Official College Football Week 13 Thread - Page 4

CU Tiger · 11-30-2016, 12:57 PM

So this has been getting a fair amount of publicity locally, but not really nationally.
I initially didnt post it here because is sounds a tad like sour grapes, but that isnt my point. I'm posting this because we have a number of stats (as in the mathematic discipline not game statistics) geeks here and I'd love to see your thoughts on the data below.

Data First Premise to follow

HTML Code:

	clemson		opponent		Delta	
	flags	yards	flags	yards	flags	yards
auburn	6	55	9	60	3	5
troy	7	71	11	95	4	24
sc st	5	19	7	59	2	40
GT 	10	80	2	15	-8	-65 ***
Lvile	6	59	11	104	5	45
BC	4	23	6	52	2	29
NCSU	5	40	13	120	8	80
FSU	9	84	13	111	4	27
Cuse	3	30	10	55	7	25
pitt	9	101	3	40	-6	-61****
wake	6	33	5	44	-1	11
SC	7	75	5	54	-2	-21

Code:

	gt		opponent		DELTA	
	flags	yards	flags	yards	flags	yards
BC	3	29	7	39	4	10
mercer	1	10	5	45	4	35
Vandy	4	55	5	45	1	-10
Clem	2	15	10	80	8	65
Miami	4	41	4	39	0	-2
pitt	5	46	2	15	-3	-31
GSU	3	30	7	66	4	36
Duke	8	46	4	20	-4	-26
UNC	4	26	6	45	2	19
VT	7	35	4	35	-3	0
UVA	4	50	4	30	0	-20
UGA	4	45	2	15	-2	-30

Code:

	Pitt		Opponent		Delta	
	Flags	yards	Flags yards		flags	yards
nova	3	40	7	55	4	15
PSU	10	79	4	35	-6	-44
OSU	8	73	8	55	0	-18
UNC	4	40	5	41	1	1
mrsh	3	34	5	67	2	33
GT	2	15	5	46	3	31
uva	8	69	10	67	2	-2
VT	9	63	4	35	-5	-28
Mia	5	25	8	71	3	46
Clem	3	40	9	101	6	61
Duke	7	55	6	45	-1	-10
Cuse	7	64	7	50	0	-14

What you are looking at are tables of 2 ACC teams and their penalty stats as well as their opponents stats over this season.

So what is all this about?

Since becoming Head Coach at Clemson one of Dabo Swinney's biggest focuses has been on reducing and eliminating penalties. To the point that he has hired retired officials to work every practice, in uniform. And has a staff member track and chart ever practice foul called on every player. Playing time is frequently differentiated by penalty avoidance.

This stem back to a research paper he did on business stats while pursuing his MBA and a strong personal conviction in the correlation between (lack of) penalties and wins.

You will see from the above data that the attention seems to be paying off as Clemson was penalized less yardage in all but 3 games this season. And less total penalty incidents in all but 4 games.

Of note the SC stats are a bit skewed as Clemson took 3 delta of game penalties late in the game to bring out their seniors.

The Wake stats are likewise a bit skewed as Clemson actually declined a penalty late against Wake ( a false start on the offense - declined for no reason other than sportsmanship) that would have left the incident rate tied.

The other two games are the interesting data points.

The data establishes that Clemson's focus on penalty reduction typically leaves them being the lesser penalized team, or at worst, very close in penalties. The Pitt game and the GT game are clearly statistical outliers. Where Clemson was penalized 6 and 8 times more than their opponent for significantly more yards.

You can further dive into Pitt and GTs data and see that these games are also statistical outliers for them as no other games come close to that level penalty difference. In fact in both cases the Clemson game stands out as the teams second lowest incident of penalties.

Ok so we see some outliers, now what?

These 2 games were officiated by the same head referee and crew and in fact were the only two Clemson games officiated by that crew. So that sounds like an interesting correlation, right?

Now what if I told you that official graduated from the University of SC and was denied admission to Clemson, where his older brother graduated. Does it sound like a conflict of interest to anyone else?

Be curious to see others thoughts

Marmel · 11-30-2016, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

So this has been getting a fair amount of publicity locally, but not really nationally.
I initially didnt post it here because is sounds a tad like sour grapes, but that isnt my point. I'm posting this because we have a number of stats (as in the mathematic discipline not game statistics) geeks here and I'd love to see your thoughts on the data below.

Data First Premise to follow

HTML Code:

	clemson		opponent		Delta	
	flags	yards	flags	yards	flags	yards
auburn	6	55	9	60	3	5
troy	7	71	11	95	4	24
sc st	5	19	7	59	2	40
GT 	10	80	2	15	-8	-65 ***
Lvile	6	59	11	104	5	45
BC	4	23	6	52	2	29
NCSU	5	40	13	120	8	80
FSU	9	84	13	111	4	27
Cuse	3	30	10	55	7	25
pitt	9	101	3	40	-6	-61****
wake	6	33	5	44	-1	11
SC	7	75	5	54	-2	-21

