2011-2012 College Football Thread

[dmr727]

It's impossible to objectively rank a huge number of football teams, most of which don't play common opponents. Thus human based polls are needed. Or computers that make rankings based on what humans think are important criteria. There's no way around that - there's gonna be some bias no matter what.

My attitude is - if the powers that be don't want a playoff, then let's just go back to the way it was before the BCS. There's endless bickering now anyway, so we might as well get some of the tradition back to go along with it.

And Tomorrow - I have no clue why you're being so pedantic about the definition of 'playoff'. Yes, technically you're right. Happy? You're like the guy in the back of the room that gets all pissed off anytime someone says, "centrifugal force". But it doesn't change any of our arguments.

 

[MacDawg]

My attitude is - if the powers that be don't want a playoff, then let's just go back to the way it was before the BCS. There's endless bickering now anyway, so we might as well get some of the tradition back to go along with it.

I'm with you on this
I don't particularly care to see a playoff myself (I like the talking)
But I do like the idea of going back to the old traditions in the bowls

I was looking at the projections for the bowls this year and I was thinking how lame the matchups are
The BCS may be able to match 1 and 2 (arguably), but I think the old system created far more compelling matchups overall

 

[dmr727]

I'm with you on this
I don't particularly care to see a playoff myself (I like the talking)
But I do like the idea of going back to the old traditions in the bowls

I can understand the argument for enjoying the talk that surrounds the season. I'd rather have a playoff, but even without, CFB remains the best sport on the planet, IMO.

 

[Mr Kram]

i like the idea of a playoff, but i don't think you can make it happen logistically and without stepping on the feet of the current bowl lineup. a plus one would be a step in the right direction.

i also don't mind the bcs, but i think they should make specific rules to exclude non conference champions and rematches of any sort.

 

[MacDawg]

i also don't mind the bcs, but i think they should make specific rules to exclude non conference champions and rematches of any sort.

I don't think that gives enough flexibility for crazy unforeseen scenarios

 

[Mr Kram]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

i also don't mind the bcs, but i think they should make specific rules to exclude non conference champions and rematches of any sort.

I don't think that gives enough flexibility for crazy unforeseen scenarios

I don't think you need to be flexible on these two things.

 

[echeck]

So you really think there's something in the formula that adds weight to particular teams simply because it's that particular team?

Here...take this, you seem to need it.

Image

Ha ha ha ha! That was awesome.

But, no, I don't trust the people that programmed those formulas.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't think the Moon Landing was on a sound stage, nor do I think the JFK assassination was a body double...

That being said, college football is so money driven that I would not be surprised in the least to learn that these computer formulas are actually tweaked every week to favor specific teams.

I'm not saying I believe that's happening, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn of it. Make the formulas public. Why is that so difficult? All this IP nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to make room in my aluminum closet for my new hat...

 

[MacDawg]

I don't think you need to be flexible on these two things.

So if UGA pulls the upset, and Ok State loses to Oklahoma, and Va Tech loses to Clemson, you are OK with Houston playing Boise for the BCS Championship

They are the next 2 in line in the BCS
LSU out
Bama out
Ok State out
Stanford out
Va Tech out

 

[dukebound85]

So if UGA pulls the upset, and Ok State loses to Oklahoma, and Va Tech loses to Clemson, you are OK with Houston playing Boise for the BCS Championship

They are the next 2 in line in the BCS
LSU out
Bama out
Ok State out
Stanford out
Va Tech out

Yup. No 2 loss+ team should ever be champion.......and that includes LSU a few years back

 

[pachyderm]

Ha ha ha ha! That was awesome.

But, no, I don't trust the people that programmed those formulas.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't think the Moon Landing was on a sound stage, nor do I think the JFK assassination was a body double...

That being said, college football is so money driven that I would not be surprised in the least to learn that these computer formulas are actually tweaked every week to favor specific teams.

I'm not saying I believe that's happening, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn of it. Make the formulas public. Why is that so difficult? All this IP nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to make room in my aluminum closet for my new hat...

what is really sad is that fact that you're supposed to go to college for the education and play football.. not the other way around... so all this BCS crap shouldn't really come into play... the title should be speculative. there shouldn't be any play off... of any kind. but greedy boosters and fans always get their way.

high school football is televised. what a shame. next it will be middle school, and then jr. pro, or whatever it is called now a days. kids cn't be kids anymore. every little thing is analyzed to death.

it's every where now too.

I used to love watching the LLWS.

Now I hate what has become of the Little League World Series... it's all just too much.

 

[MacDawg]

Yup. No 2 loss+ team should ever be champion.......and that includes LSU a few years back

LSU would have 1 loss
Bama would have 1 loss
Stanford would have 1 loss

 

[dukebound85]

LSU would have 1 loss
Bama would have 1 loss
Stanford would have 1 loss

how did I miss that? ugh need to go home

 

[Tomorrow]

And Tomorrow - I have no clue why you're being so pedantic about the definition of 'playoff'. Yes, technically you're right. Happy? You're like the guy in the back of the room that gets all pissed off anytime someone says, "centrifugal force". But it doesn't change any of our arguments.

