It is currently Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:44 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:57 pm
Posts: 3421
I must say I was totally unimpressed with all players on ND except Julian Love (CB). I did not watch the ND lines that closely. I think Georgia would have represented better in the playoffs. Clemson is a beast on defense.

_________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Henri Poincaré


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:58 pm
Posts: 7799
My family is very Notre Dame friendly, large Italian catholic clan, and I’ve been arguing with most of them during the holidays that ND just didn’t belong. And while one game doesn’t prove that, there really is nothing impressive about that team, whose only quality win came way back in their opener against Michigan. And that one all of a sudden, doesn’t look quite as “quality”.
The CFP committee needs to come to the realization that just because a team goes undefeated, doesn’t mean they are one of the top 4 teams in the country, especially one that isn’t tied to a conference, and can pick and choose their cupcakes....

_________________
#CdnSteelerFanStrong


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 12:06 am
Posts: 3830
Draft Christian Wilkins and don't overthink it.

He appears to be a bit more flexible than LaMarr Woodley and more coachable than Bud Dupree or Jarvis Jones. And yes, I know he is DT not DE. BPA rules and he will likely be in the right spot. Plan B would be Ferrell.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:46 pm
Posts: 1185
When they renew the CFP license, it should carry a stipulation that only teams in conferences are eligible.

So tired of Notre Dame.

Alabama 31-Clemson 13

_________________
Fire Tomlin.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:58 pm
Posts: 7799
SteelKnife wrote:
When they renew the CFP license, it should carry a stipulation that only teams in conferences are eligible.

So tired of Notre Dame.

Alabama 31-Clemson 13

Agree 100%.

I think Bama wins, but have it closer.
Bama 27
Clemson 21

_________________
#CdnSteelerFanStrong


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:46 pm
Posts: 1185
Jobus Rum wrote:
SteelKnife wrote:
When they renew the CFP license, it should carry a stipulation that only teams in conferences are eligible.

So tired of Notre Dame.

Alabama 31-Clemson 13

Agree 100%.

I think Bama wins, but have it closer.
Bama 27
Clemson 21


21 is the absolute most I can see Clemson scoring.

_________________
Fire Tomlin.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:58 pm
Posts: 7799
SteelKnife wrote:
Jobus Rum wrote:
SteelKnife wrote:
When they renew the CFP license, it should carry a stipulation that only teams in conferences are eligible.

So tired of Notre Dame.

Alabama 31-Clemson 13

Agree 100%.

I think Bama wins, but have it closer.
Bama 27
Clemson 21


21 is the absolute most I can see Clemson scoring.

Maybe a defense/ST score for Dabo’s gang? :lol:

_________________
#CdnSteelerFanStrong


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:57 pm
Posts: 3421
Liberty Bowl - I hope AJ Green Cb Ok St comes out. He is so impressive.

_________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Henri Poincaré


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 12:06 am
Posts: 3830
There was a defense that looked vulnerable in the last two games and it wasn't Clemson's. Alabama has not seen a semipro defense like Clemson and that includes Georgia.

Clemson 38, Alabama 24.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:46 pm
Posts: 1185
Dan Smith--BYU wrote:
There was a defense that looked vulnerable in the last two games and it wasn't Clemson's. Alabama has not seen a semipro defense like Clemson and that includes Georgia.

Clemson 38, Alabama 24.


I think both LSU and Georgia's defense are comparable to Clemson's. Clemson's might be a little better, but Alabama still did just fine against those defenses.

I don't think Clemson's offense is as good as Georgia's. Definitely not Oklahoma's.

_________________
Fire Tomlin.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:11 pm
Posts: 2484
SteelKnife wrote:
When they renew the CFP license, it should carry a stipulation that only teams in conferences are eligible.

So tired of Notre Dame.

Alabama 31-Clemson 13


Easiest fix is 8 teams with power 5 conference champs and 3 at large. Use some of the who gives a shit bowls as the quarters and semis. I don't care if they do it as a bracket or as seedings (like hockey used to do). But some of the upstart schools could really use some of the cash they hand out for playing in those games to help the entire school's athletic departments.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:18 pm
Posts: 5335
Location: Sunny Delaware (but the murdery part)
Cowherd suggested yesterday to cut it down to two. Considering the number of times it's come down to Clemson vs Alabama in the Final over the last several seasons, I don't think he's exactly wrong. And I'm an Ohio State fan who thinks the SEC gets too much love, etc. Are we saying putting UCF, Ohio State, Washington and say, Georgia (previous to their loss to Texas) in with Notre Dame and Oklahoma would gave changed the outcome?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:46 pm
Posts: 1185
Ice wrote:
Cowherd suggested yesterday to cut it down to two. Considering the number of times it's come down to Clemson vs Alabama in the Final over the last several seasons, I don't think he's exactly wrong. And I'm an Ohio State fan who thinks the SEC gets too much love, etc. Are we saying putting UCF, Ohio State, Washington and say, Georgia (previous to their loss to Texas) in with Notre Dame and Oklahoma would gave changed the outcome?


