-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
CFB Week 12: the Valley Shook, the Plains Ran Dry, and Sparty Clempsoned
- Thread starter mre
- Start date
- Status
timetokill
Banned
Cal playing really frustrated
Cornballer
Member
Yuuuuup.
Mac the KNife
Member
What the hell was that
Cornballer
Member
This is embarrassing. Just an awful cocktail of bad and stupid.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Pac 12 North about to become what they were afraid of when they couldn't play in LA every year... The equivalent of the SEC East.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Hahah what a dumb ass call for Cincinnati.
chicko1983
Member
Noone would be forcing you to stay.
If you want to leave to get paid, that choice is still there.
However, if you want to stay to potentially become the National Champion, that choice is there also.
I dont think that a National Championship should be available for a redshirt Freshman like Dak Prescott, because he has come into a team which took years of development before he arrived. He is a big part of their success, but he is not the only reason. It lifts the prestige of winning the CFB National Championship further, if you knew he had to be a great team for two years.
If my system was in place the teams in the Conference of Champions this year would have been:
FSU, Auburn, Michigan St, Stanford, Oklahoma, Alabama (at large), Oregon/UCF
Then the potential bowl games would be something like (assuming FSU and Auburn NCG for hypothetical reasons)
Michigan St v Ohio St/Wisconsin/Nebraska
Stanford v Oregon/Arizona St
Oklahoma v TCU/Baylor
Alabama v Miss State
Oregon/UCF v Notre Dame
Giving the up and commers like Miss St, TCU and Arizona St a chance at winning a bowl game at the very least and potentially going on to winning the National CHampionship
Yeah, similar except Champions League is not a round-robin competition and include's knock out matches.
My format is aimed at reducing the subjectiveness of who has the tougher schedule when ranking teams - which is the biggest/main issue when it comes to the ranking teams.
If you won the National Championship in my format, you would have deserved it over the course of being a good amount of time, not based on a couple of plays (like FSU last year) and not having an inflated pre-season ranking.
bucknuticus
Member
perfectchaos007
Member
Thank You Cinci kicker!!
bucknuticus
Member
Thank you cincy def! gimmie dem MOV!
perfectchaos007
Member
That last play gave me MOV. LOOOOOL
bucknut bro fist
bucknut bro fist
The funny thing is that our basketball program is gradually getting better. Pretty good senior class this year and they picked up some good talent in the offseason. Got a good recruit for next year too and a couple more decent ones. Problem is that when you're coming from the cellar, takes a while to get recruits to take your program seriously.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Put up a poll.
College football championship
a) chicko's plan that makes baby bald eagles cry
b) The current plan that favors the SEC
c) Notre Dame is champion automatically.
College football championship
a) chicko's plan that makes baby bald eagles cry
b) The current plan that favors the SEC
c) Notre Dame is champion automatically.
Randolph Freelander
Member
I don't normally care about or follow recruiting.... but....
#1 QB prospect for 2016 declares for Florida State
Put this kid on preemptive house arrest now. At least give him a chaperone and a curfew. From here on, son, it's homework and watching Wheel of Fortune with grandma, got it?
#1 QB prospect for 2016 declares for Florida State
Put this kid on preemptive house arrest now. At least give him a chaperone and a curfew. From here on, son, it's homework and watching Wheel of Fortune with grandma, got it?
chicko1983
Member
yep, my format makes the National Championship harder and hence, more prestigious to win.
I can understand people who support teams that are from a weaker conference where your only chance to become National Champion was to have a good year with a bit of luck during a national championship game or bowl game not being a supporter of my format though.
perfectchaos007
Member
Cal at least made the score respectable at the end thanks to USC DB's slipping on their own turf.
Cornballer
Member
Two kicker formation on that onside kick, eh?
Oh well, better second half from Cal, but it's still disappointing how awful the first half went.
Oh well, better second half from Cal, but it's still disappointing how awful the first half went.
chicko1983
Member
I didnt say anything contrary to that sarcastic comment.
