College Football - Week 10 (Nov. 1)

[Derwood]

Can we move some of the playoff games to northern locales or will all the games continue to be home games for southern teams?

 

I still like the idea of an 8 team playoff where the first round is at the home stadiums of the top 4 seeds

[Guest]

8 instead of four just seems so much better so I hope it doesn't take long. Just include a few more currently non-BCS Bowls for the quarterfinal round and you're set.

Literally every other major American sport has an overly inclusive playoff system. We can't just have one that isn't?

 

They would never go past 8 because of the additional number of games and all that. If you don't think an 8 team College Football playoff wouldn't be fun as hell to watch, then you're a communist and hate puppies.

 

They'll absolutely go past 8 the first chance they get just like they're going to go past 4 the first chance they get. FCS is 24, DII is 24 and DIII is 32.

 

4 and 8 are the only ok playoff formats but if they go 8, each major conference champ would get a spot so we'd get an 8-5 Wisconsin getting in because they won one specific game over a number of 2-loss teams like in the 2012 season. I still wouldn't want an 8-team but I'd be more okay with it if they went top-8. But that will never happen so keep it at 4 and reward teams who are consistent week in and week out.

[stuy119]

Would an 8 (or even 16) team playoff be fun? Heck yeah.

 

As Tim suggested in a roundabout way, I wish they would have the 1st round at the higher seeded team's home stadium.

 

That having been said, these are still kids, not professionals. It's too much. The current system is too much, and they should drop at least one game and possibly another due to the addition of the conference championship games.

 

It's getting ridiculous, and I say that as someone whose favorite sport is college football.

[Derwood]

Would an 8 (or even 16) team playoff be fun? Heck yeah.

 

As Tim suggested in a roundabout way, I wish they would have the 1st round at the higher seeded team's home stadium.

 

That having been said, these are still kids, not professionals. It's too much. The current system is too much, and they should drop at least one game and possibly another due to the addition of the conference championship games.

 

It's getting ridiculous, and I say that as someone whose favorite sport is college football.

 

How is an 8 team playoff "too many games" for the FBS schools, but not the FCS schools?

[Andy]

Would an 8 (or even 16) team playoff be fun? Heck yeah.

 

As Tim suggested in a roundabout way, I wish they would have the 1st round at the higher seeded team's home stadium.

 

That having been said, these are still kids, not professionals. It's too much. The current system is too much, and they should drop at least one game and possibly another due to the addition of the conference championship games.

 

It's getting ridiculous, and I say that as someone whose favorite sport is college football.

 

How is an 8 team playoff "too many games" for the FBS schools, but not the FCS schools?

I know nothing about the FCS, but I'm pretty sure most of them don't play 12 games and none of them play conference championship games.

[jersey cubs fan]

Would an 8 (or even 16) team playoff be fun? Heck yeah.

 

As Tim suggested in a roundabout way, I wish they would have the 1st round at the higher seeded team's home stadium.

 

That having been said, these are still kids, not professionals. It's too much. The current system is too much, and they should drop at least one game and possibly another due to the addition of the conference championship games.

 

It's getting ridiculous, and I say that as someone whose favorite sport is college football.

 

How is an 8 team playoff "too many games" for the FBS schools, but not the FCS schools?

 

8 team playoff would mean 3 postseason games in addition to the conference championship game which would be a 16 game season for 2 teams. Last year ND State played 15 en route to winning FCS and I think a lot of people would agree that is too many games for college players except for the fact that nobody knows about or cares about North Dakota or its inhabitants.

[Andy]

The seven playoff games would be fun, sure. Playoff games are always fun.

 

Would it be fun enough to make up for the loss of some of that week-to-week tension generated by the exclusivity of a small playoff? I don't think so, though obviously I'm in the minority.

 

Citation needed here. Sure a couple teams will probably be more assured of their playoff spot in the last week or two, but if anything there's far more teams gunning for #8 in November than there will be teams gunning for #4. Also, the 'mulligans' you're referring to are basically 'the right to play one of the best couple teams in the country in the 1st round of the playoffs, possibly on the road'.