Code:

	gt		opponent		DELTA	
	flags	yards	flags	yards	flags	yards
BC	3	29	7	39	4	10
mercer	1	10	5	45	4	35
Vandy	4	55	5	45	1	-10
Clem	2	15	10	80	8	65
Miami	4	41	4	39	0	-2
pitt	5	46	2	15	-3	-31
GSU	3	30	7	66	4	36
Duke	8	46	4	20	-4	-26
UNC	4	26	6	45	2	19
VT	7	35	4	35	-3	0
UVA	4	50	4	30	0	-20
UGA	4	45	2	15	-2	-30

Code:

	Pitt		Opponent		Delta	
	Flags	yards	Flags yards		flags	yards
nova	3	40	7	55	4	15
PSU	10	79	4	35	-6	-44
OSU	8	73	8	55	0	-18
UNC	4	40	5	41	1	1
mrsh	3	34	5	67	2	33
GT	2	15	5	46	3	31
uva	8	69	10	67	2	-2
VT	9	63	4	35	-5	-28
Mia	5	25	8	71	3	46
Clem	3	40	9	101	6	61
Duke	7	55	6	45	-1	-10
Cuse	7	64	7	50	0	-14

What you are looking at are tables of 2 ACC teams and their penalty stats as well as their opponents stats over this season.

So what is all this about?

Since becoming Head Coach at Clemson one of Dabo Swinney's biggest focuses has been on reducing and eliminating penalties. To the point that he has hired retired officials to work every practice, in uniform. And has a staff member track and chart ever practice foul called on every player. Playing time is frequently differentiated by penalty avoidance.

This stem back to a research paper he did on business stats while pursuing his MBA and a strong personal conviction in the correlation between (lack of) penalties and wins.

You will see from the above data that the attention seems to be paying off as Clemson was penalized less yardage in all but 3 games this season. And less total penalty incidents in all but 4 games.

Of note the SC stats are a bit skewed as Clemson took 3 delta of game penalties late in the game to bring out their seniors.

The Wake stats are likewise a bit skewed as Clemson actually declined a penalty late against Wake ( a false start on the offense - declined for no reason other than sportsmanship) that would have left the incident rate tied.

The other two games are the interesting data points.

The data establishes that Clemson's focus on penalty reduction typically leaves them being the lesser penalized team, or at worst, very close in penalties. The Pitt game and the GT game are clearly statistical outliers. Where Clemson was penalized 6 and 8 times more than their opponent for significantly more yards.

You can further dive into Pitt and GTs data and see that these games are also statistical outliers for them as no other games come close to that level penalty difference. In fact in both cases the Clemson game stands out as the teams second lowest incident of penalties.

Ok so we see some outliers, now what?

These 2 games were officiated by the same head referee and crew and in fact were the only two Clemson games officiated by that crew. So that sounds like an interesting correlation, right?

Now what if I told you that official graduated from the University of SC and was denied admission to Clemson, where his older brother graduated. Does it sound like a conflict of interest to anyone else?

Be curious to see others thoughts

OR, Clemsum just committed more penalties in those games because they are not the all perfect, all the time team cause Dabo took some courses and hired old shitty officials to help him.

Also, in Game 4 of the season, what if I told you that the side judge's roommate was denied admission to GTECH. Makes you wonder!!!

JonInMiddleGA · 11-30-2016, 02:14 PM

Off hand, with the GT game, their (Tech) totals aren't a huge outlier. They've been one of the least penalized teams (7th fewest) in the country this year. Averaging barely over 4 per game even if you remove this one.

Hard for that to seem like a red flag on the face of it.

As for Clemson penalties in that same game, the total of 10 included
2 hold,2 DPI, 2 false start, 4 offsides

The latter seems like an unusually high number for a team but also isn't usually a close judgment call, typically you either is or you ain't on those. And with those being higher, you're possibly accounting for a lot of the variance from average there (unless that's your most common penalty on a weekly basis)

Looking at the penalties in the Pitt game, if there was something biased then somebody forgot to tell the crew in the first half. 3 of the first 4 penalties went against Pitt.

Do I think that ref ought to be working a Clemson game? No.
Do I think there's any substantial evidence of something amiss here that can't simply be explained by variances in play? Also no.

Logan · 11-30-2016, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

These 2 games were officiated by the same head referee and crew and in fact were the only two Clemson games officiated by that crew. So that sounds like an interesting correlation, right?

Do you guys have the stats on this crews penalty calling levels in non-Clemson games?

CU Tiger · 11-30-2016, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logan

Do you guys have the stats on this crews penalty calling levels in non-Clemson games?

We do.

They are 2nd lowest in conference in total penalties called per game in every game not involving Clemson over the last 2 seasons. Highest in conference (by a +4 over second place) in games where Clemson is involved.

CU Tiger · 11-30-2016, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Looking at the penalties in the Pitt game, if there was something biased then somebody forgot to tell the crew in the first half. 3 of the first 4 penalties went against Pitt.

Good point.

However when it mattered....

3 of those penalties in the Pitt game were DPI on 3rd downs that werent completed in the 3rd and 4th quarter.

Another was a defensive hold on 3rd down that wasnt otherwise completed.

That was 4 first downs by penalties on drives that led to 3 scores.

Logan · 11-30-2016, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

We do.

They are 2nd lowest in conference in total penalties called per game in every game not involving Clemson over the last 2 seasons. Highest in conference (by a +4 over second place) in games where Clemson is involved.

Share the game by game numbers if you have them.

