Game Thread: CFB Round 1 ALL DAY THREAD

[tc1]

If someone has a personal connection to a college team, it is really great to follow them.
Cheering for a pro team (any sport) in the words of an old writer Bernie Lincicome, "cheering for a pro team is just cheering for laundry".

Unfortunately, that distinction is now utterly obliterated, and every player in college is playing on a 1-year contract with impending unrestricted free agent status -- so it's even worse than any professional sport. At least in professional leagues, teams can sometimes hold on to a draft pick for half a decade, or sign a player to a long-term deal and get a few seasons out of them before they demand a trade.

 

[tc1]

From what we've already seen this bowl season, cupcakes like Oklahoma and Vanderbilt can easily beat any non-P4 championship team.

3-9 Georgia State was not even a P4 team, never mind a champ. How'd that work out?

 

[Ron G]

Unfortunately, that distinction is now utterly obliterated, and every player in college is playing on a 1-year contract with impending unrestricted free agent status -- so it's even worse than any professional sport. At least in professional leagues, teams can sometimes hold on to a draft pick for half a decade, or sign a player to a long-term deal and get a few seasons out of them before they demand a trade.

Excellent point. If you attended or paid for someone to attend a particular school that does give you a closer connection than you would have to a pro team (other than some similar connection).

 

[PIBuckeye]

How about this: Wins over Power 5 teams count 10 points, losses count 5; wins over Group 5 teams count 5 points, losses count 0 (in conference. Group 5 wins count 8 points losses count 4): Wins over FCS teams count 0, losses count -10. Conference championship wins count 10 and losses counts 5, Group 5 CCG , 8 for a win and 5 for a loss.
Top 12 teams in total points are seeded into the playoff. In case of ties for the 12 or 11 spots, head to decides, if still a tie, then a play in similar to the play in the Monday and Tuesday of the first week of March Madness.

So in a typical season, a Power 4 team that plays 8 games would be guaranteed 40 points with a shot at 90 points by being undefeated and playing in the Conference championship. They could get more points depending on their OOC wins and losses. Teams that play 9 conference games would only have 3 00C games.
Independents such as Notre Dame would have a potential of 90 points for the 9 P4 teams they play and 15 for the OOC if they scheduled 2 more P4 teams (they will not drop Navy). For Notre Dame they would have a potential 115 points, while conference teams would have a max of 130 depending on the 00C schedule. Group 5 teams would have a max of 102 points but they would have schedule either 3 or 4 OOC Power 4 teams depending on their number conference games.

For reference: This year would give Alabama 101 point and Bosie State 102. If Alabama played a Group 5 instead of Mercer they would have 106.
Although Bosie State did also play an FCS. Notre Dame would have 100 points because of the loss to NIU 9 (don't lose to a Group 5). Under this system, if they beat NIU but lost to a Power 5 they would still have 100 points..

Any team playing and FCS team and having 3 losses would have a hard time making the playoff other than through a tie and a play in game.

I think it would take a minimum of a 90 points to make the 12 team playoff. This is because currently no team plays 12 Power 4 teams and many play an FCS.

This take a lot of the subjectivity out of the selection process.

Um. Wow.
Put a little time into that. lol

 

[tc1]

This take a lot of the subjectivity out of the selection process.

I give you credit for trying to design a solution.

The problem here would be that the phones in the AD offices of bad teams at each level would be ringing off the hook. Everyone would want to play Oklahoma State ( well, except Arkansas, who managed to lose to them ) and no one would want to schedule good G5 teams like Boise State, Army, or UNLV ). Maybe this would even-out if schedules continue to be set years in advance.

And, of course, SEC fans will whine all day about how losing to Vanderbilt should credit more points than beating Georgia State.

But the biggest problem by far would eliminating the distinction between good and bad teams at each level. Probably the seminal example this year would be Tennessee. The Volunteers played an atrocious schedule featuring six of the seven worst teams in the SEC -- five of whom were demonstrably bad -- plus an FCS team, and 0-12 Kent State, yet they would've racked up the same points as a team playing an actual FBS-level schedule.

So, like I said, credit for the attempt, but I think this plan might stand some adjustment. Maybe adjusting the points awarded for each game by the number of wins than the loser winds up with? In which, case, for example, beating 0-12 Kent State would be far less valuable than beating 11-1 Army?

