NCAAF 2014

Off Topic
1

I think it is going to be a fun year. We have the first college football playoff with 5 conferences but only 4 spots, Heisman winner Jameis Winston returns to the field (assuming he does nothing stupid in the meantime), and we have a non-SEC defending champion for the first time in a while. Not sure what interest there is a T-Nation for a college football thread, but I am excited for the season so I decided to start one.

Curious on anyone’s national champion and playoff picks as well as Heisman winner and finalists. Here are my early picks with winners in CAPS.

Playoff:
Alabama
FLORIDA STATE
Michigan State
Baylor

Alabama and Florida State no very exotic. I just think FSU is the best team and very have so much talent. I got the Noles taking it all. Bama will have a new QB, but I am not too worried about that. After all AJ won a BCS title his freshman year and Bama will have a great run game and stellar D as always. Sparty has a great defensive system that will continue to work and I think the offense will pick up where it left off this season. If the offense got going earlier MSU could have been undefeated last season. Perhaps my most exotic pick is Baylor who will be led by Bryce Petty (see below).

This leaves out the Pac-12. I think the Pac-12 will have some very good teams, but as usual they will beat up on each other and split games late in the season leading to their omission from the playoff. Also the pre-conference MSU vs. Oregon will be very interesting.

Heisman:
BRYCE PETTY
Jameis Winston
Todd Gurley
Marcus Mariota
Melvin Gordon

I really like Petty. I think that Baylor offense continues to be great and Petty puts up huge numbers as Baylor wins the Big 12 and gets into the playoff. Jameis will have a great year, but not enough to repeat. Gurley and Mariota stay healthy. Wisconsin’s Melvin Gordon puts two running backs as finalists. Gordon has a huge game as Wisconsin beats LSU in week 1, then Wisconsin Big Ten schedule sets up nicely (no MSU or OSU) plus Gordon gets more carries with James White gone.

2


YEAH ROLL TIDE SEC SEC SEC derp derp derp

3

if Notre Dame go 11-1 they will probably to put them in as they’ve got the #1 toughest schedule.
FSU opens with Ok St, has ND at home and travels to Louisville and ends with Fla. I think 1 loss would hurt them more than ND especially if they don’t make the conf championship as expectations are so high.
Mich St plays @Oregon Sept 6 and the winner gets a big early push in the polls. their schedules are interesting.
Alabama opens with West Virginia and if they destroy them it could hurt Baylor as they play no tough OOC teams and Big 12 has no conference championship game.
a few well timed losses could let 2 teams from the same conference in “cough SEC cough”

my dark horses
South Carolina-opens with Tex A&M Aug 28 and Georgia Sept 13 both at home and travel to Fla and Aub but no Bama or LSU unless the meet in conf Championship.
Oregon St-only 5 away games but @USC & @Stanford could be tough. have AZ St at home week after AZ St play ND. could be 10-1 or 11-0 with Oregon coming to Corvallis.

DAMN!!! I WANT SOME FOOTBALL!!! and not fiba

4

[quote]silverblood wrote:
a few well timed losses could let 2 teams from the same conference in “cough SEC cough”
[/quote]

I very much fear this. I do not think 2 teams from the same conference should ever happen with a four team playoff. The postseason should not be a time for rematches, it should give us games we would not otherwise see.

I will be very interesting to see how it turns out and to see what the committee does this year.

[quote]silverblood wrote:
my dark horses
South Carolina-opens with Tex A&M Aug 28 and Georgia Sept 13 both at home and travel to Fla and Aub but no Bama or LSU unless the meet in conf Championship.
Oregon St-only 5 away games but @USC & @Stanford could be tough. have AZ St at home week after AZ St play ND. could be 10-1 or 11-0 with Oregon coming to Corvallis.
[/quote]

I do like South Carolina schedule now that you point it out. The SEC has the interesting thing playing conference games week one.

Oregon St. very well could come out of the Pac-12, but this is exactly why I took no teams from the Pac-12 because I feel like there are a lot of teams right there in that conference.

5

[quote]JMac31 wrote:
The postseason should not be a time for rematches, it should give us games we would not otherwise see.

