2018 College Football Thread: Local man buys some teenage champions a 4 for 4 (3 Viewers)

[Politician Spock]

I didn't watch the game last night. Score notwithstanding ... did Alabama truly get outclassed? Or was it just a game between near-equals that just got away from the Tide?

IOW: if it were a seven-game series, there'd be no doubt Clemson would be the first to four wins? And if so, would it be more like Clemson 4-0/1 or Clemson 4-2/3?

...

If your asking me, Alabama could go out next week and boat race UCF. Bama was a lot better than LSU, and LSU's F-game beat UCF.

I saw nothing from Alabama last night that would lead me to believe Alabama would win a 7 game series vs Clemson. In fact, I think they would get swept. 

 

[Politician Spock]

If anything, the playoffs have shown there’s rarely more than two good teams.  Almost every semifinal game has been a blowout. 

I hear this repeated so often, but it ignores that #4 blew out #1. 

 

[Doug B]

Some of this has to do with the day that the games were played, perhaps.

Too bad NFL playoff take up the Saturdays and Sundays ... the college football title game would be better on a weekend night.

 

[heckmanm]

There were like 4 bowl games on at the noon-4 window this NYD. There was never a game up against the rose. 

True, but Orange and Sugar were on at the same time in the old days, IIRC. 

 

[BassNBrew]

Too bad NFL playoff take up the Saturdays and Sundays ... the college football title game would be better on a weekend night.

Personally I'd rather have a Saturday night plus something to watch on Monday besides the Bachelor than the title game on Saturday.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yea but to me that’s a terrible system. The playoff has problems but the best team wins. 

Not sure why you assume this is true about a four team playoff but wouldn't be true about an eight team playoff.

The point shouldn't be to find the best team, because that's impossible unless you're gonna have them play a seven game series in each round. The point should be to give every deserving team a fair chance to win the national championship.  If you have an eight team playoff every deserving team (as most people would define that) would get a shot every year.

 

[jplvr]

I've never been happier to have passed out during a game.

 

[Slapdash]

I didn't watch the game last night. Score notwithstanding ... did Alabama truly get outclassed? Or was it just a game between near-equals that just got away from the Tide?

IOW: if it were a seven-game series, there'd be no doubt Clemson would be the first to four wins? And if so, would it be more like Clemson 4-0/1 or Clemson 4-2/3?

More outcoached than anything.  Venerbles exploited Tua's tendencies and Bama's young secondary looked constantly confused 

 

[Capella]

Not sure why you assume this is true about a four team playoff but wouldn't be true about an eight team playoff.

The point shouldn't be to find the best team, because that's impossible unless you're gonna have them play a seven game series in each round. The point should be to give every deserving team a fair chance to win the national championship.  If you have an eight team playoff every deserving team (as most people would define that) would get a shot every year.

We weren’t discussing the 8 team playoff. 

 

[jplvr]

Not sure why you assume this is true about a four team playoff but wouldn't be true about an eight team playoff.

The point shouldn't be to find the best team, because that's impossible unless you're gonna have them play a seven game series in each round. The point should be to give every deserving team a fair chance to win the national championship.  If you have an eight team playoff every deserving team (as most people would define that) would get a shot every year.

What 8 teams deserved to have a shot at a national title this season? The 3rd and 4th team didn't look like it in retrospect, looking at how they got handled, even by the team that got handled last night. We had this argument years ago, and there still isn't a reason to expand, other than "I want to see more games." We should've stuck with the BCS, if nothing else to decide the top 4, which I agreed to have and still do, on the off chance you have 3-4 deserving teams  which it seemed like we had this season.

If you ever do get 8 teams in the playoffs, everyone reading your post knows you're just going to want 16 teams as soon as it happens, just like every other guy arguing for 8.

 

[Politician Spock]

Maybe make Bama-Clemson play the first game every season so one opens up with a loss. 

Or just require the two schools who played in the NC game, to kickoff the next season with a rematch. 

