Official College Football Week 13 Thread

[Eaglesfan27]

If Washington's out of conference schedule was stronger they would have been ranked higher.

[dawgfan]

Washington's only loss was by 13 to the #9 team. Clemson's only loss was by 1 to the #23 team. Seems not too dissimilar when you consider strength of opponents. Washington also had wins of 31 points vs. #10 and 38 points vs. the #18 team. Clemson had wins of 6 points vs. #6, 6 points vs. #13, 3 points vs. #11 and 7 points vs. #22. Higher volume of wins vs. top-25 for Clemson, but far less impressive margins.

I get that our OOC schedule was poor (though again, Rutgers was scheduled when they were good), but the actual performance on the field is not less than Clemson.

I'll be very curious to see the next rankings from Sagarin, S&P and FEI. I would bet that the decisive win over Colorado vaults the Huskies ahead of Clemson.

[Brian Swartz]

S&P's are out, and they don't happen to agree -- though it's close, which I think it should be. Clemson is 4th, Washington 6th, with a gap between of them of just under a point. In other words, flip a coin, but if you have to choose, Clemson.

Edit: I think part of that is they didn't have Colorado as high as CFP(15th last week, 17th now). Similarly, they have Louisville higher, which benefits Clemson.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

S&P's are out, and they don't happen to agree -- though it's close, which I think it should be. Clemson is 4th, Washington 6th, with a gap between of them of just under a point. In other words, flip a coin, but if you have to choose, Clemson.

Edit: I think part of that is they didn't have Colorado as high as CFP(15th last week, 17th now). Similarly, they have Louisville higher, which benefits Clemson.

They'll jump Clemson in Sagarin for sure given how close they were prior to this weekend, and given how close they are in FEI - and how they rated Colorado and Virginia Tech respectively - they probably jump ahead there too.

[dawgfan]

And my bigger point is just that I don't see how a neutral observer has Clemson clearly ahead of Washington - and worthy of jumping Ohio State - while Washington was at risk of being passed by Penn State. Not unless there's some extra credit for last season and/or some bias for southern football/against west coast football.

Somewhat moot point I know as Washington is in, and if they want to win it all you probably have to go through Alabama either way. But I think the committee missed a chance to set up more interesting 1st round match-ups, with a 'Bama vs. Clemson rematch and a Pac-12/Big Ten matchup in the other.

[hollmt]

I think that is possibly a part of it (although it would never be admitted to) on what the committee did. Having OSU/Clemson matchup and the winner facing (unfortunately in all likelihood, Bama) makes for better stories.

Possible rematch between 2014 champ OSU and 2015 champ Bama.
Possible rematch between Bama and Clemson.

I will be rooting for Washington, and I am glad they made it in. I think they deserve a shot. I don't however, think it is beneath human nature to make possible matchups a possibility. Last year, I think they seeded OU 3 instead of 4 with the goal and intent of a possible Bama/OU final matchup because it promoted better.

And, by seeding Washington 4 instead of a possible jump to 3, keeps that door open for Bama/OSU or Bama/Clemson in the final game.

Conspiracy theory at work I know Do with it what you will.

[Butter]

ACC is a much higher rated conference than the Pac 12. There are lots of criteria that I'm sure they weighed, and I would bet that Clemson wins more of those criteria than Washington.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Butter

ACC is a much higher rated conference than the Pac 12. There are lots of criteria that I'm sure they weighed, and I would bet that Clemson wins more of those criteria than Washington.

Higher-rated by who? Sagarin has both the P12 North and P12 South ahead of each of the ACC divisions.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Butter

ACC is a much higher rated conference than the Pac 12. There are lots of criteria that I'm sure they weighed, and I would bet that Clemson wins more of those criteria than Washington.

Nope. Even the computer rankings comparison mostly has the Pac-12 ahead of the ACC.

[CrescentMoonie]

This seems more like a case of recency bias than anything else.

[CU Tiger]

I think it all comes down to OOC scheduling. Playing a weaker schedule helps not only with easier wins, but also increased rest, reduced injury, etc.

The committee has repeatedly emphasized OOC scheduling.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Nope. Even the computer rankings comparison mostly has the Pac-12 ahead of the ACC.

