College Football

[Hydguy]

never will happen. college football has alabama fatigue. overall just tired of saban and the process. just remember " to be the man, you got to beat the man"

More like to be the man, you have to duplicate what the man has accomplished. And until Saban came along, that man was Bear.
And I don't see any school that is going to win 6 Championships with one coach in the current field of coaches, aside from maybe Clemson and Dabo. Which once again shows that Bama is the place that creates champions, as he played, and got his start coaching, at Bama.

 

[FarmerTan]

I am sad to have to admit that I didn't watch any football today. Just have a hard time getting into the post season with my Spartans playing hot and mostly cold all season, and tOSU getting in through the back door.

My biggest problem with this season has been the lack of fans. Half the fun was the shots of drunken students painting their bodies in skool colors and imagining the hangover they'd be fighting the next day.

I pray 2021 gives us full stadiums, and healthy kids being kids.

I predict Alabama will have their hands full with tOSU. They will be less battle worn and after Clemson I would assume confident of being able to go toe to toe with Bama, and if the coaches do their job, prepared and not cocky.

If they take Saban for granted in any way he will eat their lunch.

 

[dfoulk]

When your conference (B1G) is made of 13 fluff teams, it's easy to 'stand out'. But it's funny that the SEC and the ACC were able to play 10 regular season games, and Indiana was able to play 7, but ohio couldn't muster 6 regular season games, and by the B1G's own rules set up this season, they didn't even qualify to play in their fluff championship game. Heck, they didn't even win their division!
You think Clemson, ND, Bama, Georgia, Fl, Tx A&M, and others would have played a full 10 game season if they knew they could have played 5 and still gotten into playoff contention?
ohio gets coddled.
As for the rest of the of what you said, when you only play 5 fluff teams in the regular season, you are not getting the wear and tear on your players. Bama lost Waddle in the A&M game, and their center in the SEC Championship game. Fl tried to take Smith out with an ankle twist. Just think of how the Bama numbers would look if Waddle didn't break his ankle in a game Bama didn't need to play if they got the kid glove treatment like ohio.

Most of the teams you listed did not win five in a row to start their season. In terms of the teams you listed playing more than six games, of course yes, the majority would have wanted to. Had they not, with a loss, they wouldn't have been considered for the playoffs at all. Had Ohio State had a single loss this season they would have been out of the running. I still have no idea how Notre Dame got in after losing a game the last week of the season. They must have given more weight to beating a depleted Clemson team than they should have. So back to the teams you listed...

I'm not sure I understand your logic here....

Texas A&M lost their second game of the season, so a 4-1 record isn't getting you in the playoffs, so of course they would want to play more games. It's not easy to win 5 games in a row.

Florida lost their third game, so again 4-1 isn't getting you in, so once more they play more games for a chance to get in or they are out.

Georgia lost their fifth game, so another 4-1 team that won't get into the playoffs, so they would definitely want to play more games as well.

Alabama - undefeated and in the playoffs, deservingly so.

Notre Dame - lost their 11th game to Clemson and destroyed by Alabama in the playoffs. I didn't think they should make it in with such a late season loss, but you assured me in an earlier post, that they were better than Ohio State. Had Notre Dame stopped after a 5-0 record they likely would not have made the playoffs. They got a lot of recognition for beating Clemson in week 7. Before that win they were on the outside looking in. So they would have wanted to play more games as well.

Clemson - lost their 7th game to Notre Dame (impacted by Covid). At full strength they got destroyed by Ohio State in the playoffs. They would have been in with 5 games played had they won them all, just like Ohio State. Same deal with Alabama had the SEC played 5 games they would not have been left out.

I'd understand if you were lobbying for Coastal Carolina or Cincinnati to get in, having more wins and still being undefeated and all, but you're looking at SEC teams that have multiple losses and haven't even matched the 6-0 record that Ohio State posted in their first six games. No two loss team has ever made it into the playoffs and a late season loss usually excludes you as well.

If you think that Ohio State fans, players or coaches wanted their team to play less games then you are mistaken. This wasn't something that was chosen intentionally and it is not an advantage. Ohio State wanted to play from the very start and lobbied to let the BIG10 let them play. The BIG10 screwed this season up about as much as it possibly could have.

