Official 2019 College Football Thread

[bob]

Let’s say:

Ohio St wins
LSU wins
Clemson wins
Oregon wins
Baylor wins

Who is number 4?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by bob

Let’s say:

Ohio St wins
LSU wins
Clemson wins
Oregon wins
Baylor wins

Who is number 4?

I think you have to take a 1 loss Big 12 champ in that spot

[bob]

Yeah I guess that’s true. What if everything above holds but Clemson somehow loses.

Also, I assume LSU still gets in even if they lose.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by bob

Let’s say:

Ohio St wins
LSU wins
Clemson wins
Oregon wins
Baylor wins

Who is number 4?

Probably Baylor, but maybe Alabama.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Probably Baylor, but maybe Alabama.

Why would you put in a 2 loss Bama who didn't play for the conference title over a 2 loss Georgia that did?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by bob

Yeah I guess that’s true. What if everything above holds but Clemson somehow loses.

Also, I assume LSU still gets in even if they lose.

LSU is in. The NCAA wants Georgia to win so they can get 2 SEC teams in there.

If Georgia wins my guess is the rankings would be OSU, Clemson, Georgia, LSU.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by bob

Let’s say:

Ohio St wins
LSU wins
Clemson wins
Oregon wins
Baylor wins

Who is number 4?

I don't get Utah being a lock to be above OU with a win. USC is probably a little bit better of a loss than K-State, but OU has played the overall tougher schedule. FEI has OU with 3 wins that are better than Utah's best win.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

One of the best, as much integrity as any coach in the game IMO. Nice guys too, met him at a coaching clinic when he was still at Boise, conversed with me like we were long time friends.

Integrity? Eh, I guess. But he wouldn't let Colson Yankoff transfer with eligibility after the who Jacob Eason transfer announcement right after signing, because he was supposed to "honor his commitment to UW" and then "retires".

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Why would you put in a 2 loss Bama who didn't play for the conference title over a 2 loss Georgia that did?

Not what I'd do, but what I think the committee might do. OSU, LSU, Clem, and ALA make for some crazy tv ratings.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by bob

What did everyone think about Auburn being gifted that FG attempt at the end of the 1st half? Those three points ended up being pretty important.

Fuck Saban, that's what I thought about it.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Lathum

LSU is in. The NCAA wants Georgia to win so they can get 2 SEC teams in there.

If Georgia wins my guess is the rankings would be OSU, Clemson, Georgia, LSU.

Clemson / Georgia in... Phoenix. LOL

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I don't get Utah being a lock to be above OU with a win. USC is probably a little bit better of a loss than K-State, but OU has played the overall tougher schedule. FEI has OU with 3 wins that are better than Utah's best win.

Vegas has Utah a favorite over Ok on a nuetral site.

My opinion is they will take OK and screw Utah. If they do take Utah it is because they realize people are tired of the same old teams.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Butter

Clemson / Georgia in... Phoenix. LOL

In that scenario OSU/LSU is almost certainly in Phoenix so as not to give lower seed a location advantage.

Clemson/UGA would be a pricey Ticket in Atlanta...and a BLOOD BATH I'd love to see.
UGA fans are a special kind of asshole...and they've been barking a lot lately. Would be fun. Its one of those match up problems...

[ISiddiqui]

I'm predicting OSU, LSU, Clemson, and OU. I don't see UGA winning, but if they do, LSU vs. OU for the #4 spot is going to be highly controversial. I just don't think there is a path for Utah... maybe if Oregon hadn't gone and lost a week ago, but even then.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I don't get Utah being a lock to be above OU with a win. USC is probably a little bit better of a loss than K-State, but OU has played the overall tougher schedule. FEI has OU with 3 wins that are better than Utah's best win.

I don't think Utah is a lock, but you have to look at how they performed. Utah won every game by 18+ points except for a road game @ Washington (won by 5) and a road game at USC (only loss by 1 score). Oklahoma squeaked by Texas, Iowa State, Baylor and TCU, while losing to unranked K-State. I would say whomever has a more impressive win in the champ game should get in.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't think Utah is a lock, but you have to look at how they performed. Utah won every game by 18+ points except for a road game @ Washington (won by 5) and a road game at USC (only loss by 1 score). Oklahoma squeaked by Texas, Iowa State, Baylor and TCU, while losing to unranked K-State. I would say whomever has a more impressive win in the champ game should get in.

If everything was in a bubble maybe, but the name Oklahoma carries more weight than the name Utah. Yes, that's annoying, but it is what it is.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If everything was in a bubble maybe, but the name Oklahoma carries more weight than the name Utah. Yes, that's annoying, but it is what it is.

If that's the case, why is Utah above Oklahoma right now?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

If that's the case, why is Utah above Oklahoma right now?

