Red Mosquito

E.H. Ruddock wrote:It is really irritating to hear everyone say that the B1G Ten is easily the best conference in college football this year, yet most likely their conference champion won't be in the playoffs. :/

We don't know that yet. Wisconsin had two pretty good losses, but I wonder if Pitt by nature of also beating Clemson and Penn State being actually a pretty freaking amazing 2nd half team might not impress the committee.

One of the tenants of CFB is that the entire season is like playoffs in conference play anyway. What happened in the B1G this year is what has happened many times in the SEC where the team that might be the best or even playing the best at the end doesn't get in because they screwed up earlier in the year.

The powers that be are going to push the hell out of Ohio State because they bring cash and interest, whereas Washington obviously doesn't have the same cache. They aren't going to travel as well as OSU, but they will have won their conference too.

Conference Championships need to matter because it's the first leg of the playoff. Without being in that game...why even play the regular season? Ohio State would have been better off to lose to Oklahoma early. I mean they are good, their defense is fun to watch, I love watching the TE 85, block but the passing game isn't good... at all.

We really don't know much of anything yet.

Ultimately we'll get 4 teams and someone will cry about it like they are Jim Harbaugh but at the end of it will likely be a deserving champion.

Electromatic wrote:Conference Championships need to matter because it's the first leg of the playoff. Without being in that game...why even play the regular season?

should they just rank all of the winners of the conference championships and take the top 4 and forgo the rankings throughout the year?

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Electromatic wrote:Conference Championships need to matter because it's the first leg of the playoff. Without being in that game...why even play the regular season?

should they just rank all of the winners of the conference championships and take the top 4 and forgo the rankings throughout the year?

Can't wait for that year when a 7-5 team upsets an undefeated team in the CCG.

However, if you expand the playoffs to 12 go with four 16-18 team conferences, I'd be down with giving the champions first round byes.

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Electromatic wrote:Conference Championships need to matter because it's the first leg of the playoff. Without being in that game...why even play the regular season?

should they just rank all of the winners of the conference championships and take the top 4 and forgo the rankings throughout the year?

Can't wait for that year when a 7-5 team upsets an undefeated team in the CCG.

However, if you expand the playoffs to 12 go with four 16-18 team conferences, I'd be down with giving the champions first round byes.

they'd have to eliminate the non-conference games, including those against non-fsb schools. otherwise you'd be bleeding into mid-january. think of the student athlete nick. then again, the college basketball season literally goes almost 6 months.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Electromatic wrote:Conference Championships need to matter because it's the first leg of the playoff. Without being in that game...why even play the regular season?

should they just rank all of the winners of the conference championships and take the top 4 and forgo the rankings throughout the year?

Can't wait for that year when a 7-5 team upsets an undefeated team in the CCG.

However, if you expand the playoffs to 12 go with four 16-18 team conferences, I'd be down with giving the champions first round byes.

they'd have to eliminate the non-conference games, including those against non-fsb schools. otherwise you'd be bleeding into mid-january. think of the student athlete nick. then again, the college basketball season literally goes almost 6 months.

Play a round robin of 8 within your division, then schedule whoever you want with the remaining 4--you could even schedule a team in the other division if you want.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Electromatic wrote:Conference Championships need to matter because it's the first leg of the playoff. Without being in that game...why even play the regular season?

should they just rank all of the winners of the conference championships and take the top 4 and forgo the rankings throughout the year?

Like reseeding? Yes. Rankings are generally arbitrary anyway. Maybe we could assign scores based on wins/losses and team performance to reseed. I kind of believe we end up with 5 conference champs and an at large.

I don't want to take the drama out of games like Michigan vs Ohio State last week to benefit the ending. Part of what makes the season so good is the risk in every game.

The rankings aren't going away because it drives fan interest, but the committee does all but say the last ones are the only ones that they are really serious about.

Electromatic wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Electromatic wrote:Conference Championships need to matter because it's the first leg of the playoff. Without being in that game...why even play the regular season?

should they just rank all of the winners of the conference championships and take the top 4 and forgo the rankings throughout the year?

Like reseeding? Yes. Rankings are generally arbitrary anyway. Maybe we could assign scores based on wins/losses and team performance to reseed. I kind of believe we end up with 5 conference champs and an at large.

I don't want to take the drama out of games like Michigan vs Ohio State last week to benefit the ending. Part of what makes the season so good is the risk in every game.

The rankings aren't going away because it drives fan interest, but the committee does all but say the last ones are the only ones that they are really serious about.

people are probably sick of hearing me say this, but a lot of the current rankings are driven by preseason rankings, which are based on nothing but arbitrary guesses and the previous years' records. if a team is ranked highly in the preseason, they're given way more latitude because people are either wedded to or trying to justify the preseason rankings. it's pretty stupid.