 

[tc1]

Excellent point. If you attended or paid for someone to attend a particular school that does give you a closer connection than you would have to a pro team (other than some similar connection).

I feel conflicted about this new world of college athletics. For years, pre-"Now It's Legal" rules, when it was obvious that NCAA athletics were not really "amateur" and had not been for a long time, and could not really be made that way despite the NCAA's many attempts at discipline, I used to be fond of suggesting that the NCAA should abandon the wishful thinking of "amateur student athletes" and just make the major sports (semi-)professional leagues where the teams license the mascots and colors from a university, and rent their facilities to practice and play.

I still believe that such a model will eventually be implemented, but now that we are half-way there, I'm less excited by the prospect and I do miss the fanciful idea of amateurs playing big-time college athletics.

There's zero reason now for "college teams" to have any association whatsoever with a university -- except, as I said, to license the right to wear the appropriate laundry, and to rent stadia in which to play.

But then, I did attend the University of Chicago, so my opinions on college sports and amateurism are unlikely to be mainstream.

 

[Ron G]

I give you credit for trying to design a solution.

The problem here would be that the phones in the AD offices of bad teams at each level would be ringing off the hook. Everyone would want to play Oklahoma State ( well, except Arkansas, who managed to lose to them ) and no one would want to schedule good G5 teams like Boise State, Army, or UNLV ). Maybe this would even-out if schedules continue to be set years in advance.

And, of course, SEC fans will whine all day about how losing to Vanderbilt should credit more points than beating Georgia State.

But the biggest problem by far would eliminating the distinction between good and bad teams at each level. Probably the seminal example this year would be Tennessee. The Volunteers played an atrocious schedule featuring six of the seven worst teams in the SEC -- five of whom were demonstrably bad -- plus an FCS team, and 0-12 Kent State, yet they would've racked up the same points as a team playing an actual FBS-level schedule.

So, like I said, credit for the attempt, but I think this plan might stand some adjustment. Maybe adjusting the points awarded for each game by the number of wins than the loser winds up with? In which, case, for example, beating 0-12 Kent State would be far less valuable than beating 11-1 Army?

Certainly, what I proposed was just a draft. A lot of adjustments could be added but I do like the concept. Adding this might help, ALL OOC games must be on a home and home basis.

 

[Ron G]

I feel conflicted about this new world of college athletics. For years, pre-"Now It's Legal" rules, when it was obvious that NCAA athletics were not really "amateur" and had not been for a long time, and could not really be made that way despite the NCAA's many attempts at discipline, I used to be fond of suggesting that the NCAA should abandon the wishful thinking of "amateur student athletes" and just make the major sports (semi-)professional leagues where the teams license the mascots and colors from a university, and rent their facilities to practice and play.

I still believe that such a model will eventually be implemented, but now that we are half-way there, I'm less excited by the prospect and I do miss the fanciful idea of amateurs playing big-time college athletics.

There's zero reason now for "college teams" to have any association whatsoever with a university -- except, as I said, to license the right to wear the appropriate laundry, and to rent stadia in which to play.

But then, I did attend the University of Chicago, so my opinions on college sports and amateurism are unlikely to be mainstream.

Well at the D 3 level I am a Wash U fan where my daughter went to school. Not everyone on these threads will know Wash U but you will.

 

[tc1]

Certainly, what I proposed was just a draft. A lot of adjustments could be added but I do like the concept. Adding this might help, ALL OOC games must be on a home and home basis.

What we are basically discussing here is recreating the math-based championship selectors and re-purposing them for playoff field selection. Or, in other words, getting rid of "The Committee" -- which is just a glorified poll with a smaller number of voters anyway.

 

[10HtownRebs]

My beloved Huskers are 18-1-7 against the 'historical' SEC teams.

What the hell does that matter for shit going forward?

"Historical" ? LOLOLOL

Wtf

 

[PIBuckeye]

Unfortunately, that distinction is now utterly obliterated, and every player in college is playing on a 1-year contract with impending unrestricted free agent status -- so it's even worse than any professional sport. At least in professional leagues, teams can sometimes hold on to a draft pick for half a decade, or sign a player to a long-term deal and get a few seasons out of them before they demand a trade.

It downright sucks. college coaches have a crazy job to do. they not only have to recruit new kids coming out of HS, but recruit kids that are on their team already.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

I give you credit for trying to design a solution.