Because Oklahoma lost later, but when they are picking the final 4, they'll just say Baylor was a better opponent than Oregon - even if OU wins close and Utah dominates. I'd be shocked if it was otherwise.

[Logan]

I haven’t been to this board in nearly two months, which is pretty sad. Came back just to say....

Schianooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

It’s amazing how 5 years of horrific football can make you so excited to welcome a guy back who has such clear warts. But unfortunately the program is in such a place where he was the only realistic option to fix it and get us back to mediocrity.

My only hope for the ceiling being raised a bit beyond where I saw this initially is the extra money he is getting for assistants this time around.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

In that scenario OSU/LSU is almost certainly in Phoenix so as not to give lower seed a location advantage.

Clemson/UGA would be a pricey Ticket in Atlanta...and a BLOOD BATH I'd love to see.
UGA fans are a special kind of asshole...and they've been barking a lot lately. Would be fun. Its one of those match up problems...

I get what you're saying, but it's a 7 hour 30 minute drive from Baton Rouge to Atlanta and an 8 hour 30 minute drive from Columbus to Atlanta. I think OSU plays in Atlanta against anybody except Georgia if they're #1.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Because Oklahoma lost later, but when they are picking the final 4, they'll just say Baylor was a better opponent than Oregon - even if OU wins close and Utah dominates. I'd be shocked if it was otherwise.

There is a reason why Oregon dropped 8 spots after losing. It is so they can claim it isn't a great win by Utah. It's all a set up and about the money.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Integrity? Eh, I guess. But he wouldn't let Colson Yankoff transfer with eligibility after the who Jacob Eason transfer announcement right after signing, because he was supposed to "honor his commitment to UW" and then "retires".

You're basing this on one specific situation vs body of work, which doesn't define his career and how he has always done things.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

You're basing this on one specific situation vs body of work, which doesn't define his career and how he has always done things.

Haters gonna hate.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Lathum

There is a reason why Oregon dropped 8 spots after losing. It is so they can claim it isn't a great win by Utah. It's all a set up and about the money.

Exactly. When all else fails, follow the money. Oklahoma is bank. Now if it's Baylor vs. Utah then flip a coin.

[Butter]

Explain why the computers have Oregon at an average of 15 then. Computers also holding losing at Arizona State against them unfairly?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Integrity? Eh, I guess. But he wouldn't let Colson Yankoff transfer with eligibility after the who Jacob Eason transfer announcement right after signing, because he was supposed to "honor his commitment to UW" and then "retires".

You and the other UCLA fans hammering on this are hilarious. What exactly was the "hardship" that Yankoff encountered that should mean he gets to be exempted from the NCAA rules on transfers? Why was his situation any different than Jacob Eason who sat out his year per transfer rules? You also overlook that it's up to the NCAA to make the decision on eligibility anyway. Petersen supporting or not supporting immediate eligibility for Yankoff wouldn't have been the final word either way.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You and the other UCLA fans hammering on this are hilarious. What exactly was the "hardship" that Yankoff encountered that should mean he gets to be exempted from the NCAA rules on transfers? Why was his situation any different than Jacob Eason who sat out his year per transfer rules? You also overlook that it's up to the NCAA to make the decision on eligibility anyway. Petersen supporting or not supporting immediate eligibility for Yankoff wouldn't have been the final word either way.

He didn't petition for a hardship waiver. He asked to have it waived since he wasn't forthcoming about his recruitment of Eason. So within two months, he had Eason (when Petersen knew he was coming) and the OC left to take the OSU job. Though the NCAA’s criteria for granting immediate-eligibility waivers are seemingly nebulous and ever-changing, it is generally believed that a player with the blessing of his previous institution is likely to gain approval.

But alas, Petersen just proves he's no different from the rest of the hypocrits who face no punishment by not living up to the deal they signed to the school and the players they promised to coach for their four years.

[JPhillips]

With the fall of Alabama to 12, it's really just Utah or the Big 12 champ if Georgia loses. I can't imagine OSU, LSU or Clemson can fall out of the top four with losses.

[Edward64]

Yeah, I think LSU will beat UGA but it wouldn't be a big surprise if the Dawgs pull off the upset.

It would be fun to see 2 SEC teams in the championship (and, of course, see GA win it all).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

With the fall of Alabama to 12, it's really just Utah or the Big 12 champ if Georgia loses. I can't imagine OSU, LSU or Clemson can fall out of the top four with losses.

Not so fast there my friend.

While I thought Dabo's rant the other day was pure comedy, if they lose to UVA, they're toast if both Oklahoma and Utah win.

[Butter]

Agreed with JIMGa.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not so fast there my friend.

While I thought Dabo's rant the other day was pure comedy, if they lose to UVA, they're toast if both Oklahoma and Utah win.