And since you mention last season...how were the breakdowns of calls in Clemson games he worked then (and potentially previously)? I assume he's been with the league at least a few years.

Marmel · 11-30-2016, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Good point.

However when it mattered....

3 of those penalties in the Pitt game were DPI on 3rd downs that werent completed in the 3rd and 4th quarter.

Another was a defensive hold on 3rd down that wasnt otherwise completed.

That was 4 first downs by penalties on drives that led to 3 scores.

I'm sure you are ignoring me, but seriously, complaining about the refs, especially weeks after a loss, is for losers. Your team controls its own destiny. Stop whining, please.

But if you insist, link some video of the calls and let us determine if they were legit calls or phantom flags.

Butter · 11-30-2016, 03:18 PM

I think he's well beyond whining at this point and actually trying to determine if there is any measurable, observable bias at play.

Of course it's possible that Clemson made a bunch more penalties in a single game than usual. But if there is a pattern of a single crew calling them for vastly more penalties than literally any other crew, that would seem to point to something else at work.

tarcone · 11-30-2016, 03:23 PM

I always told the teams I coached to never place the outcome of a game in the officials hands.

Atocep · 11-30-2016, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

What would you change about the current rankings? From my perspective the only team with room to complain is Western Michigan. Since Michigan beat the 3 teams directly behind them it seems fair to me. Penn St/Wisky will work itself out. I suppose you could argue that the Big 12 is being undervalued and bump Oklahoma/W Virginia a couple of spots but IMO it seems about where Id put them.

What's bothered me is the constant moving of the goal posts by the committee. There's no consistency from year to year or even week to week in what they say they looked at.

Conference championship games were heavily weighted 2 years ago. This year when a WVU team with 1 loss was ranked several spots below a 2 loss Of the committee said WVU was ranked there because they had played one ranked team and lost. Same for OU at that time. They defended OU's ranking by saying they had an explosive offense and had won 7 in a row.

This week you have a Utah team that lost and moved up 2 spots. You have auburn that played no one with a pulse out of conference and has 4 losses ranked 14th.
Louisville lost to Houston and fell to 11th and followed that up with a loss to Kentucky and then only drops to 13.

You can make various arguments for the things they're doing, but my problem is the lack of consistency in the things they have said they looked at.

Young Drachma · 11-30-2016, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butter

I was thinking that the actual disaster is Western Michigan losing to Ohio, as they are the likely group of 5 representative. If they lose and Navy loses, look out.

As a Wyoming alum, I hold out faint hope that this will happen and Wyoming beats SDSU for the 2nd time in three weeks in Laramie. Navy won't lose to Army...but Temple is a realistic possibility. I still don't think it'll prevent one of those loser G5 teams from claiming the spot, but man...would that be a blast.

vex · 11-30-2016, 03:45 PM

Just go back to the BCS formula but with an increased emphasis on conference champions to decide the 8 team playoff.

CU Tiger · 11-30-2016, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marmel

I'm sure you are ignoring me, but seriously, complaining about the refs, especially weeks after a loss, is for losers. Your team controls its own destiny. Stop whining, please.

But if you insist, link some video of the calls and let us determine if they were legit calls or phantom flags.

You are right. I ignore your previous comment because you've stalked my comments for 2 years ever since I said Syracuse's then head coach was a clown and would never last at a P5 school. He didnt. So I expect it from you by now.

That said, the precise reason why I didnt post immediately after the loss was because it IS sour grapes to blame the refs for a loss.

To Tarcone's point, the team should put i beyond the refs control. Of course when the refs give a team more first downs in a half than the team earns ...the refs can single handedly alter an outcome.

I'm not whining at all. I'm merely trying to bring discussion to a topic.

Sure I can post links to calls, but that proves nothing. As you well know in every game there are numerous "judgement" calls that can go either way. To show a clip and say "See there was contact there" proves nothing. If there is contact on both sides on 10 plays and its called 8 on 1 and none on the other it is still bias.

JonInMiddleGA · 11-30-2016, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atocep

What's bothered me is the constant moving of the goal posts by the committee. There's no consistency from year to year or even week to week in what they say they looked at.

Quote making the ESPN ticker tonight from John Swafford kinda sums that up I think

Quote:

I don't think you can throw a blanket over any of this with the selection committee because each year is different, and in a sense unique, and that's why the committee exists."

JonInMiddleGA · 11-30-2016, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vex

Just go back to the BCS formula but with an increased emphasis on conference champions to decide the 8 team playoff.

The next thing worse than the stupid 4-team playoff would be an absurd 8-team fiasco.

vex · 11-30-2016, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The next thing worse than the stupid 4-team playoff would be an absurd 8-team fiasco.

Why is that? Just not a fan of the playoffs or something else?

Buccaneer · 11-30-2016, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vex

Why is that? Just not a fan of the playoffs or something else?

It makes it much more important than it should be. More emphasis on athletic programs, more professional-like carnival, more financial temptations, more abuses, etc.

This past weekend is and have been for a while the most important weekend of the college football season. Rivalries are what makes college football and for many teams, all that matters (beating or at least playing their rival). What comes after is needless, unless you want to reward a successful season (and their fans) with a trip to warm weather city for the holidays to play in an exhibition game. The very expensive and much over-wrought desire to "crown a champion" in college has played into the temptations of greed, envy and illegalities.

