We've launched the new forums! Read more here

The 2015-16 College football thread (SPOILERS)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wake said:
My question is, where is the outrage when a champion doesn't even start the season #1. Which happens quite a bit.

I've never believed you shouldn't drop just because you win. In college style points matter, and so does quality of opponent.

Of course I'm fine with you having an opinion, enjoying the debate.
Click to expand...
I think it's dumb when that happens too, and have no problem feeling that way about it. None at all.
 
tequila4kapp said:
Sure, why not? Screw ND. They are mostly overrated and irrelevant anyways, so who cares? They need to join a conference already.

If God himself would keel over in pain at the though of TD Jesus being left out in the cold then fine, 6 team playoff, conference winners from the 5 highest rated conferences and one at large big. Top two seeded teams get a bye. The committee's job get simplified to: a) rank the conferences; b) determine the lone at large bid; c) rank the playoff teams 1-6.
Click to expand...



That's pretty intense, can I getcha Coke or something?



Aside from all that one at large bid will carry the same debates and static as the whole 4/5 debate does. Increase the at large bid number the controversy does down. 4/5 debate? Heated. 15/16 debate? Fodder for the talk shows but not much more.
 
Rhyno said:
Yup. (Just because I dislike them.)

No, the above would only work if you get rid of independents and weaker conferences, and should only be implemented when that happens.
Click to expand...

There are only 10 FBS conferences. How many do you suggest be eliminated?
 
If they would clarify why they rank where they do it would solve a lot of problems IMO. If they're basing rankings on "resume this season alone" the rankings are awful. If they're basing on play in combination with reputation, ok fine. Just say that, the problem is when they lie and say "we're ranking teams based on this season alone" which they clearly are not.
 
I think we should have computers rank the teams, to avoid bias. I suggest the Massey Ranking. ;)
 
JohnSinVA said:
That's pretty intense, can I getcha Coke or something?

Aside from all that one at large bid will carry the same debates and static as the whole 4/5 debate does. Increase the at large bid number the controversy does down. 4/5 debate? Heated. 15/16 debate? Fodder for the talk shows but not much more.
Click to expand...
It's all good - tone doesn't come across well sometimes. I do get tired of ND's place of entitlement in the world of college football. It isn't the 1940's any longer. This is a program with 1 NC in the last 30 years. Why should a spot be saved for them (or why should a system be put in place that protects certain schools)? Hey, more power to them for getting the great TV deal but that fact alone does't mean they deserve to have a spot held.
 
tequila4kapp said:
It's all good - tone doesn't come across well sometimes. I do get tired of ND's place of entitlement in the world of college football. It isn't the 1940's any longer. This is a program with 1 NC in the last 30 years. Why should a spot be saved for them (or why should a system be put in place that protects certain schools)? Hey, more power to them for getting the great TV deal but that fact alone does't mean they deserve to have a spot held.
Click to expand...
Geez nd decline your application or something?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-no...-conference-anytime-soon-052507910-ncaaf.html
 
tequila4kapp said:
Sure, why not? Screw ND. They are mostly overrated and irrelevant anyways, so who cares? They need to join a conference already.

If God himself would keel over in pain at the though of TD Jesus being left out in the cold then fine, 6 team playoff, conference winners from the 5 highest rated conferences and one at large big. Top two seeded teams get a bye. The committee's job get simplified to: a) rank the conferences; b) determine the lone at large bid; c) rank the playoff teams 1-6.
Click to expand...
Part of A is already done
SEC is number one.
 
This is a big reason why I wish there weren't pre season rankings. How do we accurately rank teams when we haven't seen them play? I wish the first ranking would come out after week 4 or 5.
 
TBaker34 said:
This is a big reason why I wish there weren't pre season rankings. How do we accurately rank teams when we haven't seen them play? I wish the first ranking would come out after week 4 or 5.
Click to expand...
Or after the 7th like the only rankings that matter from the playoff committee.
 
ozzman said:
Or after the 7th like the only rankings that matter from the playoff committee.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I think there would still be some overrating issues but not as bad as what is happening now
 
deuce said:
There are only 10 FBS conferences. How many do you suggest be eliminated?
Click to expand...
In the end I believe college football winds up like this

In no order

SEC
BIG 10
The conference with Texas and Oklahoma
PAC 10
ACC
BEST OF THE REST

Then send some schools back down the FCS where they can be competative, are frankly where some schools belong.
 
Rhyno said:
If Notre Dame doesn't want to join a conference then they should be left out of the playoffs. (Unless they play a bunch of top tier schools which they do a fair job of doing)

Having special rules for one school is beyond stupid. (Not saying there are right now, but I believe there were for the BCS)
Click to expand...
There was in the first iteration of the bcs,they changed it to be more broad than just nd. As long as nd brings in the money, they'll be part of the discussion. Period. End of story.

They don't have the luxury of a thirteenth game or playing fcs schools, so their schedule will always have premiere names. If the blue bloods are down, such as Texas this year, you can't fault nd for that.
 
JRod said:
Yo remember last year when tOSU lost to VT and then MOPPED the playoffs .

I mean yah the Alabama game was close thanks to Jalin Marshall, but they were totally outmatched.

