The 2014-15 College Football Discussion Thread

[Rebellious Fishermen]

It was a joke. I was at the game and it was damn nerve racking.

What I can't figure out is: Florida State struggles without Winston in an early season conference game, yet struggles /with/ Winston against an SEC team who did horrible the previous season. Wtf?

A friend of mine pointed out that our offensive line was doing terrible at the Clemson game. I'm going to keep track of them since I'm thinking that might be our biggest issue. Winston and Maguire are both good quarterbacks, but the biggest difference seems to be that Winston can preform under pressure very well and is just a damn good quarterback. He is able to cope with our offensive line better then Maguire, who is just a good quarterback.

[Bythyrona]

http://247sports.com/Season/2013-Footba ... erence=SEC
http://247sports.com/Season/2013-Footba ... erence=SBC

I’m not sure what some people’s opinions of players have to do with anything I said.

So, from your viewpoint, Louisiana-Lafayette in on-par with Alabama? They're the best teams within their conferences, and conferences certainly can't be drastically weaker than the other, apparently.

[Commerce Heights]

I’m not sure what some people’s opinions of players have to do with anything I said.

So, from your viewpoint, Louisiana-Lafayette in on-par with Alabama? They're the best teams within their conferences, and conferences certainly can't be drastically weaker than the other, apparently.

I didn’t say any of those things.

[Bythyrona]

So, from your viewpoint, Louisiana-Lafayette in on-par with Alabama? They're the best teams within their conferences, and conferences certainly can't be drastically weaker than the other, apparently.

I didn’t say any of those things.

No, but you did say that conference scheduling apparently doesn't matter. A team like Boise State played inferior opponents, and at most played two ranked opponents per year during its glory run. A team like Alabama played ranked opponents and superior opposition. It is thusly that we can conclude Alabama during a similar timeframe had a drastically better barometer on the meaningfulness of its regular season.

[Torisakia]

I didn’t say any of those things.

No, but you did say that conference scheduling apparently doesn't matter. A team like Boise State played inferior opponents, and at most played two ranked opponents per year during its glory run. A team like Alabama played ranked opponents and superior opposition. It is thusly that we can conclude Alabama during a similar timeframe had a drastically better barometer on the meaningfulness of its regular season.

College football nowadays is: If they aren't from the SEC, regardless of how good they are, they deserve the national championship.

Basically, every other conference > SEC.

[Commerce Heights]

I didn’t say any of those things.

No, but you did say that conference scheduling apparently doesn't matter.

I said it “should not be used to effectively declare half of the teams in FBS ineligible to win a national championship before a ball is kicked.” I meant exactly that and nothing more or less.

A team like Boise State played inferior opponents, and at most played two ranked opponents per year during its glory run. A team like Alabama played ranked opponents and superior opposition. It is thusly that we can conclude Alabama during a similar timeframe had a drastically better barometer on the meaningfulness of its regular season.

If an undefeated Boise State were allowed to participate in a playoff, then, if they’re as bad as you say, they would lose and that would settle any questions about them. Are you afraid of a different outcome?

[Bythyrona]

No, but you did say that conference scheduling apparently doesn't matter.

I said it “should not be used to effectively declare half of the teams in FBS ineligible to win a national championship before a ball is kicked.” I meant exactly that and nothing more or less.

A team like Boise State played inferior opponents, and at most played two ranked opponents per year during its glory run. A team like Alabama played ranked opponents and superior opposition. It is thusly that we can conclude Alabama during a similar timeframe had a drastically better barometer on the meaningfulness of its regular season.

If an undefeated Boise State were allowed to participate in a playoff, then, if they’re as bad as you say, they would lose and that would settle any questions about them. Are you afraid of a different outcome?