The problem here would be that the phones in the AD offices of bad teams at each level would be ringing off the hook. Everyone would want to play Oklahoma State ( well, except Arkansas, who managed to lose to them ) and no one would want to schedule good G5 teams like Boise State, Army, or UNLV ). Maybe this would even-out if schedules continue to be set years in advance.

And, of course, SEC fans will whine all day about how losing to Vanderbilt should credit more points than beating Georgia State.

But the biggest problem by far would eliminating the distinction between good and bad teams at each level. Probably the seminal example this year would be Tennessee. The Volunteers played an atrocious schedule featuring six of the seven worst teams in the SEC -- five of whom were demonstrably bad -- plus an FCS team, and 0-12 Kent State, yet they would've racked up the same points as a team playing an actual FBS-level schedule.

So, like I said, credit for the attempt, but I think this plan might stand some adjustment. Maybe adjusting the points awarded for each game by the number of wins than the loser winds up with? In which, case, for example, beating 0-12 Kent State would be far less valuable than beating 11-1 Army?

This is why schools should not be doing their own OOC

 

[navamind]

Vols secondary got torched. Felt like a lot of those completions were pretty wide open. Michigan's secondary wasn't spectacular against OSU, but they dedicated extra bodies to defending the pass and trying to take the deep ball away.

They're tough to beat, especially if you let those receivers have their way with your secondary.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

Vols secondary got torched. Felt like a lot of those completions were pretty wide open. Michigan's secondary wasn't spectacular against OSU, but they dedicated extra bodies to defending the pass and trying to take the deep ball away.

They're tough to beat, especially if you let those receivers have their way with your secondary.

It also helped that osu didn't run a gameplan that catered to their opponents strengths this time.

 

[navamind]

It also helped that osu didn't run a gameplan that catered to their opponents strengths this time.

I think part of the Michigan game is that UM also baited them into running and trying to beat the DL, but Michigan's DTs destroyed them. I recommend reading Seth's UFR on the defense versus OSU's offense.

Upon Further Review 2024: Defense vs Ohio State | mgoblog

I apologize for the lateness of this. Been laughing too hard.FORMATION NOTES: UFR Glossary is here. Both teams were pretty vanilla. I called this Rugby.Chip Kelly's big idea in this game was to line up the receivers late in unbalanced formations, occasionally generating confusion as to whether a...

www.mgoblog.com

 

[Stakesarehigh]

I think part of the Michigan game is that UM also baited them into running and trying to beat the DL, but Michigan's DTs destroyed them. I recommend reading Seth's UFR on the defense versus OSU's offense.

Upon Further Review 2024: Defense vs Ohio State | mgoblog

I apologize for the lateness of this. Been laughing too hard.FORMATION NOTES: UFR Glossary is here. Both teams were pretty vanilla. I called this Rugby.Chip Kelly's big idea in this game was to line up the receivers late in unbalanced formations, occasionally generating confusion as to whether a...

www.mgoblog.com

That's the point, bait them? Lol why would they allow that on any level

You recruit the best receivers in cfb and you have 2 OL out to injury. You spread the field and beat UM in the secondary.

You know, like they did against the Vols and how they did right before the first half ended against Michigan, and then remarkably went right back to dumbassery.

Michigan came to play, obviously, but that was a shit gameplan in all aspects for OSU.

 

[bamagrad75]

what about the tennessee game?

While I was hoping for a rogue meteor strike, I wasn't displeased with the outcome.

 

[dtgold88]

The problem with replay is when a penalty is missed, even though it is obvious on replay and the penalty results in a turnover. I have seen fumbles been reviewed for a turnover when the fumble was cause by a flagrant but missed face mask which is clearly seen on the replay.

Hate when this happens and the announcers say that they got it right.

Thought in the case with this one because they saw the clear PI could have overturned it as it was really close.

 

[PIBuckeye]

Well at the D 3 level I am a Wash U fan where my daughter went to school. Not everyone on these threads will know Wash U but you will.

Mount Union Purple Raiders all the way.......... unbelievable program.

Best man at my wedding has 4 National championship rings......

 

[dtgold88]

Not sure what the point of this post was. I can use the slippery slope the other way and just say why not invite every team if you want to watch bad football games?

I mean, sure, not great games....guess not to be expected when higher seeds also play at home. But guessing wont always be like this and nothing wrong with giving few more teams a shot.