Then start explaining why you want an expanded playoff instead of simply saying you want one; then I'll ask you why you think two teams isn't enough.

A few years back the Giants won the Super Bowl over the Patriots. The Giants went 10-6 during the regular season; the Patriots went 16-0. Does anybody REALLY think that the Giants had a better season? Be honest; looking at the entire body of work, is there anyone who sincerely believes that the Giants got robbed six times, and the Patriots had a weak schedule, and that their loss in the Super Bowl was anything other than a single bad game?

I prefer to judge a team's season based on an entire season, not on a postseason. Adding more teams to the postseason increases the possibility that a 9-3 team faces an 11-1 team for the championship, when the team that went 12-0 in the regular season loses a single playoff game with no championship to show for it. That, to me, is not a Good Thing.

 

[dukebound85]

My view is that the regular season performance should only result in playoff seeding and not determine a championship. Once you make the playoffs, the regular season results are irrelevant as far as I am concerned

 

[cuestakid]

So what do some of you propose? Could you imagine an undefeated University of Houston (although they are my second team next to OU) playing an undefeated LSU? I see 70-28 with more injuries than occurred on Black Friday.

Not at all. Houston will be an at-large bid and go to the orange or sugar (or fiesta if Stanford goes to the fiesta at which point stanford will go to the sugar)

what would be EPIC would be Houston/Oregon Rose

Defense need not apply...

 

[MacDawg]

Mullen close to signing with Penn State
Mistake or great fit and opportunity?

----------

My view is that the regular season performance should only result in playoff seeding and not determine a championship. Once you make the playoffs, the regular season results are irrelevant as far as I am concerned

I have no interest in that approach :shrug:
Not everyone thinks a playoff of 4, 8, 16 teams is a good thing

FWIW, I don't like expanded playoffs in baseball that give us Wild Card WS Champions
(Uh, they didn't win a division championship, so they shouldn't qualify, right?)

Same for the NFL that allows teams like Seattle a few years back to host a home playoff game

Winning

----------

Not at all. Houston will be an at-large bid and go to the orange or sugar (or fiesta if Stanford goes to the fiesta at which point stanford will go to the sugar)

what would be EPIC would be Houston/Oregon Rose

Defense need not apply...

Houston reminds me of the Hawaii team that was exposed by the Dawgs in the Sugar a few years back
They can't hang outside their limited schedule

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Check this out...

 

[Tomorrow]

Mullen close to signing with Penn State
Mistake or great fit and opportunity?

The saying goes, "Never follow a legend; follow the guy who follows the legend."

Penn State is a great program, and it would be an honor for any coach to take over the program - but anybody who replaces Paterno and doesn't instantly win championships is going to be vilified in the eyes of the faithful, no matter who they are.

Houston reminds me of the Hawaii team that was exposed by the Dawgs in the Sugar a few years back
They can't hang outside their limited schedule

I think that's giving Houston a bit too much credit. They're good, but I don't think they're even that good.

 

[steve2112]

The saying goes, "Never follow a legend; follow the guy who follows the legend."

Penn State is a great program, and it would be an honor for any coach to take over the program - but anybody who replaces Paterno and doesn't instantly win championships is going to be vilified in the eyes of the faithful, no matter who they are.

Ray Perkins and Bill Curry agree.

I personally think Mullen would be nuts to take that position, and I'm not just saying that because I don't want to lose him as a coach. The PSU situation is not just another school on probation. This is a huge mess that will drag on for a long time. On top of all the stuff going on in the press, now the NCAA is trying to get involved.

I honestly don't know what he will do. A Jackson TV station reported he had been offered, but when asked, Mullen said it was "the most irresponsible reporting I've ever seen." When asked point-blank about the job in a press conference, Mullen refused to comment. I know he grew up in the state and has said before that it was his dream job, but I don't know if the current situation is bad enough to overcome that.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Mullin has refuted that story, calling it "very irresponsible reporting" which can only mean that he's A) not going to leave MSU for PSU or B) even more like his mentor Urban Meyer than we knew.

(I'm guessing B but who knows at this point)

--

Here's a good (albeit long) read on the current BCS mess and the problems associated with the poll.

A few quick hits...

The computer formulas are mathematically laughable. There is plenty of debate about how accurate any ranking formula is when trying to use limited data (12 or 13 games) to sort through a diverse mass of teams. Some of the formulas include not just the 120 FBS teams but extend all the way to junior colleges.

In late October, Kenneth Massey’s rankings had Arizona Western, a community college, 30th overall.

Five of the six computer rankers protect their formulas, claiming proprietary rights to their algorithms. They refuse to share the formula with anyone, including the BCS, which, as such, is incapable of checking on the accuracy of the rankings.

Repeat: Absolutely no one has any idea if the weekly BCS standings are true. No one. And they don’t seem to care.