Ohio state has some serious issues but the only team that has ANY gripe to possibly be ranked 1 is Utah.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Hey clear our ur inbox i got a question
 
Greg Kulbick said:
What happens is there's isn't an SEC team sitting at number 11 after this weekend? Do we go back to the standard top ten?
Click to expand...
Anything for one more SEC team, yes?
 
ozzman said:
There was in the first iteration of the bcs,they changed it to be more broad than just nd. As long as nd brings in the money, they'll be part of the discussion. Period. End of story.

They don't have the luxury of a thirteenth game or playing fcs schools, so their schedule will always have premiere names. If the blue bloods are down, such as Texas this year, you can't fault nd for that.
Click to expand...

No but Massachusetts is what, 3 years into FBS? Hardly a stalwart.

I realize that they have to take what they can get to some extent, since other teams have conference obligations, but they have their share of snoozer opponents.
 
I was a Charlie Strong supporter Day 1. But for the first time since the hire I'm starting to have my doubts and think more and more that this could be a 2 year deal and done situation. Here's why:

- I was shocked to hear after the Watson demotion (his OC) after the ND game that Strong knew nothing about the offensive side of the ball. No input, nothing. $5 million a year position to be hands off on 50% of a game? I don't think so.

- It's beginning to look like Strong's biggest mistake was the staff he chose. He's demoted one and I don't think I would keep any of them around if he makes it to year 3. Probably Traylor (those in TX will know him)....maybe. But doing that would be a disaster in itself.

- I continue to hear that Strong is a developer of talent and NFL talent. I find it hard to believe that he hasn't taken 1, just 1 of the so-so uppper class men and made them just a hair or fraction better than what Mack left them as. In fact, he just about threw all of them under the bus after the TCU game. That is worrisome.

- There is a big possibility that OU, Baylor, Tech and WV put up 50 or more in the next few weeks on Strongs team. Baylor and Art may approach double that if they have their chance. If that happens I just don't know if Strong will be able to survive those embarrassments. I'm praying that he finds a way to beat OU. This will help go a long long way. But if not, and the other games play out like I think, it's going to be a tough road to get back on. His 2016 class will be filled out with the remaining 2 and 3 stars left on the board.

- Saw this stat the other day on year 1/2 coaches at big time colleges having 20+ point losses happen:

Saban @ LSU - 2
Saban @ Bama - 0
Meyer @ FL - 1
Meyer @ OSU - 0
Carroll @ USC - 0
Stoops @ OU - 0
Fisher @ FSU - 1
Tressel @ OSU - 0
Brown @ TX - 2

Strong has 7 so far with the possibility of double digits by seasons end of year 2.

At the beginning of the season I thought for sure Strong would reach year 3 with no debate. He's played one of the toughest schedules in the league thus far which has got to be taken into the equation. He has 2 more top 10 schools to play and another 2 that can put up 50 points with no issues. Personally, I don't see this ending well for Strong by years end, right or wrong and I don't know what Plan B is going to be. Rant over.
 
JohnSinVA said:
No but Massachusetts is what, 3 years into FBS? Hardly a stalwart.

I realize that they have to take what they can get to some extent, since other teams have conference obligations, but they have their share of snoozer opponents.
Click to expand...

They choose that path. I say join a conference, or no chance at playoff. Its a cash grab because of their own contract and then they complain about it not being fair because of no conference championship. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

I have said forever, if teams want to schedule non-major conference schools of complete cupcakes, remove points or dont let it count towards their record. Its not popular because the blinder die hards love to watch a school put up 50, and then use the "Well it funds another schools program". If they cant fund it themselves, dont have a team. Its pretty easy. Since college football has turned into a business, its real easy to fix. Either have an outside party setup the schedule, remove out of conference games completely or penalize for cupcakes.

The problem with all of that is that the powers that be dont want to fix anything. They want the constant "what if" argument.
 
JohnSinVA said:
No but Massachusetts is what, 3 years into FBS? Hardly a stalwart.

I realize that they have to take what they can get to some extent, since other teams have conference obligations, but they have their share of snoozer opponents.
Click to expand...

Sure, a snoozer opponent, but hardly a Wofford or Western Carolina.
 
It's a bad time to be down in the Big 12, too. Baylor, OU, WV, Tx Tech, TCU will absolutely destroy a team that can't compete with them. You've got to give him one more year, right?
 
JB said:
They choose that path. I say join a conference, or no chance at playoff. Its a cash grab because of their own contract and then they complain about it not being fair because of no conference championship. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

I have said forever, if teams want to schedule non-major conference schools of complete cupcakes, remove points or dont let it count towards their record. Its not popular because the blinder die hards love to watch a school put up 50, and then use the "Well it funds another schools program". If they cant fund it themselves, dont have a team. Its pretty easy. Since college football has turned into a business, its real easy to fix. Either have an outside party setup the schedule, remove out of conference games completely or penalize for cupcakes.

The problem with all of that is that the powers that be dont want to fix anything. They want the constant "what if" argument.
Click to expand...

Don't mistake me for a ND apologist, I am not. But, you're not going to get rid of the "what if" arguments because a whole cottage industry has popped up around them.
 
12 out of 14, but I'm a degenerate gambler, so I remembered the spreads being really big.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top