2018 College Football Thread

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Hammer755

The difference between #5 & 6 is meaningless, so I’m not real worked up about it.

I concede that the Purdue loss was an awful blemish ... but you can’t just use it to trump all other arguments. Just like you can’t pretend the loss to Alabama didn’t happen - the Dawgs played great, but they are still a 2-loss team who didn’t win their conference. Additionally, Georgia had fewer quality wins than OSU and against lower ranked teams comparatively.

So again, I’m not supremely upset about it, but OSU clearly should have finished above UGA IMO.

I agree with most of this.

I think often times we find ourselves using a win or loss as it being the 100 percent influence on our perceptions.

Example Ohio State losing to Purdue by 29 was the 1/1000 outlier that we cant forget. IF they played 999 other times Ohio State would win 950 of them games and Ohio State is sitting with the 2/3 seed and no debate needed. This is why the stuggle between best team/most deserving is hard to separate when deciding on teams with a flaw on their resume.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And you can think Texas is a mediocre team, but they are still ranked #15. Not too far from #11 ranked LSU.

Texas best wins:Oklahoma, Iowa State, TCU when they werent all banged up
Texas losses:Maryland, Oklahoma State, West Virginia, Oklahoma

Mediocre is subjective but.... from looking at their entire schedule and results a lot of their early season wins didnt up being as impressive as initially thought.

The very same could be said about LSU as their wins against Auburn and Miami didnt end up looking near as good later in the season.

[Lathum]

David Schuman on Twitter: "He is so dead on!! Mike leach on playoffs… "

[Lathum]

Mike Leach is a god damn national treasure.

[Lathum]

The list of potential high draft picks sitting out bowl games is getting long already. That being said I don’t understand how anyone can criticize them for doing it.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Georgia lost by 20 to LSU. Ohio State lost to 29 to Purdue. Oklahoma lost to a mediocre Texas team. Georgia's only other loss is to what most people think is the #1 team in the nation in a very close matchup. IMO the Alabama loss shouldnt hurt Georgia because it was such a close game. Georgia is really the first team to actually make Alabama look beatable all season.

This is bullshit. By this logic, you can go 6-6 as long as you lose close agonizing games to the top 3 teams twice, you should still be #4.

Results have to mean something. How you look matters up to a point, but at the end of the day this is a results-oriented game. Georgia has had multiple tries at Alabama in recent years and hasn't won yet. Close is nice, but ultimately meaningless if that's all you ever are.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Butter

This is bullshit. By this logic, you can go 6-6 as long as you lose close agonizing games to the top 3 teams twice, you should still be #4.

Results have to mean something. How you look matters up to a point, but at the end of the day this is a results-oriented game. Georgia has had multiple tries at Alabama in recent years and hasn't won yet. Close is nice, but ultimately meaningless if that's all you ever are.

Correct. Results do mean something. You lost to 29 to fucking Purdue. End of story..... Quit complaining about losses not nearly as ridiculous.

By your logic Central Florida should be #4.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Correct. Results do mean something. You lost to 29 to fucking Purdue. End of story..... Quit complaining about losses not nearly as ridiculous.

By your logic Central Florida should be #4.

Also beat #7 by 24. Also beat #12. The very mark of a Jekyll & Hyde team with a high ceiling. Georgia doesn't have a win that good. So what's more important, good wins or avoiding bad losses?

I will repeat again that #5 or #6 is not a big deal in the grand scheme.

But your statement that "the loss to Alabama shouldn't hurt" is wrong. Losses should be penalized. Good wins should be rewarded.

There is no magic formula. But I think they're pretty close this year. The argument that Georgia should be in over OU is where I have the major issue.

I would've been fine with UCF being #4 this year, but I wouldn't personally have voted for it.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Butter

Also beat #7 by 24. Also beat #12. The very mark of a Jekyll & Hyde team with a high ceiling. Georgia doesn't have a win that good. So what's more important, good wins or avoiding bad losses?