Yes, you're right. I thought I remembered seeing and reading about the opposite being true, but it likely was from a few weeks ago.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Butter

Yes, you're right. I thought I remembered seeing and reading about the opposite being true, but it likely was from a few weeks ago.

I cant for the life of me figure out how the Pac-10 was higher. The Pac-10 did not have a single impressive non conference win.(Perhaps Stanford beating KSU could be considered impressive)

People like to throw out USC as the #9 team in the nation but they got that ranking beating up on the Pac-10. When that team played Alabama they lost by 46. I guess they did beat the 4 win Fighting Irish by 18.

We wont know how good the Pac-10 was this year until the bowls are played because their non conference scheduling was so poor.

[Buccaneer]

A team that finished 10th (out of 11) in the Sun Belt is going to a bowl game?!?!?!? What an absolute joke.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I cant for the life of me figure out how the Pac-10 was higher. The Pac-10 did not have a single impressive non conference win.(Perhaps Stanford beating KSU could be considered impressive)

People like to throw out USC as the #9 team in the nation but they got that ranking beating up on the Pac-10. When that team played Alabama they lost by 46. I guess they did beat the 4 win Fighting Irish by 18.

We wont know how good the Pac-10 was this year until the bowls are played because their non conference scheduling was so poor.

Hard to take your take serious when you refer to it as the PAC-10.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Hard to take your take serious when you refer to it as the PAC-10.

You know what was meant.

It is just logical thinking. The Pac-12 proved so little with their non conference schedule that it is hard to know if within the conference if it was top 10 teams beating on average teams or average teams beating up on bad teams. The only team in that conference Id feel secure in the top 15 is Washington but I am basically using the end of last season and what they did this year to come to that conclusion.

At the very least the "Pac-12" needs to test themselves a bit so fans can paint a picture on the power of the conference.

Oregon, USC, and Stanford had been carrying the Pac-12 for past few years and certainly 2 of them teams took a step back this year. Colorado was a nice story but were they really this good suddenly or was the conference just that weak this year? Solid questions I know the Pac-12 fans dont like to hear.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

A team that finished 10th (out of 11) in the Sun Belt is going to a bowl game?!?!?!? What an absolute joke.

That team finished 6-6 and of their 4 OOC wins, they beat an SEC team and the MWC champ.

[tarcone]

Iowa gets the Outback.
They love us there.

Traveling well has its benefits.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

A team that finished 10th (out of 11) in the Sun Belt is going to a bowl game?!?!?!? What an absolute joke.

I never quite get the complaining about having extra bowl games, particularly for lower conferences. At worst it's cheapish television programming. If you don't want to watch, flip over to the Home Shopping Network or History Channel. But bowls are fun for a lot of players and fans. I think it's great more kids are getting to experience it.

[Chief Rum]

My gut as a Pac 12 fan is that actually.the conference wasn't very good this year, and that there was a lot more parity. I feel like most years the Pac 12 is much more bunched up together in quality than the other conferences, where the best teams, IMO, are usually much better than the worst teams. And that this year, it was even tighter because the bottom of the league was a little higher and the top a little lower.

I feel like Washington and USC are good but not great teams that largely built their resumes beating solid Pac 12 teams that nonetheless had exploitable flaws. UCLA had a great defense let down by a terrible offense. Oregon took a massive step back at QB. Stanford lost too much talent on D and QB. Colorado and Utah were solid teams that simply weren't talented enough to keep it up. Wazzu is what it is. All exploitable wins by solid coached and talented teams like UDub and SC.

I feel like the Pac 12 in most years deserves a lot more credit than it gets, but not this year. I think this was the weakest overall that the conference has been since expanding to 12 teams.

If UCLA, Oregon and Furd right their ships, I think it will be a blip, but for this year, that's how I see it.

[vex]

Brett McMurphy
College football reporter


NCAA President Mark Emmert says he would prefer an 8-team CFB Playoff so all Power 5 conference champions are guaranteed a bid.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by vex

Brett McMurphy
College football reporter


NCAA President Mark Emmert says he would prefer an 8-team CFB Playoff so all Power 5 conference champions are guaranteed a bid.

