College Football 2018-19

[unclevlad]

Well....

 

End result was probably about what was expected, more or less.  

 

The fun part is the anguish at the end among anyone who'd bet on the over/under...either way.   The under came up the winner, BARELY.

 

My chili was excellent.  Better than the games.

[Iuz the Evil]

 

Final was unsurprising but at least the offense gave them a game of it the last couple quarters. If they could've gotten a stop or two it might have gone another way.

 

Until we get a better defense, this is to be expected. 1st ranked offense, 101st ranked defense.

 

But Murray was amazing to watch. And I appreciate the season he had, even with this ending.

 

Well, that's it for college football this year. Happy New Year's to all, and looking forward to Spring Ball and 2019.

[unclevlad]

Mmm...watching SVP on SC, and he's talking about the other debacle.  Michigan's sad sack performance against Florida, and Harbaugh's hideous track record against serious teams/in big games.  Lost last 3 bowl games, 0 for 4 vs. OSU, no appearances in the conference title game.  The killer for me is 1-9 against top 10 schools.  38-14 looks ok, but the timing on the losses is really bad.  

 

I doubt he's gonna get fired just yet, but it wouldn't shock me either.  And I gotta think his time is running out unless he can deliver in the manner Big Blue wants.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Yesterday's games pose a compelling argument against expanding the playoffs. It's usually obvious which two teams are the best, and no matter how many teams they have to go through they will play for the championship. The only thing you gain from expanding the playoff is an extra game for two teams lucky enough to get into the semifinal and get blown out and one more game for the two teams who are so clearly superior. Why fight over the #4 seed when it's clear they're essentially cannon fodder?

 

 

[Cancer]

There never was a compelling argument, except money for the TV contracts.  Which is among the reasons why I've never watched any of it.

[unclevlad]

The whole track record of the outcomes in the BCS semis...not close games, LOTS of blowouts...does argue against expansion, but yes.  Money, money, money.  ESPN would LOVE another round.  And the "well Georgia should've been in and not Oklahoma" argument is so totally BS.  All you'll have is more of the same...because deciding the 7 and 8 slots, if nothing else, will be MUCH worse.  

 

In other news:  Mark Richt resigned from Miami.  One good year in 2017, but a very poor one this year.  One wonders whether the writing was on the wall.  Results in 2016 and 2017 were OK, but recruiting for next year was apparently not so good.  

[Iuz the Evil]

I actually don't know what the heck you two are talking about. Math doesn't support that the underdog doesn't ever win in the CFP semifinals. The lower ranked team is 3-7 in the past 5 years (including this one, where neither lower ranked team won, just the prior 4 matchups is 3-5).

 

So the lower ranked opponent has a 30% chance of winning based on historic performance in the semifinals.

 

One might argue that this demonstrates the rankings appear to accurately determine the more talented team.

 

Now the CFP championship game is another matter, with the lower ranked team winning 3 times to 1 the past 4 years.

 

Just something to consider. You can't win if you aren't in it, unless you are UCF.

[Badger]

19 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Mmm...watching SVP on SC, and he's talking about the other debacle.  Michigan's sad sack performance against Florida, and Harbaugh's hideous track record against serious teams/in big games.  Lost last 3 bowl games, 0 for 4 vs. OSU, no appearances in the conference title game.  The killer for me is 1-9 against top 10 schools.  38-14 looks ok, but the timing on the losses is really bad.  

 

I doubt he's gonna get fired just yet, but it wouldn't shock me either.  And I gotta think his time is running out unless he can deliver in the manner Big Blue wants.

 

Probably because his players ate chicken.

[Badger]

1 hour ago, Iuz the Evil said:

I actually don't know what the heck you two are talking about. Math doesn't support that the underdog doesn't ever win in the CFP semifinals. The lower ranked team is 3-7 in the past 5 years (including this one, where neither lower ranked team won, just the prior 4 matchups is 3-5).

 

So the lower ranked opponent has a 30% chance of winning based on historic performance in the semifinals.

 

One might argue that this demonstrates the rankings appear to accurately determine the more talented team.

 

Now the CFP championship game is another matter, with the lower ranked team winning 3 times to 1 the past 4 years.

 

Just something to consider. You can't win if you aren't in it, unless you are UCF.

 

Out of curiousity, those 3 out of 10 times, how many of those 3 were # 3 over #2 vs #4 over #1?

 

 

[Badger]

3 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The whole track record of the outcomes in the BCS semis...not close games, LOTS of blowouts...does argue against expansion, but yes.  Money, money, money.  ESPN would LOVE another round.  And the "well Georgia should've been in and not Oklahoma" argument is so totally BS.  All you'll have is more of the same...because deciding the 7 and 8 slots, if nothing else, will be MUCH worse.  

 

In other news:  Mark Richt resigned from Miami.  One good year in 2017, but a very poor one this year.  One wonders whether the writing was on the wall.  Results in 2016 and 2017 were OK, but recruiting for next year was apparently not so good.  

