work for the college football playoff: Arguably the best team is going to be left out.  I would still put Alabama #1 but Ohio State would be 1a and even Oklahoma would be solidly at #3.  It is hard to say that the goal is to put the 4 best teams in and not take Ohio State.  They of course have no one to blame but themselves since they didn't win when it mattered but they are still better than the other teams.

[DaveW]

I'm not sure how you can say Ohio State is 1a, they looked shaky as all hell quite a bit this year, and managed to lose a home game to boot. That is inexcusable in college football IMO if you are saying they are better than similar teams.

 

I'd rank them as followed:

Bama (SEC reputation)

OU

Clemson

Whoever wins big ten

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'm a Buckeye's fan, though nothing more than a casual college football fan, but to say that the Bucs weren't overrated this year would be foolish.  They didn't exactly blow away the bad teams that the beat, and while they barely lost to MSU, I think their current rankings are probably appropriate.

 

[RANT]

One thing that really bothers me about college football though is that rankings rarely take context into account.  1 and can beat 2 by a last minute field goal and suddenly 2 is now 8.  Or on that same manner a loss in November is much worse than a loss in September.  I don't get that.  A loss is a loss, but even a good team has a bad day. There's some pretty silly rules in there, and then when you add politics, you see a lot of undeserving teams make it (my bucs have been the benefit of that, and they've been on the other side too) [/END RANT]

 

 

[DaveW]

I think there is something to the "late season losses" hurt more way of thinking, in college football you are dealing with a new set of guys every year or so, often times it will take a few games for a team to "gel" or for simply the cream to rise to the crop in terms of talent/packages etc.

 

Especially when you are comparing resumes, an early season loss is just less damning IMO.

 

As of now the playoff committee has it as close to right as it could be.

 

Bama and Oklahoma are without a doubt two of the top 4 teams in the country, if MSU wins, they clearly are as well.

 

I have reservations regarding Iowa and Clemson, but if they end up undefeated in a "major" conference, they certainly have earned their shot as well.

 

The best bang for the buck final four would be:

 

1. Bama vs 4. OSU

2. OU vs 3. MSU

 

Those would be some excellent coaching matchups.

 

 

[bluechipper]

LOL, keep hating. How did Notre Dame by the way?

 

The Sooners almost scored half a hundred on them prior to half time, it doesn't matter who the QB was for OSU, they were going to win that game.

 

The Sooners likely have the best QB, best RB and best WR in all of the NCAA currently, the defense has given up some points here and there but their record and schedule stands for itself.

 

The scary thing for the rest of football is this team will only get better, dynasty in the making.

Let's see how they do against teams that play defense and aren't playing with backups.

 

Notre Dame was terrible in the red zone and they still had the opportunity to hand the game to Stanford, on the road. They were still pretty impressive, even with all of their injuries.

[ALessKosherScott]

 

Here is the one thing that doesn't really work for the college football playoff: Arguably the best team is going to be left out.  I would still put Alabama #1 but Ohio State would be 1a and even Oklahoma would be solidly at #3.  It is hard to say that the goal is to put the 4 best teams in and not take Ohio State.  They of course have no one to blame but themselves since they didn't win when it mattered but they are still better than the other teams.

 

My two cents is the real problem with the playoffs is that there aren't any great teams this year, merely a lot of good teams with a lot of grey areas. If there were 16 teams in it this year, any of the 16 could win it with a little luck and the right breaks. And that wasn't the case last year. But at the same time, I'd put my money on any of the four teams from last year's playoffs over any team this season. Ohio State is a good team and good enough to win it this year, but if they're matched up against last year's OSU they get rolled because they were more consistent with their line play and they never really found a replacement for Devin Smith, which is why Cardale Jones went from third string to first round pick to 5th round pick over the course of things.

 

With that said, the level of parity should make for three pretty good games in January.

[kab21]

The problem that I mention is not so much about this year or Ohio St but rather the ********* if 2 teams from the same conference made the playoff instead of a one loss conf champ.  Right now fans are supporting this (and loving it) but I am not sure that will remain the case if there are too many controversial and seemingly arbitrary (50/50 coin flips) selections by the committee. 

 

If they could figure out the scheduling then a 6 team playoff could solve that.  Automatic bids for any 0 or 1 loss Power 5 conference champs.  Possibly an auto bid for an independent or Group of 5 team ranked in the top ten (or unbeaten or something else).  After that committee selections for the final spots.  It is a scheduling issue but there is a lower chance over somebody getting cheated.  They mostly control their own destiny instead of a committee. 

[DaveW]

I have always been a fan of a 6 team playoff, reward the top two teams in the nation, auto bid to the big (5) and an at large.

[ALessKosherScott]

 

 

If they could figure out the scheduling then a 6 team playoff could solve that.  Automatic bids for any 0 or 1 loss Power 5 conference champs.  Possibly an auto bid for an independent or Group of 5 team ranked in the top ten (or unbeaten or something else).  After that committee selections for the final spots.  It is a scheduling issue but there is a lower chance over somebody getting cheated.  They mostly control their own destiny instead of a committee. 

