The OtherArena

Re: 2011 College Football Thread

jdw — Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:53 pm

Author: jdw

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:53 pm

I think the key point:

There ain't rules.

:)

Seriously... you complain about a certain Bama national title claim where they didn't win the conference and had a comical number of losses. That's a Bama Rule that annoys Scott under the Scott Rules. :)

Under the JDW Rules, the 1964 (bowl job), 1973 (bowl job) and 1978 (USC job) Bama "national titles" annoy me. :P

John

Re: 2011 College Football Thread

Scott — Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:41 pm

Author: Scott

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:41 pm

jdw wrote:

Scott wrote:

The 64 and 73 national titles were championships under the rules of the day. Just because you don't like the rules and the rules change doesn't mean you don't recognize them anymore.

It's a voted on National Title. We certainly can recognize the ones we want. It's not exactly like arguing Wooden's national titles where someone on the other hand can point to the fact that he won 10 NCAA Tournies.

That is how national champions were recognized then. UPI, for whatever reason, voted on their champion before the bowl games. That was the rule, and Alabama (and Texas) won under those rules.

jdw wrote:

Scott wrote:

If you want to say they're cheap, I can handle that and can agree, just as long as you can also agree that Notre Dame's national title in 1966 was cheap because everyone was punishing the University of Alabama for the state of Alabama's segregationist policies.

The best two teams in the country were ND and Sparty. It's really hard to argue that the realization of Bama's segregationist policies suddenly popped into the minds of the voters when it wasn't in their mind in 1965 and 1964.

a) Neither Notre Dame nor Sparty played in a bowl game. You seem to have a hankering about not deciding national championships before bowl games, so doesn't that count against them? Alabama went out and beat the dogshit out of a pretty good Nebraska team in the Orange Bowl in 66.

b) I can break things down if you want, but you can't tell me that Notre Dame deserves a national title when Devine was a coward and settled for a tie in the game with Sparty when he had over a minute left and good field position to drive down and at least try to kick a goddamn field goal. Notre Dame should be behind Alabama and Sparty for that reason alone.

(re: 1966)

jdw wrote:

Scott wrote:

They'd pick up another cheap one 20 years later. :P

I think it would have been fair to split the national title between Sparty and the Domers.

*still scratching head over that one*

jdw wrote:

Actually, I should have left Bear at 3:

Bama and USC were both one-loss teams in1978. Bama got the AP and USC got the UPI. Silly AP voters seemed to have forgotten this:

September 23, 1978
Legion Field
Birmingham, AL

USC 24�14 Alabama

So I stand corrected:

4 - Frank Leahy (1943, 1946, 1947, 1949)
4 - John McKay (1962, 1967, 1972, 1974)

3 - Bernie Bierman (1936, 1940, 1941)
3 - Woody Hayes (1954, 1957, 1968)
3 - Bear Bryant (1961, 1965, 1979)
3 - Tom Osborne (1994, 1995, 1997)
3 - Nick Saban (2003, 2009, 2011)

;)

Should we have a TOA historical college football national champions debate thread? :P If so, I'll start it with a list of my national champs and you can roll yours out and then we can argue. :P

Scott

Re: 2011 College Football Thread

jdw — Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:29 am

Author: jdw

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:29 am

Scott wrote:

The 64 and 73 national titles were championships under the rules of the day. Just because you don't like the rules and the rules change doesn't mean you don't recognize them anymore.

Quote:

And how the heck is 64 and 73 the specific reasons when Texas got a national title after going undefeated in the regular season in 1970 and then lost to a 10-1 Notre Dame team 24-11 in the Cotton Bowl?

The AP changed their rule after the 1964 screw up, then changed their mind several years later. They didn't change their mind after UT's loss... but instead changed their mind after 1973 and never looked back.

That was my point: Bama's two cheap titles were the specific reason the rule changed.

Quote:

Nebraska went 11-0-1, and tied the same USC team that Notre Dame lost to, and they won the AP title, so wouldn't it stand to figure they'd have a good shot at UPI as well?