Chris_H_2 wrote:people are probably sick of hearing me say this, but a lot of the current rankings are driven by preseason rankings, which are based on nothing but arbitrary guesses and the previous years' records.

And vain hopes that a blue blood team will return to glory. This gets a team like Notre Dame into the preseason rankings way more than it deserves--I hope their 4-8 season this year prevents this in 2017.

go alabama

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Electromatic wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Electromatic wrote:Conference Championships need to matter because it's the first leg of the playoff. Without being in that game...why even play the regular season?

should they just rank all of the winners of the conference championships and take the top 4 and forgo the rankings throughout the year?

Like reseeding? Yes. Rankings are generally arbitrary anyway. Maybe we could assign scores based on wins/losses and team performance to reseed. I kind of believe we end up with 5 conference champs and an at large.

I don't want to take the drama out of games like Michigan vs Ohio State last week to benefit the ending. Part of what makes the season so good is the risk in every game.

The rankings aren't going away because it drives fan interest, but the committee does all but say the last ones are the only ones that they are really serious about.

people are probably sick of hearing me say this, but a lot of the current rankings are driven by preseason rankings, which are based on nothing but arbitrary guesses and the previous years' records. if a team is ranked highly in the preseason, they're given way more latitude because people are either wedded to or trying to justify the preseason rankings. it's pretty stupid.

You're right, a lot of that is simply because we have a lot of football media, and many of those people don't do a whole lot of research to provide opinions. That, and the polls we have are mostly provided by people who aren't able to watch most of the games be it coaches or media. This is a fairly odd year in that there really isn't much if any greatness around. Even the best teams have obvious flaws. So the eye test, doesn't work that well. 2 weeks ago people were all over Louisville, 2 months ago Houston was in the top 4. Alabama and Michigan have the strongest defenses in the top group along with Ohio State but their offenses aren't all that impressive. Penn State was SEC East AWFUL to start the year but they got a lot better as the year went on especially closing out games. Wisconsin has been pretty strong all year. Other than Alabama though, no one has been consistently good, and Alabama could be a lot more dynamic on offense than they are really. It's just kind of shocking how much people try to read in to all these polls. My hope is that we default to deciding things on the field where possible.

I'm sure there are good ways to score and rank teams based on less arbitrary means by this point in the season when we have a body of work.

Electromatic wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Electromatic wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Electromatic wrote:Conference Championships need to matter because it's the first leg of the playoff. Without being in that game...why even play the regular season?

should they just rank all of the winners of the conference championships and take the top 4 and forgo the rankings throughout the year?

Like reseeding? Yes. Rankings are generally arbitrary anyway. Maybe we could assign scores based on wins/losses and team performance to reseed. I kind of believe we end up with 5 conference champs and an at large.

I don't want to take the drama out of games like Michigan vs Ohio State last week to benefit the ending. Part of what makes the season so good is the risk in every game.

The rankings aren't going away because it drives fan interest, but the committee does all but say the last ones are the only ones that they are really serious about.

people are probably sick of hearing me say this, but a lot of the current rankings are driven by preseason rankings, which are based on nothing but arbitrary guesses and the previous years' records. if a team is ranked highly in the preseason, they're given way more latitude because people are either wedded to or trying to justify the preseason rankings. it's pretty stupid.

You're right, a lot of that is simply because we have a lot of football media, and many of those people don't do a whole lot of research to provide opinions. That, and the polls we have are mostly provided by people who aren't able to watch most of the games be it coaches or media. This is a fairly odd year in that there really isn't much if any greatness around. Even the best teams have obvious flaws. So the eye test, doesn't work that well. 2 weeks ago people were all over Louisville, 2 months ago Houston was in the top 4. Alabama and Michigan have the strongest defenses in the top group along with Ohio State but their offenses aren't all that impressive. Penn State was SEC East AWFUL to start the year but they got a lot better as the year went on especially closing out games. Wisconsin has been pretty strong all year. Other than Alabama though, no one has been consistently good, and Alabama could be a lot more dynamic on offense than they are really. It's just kind of shocking how much people try to read in to all these polls. My hope is that we default to deciding things on the field where possible.

I'm sure there are good ways to score and rank teams based on less arbitrary means by this point in the season when we have a body of work.

You left out Washington, you dick.

What is Washington's flaw?

Bammer wrote:

Electromatic wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Electromatic wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Electromatic wrote:Conference Championships need to matter because it's the first leg of the playoff. Without being in that game...why even play the regular season?

should they just rank all of the winners of the conference championships and take the top 4 and forgo the rankings throughout the year?