I will repeat again that #5 or #6 is not a big deal in the grand scheme.

But your statement that "the loss to Alabama shouldn't hurt" is wrong. Losses should be penalized. Good wins should be rewarded.

There is no magic formula. But I think they're pretty close this year. The argument that Georgia should be in over OU is where I have the major issue.

I would've been fine with UCF being #4 this year, but I wouldn't personally have voted for it.

They both should matter some. There are 128 teams that only play 12 games. Trying to narrow the field down to 4 under them circumstances makes every game matter. I know Ohio State is a lot better 99.9 percent of the time than they showed against Purdue but that one game accounted for 8 percent of the data collected on them this year. Personally, I think Oklahoma is the team that should be #6 and we should be arguing about Ohio State/Georgia at 4 but none of them 3 really have much to complain about because over 8 percent of the time this year they didnt do what was needed to be a playoff team.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

They both should matter some. There are 128 teams that only play 12 games. Trying to narrow the field down to 4 under them circumstances makes every game matter. I know Ohio State is a lot better 99.9 percent of the time than they showed against Purdue but that one game accounted for 8 percent of the data collected on them this year. Personally, I think Oklahoma is the team that should be #6 and we should be arguing about Ohio State/Georgia at 4 but none of them 3 really have much to complain about because over 8 percent of the time this year they didnt do what was needed to be a playoff team.

For Georgia it was more like 15% of the time, but I guess that other 7% doesn't matter because they are a good matchup for Alabama.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Butter

For Georgia it was more like 15% of the time, but I guess that other 7% doesn't matter because they are a good matchup for Alabama.

That loss to Alabama didnt hurt my perception of Georgia, in fact it improved my perception of Georgia. They are better in my eyes because they played Alabama to a coin toss well into the 4th quarter. You are using the "most deserving" argument where I am using the "best team" argument. Alabama had beaten everyone else by over 20 this year playing in the top conference.

[Butter]

Am I though? Alabama played Citadel to a 10-10 tie in the first half of a game. At halftime, I didn't think that Alabama wasn't #1 anymore.

Tua was a sitting target in the Georgia game, he wasn't playing like a Heisman contender. My argument is that if Hurts starts that game, Alabama wins by 21+.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Butter

Am I though? Alabama played Citadel to a 10-10 tie in the first half of a game. At halftime, I didn't think that Alabama wasn't #1 anymore.

Tua was a sitting target in the Georgia game, he wasn't playing like a Heisman contender. My argument is that if Hurts starts that game, Alabama wins by 21+.

Interesting argument since they needed to Hurts to get benched in the championship game in order to come back and Tua surpassed even the most aggressive expectations of him this year.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

You are using the "most deserving" argument where I am using the "best team" argument.

This is the crux of the issue. We shouldn't be trying to determine "best" with a subjective committee. I understand that's their charge, but given the number of teams and varying schedule strengths, "most deserving" should be the goal. I know I'm in the vast minority on that opinion, but I'm sick of hearing "Team X would easily beat Team Y if they played in a bowl" when EVERY SINGLE WEEK of the regular season we see teams who "should" win either lose outright or get pushed to the brink by clearly inferior teams.

I don't know why everyone thinks that just because it's for the championship that we all of a sudden know with absolute certainty who would win every single potential match-up, such that UCF - or before them, Boise State, or the next UCF in 5 years - should never get a shot, or that because UGA was able to hang with Alabama (but lose), that proves some sort of transitive property about how good UGA is. That is a crazily simplistic way of looking at football results and ignores reality.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

This is the crux of the issue. We shouldn't be trying to determine "best" with a subjective committee. I understand that's their charge, but given the number of teams and varying schedule strengths, "most deserving" should be the goal. I know I'm in the vast minority on that opinion, but I'm sick of hearing "Team X would easily beat Team Y if they played in a bowl" when EVERY SINGLE WEEK of the regular season we see teams who "should" win either lose outright or get pushed to the brink by clearly inferior teams.