To me, the 1970 champ is Nebraska.

Quote:

They'd pick up another cheap one 20 years later. :P

I think it would have been fair to split the national title between Sparty and the Domers.

Actually, I should have left Bear at 3:

Bama and USC were both one-loss teams in1978. Bama got the AP and USC got the UPI. Silly AP voters seemed to have forgotten this:

September 23, 1978
Legion Field
Birmingham, AL

USC 24�14 Alabama

So I stand corrected:

4 - Frank Leahy (1943, 1946, 1947, 1949)
4 - John McKay (1962, 1967, 1972, 1974)

3 - Bernie Bierman (1936, 1940, 1941)
3 - Woody Hayes (1954, 1957, 1968)
3 - Bear Bryant (1961, 1965, 1979)
3 - Tom Osborne (1994, 1995, 1997)
3 - Nick Saban (2003, 2009, 2011)

;)

John

Re: 2011 College Football Thread

Scott — Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:23 am

Author: Scott

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:23 am

Ok, hang on a second...

jdw wrote:

I don't count:

* Bud Wilkinson 1950 (lost in Bowl)
* Bear 1964 (lost in Bowl)
* Darrell Royal 1970 (lost in Bowl)
* Bear 1973 (lost in Bowl)
* Barry Switzer 1974 (on probation)

Bud, Royal and Barry would be at 3 with the extra title. Bear would be at 6. Can't credit Bear since his 1964 and 1973 teams are the specific reason that the polls were moved to being after the bowls: he'd skunked out two cheap national titles by losing the bowls.

Everyone, I'm about to defend the University of Alabama. You'd better make a note of the date and time, this doesn't happen very often. :P

The 64 and 73 national titles were championships under the rules of the day. Just because you don't like the rules and the rules change doesn't mean you don't recognize them anymore. If you want to say they're cheap, I can handle that and can agree, just as long as you can also agree that Notre Dame's national title in 1966 was cheap because everyone was punishing the University of Alabama for the state of Alabama's segregationist policies.

And how the heck is 64 and 73 the specific reasons when Texas got a national title after going undefeated in the regular season in 1970 and then lost to a 10-1 Notre Dame team 24-11 in the Cotton Bowl? Nebraska went 11-0-1, and tied the same USC team that Notre Dame lost to, and they won the AP title, so wouldn't it stand to figure they'd have a good shot at UPI as well?

jdw wrote:

Also think Leahy's title in 1946 was cheap. They tied the two-time defending national champs Army, yet got the national title. To me, to be the champ you need to beat them when each team is otherwise undefeated. That concept is especially stronger when they're the two-time defending champs.

They'd pick up another cheap one 20 years later. :P

Scott

Re: 2011 College Football Thread

jdw — Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:58 am

Author: jdw

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:58 am

Okay... so it's been a while (perhaps since last season) since we've done one of these. I've long pitched a 12 team playoff:

* there currently are 10 BCS slots

It's going to be hard to go from 10 slots to 8 slots. Just the business of football. The biggest reason:

* there are 6 slots for AQ Champs
* there is 1 slot set aside for the BCS Buster

That's 7 slots right there. Even if they dare to risk an anti-trust lawsuit by getting rid of the BCS Buster slot, they still then have 6 auto slots and just 2 at large. The reason there went from 4 bowls to 5 bowls was to add two more slots *and* get more tv money. No way they want to go backwards.

In turn, going to 12 does this:

* adds two more slots for conferences to make money
* goes from 5 games to 11 games

4 Round 1 games
4 QF games
2 SF games
1 Final

$$$$$$

So how do you get there while protecting the bowls?

The QF are the major bowls, with games to be played on New Years Day while clear _all_ other bowls off of New Years.

There's a very easy way to do that:

The AQ Conferences refuse to participate in any bowls that are scheduled for New Years Day.

Which will move their asses right off of New Years.