As far as not playing making you better, it doesn't work that way. Have you ever not studied for a test so that you'd do better. Reasoning, that you'd be fresher and more awake when you took it. Problem would be that without studying you would not know the material. No matter how fresh you are, you'd likely fail. Athletes train and play in order to get better, especially in team sports like football. They get better from week to week. If you could get better by not playing then the coaches likely wouldn't have practices. They'd just wrap the players up in bubble wrap and have them not do anything other than show up to play on game day.

Having coached several youth sports I can tell you that without practice you do not win your games consistently. You have to put in the work to get better. Sure there is a risk that someone can get hurt putting in this work but that's all part of it. You can get hurt during practice or in the weight room, or even walking down the street. Playing more games and having more practice time is an advantage. It's certainly not without risk but it's what makes teams better. The hard part is working your way through these games, especially the early ones, without a slip up. It's a lot easier to lose an earlier season game before everyone is working together as they should be. It's not easy to win your first 5 or 6 games in a row at this level. Look at the teams you mentioned above as the majority of your own choices didn't pull it off.

With less games if you happen to lose even one game then you're out. In playing more games it's an advantage. Clemson and Notre Dame both got in with a loss. Had they only played 6 games and went 5-1, I don't think they'd have been in the playoffs. Had Ohio State lost even one game they'd be watching the playoffs from the outside.

 

[JWCowboy]

will Fields be able to play. I bet he has cracked ribs and they are going to hurt a lot tomorrow.

Ten days is a long time to rest, and he's in his early 20s. Remember how you felt at that age? Like the Koheleth in Ecclesiastes said "Rejoice young man in your youth"

We can complain about the current system and go on and on about who got wanked and who should have been ranked where, but the bottom line is, it appears that this year that we are going to have the two best teams playing in the final game, and that's how it should be And in this bizarre and brutal year where football ultimately, truly doesn't matter, I will say I'm hoping to watch a great game so we can forget about all that for a few hours, because these next few weeks and months are not going to be pleasant.

Happy 2021 everyone.

BTW - I noticed there are 4 bowl games on today, January 2nd I believe? I won't be watching any of them

 

[JWCowboy]

Ryan Day clearly outcoached Dabo tonight. I think Day is a heckuva football coach.

He deservers the credit for having them prepared. Clemson is no pushover. I think the Buckeyes had this potential matchup circled on the calendar all year and were very motivated.

 

[JWCowboy]

I pray 2021 gives us full stadiums, and healthy kids being kids.

I'll second that!

 

[JWCowboy]

OK, here's the scenario I would make happen for college football were I the honcho in charge.

I would eliminate the 12 game season. It's too long, starts too early, and encourages the Power 5 teams to schedule weak non conference opponents. Nobody wants to see Alabama play Western Carolina. In fact, I would eliminate all FBS vs FCS games. There would be no more independents. Notre Dame, Army, BYU, Liberty and whoever else would be required to join a conference. The season would be 10 games, starting in late September and running until around Thanksgiving. Teams would still play 8 conference games, there would still be conference championships around the first week of December. There are 10 FBS conferences. I'd have a 16 team playoff. Win your conference and you get a playoff spot. There would be 6 at large playoff spots. This would give you 15 total playoff games that would replace the 30+ bowls we currently have that nobody cares about anyway.

If implemented for this season it would look something like this (and just for the sake of illustration, I'm going to pretend BYU and Liberty were the Mountain West and CUSA champs respectively)

1. Alabama
16. Ball St

5. Oklahoma
12.Indiana

7.Florida
10. Iowa St

3. Notre Dame
14. Oregon

2. Clemson
15. Liberty

6. Texas A&M
11.Coastal Carolina

8.Cincinnati
9.Georgia

4. Ohio St
13. BYU

 

[TexOkie Shaver]

OK, here's the scenario I would make happen for college football were I the honcho in charge.

I would eliminate the 12 game season. It's too long, starts too early, and encourages the Power 5 teams to schedule weak non conference opponents. Nobody wants to see Alabama play Western Carolina. In fact, I would eliminate all FBS vs FCS games. There would be no more independents. Notre Dame, Army, BYU, Liberty and whoever else would be required to join a conference. The season would be 10 games, starting in late September and running until around Thanksgiving. Teams would still play 8 conference games, there would still be conference championships around the first week of December. There are 10 FBS conferences. I'd have a 16 team playoff. Win your conference and you get a playoff spot. There would be 6 at large playoff spots. This would give you 15 total playoff games that would replace the 30+ bowls we currently have that nobody cares about anyway.