I said my format would make it harder and more prestigious. You wouldnt have a team such as Notre Dame making the national championship game like they did in 2013.
The problem with every national champion so far (so Ive heard) is that there is always one or two other teams that believe they were just as good or better but never actually face the eventual champion because people's subjective ranking of them and their schedule.
My system would mean that the champion would have played six other contenders both at home and away in the same season. After twelve matches the cream would rise to the top and fewer arguments against the team who is crowned national champion could be made - that is what everyone wants right?
perfectchaos007
Member
Washington had a chance to play 16 games this year, but they blew it. I was pulling for them until their first loss just so we could see a 16-0 team in CFB.
chicko1983
Member
More games than NFL, how so? Dont NFL champions play 18 or so games?
It would be 13 games maximum for the CFB champion, same as now.
12 games in some sort of super conference, and then 11-13 games of the regular season (because you have to come up with who is IN the Super Conference). That is what you are saying.
Where in the year are the kids going to play all these games, and where (laughably as it is) are they going to classes?
Where in the year are the kids going to play all these games, and where (laughably as it is) are they going to classes?
Randolph Freelander
Member
He's actually talking about you play this season for the right to maybe get to play in the super conference next season, which can then get you the right to play for the national championship. Next year.
Then what happens in the "off year" with everyone else? Those conferences can't choose a winner, as they'll be short a team or 2, or do they all just take a year off???
Already complaints on Home and Away return trips inside the larger conferences (like the SEC) Right now, it's about a decade between return trips. With this, hell, it might become 20 years (if your team is good enough to make it in)
Just a scheduling nightmare.
Already complaints on Home and Away return trips inside the larger conferences (like the SEC) Right now, it's about a decade between return trips. With this, hell, it might become 20 years (if your team is good enough to make it in)
Just a scheduling nightmare.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Right, one, maybe two other teams that had an argument when we only allowed 2 to play for the title. That system was broken, and we've finally at least gone to 4. In theory, there's really not much more room for argument, except this is America so the drums are already beating for 8. 8 teams when in the past, maybe 3 or 4 had a legitimate argument.
I'm sure if we ever went to 8 teams, the 9th team would gripe, and honestly we'd just have to tell them to shut right on up. 4 teams is probably enough, 8 teams definitely would be, and we could get it all settled this year.
Those teams are playing for the right to play the lesser "super conference" teams in a bowl and maybe get invited to the super conference next year. Or so I think it went.
Purple Cheeto
Member
http://twitter.com/USCTMB/status/533032656825356288/photo/1
Apparently USC band members had to go to class in uniform because of the start time of this game.
Apparently USC band members had to go to class in uniform because of the start time of this game.
chicko1983
Member
Randolph explained the other questions regarding amount of matches and what the rest of the conference does.
I don't see how it would be a scheduling nightmare, every team's schedule is currently padded with two, three or four out of conference or cup cake games which can be dropped/altered.
The teams which make the Conference of Champions play home and away against each other in the same year, so no problem there either.
Randolph Freelander said:
4 teams is such a bad number, as evidence now with so many one and two loss teams fighting for the last two rankings and it being so hard to choose 3rd to about 10th.
That is why every Power five conference should have a team represented because currently people put too much emphasis on their win-loss ledger rather than the quality of teams they play. If Oregon lost before the champ game there is a chance that no Pac-12 team would make the playoff. If Miss st lose a couple and then Alabama lose the SEC champ game, there is a chance no SEC team would make the playoff. Either scenario is crazy but still a possibility currently.
Can you imagine if either the SEC or Pac-12 team did not have a team in the top 4. Do you think that the national champion would be undisputed if either conference did not have a top 4 team?
My preferred would be 5x Power 5, 1 x previous winner, and 1 at large. It give 7 teams in total and 12 games (6 home, 6 away) + a bowl game.
No conference could complain about being underrepresented, you would have teams competing based on performance and not subjective rankings, and no team could complain about the eventual winner. They would have easily the best schedule, have played tough teams away, and traveled the most.