I will be very interesting to see how it turns out and to see what the committee does this year.
[/quote]

Wrong, the postseason should be for the four best teams. Period. If two of those come from the same conference then so be it. I don’t personally think four teams is big enough but it’ll do for now.

6

Sorry but this is to early. This is an August thread

7

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]JMac31 wrote:
The postseason should not be a time for rematches, it should give us games we would not otherwise see.

I will be very interesting to see how it turns out and to see what the committee does this year.
[/quote]

Wrong, the postseason should be for the four best teams. Period. If two of those come from the same conference then so be it. I don’t personally think four teams is big enough but it’ll do for now. [/quote]

Can you really pick the four “best” teams from the regular season? I saw articles from “experts” at the end of last season putting FSU, Auburn, Bama, and Stanford in a hypothetical playoff. Three of those teams lost bowl games. Not saying those are not great teams, but should we really write off MSU and Oklahoma for a second SEC team? Let the conferences sort themselves out then pick the playoff from the conference champions. I agree with 100+ teams a 4 team playoff is not the best. Maybe two of the best teams are from the same conference, but if they have already played use that game as a extra playoff round.

8

[quote]JMac31 wrote:
I do not think 2 teams from the same conference should ever happen with a four team playoff. The postseason should not be a time for rematches, it should give us games we would not otherwise see.
[/quote]

I’ve long thought that this is a case where the big guys could learn from the way the little guys do things (I played Division III football).

Division III has about 240 teams; 32 make the playoffs and there are 24 “AQ” conferences (a conference must have at least seven football teams to get an auto-bid, trickier than you think because not all D3 schools have football). The bids are given out as such: 24 conference champions get what are called the “Pool A” bids; the 2-3 highest-ranked teams from non-AQ conferences get what are known as the “Pool B” bids; and the remaining 5-6 bids are at-large bids for the teams with the best resume that are not already in the field.

It’s fantastic. The first two rounds of the playoffs are often loaded with teams that have never played each other, and certainly none that have played each other that season (except in rare cases when two teams from one area make it and they are forced to play in round 1 regardless of their seed, due to the NCAA’s insistence on paying for as little travel as possible; longer talk for another time).

It would be very easy to adapt a similar system to Division I for an 8-team playoff or a 16-team playoff.

8 teams: all five “AQ” conference champs get a bid, one at-large spot is reserved for the highest-ranked conference champion from a NON-AQ conference (thereby ensuring that all teams have, at least theoretically, a path to the playoff), and the remaining two at-large bids given to the two highest-ranked runners-up from AQ conferences

16 teams: all 11 FBS conference champs get a bid, five at-larges doled out to highest-ranked teams that did not win a conference.

Both have their own flaws, but this would eliminate the silly squabbling about whether a runner-up from Conference X should get in over an undefeated champion from Conference Y. I loved the old bowl system and miss some of the old traditions, but if we’re going to have a damn playoff, at least get all of the major conference champions into the thing.

9

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
I’ve long thought that this is a case where the big guys could learn from the way the little guys do things (I played Division III football).

Division III has about 240 teams; 32 make the playoffs and there are 24 “AQ” conferences (a conference must have at least seven football teams to get an auto-bid, trickier than you think because not all D3 schools have football). The bids are given out as such: 24 conference champions get what are called the “Pool A” bids; the 2-3 highest-ranked teams from non-AQ conferences get what are known as the “Pool B” bids; and the remaining 5-6 bids are at-large bids for the teams with the best resume that are not already in the field.

It’s fantastic. The first two rounds of the playoffs are often loaded with teams that have never played each other, and certainly none that have played each other that season (except in rare cases when two teams from one area make it and they are forced to play in round 1 regardless of their seed, due to the NCAA’s insistence on paying for as little travel as possible; longer talk for another time).
[/quote]

From what I see D III teams play a 10 game regular season. Is this correct?

For the D I teams to do a longer playoff they would probably need to cut out a regular season game or two. I feel schools would not want to lose revenue from dropping a home game. Maybe we could get the 8 team playoff without dropping regular season games though.

