John Rowe's Plea for Reason and Clemson
John Rowe, ex-attorney and now novelist---sent me this. He is old (not as old as me, but old enough and challenged re: anything beyond a typewriter) so I am posting it---since I think it is amusing.
As America's leading hater of the ACC (please explain to me WHY in the wide, wide world of sports is that pitiful conference even considered a "Power 5" conference in football?), my first reaction upon learning that Clemson was the Committee's choice as the early leader in NCAA FB was total disgust. But my second reaction was an even more sickening realization: the Committee's probably right.
Clemson probably IS as deserving as anyone of the #1 spot. Ouch. How pathetic is it that the #1 resume of any team in the land is that: (1) Clemson beat Notre Dame at home, 24-22, only because the Domers effed up that last-play two-point conversion that would have sent the game to OT; and (2) Clemson's "signature" win was that scintillating 56-41 road win over NC State?
We all know how hard it is to go to Raleigh and win a football game. (Actually, winning a football game against NC State is not hard at all; but figuring out the precise combo of small borderline-bankrupt airlines and busses required to GET to Raleigh -- THAT is seriously hard!) But meanwhile, we now live in a country where the #1 team in the land -- according to the A-Team of college football mavens -- is a team that gave up FORTY-ONE POINTS to North Carolina State, when David Thompson was NOT involved. Ouch again.
But when you look at the other "candidates" for the top FB team in the land, you realize that Clemson's blistering schedule -- opening against Wofford and Appalachian State, then moving on to beating Louisville & Notre Dame by five points combined, before getting into the real MEAT of that rugged ACC schedule Clemson plays every year -- Georgia Tech, Boston College, the Program Formerly Known As Miami But Now On Life Support After Hooker-Gate, and NC State "on the road" -- man, it's sad to say, but that schedule of Clemson's is, by the numbers, as tough as anyone's in the nation.
Give Sparty kudos for scheduling Oregon at home -- but alas, the Quack Attack ain't what it used to be. And understandably, Sparty's miraculous survivals against Oregon, Purdue and U/M left the Committee unimpressed. Meanwhile Ohio State has played its usual brutal pre-season schedule of Western Michigan, Northern Illinois, Hawaii and Virginia Tech, before tackling Big Ten powerhouses Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana and the Program Formerly Known as Paterno University, But Now On Life Support After Child-Abuse-Gate. Is it any really any wonder that Clemson is the #1 team in the land?
The SEC talks a great game. But the reality is, eight games into the season, the SEC doesn't have a single team that's played more than half its schedule against winning programs -- which is basically Clemson's big claim to fame (supposedly Clemson has played four winning programs, although I think App State is among those four). And you don't even want to look at the schedules of the leading Big Twelve and Pac 12 teams, they're so loaded with cupcakes.
Truth is, college football is as bogus as one of those silly hats Lee Corso wears -- Corso, by the numbers, one of the all-time worst football coaches, but now a self-anointed expert, whose braying, for reasons unknown, we all listen to each and every Saturday. Why can't Obama order meaningful reform for college football? I don't care if the players are all like Cardale Jones, honest enough to admit they don't even know where the alleged classrooms are that they're supposed to attend. Just please make their teams play meaningful games, so we'd actually know which teams are the best!
Best, Samantha Ponder
November 4th, 2015 at 9:44 AM ^
But there are five weeks of football left, so woohoo!
November 4th, 2015 at 11:14 AM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 9:45 AM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 2:23 PM ^
So much anger
November 4th, 2015 at 9:46 AM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 9:46 AM ^
Identity crisis.
November 4th, 2015 at 9:53 AM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 3:19 PM ^
yes, he signed it Samantha Ponder.
He often signs under other names.
November 4th, 2015 at 9:47 AM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 10:08 AM ^
on how this season looks like it is going down, I actually think the playoff will be expanded to 8 sooner than I thought (within 5 years). I think that they will eliminate 1 non conference game for all schools, start the season one week earlier, and make the former 4 BCS bowl games the playoff games and then the entire final four will not be "bowls" at all but likely played on the same day back to back with the championship game a week later. What they have done so far is a half measure and they have attempted to do it within the confines of the bowl system, but I think full reform is in the works and that the college post season landscape is going to look a lot different.
November 4th, 2015 at 1:17 PM ^
It's interesting because taking the playoff to 8 teams total would also kill a lot of the soap opera that's following right now.
It would further diminish the winner-take-all mentality of the regular season (oh no @ "regular season", as I hate pro sports).
Previous to the BCS, the entire goal was to "win your conference title", then do so well in the "eye test" that you were VOTED as the national champion.
The 2 BCS made the margin for error near ZERO, with a decent-to-major, depending on the year, amount of controversy about who gets in.