More does not always equal better, and the tension will be lessened by the #12 team or whatever still being alive even after at least 2 losses in mid-November. If you can lose twice and still be very much alive, the week-to-week tension plummets.

[Andy]

Can we move some of the playoff games to northern locales or will all the games continue to be home games for southern teams?

 

I still like the idea of an 8 team playoff where the first round is at the home stadiums of the top 4 seeds

If they went to 8, I have to think this is what would happen. It's already pushing it asking fan bases to send thousands of people to two different neutral-site locations within a week and a half. Add a third and you've got problems.

[Andy]

The seven playoff games would be fun, sure. Playoff games are always fun.

 

Would it be fun enough to make up for the loss of some of that week-to-week tension generated by the exclusivity of a small playoff? I don't think so, though obviously I'm in the minority.

 

Citation needed here. Sure a couple teams will probably be more assured of their playoff spot in the last week or two, but if anything there's far more teams gunning for #8 in November than there will be teams gunning for #4. Also, the 'mulligans' you're referring to are basically 'the right to play one of the best couple teams in the country in the 1st round of the playoffs, possibly on the road'.

More does not always equal better, and the tension will be lessened by the #12 team or whatever still being alive even after at least 2 losses in mid-November. If you can lose twice and still be very much alive, the week-to-week tension plummets.

Self-replying here - for instance, the ND/FSU game two weeks ago, while fun, wouldn't have near the meaning in an 8-team system. Both would easily be able to make it to the playoff. In the current system, ND, now having lost the game, is by no means a lock to get in even if they win out, especially since their schedule looks far less overwhelming than it did in July. The entire SEC West season would be different because any team could lose twice and still easily pick up enough quality wins to get an at-large bid. Hell, even as it is, 2 losses might still win the SEC West and therefore give the champ a shot at playing their way in.

[OleMissCub]

The Auburn v Ole Miss game this Saturday may be, in a sense, the first real playoff game of the year. The loser is almost certainly eliminated.

[WrigleyField 22]

Why not keep things more interesting for longer into the season for a much wider range of teams?

 

Or just create a double elimination, 128 team (bump up a few extra FCS schools) playoff to replace the regular season, to really make that second loss meaningful.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy]

The Auburn v Ole Miss game this Saturday may be, in a sense, the first real playoff game of the year. The loser is almost certainly eliminated.

'Almost certainly' might be a stretch as there is any number of scenarios that could end with multiple SEC West teams tied with 2 losses for the division - and given the committee's initial rankings, it looks like the loser will still have plenty of chances to pick up quality wins. But it should affect the playoff picture as much as any game before it.

[Derwood]

The only thing I dislike about this new system (so far) is the decision to have weekly rankings. Imagine if the basketball committee released a top 25 every week starting in mid-January.

 

I somehow thought this football committee wouldn't be heard from until the actual selections. Should've known ESPN wouldn't abide that

[Guest]

The seven playoff games would be fun, sure. Playoff games are always fun.

 

Would it be fun enough to make up for the loss of some of that week-to-week tension generated by the exclusivity of a small playoff? I don't think so, though obviously I'm in the minority.

 

Citation needed here. Sure a couple teams will probably be more assured of their playoff spot in the last week or two, but if anything there's far more teams gunning for #8 in November than there will be teams gunning for #4. Also, the 'mulligans' you're referring to are basically 'the right to play one of the best couple teams in the country in the 1st round of the playoffs, possibly on the road'.

More does not always equal better, and the tension will be lessened by the #12 team or whatever still being alive even after at least 2 losses in mid-November. If you can lose twice and still be very much alive, the week-to-week tension plummets.