(and an extra 4 games of revenue)

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

They'll jump Clemson in Sagarin for sure given how close they were prior to this weekend, and given how close they are in FEI - and how they rated Colorado and Virginia Tech respectively - they probably jump ahead there too.

FWIW, they did indeed jump Clemson in Sagarin's and FEI's ratings. They're also higher in ESPN's FPI.

I'll stop bitching now

[Umbrella]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

You know what was meant.

It is just logical thinking. The Pac-12 proved so little with their non conference schedule that it is hard to know if within the conference if it was top 10 teams beating on average teams or average teams beating up on bad teams. The only team in that conference Id feel secure in the top 15 is Washington but I am basically using the end of last season and what they did this year to come to that conclusion.

At the very least the "Pac-12" needs to test themselves a bit so fans can paint a picture on the power of the conference.

Oregon, USC, and Stanford had been carrying the Pac-12 for past few years and certainly 2 of them teams took a step back this year. Colorado was a nice story but were they really this good suddenly or was the conference just that weak this year? Solid questions I know the Pac-12 fans dont like to hear.

As a fan of a Pac 12 team, I think this is fair. Truth is, the conference did play some good OOC games, but lost all of them. The funny thing is that it was the bottom of the conference that did. Oregon was terrible, and almost beat Nebraska on the road. UCLA was terrible, and almost beat Texas A&M on the road. USC got crushed by Alabama, but once they changed QB's, they've become much better. Cal was pretty bad, and almost beat a decent San Diego St. team on the road. Colorado hung with Michigan on the road most of the game.

Note that all of these games were on the road. For whatever reason, Pac 12 teams have a hard time getting people to travel out west for tough games. The only games from power 5 conferences to travel west were Texas vs. Cal, Kansas St. vs. Stanford, and Texas Tech vs. Arizona St. All of which were Pac 12 wins. And Cal and Arizona St. were pretty awful this year.

The fact is that the fan bases out west aren't as strong as they are in the midwest and south, so the teams don't have the financial incentives to play at home as much as other conferences. Also, they play 9 conference games as opposed to 8 in the SEC and ACC. Less chances to schedule a good OOC opponent.

My take is that the conference is really deep, but not a lot of power at the top. Oregon and UCLA struggling didn't help with that.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by digamma

I never quite get the complaining about having extra bowl games, particularly for lower conferences. At worst it's cheapish television programming. If you don't want to watch, flip over to the Home Shopping Network or History Channel. But bowls are fun for a lot of players and fans. I think it's great more kids are getting to experience it.

At worst it's a drain on school funds for a mediocre football game that the school probably won't sell a lot of tickets to.

[tarcone]

I think the extra month of practice is a big thing as well.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by digamma

I never quite get the complaining about having extra bowl games, particularly for lower conferences. At worst it's cheapish television programming. If you don't want to watch, flip over to the Home Shopping Network or History Channel. But bowls are fun for a lot of players and fans. I think it's great more kids are getting to experience it.

Yeah, I know, except for those bowls that have very small attendance, ratings and payouts.

The local sportswriter is saying things like "undeserving", "illegitimate", "comical" and "stumbling" when talking about who Air Force has to play. While I do not like the local team, they do deserve better than playing a team that finished in 10th place.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Yeah, I know, except for those bowls that have very small attendance, ratings and payouts.

The local sportswriter is saying things like "undeserving", "illegitimate", "comical" and "stumbling" when talking about who Air Force has to play. While I do not like the local team, they do deserve better than playing a team that finished in 10th place.

Or maybe Air Force deserves a better bowl.

I had to look it up, but this is the one that couldn't even find a decent network deal, ended up with Sinclair. And the "10th place" thing is misleading as well, they finished tied for 8th. And it's the bowl that chose to contract with the Sun Belt, as the fifth partner for that conference. And that move came after neither CUSA nor the Sun Belt could even manage to provide an opponent last year, creating the semi-infamous MWC vs MWC bowl game.

But, hey the MWC signed the contract. That's on them,not on South Alabama.

[CrescentMoonie]

FCS playoff game between James Madison and Sam Houston State is on ESPN2 for those who wish to watch.