JPhillips · 11-30-2016, 08:30 PM

Preach on, Buc.

We may not agree on much, but we march together on this.

JonInMiddleGA · 11-30-2016, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vex

Why is that? Just not a fan of the playoffs or something else?

I have consistently opposed the playoff concept as being utterly & completely unnecessary for college football.

Rarely has the eyeball test combined with existing results failed to reveal the best team in the nation in recent years, hell, recent decades.

The game, in numerous ways, is not what it was in its glory days & I oppose anything that drags it farther in the wrong direction.

Atocep · 11-30-2016, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Quote making the ESPN ticker tonight from John Swafford kinda sums that up I think

The problem is there's no transparency in the data used to come up with rankings. They never cite data either. When asked about a specific team they give some seemingly random reasons and when asked about a team that meets the same criteria they just used that's ranked higher or lower they give completely different reasons for their ranking.

It's a not a year to year issue. It's a week to week and team to team issue.

I want to know the data used to compile the rankings. I don't necessarily need to know the exact methodology, but understanding what is being used to come up with their rankings is a must IMO. I'd rather have a set of rankings that I don't agree with yet has solid data points than a set of rankings I do agree with but used poor data.

Right now the only criteria listed as being considered by the CFPC is:

Championships won
Strength of schedule
Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)

They don't list how they determine strength of schedule and 1 and 2 on that list should put Penn State above or at the very worst on equal ground with OSU.

As I mentioned above the reason they gave for Oklahoma being above WVU a couple of weeks ago despite very similar profiles at the time was "explosive offense" and "7 game winning streak". How exactly are those solid points of data?

hollmt · 11-30-2016, 09:22 PM

I have to say that I was a fan of possibly one day moving to an 8 team playoff (even as recently as a week ago), but I read a decent article the other day that really had some good points, have read some of your opinions here, and then a friend of mine wanting it to go to 16 and have sense flipped and think if we have to have the playoff....4 is enough.

Atocep · 11-30-2016, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollmt

I have to say that I was a fan of possibly one day moving to an 8 team playoff (even as recently as a week ago), but I read a decent article the other day that really had some good points, have read some of your opinions here, and then a friend of mine wanting it to go to 16 and have sense flipped and think if we have to have the playoff....4 is enough.

I was 100% against having a playoff, but with the current landscape of college football and the move to a playoff I'd rather see it move to a 6 team playoff. The 5 P5 conference champions plus the top G5. It puts winning your conference back at the top of everyone's agenda and largely removes the need for the committee.

Young Drachma · 11-30-2016, 09:37 PM

I'd love to go back to the 20s when they were about to ban the sport entirely, but you know, the genie ain't going back in the bottle.

JonInMiddleGA · 11-30-2016, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atocep

Right now the only criteria listed as being considered by the CFPC is:

Championships won
Strength of schedule
Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)

But that's only true to this extent "Strength of schedule, head-to-head competition and championships won must be specifically applied as tie-breakers between teams that look similar"

The things you're talking about seem to overlook how the process begins:
with each member listing the 30 teams that he/she believes to be the best in the country. That process walks on from their, with top six chosen by each member from the available pool (any team that was named 3 or more times in the opening round), ranking them, etc etc etc.

The factors you cited only seem to apply as tiebreakers, not as selection criteria.

Basically, it's eyeball test (or whatever method each member decides to use to compile their personal list of 30, or 6) with those specifics only coming into play "When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable"

hollmt · 11-30-2016, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atocep

I was 100% against having a playoff, but with the current landscape of college football and the move to a playoff I'd rather see it move to a 6 team playoff. The 5 P5 conference champions plus the top G5. It puts winning your conference back at the top of everyone's agenda and largely removes the need for the committee.

so keeping the conference championship game and then that team gets the invite or doing away with conference championship games and just the top team in the conference?

that was my original thought on 8...5 power 5 champs and 3 at large. but this season has really jaded me on the conference championship game winner.

just theorycrafting...say those were the rules this year. v.tech wins, doesn't matter psu/wisc wins, florida wins, col/wash either one is fine and Oklahoma for shits and giggles and then w. Michigan as our 6th. what a mess that would be.

JonInMiddleGA · 11-30-2016, 09:48 PM

And for those fans of "hard data only" approaches, remember this:

The current combined computer rankings (the whole big mass of them, some certainly more credible than others) have Michigan at #4 and Washington at #5.

They also have Penn State one spot lower than the committee ranked them this week.

#BeCarefulWhatYouWishFor

Young Drachma · 11-30-2016, 09:49 PM

Conference title game is the worst part of this. And they're just a fucking money grab. So if you ditch them, you can go back to the eye test, just have eight teams in a playoff and dispense with all of this B.S. where these manufactured title games which almost always have one underserving team on the other side of them...I can't see how it wouldn't be better except I guess the money wouldn't be entirely hoarded by the conferences.

jbergey22 · 11-30-2016, 09:51 PM

I am with the traditionalists on this one. Take away the playoff, take away the BCS and go back to the way college football was in 1984-1987. A time when a bowl invitation meant something and a conference championship meant something.