Self-replying here - for instance, the ND/FSU game two weeks ago, while fun, wouldn't have near the meaning in an 8-team system. Both would easily be able to make it to the playoff. In the current system, ND, now having lost the game, is by no means a lock to get in even if they win out, especially since their schedule looks far less overwhelming than it did in July. The entire SEC West season would be different because any team could lose twice and still easily pick up enough quality wins to get an at-large bid. Hell, even as it is, 2 losses might still win the SEC West and therefore give the champ a shot at playing their way in.

 

Both ND and FSU can pretty easily still make the playoff in the current format. I mean, there's 4 SEC teams alone in front of ND with like 4-5 games against each other, TCU plays K-State, etc.

 

If your premise were true then no one would care about conference tournaments in basketball season, but those continue to be very popular. The same logic applies, more teams have at least an outside shot at a playoff berth so people tune in to see if it comes to fruition, and teams that are more assured of their spot still have seeding to play for. If anything this is even more significant in the football playoff, because even if a team is a 'lock' the season is short enough that they could stumble into a game where they're a potential underdog or even playing the best/near best team in the country. If the season ended on Saturday in an 8 team playoff, do you think Ole Miss/Auburn would be a pointless affair? No, even if both were guaranteed a spot(they wouldn't, your certainty about locks before championship week is exaggerated), they'd desperately want to win to avoid having to play Florida State/Miss State in round 1.

[dew1679666265]

The main problem with th bowls is not their exhibitive nature but the 5 weeks off. That's the bowl systems only problem.

 

The bowl system in and of itself is fine, but it's wholly inadequate as a postseason system.

[Derwood]

The main problem with th bowls is not their exhibitive nature but the 5 weeks off. That's the bowl systems only problem.

 

The bowl system in and of itself is fine, but it's wholly inadequate as a postseason system.

 

Ryne Ween would like the NCAA basketball tournament replaced with the ACC vs Bug Ten Challenge

[Andy]

The seven playoff games would be fun, sure. Playoff games are always fun.

 

Would it be fun enough to make up for the loss of some of that week-to-week tension generated by the exclusivity of a small playoff? I don't think so, though obviously I'm in the minority.

 

Citation needed here. Sure a couple teams will probably be more assured of their playoff spot in the last week or two, but if anything there's far more teams gunning for #8 in November than there will be teams gunning for #4. Also, the 'mulligans' you're referring to are basically 'the right to play one of the best couple teams in the country in the 1st round of the playoffs, possibly on the road'.

More does not always equal better, and the tension will be lessened by the #12 team or whatever still being alive even after at least 2 losses in mid-November. If you can lose twice and still be very much alive, the week-to-week tension plummets.

Self-replying here - for instance, the ND/FSU game two weeks ago, while fun, wouldn't have near the meaning in an 8-team system. Both would easily be able to make it to the playoff. In the current system, ND, now having lost the game, is by no means a lock to get in even if they win out, especially since their schedule looks far less overwhelming than it did in July. The entire SEC West season would be different because any team could lose twice and still easily pick up enough quality wins to get an at-large bid. Hell, even as it is, 2 losses might still win the SEC West and therefore give the champ a shot at playing their way in.

 

Both ND and FSU can pretty easily still make the playoff in the current format. I mean, there's 4 SEC teams alone in front of ND with like 4-5 games against each other, TCU plays K-State, etc.

 

If your premise were true then no one would care about conference tournaments in basketball season, but those continue to be very popular. The same logic applies, more teams have at least an outside shot at a playoff berth so people tune in to see if it comes to fruition, and teams that are more assured of their spot still have seeding to play for. If anything this is even more significant in the football playoff, because even if a team is a 'lock' the season is short enough that they could stumble into a game where they're a potential underdog or even playing the best/near best team in the country. If the season ended on Saturday in an 8 team playoff, do you think Ole Miss/Auburn would be a pointless affair? No, even if both were guaranteed a spot(they wouldn't, your certainty about locks before championship week is exaggerated), they'd desperately want to win to avoid having to play Florida State/Miss State in round 1.

 

All your points have some degree of merit, frankly. I think I might just be an old man on this topic.