There's still a chance of getting a repeat matchup at the end of the season, but the losing team would have to be pretty much perfect to get back there. 

 

[General Malaise]

also for all the hell Kirby Smart got for that Justin Fields in the fake punt, Saban running a fake field goal with the kicker as the LEAD BLOCKER while Clemson has 8 guys in their base D was probably even dumber. Amazingly stupid. 

I imagine the kicker running into the belly of the beast to block for his holder is about how I would look if forced to rush into the teeth of that defense and asked to block.  I would simply just melt, curl into the fetal position and most likely soil myself.

 

[Politician Spock]

What 8 teams deserved to have a shot at a national title this season? The 3rd and 4th team didn't look like it in retrospect, looking at how they got handled, even by the team that got handled last night. We had this argument years ago, and there still isn't a reason to expand, other than "I want to see more games." We should've stuck with the BCS, if nothing else to decide the top 4, which I agreed to have and still do, on the off chance you have 3-4 deserving teams  which it seemed like we had this season.

If you ever do get 8 teams in the playoffs, everyone reading your post knows you're just going to want 16 teams as soon as it happens, just like every other guy arguing for 8.

40% of the winners of the 4 team playoff have come from the 3 and 4 seeds. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

We weren’t discussing the 8 team playoff. 

Fair enough, but the point about "best" vs "most deserving" still stands. There's no particular reason to assume the playoff winner is the best team or vice versa. It's just 60 minutes (or 120, or 180) of play, just as subject to randomness and weird bounces as any other 60, 120 or 180 minutes of football.

 

[Da Guru]

I imagine the kicker running into the belly of the beast to block for his holder is about how I would look if forced to rush into the teeth of that defense and asked to block.  I would simply just melt, curl into the fetal position and most likely soil myself.

The holder should have looked at the defense and realized that play was doomed!   From my TV I was saying there is no way they will try a fake against that defensive set.  Clemson was set up for a fake and was giving them the FG attempt

 

[CletiusMaximus]

also for all the hell Kirby Smart got for that Justin Fields in the fake punt, Saban running a fake field goal with the kicker as the LEAD BLOCKER while Clemson has 8 guys in their base D was probably even dumber. Amazingly stupid. 

I've not read much since last night, but I watched that play 5 or 6 times and would say execution was a huge issue.  It may have been a dumb call or a dumb play, but the Alabama left tackle and left guard had a double team on the Clemson tackle who made the play and it seemed to me they just inexplicably let him go. It was like they didn't realize there was a running play to their right, because it was an easy double team block.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What 8 teams deserved to have a shot at a national title this season? The 3rd and 4th team didn't look like it in retrospect, looking at how they got handled, even by the team that got handled last night. We had this argument years ago, and there still isn't a reason to expand, other than "I want to see more games." We should've stuck with the BCS, if nothing else to decide the top 4, which I agreed to have and still do, on the off chance you have 3-4 deserving teams  which it seemed like we had this season.

If you ever do get 8 teams in the playoffs, everyone reading your post knows you're just going to want 16 teams as soon as it happens, just like every other guy arguing for 8.

I think maybe you are conflating "good" and "deserving."  The 3rd and 4th teams were definitely deserving. I think the #5, #6 and #8 teams pre-playoff were also deserving this year.

To me any team that wins a Power 5 conference deserves a chance at the national title, because there just aren't enough interconference games between two Power 5 conference teams to fully take into account disparities between the conference. I also think any team that goes undefeated in the regular season deserves a chance at the title. And there needs to be a wild card for rare cases of clearly deserving teams that don't get one of these "automatic" bids, like Alabama in 2017.

It just so happens that an 8 team playoff would cover this in every season I know of. If we needed 16 teams to cover this, I'd want a 16 team playoff. If we somehow only needed 4 or 2, that's all I'd want. It's not about how many teams make the playoff, it's about creating a better, fairer system ... that just happens to up the entertainment value of the regular season too. 