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
It would be very easy to adapt a similar system to Division I for an 8-team playoff or a 16-team playoff.

8 teams: all five “AQ” conference champs get a bid, one at-large spot is reserved for the highest-ranked conference champion from a NON-AQ conference (thereby ensuring that all teams have, at least theoretically, a path to the playoff), and the remaining two at-large bids given to the two highest-ranked runners-up from AQ conferences

16 teams: all 11 FBS conference champs get a bid, five at-larges doled out to highest-ranked teams that did not win a conference.
[/quote]

I like both of these options. In the 16 team playoff you would have some lesser teams in, but that is ok since the higher seeds can be rewarded with an easier first round game. The only thing is we will also need a “Notre Dame” rule lol. I do like a system where theoretically every team has a way in by winning all of its games, or at least by winning its (major/“AQ”) conference.

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

Both have their own flaws, but this would eliminate the silly squabbling about whether a runner-up from Conference X should get in over an undefeated champion from Conference Y. I loved the old bowl system and miss some of the old traditions, but if we’re going to have a damn playoff, at least get all of the major conference champions into the thing.[/quote]

I do to miss some of the tradition as well, but I feel like conferences may have more movement before all is settled. So, even with the old bowl system it would not be all that “traditional”. If we get few bigger conferences that could make a playoff go easier. Also leave more room for at large bids.

10

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

[quote]JMac31 wrote:
I do not think 2 teams from the same conference should ever happen with a four team playoff. The postseason should not be a time for rematches, it should give us games we would not otherwise see.
[/quote]

I’ve long thought that this is a case where the big guys could learn from the way the little guys do things (I played Division III football).

Division III has about 240 teams; 32 make the playoffs and there are 24 “AQ” conferences (a conference must have at least seven football teams to get an auto-bid, trickier than you think because not all D3 schools have football). The bids are given out as such: 24 conference champions get what are called the “Pool A” bids; the 2-3 highest-ranked teams from non-AQ conferences get what are known as the “Pool B” bids; and the remaining 5-6 bids are at-large bids for the teams with the best resume that are not already in the field.

It’s fantastic. The first two rounds of the playoffs are often loaded with teams that have never played each other, and certainly none that have played each other that season (except in rare cases when two teams from one area make it and they are forced to play in round 1 regardless of their seed, due to the NCAA’s insistence on paying for as little travel as possible; longer talk for another time).

It would be very easy to adapt a similar system to Division I for an 8-team playoff or a 16-team playoff.

8 teams: all five “AQ” conference champs get a bid, one at-large spot is reserved for the highest-ranked conference champion from a NON-AQ conference (thereby ensuring that all teams have, at least theoretically, a path to the playoff), and the remaining two at-large bids given to the two highest-ranked runners-up from AQ conferences

16 teams: all 11 FBS conference champs get a bid, five at-larges doled out to highest-ranked teams that did not win a conference.

Both have their own flaws, but this would eliminate the silly squabbling about whether a runner-up from Conference X should get in over an undefeated champion from Conference Y. I loved the old bowl system and miss some of the old traditions, but if we’re going to have a damn playoff, at least get all of the major conference champions into the thing.[/quote]

how would they rank 1-16? use the old BCS computer system or strength of schedule? what if the Mountain West, Mid American, Sunbelt, American Athletic, and Conference USA were the only ones with undefeated teams in the field? would they be seeded higher than a 1 or 2 loss conference champ from the SEC or PAC 12? what if BYU and ND, both independents, also went undefeated?

#1-ND(IND) vs #16-FSU(12-1 with loss in ACC champ to 8-5 Duke)
#2-SD St(Mtn West) vs #15-LSU(11-1 with loss to SEC runner up 12-1 Bama)
#3-BYU(IND) vs #14 8-5 Duke ACC champ
#4-SMU(Amer Ath) vs #13 9-4 UCLA PAC champ
#5-Western Kentucky(Sun Belt) vs #12 10-3 Wisconsin Big 10 champ
#6-Marshall(Conf USA) vs #11 12-1 Bama or 12-1 Mich St(lost to Wis in Big 10 champ)
#7-Akron(Mid AME) vs #10 10-2 Baylor Big 12 champ
#8-South Carolina SEC champ 11-2 vs #9 Oregon St(12-1 with loss to UCLA in PAC champ)