[Ryne Ween]

College football forever was you had to go undefeated to have a shot the 1 ranking. One loss combined with a bunch of other factors and maybe you might have a shot. In a 4 playoff system you obviously can lose a game as an sec team without much consequence, in an 8 team playoff anybody can get in with a 1 loss record for the most part. Maybe two losses as an sec team. To act like that isn't going to reduce the importance of every single week is dumb.

 

To cheapen the thirteen week season for three playoff games is stupid. College football never needed this. It's become a monstrous juggernaut without it and never needed it. For espn to get three more games. Why do you want it so bad. These are probably gonna be matchups we've seen before anyway. We are gonna get auburn ole miss. And the egg bowl and the iron bowl. We saw miss st auburn and ole miss alabama. So we at gonna cheapen the regular season (I hate even calling it that) so that you all can watch mike tirico hand out a playoff trophy sucks ass. Why do you want this. The old way was one huge 13 week sudden death single elimination college football orgy and you are replacing it with condeleeza rice. Oz never gave nothing to the tin man that he didn't already have.

[Derwood]

Because every single other sport on earth has a tournament to crown its champion.

 

And maybe, just maybe, if teams can regularly get into the field of 8 with one loss, they'll be more likely to schedule real OOC games instead of Coastal Carolina and Chatanooga

[fiver]

I'm watching a relay of the ole miss -LSU game, and LSU is really able to move the ball on the ground. They just keep fumbling. If auburn can run the ball , I do see them breaking that streak of games that ole miss has keeping teams to 20 points and under. Auburn plays man to man coverage, so ole miss is going to run a lot of the same rub routes they ran against LSU. Treadwell is going be a problem for AU.

[Exile on Waveland]

Because every single other sport on earth has a tournament to crown its champion.

 

Except the English Premier League, La Liga, the Bundesliga, Serie A, Etc. . . .

[Exile on Waveland]

Because every single other sport on earth has a tournament to crown its champion.

 

Except the English Premier League, La Liga, the Bundesliga, Serie A, Etc. . . .

 

Shut up, soccer nerd.

 

 

(I'm pro-college football playoff.)

[Derwood]

Because every single other sport on earth has a tournament to crown its champion.

 

Except the English Premier League, La Liga, the Bundesliga, Serie A, Etc. . . .

 

Sure, but there is the World Cup, the Europe(an?) Cup, etc., etc. etc.

[OleMissCub]

I'm watching a relay of the ole miss -LSU game, and LSU is really able to move the ball on the ground. They just keep fumbling. If auburn can run the ball , I do see them breaking that streak of games that ole miss has keeping teams to 20 points and under. Auburn plays man to man coverage, so ole miss is going to run a lot of the same rub routes they ran against LSU. Treadwell is going be a problem for AU.

 

Ole Miss' offense will look absolutely nothing like it did against LSU. I have zero clue what the hell any of that was against LSU. Never seen anything like that under Freeze. I guess they were just trying to control the clock or something but running 25 draws straight up the middle with a 160lb running back is something that I'm guessing won't be attempted against Auburn. Look for the Rebels to throw it a ton and with more success than they had against LSU. Wallace went full potato during that game, something he hasn't done all year up to that point (save for the first half of the season). I don't anticipate him having two games in a row like that, especially since this game is at home.

 

Also, from what I've seen, Auburn's running game is a lot different than LSU's. LSU just pounds the rock up the middle whereas Auburn seems to use the outside and misdirection plays more. The Rebel defense is built to stop that type of run game with their speedy LB's and safeties. Ole Miss hasn't given up more than 20 points in a game in their last 10 games, but I think that streak ends Saturday. It'll be a shootout and Auburn will win in the end. Malzahn has more of a killer instinct than Freeze does. 27-24, Auburn.

[Derwood]

Sandusky case solved.

 

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2014/10/29/hice-sandusky-raped-kids-because-of-separation-of-church-and-state/