 

[Doug B]

More outcoached than anything.  Venerbles exploited Tua's tendencies and Bama's young secondary looked constantly confused 

Interesting. A few SEC defenses are at least in Clemson's league (IMHO, 90% as good or better), so I'll be interested to see if Tua's 2019 stats come down to earth a bit.

 

[scottybo]

Only 7 penalties all game.

Glad the refs let them play it out. Only saw 1 obvious miss, but I think they did a great job.

 

[Tom Servo]

I think maybe you are conflating "good" and "deserving."  The 3rd and 4th teams were definitely deserving. I think the #5, #6 and #8 teams pre-playoff were also deserving this year.

To me any team that wins a Power 5 conference deserves a chance at the national title, because there just aren't enough interconference games between two Power 5 conference teams to fully take into account disparities between the conference. I also think any team that goes undefeated in the regular season deserves a chance at the title. And there needs to be a wild card for rare cases of clearly deserving teams that don't get one of these "automatic" bids, like Alabama in 2017.

It just so happens that an 8 team playoff would cover this in every season I know of. If we needed 16 teams to cover this, I'd want a 16 team playoff. If we somehow only needed 4 or 2, that's all I'd want. It's not about how many teams make the playoff, it's about creating a better, fairer system ... that just happens to up the entertainment value of the regular season too. 

At this moment, we don't really have 8 deserving teams...we have 2. Alabama and Clemson, that's it.

Given all the blowouts, why would I want more of the same?

 

[belljr]

Only 7 penalties all game.

Glad the refs let them play it out. Only saw 1 obvious miss, but I think they did a great job.

Yeah overall from what I saw on TV maybe a couple here and there

 

[belljr]

Lost in this was Clemson was a younger team, playing an NFL length schedule with a very weak semi-final opponent the week prior.  

Bama at least had to break a sweat vs. OU for a quarter and while they have a billion 5-star guys on the bench it's not quite the same.

The better question is without the semis played would Bama win 2 out of 3?  I think they do.

Very weak - they held Clemson to 30.......   

The same point in each game was 9-3  vs 28- 16

 

[Moe.]

Seeing as how Alabama wasn't all they were made out to be, #8 UCF vs #1 Alabama would have been a good game. Too bad we were denied it. 

#2 Clemson would have pounded #7 Michigan even worse than Florida did though. 

#3 Notre Dame vs #6 Ohio State would have been a close game. And OSU vs Clemson would have probably been a better game than Clemson/ND. 

and #5 Georgia would have kept #4 Oklahoma out of a trip to the final 4. Georgia may have also figured out how to beat Alabama for 60 minutes instead of 59, and we would have seen Clemson play Georgia for the title. 

In that world UGA would have fallen to #6. Can't have them on the same side of the draw as Bama. 

 

[Phil Elliott]

Bama sure did not look like one of the two best.  Looked like they quit early in the second half and were getting dominated physically.

OSU might have given Clemson a better game..at least on offense.

Totally agree Bama didn't look like one of the two best last night. You never know how a team will play, but they earned their way into the game.  You never know how a team will play.  I have always been for a playoff system based on league champs instead of some committee picking the selections.  You probably still have a committee seed the playoffs unless you go to some random or rotating order of the first round pairings. 

 

[Hov34]

If my Aunt had balls she'd be my uncle

Hey guy, you Aunt doesn't have to have balls to be your uncle these days.  Try to be a little more sensitive to the LGBTMRP3WSXQ community please.

 

[Moe.]

What I would like is for them to not take a full calendar month off before the playoffs. Imagine if the NFL took four weeks off after the divisional round. It's so idiotic and definitely impacts the quality of play. Give them Army/Navy weekend off and then let's go. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

At this moment, we don't really have 8 deserving teams...we have 2. Alabama and Clemson, that's it.

Given all the blowouts, why would I want more of the same?