If implemented for this season it would look something like this (and just for the sake of illustration, I'm going to pretend BYU and Liberty were the Mountain West and CUSA champs respectively)

1. Alabama
16. Ball St

5. Oklahoma
12.Indiana

7.Florida
10. Iowa St

3. Notre Dame
14. Oregon

2. Clemson
15. Liberty

6. Texas A&M
11.Coastal Carolina

8.Cincinnati
9.Georgia

4. Ohio St
13. BYU

I like it, I vote to put you in charge.

 

[JWCowboy]

I like it, I vote to put you in charge.

Somebody would still find something to complain about, no doubt. Probably Big 10 fans would complain about 4 SEC teams, Georgia being picked over Northwestern or some such

For the 15 playoff games to replace the bowls, you could still call them bowls or whatever. I'd go with the following sites, in no particular order; Arlington, Atlanta, Glendale, Miami, New Orleans, Pasadena, Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville, Houston, Nashville, Charlotte, and 3 others.

 

[TexOkie Shaver]

Breaking News! The University of Texas has fired Tom Herman!

 

[Stubblebum]

Rumors are already circulating that Bama's OC will take his place.

 

[TexOkie Shaver]

Rumors are already circulating that Bama's OC will take his place.

That’s the rumor. I’ll wait to see it announced.

 

[TexOkie Shaver]

That’s the rumor. I’ll wait to see it announced.

I’m a bit concerned about Sark’s past history. Alcohol abuse, showing up for team practices drunk. Pat Haden ordered him to take extended leave one day and fired him the next. I’m also uncertain how much credit should go to Sark for Alabama’s offense. I suspect Sabin had a lot to do with that.

At any rate, it looks like Texas has taken another step backwards. The offense will change and the kids will have to learn the new offense all over again. I thought their current offense was good, but the play calling and decisions were faulty. I hoped they would do better with Harsin gone.

 

[Hydguy]

Most of the teams you listed did not win five in a row to start their season. In terms of the teams you listed playing more than six games, of course yes, the majority would have wanted to. Had they not, with a loss, they wouldn't have been considered for the playoffs at all. Had Ohio State had a single loss this season they would have been out of the running. I still have no idea how Notre Dame got in after losing a game the last week of the season. They must have given more weight to beating a depleted Clemson team than they should have. So back to the teams you listed...

I'm not sure I understand your logic here....

Texas A&M lost their second game of the season, so a 4-1 record isn't getting you in the playoffs, so of course they would want to play more games. It's not easy to win 5 games in a row.

Florida lost their third game, so again 4-1 isn't getting you in, so once more they play more games for a chance to get in or they are out.

Georgia lost their fifth game, so another 4-1 team that won't get into the playoffs, so they would definitely want to play more games as well.

Alabama - undefeated and in the playoffs, deservingly so.

Notre Dame - lost their 11th game to Clemson and destroyed by Alabama in the playoffs. I didn't think they should make it in with such a late season loss, but you assured me in an earlier post, that they were better than Ohio State. Had Notre Dame stopped after a 5-0 record they likely would not have made the playoffs. They got a lot of recognition for beating Clemson in week 7. Before that win they were on the outside looking in. So they would have wanted to play more games as well.

Clemson - lost their 7th game to Notre Dame (impacted by Covid). At full strength they got destroyed by Ohio State in the playoffs. They would have been in with 5 games played had they won them all, just like Ohio State. Same deal with Alabama had the SEC played 5 games they would not have been left out.

I'd understand if you were lobbying for Coastal Carolina or Cincinnati to get in, having more wins and still being undefeated and all, but you're looking at SEC teams that have multiple losses and haven't even matched the 6-0 record that Ohio State posted in their first six games. No two loss team has ever made it into the playoffs and a late season loss usually excludes you as well.

If you think that Ohio State fans, players or coaches wanted their team to play less games then you are mistaken. This wasn't something that was chosen intentionally and it is not an advantage. Ohio State wanted to play from the very start and lobbied to let the BIG10 let them play. The BIG10 screwed this season up about as much as it possibly could have.

As far as not playing making you better, it doesn't work that way. Have you ever not studied for a test so that you'd do better. Reasoning, that you'd be fresher and more awake when you took it. Problem would be that without studying you would not know the material. No matter how fresh you are, you'd likely fail. Athletes train and play in order to get better, especially in team sports like football. They get better from week to week. If you could get better by not playing then the coaches likely wouldn't have practices. They'd just wrap the players up in bubble wrap and have them not do anything other than show up to play on game day.