11

[quote]silverblood wrote:
how would they rank 1-16? use the old BCS computer system or strength of schedule? what if the Mountain West, Mid American, Sunbelt, American Athletic, and Conference USA were the only ones with undefeated teams in the field? would they be seeded higher than a 1 or 2 loss conference champ from the SEC or PAC 12? what if BYU and ND, both independents, also went undefeated?[/quote]

Devil’s advocate, I like it lol. Definitely are a lot of questions and issues to address. Like I said above we would need a “Notre Dame”/Independent rule. I would say let a committee pick and at large teams and seed the teams similar to March Madness. So, just like March Madness the conference champions can be seeded below at large teams.

12

JMac: yes, Division III schools play a 10-game regular season and start the playoffs earlier than FBS schools would want to. You make a good point that the FBS schools would not want to give up their 12-game regular season for a playoff; however, I’d argue that they could still easily have an 8 or 16 team playoff even with that regular season as-is. Hold the last regular season games on Thanksgiving weekend and the playoffs could start the first weekend of December. It’d be over by Christmastime without any issues. Hell, you could play the national title game on the weekend after Christmas, or on New Year’s Day!

As for the “academics” and “missed class time” argument that gets raised from time to time as an objection to a playoff: I call bullshit on this one. For one, it’s only a small subset of teams that would even BE in the playoff for more than a week or two. For two, since when have academics mattered to most of those schools? Did anyone pay attention to the recent UNC scandal? This shit happens everywhere in Division 1. For three, basketball players that make the Final Four miss virtually a solid month of classes in the middle of a semester.

I’m honestly fine with either of the 8/16 team options. While I like some exclusivity, I also kind of like the 16-team option because it brings every conference champion to the table - as you said, the weak sisters might be wiped out in the first round anyway, but isn’t that part of the fun? Isn’t that what makes March Madness so great? We’d have MAC champion Toledo trying to knock off Alabama in round 1, etc. So what if the first week has a few blowouts? People would still tune in, and I love the idea of giving those teams a crack at the title. The big boys can eliminate the small fries if they’re so good, and then the “real” playoffs will start the next week, in their mind.

silverblood: I do agree that the system I presented has its own logistical issues that would have to be hashed out with seeding the teams and the like. However, the mere existence of practical issues that need to be hashed out isn’t reason to abandon the idea completely! I believe that things like seeding, hosting, etc could be resolved. You know what would be really great (I’m stealing an idea from Bill Simmons here) would be if they ranked the teams from 1-16 and then let the teams choose their opponent for the first round game (team #1 gets to play whoever they want in round 1, team #2 gets the choice of the remaining teams, until all of the matchups are set). How mother-freaking great would that be? But that’s way too much fun, I guess.

The great thing about either of the above solutions is that now every conference champ (in the 16-team playoff) or, at least, every major-conference champ (in the 8-team playoff) would be in the field. Not one team would be able to say that the system was rigged against them from the start and they had no chance to win it all…if they didn’t like it, they should have won their conference. If you didn’t win your conference title, you have no business bitching about the national title (and yes, I’m aware that Alabama beat LSU for the title in a rematch a few years ago, but that’s just the point: why did an LSU team that busted their ass to beat Alabama, and then had to play a conference title game against a good Georgia team, then have to then play Alabama again for the national title? Shouldn’t winning your conference mean something?)

13

More than anything, I look forward to a playoff system. And the last year of sanctions for my Trojans.

14

[quote]JMac31 wrote:

[quote]silverblood wrote:
how would they rank 1-16? use the old BCS computer system or strength of schedule? what if the Mountain West, Mid American, Sunbelt, American Athletic, and Conference USA were the only ones with undefeated teams in the field? would they be seeded higher than a 1 or 2 loss conference champ from the SEC or PAC 12? what if BYU and ND, both independents, also went undefeated?[/quote]

Devil’s advocate, I like it lol. Definitely are a lot of questions and issues to address. Like I said above we would need a “Notre Dame”/Independent rule. I would say let a committee pick and at large teams and seed the teams similar to March Madness. So, just like March Madness the conference champions can be seeded below at large teams.[/quote]

I agree - this would be my solution as well. In the 16-team playoff, let the committee seed teams like March Madness.