The 4 CFP makes the margin nominal, but, you can "play you're way back" into the CFP despite having a loss. However a P5 conference will ALWAYS be left out. Which isn't "always" a bad thing, as some seasons a conference champ can be a dud.
8 Teams seems like it would, more or less, go back to the pre-BCS goal of "winning the conference title", and then, avoiding the VOTING for national championship, and instead, go into PLAYING for it. However, you would then get ~3 teams that could get in, despite not winning their title, or being independent.
Now, this might seem like a great thing (who doesn't like MOAR football? And, who doesn't want to see it decided ON THE FIELD as opposed to "voters), but I think 8 Teams might be a bit much, despite automatic logic to move from 4 to 8.
8 teams would water down the intensity (and hype) of the CFP, to a degree, and the winner-take-all mentality of the conference season.
At the end of the season (key word being "end") of the season, a #1 versus a #8 should be a no-brainer, and really shouldn't need to be played. a #2 versus #7 seems like it would be a long-shot. Even a #3 versus a #6 seems like it could be a formality. But, a #4 versus a #5? Now that seems like it could be worth watching.
#1 is a team who people think ARE THE BEST
#2 is the NEXT best (with debate of being #1)
#3 holds the designation of, we'd be next to the next best. (few debate they are #1, but MANYwill debate they are #2)
#4, is a PIVOTAL ranking, clearly a #4 has some question marks (the #4 team won it last year, and there were question marks prior to the CFP, but they were answered in the CFP (but not TCU's question marks!)). But CLEARLY the #4 team STILL shouldn't be the cut-off point.
#5 should theorhetically be able to play competitively with #4. And would allow EVERY Power-Five conference to send a team.
#6 is definitely pushing it, there's usually almost zero debate about a #6 deserving to be a #1 or #2 or #3, or even #4. But if there happens to be an independent or non-p5 team that has looked the part, or, a conference is having an exceptionally strong year and has two GREAT teams, his would give them a chance to not be excluded.
And that's as far as it should go. #7 and up (again this all hinges on how much we truly even believe in "rankings") should, nearly all of the time, still be a "great" team (by the end of the season clearly), but shouldn't still be in the conversation, at all.
#1 v. #8 "should be" superfluous. As should #2 v. #7.
But a 4-5-6 playing to "get in". That would be awesome to watch!
I wouldn't be surprised if they moved to 8 Teams. But I think (and it's just my thoughts) that something around 5-6 would meet both sides halfway.
November 5th, 2015 at 7:49 AM ^
Once the SEC gets left out 1 time you watch how fast it goes to 8.
November 4th, 2015 at 9:48 AM ^
Why does John Rowe sign his name Samantha Ponder?
Is it a pun?
November 4th, 2015 at 9:51 AM ^
I don't listen to Lee Corso
November 4th, 2015 at 9:52 AM ^
I watched Clemson vs Notre Dame and it is obvious they were very lucky to win that game. Clemson is overrated and will be exposed when they play a team with a pulse.
They'll bring their guts and the other guys will bring carving knives.
November 4th, 2015 at 9:58 AM ^
Here's to hoping FSU beats them this weekend. I don't think either one will get into the 4 team playoff with a loss on their record, so it would help sort things out a bit.
November 4th, 2015 at 10:54 AM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 11:04 AM ^
There will be long-winded debates no matter what, but I don't think that would be the teams we'd be debating.
If Florida runs the table and beats FSU and wins the SEC championship game, I'd say they're a lock for the final four.
I think this weekend's Alabama vs LSU game is essentially a playoff game. The loser should be out of contention. If any team can't win its own division, they don't belong in the conversation for a final four bid.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:27 PM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 4:05 PM ^
Okay, maybe my bias against Clemson has me in a state of denial.
In order for Clemson to miss the playoffs they would probably have to lose Sat. & look shakey over the last few weeks. However, I would expect (because I don't like Clemson, read - hope), over the next five weeks (where Clemson will follow up FSU with Syracuse, Wake Forest and South Carolina followed by a meh matchup in the ACC champ. game) there will be several schools that have an opportunity to pass Clemson.
MSU, OSU, Baylor, TCU, Alabama and LSU all have tougher schedules remaining. I know they can't all run the table because several will be playing each other. As much as I hate to say it, it's still hard to see Clemson missing out on the playoffs though.
November 4th, 2015 at 7:19 PM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 9:46 PM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 7:36 PM ^
Why do you hate Clemson? Just because you think they're overrated? I don't have anything against them. I'd be much more pleased with Clemson getting in and the SEC getting left out somehow. I'm rooting for Clemson this Saturday because FSU has a good shot of getting in if they win out (wins over Clemson, Florida, a decent championship game opponent), and I hate those guys.
November 4th, 2015 at 9:50 PM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 12:03 PM ^
That's their next opponent. My son went to Clemson. He's hoping things don't change and they face North Carolina in Charlotte on Dec. 6.