It's possible.

I think people underestimate how much more teams care about playoff games than consolation bowls. The winner of each conference plus 3 at large should get in.

_________________
Fire Tomlin.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:18 pm
Posts: 5335
Location: Sunny Delaware (but the murdery part)
Well, yeah, it might actually put a damper on the "I'm skipping the Alleghenny Tire Bowl presented by Denny's to focus on the draft" syndrome, and might help non-Alabama/Clemson teams in recruiting a little bit, so it might influence the system in the long run, but I'm not sure (particularly based on the results I saw yesterday and throughout the weekend) that any of those teams, this year, would have made a dent in the outcome we arrived at anyway.

I'll add that I thought it was nice to see a traditional Pac-10 (okay, 12) vs Big Ten (okay, BIG) Rose Bowl, and (at least for Ohio State) the coaches, players and fans recognized the significance of that, too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:57 pm
Posts: 3421
I disagree with adding more teams. It is just so fans feel that they get a participation trophy. I think the committee mostly got it right this year. Ohio State would have done as well as Oklahoma vs Bama. ND was the mistake but the results would have been the same. Georgia would have lost to Clemson. No other teams were worthy of playing in a playoff.

_________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Henri Poincaré


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:46 pm
Posts: 1185
jebrick wrote:
I disagree with adding more teams. It is just so fans feel that they get a participation trophy. I think the committee mostly got it right this year. Ohio State would have done as well as Oklahoma vs Bama. ND was the mistake but the results would have been the same. Georgia would have lost to Clemson. No other teams were worthy of playing in a playoff.


I don't understand the argument against expanding the field. I get that you think they got it right, but why is that an argument against expanding? You're against expanding because it might have the side effect of making some people happier?

I think people focus too much on the loss column. Not every 3 loss team is worse than every 0 or 1 loss team (see: LSU, UCF). There are matchup issues that I think even Bama could have had. Georgia would have fared far better vs Clemson than Notre Dame. Ohio State has the horses on O and D to give Bama a game.

It is a bad thing for the game that P5 teams + Notre Dame get in solely on their loss column. It promotes cupcake scheduling.

There is absolutely an argument to be made that, despite the loss column, LSU, Florida, UCF, Ohio State, and Georgia are better than both Notre Dame and Oklahoma. In those matchups, who wins a best of 5 neutral site series?

If you restrict it to just Notre Dame, I think you can add Texas, Kentucky, and West Virginia to the mix.

Why not let them play it out at least a little bit?

_________________
Fire Tomlin.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:57 pm
Posts: 3421
I'm for good games with the best teams playing.

After they let in the conference winners they need to let in the teams that got upset in the conference championship but people think should make it. And Notre Dame has a permanent spot just because.

Accept the bowl games as participation trophies and move on.

_________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Henri Poincaré


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:18 pm
Posts: 5335
Location: Sunny Delaware (but the murdery part)
I have to agree with Brick, and it would have been nice to see, just for a last possible Urb v. Nicktator matchup if nothing else, Ohio State get in at #4 over Oklahoma. But it wasn't just the loss column. Oklahoma lost to Texas, who turned out to be a pretty good team. Ohio State lost to Purdue. You want to be a playoff team? Don't lose to Purdue.

It's the same logic as applies to your 2018 Pittsburgh Steelers. You want to go to the dance? Beat Cleveland and Oakland. They didn't deserve it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:58 pm
Posts: 7799
Ice wrote:
I have to agree with Brick, and it would have been nice to see, just for a last possible Urb v. Nicktator matchup if nothing else, Ohio State get in at #4 over Oklahoma. But it wasn't just the loss column. Oklahoma lost to Texas, who turned out to be a pretty good team. Ohio State lost to Purdue. You want to be a playoff team? Don't lose to Purdue.

It's the same logic as applies to your 2018 Pittsburgh Steelers. You want to go to the dance? Beat Cleveland and Oakland. They didn't deserve it.

I agree. As an OSU fan, I would have loved for the Buckeyes to have gotten in, one can make the argument that a one loss Big Ten champ (arguably the second best conference) deserves inclusion, but you can’t lose to a very mediocre Purdue team...let alone get bitch slapped like that.
(And just for the record, that Texas team that beat Oklahoma AND SEC heavyweight Georgia, lost to BIG mediocre Maryland. :mrgreen: )

_________________
#CdnSteelerFanStrong


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 12:06 am
Posts: 3830
Eliminate conference title games...this benefits no one but Notre Dame. It serves no purpose but to give the Domers a bye. And Alabama would have gotten in if they had lost it, like they did last year.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:18 pm
Posts: 5335
Location: Sunny Delaware (but the murdery part)
That Maryland team almost beat us. I know because myself and several family members from my mom's side, all Buckeye fans, were there for that almost-debacle. I actually, if you made me pick, think that Maryland almost could be argued as worse than the Purdue loss.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:58 pm
Posts: 7799
Ice wrote:
That Maryland team almost beat us. I know because myself and several family members from my mom's side, all Buckeye fans, were there for that almost-debacle. I actually, if you made me pick, think that Maryland almost could be argued as worse than the Purdue loss.