Only Wes Colley makes his formula public, which allows outside review. Last season, his rankings twice were found inaccurate because of improper data entry. Some of the scores he used weren’t up to date.

It was only discovered because Jerry Palm of CollegeBCS.com decided to double-check Colley’s rankings. This included the final standings, where a failure to enter the result of a game between FCS programs Appalachian State and Western Illinois caused a change in the final rankings of four teams in the top 20, including LSU and Boise State.

It was mere happenstance that it didn’t affect the championship matchup. Of course, there’s no telling if the other five were accurate.

Coaches readily admit they watch terribly little college football – other than scouting footage of their upcoming opponent. Many don’t even fill out their weekly ballot, a task left to secretaries or sports information directors.

“I don’t know why we vote,” South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier said. “I guess we vote because college football is still without a playoff system. I really believe most coaches do not know a whole lot about the other teams.”

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal published the results of a detailed, multiyear study of coaches’ voting patterns from Yale economist Matthew Kotchen and UC Santa Barbara political scientist Matthew Potoski that highlighted various biases.

“Coaches distort their rankings to reflect their own team’s reputation and financial interests,” the study concluded. “On average, coaches rank teams from their own athletic conference nearly a full position more favorably and boost their own team’s ranking more than two full positions. Coaches also rank teams they defeated more favorably, thereby making their own team look better.”

This doesn’t just influence the 1-2 matchup. It plays a role in how the 1-2 matchup is contemplated, since the number of victories over top-10 or top-20 teams in the BCS standings are a reasonable way to compare resumes.

 

[echeck]

^^^^^^^ And THAT is why the computer rankings and coaches polls are so effed up.

It's ridiculous to expect a college football coach to know what's going on with ANY other team, let alone the entire league. They're kinda busy, you know, coaching.

How many more screw-ups like Colley's happen every week? I'm guessing quite a few, intentional or not.

 

[MacDawg]

Ok, if the rankings are soooo bad and screwed up, let's take a look at them:

1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma State
4. Stanford
5. Virginia Tech
6. Houston
7. Boise State
8. Arkansas
9. Oregon
10. Oklahoma

Who would you change and why?
Looks about right to me
Of course you can argue a place or two, but are they really that much off?

 

[Tomorrow]

1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma State
4. Stanford
5. Virginia Tech
6. Houston
7. Boise State
8. Arkansas
9. Oregon
10. Oklahoma

Who would you change and why?
Looks about right to me
Of course you can argue a place or two, but are they really that much off?

No, not that far off, IMO.

I'd have OSU ahead of Alabama, Virginia Tech ahead of Stanford, and Arkansas ahead of both Houston and Boise State.

My adjustments have nothing to do with number of losses, but simply a ranking of the teams; who I think is better based on how they've played and against whom.

 

[Mr Kram]

So if UGA pulls the upset, and Ok State loses to Oklahoma, and Va Tech loses to Clemson, you are OK with Houston playing Boise for the BCS Championship

They are the next 2 in line in the BCS
LSU out
Bama out
Ok State out
Stanford out
Va Tech out

you forgot about ucla beating oregon. but if that's how it played out, then yes, i'm fine. i also don't know if OSU would be a co-champ now that they don't have a championship game. plus, you'd still be left with 2 loss OU and 2 loss Big 10 champ and 2 loss UGA. part of my deal, if you're not going to award your conference champ the potential of the top prize, then don't play the game.

Ok, if the rankings are soooo bad and screwed up, let's take a look at them:

1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma State
4. Stanford
5. Virginia Tech
6. Houston
7. Boise State
8. Arkansas
9. Oregon
10. Oklahoma

Who would you change and why?
Looks about right to me
Of course you can argue a place or two, but are they really that much off?

for me, the rankings are subjectively fair. i just an issue with the rematch. i realize that the job of the BCS is to pair the top to teams, so if that happens, so be it. i just think they need to tweak the rules a bit to prevent that from happening in the future.

 

[dmr727]

Then start explaining why you want an expanded playoff instead of simply saying you want one; then I'll ask you why you think two teams isn't enough.

I think part of the problem is that we differ on how we should judge a champion. You want complete body of work - and you're right, a playoff has the ability to negate a good season with a bad loss. I don't see it that way - in your NFL example, if the Pats wanted to be champs, they needed to win the Super Bowl. They didn't, and they're not the champs. That's what's so cool about the game - the Patriots had a fine season, and then had deal with the fact that they didn't show it when it mattered most. Heartbreaking!

I do see your point about wanting only the complete body of work to be considered. But there'll always be bickering as a result, and since we're dealing with that bickering now with a 'two team playoff', then I say we go back to how it was pre-BCS. Or expand to an eight team playoff, let the body of work count for seeding (more bickering, but like the basketball tourney, most will end once the playoff begins), and have the kids battle it out on the field. I like eight teams because it eliminates a lot of the problems associated with human rankings - most people can agree on who should be in the top 8, and the 9th team will have enough warts that it won't be the travesty you see now when someone gets left out at the top.