Still doesn't answer the rest of the teams and what they're doing while this other season happens.
What happens to the 6 losers of the CoC? They missed the regular season and as such, can't be in the following year's CoC. The punishment for making it to the CoC playoff and not winning it all, is you can't go the next year's CoC, as you didn't win your conference (because you didn't play against anyone else in your conference).
What happens to the 6 losers of the CoC? They missed the regular season and as such, can't be in the following year's CoC. The punishment for making it to the CoC playoff and not winning it all, is you can't go the next year's CoC, as you didn't win your conference (because you didn't play against anyone else in your conference).
timetokill
Banned
Glad USC came away with the win, but I'm not happy that Sark predictably let his foot off the gas and let the game get a lot closer than it should have been. This team has no killer instinct.
RE: The playoffs -- 8 teams is inevitable, but to me the ultimate is 6.
- The Big 5 Conference Champs, 1 At Large.
-- #1 and #2 ranked teams get a first round bye.
- Round 1 (Quarters): -#3 plays At Large, #4 plays #5.
- Round 2 (Semis): #1 plays winner of #4/#5 and #2 plays winner of #3/At Large
- Round 3 (Championship): The two teams left standing
This preserves the sanctity of the regular season -- not only is winning a conference championship huge, but being the best conference champ is a major deal. Promotes strength of schedule in order to be ranked higher as well as to be the one team getting the At Large berth. Avoids 8 team + shenanigans. Perfect length for a CFB offseason, as it gets rid of the long-ass layover between the end of the CFB regular season and the significant bowl games.
It's simple, straightforward, and goddammit it's the right thing to do.
RE: The playoffs -- 8 teams is inevitable, but to me the ultimate is 6.
- The Big 5 Conference Champs, 1 At Large.
-- #1 and #2 ranked teams get a first round bye.
- Round 1 (Quarters): -#3 plays At Large, #4 plays #5.
- Round 2 (Semis): #1 plays winner of #4/#5 and #2 plays winner of #3/At Large
- Round 3 (Championship): The two teams left standing
This preserves the sanctity of the regular season -- not only is winning a conference championship huge, but being the best conference champ is a major deal. Promotes strength of schedule in order to be ranked higher as well as to be the one team getting the At Large berth. Avoids 8 team + shenanigans. Perfect length for a CFB offseason, as it gets rid of the long-ass layover between the end of the CFB regular season and the significant bowl games.
It's simple, straightforward, and goddammit it's the right thing to do.
chicko1983
Member
I dont think you understand the format or maybe I wasnt clear enough.This season is played at the same time as all other conferences are being played. The teams in the Conference of Champions dont play in their conference for that year. The bonus is you are playing in the Conference of Champions.
Say there are the following teams in the Conference of Champions
Florida St (Current Champ)
Bama (SEC Champ)
Oregon (Pac-12 Champ)
Oklahoma (Big12 Champ)
Ohio St (Big 10 Champ)
Clemson (ACC Champ)
Notre Dame (Best finishing at large team)
These teams all play each other once at home and once away. They dont play against anyone from their normal conference in the regular season. The top two teams then play off in the National Championship game.
The six losers play in the bowl games against the six conferences they represent ie
SEC CoC team v SEC champion
Pac-12 CoC team v Pac-12 champion
etc
etc
The winner of those games play in the next years' Conference of Champions. The losers goes back to the conference whence they came.
So if you are significantly stronger than your conference, you should win the bowl game and hence remain in the Conference of Champions.
chicko1983
Member
I can see why people want to preserve the sanctity of the regular season and keep traditional games and conferences going.
However, the "strength of schedule" metric is the problem with the rankings. Who ranks the conference seeds? Based on the one or two interconference matches that get played? Its unfair trying to seed conferences as home teams have such an advantage.
You still have to win a conference championship to get to the Conference of Champions, so every conference championship remains special. And the classic bowl games become even bigger games where the teams knows only the winner has a chance at the National Championship the next year.