So scheduling:

Round 1: the Saturday a week prior to Christmas
QF Bowls: New Years
SF: Monday/Tuesday after New Years
Final: Monday after

This year:

1R: 12/17/11
QF: 01/02/12
SF: 01/09/12 & 01/10/12
Final: 01/16/12

That extends the season... exactly 1 week beyond the current season.

Who gets in?

6 - AQ Champ (ACC, B10, B12, BE, PAC, SEC)
1 - Highest Ranked Non-AQ Champ
5 - Highest Ranked Non-Auto At Large teams *

* nor more than 2 teams (Champ + At Large) per conference

You do the Non-AQ champ to avoid lawsuits, and you totally get rid of the requirement that they be ranked highly. Just give them a seat at the table.

That last one is to allow more conference to get a bite at the apple. If you don't do that, this year the SEC gets a third team (Arkansas) while the Big 10 doesn't get a second. You also avoid the past issues of Boise and TCU being in the Top 10 and not both getting bids. Could have happened this year of Boise and Houston both went undefeated. One gets the Non-AQ Champ spot, while the other gets an At Large due to a likely Top 10.

So who makes it this year?

Top Four Champs
#1 LSU (SEC Champ)
#3 Oklahoma State (B12 Champ)
#5 Oregon (PAC Champ)
#10 Wisconsin (B10 Champ)

These teams get Byes into the QF. Each acts as "host" to one of the four Bowls.

Other Three Auto Qualifiers
#11 Virginia Tech (ACC Champ)
#18 TCU (Highest Ranked Non-AQ Champ: MWC)
#23 West Virginia (BE Champ)

These teams get home field in the First Round.

Top Ranked At Large Team
#2 Alabama (SEC)

This team gets home field in the First Round.

Next Four Eligible Ranked Teams
#4 Stanford (PAC)
#7 Boise State (MWC)
#8 Kansas State (B12)
#13 Michigan (B10)

These teams will be road tripping in the first Round.

SOL: #6 Arkansas (SEC 3), #9 South Carolina (SEC 4), #12 Baylor (B12 3)

Really only Arkansas is screwed here, unless there is a desire to screw over the non-AQ by limiting them to 1 team. I'm trying to avoid that at all.

Bowl tie ins:

Orange Bowl: ACC Champ
Rose Bowl: PAC Champ or B10 Champ
Fiesta Bowl: B12 Champ
Sugar Bowl: SEC Champ

That's the way it works not, though they lose Champs to the National Title Game.

The QF are the BCS Bowls Games. They also have Champs that get buys.

If both the PAC and Big 10 Champ are in the Top 4 Auto Qualifiers (i.e. having byes), then they get to pick who hosts. The other goes to one of the open slots in the other games.

These Top 4 slots all get locked in right at the end of the regular season / conference championship games. That's done so those four schools and their fans can book their travel to the bowls. No gerrymandering after the First Round to try to make sure the SEC team advancing gets into Sugar, or the PAC/B1G team gets into the Rose. Those QF matches are locked in by ranking, seen below.

So this year we have these Top 4 Autos:

#1 LSU (SEC Champ)
#3 Oklahoma State (B12 Champ)
#5 Oregon (PAC Champ)
#10 Wisconsin (B10 Champ)

And these four Bowls/QF:

Sugar Bowl: SEC Champ = #1 LSU (SEC Champ)
Fiesta Bowl: B12 Champ = #3 Oklahoma State (B12 Champ)
Rose Bowl: PAC Champ or B10 Champ = #5 Oregon (PAC Champ)
Orange Bowl: ACC Champ = Open = #10 Wisconsin (B10 Champ)

The Rose would likely select Oregon over WI as the PAC ties go back more than the B1G ties. That Orange Bowl "open" since the ACC Champ wasn't one of the five highest, which leaves WI for that slot:

QF:
Sugar Bowl: #1 LSU (SEC Champ) vs
Fiesta Bowl: #3 Oklahoma State (B12 Champ) vs
Rose Bowl: #5 Oregon (PAC Champ) vs
Orange Bowl: #10 Wisconsin (B10 Champ) vs

First Round match ups have the four Home Teams - the other 2 AQ Champs, the 1 Non-AQ Champ, and the Highest Ranked At Large. This year:

#11 Virginia Tech (ACC Champ)
#18 TCU (MWC Champ)
#23 West Virginia (BE Champ)
#2 Alabama (SEC)

Their opponents are slotted in *reverse* Ranking order. In other words, the highest ranked Home Team gets the lowest ranked Road Team.