I don't know how good Clemson is or isn't based on their schedule, but putting two SEC schools in the Top 4 just because doesn't seem like it's based on anything more than past experience either. So, if Alabama loses at home to Mississippi but Ohio State beats everyone it has played, the difference is Mississippi is better than Indiana?
If Bama beats LSU, does LSU actually drop out of the Top 4? Because I mean, really, who are we kidding here?
November 4th, 2015 at 2:29 PM ^
If not FSU... the ACC championship game? If they beat FSU the CFP looks like a lock for Clemson. Unless one of those famed Clemsoning's happens...
November 4th, 2015 at 9:56 AM ^
Sam Ponder is oh so fine.
November 4th, 2015 at 10:02 AM ^
ummm...yeah.
November 4th, 2015 at 9:56 AM ^
Love the rant, but "bordeline-bankrupt" describes just about any given airline at any given time. I fly American to Raleigh direct on a regular basis.
But to your/his point: this problem with soft early season schedules is not going to go away and one important reason for it that will be difficult to overcome is this: most big programs rely on OOC home games to guarantee their revenue stream. Our dearly departed ex-AD came out and said that Michigan's AD budget depended on at least 7 home games per season, preferably 8. Up to this season, that meant 4 B1G home games, so ideally 3 out of the 4 OOC games had to be at home, and you're going to have a tough time finding Power 5 competition to fill those slots because they want to do the same thing.
Going forward with 9 B1G games, 4-5 will be at home, so in 'off' years with 4 home games and 5 B1G road games, there will be only 3 OOC games to try to get 3 additional home games. That is going to be hard without scheduling some 'soft' teams that want the Big House paycheck. 2017 will be tough with 6 home games, but the 'neutral' site paycheck in Arlington will help make up for it.
November 4th, 2015 at 10:11 AM ^
wrong post
November 4th, 2015 at 10:55 AM ^
The 2016 football schedule will have eight home games on it, but the non-conference portion was put in place prior to the Big Ten adopting a nine-game confernce schedule. It was supposed to include a road game at Notre Dame, but with that contest scheduled and with the B10 putting five conference games on UM's schedule, we now have the Wolverines playing in Ann Arbor against Hawaii, Colorado, Central Florida, Penn State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Maryland and Indiana.
The 2017 schedule includes four home conference games (Michigan State, Rutgers, Minnesota, Ohio State) along with two home non-conference games (Cincinnati and Air Force). The neutral site game with Florida was announced in Decmeber 2013--about five months after the Big Ten announced its nine-game schedules. That means Brandon was willing to accept a six game home schedule plus the payout that UM would get from Jerry Jones to play UF in Dallas.
In 2018, Michigan again has five home conference games (Nebraska, Maryland, Wisconsin, Penn State, Indiana) and four conference games (at Northwestern, at Michigan State, at Rutgers, at Ohio State). The two non-conference games include the season home opener with Arkansas and SMU. Hackett and Harbaugh have to make a decision on that final non-conference opponent. Will it be a pay for play team or a home-and-home series for 2018 and probably 2019? If the former, Michigan will again be playing eight home games in 2018 and six for 2019. If the latter, then we could see seven home games in 2018 and six in 2019.
In 2020/21, Brandon scheduled two home-and-home series with Washington and Virginia Tech. If Hackett/Harbaugh don't change that, then Michigan will probably be playing seven home games in 2020 and just six in 2021.
The bottom line to all this is that Brandon was apparently willing to have just six home games on the schedule. Did he think that television revenue would offset the lost in ticket sales? Did he think giving UM an overall more difficult schedue was better in some way? We don't know. In 2017, admittedly, the neutral site game will pay essentially the same as a home game. But 2019 and 2021 could be different stories, especially since Hackett says he doesn't want to play neutral site games.
We'll see what happens,but my best assessment is that Michigan will have pay for play opponents in 2018 and 2019 to round out the non-conference schedule and ensure that UM has eight and six home games those two years. I'll be curious to see if he opts to keep both Washington and Virginia Tech on the 2020/1 schedules or not.
Finally, of course, we have Hackett's flirtation with Notre Dame. Between 2022 and 2027, Michigan has home-and-home series with UCLA, Oklahoma and Texas. Does he drop one of those teams for ND or does had add the Irish to the non-conference schedule in any of those years? Stay tuned.
November 4th, 2015 at 11:51 AM ^
It seems that the playoff ranking committee is paying more than lip service to strength of schedule in their rankings.
Get ND back on the schedule, at least twice every four years and preferably in two consecutive years out of the four.
If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best.
