- Member for
- 8 years 22 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Football is very physical and I think there is too much of an advantage of not playing a playoff game versus playing in the 1st round. While there is little difference between finishing 1st and 2nd, there is too big of a difference between 2nd and 3rd in the 6-team format. And no, I don't like the current NFL format.
- An 8-team format allows for the possibility of a representative of the non-P5 to get in, thus nipping a potential legal issue in the bud. And having the team, when qualified, as the 8th seed gives plenty reward to the team finishing as the 1st seed. An 8-team field allows for a degree of inclusion that is in line with the number of teams there are (118 or so).
- Having 8 teams allows the conference champions to be more easily included, while also including the strongest of the teams that failed to win their conference. This year the field would be Alabama, Clemson, OSU, Michigan, Penn State, Washington, Oklahoma and the 8th seed (probably USC and not Wisconsin nor the highest ranked G5 team, Western Michigan). Damn strong field, all P-5 conference champions are included, and every team in the field would have a realistic chance to win it.
- It seems that with the 4-team format, there is little reward and all risk to scheduling a decent out-of-conference slate of teams. See Washington. Would that be less so with an 8-team format? I would guess so, a little bit.
|18 hours 42 min ago||I prefer||
an 8-team playoff format over 6 teams for a number of reasons.
|1 day 20 hours ago||I'm sure the results of the games this weekend||
were exactly what the committee wanted, and made for the easiest decisions.
No change in the top 4, where 4 conferences are represented, 3 as conference champions. The only undefeated team #1 and with the only 1 loss teams in the other 3 spots.
The last thing they ever want is have to select from all of the 2-loss teams and end up having to select 2 teams from the same conference.
They were saved that with both Clemson and Washington winning.
|4 days 11 hours ago||Wilson had $11M on his contract||
and he settled for a little over half a million.
Holy crap, they must have really caught him in bed with a dead hooker or a live boy.
|6 days 8 hours ago||In short,||
yes, for the very same reason they chose Florida over Michigan in 2006.
Other conferences are going to be represented.
The Big Ten is not going to have 75% of the teams, and the argument of the importance of conference champions is made a mockery if 2 teams from a single conference are taken, neither of which are the conference champion.
|6 days 9 hours ago||Not at all||
Think about it.
If conference championships matter (which they state), how do you take both Michigan AND Ohio State over their conference champion?
Ohio State is in over Michigan, period. They have 1 less loss and won the head-to-head. There is no getting around that.
Alabama is in, period.
For Michigan to get in, the committee has to dismiss THREE OTHER conference champions. How does that fit in with everything that has been stated regarding criteria?
Fine, Michigan won head-to-head against presumptive conference champ Colorado. But the ACC and Big12 champs? Didn't play them.
Do you really think that the NCAA will be OK with alienating all 3 of the other, unrepresented conferences under the incredibly subjective umbrella of "well, we selected the 4 best teams, and 3 were from the Big Ten"?
Not a chance.
|6 days 10 hours ago||Perhaps||
(although I disagree) but Iowa cost Michigan the CFP.
A win at Iowa and aloss to OSU, Michigan stands 11-1 and is in OSU's shoes now, automatically in the CFP.
Ohio State would have to win the Big Ten Championship in order to make the CFP. If Wisconsin wins, they are marginal to make it. But Michigan would have been in the CFP regardless of the OSU game.
The Iowa game was a killer.
|6 days 10 hours ago||Unfortunately, it doesn't matter||
if Michigan is one of the 4 best teams.
The committee has 5 power conferences that have a vested interest in the teams that are chosen. With only 4 slots and 5 conferences, they are already in a position to nuke 1 of the conferences. By taking 2 teams they are now nuking 2 conference champions.
In effect they are now alienating not 1 but 2 conferences.
They don't want to do that.
By taking Ohio State (who they are obviously going to take) and Michigan they are saying that conference championships DON'T FUCKING MATTER BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T TAKE THOSE TWO TEAMS' CONFERENCE CHAMPION.
And that makes no sense.