 

I will say Georgia probably was the best team to be #4, but that doesn't matter to me, they lost the conference championship.  It sucks for them to be in the SEC.  Not really any other place in sports that we would reward a conference loser at the expense of a conference winner.  And don't get me started over recent Alabama teams, you don't qualify for the conference championship, you don't qualify for the national championship.  Too damn bad.   

 

In my mind, be like Red Sox and Giants won their pennants?  Yeah, but the Yankees won more games than the Giants, let's have a Yankee-Red Sox World Series.

[Pariah]

As much as I personally dislike the outcome, I can't argue with the idea that the playoff has in fact given us the two best teams for the national championship game. The fact that we keep getting the same two teams is an indication of something, but I'm not exactly certain what.

 

 To be honest, I would like to see a larger sample size. The NFL has 32 teams, of which 12 make the playoffs. NCAA Division I has 130 teams, of which four make the playoff.

 

If we used the same system in the NFL that they do at the NCAA level, this year's playoffs would consist of Kansas City and New England in the AFC, New Orleans and the Rams in the NFC. Chicago, Houston, and the Chargers, all of whom were in play for a first-round bye at the beginning of the day yesterday, would be watching the playoffs from the couches.

 

And last year's playoffs? Philadelphia wouldn't even have been a thought.

 

I don't know that it would be any different if we had 8 teams or 16 teams in the NCAA playoff then it is now, but I'd sure like to see.

[Cancer]

If the sole purpose of the university system was to produce circuses for the masses, then I'd be willing to entertain that argument.

 

Under any other circumstances, all it does is exploit unpaid workers for vast profits of which the players gain less than no direct benefit.  (I say less than none, because they run the risk of injury that destroys their pro prospects, and they are restricted in money-making in ways other undergraduates are not, because of the bandaid measures taken to diminish the overt corruption in recruiting practices.)  AND in all but a handful of the most successful schools, it produces a budgetary and disciplinary drain that detracts from the true mission of the schools, and those costs are wantonly obfuscated so thoroughly that the real carnage can't be fully appreciated.

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Cancer said:

If the sole purpose of the university system was to produce circuses for the masses, then I'd be willing to entertain that argument.

 

Under any other circumstances, all it does is exploit unpaid workers for vast profits of which the players gain less than no direct benefit.  (I say less than none, because they run the risk of injury that destroys their pro prospects, and they are restricted in money-making in ways other undergraduates are not, because of the bandaid measures taken to diminish the overt corruption in recruiting practices.)  AND in all but a handful of the most successful schools, it produces a budgetary and disciplinary drain that detracts from the true mission of the schools, and those costs are wantonly obfuscated so thoroughly that the real carnage can't be fully appreciated.

 

Not a fan, I take it.

 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but there are some other factors in play.  "Student athletes" aren't allowed to have jobs because those "jobs" often were as empty of content as the so-called academic curriculum too many of them take.  (Which in itself is another negative of the system, for diluting the meaning of a university education.)  There's no way to enforce a "must do real work commensurate with the pay" requirement, so the options are extremely limited.

 

I'm still of the opinion that the NCAA system can't last much longer, but it seems shocking it's lasted as long as it has so...I may be being a rose-lensed optimist.

 

Quote

The fact that we keep getting the same two teams is an indication of something, but I'm not exactly certain what.

 

Probably a combination.  Success begets success;  if you're a top recruit, why wouldn't you favor such a strong winning pattern?   There's a parallel in the 70s NFL...both the Steelers and Cowboys had sustained success because they had extraordinary depth.  When you can keep that talent pipeline completely full every year, you create that depth.  The winning pattern's enhanced by having the money to spend to make facilities that might rival a pro team's.  And by exposure.  These things don't guarantee ongoing success, but it's bloody hard to consistently reach the top without most of these.

 

And of course, the corrupt aspects favor the successful.  Both Alabama and Clemson are tied to Nike.  Don't read anything into that, as 2/3 of the teams in the Power 5 conferences are.  But any channeling Nike may do...is gonna favor their big success stories.  

[Iuz the Evil]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

 

Not a fan, I take it.

 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but there are some other factors in play.  "Student athletes" aren't allowed to have jobs because those "jobs" often were as empty of content as the so-called academic curriculum too many of them take.  (Which in itself is another negative of the system, for diluting the meaning of a university education.)  There's no way to enforce a "must do real work commensurate with the pay" requirement, so the options are extremely limited.

 

I'm still of the opinion that the NCAA system can't last much longer, but it seems shocking it's lasted as long as it has so...I may be being a rose-lensed optimist.

 

 

Probably a combination.  Success begets success;  if you're a top recruit, why wouldn't you favor such a strong winning pattern?   There's a parallel in the 70s NFL...both the Steelers and Cowboys had sustained success because they had extraordinary depth.  When you can keep that talent pipeline completely full every year, you create that depth.  The winning pattern's enhanced by having the money to spend to make facilities that might rival a pro team's.  And by exposure.  These things don't guarantee ongoing success, but it's bloody hard to consistently reach the top without most of these.