 

If you count Iowa/MSU and UNC/Clemson as the defacto playoff games they are, you do have a six team playoff. It's still arbitrary though. And the conferences are the ones to blame. As a Pac-12 superiority guy (and I'd make a case that Stanford walks all over either MSU or Iowa in the Rose Bowl), I readily admit that Utah and Colorado add about as much as Rutgers and Maryland do to the Big 10. But because you have these bloated conferences that are chasing $$$ you have a really bad Stanford/USC matchup this weekend for the Rose Bowl and a really bad Alabama/Florida matchup where an Alabama/Stanford for all the marbles would be exciting. 

 

If you could get back to traditional 10-team Pac-10, Big 10, SEC and ACC conferences, then pod together 2 or 3 more big, 10-team, regional conferences and have them all play a true nine game round robin where a true champion is determined. Then take the six or seven winners and one or two at-large team (the highest ranked teams from the field of non-conference winners and the other 50 something teams) and seed them 1 through 8 and have Championship week mean something, it would make for better football. Plus, you could bring traditional rivalries that actually mean something, like Penn State/Pitt or Texas/Arkansas in new conferences. 

 

It won't happen though as long as the Big 10 is seeking east coast ratings for the Big 10 Network and force fitting a Rutgers/Michigan rivalry in the process. 

 

 

[bluechipper]

 

If you count Iowa/MSU and UNC/Clemson as the defacto playoff games they are, you do have a six team playoff. It's still arbitrary though. And the conferences are the ones to blame. As a Pac-12 superiority guy (and I'd make a case that Stanford walks all over either MSU or Iowa in the Rose Bowl), I readily admit that Utah and Colorado add about as much as Rutgers and Maryland do to the Big 10. But because you have these bloated conferences that are chasing $$$ you have a really bad Stanford/USC matchup this weekend for the Rose Bowl and a really bad Alabama/Florida matchup where an Alabama/Stanford for all the marbles would be exciting. 

 

If you could get back to traditional 10-team Pac-10, Big 10, SEC and ACC conferences, then pod together 2 or 3 more big, 10-team, regional conferences and have them all play a true nine game round robin where a true champion is determined. Then take the six or seven winners and one or two at-large team (the highest ranked teams from the field of non-conference winners and the other 50 something teams) and seed them 1 through 8 and have Championship week mean something, it would make for better football. Plus, you could bring traditional rivalries that actually mean something, like Penn State/Pitt or Texas/Arkansas in new conferences. 

 

It won't happen though as long as the Big 10 is seeking east coast ratings for the Big 10 Network and force fitting a Rutgers/Michigan rivalry in the process. 

Are you talking about the same Stanford that put up 6 against Northwestern and lucked out on wins against WSU and Notre Dame? MSU and Iowa do the same things that Stanford does, they just do it in a better conference.

[ALessKosherScott]

 

Are you talking about the same Stanford that put up 6 against Northwestern and lucked out on wins against WSU and Notre Dame? MSU and Iowa do the same things that Stanford does, they just do it in a better conference.

 

Stanford has evolved from the team that lost to Northwestern. Or more to the point if the two teams play today, McCaffery doesn't get only 12 carries because he's an unknown. More than likely, Stanford plays their game of power running and deep passing.

 

On the flip side, Michigan State lost to a bad Nebraska team, should've lost to Michigan and were a missed wide open receiver away from losing to a bad Oregon team playing a QB with a broken finger. To use a common opponent, Utah blew out the struggling version of Oregon, beat Michigan handily, and still only finished second in the Pac-12 South. From my eyeball test, Stanford looked a lot better against a healthy Oregon team with a QB who was on fire. The computers and sabermetrical stats tend to like Stanford more than Iowa and are 50/50 on Michigan State and Stanford. 

 

I'd bet Stanford over either in the Rose Bowl.

[DaveW]

I would bet Stanford as well, it's easy to call Stanford's big wins "flukey" while ignoring the Spartans and one of the most flukely wins of all time against a mediocre Michigan team.

 

The big ten is terrible. I would love to see Iowa sneak in, just to get beat by 50

[bluechipper]

Stanford has evolved from the team that lost to Northwestern. Or more to the point if the two teams play today, McCaffery doesn't get only 12 carries because he's an unknown. More than likely, Stanford plays their game of power running and deep passing.

 

On the flip side, Michigan State lost to a bad Nebraska team, should've lost to Michigan and were a missed wide open receiver away from losing to a bad Oregon team playing a QB with a broken finger. To use a common opponent, Utah blew out the struggling version of Oregon, beat Michigan handily, and still only finished second in the Pac-12 South. From my eyeball test, Stanford looked a lot better against a healthy Oregon team with a QB who was on fire. The computers and sabermetrical stats tend to like Stanford more than Iowa and are 50/50 on Michigan State and Stanford. 

 

 

I'd bet Stanford over either in the Rose Bowl.

Sure, Stanford seems like a better team now, but they lost to the same team that Iowa beat 40 to 10. I think everyone will see how good Iowa really is on Saturday.