I can see a scenario where Georgia wins and Oklahoma wins pushing out Clemson with a loss, but I don't see a one-loss Utah pushing out a one-loss Clemson.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Butter

Explain why the computers have Oregon at an average of 15 then. Computers also holding losing at Arizona State against them unfairly?

Computers also have Baylor at like 12-15 as well. Sometimes the voters and computers jive and sometimes they decide not to jive.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I can see a scenario where Georgia wins and Oklahoma wins pushing out Clemson with a loss, but I don't see a one-loss Utah pushing out a one-loss Clemson.

I can't see the computers putting Clemson above Utah given the Utes would have a higher SOS, better margin of Victory, better top win and better loss. Unless it is solely the "eye test", I don't know how you would justify a 1-loss Clemson vs either a 1-loss Utah or Oklahoma? Especially give the two latter would have also won their conference.

[JPhillips]

I think the ratings and exposure for OSU/LSU/Big12/Clemson is much better than OSU/LSU/Big12/Utah, especially if the Big12 champ is Baylor. I don't think the committee is ready to sacrifice the ratings for OSU/LSU/Baylor/Utah, regardless of what the computers or poll voters say.

But then I'm cynical in the belief that the committee is scripting a wrestling event rather than basing things on definable data.

[MizzouRah]

The key game is Georgia vs LSU. I definitely think Georgia could win this game which would then have OSU - LSU - Clemson - Georgia.


I think Clemson will crush UVA.


If Georgia loses to LSU now we have an interesting situation with Oklahoma and Utah if they both win.


But.. if Utah and Georgia lose and Baylor beats Oklahoma, would that get them in at #4?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

He didn't petition for a hardship waiver. He asked to have it waived since he wasn't forthcoming about his recruitment of Eason. So within two months, he had Eason (when Petersen knew he was coming) and the OC left to take the OSU job.

This is an epic level of whining by Yankoff and UCLA fans on his behalf. He's bitching about having to compete to win the starting job? I'll remind you that he was running 4th out of 4 quarterbacks this past spring behind not just Eason but Jake Haener (only one class ahead of Yankoff) and Jacob Sirmon (same class as Yankoff). He showed great athleticism but also that he needed a lot of work as a passer. So even if you say that having Eason around delayed Yankoff's ability to win the QB job by one to two years (depending on how long Eason stays, and the assumption at that point was just one year) he was STILL running behind two other guys who would block him longer.

This doesn't even take us to the dubious idea that Petersen was "recruiting" Eason before Yankoff signed in December of 2017. Eason didn't announce he was transferring until January 6th, three days after Yankoff enrolled. Now, before that transfer was announced, did people in Eason's orbit contact the UW to find out if what Petersen had told Eason back in 2015 when he committed to Georgia was still true ("If things don't work out there, we'll always have a spot for you")? Almost certainly true. That's not "recruiting" though.

Even if you want to dispute that and say that Petersen - the guy who fellow coaches say is as clean as anyone in running their program - was breaking NCAA rules by actively recruiting Eason before he had announced he would transfer, you're saying that Yankoff felt he had a legitimate gripe sufficient enough to allow him a waiver to NCAA transfer rules because *GASP* another QB two years ahead of him in eligibility transferred to his school.

Though the NCAA’s criteria for granting immediate-eligibility waivers are seemingly nebulous and ever-changing, it is generally believed that a player with the blessing of his previous institution is likely to gain approval.

Yes, what the prior institution says about those requests definitely has a big impact on the NCAA's ruling, but they have the ultimate authority. I do find it odd to argue that Petersen lacks "integrity" by choosing to uphold NCAA rules regarding transfers. It's not like he hasn't granted waivers in other situations where he deems it worthy (Ale Kaho). In this case there was no obvious hardship, it was just that Yankoff didn't like where he was on the depth chart and wanted out. OK, go ahead and transfer, but there are rules that govern how that operates. If you want to argue that the rule should be amended to allow for immediate eligibility for all transfers, fine. But that's not the rule currently, and there was no compelling reason in this case to waive the rule.

But alas, Petersen just proves he's no different from the rest of the hypocrits who face no punishment by not living up to the deal they signed to the school and the players they promised to coach for their four years.

Please do tell me how Petersen didn't "live up" to his deal with Washington. Point me to how he is in violation of the terms of his contract. I'll wait.

Also, you know for a fact that Petersen has promised the players on his team that he'd be there for the entirety of their college careers?

This isn't a case of a coach bailing on one job to climb the coaching ladder/earn more money. He's not leaving for Alabama or the NFL. He's retiring from coaching. And it's not like he was jumping around from job to job every few years as a head coach. He spent 7 years at Boise State before leaving, longer than any college athlete is at one spot.

This is some weak sauce Bug. You're better than this.