HerRealName · 11-30-2016, 10:11 PM

I'm quite happy with the current situation. It's the best of both worlds, the season is meaningful and we still get the top teams determining the champion on the field.

Most of the concern seems to be centered around trusting the committee to put the correct teams in the playoff. It's not perfect but P5 teams control their own destiny. Play a tough schedule, win your games, and leave no doubt. I thought Ohio State was one of the 4 best teams last year but they lost the wrong game and were left out. No one to blame but themselves.

jbergey22 · 11-30-2016, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HerRealName

I'm quite happy with the current situation. It's the best of both worlds, the season is meaningful and we still get the top teams determining the champion on the field.

Most of the concern seems to be centered around trusting the committee to put the correct teams in the playoff. It's not perfect but P5 teams control their own destiny. Play a tough schedule, win your games, and leave no doubt. I thought Ohio State was one of the 4 best teams but they lost the wrong game and were left out. No one to blame but themselves.

Mostly that the other bowls are devalued because they had to create this playoff. Like Jon said in an earlier post. It was something that was not necessary as the system prior to the BCS and Playoffs worked just fine in finding the national champion and left the other prestigious bowls be.

Ohio State would have played Washington on New Years Day in the Rose Bowl. Alabama would have been playing Clemson/Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl later that day. Hope was kept alive until the final polls came out. What I miss even more was back when a university could be proud of making the Sun Bowl and the fans treated the season as a success because making a bowl was a goal that didnt come easy.

Bowls in 2016 are like participation medals. Reward for having a team not suck.

HerRealName · 11-30-2016, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Mostly that the other bowls are devalued because they had to create this playoff. Like Jon said in an earlier post. It was something that was not necessary as the system prior to the BCS and Playoffs worked just fine in finding the national champion and left the other prestigious bowls be.

Ohio State would have played Washington on New Years Day in the Rose Bowl. Alabama would have been playing Clemson/Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl later that day. Hope was kept alive until the final polls came out. What I miss even more was back when a university could be proud of making the Sun Bowl and the fans treated the season as a success because making a bowl was a goal that didnt come easy.

Bowls in 2016 are like participation medals. Reward for having a team not suck.

OSU just blew a 12 point halftime lead before the 1st media TO

but...

The perception of bowl games has changed because of the number of bowl games, not the matchups at the top.

And I promise you, not all fan bases saw trips to the Music City Bowl as a success.

tarcone · 11-30-2016, 10:49 PM

You guys are funny. It will expand. You know it will. Too much money to be made.
In the mid 20s when the current contract is up is when you will see a major shake up in CF, IMO.

I see 4 super conferences of 16 teams. And an 8 team playoff. Taking the best team of each division of the 4 conferences and seeding them.

I like the playoffs. But I admit, there was nothing better then Iowa getting that Rose bowl bid for being the Big Ten Champion.

JonInMiddleGA · 11-30-2016, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarcone

You guys are funny. It will expand. You know it will.

And it'll be just as big (or even bigger) a mistake as the fucking DH was, and still is.

edit to add: and NASCAR's "Chase"

HerRealName · 11-30-2016, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And it'll be just as big (or even bigger) a mistake as the fucking DH was, and still is.

edit to add: and NASCAR's "Chase"

Just curious but do you remember MLB without the DH?

hollmt · 11-30-2016, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HerRealName

OSU just blew a 12 point halftime lead before the 1st media TO

but...

yeah, that was a bit disheartening. impressed though that they battled back and are still hanging in there. this is their first real challenge and on the road at that. tate needs back in.

wrong thread, but HRN is another buckeye. right?

yeah and tarcone, I think I agree. it will expand, and likely even before the contract expires, especially if there is some loophole they can makeup to do it.

....be nice if osu stopped turning the ball over and could also make FT's.

HerRealName · 11-30-2016, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollmt

yeah, that was a bit disheartening. impressed though that they battled back and are still hanging in there. this is their first real challenge and on the road at that. tate needs back in.

wrong thread, but HRN is another buckeye. right?

yeah and tarcone, I think I agree. it will expand, and likely even before the contract expires, especially if there is some loophole they can makeup to do it.

....be nice if osu stopped turning the ball over and could also make FT's.

Yeah, I graduated from Ohio State... several decades ago.

Doesn't look good now, so many bad TOs

jbergey22 · 11-30-2016, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HerRealName

OSU just blew a 12 point halftime lead before the 1st media TO

but...

The perception of bowl games has changed because of the number of bowl games, not the matchups at the top.

And I promise you, not all fan bases saw trips to the Music City Bowl as a success.

They have changed. The Rose Bowl isnt the best team team in the Big Ten and Pac-10 anymore but either a name for one of the playoff games or the 2nd best team in the Big Ten and the 1st/2nd best team in the Pac-10. The BCS took the tradition out of the Bowl games and now the playoff ended tradition as we knew it. For what reason? We still have a system people complain about, we still dont want to believe the SEC is the dominate conference despite years of evidence supporting their dominance, we still feel teams like Western Michigan deserve a shot. People dont care about the Rose Bowl anymore, they care about their team getting the playoffs.

JonInMiddleGA · 11-30-2016, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HerRealName

Just curious but do you remember MLB without the DH?

Yeah, 'cause I clearly remember Ron Blomberg being first being made a big deal of.