If you don't think a team that plays a schedule with at least 11 game vs FBS teams and goes undefeated doesn't deserve a shot at the championship I don't really know what to tell you. Like I said before, I think maybe you're conflating "good" and "deserving."  "Deserving" is an attempt to make actually winning and losing the games count, to increase the stakes of each week's outcome. This is already baked into the  BCS process even though people don't realize it.

If we really did just try to pick the four best teams the regular season would just be a tryout or exhibition, where actually winning and losing games would be basically irrelevant except as by-product of adjusted points scored and allowed. We'd just let oddsmakers or statisticians pick the strongest squads based on those adjusted point margins, ignoring W-L. A team could make the playoff with 3 or 4 losses, if the losses were all slim losses against elite teams and/or road games and the wins were dominating enough. See Alabama 2010, probably one of the four best teams in college football that year if you asked the oddsmakers (#3 in final Sagarin predictor) but definitely not one of the most deserving having lost three regular season games. Thankfully we don't do it like that, because whether we acknowledge it or not we all want the concept of "deserving" to play a part.

 

[Moe.]

If you don't think a team that plays a schedule with at least 11 game vs FBS teams and goes undefeated doesn't deserve a shot at the championship I don't really know what to tell you. Like I said before, I think maybe you're conflating "good" and "deserving."  "Deserving" is an attempt to make actually winning and losing the games count, to increase the stakes of each week's outcome. This is already baked into the  BCS process even though people don't realize it.

If we really did just try to pick the four best teams the regular season would just be a tryout or exhibition, where actually winning and losing games would be basically irrelevant except as by-product of adjusted points scored and allowed. We'd just let oddsmakers or statisticians pick the strongest squads based on those adjusted point margins, ignoring W-L. A team could make the playoff with 3 or 4 losses, if the losses were all slim losses against elite teams and/or road games and the wins were dominating enough. See Alabama 2010, probably one of the four best teams in college football that year if you asked the oddsmakers (#3 in final Sagarin predictor) but definitely not one of the most deserving having lost three regular season games. Thankfully we don't do it like that, because whether we acknowledge it or not we all want the concept of "deserving" to play a part.

I think everyone's brain is so warped by the way it's always been - this would never be an actual conversation for anything other than college football. 

 

[Tom Servo]

If you don't think a team that plays a schedule with at least 11 game vs FBS teams and goes undefeated doesn't deserve a shot at the championship I don't really know what to tell you. Like I said before, I think maybe you're conflating "good" and "deserving."  "Deserving" is an attempt to make actually winning and losing the games count, to increase the stakes of each week's outcome. This is already baked into the  BCS process even though people don't realize it.

If we really did just try to pick the four best teams the regular season would just be a tryout or exhibition, where actually winning and losing games would be basically irrelevant except as by-product of adjusted points scored and allowed. We'd just let oddsmakers or statisticians pick the strongest squads based on those adjusted point margins, ignoring W-L. A team could make the playoff with 3 or 4 losses, if the losses were all slim losses against elite teams and/or road games and the wins were dominating enough. See Alabama 2010, probably one of the four best teams in college football that year if you asked the oddsmakers (#3 in final Sagarin predictor) but definitely not one of the most deserving having lost three regular season games. Thankfully we don't do it like that, because whether we acknowledge it or not we all want the concept of "deserving" to play a part.

You're missing the point.

I don't care what criteria you use, there are two levels: 1) Bama and Clemson and 2) everybody else. To me, "best" or "deserving" from 3-64 is merely a decision to see who gets boat raced by one of these two at the end of the day. Who cares if UCF is in or not? If Bama doesn't steamroll them, Clemson or someone else they play will. Same goes for UGA, Ohio, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, whomever.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You're missing the point.

I don't care what criteria you use, there are two levels: 1) Bama and Clemson and 2) everybody else. To me, "best" or "deserving" from 3-64 is merely a decision to see who gets boat raced by one of these two at the end of the day. Who cares if UCF is in or not? If Bama doesn't steamroll them, Clemson or someone else they play will. Same goes for UGA, Ohio, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, whomever.

