College Football 2016 Thread

[DRiccio21]

the funniest back and forth which sums up how ridiculous the whole process is was today on ESPN someone said (paraphrasing):

'so if Penn St had scheduled and beat Portland St instead of Pitt, you think they should have been in?'

'yes, absolutely'

its certainly accurate based on the non conference we saw from Washington, but how does that help anyone or reward teams to schedule any risky game in non-conference.

the thing that pissed me off the most was the comment the guy from the committee made about Oklahoma when asked if he could explain why they weren't more highly considered and the answer was 'their defense wasn't up to par'. WHAT THE FUCK? how is that a criteria? if they went 12-0 and won every game 60-57, would their defense have mattered then? why are you required to play a certain way? who cares if your defense blows, seemed like a really odd comment to me.

[nick]

in the future if a team is on the bubble and in a conf champ matchup while a team isnt in could very well get in (CFPlayoffs) , id love for coaches to decline the conf champ since it means nothing.. absolutely nothing.

[nick]

also Penn St gets in without the sandusky incident.

[nick]

what makes the system even more broken is it was Wash vs PSU for #4 and not Ohio St v PSU..

[BFiVL]

Clem OSU will be a great game. I don't know much about Washington.

[shel311]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of Penn St over Washington.

Winning the stacked Big 10 this season is obviously more impressive than winning the PAC 12 with the same amount of losses.

So then, we're penalizing Penn St for losing an OOC game to Pitt, which would be fine if Washington played an OOC team with a pulse, but they didn't. So they're being rewarded for playing that cupcake OOC scheduled, and I think they should have been left out for those reasons, and it would also send that message to teams to play a tough OOC schedule or it could cost you.

[ReignOnU]

1. Alabama vs 8. Western Michigan
2. Clemson vs 7. Oklahoma
3. Ohio St. vs 6. Michigan
4. Washington vs 5. Penn St

Looks awesome... I think we will eventually get to something like this.

[nick]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of Penn St over Washington.

Winning the stacked Big 10 this season is obviously more impressive than winning the PAC 12 with the same amount of losses.
So then, we're penalizing Penn St for losing an OOC game to Pitt, which would be fine if Washington played an OOC team with a pulse, but they didn't. So they're being rewarded for playing that cupcake OOC scheduled, and I think they should have been left out for those reasons, and it would also send that message to teams to play a tough OOC schedule or it could cost you.

Wash was 12-1 and PSU were 11-2

[shel311]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of Penn St over Washington.

Winning the stacked Big 10 this season is obviously more impressive than winning the PAC 12 with the same amount of losses.
So then, we're penalizing Penn St for losing an OOC game to Pitt, which would be fine if Washington played an OOC team with a pulse, but they didn't. So they're being rewarded for playing that cupcake OOC scheduled, and I think they should have been left out for those reasons, and it would also send that message to teams to play a tough OOC schedule or it could cost you.

Wash was 12-1 and PSU were 11-2

I'm aware.

What's that have to do with the part you highlighted about conferences? They both had 1 conference loss, Penn St in a way tougher conference.

[Cnasty]

They still have 2 losses and Washington only has 1. This is the differentiator for me at least.

Now we are saying only conference wins matter?

The target keeps moving.

Again, Penn States overall schedule wasn't much tougher than Washingtons as a whole. Conference or not.

[shel311]

No, I'm saying non conference certainly matters and Washington should be further penalized for not playing anyone.
Penn St could have beaten up on shit teams too, then they would have gotten in. Seems silly to me. Penalize the team with the terrible ooc imo

[The_Niddler]

"If you don't win your conference, you shouldn't be playing for a national championship" -Urban Meyer, 2006

He didn't make the rules and I dont agree with him in 2006.

Because penn State won one game, a hell of a close game too, and have more losses and lost to a mediocre Pitt team that means they should get in because they won their conference?

I don't agree with that and honestly feel winning your conference is over rated in college football as the layout and requirements for each conference are different.

Could not agree with this more!

[The_Niddler]

1. Alabama vs 8. Western Michigan
2. Clemson vs 7. Oklahoma
3. Ohio St. vs 6. Michigan
4. Washington vs 5. Penn St

Looks awesome... I think we will eventually get to something like this.

This!

I think it would make it better and have less issues figuring out who is in.

[nick]

No, I'm saying non conference certainly matters and Washington should be further penalized for not playing anyone.
Penn St could have beaten up on shit teams too, then they would have gotten in. Seems silly to me. Penalize the team with the terrible ooc imo

How cna you penalize teams for schedules made like 5-10 seasons ago? Thats stupid.

[BFiVL]

No, I'm saying non conference certainly matters and Washington should be further penalized for not playing anyone.
Penn St could have beaten up on shit teams too, then they would have gotten in. Seems silly to me. Penalize the team with the terrible ooc imo

How cna you penalize teams for schedules made like 5-10 seasons ago? Thats stupid.

Agree with this. What looks good when you schedule it can turn to shit by the time you play it.

[shel311]

No, I'm saying non conference certainly matters and Washington should be further penalized for not playing anyone.
Penn St could have beaten up on shit teams too, then they would have gotten in. Seems silly to me. Penalize the team with the terrible ooc imo

How cna you penalize teams for schedules made like 5-10 seasons ago? Thats stupid.

So don't factor in ooc strength? Seriously?

[qazhby]

Can't wait to watch McCaffrey have over run all over my Tar Heels in our bowl game!!!

[DRiccio21]

No, I'm saying non conference certainly matters and Washington should be further penalized for not playing anyone.
Penn St could have beaten up on shit teams too, then they would have gotten in. Seems silly to me. Penalize the team with the terrible ooc imo

How cna you penalize teams for schedules made like 5-10 seasons ago? Thats stupid.

So don't factor in ooc strength? Seriously?

any subjective grading/rankings is pointless. there are a million metrics that can be used to defend each team. many factors, like scheduling, may not have had the intent for which it ended up resulting in. for example, i think Washington played Rutgers and Penn St played Pitt. Those are fairly similar schools, one team shit the bed, the other had a pretty decent season. if the reverse happened, its not like the intent changed but the discussion of strength of scheduling obviously does. If Penn St actually played a WORSE SOS and played a shitbum school instead of Pitt they are almost certainly in at 11-1. there are just too many moving parts and things that matter to 'get it right'.

the scenario i put out at least has an objective format (outside of the 2 wildcard teams). it cuts out so much of the discussion and really would only struggle to satisfy the 'best team has to be in the tournament' requirement if 3 or more 'best teams' didn't actually win their conference. But at that point, everyone would know the value of winning the conference so its hard to have sympathy if that happened.

[Cnasty]

If it goes to 8 it's such a kick in the face to what is great about college football, the importance of every single game in the regular season...like penn state is realizing now.

Everyone gets a participation ribbon!!

[nick]

Every game clearly doesnt matter cause Penn St won their conf championship while Ohio State was at home...