I must be missing something here then, because I've established that the Sun Belt is an inferior conference and its games are meaningless compared to SEC conference games pretty thoroughly. I've cited recruiting records and out-of-conference records, objective ways to say the Sun Belt sucks. If a Sun Belt team schedules and beats four out-of-conference Top Ten teams, I don't think anyone would deny they're a playoff contender, despite their other eight games being worthless. The fact is that Boise State didn't play nearly this number in any given year during their glory years, including bowl games. Either you believe that Boise State is better than they really were, or that the media discriminates against small teams. Neither is true. Boise State at the end of the day was the second-greatest WAC team ever, behind Arizona State under Frank Kush. The media overrates small teams drastically these days. See the 2012 AP Poll, for instance.

http://tiptop25.com/fixing2012.html - "It seems to be an unwritten rule nowadays that any team with 2 or fewer losses will finish in the top 25, no matter how poor a schedule they played. This year we have 11-2 Utah State, 11-2 Boise State, 11-2 San Jose State, and 12-2 Northern Illinois. In the last 9 years, only 12-2 Ball State in 2008 finished with 2 or fewer losses and was left unranked. But it wasn't always this way: 1989-2003, 18 Little Big Teams finished with 2 or fewer loses and were left unranked, including 10-2 Northern Illinois in 2003, 10-2 Boise State and 10-1 Toledo in 2000, 12-1 Marshall and 10-1 Miami-Ohio in 1998, 11-1 Bowling Green in 1991, and 11-1 Fresno State in 1989. Clearly the AP poll has changed the way it ranks teams, leading to a big inconsistency between the rankings 1989-2003 and 2004-present."

No, what I'm afraid of is the complete dilution of any meaning of a regular season. You cannot tell me that you think it's fair for a team beating up on mid-majors to be considered with the big boys if they don't play them more than twice a year.

[Commerce Heights]

I must be missing something here then, because I've established that the Sun Belt is an inferior conference and its games are meaningless compared to SEC conference games pretty thoroughly.

I must be missing something here, because I have no idea why you keep bringing this up.

http://tiptop25.com/fixing2012.html - "It seems to be an unwritten rule nowadays that any team with 2 or fewer losses will finish in the top 25, no matter how poor a schedule they played. This year we have 11-2 Utah State, 11-2 Boise State, 11-2 San Jose State, and 12-2 Northern Illinois. In the last 9 years, only 12-2 Ball State in 2008 finished with 2 or fewer losses and was left unranked. But it wasn't always this way: 1989-2003, 18 Little Big Teams finished with 2 or fewer loses and were left unranked, including 10-2 Northern Illinois in 2003, 10-2 Boise State and 10-1 Toledo in 2000, 12-1 Marshall and 10-1 Miami-Ohio in 1998, 11-1 Bowling Green in 1991, and 11-1 Fresno State in 1989. Clearly the AP poll has changed the way it ranks teams, leading to a big inconsistency between the rankings 1989-2003 and 2004-present."

Ooh, are we just quoting random statements about the Associated Press poll now that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion? That sounds fun!

“1936—the Associated Press Poll began with sports editors of AP newspapers voting for the top 20 teams nationally. Minnesota and Northwestern each had 7–1 records and, even though Northwestern whipped the Golden Gophers in the regular season, Minnesota was named No. 1 in the final poll.”

No, what I'm afraid of is the complete dilution of any meaning of a regular season. You cannot tell me that you think it's fair for a team beating up on mid-majors to be considered with the big boys if they don't play them more than twice a year.

I think it’s more fair to create an opportunity for all the teams which have yet to prove on the field that they aren’t the best in FBS to compete for a national championship than it is to effectively declare half of the teams in FBS ineligible to win what is supposedly a “national championship” before a ball is kicked for reasons which have nothing to do with to how the players perform on the field.

[Bythyrona]

I must be missing something here then, because I've established that the Sun Belt is an inferior conference and its games are meaningless compared to SEC conference games pretty thoroughly.

I must be missing something here, because I have no idea why you keep bringing this up.

No, what I'm afraid of is the complete dilution of any meaning of a regular season. You cannot tell me that you think it's fair for a team beating up on mid-majors to be considered with the big boys if they don't play them more than twice a year.