I've got clear memories of both LCS in '72, as well as ALCS '71 (no idea why I don't remember the NLCS from '71 though), so at 4 and 5 I was engaged enough to have those things stick. And I can remember arguing against the DH with my (several years older) best friend at the time, I was an NL guy & he was an AL guy so our battle lines were drawn on it from the beginning.

CU Tiger · 11-30-2016, 11:58 PM

I'm not so certain on expansion being a foregone conclusion.
At least not unless conference championship games are counted as round one.

Or at a minimum, moving playoff games to higher seed home field. Otherwise attendance is going to suffer. As it is, they are pricing even hardcore fans out.

I know, I know it's all about TV revenue. Except it's not for the venues. They need ticket sales to cover expenses.

Young Drachma · 12-01-2016, 08:22 AM

It took them forever to create a playoff, I imagine it'll be a lot faster to expand it than it did to create it.

Logan · 12-01-2016, 08:47 AM

Why do people seem to think the NCAA would want a 6 team playoff where you have the P5 champions plus the best G5 champ? Isn't what is going on this year a clear indication that they want to put in who they feel to be the 4 (or 6) best teams regardless?

There is zero chance they would ever put in place such an inflexible format. If 12-0 OSU loses the B1G Championship to a 9-3 Minnesota team one year, OSU will always be in (and likely should be).

bronconick · 12-01-2016, 03:12 PM

The P5 created this playoff system. They'll make whatever adjustments they want or need to keep the money rolling in and the power firmly in their grasp. The bowl system has a longer history than the NCAA men's basketball tournament. It's not going away for a hypothetical 8 or 16 team playoff run by the NCAA letting in 2-4 G5 teams

Marmel · 12-02-2016, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

You are right. I ignore your previous comment because you've stalked my comments for 2 years ever since I said Syracuse's then head coach was a clown and would never last at a P5 school. He didnt. So I expect it from you by now.

That said, the precise reason why I didnt post immediately after the loss was because it IS sour grapes to blame the refs for a loss.

To Tarcone's point, the team should put i beyond the refs control. Of course when the refs give a team more first downs in a half than the team earns ...the refs can single handedly alter an outcome.

I'm not whining at all. I'm merely trying to bring discussion to a topic.

Sure I can post links to calls, but that proves nothing. As you well know in every game there are numerous "judgement" calls that can go either way. To show a clip and say "See there was contact there" proves nothing. If there is contact on both sides on 10 plays and its called 8 on 1 and none on the other it is still bias.

Or maybe Clemson isn't even great at not committing penalties, but there is a bias at helping them, which of course makes your whining about the Pitt game even more pathetic.

Do College Football Refs Have It In for Your Team? - Bloomberg

Could be why we haven't seen a Clemsoning in a few years too.

tarcone · 12-02-2016, 12:47 PM

You guys realize that if Clemson and Washington and, for that matter, Oklahoma all lose, the B1G will have 2, if not, 3 teams in the playoffs.
Think that will stir up the expansion talks?

Butter · 12-02-2016, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marmel

Or maybe Clemson isn't even great at not committing penalties, but there is a bias at helping them, which of course makes your whining about the Pitt game even more pathetic.

Do College Football Refs Have It In for Your Team? - Bloomberg

Could be why we haven't seen a Clemsoning in a few years too.

Yet the article does say that the last data they had prior to the most recent look actually pointed to the refs having a bias against top ACC teams. Hard to fault someone for suspecting a bias in that case, isn't it?

hollmt · 12-02-2016, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarcone

You guys realize that if Clemson and Washington and, for that matter, Oklahoma all lose, the B1G will have 2, if not, 3 teams in the playoffs.
Think that will stir up the expansion talks?

Not sure it will even take Oklahoma losing. I think just Clemson and Washington losing will put in OSU (probably a lock already anyway), PSU/Wisc winner and Michigan.

Either way, getting 2 teams from 1 conference in the playoffs will be a first in the young history of the playoffs and probably enough to cause discussions. And what if just Washington loses and Michigan jumps to 4 knocking out the BIG champ.

What if this and what if that....should be interesting.

General Mike · 12-02-2016, 09:37 PM

I'm not sure what Western Michigan is wearing, but they look terrible.

mauchow · 12-02-2016, 09:50 PM

Bad move, IMO going for it for Washington. CU needs to capitalize for points.

Go Buffs !! (Go Badgers)

bhlloy · 12-02-2016, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Mike

I'm not sure what Western Michigan is wearing, but they look terrible.