You can't have it both ways.
If you value conference champions, Michigan fails - the Big Ten Champion HAS TO BE CHOSEN OVER MICHIGAN, let alone other conference champions.
If you value record, OSU, ALABAMA, and any other 1-loss team has to be chosen over Michigan.
The only basis to chose Michigan is the subjective, eye-ball test. Is Michigan a top-4 team? YES THEY ARE!
And I think they have proven that.
But is that defensible give the nature of the of politics of the NCAA CFP committee.
|6 days 11 hours ago||The problem is||
you're expecting OSU to drop to #5 without playing.
You are expecting OSU to drop below teams that have more losses and a worse resume.
You are expecting the committee to drop OSU below the "eyeball" test that tells them that they are easily a top-4 team, if not the #2 team that they are clearly stating they are right now.
All I have detailed in my posts what Brian didn't but alluded to in his post on Monday.
The way things are aligned, Michigan is not getting into the the CFP, period.
It sucks, that that is what it is.
|6 days 12 hours ago||I have always been a||
I have always been a proponent of an 8-team playoff. That takes care of the conference champs (auto entry) and 3 at-large.
This also allows for the undefeated non-P5 teams to get in, which really would be in the best interest of college football at large (as well as avoid a similar legal problem that has recent precedent).
|6 days 12 hours ago||Losses count more, the strength of the conference next.||
That is why there is a P5 and the other conferences. The strength of the conference matters, not the actual championship.
That is why Ohio State is #2, and I don't think they will fall regardless of what happens this weekend.
Also, the committee will not take a P5 conference champ with 1 additional loss over a 11-1 Ohio State from the strongest conference (with their additional blow-out of Oklahoma in Norman).
Ohio State is not only in but is highly unlikely to budge from #2.
|6 days 12 hours ago||I've posted this a couple of times before:||
Alabama and Ohio State are in, regardless of what happens.
Whomever wins the Big Ten championship, the committee is NOT going to take 2 teams from a conference where NEITHER is the conference champion. NOT going to happen.
The only way Michigan makes it is a the 3rd Big Ten team. That is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
Michigan has been issued cement boots at #5. They will not rise, they will not fall. They will remain #5.
|6 days 13 hours ago||The winner of which will||
The winner of which will probably jump Michigan.
For Michigan to make the CFP, they need both Clemson and Washington to lose, and even then I highly doubt the committee would take 3 Big Ten teams (they will take the champion and Ohio State).
|6 days 14 hours ago||I'd actually be surprised if||
I'd actually be surprised if Brian UFR'd half the OSU games since the inception of the blog. All of which were after losses, which, yeah, is most of the time.
|6 days 17 hours ago||With all of the in-depth||
post that the readership puts out, I hope/suspect that someone is working on this.
Others have said it, but during the game I kept noticing all of the unfavorable spots for Michigan and favorable ones for Ohio State. And I do think that there was an abundance of favorable spots for OSU and none or virtually none for Michigan.
But I forgot about them when I started noticing all of the calls Michigan wasn't getting.
|6 days 22 hours ago||Of course||
1st, if the Big Ten's review was going to be anything, it was going to be self-serving, so they were going to find virtually nothing.
2nd, due to the discrepancy in penalties, as well as all of the non-calls that went in favor of Ohio State, they wouldn't throw gas on the fire, they would find a token miss that OSU should have been penalized.
Finally, that token miss was not going to be in the 4th Q or in the OTs where the game was decided, it was going to be in the 1st Q, 2nd at the latest, where said missed call would have little to no impact on the outcome of the game.
In short, regardless of what was on the film, the Big Ten review was not going to find anything.
|1 week 14 hours ago||OR||
Harbaugh could send $10,000 worth of suppositories.
Then he could very legitimately tell Delaney to shove them up his ass.
All in good health, of course.
|1 week 1 day ago||I'm surprised that||
he's not throwing confetti.
|1 week 1 day ago||How about you just let this||
How about you just let this happen organically. If you use it and people pick it up, fine.
