|
LeeMajors posted:mostly because it's never worked for anyone else. Spoiler alert, it's not going to work for Georgia either.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 06:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:The fact that firing Richt and hiring a Saban crony worked out for Georgia really ticks me off for some reason I can't explain UGA forrest gumping there asses into the 1 good Saban assistant is the most amazing thing about all of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 06:53
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:The fact that firing Richt and hiring a Saban crony worked out for Georgia really ticks me off for some reason I can't explain Kirby is clearly a very good coach, but he also walked into a great situation at Georgia, which I feel like no one is talking about. I suppose that's also an indictment on Richt, but yeah, the cupboard was hardly bare and it helped even more when a couple guys like Nick Chubb passed on the NFL. It'll be interesting to see what happens when those 30+ (I think, it's a crazy number either way) seniors are gone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
I legitimately wish I just wasn't a fan of CFB. Alabama being a giant uncaring kill machine that will win always and forever is exactly the kind of bullshit I turn to sports to get away from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 06:56
|
|
|
They will be worse next year but having the #1 recruiting class with good linemen will soften the blow over the next couple of years. Edit: national championship tickets are now over 3k.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 06:57
|
|
|
vikingstrike posted:They will be worse next year but having the #1 recruiting class with good linemen will soften the blow over the next couple of years. Think some reporter that said UGA's class is the 6th best ever signed 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 06:58
|
|
|
[quote="“LeeMajors”" post="“479842840”"] Were they better? Seems they had a 1-1 record and lost the conference to LSU. If we are just picking the ‘best’ teams and ignoring what happens on the field then maybe we should put 22 players through the combine and a kicking challenge, crank out a spreadsheet score and play just one actual football game every year. Bleep bloop. [/quote] I’d say that by the NCG they were most definitely better. LSU needed a bunch of help from special teams miscues and heroic defensive plays to eek out a 3 point overtime win in the first game. Sometimes better teams lose to worse teams. This whole argument started because someone said those weren’t the two “best” teams. If you accept that LSU was one of the two best teams in the country then how does Bama beating them convincingly not make Bama the best team? Why is the first game the authentic measure of the best team? Was Georgia or Auburn better this year? It’s pointless to try and pick the two best teams out of 120 teams who only play a dozen games each. Bama keeps getting second chances because the issue gets framed as finding the best teams and not the most deserving teams based on some fixed criteria. The NFL playoff teams are rarely the six best teams from each conference, but no one cares, because they know the rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
Rose Bowl owned, Peach Bowl owned, Outback bowl was hilariously bad but then hilariously good 2018 would be perfect right now if ND/Bama had lost, oh well Go Dawgs, do the drat thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:10
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:I’d say that by the NCG they were most definitely better. LSU needed a bunch of help from special teams miscues and heroic defensive plays to eek out a 3 point overtime win in the first game. Sometimes better teams lose to worse teams. And here lies the problem. The BCS was a step in the metaphorical right direction. So is the 4-team playoff. But right now we have an undefeated UCF and a Wisconsin team that only lost to Ohio State. Alabama didn't even win its conference. The selection is a black box by design, as was the BCS. The committee looks at the teams and decides who would get the best ratings. That's why Alabama got in in the first place, ratings. Nothing more, nothing less. They played NO ONE this season. The SEC was a flaming pile of trash this year except Bama, Auburn, and UGA. It's very telling that ESPN quickly dropped the bowl record narrative as a sign of strength when the SEC started sucking in the bowls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:It’s pointless to try and pick the two best teams out of 120 teams who only play a dozen games each. Bama keeps getting second chances because the issue gets framed as finding the best teams and not the most deserving teams based on some fixed criteria. The NFL playoff teams are rarely the six best teams from each conference, but no one cares, because they know the rules. My big issue is that, at least with the NFL, a team that starts slow with some losses might be able to get hot, work their way back up, and enter the playoffs as the best team at that point in time, and continue through until winning the SB. This happens in other sports too, not always, but it can. Similarly, a good team can start hot, then hit a rough streak, but then turn things back around and go deep into the playoffs. But in college football, it's next to impossible for that to happen. We've got five "Power" conferences where each typically has a few great teams that can run a train on the other teams generally and keep their record great going into the bowl season. A team might start to get hot and go on a great streak toward the end, and legitimately be the best team in the country, but we'd never know it because they're likely not in the Top 4 for the CFP. And that's my issue with posters like G-Hawk claiming they know Alabama is the best team in the country. Noone knows, because their marquee victory has now become beating a clearly-overrated Clemson team, while it could be Penn State or UCF or someone else based on how they're playing *right now*. Which goes back to your comments about it all being arbitrary, which is true, and why I think the best thing might be what someone else said to do - simply eliminate the NCG/NC concept all together, and just let the bowls be the bowls again with nothing at stake except one last victory, because for all we know UCF is the best team in the country right now but we'll never known. And that's why I'd like to see the expanded playoff, because we could see the #16 team beat Clemson and realize that they were overrated, and maybe we'd get years of #11 vs. #5 or whatever for the NC because they're the best teams *right now*. Does that devalue the regular season some? Sure, but seeding still matters, and it counters the heavy weight given to playing/beating FCS programs during the regular season. Or make programs have to play other P5 schools instead of 2x FCS schools in the regular season.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
Oh, and Wisconsin beat Miami at their home. Big Ten only lost one bowl game. The SEC will have a losing record. And Group of Five teams won't get scheduled because Power 5 teams are afraid of unearthing the next Boise State.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
SamuraiFoochs posted:I legitimately wish I just wasn't a fan of CFB. Alabama being a giant uncaring kill machine that will win always and forever is exactly the kind of bullshit I turn to sports to get away from. Be super glad D3 isn't FBS and Mount Union isn't Bama. The stranglehold they've had on D3 for 25 loving years is nothing short of amazing or hatefully absurd depending on whether you're a UMU fan or not. Imagine if Bama ruled like this for almost 3 decades and won titles literally half the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
Crotch Bat posted:Be super glad D3 isn't FBS and Mount Union isn't Bama. The stranglehold they've had on D3 for 25 loving years is nothing short of amazing or hatefully absurd depending on whether you're a UMU fan or not. Imagine if Bama ruled like this for almost 3 decades and won titles literally half the time. Oh gods, yeah, UMU is worse (UW-Whitewater was the only team that seems to have given them a challenge). The only thing they have on Bama is they don't have the insufferable fanbase.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:26
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:My big issue is that, at least with the NFL, a team that starts slow with some losses might be able to get hot, work their way back up, and enter the playoffs as the best team at that point in time, and continue through until winning the SB. This happens in other sports too, not always, but it can. Similarly, a good team can start hot, then hit a rough streak, but then turn things back around and go deep into the playoffs. Of course, the issue is, in soccer leagues, the schedules are entirely balanced. Thats completely impossible in college football. So there isn't a very great way to determine who is the absolute best team. I don't claim I "know" Alabama is the best. I just don't think a bigger playoff would do anything, at all, to determine who is. There is no perfect system, which is why we do this hybrid system, where people compare schedules, people use eye test, people look at games against top competition, look at conference championships. And then the 4 game playoff tries give a little wiggle room to get it wrong. Its not perfect, but it makes for a super entertaining regular season, entertaining bowl games, and entertaining final 3 playoff games. I agree that FBS teams shouldn't play FCS teams though. But I actually think an expanded playoff would make it more likely teams purposely schedule cupcakes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:31
|
|
|
Crotch Bat posted:Be super glad D3 isn't FBS and Mount Union isn't Bama. The stranglehold they've had on D3 for 25 loving years is nothing short of amazing or hatefully absurd depending on whether you're a UMU fan or not. Imagine if Bama ruled like this for almost 3 decades and won titles literally half the time. I'd have stopped following the sport ages ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:31
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:The fact that firing Richt and hiring a Saban crony worked out for Georgia really ticks me off for some reason I can't explain God, I know, when my team's biggest rival got greedy and fired their coach that was delivering them 9 or 10 wins a year consistently for the last decade and a half in favor of a Saban disciple, I was over the moon. Now, I just feel a kind of impotent rage whenever I think about UGA. I hate that they were vindicated in firing Richt, I hate that their recruiting has exploded and they look to be establishing a juggernaut, I hate that every team I like is full of butterfingered idiots who will always find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory while every team I don't like is really good, and most of all, I hate that Georgia is both competent and exciting to watch. They don't deserve good football, god drat it, they should be punished for their hubris, not rewarded. I'm mad about football and I'm mad that my irrational hatred of UGA is going to make me cheer for Bama next week.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:31