 

And of course, the corrupt aspects favor the successful.  Both Alabama and Clemson are tied to Nike.  Don't read anything into that, as 2/3 of the teams in the Power 5 conferences are.  But any channeling Nike may do...is gonna favor their big success stories.  

See also: Oklahoma in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s. Florida State and Nebraska in the 90s. Texas, U$C, and Oklahoma in the early 2000s. Top recruits always seek out top schools. Always.

 

It'll change. This cycle continues every 8-10 years, often with a change in coach. Check out Alabama in the Mike Shula era.

 

20 hours ago, Badger said:

 

Out of curiousity, those 3 out of 10 times, how many of those 3 were # 3 over #2 vs #4 over #1?

 

 

Twice it was #4 over #1.

[unclevlad]

Another factor is, the top schools also get the top coaches.  There's no moving up from Bama or Oklahoma, unless you want to try the NFL.  There's maybe a dozen schools at that level;  I call them pinnacle programs.  There are some others which think they are, but IMO have slipped too far, for too long.  USC.  Miami.  Michigan.  Notre Dame always thinks they're the best of the pinnacle programs...but they're just a pack program in terms of quality.  OK, things may not work out with the coaching changes;  Florida State and Texas prove that.

 

The focus has narrowed with the playoffs, and with something at least close to a true champion.  Before then, winning your conference and making the NYD bowls was a Great Season, and the national championship meant less because it was so totally subjective.  I even remember a criticism of the Big 10, back in those days, was that their focus was never on the national title, it was purely on making the Rose Bowl.  So they remained big, strong, and SLOW, and when they hadda face a Florida State, they got crushed.  

 

We just saw the bigger fish cannibalizing...big time.  Manny Diaz was DC at Miami;  got hired to be Temple's HC.  But then Richt retires...and Diaz bails.  Granted, the links were there, and Miami had to apparently buy out Temple, to the tune of $4M.  The point is, tho...they wanted to, they felt they needed to, and they *could*.  Miami represents the worst in football culture, IMO, over the last 3+ decades...but they have an ardent, HIGHLY supportive fan base.  (The turnover chain is overdone already, IMO, but their chain is valued at just under $100k.  For the materials alone.  Texas can do this.  Bama can do this.  Oklahoma State has T. Boone Pickens footing the 9-digit price tag for facilities.  Oregon gets showered with goodies from Phil Knight.  Temple's a total nobody in football, so they get shafted.

[Cancer]

I would never have picked Oregon 7 -- Michigan State 6 with a minute and a half in regulation.

 

Oh, and Spartans, that was the lamest fake kick play I've ever seen.

 

EDIT: OK, it was a botched placement, not a fake.  Still.

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Cancer said:

I would never have picked Oregon 7 -- Michigan State 6 with a minute and a half in regulation.

 

Oh, and Spartans, that was the lamest fake kick play I've ever seen.

 

EDIT: OK, it was a botched placement, not a fake.  Still.

 

Missed this one altogether.  Not surprising when there's 6 games today, 2 in each window.  The obvious questions when I see that are

 

a)  was the weather horrible?  Highlights say no, it was dry, and I saw a bunch of sun early on.  

b)  did either team care?  Redbox Bowl.  Ohhhh, ahhhhh.  One of the Miss Congeniality games for the big conferences.  Answer would appear to be not simply no but HELL no.

[Badger]

Bowl games are for money and maybe a little pride.

[Pariah]

For a lot of teams, bowl games are for the 15 extra practices they get to prepare for next season.

[Grailknight]

Bowl games are one of the few forms of compensation that the players get.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/12/14/18136097/bowl-game-gifts-2018

 

 

Game participants, and often bowl VIPs, are given an order form and allowed to select a gift, or gifts, up to a value that is predetermined by each bowl, not to exceed the NCAA limit.

The NCAA allows each bowl to award up to $550 worth of gifts to 125 participants per school. Schools can, and usually do, buy additional packages that they can distribute to participants beyond that 125 limit. In addition, participants can receive awards worth up to $400 from the school and up to $400 from the conference for postseason play, covering both conference title games and any bowl game.

 

[Iuz the Evil]

Houston fired Major Applewhite, allegedly offering $4M annually for DANA HOLGERSON.

 

I cannot believe that, it burns to think about.

 

Well, best of luck to them. WVU and Houston alike.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Well, Applewhite's defense got thoroughly slashed up by Army, but then they hadn't had a strong regular season either.

 

Does anyone actually go to Army with playing football as a major motivation? A West Point football star is less likely to play football on Sundays than he is to patrol some ruined city whose people would really rather he wasn't there on Sundays.

[Cancer]

Army (etc.) is a free-ride college education and guaranteed job after.  I'm ok with that.  The full package wasn't something I wanted for myself, but I have no problem with those who feel otherwise.  If there's anyone in the whole NCAA who isn't corrupt in the NCAA's special way, it's them.  

[Pariah]

A Bronco, a Ram, and a Buffalo walk into a bar....

 

 

[Starlord]

UCF dominating early but, however the game turns out, it seems VERY CLEAR the UCF players have some pent up feelings of disrespect flowing freely so far.