I don't know why everyone thinks that just because it's for the championship that we all of a sudden know with absolute certainty who would win every single potential match-up, such that UCF - or before them, Boise State, or the next UCF in 5 years - should never get a shot, or that because UGA was able to hang with Alabama (but lose), that proves some sort of transitive property about how good UGA is. That is a crazily simplistic way of looking at football results and ignores reality.

Well Georgia was a top 5 team the majority of the year so hanging with Alabama just confirmed that they really are a top 5 team. Its not like people want The Citadel in the playoffs because they hung with Alabama for 30 minutes. People dont know for sure that UCF cant hang with Alabama but their is plenty of data accumulated over 12 games that says they wont be able to hang within 3 touchdowns.

[Ksyrup]

And UGA lost. For the second time. Since Clemson, OU and ND didn't get the opportunity to prove they could hang with Alabama this year, why don't we just put UGA at #2?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The list of potential high draft picks sitting out bowl games is getting long already. That being said I don’t understand how anyone can criticize them for doing it.

As long as they pay back a pro-rated portion of their scholly, then they can do it.

I don't have any respect for them, nor would I want to draft them since they're clearly only in it for themselves, fuck their team & their teammates.

But, hey, the NFL ain't exactly into character.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

People dont know for sure that UCF cant hang with Alabama but their is plenty of data accumulated over 12 games that says they wont be able to hang within 3 touchdowns.

Additionally, there's a lack of data suggesting that they could.

When you play a weaker schedule than high end high school teams, that evidence is hard to come by.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Well Georgia was a top 5 team the majority of the year so hanging with Alabama just confirmed that they really are a top 5 team.

Based on what, exactly?
I never thought UGA was a Top 5 team THIS YEAR.


With a healthy Tua Bama would have beat them by 30.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Based on what, exactly?
I never thought UGA was a Top 5 team THIS YEAR.

I hate 'em as much as ever but, aside from coaching & the OL, they pass the eye test well enough to be in that range IMO.

From pre-season to end, I had them
4,4,4,4,4,4,4,8,7,7,6,5,5,4,6

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Based on what, exactly?
I never thought UGA was a Top 5 team THIS YEAR.


With a healthy Tua Bama would have beat them by 30.

Haha. Good stuff! Tua wasnt healthy most of the year so now that influences things as well?

Based on their body of work. You must have had an interesting top 5 for most of this year if Georgia was never a part of it.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Additionally, there's a lack of data suggesting that they could.

When you play a weaker schedule than high end high school teams, that evidence is hard to come by.

They went undefeated. Army lost 2 games and took Oklahoma to OT - on the road. Good teams lost to bad teams every week this year. There was no data suggesting any of those games would turn out like they did, either. It's funny what can possibly happen when teams actually meet on the field, instead of in the minds of people who think they know everything.

All this is arguing for is a two-tier championship structure because it effectively eliminates most teams from competing for a title under any reasonable circumstances.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As long as they pay back a pro-rated portion of their scholly, then they can do it.

I don't have any respect for them, nor would I want to draft them since they're clearly only in it for themselves, fuck their team & their teammates.

But, hey, the NFL ain't exactly into character.

I take the other approach. It wouldn't really affect my decision much one way or the other if I were an NFL team.

But, as an employer, I'd take it as a net positive if an employee started focusing as early as possible on preparing to work for me.

[Ksyrup]

It's also hilarious that baseball is about as curmudgeonly a sport as exists in the world, and even they have largely moved past the "eye test" for things like gold glove awards, but college football decides that the "eye test" is appropriate to decide the 4 out of 125 teams who should get the opportunity to compete for a title.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Haha. Good stuff! Tua wasnt healthy most of the year so now that influences things as well?

Based on their body of work. You must have had an interesting top 5 for most of this year if Georgia was never a part of it.

"Body of work" suggests a "most deserving" argument, does it not?