Like reseeding? Yes. Rankings are generally arbitrary anyway. Maybe we could assign scores based on wins/losses and team performance to reseed. I kind of believe we end up with 5 conference champs and an at large.

I don't want to take the drama out of games like Michigan vs Ohio State last week to benefit the ending. Part of what makes the season so good is the risk in every game.

The rankings aren't going away because it drives fan interest, but the committee does all but say the last ones are the only ones that they are really serious about.

people are probably sick of hearing me say this, but a lot of the current rankings are driven by preseason rankings, which are based on nothing but arbitrary guesses and the previous years' records. if a team is ranked highly in the preseason, they're given way more latitude because people are either wedded to or trying to justify the preseason rankings. it's pretty stupid.

You're right, a lot of that is simply because we have a lot of football media, and many of those people don't do a whole lot of research to provide opinions. That, and the polls we have are mostly provided by people who aren't able to watch most of the games be it coaches or media. This is a fairly odd year in that there really isn't much if any greatness around. Even the best teams have obvious flaws. So the eye test, doesn't work that well. 2 weeks ago people were all over Louisville, 2 months ago Houston was in the top 4. Alabama and Michigan have the strongest defenses in the top group along with Ohio State but their offenses aren't all that impressive. Penn State was SEC East AWFUL to start the year but they got a lot better as the year went on especially closing out games. Wisconsin has been pretty strong all year. Other than Alabama though, no one has been consistently good, and Alabama could be a lot more dynamic on offense than they are really. It's just kind of shocking how much people try to read in to all these polls. My hope is that we default to deciding things on the field where possible.

I'm sure there are good ways to score and rank teams based on less arbitrary means by this point in the season when we have a body of work.

You left out Washington, you dick.

What is Washington's flaw?

Besides being on the west coast way north of LA? The general issue is that most people on my side of the country watched the USC game (after USC decided to play really good defense) and the perception is that Washington's overall strength of schedule isn't as strong as the Big 10 teams. The media around here is of the mindset that they would rather have one or both Michigan and Ohio State in over UDub, but I think primarily that has to do with the desire for filling stadiums and getting eyeballs on the game. The game hosting parties don't think Washington will travel as well as the gigantic B1G schools. I've never heard more downplay over championship weekend's meaning than this week, and in years past, this is one of the best weekends in college football. It's so setup to drive all the money to the historic programs.

I personally don't think it's going to matter man. I do think the committee puts a large premium on winning the conference championship, so you are competing (provided they beat Colorado tonight) potentially an large Ohio State, the B1G champ and their overall performance. Personally I've still got Alabama, Clemson and Washington in with likely the B1G champion.

It is going to crush a lot of people that the "Best" team didn't win the Big 10 and it will hurt ratings somewhere, but I'd rather it play out on the field and it has so far. I don't see the Big12 being in this one.

It's entirely possible that Ohio State makes it in over the B1G champ but I tend to doubt it, people saying that they are so much better than Wisconsin or Penn State haven't really watched them play the last month. Same is true with Michigan, great early, not as good in the past 4 weeks.

It's not a level playing field, the Pac 12 wasn't as hard as the B1G this year (and the SEC east should be ashamed of themselves) but that doesn't always matter either. The B1G has matched the SEC in competitiveness and the result is that anyone can beat anyone else.

I still have Alabama, Clemson and Washington being in provided they win (Alabama regardless but good luck with that UF) and then after that is celebrity death match.

A Michigan vs Oklahoma matchup on new years would be pretty good I think too.

I'm still believing that the committee prioritizes winning a championship over an At Large. This is one of those years where it's a shame there aren't 2 more slots. Every year isn't like this one.

I want mass chaos this weekend.

Go Buffs
Go Badgers/Nittany Lions?
Go Gators
Go Hokies
Go Bobcats
Go Owls

Monkey_Driven wrote:I want mass chaos this weekend.

Go Buffs
Go Badgers/Nittany Lions?
Go Gators
Go Hokies
Go Bobcats
Go Owls

Go Navy.

I forgot the PAC 12 Championship is tonight.

i think alabama is going to win

lennytheweedwhacker wrote:i think alabama is going to win

Bold prediction.

Monkey_Driven wrote:

lennytheweedwhacker wrote:i think alabama is going to win

Bold prediction.

you never know!

Dawgs by a lot tonight

I can barely see the reasoning for putting Penn St in ahead of Ohio St if they win tonight but if Wisconsin gets in ahead of them it would be a joke.

Wisconsin would have one more conference loss including a head to head loss and is in the conference championship because they play in the weaker division.