I know.... :lol: and they really should’ve, had their QB hit the wide open receiver on the 2 pt attempt.
But they didn’t.

_________________
#CdnSteelerFanStrong


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:46 pm
Posts: 1185
Ice wrote:
I have to agree with Brick, and it would have been nice to see, just for a last possible Urb v. Nicktator matchup if nothing else, Ohio State get in at #4 over Oklahoma. But it wasn't just the loss column. Oklahoma lost to Texas, who turned out to be a pretty good team. Ohio State lost to Purdue. You want to be a playoff team? Don't lose to Purdue.

It's the same logic as applies to your 2018 Pittsburgh Steelers. You want to go to the dance? Beat Cleveland and Oakland. They didn't deserve it.


OK, so Ohio State had a bad loss.

Did LSU? #1 Alabama, #10 Florida on the road (which stomped Michigan in its bowl game), #19 A&M on the road?
Did UCF? Undefeated.
Did Georgia? #11 LSU, #1 Alabama.
Did Michigan? #3 Notre Dame, #6 OSU

With LSU and Georgia, the only thing you can definitively say is that they were not the best team in the country when they faced Alabama.
With UCF, you can't even say that.

Notre Dame, Clemson, pre-bowl games, played absolutely no one.

LSU (which I keep going back to because I know them best), played #1, #5, #10, #18, #19.

A 4 team playoff weighs the loss column far too heavily, without enough consideration for SoS.

Georgia, UCF, LSU all are better teams than Notre Dame, at minimum. The only reason Notre Dame "deserved" it is because the loss column, which is my whole problem. Does Princeton deserve consideration for a CFP spot, even though they're FCS and played an FCS schedule?

The goal should be the best teams, regardless of loss column.

A 4 team playoff as a result promotes cupcake scheduling.

Expanding the playoff also leads more meaningful games, and thus less stars sitting out.

I believe it should be the 5 conference champions plus 3 at large, with the 5 conference champions being the top 5 seeds.

As an aside, I think there should be more conditions on being a CFP team, regardless of whether it's expanded.

First, you must be in a recognized conference to be eligible.
Second, I think all teams that want to be CFP eligible should be required to hold open the Saturday immediately after the initial CFP rankings. When the initial CFP rankings come out, the committee also releases matchups that it selects, to be played the following weekend, like mini bowl games. This mitigates my SoS concerns, because everyone who wants eligibility will be forced to play at least one quality opponent.

_________________
Fire Tomlin.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:18 pm
Posts: 5335
Location: Sunny Delaware (but the murdery part)
Wouldn't an 8 team playoff just lead to more teams going to cupcake scheduling? Like, "Ooooh, now I've got a shot, too, as long as I schedule nobody in the preseason and Fort Valley State two games before the end just like the big boys do?" I'm not sure I buy the logic, and aside from maybe an occasional upset, I'm not sure how adding in 4 more teams is going to alter the fundamental outcome.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CFB Playoffs
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:46 pm
Posts: 1185
Ice wrote:
Wouldn't an 8 team playoff just lead to more teams going to cupcake scheduling? Like, "Ooooh, now I've got a shot, too, as long as I schedule nobody in the preseason and Fort Valley State two games before the end just like the big boys do?" I'm not sure I buy the logic, and aside from maybe an occasional upset, I'm not sure how adding in 4 more teams is going to alter the fundamental outcome.


8 teams is less about fixing the cupcake scheduling by itself, and more about letting a reasonable number of top teams settle on the field the actual question of who is the best. I don't think the issue was as bad this year as previous years, but that's an exception. That said...

If you do 5 P5 winners + the best G5 winner + 2 at large, you really cut down the number of spots from 4 to 2 that you can possibly get without winning your conference (or realistically 3 to 2, since a non-conference winner will likely never be #1).

But whether or not you go to 8, I think SoS, SoV, and quality of opponent faced in any loss need to be explicitly made just as important as W-L record. With 4, I do not think conference championship should matter at all outside of the questions of 1) who have you played this season? and 2) who have you beat? In other words, you should get no credit for being a conference champion if your conference championship opponent was not a quality team.

With those two combined -- cutting number of at large spots and placing emphasis on schedule more than loss column -- you'll see cupcakery fade away.

I think the committee does an OK job at factoring that in now, but I don't think they go far enough. For example, even if we all agree that Clemson is probably one of the best 4 teams in the country, based on what was actually accomplished on field, they (and Notre Dame) deserved to be treated just like UCF. Yeah, undefeated, pretty good, but you didn't play anyone. Give me demonstrated quality (in victory and defeat) against top teams over demonstrated quality against a who's who of nobodies.

I also want to see at least one game on a schedule not controlled by the teams themselves, and instead controlled by the selection committee, so everyone has at least one quality opponent.

_________________
Fire Tomlin.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group