|
|
|
G-Hawk posted:I agree that FBS teams shouldn't play FCS teams though. But I actually think an expanded playoff would make it more likely teams purposely schedule cupcakes. Alabama scheduled cupcakes this year (FSU being retroactively one). It worked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:35
|
|
|
Gonna miss watching Baker Mayfield play college football a whole lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:35
|
|
|
MourningView posted:Gonna miss watching Baker Mayfield play college football a whole lot. I will never forgive UGA for this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
Pakled posted:God, I know, when my team's biggest rival got greedy and fired their coach that was delivering them 9 or 10 wins a year consistently for the last decade and a half in favor of a Saban disciple, I was over the moon. Now, I just feel a kind of impotent rage whenever I think about UGA. I hate that they were vindicated in firing Richt, I hate that their recruiting has exploded and they look to be establishing a juggernaut, I hate that every team I like is full of butterfingered idiots who will always find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory while every team I don't like is really good, and most of all, I hate that Georgia is both competent and exciting to watch. They don't deserve good football, god drat it, they should be punished for their hubris, not rewarded. I'm mad about football and I'm mad that my irrational hatred of UGA is going to make me cheer for Bama next week. Mark Richt would have also taken this team to the championship game
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:37
|
|
|
Fluffdaddy posted:Mark Richt would have also taken this team to the championship game He was one game away from taking Miami to the championship.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:40
|
|
|
iospace posted:Alabama scheduled cupcakes this year (FSU being retroactively one). Come on, scheduling FSU isn't scheduling cupcakes. Obviously they ended up being not good, but Bama had no way to know that. Prior to the season, it was notable just how unique it was for a top team to schedule another top team to open the season. There were plenty of takes about how risky it was. Mercer is bullshit though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:41
|
|
|
Fluffdaddy posted:Mark Richt would have also taken this team to the championship game There were also several years where he would have had Georgia in the playoff if the playoff had existed at the time. His best teams all had really bad timing
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:43
|
|
|
Also lets not pretend that FSU with their starting QB, which played 99% of the game isn't a good team.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:43
|
|
|
Yeah I thought the fact that the Bama game resulted in the physical destruction of the FSU QB and some other players might have had a material effect on the course of their season and their level of play after that game, beyond them maybe not being as good as their initial rating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:46
|
|
|
G-Hawk posted:Come on, scheduling FSU isn't scheduling cupcakes. Obviously they ended up being not good, but Bama had no way to know that. Prior to the season, it was notable just how unique it was for a top team to schedule another top team to open the season. There were plenty of takes about how risky it was. Bama's played a big team in the opener for a bunch of years now. Hopefully they will phase out the cupcakes, but that is also just a part of the game for most of the top 25. MourningView posted:There were also several years where he would have had Georgia in the playoff if the playoff had existed at the time. His best teams all had really bad timing Yea, if he had of made his run somewhere else he would have been sniffing the championship game yearly. I think its basically Saban, Dabo, Richt and Urbs as the top four coaches in the game right now, and frankly I think he is better than Meyer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:46
|
|
|
holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:57
|
|
|
MourningView posted:There were also several years where he would have had Georgia in the playoff if the playoff had existed at the time. His best teams all had really bad timing Richt has the worst timing in the history of CFB. He came to the SEC without Meyer and Saban 2 of the best coaches. Still had a lot of great teams just never won it all. Glad UGA getting rid of him has been a win win. He is the best coach without a title. * *kirby will have a title in a week
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:59
|
|
|
h0oly poo poo hbo gots a harry potter marathon on
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 08:03
|
|
|