Another option, which I love but would drive some people nuts, is to have a pre-existing bracket with the 11 conference champions slotted in before the season even starts (so in theory you could slot the SEC champ against the Sun Belt champ in round one, the PAC-12 champ against the C-USA champ), and then have a completely random draw to place the five at-large teams in the five empty slots.

15

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
JMac: yes, Division III schools play a 10-game regular season and start the playoffs earlier than FBS schools would want to. You make a good point that the FBS schools would not want to give up their 12-game regular season for a playoff; however, I’d argue that they could still easily have an 8 or 16 team playoff even with that regular season as-is. Hold the last regular season games on Thanksgiving weekend and the playoffs could start the first weekend of December. It’d be over by Christmastime without any issues. Hell, you could play the national title game on the weekend after Christmas, or on New Year’s Day!

As for the “academics” and “missed class time” argument that gets raised from time to time as an objection to a playoff: I call bullshit on this one. For one, it’s only a small subset of teams that would even BE in the playoff for more than a week or two. For two, since when have academics mattered to most of those schools? Did anyone pay attention to the recent UNC scandal? This shit happens everywhere in Division 1. For three, basketball players that make the Final Four miss virtually a solid month of classes in the middle of a semester.

I’m honestly fine with either of the 8/16 team options. While I like some exclusivity, I also kind of like the 16-team option because it brings every conference champion to the table - as you said, the weak sisters might be wiped out in the first round anyway, but isn’t that part of the fun? Isn’t that what makes March Madness so great? We’d have MAC champion Toledo trying to knock off Alabama in round 1, etc. So what if the first week has a few blowouts? People would still tune in, and I love the idea of giving those teams a crack at the title. The big boys can eliminate the small fries if they’re so good, and then the “real” playoffs will start the next week, in their mind.

silverblood: I do agree that the system I presented has its own logistical issues that would have to be hashed out with seeding the teams and the like. However, the mere existence of practical issues that need to be hashed out isn’t reason to abandon the idea completely! I believe that things like seeding, hosting, etc could be resolved. You know what would be really great (I’m stealing an idea from Bill Simmons here) would be if they ranked the teams from 1-16 and then let the teams choose their opponent for the first round game (team #1 gets to play whoever they want in round 1, team #2 gets the choice of the remaining teams, until all of the matchups are set). How mother-freaking great would that be? But that’s way too much fun, I guess.

The great thing about either of the above solutions is that now every conference champ (in the 16-team playoff) or, at least, every major-conference champ (in the 8-team playoff) would be in the field. Not one team would be able to say that the system was rigged against them from the start and they had no chance to win it all…if they didn’t like it, they should have won their conference. If you didn’t win your conference title, you have no business bitching about the national title (and yes, I’m aware that Alabama beat LSU for the title in a rematch a few years ago, but that’s just the point: why did an LSU team that busted their ass to beat Alabama, and then had to play a conference title game against a good Georgia team, then have to then play Alabama again for the national title? Shouldn’t winning your conference mean something?)[/quote]

I never said to abandon it but there would be just as much whining and bitching with a 16 team field. people would be screaming “bring back the BCS!” if you had Bama, Mich St, FSU, and Or St, all go undefeated until the conf championship game and lose to teams with 2+ losses who wouldn’t get a bid? LSU go 11-1, close game with Bama, and not make the conf champ but Bama loses? Oregon goes 11-1 with only loss to Or St that loses conf champ. Baylor loses 2 non-conf games and runs the table in the Big 12 and 11-1 Ok only loss is to Baylor?
11 automatic bids + 2 undefeated independents and at least 7 1 loss power conf teams. you could have a play in with 6 teams vying for the last 3 spots but 1 gets left out.