Tua was clearly fading by the end of the season.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As long as they pay back a pro-rated portion of their scholly, then they can do it.

I don't have any respect for them, nor would I want to draft them since they're clearly only in it for themselves, fuck their team & their teammates.

But, hey, the NFL ain't exactly into character.

This is based on the flawed premise that big-time college athletes care about the academics. Or that the schools care, either. They are as much in it for themselves as their coaches, ADs and schools are in it solely to advance their best interests.

This is just like the argument people make when FAs move from one team to another for money. They get tons of crap for loyalty, but meanwhile, all the anti-player sentiment is doing is siding with billionaires over millionaires.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

But, as an employer, I'd take it as a net positive if an employee started focusing as early as possible on preparing to work for me.

But he clearly considers his employer merely a stepping stone to the next opportunity.

I'm reminded of the old saw about cheating spouses/significant whatevers.
"If they cheated with you, they'll cheat on you"

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Haha. Good stuff! Tua wasnt healthy most of the year so now that influences things as well?

Based on their body of work. You must have had an interesting top 5 for most of this year if Georgia was never a part of it.

Sure Tua has been banged up. But he was a statue all game and ineffective passing before leaving the game.


I just looked at what UGA lost last year and where their holes are. I think LSU is a very flawed team and after they lined up and punched UGA I felt confirmed.


I think this year is down across the board in college football. I dont think nearly s high about Florida either. But if everyone sucks someone has to be top whatever I suppose.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

This is based on the flawed premise that big-time college athletes care about the academics.

I'm consistent, any player that sits out the bowl is a player that I hope suffers a CEI at the first available opportunity. "Fuck ya'll" is a knife that cuts both ways.

And they started it.

[ISiddiqui]

Hell, if we are picking "best", I don't think there is a hotter team right now than Ohio State. Right now, I'd take them over Georgia. So best is can mean a whole lot of things to a whole lot of people.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But he clearly considers his employer merely a stepping stone to the next opportunity.

Who doesn't?

I'd leave my job in a split-second if I found a better opportunity. Loyalty, from an employer? You get what you give.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm consistent, any player that sits out the bowl is a player that I hope suffers a CEI at the first available opportunity. "Fuck ya'll" is a knife that cuts both ways.

And they started it.

What do you wish on coaches who bolt before bowl season? Cuz they started it first.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But he clearly considers his employer merely a stepping stone to the next opportunity.

I'm reminded of the old saw about cheating spouses/significant whatevers.
"If they cheated with you, they'll cheat on you"

Sure. I'm a fan of the Saints. But I am under no illusions that any of the 53 guys on the roster would stay with the Saints if another team offered them more money.

My pitch: "You sit out your bowl game and focus on the NFL. I'll draft you and pay you an under market rookie contract for five years. And, if you leave for more money after that, good luck and God bless you."

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As long as they pay back a pro-rated portion of their scholly, then they can do it.

So I take it that the value of a scholarship at a particular school changes for years that a team makes a bowl game and when it doesn't?

[Ksyrup]

Damn. Mizzou gets Kelly Bryant.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Logan

So I take it that the value of a scholarship at a particular school changes for years that a team makes a bowl game and when it doesn't?

The value of a scholarship for guys going pro affords them nothing but a couple years of forced class-taking for an education they don't want or need for their chosen profession.

[jbergey22]

A few of the opening spreads for the bigger games

Alabama 14 over Oklahoma
Clemson 11 over Notre Dame
LSU 7 1/2 over Central Florida
Ohio State 5 1/2 over Washington
Georgia 10 1/2 over Texas

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Ohio State 5 1/2 over Washington

Oh, I think the Buckeyes cover this spread easily against a Mark Sanchez-led Redskins team.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It's also hilarious that baseball is about as curmudgeonly a sport as exists in the world, and even they have largely moved past the "eye test" for things like gold glove awards, but college football decides that the "eye test" is appropriate to decide the 4 out of 125 teams who should get the opportunity to compete for a title.