I understand your point. It's just that it's completely irrelevant to mine unless every single season from now until the end of time unfolds exactly like the past one.

 

[Moe.]

You're missing the point.

I don't care what criteria you use, there are two levels: 1) Bama and Clemson and 2) everybody else. To me, "best" or "deserving" from 3-64 is merely a decision to see who gets boat raced by one of these two at the end of the day. Who cares if UCF is in or not? If Bama doesn't steamroll them, Clemson or someone else they play will. Same goes for UGA, Ohio, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, whomever.

This isn't the first year you've ever paid attention to college football is it?

 

[culdeus]

What I would like is for them to not take a full calendar month off before the playoffs. Imagine if the NFL took four weeks off after the divisional round. It's so idiotic and definitely impacts the quality of play. Give them Army/Navy weekend off and then let's go. 

The concept was to give them time to catch-up and study for finals.  I mean initially, now we don't really care if they learn anything.  

 

[Politician Spock]

At this moment, we don't really have 8 deserving teams...we have 2. Alabama and Clemson, that's it.

Given all the blowouts, why would I want more of the same?

Last year's was #4 blowout over #1. 

40% of the winners have come from the 3/4 seeds. 

The #1 seed has yet to even win one.

Maybe we give too much credit to the rankings. 

 

[Politician Spock]

You're missing the point.

I don't care what criteria you use, there are two levels: 1) Bama and Clemson and 2) everybody else. To me, "best" or "deserving" from 3-64 is merely a decision to see who gets boat raced by one of these two at the end of the day. Who cares if UCF is in or not? If Bama doesn't steamroll them, Clemson or someone else they play will. Same goes for UGA, Ohio, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, whomever.

One of the reasons Alabama and Clemson have become these "super schools" is because we've had 21 years of only 2 or 4 teams being selected to the playoff. The size of the playoff will, given time, dictate the number of elite schools there are. That's why after 30 years of a 64 team field, there aren't anymore "super schools" in basketball like there used to be. When it was 16, it was called the UCLA invitational. 

 

[Tom Servo]

Maybe we give too much credit to the rankings. 

 

[Tom Servo]

One of the reasons Alabama and Clemson have become these "super schools" is because we've had 21 years of only 2 or 4 teams being selected to the playoff. The size of the playoff will, given time, dictate the number of elite schools there are. That's why after 30 years of a 64 team field, there aren't anymore "super schools" in basketball like there used to be. When it was 16, it was called the UCLA invitational. 

What about the BCS era then? A greater variety of school played in the championship.

 

[Politician Spock]

What about the BCS era then? A greater variety of school played in the championship.

That's why I said "given time". What we are experiencing right now is a result of only having 2 for 15 years. Given more time, we could end up having 4 "super schools". Georgia could be making a case for being the 3rd. OSU might have been a 4th if Urban hadn't retired. 

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

The problem I think is that the talking heads pretty much pick the teams every year.  Someone has posted that a #1 seed has never won the CFB Championship.  Having rankings months before a game is played is silly.   It is what it is.  

 

[Tom Servo]

The problem I think is that the talking heads pretty much pick the teams every year.  Someone has posted that a #1 seed has never won the CFB Championship.  Having rankings months before a game is played is silly.   It is what it is.  

Well, yeah.

 

[Politician Spock]

The problem I think is that the talking heads pretty much pick the teams every year.  Someone has posted that a #1 seed has never won the CFB Championship.  Having rankings months before a game is played is silly.   It is what it is.  

Should just get rid of rankings all together. Makes people want to know who "the best" is. That's dumb. It's a game. Games should have a winner. The best team doesn't always win. That's why they play the games. 

 

[General Malaise]

I don't know.  Clemson is the best team I saw this year play college football.  And after last night, I don't think it is really close.  They were the best team in 2018 and proved it over and again.  8 teams in the playoffs wouldn't change that calculus, IMO.  