G-Hawk posted:Thats a valid opinion. But built in your post here is the assumption that early season matters less, or mid season matters less. Thats how the NFL is setup. I personally do not like the NFL, in part because I think the regular season is boring as poo poo, and the playoffs are a crap shoot. Thats personal taste. But That's not how every sports league is setup. Personally, I want Week 1 to matter exactly as much as Week 11. Consistency over a season matters. The majority of soccer leagues worldwide have a regular season with no playoffs, and see playoffs as a poor way to determine a champion, because in both soccer and football, you can only do 1(or 2, in soccer) game playoffs. Individual games in these 2 sports are NOT a good way to definitively determine who is the better team. The variance is extremely high. UCF beat Auburn today, for example, but i'd bet a lot of money if they played say 7 times, Auburn wins more than UCF does. Maybe i'm wrong, but it doesn't matter, because thats impossible in football. The point being a one off game is not a very good way to decide who is the best team, given most of these games are probably 60/40 who wins. I'm of the opinion Week 1 really shouldn't matter at all. We all like to laugh at OSU losing to VT, but that was JT Barrett starting his first game against Bud Foster with an offseason to prepare. If that game was during the back half of the season, when JT had actual reps, OSU wins 59-0. Most teams need a game or two to figure things out See: Saints, Chargers, etc UCF smokes Auburn more often than not
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 08:40
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:I'm of the opinion Week 1 really shouldn't matter at all. We all like to laugh at OSU losing to VT, but that was JT Barrett starting his first game against Bud Foster with an offseason to prepare. If that game was during the back half of the season, when JT had actual reps, OSU wins 59-0. Most teams need a game or two to figure things out Different strokes and all. They get an offseason to figure it out. And from an entertainment perspective, the college football regular season is probably my favorite thing in sports because it feels like every week, including week 1, has games that are effectively as important as a playoff game in any other sport.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 08:48
|
|
|
G-Hawk posted:Thats a valid opinion. But built in your post here is the assumption that early season matters less, or mid season matters less. Thats how the NFL is setup. I personally do not like the NFL, in part because I think the regular season is boring as poo poo, and the playoffs are a crap shoot. G-Hawk posted:Thats personal taste. But That's not how every sports league is setup. Personally, I want Week 1 to matter exactly as much as Week 11. Consistency over a season matters. The majority of soccer leagues worldwide have a regular season with no playoffs, and see playoffs as a poor way to determine a champion, because in both soccer and football, you can only do 1(or 2, in soccer) game playoffs. G-Hawk posted:Individual games in these 2 sports are NOT a good way to definitively determine who is the better team. The variance is extremely high. UCF beat Auburn today, for example, but i'd bet a lot of money if they played say 7 times, Auburn wins more than UCF does. Maybe i'm wrong, but it doesn't matter, because thats impossible in football. The point being a one off game is not a very good way to decide who is the best team, given most of these games are probably 60/40 who wins. G-Hawk posted:Of course, the issue is, in soccer leagues, the schedules are entirely balanced. Thats completely impossible in college football. So there isn't a very great way to determine who is the absolute best team. I don't claim I "know" Alabama is the best. I just don't think a bigger playoff would do anything, at all, to determine who is. There is no perfect system, which is why we do this hybrid system, where people compare schedules, people use eye test, people look at games against top competition, look at conference championships. And then the 4 game playoff tries give a little wiggle room to get it wrong. Its not perfect, but it makes for a super entertaining regular season, entertaining bowl games, and entertaining final 3 playoff games. G-Hawk posted:I agree that FBS teams shouldn't play FCS teams though. But I actually think an expanded playoff would make it more likely teams purposely schedule cupcakes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 08:58
|
|
|
G-Hawk posted:Thats a valid opinion. But built in your post here is the assumption that early season matters less, or mid season matters less. Thats how the NFL is setup. I personally do not like the NFL, in part because I think the regular season is boring as poo poo, and the playoffs are a crap shoot. Thats personal taste. But That's not how every sports league is setup. Personally, I want Week 1 to matter exactly as much as Week 11. Consistency over a season matters. This is an interesting spin because for years and years college football losses in week 10 mattered more than they did in week 1. The difference recently seems to be either computers in the BCS in a very few circumstances or the playoff committee. And I'd argue the committee would be more prone to ignore an early season loss these days as well, but we'd need more data to find out if that would be true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:01
|
|
|
Looks at FCS and Div III champions over the years. Yup, we definitely need expanded playoffs to ensure that we aren’t just seeing the same teams over and over in the championship.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:05