I think it’s more fair to create an opportunity for all the teams which have yet to prove on the field that they aren’t the best in FBS to compete for a national championship than it is to effectively declare half of the teams in FBS ineligible to win what is supposedly a “national championship” before a ball is kicked for reasons which have nothing to do with to how the players perform on the field.

You are missing something, so I'll quote myself. "Either you believe that Boise State is better than they really were, or that the media discriminates against small teams." As I also said before, teams that play in inferior conferences are teams with far poorer metrics with which to judge on-field performance.

You're making any concept of a collegiate regular season worthless and tarnishing the legacy of the power conferences. Wins are the primary factor in determining national champion eligibility, but there are secondary factors that make most mid-major teams irrelevant from the title discussion aside from truly extraordinary ones.

1984 BYU is what happens when we place mid-majors on equal footing without regard to scheduling and in-game performance. (The page also has some good stuff on 2008 Utah - the greatest mid-major team of all-time, one that actually deserved national title consideration.)

[Commerce Heights]

As I also said before, teams that play in inferior conferences are teams with far poorer metrics with which to judge on-field performance.

Bingo! This is precisely why a postseason competition is needed to determine which team is the best in FBS.

[Costa Aluria]

As I also said before, teams that play in inferior conferences are teams with far poorer metrics with which to judge on-field performance.

Bingo! This is precisely why a postseason competition is needed to determine which team is the best in FBS.

Gasp! You mean actually letting teams settle the argument of who is best by dueling on the field of play?

[Bythyrona]

As I also said before, teams that play in inferior conferences are teams with far poorer metrics with which to judge on-field performance.

Bingo! This is precisely why a postseason competition is needed to determine which team is the best in FBS.

Right, among teams whose regular seasons are meaningful. I totally agree.

[Commerce Heights]

Bingo! This is precisely why a postseason competition is needed to determine which team is the best in FBS.

Right, among teams whose regular seasons are meaningful. I totally agree.

The only thing that makes a team’s regular season meaningless is when it’s effectively prohibited from competing for a national championship before a ball is kicked. If you want a meaningful regular season, you should want a system that gives every team in FBS an opportunity to compete.

[Bythyrona]

Right, among teams whose regular seasons are meaningful. I totally agree.

The only thing that makes a team’s regular season meaningless is when it’s effectively prohibited from competing for a national championship before a ball is kicked. If you want a meaningful regular season, you should want a system that gives every team in FBS an opportunity to compete.

A record is easy to conflate when you play teams that aggregate overall records barely above .500 in conferences that have a losing record in out-of-conference games. So no, I don't think that's misleading. There is an obvious talent gap between the SEC and the Sun Belt that I shouldn't have to argue about.

http://www.philsteele.com/blogs/2013/FEB13/DBFeb11.html
http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2014/s ... ents-2013/
http://247sports.com/Season/2013-Footba ... erence=SEC
http://247sports.com/Season/2013-Footba ... erence=SBC

A team like Boise State played inferior opponents, and at most played two ranked opponents per year during its glory run. A team like Alabama played ranked opponents and superior opposition. It is thusly that we can conclude Alabama during a similar timeframe had a drastically better barometer on the meaningfulness of its regular season.

If a Sun Belt team schedules and beats four out-of-conference Top Ten teams, I don't think anyone would deny they're a playoff contender, despite their other eight games being worthless. The fact is that Boise State didn't play nearly this number in any given year during their glory years, including bowl games. Either you believe that Boise State is better than they really were, or that the media discriminates against small teams. Neither is true. Boise State at the end of the day was the second-greatest WAC team ever, behind Arizona State under Frank Kush. The media overrates small teams drastically these days. See the 2012 AP Poll, for instance.

http://tiptop25.com/fixing2012.html - "It seems to be an unwritten rule nowadays that any team with 2 or fewer losses will finish in the top 25, no matter how poor a schedule they played. This year we have 11-2 Utah State, 11-2 Boise State, 11-2 San Jose State, and 12-2 Northern Illinois. In the last 9 years, only 12-2 Ball State in 2008 finished with 2 or fewer losses and was left unranked. But it wasn't always this way: 1989-2003, 18 Little Big Teams finished with 2 or fewer loses and were left unranked, including 10-2 Northern Illinois in 2003, 10-2 Boise State and 10-1 Toledo in 2000, 12-1 Marshall and 10-1 Miami-Ohio in 1998, 11-1 Bowling Green in 1991, and 11-1 Fresno State in 1989. Clearly the AP poll has changed the way it ranks teams, leading to a big inconsistency between the rankings 1989-2003 and 2004-present."