Maybe the fact that I am looking at it from a totally unbiased view is why my view is different to everyone else (in terms of what uni I went to and what region I am from).
This is closer to what I'd want, but 2 cavets:
All 5 conferences have to have a CCG.
All CCG's consist of the 2 actual leading teams in the conference (i.e. if Alabama and Miss State finish with 1 conference loss, while UGA/Mizzou/whoever in the east ends up with 2+ losses, the CCG is Alabama/Miss State. The Playoff does not need an accidental team to show up because of a potential fluke game.
Will add on "Must have 9+ Conference games"
also:
chicko1983
Member
Do you think FSU is currently better than Alabama? If you played at FSU would you win? If they played at Tuscaloosa, would you win?
timetokill
Banned
- Agreed on minimum 9 conference games.
- Can't agree on the "2 leading teams" because two teams could conceivably duck the best teams in their conference and have better records but not actually be the best. An 8-2 team could be better than one or both 9-1 teams if the 8-2 team plays in a tougher division that year. For this reason, division champs has to exist. It gives a clear, controllable goal and reduces the problem of uneven divisions.
1. The Pac-12 is already known as the "Conference of Champions" so using that moniker is really confusing
2. Having the 5 conference champs in already gets rid of the majority of the "strength of schedule" argument by simply having them play each other in the playoffs. The lone at-large is always going to be up for debate, but the ultimate rebuttal to it is: "should have won your conference."
The 4 team issue is going to be a problem immediately because a conference champ won't get in. When all 5 majors get in, that issue is put to bed. The 6th is a bonus spot. Maybe a really great mid-major gets in. Maybe Notre Dame if they're good that year. Maybe a conference champ loser. Who knows. It's a wild card.
With this many teams there will be no way to end the arguments. But by cleanly saying, "Win your conference and you're in," it's a lot easier. Also, ranking the conferences has a LOT more consensus than ranking the teams.
That's not what he's talking about. Currently there are complaints in the SEC in particular that due to the scheduling format you only play certain teams in the other division once every few years. It's bad for recruiting. You sell kids on playing certain teams, as well as get exposure by playing their local school. With your idea, this gets even worse. A team in the East might not play Bama/Auburn/LSU for decades. Also, cupcake/OOC games are a good thing, but that's besides the point.
Also, what about rivalry games? Rivalries are important to CFB. This conference would get rid of the Iron Bowl, Michigan/OSU, and others for years at a time. That's not gonna fly.
Finally, what about teams that suffer huge drop offs, like UCF this year? Can they opt out in order to not be embarrassed? The nature of CFB eligibility makes this tricky.
Edit- never mind, you somewhat responded while I was writing this.
chicko1983
Member
1. The Pac-12 is already known as the "Conference of Champions" so using that moniker is really confusing
2. Having the 5 conference champs in already gets rid of the majority of the "strength of schedule" argument by simply having them play each other in the playoffs. The lone at-large is always going to be up for debate, but the ultimate rebuttal to it is: "should have won your conference."
The 4 team issue is going to be a problem immediately because a conference champ won't get in. When all 5 majors get in, that issue is put to bed. The 6th is a bonus spot. Maybe a really great mid-major gets in. Maybe Notre Dame if they're good that year. Maybe a conference champ loser. Who knows. It's a wild card.
With this many teams there will be no way to end the arguments. But by cleanly saying, "Win your conference and you're in," it's a lot easier. Also, ranking the conferences has a LOT more consensus than ranking the teams.
1. I didnt know that, haha
2. I disagree that the majority of the "strength of schedule" argument is avoided by simply having the conference champs.
Do you think the Big 10 champ or ACC champ's schedule is easier or harder than the Pac-12 or SEC currently? What is your ranking of conferences based on (there is only a handful of inter-conference games you base a decision on? How do you separate the SEC and Pac-12?
In my opinion, the only fair way to rank the conference champs would be to give them a home and away match against the other conferences' champs. But this takes a heap of time so hence why I came up with my format proposal.