[Lathum]

I heard an interesting take today that the committee will do all they can to keep Baylor out because the powers that be don’t want all the negative stories that will be written and dredged up about the schools recent history.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But then I'm cynical in the belief that the committee is scripting a wrestling event rather than basing things on definable data.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it is.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

This is some weak sauce Bug. You're better than this.

I'm not nearly as broke up about the Yankoff thing as Bug is. Yankoff wasn't going to change our season. DTR was mostly healthy and Burton was okay (if not great) as a fill in when he was out.

That said, for someone talking about epic rants, did y'all look at how you responded lol?

Naw, truth is in the middle. First off, Coach Pete is basically a good dude. I haven't heard otherwise. He is certainly closer to a solid human being, IMO, than most any other college football head coach.

The NCAA by its own rules is officially the one that can okay immediate eligibility. But in practice it and the conference are chill with it if the prior university is. That does come down on CP. He could have made that call, but he didn't. Was it spite? Competitive advantage versus a conference opponent? Him holding to his values about what commitments mean? Or getting back at a system where transferring is so common? It could have been any of these things. Best that he just owns it, whatever his reasons.

And as for the Eason thing, I think it's reasonable to be upset that the staff which recruited you chose to accept a transfer at your position after you were already signed. And I think CP could have acknowledged that while he was in the right to accept a major talent at a position of extreme importance AND within his rights to deny the transfer of Yankoff on principle, I don't think it's unreasonable for him to have considered the kid's side of things, given a situation mostly out of Yankoff's control.

Like I said before, it really matters little. Yankoff wasn't turning UCLA into a winning football program this season, unless he also happens to be college football's best inside linebacker. So anyone (you or Bug) getting heated about it one way or another is really quite silly.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So anyone (you or Bug) getting heated about it one way or another is really quite silly.

The silly thing is going after one of the few guys who universally has been lauded as being as good a guy because you are a fan of a rival.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The silly thing is going after one of the few guys who universally has been lauded as being as good a guy because you are a fan of a rival.

Bingo. I would normally let rivalry stuff like this slide, but questioning Petersen's integrity because he didn't give Colson Yankoff a free pass on NCAA rules on transfers?

It's been an absolute pleasure watching Petersen operate here at Washington. Obviously the success on the field is a big part, but seeing how he does it has made it really, really cool. Those that haven't followed him closely probably don't appreciate just how different he is from the typical football coach. Stuff he says can sound corny and hokey from afar, but it doesn't take long to realize he's genuine and really means it when he says he's about developing these kids for life, not just football.

[kurtism]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Bingo. I would normally let rivalry stuff like this slide, but questioning Petersen's integrity because he didn't give Colson Yankoff a free pass on NCAA rules on transfers?

It's been an absolute pleasure watching Petersen operate here at Washington. Obviously the success on the field is a big part, but seeing how he does it has made it really, really cool. Those that haven't followed him closely probably don't appreciate just how different he is from the typical football coach. Stuff he says can sound corny and hokey from afar, but it doesn't take long to realize he's genuine and really means it when he says he's about developing these kids for life, not just football.

Chris Petersen was always at time, at both Washington and Boise State - Banner Society

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The silly thing is going after one of the few guys who universally has been lauded as being as good a guy because you are a fan of a rival.

You haven't been a college football fan long then eh?

Silliness, both in attacking and defending schools, is kinda part of the whole scheme of things.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Bingo. I would normally let rivalry stuff like this slide, but questioning Petersen's integrity because he didn't give Colson Yankoff a free pass on NCAA rules on transfers?

It's been an absolute pleasure watching Petersen operate here at Washington. Obviously the success on the field is a big part, but seeing how he does it has made it really, really cool. Those that haven't followed him closely probably don't appreciate just how different he is from the typical football coach. Stuff he says can sound corny and hokey from afar, but it doesn't take long to realize he's genuine and really means it when he says he's about developing these kids for life, not just football.

I'm going to miss Petersen too. He's good for football and for the Pac 12. Undeniably a good guy.

I do think you need to take his picture down from the wall though. Jesus might get mad.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You haven't been a college football fan long then eh?

Silliness, both in attacking and defending schools, is kinda part of the whole scheme of things.

I was a Rutgers fan until I migrated west and went to UW, so I suppose not really.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I was a Rutgers fan until I migrated west and went to UW, so I suppose not really.

Lol... great response.

Considering how wishy washy and fair weather the UCLA fanbase is-- and how terrible the program has been in the 21sr century-- I could say the same for myself.

[bob]

Excellent work, Utah

[miami_fan]

I haven't followed college football other than through this thread but Lane Kiffin to Ole Miss might bring me back.

All right it probably won't but I will stop by to check up on JIMGA's mental health periodically

[Arles]

As I said in the betting thread, Oregon +7 was easy money. The one thing about the Pac 12 is they can’t ever stand prosperity. Should come down to the Big 12 winner or Georgia.