16

[quote]silverblood wrote:
I never said to abandon it but there would be just as much whining and bitching with a 16 team field. people would be screaming “bring back the BCS!” if you had Bama, Mich St, FSU, and Or St, all go undefeated until the conf championship game and lose to teams with 2+ losses who wouldn’t get a bid? LSU go 11-1, close game with Bama, and not make the conf champ but Bama loses? Oregon goes 11-1 with only loss to Or St that loses conf champ. Baylor loses 2 non-conf games and runs the table in the Big 12 and 11-1 Ok only loss is to Baylor?
11 automatic bids + 2 undefeated independents and at least 7 1 loss power conf teams. you could have a play in with 6 teams vying for the last 3 spots but 1 gets left out.
[/quote]

True even in basketball with a 68 team field some bubble team ends up whining. However, I am fine if every conference gets an auto-bid. Then you can tell anyone whining that they should have won their conference. Before the season starts everyone knows what the rules are. If you slip up and do not take care of business that sucks, but winning a championship is not suppose to be easy. The best team does not always win the championship, and this is not something unique to college football. Think of the Giants over undefeated Pats in Super Bowl XLII. I would say the Pats were the best team that season, but the system in place in the playoffs and Super Bowl and the Giants won.

Also that is a crazy senario, but college football always gives of crazy senarios which is one of the reasons I love it. Like the Bama vs. LSU rematch in the BCS title game ActivitiesGuys had referenced. The regular season LSU @ Bama game was essentially a playoff, but then Stanford and OK St. had to lose games the weeks following to let Bama creep back to #2. Crazy things have happen and will happen.

17

JMac - well put re: the idea of giving every conference champ an autobid, those are my thoughts exactly. If you want the chance to play for the national title, win your conference and we’ll talk. If you don’t win your conference, don’t come crying. As you said - there will be off scenarios where a team that IS good enough to win the national title doesn’t win the conference, but winning the national title is supposed to be hard!

FWIW, these types of arguments transpire on our d3football.com message board every year about who should get those last couple of at large bids, but we d3 fans are virtually unanimous in agreeing that, despite all our bickering about who deserved those bids, we still acknowledge that every team in that at large pool DID have their chance to secure an autobid. That’s ALWAYS mentioned in our at large discussions.

I’d have the same feeling about the aforementioned D1 playoff that gives an auto bid to every conference champ. That way every team HAD a path to the national title. Some paths may be easier than others, but if you want to stake a claim as the best college football team in the country, you probably shouldn’t be making excuses for why you lost a game and someone else didn’t. As you said, the best team doesn’t always win the Super Bowl, or March Madness, and yet they’re still acknowledged as worthy champions.

18

The good college football story of the week USC is now offering four-year scholarships instead of one-year renewable ones. I think with the current system of “amateurism” all schools should do this. This may all be changing (and that is a whole other debate), but as it stands now if we consider players student-athletes I think there should be four-year scholarships.

The bad college football story of the week (there are actually a few) I’ll go with is the Texas Tech cornerback who allegedly punched a female basketball basketball player in the face during a pick up game. Did anyone hear about this? That is so awful. I always joke with my buddy about what a catch-22 it is playing ball against a girl. If you let her score you will get made fun of, and if you play defensive too hard and foul or something you are a jerk. I never thought I would hear about something like this though.

19

Here is a quote from an ESPN article (link at bottom) on the Oregon Ducks. Of course I did not read the whole article because I have no desire to pay for ESPN insider, but I believe I found a mistake. Either that or I am just reading something wrong. In the quote below it appears the author is implying Sam Bradford played in the Pac-10/12?

“Instead, the once-in-a-generation talent returns to school so that he might achieve what Matt Barkley, Andrew Luck, Sam Bradford and others in the Pac-12 couldn’t: winning a national championship.”

20

Lol, it is very easy to make that interpretation, but I think this might have been merely poor phrasing on their part. Luck, Barkley, and Bradford are the most recent “QB’s that returned to college even as presumptive top-10 picks” and I think they may have been lumping Mariota in with that group (although, then you might ask, why even throw that “others in the Pac-12” clause in?)

I’m no English major though.

I always think it’s funny when I find a typo in any release/article from a major news source.