As soon as there is a subjective ranking used for seeds, the system is unfair in my opinion.
chicko1983
Member
I am not from the whole US college sports culture, but I would be picking a school to play at that would give me the best chance to reach my potential, not because of someone who they play.
Cupcake games are a good thing? Not for the viewers or spectators, which are the ones who are pouring the money into the universities.
Rivalry games can be put on hold for years and if they are real rivalries they will be fine.
Australian Rugby has a huge rivalry with the Irish and British Lions, whom we only play once every 4 years, or 8 years at home. Its a huge rivalry
In cricket, the Aussies play England once every 2 or 3 years depending on schedules. Thats the biggest rivalry in cricket.
We last played England in football (soccer) in 2005. Yet the rivalry would be as strong as ever the next time they play, if they ever do (England is scared of losing to us again!).
timetokill
Banned
Easy. The B1G and ACC are both weaker conferences than the Pac-12 and SEC. I don't even think there's a debate there. The SEC is generally considered the "best" conference due to its recent successes, and I can understand that. The Pac-12 is generally considered second or third depending on the year.
Ultimately, though, ranking the conferences (as opposed to the conference champs) is a hell of a lot easier than ranking teams directly. But the ultimate reason it doesn't matter is because EVERY CHAMP GETS IN. They can play to prove it on the field. So if the Pac-12 is ranked #2 this year, who cares? The champ (probably Oregon) can go out there and prove they're #1 on the field by beating everyone. Maybe they have a bit tougher of a road. That's sports. This year the only two wild card teams made it to the World Series. That happens.
If one conference gets a better seed than another, sure, argue. Arguments are critical in sports. There's not a single sport that doesn't have them.
Ultimately, though, each champ gets to settle it on the field. And each team has a simple goal at the start of their season: Win their conference. Every team has a chance to do that. There's no subjectivity in it. They either won their conference or they didn't.
With the sheer number of teams in CFB, subjectivity has to enter the equation at some point. By simply making it about conference rankings as opposed to the teams themselves, it removes most of the millions of variables. Was USC in 2003 the best team? Obviously. Was it the best conference? No. I don't mind because I'm confident 2003 USC would blast anybody in the playoffs.
We don't have the luxury of time, like you mentioned. A 6 team playoff works perfectly within the current timetable, and doesn't add a ridiculous amount of games to the CFB player's season.
Battlezone
Member
There was an uproar in Columbus recently because there was a rumor they might move the Michigan game. Not to another day. Not to another month. It was going to be moved eight hours. You think people will be fine with traditional rivalries not being played for FOUR YEARS?
At some point, you have to realize you're basically asking for college football to not be college football.
Clemson @ Georgia Tech by 7
Pittsburgh @ North Carolina by 10
Mississippi State @ Alabama by 4
Nebraska @ Wisconsin by 4
Washington @ Arizona by 4
Utah @ Stanford by 7
Auburn @ Georgia by 3
Texas @ Oklahoma State by 7
Florida State @ Miami by 10
LSU @ Arkansas by 4
The VT game scares me a bit since I'm sure we're going to get the team that played tOSU, but maybe not. I still think the ACC "name brand" teams like VT, FSU and Miami don't want to lose to Duke because they still think its insulting. Really I just want to see the team get to at least 10 wins again.
Pittsburgh @ North Carolina by 10
Mississippi State @ Alabama by 4
Nebraska @ Wisconsin by 4
Washington @ Arizona by 4
Utah @ Stanford by 7
Auburn @ Georgia by 3
Texas @ Oklahoma State by 7
Florida State @ Miami by 10
LSU @ Arkansas by 4
The VT game scares me a bit since I'm sure we're going to get the team that played tOSU, but maybe not. I still think the ACC "name brand" teams like VT, FSU and Miami don't want to lose to Duke because they still think its insulting. Really I just want to see the team get to at least 10 wins again.
devildog820
Member
Embarrassing or not, VT is kind of a hot mess
- Status