I was trying to figure out why all their players had long blonde hair for a while, until I realized it was just the crappy uniforms

11-30-2016, 12:57 PM	#151
CU Tiger Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Backwoods, SC	So this has been getting a fair amount of publicity locally, but not really nationally. I initially didnt post it here because is sounds a tad like sour grapes, but that isnt my point. I'm posting this because we have a number of stats (as in the mathematic discipline not game statistics) geeks here and I'd love to see your thoughts on the data below. Data First Premise to follow HTML Code: clemson opponent Delta flags yards flags yards flags yards auburn 6 55 9 60 3 5 troy 7 71 11 95 4 24 sc st 5 19 7 59 2 40 GT 10 80 2 15 -8 -65 * Lvile 6 59 11 104 5 45 BC 4 23 6 52 2 29 NCSU 5 40 13 120 8 80 FSU 9 84 13 111 4 27 Cuse 3 30 10 55 7 25 pitt 9 101 3 40 -6 -61** wake 6 33 5 44 -1 11 SC 7 75 5 54 -2 -21 Code: gt opponent DELTA flags yards flags yards flags yards BC 3 29 7 39 4 10 mercer 1 10 5 45 4 35 Vandy 4 55 5 45 1 -10 Clem 2 15 10 80 8 65 Miami 4 41 4 39 0 -2 pitt 5 46 2 15 -3 -31 GSU 3 30 7 66 4 36 Duke 8 46 4 20 -4 -26 UNC 4 26 6 45 2 19 VT 7 35 4 35 -3 0 UVA 4 50 4 30 0 -20 UGA 4 45 2 15 -2 -30 Code: Pitt Opponent Delta Flags yards Flags yards flags yards nova 3 40 7 55 4 15 PSU 10 79 4 35 -6 -44 OSU 8 73 8 55 0 -18 UNC 4 40 5 41 1 1 mrsh 3 34 5 67 2 33 GT 2 15 5 46 3 31 uva 8 69 10 67 2 -2 VT 9 63 4 35 -5 -28 Mia 5 25 8 71 3 46 Clem 3 40 9 101 6 61 Duke 7 55 6 45 -1 -10 Cuse 7 64 7 50 0 -14 What you are looking at are tables of 2 ACC teams and their penalty stats as well as their opponents stats over this season. So what is all this about? Since becoming Head Coach at Clemson one of Dabo Swinney's biggest focuses has been on reducing and eliminating penalties. To the point that he has hired retired officials to work every practice, in uniform. And has a staff member track and chart ever practice foul called on every player. Playing time is frequently differentiated by penalty avoidance. This stem back to a research paper he did on business stats while pursuing his MBA and a strong personal conviction in the correlation between (lack of) penalties and wins. You will see from the above data that the attention seems to be paying off as Clemson was penalized less yardage in all but 3 games this season. And less total penalty incidents in all but 4 games. Of note the SC stats are a bit skewed as Clemson took 3 delta of game penalties late in the game to bring out their seniors. The Wake stats are likewise a bit skewed as Clemson actually declined a penalty late against Wake ( a false start on the offense - declined for no reason other than sportsmanship) that would have left the incident rate tied. The other two games are the interesting data points. The data establishes that Clemson's focus on penalty reduction typically leaves them being the lesser penalized team, or at worst, very close in penalties. The Pitt game and the GT game are clearly statistical outliers. Where Clemson was penalized 6 and 8 times more than their opponent for significantly more yards. You can further dive into Pitt and GTs data and see that these games are also statistical outliers for them as no other games come close to that level penalty difference. In fact in both cases the Clemson game stands out as the teams second lowest incident of penalties. Ok so we see some outliers, now what? These 2 games were officiated by the same head referee and crew and in fact were the only two Clemson games officiated by that crew. So that sounds like an interesting correlation, right? Now what if I told you that official graduated from the University of SC and was denied admission to Clemson, where his older brother graduated. Does it sound like a conflict of interest to anyone else? Be curious to see others thoughts

11-30-2016, 02:14 PM	#153
JonInMiddleGA Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA	Off hand, with the GT game, their (Tech) totals aren't a huge outlier. They've been one of the least penalized teams (7th fewest) in the country this year. Averaging barely over 4 per game even if you remove this one. Hard for that to seem like a red flag on the face of it. As for Clemson penalties in that same game, the total of 10 included 2 hold,2 DPI, 2 false start, 4 offsides The latter seems like an unusually high number for a team but also isn't usually a close judgment call, typically you either is or you ain't on those. And with those being higher, you're possibly accounting for a lot of the variance from average there (unless that's your most common penalty on a weekly basis) Looking at the penalties in the Pitt game, if there was something biased then somebody forgot to tell the crew in the first half. 3 of the first 4 penalties went against Pitt. Do I think that ref ought to be working a Clemson game? No. Do I think there's any substantial evidence of something amiss here that can't simply be explained by variances in play? Also no. __________________ "I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis

11-30-2016, 03:18 PM	#159
Butter Coordinator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Dayton, OH	I think he's well beyond whining at this point and actually trying to determine if there is any measurable, observable bias at play. Of course it's possible that Clemson made a bunch more penalties in a single game than usual. But if there is a pattern of a single crew calling them for vastly more penalties than literally any other crew, that would seem to point to something else at work. __________________ My listening habits

11-30-2016, 03:23 PM	#160
tarcone Coordinator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Pacific	I always told the teams I coached to never place the outcome of a game in the officials hands. __________________ Excuses are for wusses- Spencer Lee Punting is Winning- Tory Taylor The word is Fight! Fight! Fight! For Iowa FOFC 30 Dollar Challenge Champion-OOTP '15

11-30-2016, 08:30 PM	#169
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	Preach on, Buc. We may not agree on much, but we march together on this. __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

11-30-2016, 03:45 PM	#163
vex Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Tulsa	Just go back to the BCS formula but with an increased emphasis on conference champions to decide the 8 team playoff.