November 4th, 2015 at 12:06 PM ^
Yes, I have:
2016 OOC (all home games):
Hawaii - basement dweller in a weak conference
UCF - basement dweller in a weak conference
Colorado- - basement dweller in a P5 conference
2017 OOC (all home or neutral games):
Florida - neutral site
Cincy - decent but not strong team in a weak conference
Air Force - (not supposed to schedule them, right?) of course they'll take the check, anywhere
We can't really say much beyond that, Arkansas looked like a great home-home up until recently, hopefully they'll get their shit back together in 3 years. SMU is another weak conference basement dweller. Yeah we have a few good things lined up but lots of open slots many of which probably will go to weaker teams who want the check so that we can protect the revenue stream.
November 4th, 2015 at 1:30 PM ^
You have to schedule these so far out the way thngs currently work, you have to hope the opponenet is still good. I know they beat us last year, but Va Tech wasn't a great team last year or this year, but when we scheduled them they were. Same with Cal a few years back. We have Oklahoma coming up this year and next, then TCU for two years and then Oregon for two. TCU looks really good at this point, but in three years folks might be saying, "Well who did OSU beat OOC? TCU? Please." Oregon could be back by the time we play them or they could spiral into what they were in the early 90s.
November 4th, 2015 at 10:10 AM ^
you hate Clemson, the ACC, Notre Dame, Oregon, Paterno, the Big Ten, the SEC, pre-conference cupcakes, college football without a playoff, college football with a playoff, and Lee Corso?
And you apparently have serious, serious issues with NC State.
November 4th, 2015 at 10:11 AM ^
wise, to cater to the internet, which hates all things at all times.
November 4th, 2015 at 10:19 AM ^
People love all things cats on the internet.
November 4th, 2015 at 10:35 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 4th, 2015 at 11:35 AM ^
I would rather see a cat on the internet than in my house.
November 4th, 2015 at 10:19 AM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 10:01 AM ^
He used a lot of words to say that there isn't a super-elite team this year.
At least I assume that's what he said. I read the first paragraph and skimmed the last 38 paragraphs.
November 4th, 2015 at 10:10 AM ^
Why can't Obama order meaningful reform for college football? I don't care if the players are all like Cardale Jones, honest enough to admit they don't even know where the alleged classrooms are that they're supposed to attend.
I am going to say that the "Alabama Must Not Play Presbyterian" Strength Of Schedule Reform Act is going to meet with some stiff resistance from respresentatives in certain parts of the country who might be alums of schools that enjoy the deal they've worked out with less capable football institutions.
November 4th, 2015 at 10:11 AM ^
I mean what does the guy expect? For there to be at least 4 teams that schedule nothing but top-10 OOC opponents and proceed to wail on everyone 63-0? Every team is going to have flaws, or some teams are going to look flawless, but against far inferior competition.
Can't always get what you want pal.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 4th, 2015 at 10:21 AM ^
regard, and despite the fact that I want to puke on their face at all times, I think State got jobbed in this poll. Out of conference road game against a upper tier MAC school, check. Big home win against a team that was ranked in the Top 5 at the time, check. Huge road win against a really good Michigan team in a very hostile environment, check. Also, Air Force is never easy and presents a very unique challenge. Granted, I expect it to come crashing down like a ton of bricks in Columbus, but I do think State has a legit gripe at 7.
(I also think we would take FSU, Oklahoma State, and Memphis to pound town so I think we got a little jobbed too).
November 4th, 2015 at 10:33 AM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 10:40 AM ^
are better than Baylor, and ND has a loss. Maybe not a Top 4 spot but I think they should currently be better than 7. That is just, like, my opinion though man.
November 4th, 2015 at 11:19 AM ^
November 4th, 2015 at 10:19 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 4th, 2015 at 12:33 PM ^
My issue with strength of schedule has more to do with the types of programs some teams play in their out of conference schedules vs. the quality (record) of those teams. (I agree that in-conference schedules are what they are, you have to play them).
Part of what makes football so difficult is the 12 week pounding the body takes. When teams play against very small schools from lower levels, they do not encounter the same physical demands.
Here's a brief example:
1) Michigan's OOC: Utah, UNLV, Oregon St and BYU
2) LSU's OOC: McNeese St (didn't get played), Syracuse, E Michigan and Western Kentucky.
3) Alabama's OOC: Wisconsin, Middle Tennessee St, UL Monroe and Charleston Southern
Michigan had to play against three teams with legit strength and conditioning programs who can recruit legit D1 athletes (UNLV being the exception). Even though Oregon St. sucks, you are still fighting against athletes who are close to your capabilities.
There is no way you can claim McNeese St, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee St, UL Monroe and Charleston Southern are recruiting and developing the type of athletes that are even close to the level of a legit D1 program. That makes a big difference. When you play twelve games and three of them (in the case of Alabama) are basically like playing against the freshman or JV squad.
Another way to look at it, UNLV (Michigan's worst OOC opponent) would beat 5 of LSU's and Alabama's worst opponents at least 7 out of 10 times head to head.