What I'm afraid of is the complete dilution of any meaning of a regular season. You cannot tell me that you think it's fair for a team beating up on mid-majors to be considered with the big boys if they don't play them more than twice a year.

You're making any concept of a collegiate regular season worthless and tarnishing the legacy of the power conferences. Wins are the primary factor in determining national champion eligibility, but there are secondary factors that make most mid-major teams irrelevant from the title discussion aside from truly extraordinary ones.

1984 BYU is what happens when we place mid-majors on equal footing without regard to scheduling and in-game performance. (The page also has some good stuff on 2008 Utah - the greatest mid-major team of all-time, one that actually deserved national title consideration.)

[Commerce Heights]

*snip*

Would you like me to quote my responses to those posts?

[Bythyrona]

*snip*

Would you like me to quote my responses to those posts?

No, because we've reached the point where we've established that you think straight-up records are the sole determinant of national champion contention in the face of evidence to the contrary.

[Commerce Heights]

Would you like me to quote my responses to those posts?

No, because we've reached the point where we've established that you think straight-up records are the sole determinant of national champion contention in the face of evidence to the contrary.

This is, again, not something I’ve actually said. You seem to be doing a fine job of arguing against things I haven’t said, so feel free to carry on, but I don’t think you need my help to do it.

[Cardeefland]

-

[Commerce Heights]

Van Gaal,I had high expectations on you.

As much as I’d love to see van Gaal run off and become a gridiron coach, I think you’re looking for that other football thread.

[Cardeefland]

Hahaha,dat big fail of mine

[Bythyrona]

No, because we've reached the point where we've established that you think straight-up records are the sole determinant of national champion contention in the face of evidence to the contrary.

This is, again, not something I’ve actually said. You seem to be doing a fine job of arguing against things I haven’t said, so feel free to carry on, but I don’t think you need my help to do it.

So what is the determinant of a national title contender, then? It's nothing I've proposed, which is a total formula encompassing wins, quality of wins, and strength of schedule. Since you believe mid-major teams playing in shitty conferences that face only two ranked teams per year deserve equal chances at a national championship as teams that compete in the SEC, I can only draw the conclusion that you're solely basing your observation off of wins alone.

I reiterate that Sun Belt teams are given an equal shot to compete for a national title but the reason they aren't isn't due to bias on the part of the voters or selection committee, but rather due to the simple fact that Sun Belt teams do not play a regular season that merits national consideration against major conference opposition. 2004 Utah, 2008 Utah (who I consider co-champs with Florida), and 2009 Boise State all deserved playoff bids. Those teams were jobbed, because they fulfilled reasonable requirements for a mid-major team to be considered as national title contenders.

If the College Football Playoff remains a four-team event (and it shouldn't; again, I favor a six-team field or a modified FCS model), then mid-majors are going to be omitted - but that is not a bigger concern than having no playoff at all because those truly extraordinary mid-majors are few and far between. Increasing the number of playoff spots to accommodate BCS Busters is not the answer, because after ten teams, you begin to permit three-loss non-conference winning teams to remain title contenders. If the FBS adopts the FCS model and simply awards bids based on conference winners, then the 2013 LaFayette (5-6)/2005 Akron Zips (7-5) problem arises. In my opinion, the old FCS model possibly is the best system as long as it is changed - such as awarding automatic bids only to the five power conferences with one or three at-large bids.