This is valid, but let's look at the most well-known of the analytics:

FEI: UCF ranks 6th
S&P: UCF ranks 8th
SRS: UCF ranks 8th
Sagarin: UCF ranks 18th
FPI: UCF ranks 23rd

At best UCF would qualify if the CFP expanded to 8; at worst they would need the field to expand to 32.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm cheering for LSU because I always cheer for LSU.

But it would be great to see UCF win back-to-back undefeated national championships.

So some upside there even if LSU loses.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

And yes, I realize that UCF will almost certainly not win the national title this year even if they beat LSU. But it's fun to play with this stuff.

[Atocep]

The Nick Saban coaching rehabilitation program has to be considered a resounding success when a guy with a career 3-31 record as a coach lands a P5 job.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

To be clear, I wouldn't rank OSU ahead of Notre Dame.

My thinking is that Ohio State absolutely completely destroyed the favored Michigan team that has only beaten Ohio State 1 time in the last 15 years and Notre Dame beat them by 7. Ohio State also beat Northwestern by 21 compared to a 10 point Notre Dame win over Northwestern. If we're just using the committee logic and discounting 1 loss, Ohio State would have an advantage over Notre Dame. Plus, Georgia was beaten badly by OSU's back-up QB .

ND won by 7 with a backup QB & RB, and as much as it felt like more of a blowout OSU won by 23. What OSU's offense did was extremely impressive, but they gave up 39 points a week after giving up 51 to Maryland... That's why it's even odder the committee separated them & OU, because both teams had great offenses & terrible (or at least terribly inconsistent) defenses this year.

Herbstreit pushing some BS too Kirk Herbstreit: Politics overruled Georgia in CFB Playoff

I agree the loss to Alabama was solid, and if that was their only loss I'd be pushing for them to be in the playoff, but they also lost by 20 to LSU & ND has equal or better wins than Georgia (and Clemson), regardless of how much people want to minimize ND's wins over Michigan & Syracuse. Georgia played NOBODY out of conference (is Tech or Middle Tennessee State their best win?), and their two good in conference wins are Kentucky & Florida, who I'm really not convinced are actually good. I get the argument Georgia is a top 4 team who has a better chance to beat Alabama, but the idea they proved it vs the rest of their schedule seems demonstrably false to me.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Damn. Mizzou gets Kelly Bryant.

Huge win for Mizzou and Barry Odom.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Damn. Mizzou gets Kelly Bryant.

Good kid. Great Leaser. Teammates will love him. Elite runner. Excellent High School passer.


Edit...


Actually thats not fair.
KB has a very accurate arm. He lacks arm strength and his delivery is slow.

Screen passes are fearful as everyone has pick 6 potential.
His biggest detriment may also be his biggest strength. He doesnt turn the ball over, because he is very conservative. If a route isnt wide open he wont pull the trigger.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Great Leaser.

Knew the Clemson kids were getting $$ on the side! Not sure Mizzou will be as profitable.

[BishopMVP]

Ping: Ksyrup/FSU fans... What's your read on Walt Bell? He's young, offensive minded, supposedly a good recruiter, and I know the problems at FSU went much deeper this year... But "FSU's 2018 OC" isn't the lead bullet point I was hoping for on our new coach's resume. I guess he didn't even have play calling duties, which honestly I'm not sure is a good or bad thing considering some of the play calling I saw. Kind of giving me shades of hiring "Notre Dame OC" Charley Molnar.

[digamma]

Reading a lot about Geoff Collins, btw.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

Oh, I think the Buckeyes cover this spread easily against a Mark Sanchez-led Redskins team.

This is my first thought which makes me think it's some kind of trap. Peterson is a really good coach with a month to prepare.

[Lathum]

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey says UCF Knights should fix strength of schedule issue

What an asshole. He has a lot of balls considering the scheme the SEC runs with their scheduling.