|
|
|
I think it was Nebraska who got clobbered by Colorado by 30 points in the conference championship one year and still made it to the national title game because losses at the end of the year counted just as much as losses at the beginning in the BCS calculations. Or when Oklahoma got wrecked by Kansas State and stayed at number 1 because of the way they dominated the weeks prior. People hated that poo poo a LOT.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:07
|
|
|
boop the snoot posted:I think it was Nebraska who got clobbered by Colorado by 30 points in the conference championship one year and still made it to the national title game because losses at the end of the year counted just as much as losses at the beginning in the BCS calculations. Grittybeard posted:The difference recently seems to be either computers in the BCS in a very few circumstances or the playoff committee. I should note that the computers were doomed to fail from the start, margin of victory (or loss) in some fashion could have been included, which is an actual indicator of how good teams are. But there was this huge fear that everyone would be running up the score all the time even though there were ways to reasonably get around that 98% of the time. So they just refused to take that into account in any way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:12
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:Playoffs aren't a crap shoot - the hottest/"best" team at the given moment wins, while the teams who played the best "overall" for the season are the ones that got in. Part of the reason you might not like it is simply because it does reward the currently "best" team, instead of some narrative that an entire season is needed to somehow magically indicate a team is the "best", but it's a dynamic season of changes. quote:But Week 1 doesn't matter as much as Week 11, and it never has. Highly-ranked teams lose early games every year and end up making their way typically back into the Top 5, so clearly the early weeks don't matter nearly as much as you're giving them credit for. quote:I mostly agree, which is why I don't think college football should even have a championship, to be honest, or noone should put any weight in it, exactly for these reasons. Variance is high - today, UCF was better than Auburn. Could they have been better than Georgia, Oklahoma, or Alabama, *right now*? Absolutely, which would potentially make them the best team *right now* in college football. You have an issue with the *right now*, and I don't, but ultimately it doesn't matter because of the flawed system we have. quote:Do you actually find it entertaining to see many of the same teams in the CFP each and every year? I don't. But while we might see the same few teams each year in the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, etc., at least in those situations we have the benefit of longer seasons (impossible, as you said) and expanded playoffs (possible) to help confirm that those teams actually are the *current* best, which we don't have with the CFP. An 8 or 12 or 16 or whatever seeded playoff at least takes some of the variance out and can help to further confirm that the teams playing for the NC are, at least, the best teams right now, since they'd have had to go through four other well-ranked/seeded teams to win it. Whats a better way to determine a good field goal kicker, ask people to kick as many as they can make in a row, or ask them all to kick 100 and see what the percentage comes out to? Its obviously the latter. And while a season isn't 100 games, and the difference in strength of schedule makes judging teams harder, a longer season is going to give you a more accurate idea of a team than a single game. quote:But you can get around that, by building in a "seeding" or "ranking" factor for a team playing more P5 or such teams, and do not allow FCS teams to be scheduled at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:19
|
|
|
Cancel everything and just assign schedules with a random number generator. Then do it again for all teams over .500 for the bowls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:19
|
|
|
iospace posted:And here lies the problem. The BCS was a step in the metaphorical right direction. So is the 4-team playoff. But right now we have an undefeated UCF and a Wisconsin team that only lost to Ohio State. Alabama didn't even win its conference. Alabama only lost one game and wrecked Clemson tonight, they aren't the best team to argue doesn't belong in the playoff atm. UCF has a stronger argument than Wisconsin. The playoff really does need more spots. At least it exists instead of how it used to be I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 10:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
A big issue was also UCF's schedule. Yeah, they're a group of five team, but their power 5 opponents were Georgia Tech (a game which was cancelled) and Maryland. So they were undefeated but never had a chance to show how good they were versus top 10 competition, which is definitely more important if you're a group of five team that loving sucked very recently. In contrast, Auburn had two drat losses but almost got into the playoff because they would have beaten the #1 team in the country twice in a row
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 12:14
|
|