#13 Michigan (B10) at #2 Alabama (SEC)
#8 Kansas State (B12) at #11 Virginia Tech (ACC Champ)
#7 Boise State (MWC) at #18 TCU (MWC Champ)
#4 Stanford (PAC) at #23 West Virginia (BE Champ)

Kind of a fluke that the two MWC teams face each other. You could put in a rule that two teams from the same conference can't face each other in the First Round (or even in the QF). To make it easy, I'll pass on that... and don't really think it's a great idea anyway. Kind of tough luck.

So let's pretend that the Highest Ranked teams get through all of these games just to make it easy. Obviously 3 road teams aren't likely to win... and it also takes out all the Champs in this round... but screw it. :)

#2 Alabama (SEC)
#4 Stanford (PAC)
#7 Boise State (MWC)
#8 Kansas State (B12)

Those teams then get slotted into the QF in the same fashion: Highest Ranked "host" gets Lowest Ranked First Round Winner, etc:

QF:
Sugar Bowl: #1 LSU (SEC Champ) vs #8 Kansas State (B12)
Fiesta Bowl: #3 Oklahoma State (B12 Champ) vs #7 Boise State (MWC)
Rose Bowl: #5 Oregon (PAC Champ) vs #4 Stanford (PAC)
Orange Bowl: #10 Wisconsin (B10 Champ) vs #2 Alabama (SEC)

Yes, the PAC would be very unhappy.

But in turn, I think you also "seed" the SF based on the Bowl *Host*:

Sugar Bow Winner (#1 LSU Host) vs Orange Bowl Winner (#10 Wisconsin Host)
Fiesta Bowl Winner (#3 Oklahoma State Host) vs Rose Bowl Winner (#5 Oregon Host)

So that's right... if Bama beats WI, they get to play LSU in the semis. ;)

Again, you could toss in a lot of rules that teams from the same conference can't play each other until the Final, and it's pretty simple to do. Hard to tell if that would make everyone happy... but who knows.

Anyway, then I *think* I would flip the SF back to being hosted by Highest Ranked Team. That locks in a good crowd.

In turn, the Final would be sold out to cities.

John

Re: 2011 College Football Thread

jdw — Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:58 am

Author: jdw

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:58 am

Coaches with 3+ national titles in the polling era:

4 - Frank Leahy (1943, 1946, 1947, 1949)
4 - John McKay (1962, 1967, 1972, 1974)
4 - Bear Bryant (1961, 1965, 1978, 1979)

3 - Bernie Bierman (1936, 1940, 1941)
3 - Woody Hayes (1954, 1957, 1968)
3 - Tom Osborne (1994, 1995, 1997)
3 - Nick Saban (2003, 2009, 2011)

I don't count:

* Bud Wilkinson 1950 (lost in Bowl)
* Bear 1964 (lost in Bowl)
* Darrell Royal 1970 (lost in Bowl)
* Bear 1973 (lost in Bowl)
* Barry Switzer 1974 (on probation)

Bud, Royal and Barry would be at 3 with the extra title. Bear would be at 6. Can't credit Bear since his 1964 and 1973 teams are the specific reason that the polls were moved to being after the bowls: he'd skunked out two cheap national titles by losing the bowls.

Also think Leahy's title in 1946 was cheap. They tied the two-time defending national champs Army, yet got the national title. To me, to be the champ you need to beat them when each team is otherwise undefeated. That concept is especially stronger when they're the two-time defending champs.

John

Re: 2011 College Football Thread

jdw — Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:26 am

Author: jdw

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:26 am

Well, that sucks. USC drops out of the Top 5, getting jumped by Arkansas. We probably needed Stanford to beat OSU to finish #3, which in turn might have dropped OSU behind both the Ducks and USC.