[tarcone]

Cool. Thanks for the heads up.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by digamma

I never quite get the complaining about having extra bowl games, particularly for lower conferences. At worst it's cheapish television programming. If you don't want to watch, flip over to the Home Shopping Network or History Channel. But bowls are fun for a lot of players and fans. I think it's great more kids are getting to experience it.

+1

In a landscape riddled with so many shitty things, it seems bizarre to me that people sometimes balk at the one thing where the players actually get to experience something they might not otherwise.

This whole "reward for a good season" bullshit flies in the face of "amateurism" and so...yeah. I don't care how many bowls they are, if they can be sanctioned and somehow turn a profit or even if they don't, doesn't matter to me, even if it costs the university money because athletics accounting is cooked anyway.

There isn't a school in the country spending general fund dollars to travel to a bowl game, so the "taking money away from.." argument is mostly moot. Especially if they're paying a head coach six or seven figures, the hell if I care.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

FCS playoff game between James Madison and Sam Houston State is on ESPN2 for those who wish to watch.

Turned this on a while ago and it was 65-0 JMU in the third quarter. Jesus.

[BishopMVP]

They'll likely play North Dakota State in next week's semifinal. Maybe the streak will finally end.

[CrescentMoonie]

I know I'm supposed to be an adult by this point, but when ESPN does a story about the Navy mascot they can't list the guy's name with the caption, "Team Goat Handler."

[CrescentMoonie]

South Dakota St with the most inventive TD I've ever seen work in a real game.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

South Dakota St with the most inventive TD I've ever seen work in a real game.

I turned it on at that exact moment.

[CrescentMoonie]

Army-Navy jerseys look like a SWAC vs MEAC all-star game.

[CrescentMoonie]

Finally.

Beat Navy!

[digamma]

Singing second is the best tradition in college football.

And loved the Army unis.

[kingfc22]

And why did the invite 5 people to the Heisman? The gap between 2nd and 3rd was the largest in 70 years.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Yeah, I know, except for those bowls that have very small attendance, ratings and payouts.

The local sportswriter is saying things like "undeserving", "illegitimate", "comical" and "stumbling" when talking about who Air Force has to play. While I do not like the local team, they do deserve better than playing a team that finished in 10th place.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Or maybe Air Force deserves a better bowl.

I had to look it up, but this is the one that couldn't even find a decent network deal, ended up with Sinclair. And the "10th place" thing is misleading as well, they finished tied for 8th. And it's the bowl that chose to contract with the Sun Belt, as the fifth partner for that conference. And that move came after neither CUSA nor the Sun Belt could even manage to provide an opponent last year, creating the semi-infamous MWC vs MWC bowl game.

But, hey the MWC signed the contract. That's on them,not on South Alabama.

As an Air Force Academy grad this AFA that was 2-1 against ranked team and going 9-3 getting arguable the worst bowl game is a gut punch. That is especially true when are service academy rivals whom we both beat this year get better bowls than us.

[tarcone]

I have a solution to AFAs bowl woes. Travel better. This is why Iowa almost always gets a better bowl then they deserve.
You bring 50k to that bowl game and the bowls will start to notice.

[Suicane75]

Something I was wondering about yesterday. Where do Army & Navy get their cheerleaders from? Do they really have cadets cheering?

[cuervo72]

Heh. I wondered that out loud to my wife during the Temple/Navy game.

[cartman]

Yep. they are cadets.

https://www.usna.edu/CheerNavy/requirements.php

http://goarmywestpoint.com/sports/20...014010155.aspx

[Suicane75]

How bout that. Learn something new you didn't even know you didn't know everyday.

[booradley]

Originally Posted by digamma

I never quite get the complaining about having extra bowl games, particularly for lower conferences. At worst it's cheapish television programming. If you don't want to watch, flip over to the Home Shopping Network or History Channel. But bowls are fun for a lot of players and fans. I think it's great more kids are getting to experience it.

You believe in Participation Trophies. Got it.

[cuervo72]

Eh, half of these programs even existing could be considered participation trophies.

[JPhillips]

Bullshit.

These aren't participation trophies, they are corporations deciding they can market effectively and profit from a football game. To do that, though, they need teams. They aren't getting trophies, they're being employed to further the goals of the sponsors and broadcasters.

[dawgfan]

And the teams are (usually) willing participants as playing in a bowl furthers their own agendas as well.