But a new thread to propose this is just forced.
|1 week 1 day ago||So OSU, ranked #2 in the CFP||
So OSU, ranked #2 in the CFP rankings, beats #3 Michigan in same said rankings, will drop to #5 after the championship games?
Below teams that the CFP has continually disrespected? Below teams that have played is far weaker conferences, and have far worse resumes?
And ultimately, below a team with 2 losses?
They wont. Book it.
|1 week 1 day ago||Yeah, but||
isn't your thread kind of the football equivalent of telling Mrs. Lincoln to look at the bright side, the play was pretty good?
|1 week 1 day ago||Good analysis||
Not that it is worth much, but the players on both sides reacted to the play as if Barrett did not make it.
It seems the only one that thought Barrett did was the official that spotted the ball.
|1 week 1 day ago||Yep||
You go right ahead a leave that there like the turd that it is.
Never mind that you had to rotate the image in order to try to distort the perspective in order to make your point.
Never mind that you had to crop it so that nobody sees the incredibly slanted hash marks. Looking at the image, it looks as if the field was inclined about 30 degrees down to the left. Was it? Of course not, because your image is bullshit.
And that is the point, isn't it? Your argument is so weak, you have to resort to distorted images.
Well, lets talk about your bullshit image. Where's the ball? In Barrett's right hand and where?
Is the ball 8 inches up #88's ass? Because that is where it would have to be in order to be a 1st down in your image.
|1 week 1 day ago||The running into the kicker||
The running into the kicker penalty on Michigan that gave Ohio State a first down is in effect a turnover and probably should be counted into your list as well.
|1 week 1 day ago||There is just a huge optics problem for Michigan getting in||
Ohio State, at 11-1, is in.
So, if the committee is going to take a 2nd Big Ten team for the playoff, do they take 10-2 Michigan, or 11-2 Big Ten Champion (that Michigan beat)?
If the committee selects Michigan, then they are taking 2 Big Ten teams, neither of which are the conference champion. I just don't see that happening.
The only other chance is if Colorado beats Washington and Clemson loses to VaTech in their respective conference championship games, and the committee decides to take 3 Big Ten teams + Alabama.
And the chances all this happens is quite remote.
|1 week 2 days ago||It isn't whining when you have a legitimate complaint.||
Someone should throw you under the BursleyBaitsBus.
|1 week 2 days ago||Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what happens elsewhere.||
Ohio State is in.
The Big Ten Championship game is going to be Penn State vs. Wisconsin. The winner has 2 losses, just like Michigan, and also will have lost to Michigan.
So, is the committee going to take OSU and Michigan, both from the Big Ten, yet not take the conference champion.
Not a chance.
For Michigan to get in there would have to be 3 Big Ten teams and Alabama in the NCAA championship. And that ain't gonna happen neither.
The OSU loss was understandable, but the Iowa loss was a killer.
|1 week 2 days ago||The problem I had with the 4th down||
spot was that Barrett fell into the back of his own man, who was laying on the 15. How could Barrett, holding the ball, also have gotten to the 15? 2 bodies of mass, same space, same time, all of that?
But also, my understanding of the forward progress rules apply to a defensive player. But when a ball carrier bounces of his own player? I'm not sure forward progress applies.
Also, the interference non-call was bad, as were the bazillion non-call holding penalties that should have been called by OSU.
Finally, Michigan did give this game away:
* 3 turnovers including a pick six
* a running into the kicker penalty that gave the ball back to OSU
* The Hill interference penalty that was totally unneeded
* Losing contain on 3rd down in 2nd OT when Samuel should have lost 10 yards rather than gaining all but a foot for the 1st down.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Just to make sure,||
drink a pitcher of Daquiries. Well, maybe 2 or 3, just to be safe.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||From the ESPN website boxscore of both games:||
Barrett against Indiana:
O'Korn against Indiana:
Barrett also had 137 yards rushing that game.
The difference between the two is not a close as you portray.
|3 weeks 14 hours ago||My concern is I||
just don't want to make it a habit.