Having coached several youth sports I can tell you that without practice you do not win your games consistently. You have to put in the work to get better. Sure there is a risk that someone can get hurt putting in this work but that's all part of it. You can get hurt during practice or in the weight room, or even walking down the street. Playing more games and having more practice time is an advantage. It's certainly not without risk but it's what makes teams better. The hard part is working your way through these games, especially the early ones, without a slip up. It's a lot easier to lose an earlier season game before everyone is working together as they should be. It's not easy to win your first 5 or 6 games in a row at this level. Look at the teams you mentioned above as the majority of your own choices didn't pull it off.

With less games if you happen to lose even one game then you're out. In playing more games it's an advantage. Clemson and Notre Dame both got in with a loss. Had they only played 6 games and went 5-1, I don't think they'd have been in the playoffs. Had Ohio State lost even one game they'd be watching the playoffs from the outside.

The point is that even teams in the B1G were able to meet the minimum standards to be eligible, and Ohio didn't.
When the rules your conference sets out at the beginning of the season have to be changed to accommodate the only team your conference has, you entire claim to any titles is a joke.
It's really that simple.
Ohio has been treated with kid gloves for years, because if it wasn't for them, the B1G would be essentially as relevant in the CFP as all the DII schools.

 

[dfoulk]

The point is that even teams in the B1G were able to meet the minimum standards to be eligible, and Ohio didn't.
When the rules your conference sets out at the beginning of the season have to be changed to accommodate the only team your conference has, you entire claim to any titles is a joke.
It's really that simple.
Ohio has been treated with kid gloves for years, because if it wasn't for them, the B1G would be essentially as relevant in the CFP as all the DII schools.

The six game thing is not in the playoff committee eligibility rules. Six games are not required to play in the college playoffs, nor is a conference championship. Their job it to pick the four best teams via their own eye test and they don't share the criteria with us. What it comes down to is that the committee can do whatever they want to do. I think there is a very good chance they would have let Ohio State in with just 5 games played. I believe that Ohio State has proven to be one of the top two teams, so the committee got it right regardless of the number of games played.

I've stated my opinion on why specific teams are in just about every year, or at least given some benefit over other teams. I've even said that it's not entirely fair as more teams should have a chance to compete. I'd like to see an eight team playoff to start with. The reason it is like it is, is based on recruiting talent, coaching ability, winning, player development and the number of and success of their NFL draftees. It's more than just wins and losses. The committee knows which programs have the most talent. That gap is widening every year, so the Ohio State, Alabama and Clemson's of the world are getting better (getting the best recruits) while everyone else is struggling to keep up. The very best players want nationally televised games, the very best coaches to develop them into NFL players and a chance to compete for a National Championship. When they are choosing a college they ask themselves which programs give me the very best chance to make it into the NFL. This is why the committee selects who they select, not favoritism or some kind of bias.

Just look at who is feeding the NFL with high draft picks. Look at what teams are producing the standout players that are making an impact in the NFL and you'll see behind the curtain as to why they pick who they pick.

 

[Owen Bawn]

All this complaining from Alabama fans about Ohio State's "unworthiness" in the playoff. Why do they care how their opponent got there? Alabama fans seem to believe that no one but Alabama is worthy of being on the field with Alabama.

 

[honeycutt]

All this complaining from Alabama fans about Ohio State's "unworthiness" in the playoff. Why do they care how their opponent got there? Alabama fans seem to believe that no one but Alabama is worthy of being on the field with Alabama.

Maybe Boston College or Holy Cross would be a better game?

 

[Owen Bawn]

Maybe Boston College or Holy Cross would be a better game?

Personally I miss the days when BC and Holy Cross games were competitive. Television destroyed many good things about college football.

BC is 3-1 all time vs Alabama, by the way. Your only victory over BC was way back in 1943 in the Orange Bowl.

 

[honeycutt]

Personally I miss the days when BC and Holy Cross games were competitive. Television destroyed many good things about college football.

BC is 3-1 all time vs Alabama, by the way. Your only victory over BC was way back in 1943 in the Orange Bowl.

Are you going to hang on to some 70 year old games? Really?

 

[Owen Bawn]

Are you going to hang on to some 70 year old games? Really?

Fine. Don't count the 1943 game. That makes BC 3 and 0 against Alabama instead of 3 and 1.