 

[Politician Spock]

Best football team I ever saw was the 2007 New England Patriots. 

 

[Moe.]

I think for the long-term health of the sport the playoff has to expand. The smaller schools need more exposure or their football programs might not exist in a few decades. Obviously there aren’t as many kids playing tackle football anymore, and the impact of that will be felt at all levels of the sport at some point. I realize the contradiction in advocating for more teams in the playoff while also acknowledging that the player pool isn’t as deep anymore - I’m fine with it. 

 

[Moe.]

Best football team I ever saw was the 2007 New England Patriots. 

Another argument that’s unique to CFB. Nobody cares about who the “best” team is in other sports, they care about who wins the damn league/championship. The goal isn’t to be the best. It’s to win. They aren’t the same thing.

 

[Moe.]

The concept was to give them time to catch-up and study for finals.  I mean initially, now we don't really care if they learn anything.  

Yeah, nobody is making that argument with a straight face anymore. Take your hard classes in the spring. If you’re not able to balance your course load with your athletic responsibilities then you’ll have to make a tough decision, just like kids who play non-revenue sports. 

 

[Mjolnirs]

Maybe make Bama-Clemson play the first game every season so one opens up with a loss. 

They both play at South Carolina in 2019, the Gamecocks will take care of that!  

 

[culdeus]

I think for the long-term health of the sport the playoff has to expand. The smaller schools need more exposure or their football programs might not exist in a few decades. Obviously there aren’t as many kids playing tackle football anymore, and the impact of that will be felt at all levels of the sport at some point. I realize the contradiction in advocating for more teams in the playoff while also acknowledging that the player pool isn’t as deep anymore - I’m fine with it. 

How do you define "smaller schools" and how do you come up with the conclusion that those football programs "won't exist" without an expanded playoff?  

Why can't "smaller schools" drop in a division?  D2/D3 schools seem to get along just fine from what I can tell.  

Is Baylor a smaller school?  They have a half-Billion dollar loan on their stadium.  Can you foreclose on a football team?   What happens to teams that don't exist and have liabilities?

 

[Moe.]

How do you define "smaller schools" and how do you come up with the conclusion that those football programs "won't exist" without an expanded playoff?  

Why can't "smaller schools" drop in a division?  D2/D3 schools seem to get along just fine from what I can tell.  

Is Baylor a smaller school?  They have a half-Billion dollar loan on their stadium.  Can you foreclose on a football team?   What happens to teams that don't exist and have liabilities?

Replace smaller schools with G5 schools. Schools drop athletic programs all the time for a number of reasons, but ultimately I don't think there will be enough of an economic incentive for them to offer the sport. 

They can. If that were to happen it would be to the detriment of the sport overall, which was the point of my post. If those schools are allowed a seat at the table that means more exposure, which leads to better players, which leads to better facilities, which leads to better play overall, etc. It's a positive feedback loop. We've seen this play out in basketball over the last couple generations.  If you don't see any value in those G5 schools/conferences then you aren't going to agree with me. 

I don't know or see how any of that is relevant. Higher education is a massive bubble, you know that. Lots of universities are in terrible financial shape right now irrespective of athletics. 

 

[culdeus]

Klingsbury hired by Arizona.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

I didn't watch the game last night. Score notwithstanding ... did Alabama truly get outclassed? Or was it just a game between near-equals that just got away from the Tide?

IOW: if it were a seven-game series, there'd be no doubt Clemson would be the first to four wins? And if so, would it be more like Clemson 4-0/1 or Clemson 4-2/3?

...

If your asking me, Alabama could go out next week and boat race UCF. Bama was a lot better than LSU, and LSU's F-game beat UCF.

Excellent question. My answer is yes, these teams are a LOT more even than the score said. 

If they were to magically be able to play a 7 game series, I'd see it something like 4-3 either way.