11-30-2016, 09:22 PM	#172
hollmt High School Varsity Join Date: Aug 2002	I have to say that I was a fan of possibly one day moving to an 8 team playoff (even as recently as a week ago), but I read a decent article the other day that really had some good points, have read some of your opinions here, and then a friend of mine wanting it to go to 16 and have sense flipped and think if we have to have the playoff....4 is enough.

11-30-2016, 09:37 PM	#174
Young Drachma Dark Cloud Join Date: Apr 2001	I'd love to go back to the 20s when they were about to ban the sport entirely, but you know, the genie ain't going back in the bottle. Last edited by Young Drachma : 11-30-2016 at 09:37 PM.

11-30-2016, 09:48 PM	#177
JonInMiddleGA Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA	And for those fans of "hard data only" approaches, remember this: The current combined computer rankings (the whole big mass of them, some certainly more credible than others) have Michigan at #4 and Washington at #5. They also have Penn State one spot lower than the committee ranked them this week. #BeCarefulWhatYouWishFor __________________ "I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis

11-30-2016, 09:49 PM	#178
Young Drachma Dark Cloud Join Date: Apr 2001	Conference title game is the worst part of this. And they're just a fucking money grab. So if you ditch them, you can go back to the eye test, just have eight teams in a playoff and dispense with all of this B.S. where these manufactured title games which almost always have one underserving team on the other side of them...I can't see how it wouldn't be better except I guess the money wouldn't be entirely hoarded by the conferences.

11-30-2016, 09:51 PM	#179
jbergey22 Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Minnesota	I am with the traditionalists on this one. Take away the playoff, take away the BCS and go back to the way college football was in 1984-1987. A time when a bowl invitation meant something and a conference championship meant something.

11-30-2016, 10:11 PM	#180
HerRealName College Prospect Join Date: Dec 2002	I'm quite happy with the current situation. It's the best of both worlds, the season is meaningful and we still get the top teams determining the champion on the field. Most of the concern seems to be centered around trusting the committee to put the correct teams in the playoff. It's not perfect but P5 teams control their own destiny. Play a tough schedule, win your games, and leave no doubt. I thought Ohio State was one of the 4 best teams last year but they lost the wrong game and were left out. No one to blame but themselves. Last edited by HerRealName : 11-30-2016 at 10:23 PM.

11-30-2016, 10:49 PM	#183
tarcone Coordinator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Pacific	You guys are funny. It will expand. You know it will. Too much money to be made. In the mid 20s when the current contract is up is when you will see a major shake up in CF, IMO. I see 4 super conferences of 16 teams. And an 8 team playoff. Taking the best team of each division of the 4 conferences and seeding them. I like the playoffs. But I admit, there was nothing better then Iowa getting that Rose bowl bid for being the Big Ten Champion. __________________ Excuses are for wusses- Spencer Lee Punting is Winning- Tory Taylor The word is Fight! Fight! Fight! For Iowa FOFC 30 Dollar Challenge Champion-OOTP '15

11-30-2016, 11:58 PM	#190
CU Tiger Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Backwoods, SC	I'm not so certain on expansion being a foregone conclusion. At least not unless conference championship games are counted as round one. Or at a minimum, moving playoff games to higher seed home field. Otherwise attendance is going to suffer. As it is, they are pricing even hardcore fans out. I know, I know it's all about TV revenue. Except it's not for the venues. They need ticket sales to cover expenses. Last edited by CU Tiger : 11-30-2016 at 11:59 PM.

12-01-2016, 08:22 AM	#191
Young Drachma Dark Cloud Join Date: Apr 2001	It took them forever to create a playoff, I imagine it'll be a lot faster to expand it than it did to create it.

12-01-2016, 08:47 AM	#192
Logan Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: NYC	Why do people seem to think the NCAA would want a 6 team playoff where you have the P5 champions plus the best G5 champ? Isn't what is going on this year a clear indication that they want to put in who they feel to be the 4 (or 6) best teams regardless? There is zero chance they would ever put in place such an inflexible format. If 12-0 OSU loses the B1G Championship to a 9-3 Minnesota team one year, OSU will always be in (and likely should be).

12-01-2016, 03:12 PM	#193
bronconick College Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Kalamazoo, MI	The P5 created this playoff system. They'll make whatever adjustments they want or need to keep the money rolling in and the power firmly in their grasp. The bowl system has a longer history than the NCAA men's basketball tournament. It's not going away for a hypothetical 8 or 16 team playoff run by the NCAA letting in 2-4 G5 teams

12-02-2016, 12:47 PM	#195
tarcone Coordinator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Pacific	You guys realize that if Clemson and Washington and, for that matter, Oklahoma all lose, the B1G will have 2, if not, 3 teams in the playoffs. Think that will stir up the expansion talks? __________________ Excuses are for wusses- Spencer Lee Punting is Winning- Tory Taylor The word is Fight! Fight! Fight! For Iowa FOFC 30 Dollar Challenge Champion-OOTP '15

12-02-2016, 09:37 PM	#198
General Mike Pro Starter Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: The State of Rutgers	I'm not sure what Western Michigan is wearing, but they look terrible.

12-02-2016, 09:50 PM	#199
mauchow Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Murfreesboro, TN	Bad move, IMO going for it for Washington. CU needs to capitalize for points. Go Buffs !! (Go Badgers)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)