[Commerce Heights]

So what is the determinant of a national title contender, then? It's nothing I've proposed, which is a total formula encompassing wins, quality of wins, and strength of schedule. Since you believe mid-major teams playing in shitty conferences that face only two ranked teams per year deserve equal chances at a national championship as teams that compete in the SEC, I can only draw the conclusion that you're solely basing your observation off of wins alone.

I reiterate that Sun Belt teams are given an equal shot to compete for a national title but the reason they aren't isn't due to bias on the part of the voters or selection committee, but rather due to the simple fact that Sun Belt teams do not play a regular season that merits national consideration against major conference opposition. 2004 Utah, 2008 Utah (who I consider co-champs with Florida), and 2009 Boise State all deserved playoff bids. Those teams were jobbed, because they fulfilled reasonable requirements for a mid-major team to be considered as national title contenders.

If the College Football Playoff remains a four-team event (and it shouldn't; again, I favor a six-team field or a modified FCS model), then mid-majors are going to be omitted - but that is not a bigger concern than having no playoff at all because those truly extraordinary mid-majors are few and far between. Increasing the number of playoff spots to accommodate BCS Busters is not the answer, because after ten teams, you begin to permit three-loss non-conference winning teams to remain title contenders. If the FBS adopts the FCS model and simply awards bids based on conference winners, then the 2013 LaFayette (5-6)/2005 Akron Zips (7-5) problem arises. In my opinion, the old FCS model possibly is the best system as long as it is changed - such as awarding automatic bids only to the five power conferences with one or three at-large bids.

Expanding on my earlier statement:

Ideally, I’d like a playoff system where any team can qualify by meeting strict, objective criteria (e.g., any undefeated team would be in, and a one-loss team could make it with a high strength of schedule), and the format of the playoff is adapted to the number of teams which qualify.

Strength of schedule is a useful tool to compare teams which have lost games. A team which lost to the only good team they played should certainly not be considered equal to a team which lost one game but beat several other strong teams.

But the absolute most that a team can do to earn a place in a playoff is to win every game on its schedule. The players on the team don’t control anything beyond that. They can’t make their opponents play better in other games to improve their strength of schedule. They can’t hop in a time machine and make the athletic department schedule the teams who are going to be good a few years from now (if those teams are even willing to play them), or join the conference that’s going to have good teams a few decades from now (if that conference will even admit them). There is no reason to exclude an undefeated team from a playoff.

Strength of schedule can also be a useful tool to help seed the teams in a playoff, once they are selected. It is entirely reasonable that a team which is undefeated, but hasn’t played particularly strong opponents, should have to play more games or tougher opponents in a playoff than a team which already played some of those tough games in the regular season.

Arguably, a guarantee that any undefeated team will have access to a playoff would encourage some schools to deliberately set up a weak schedule. I don’t want to see that, but I think any rule which proscribes that behavior would need to take into account only the teams’ historical performances known at the time the games were scheduled, and would need to make allowances for non-sporting considerations that may make it difficult for some schools to put together a better schedule.

[Bythyrona]

http://247sports.com/Season/2013-Footba ... erence=SEC
http://247sports.com/Season/2013-Footba ... erence=SBC

I’m not sure what some people’s opinions of players have to do with anything I said.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-sec- ... 38/+kylenw - This has nothing to do with the debate in particular, but this Deadspin post did remind me of that one earlier. Sorry Big Ten, you do suck after all.

RIP Chamoda Kennedy-Palmore - a Cincinnati Bearcats' RB killed in a motorcycle accident today.

loltexas. Nine players gone due to drug urinalysis. Everyone knows Tyrone Swoopes sucks and that David Ash was going out sometime this year. (Good luck to David Ash and Casey Cochran (starting QB at UConn, very accurate), who have recently retired. Can't blame them for wanting to preserve their health.)

[Bythyrona]

And once again, my heart is utterly broken against Georgia. We had every chance in the world. Again.

Thanks, Nathan Peterman, you fucking idiot. This kid needs to go. Now.

[Torisakia]

So NCSU scored within 15 seconds against Florida State. What's significant about this is: it will be the only points they score all game.

Maybe Notre Dame will put up more of a fight.