[bluechipper]

 

I would bet Stanford as well, it's easy to call Stanford's big wins "flukey" while ignoring the Spartans and one of the most flukely wins of all time against a mediocre Michigan team.

 

The big ten is terrible. I would love to see Iowa sneak in, just to get beat by 50

Yeah the Big 10 is terrible. They've only got 5 teams ranked in the top 15.

[kab21]

The Big Ten West truly is terrible and that is the only reason that Iowa is even in the picture right now.  It could also be said that MSU isn't the best team in the eastern division but they did get through their schedule.  The Big Ten is actually pretty good this year but they lack a powerhouse team. 

 

Scott's proposal might make sense with complete realignment but that isn't going to happen.  The problem that I see is that a group of people have been given final say on something as important the final 4 teams.  With 5 Power conferences and ND/BYU this will inevitably lead to more situations like last year where someone gets left out.  Once that happens enough then this could fall apart just like the BCS.  Something as simple going to six teams with auto bids for each of the power 5 and some allowance for an auto bid for independent/Group of 5 teams.  That is all that needs to be done.

 

I disagree with Scott's issue with expansion of the major conferences.  It would be better if they didn't expand but the Big 10's problem was that it chased TV sets (Rutgers) instead of getting the right match for sports.  The Big Ten for the most part (with the SEC) had their pick and probably could have added Missouri along with another good team.  Maryland is at least a basketball minor power and has had some moments in football.

[bluechipper]

The Big Ten West truly is terrible and that is the only reason that Iowa is even in the picture right now.  It could also be said that MSU isn't the best team in the eastern division but they did get through their schedule.  The Big Ten is actually pretty good this year but they lack a powerhouse team. 

 

Scott's proposal might make sense with complete realignment but that isn't going to happen.  The problem that I see is that a group of people have been given final say on something as important the final 4 teams.  With 5 Power conferences and ND/BYU this will inevitably lead to more situations like last year where someone gets left out.  Once that happens enough then this could fall apart just like the BCS.  Something as simple going to six teams with auto bids for each of the power 5 and some allowance for an auto bid for independent/Group of 5 teams.  That is all that needs to be done.

 

I disagree with Scott's issue with expansion of the major conferences.  It would be better if they didn't expand but the Big 10's problem was that it chased TV sets (Rutgers) instead of getting the right match for sports.  The Big Ten for the most part (with the SEC) had their pick and probably could have added Missouri along with another good team.  Maryland is at least a basketball minor power and has had some moments in football.

The west has two teams in the top 15, and a team at the bottom of the standings beat Michigan State. That's not too bad.

[kab21]

It is hard to lose games when you only schedule one decent non-conference game, get creampuffs from the eastern half and play in the Big Ten West.  Iowa especially had the perfect schedule to go undefeated so far and they squeaked through their schedule.

 

I also don't think MSU is the best team in the East but that is how it played out.

[bluechipper]

 

It is hard to lose games when you only schedule one decent non-conference game, get creampuffs from the eastern half and play in the Big Ten West.  Iowa especially had the perfect schedule to go undefeated so far and they squeaked through their schedule.

 

I also don't think MSU is the best team in the East but that is how it played out.

Iowa hasn't trailed in a game since the second quarter against Illinois 7 games ago. They have had a good schedule, but they've handled their opponents for the most part.

[DaveW]

Iowa is going to lose by 30 to a pretty mediocre Michigan state team.

[ALessKosherScott]

 

 

I disagree with Scott's issue with expansion of the major conferences.  It would be better if they didn't expand but the Big 10's problem was that it chased TV sets (Rutgers) instead of getting the right match for sports.  The Big Ten for the most part (with the SEC) had their pick and probably could have added Missouri along with another good team.  Maryland is at least a basketball minor power and has had some moments in football.

 

The problem is if you want an 8-team playoffs, logistically, the first round has to happen this week. 

 

MSU/Iowa has made for some entertaining football today. Alabama versus the 4th best SEC team, not so much. 

 

The bloated conferences are nothing more than cash grabs, and the misnamed "Conference Championship Week is a major part of it. The Pac-12 was much better as a 10 team conference where everybody played each other and there were no excuses. The Big 10 made for better football when Ohio State had to play Iowa instead of Rutgers in conference play. 

 

At some point, something has to give.

[biggentleben]

That was one heck of a football game. My brother was there as an Iowa alum, and he's just torn up after that 22-play, 9-minute drive.

 

Makes things open up now for the #4 slot in the playoff.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

The NCAA should almost draw up scenarios proir to the final weekend of games. It would let bubble teams know what they are playing for. I can see a scenario in the future where a 10 seed beats a 1 seed and the 10 seed thinks it's in, but then turns out not to be.

 

 

EDIT: seeds, rankings, whatever

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Also, congratulations to the NCAA line judge blowing that off sides call. Hey buddy, you might have a future officiating in the NFL!

[bluechipper]

 

Iowa is going to lose by 30 to a pretty mediocre Michigan state team.

Has your opinion changed about Iowa now? They're a very good team. That's just a crushing way to lose.