It is kind of funny to see the Ducks jump USC. Didn't we just beat them... in Oregon? :)

John

Re: 2011 College Football Thread

jdw — Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:12 pm

Author: jdw

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:12 pm

Great *offensive* performance by Bama against a stout LSU defense. The last FG and last TD came at a time when the defense felt almost like it broke because the LSU offense was so horrid that there was no hope.

Bama's defense is excellent, but what I'd been tossing around a lot all year was reality: this is a mediocre LSU offense that's been carried by the defense, special teams, a couple of "Big Plays" on offense each game, and simply being able to eventually wear down opponent's defenses by having them out there on the field all day (a by product of the LSU defense). It's a "great" performance on some level, but this wasn't a good ofense they faced at all. It almost would have been more impressive if they held an Oklahoma State offense to 14 points.

John

Re: 2011 College Football Thread

Rian — Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:54 pm

Author: Rian

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:54 pm

Barkley wants a Heisman, and a BCS bowl game.

Re: 2011 College Football Thread

jdw — Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:53 am

Author: jdw

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:53 am

Woo-hoo~!

:)

John

Re: 2011 College Football Thread

Bob Morris — Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:08 pm

Author: Bob Morris

Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:08 pm

Matt Barkley to return to USC for his senior year.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Merry-Christmas-USC-You-8217-re-getting-one-m?urn=ncaaf-wp11902

I could have just as easily stuck this in the NFL thread, given the implications on the Andrew Luck sweepstakes.

But now Barkley joins Luck and Sam Bradford as recent QBs who opted not to declare early for the NFL draft.

I suspect the rookie pay scale might have something to do with. That pay scale means no guarantees of instant "franchise player" contracts. Now, the first-round draft picks get contracts more comparable to what an average-to-good player gets, only all the money is guaranteed.

Another possibility: More of these top QBs would rather finish their college educations than declare early... perhaps the belief that nothing is guaranteed in the NFL and that they want to ensure they have something to fall back on in case things don't go well once they reach the pros.

Third option to consider: Barkley hasn't run afoul of violating NCAA policies, and if I'm not mistaken, Luck hasn't either. I believe the same applied to Bradford, but correct me if I'm wrong. On the other hand, I know a few players who declared early ran afoul of NCAA (and, admittedly, some of the sanctions were trivial). I wonder if any of the three might have thought differently if they had been sanctioned by the NCAA, particularly for something that could be called trivial.

EDIT: I should add two points covered in the Yahoo article: Barkley has a chance to win the Heisman Trophy in 2012 and he has a chance to participate in a college bowl game next year as USC's two-year bowl ban will end.

Regardless, that's one less QB prospect for NFL teams to pursue in 2012.

Re: 2011 College Football Thread

Rian — Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:27 pm

Author: Rian

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:27 pm

Yeah that's what I meant, repaid their share. The Big 10(12) would have received that spot anyway.

Re: 2011 College Football Thread

jdw — Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:12 pm

Author: jdw

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:12 pm

They repay their share. The Big 10 keeps their share. Sparty at #9 probably would have gotten the Sugar Bowl bid instead rather than the Capital One Bowl... where Bama beat the hell out of them. :)

John

Re: 2011 College Football Thread

Rian — Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:57 pm

Author: Rian

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:57 pm

Didn't they repay the BCS money for last year?

Re: 2011 College Football Thread

jdw — Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:27 pm

Author: jdw

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:27 pm

NCAA slaps Ohio State with bowl ban, scholarship loss, show cause for Tressel

So if I get this straight...

USC Football
* 30 football scholarships over three years
* two year bowl ban

OSU Football
* 9 football scholarships over three years
* one year bowl ban
* allowed to play in 2010/2011 BCS Bowl with known violators

I'm not being a homer here when I say this as I've never said USC didn't deserve to get hammered (specifically because I thought they were assholes in stone walling the NCAA), but...

OSU's punishments are lightweight shit. Just fucking ridiculous.

John