College Football: 2014 Season News and Discussion Thread
#161
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
Yea I'm just a little peeved because I had 1.5-2 potentially great OSU football years tarnished for reasons very similar. And I don't feel like he will get the same treatment.
#162
Q('.')=O
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
1- Fire the defensive coordinator. (should have been fired after last year)
2- Cut Kenny Hill. After his dream start he's back down to earth and sucking massive cock.
3- Learn how to play football.
An absolute embarrassment. The whole team should walk home
2- Cut Kenny Hill. After his dream start he's back down to earth and sucking massive cock.
3- Learn how to play football.
An absolute embarrassment. The whole team should walk home
Last edited by imj0257; 10-18-2014 at 04:59 PM.
#163
Earth-bound misfit
I haven't been able to watch because I was busy, but was just about to finally turn it on when my husband called and warned me not to bother.
Wtf. Kenny had us all snowed, to be sure. Is he smiling on the sidelines again? Because that annoys the hell out of me.
Wtf. Kenny had us all snowed, to be sure. Is he smiling on the sidelines again? Because that annoys the hell out of me.
#165
Q('.')=O
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
At least we aren't Texas .
I could say that yes, we've lost to the 1st, 3rd, and 7th best teams in the country. But looking how we play right now, we could lose to Southeast Central Oklahoma State County Technical College.
I could say that yes, we've lost to the 1st, 3rd, and 7th best teams in the country. But looking how we play right now, we could lose to Southeast Central Oklahoma State County Technical College.
#168
Senior Moderator
Well shit.
Dancer, he finally showed some emotion, but that was the worst offensive coordinating job I have ever witnessed.
Dancer, he finally showed some emotion, but that was the worst offensive coordinating job I have ever witnessed.
Last edited by oo7spy; 10-18-2014 at 09:34 PM.
The following users liked this post:
wndrlst (10-20-2014)
#169
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
Wow A&M... :/ lol
ND almost had it. Felt like they did really. And I agree, Winston's face is getting on my nerves.
ND almost had it. Felt like they did really. And I agree, Winston's face is getting on my nerves.
The following users liked this post:
StealthTL-S (10-20-2014)
#170
08 TL type-S
All you Texas A&M fans, sorry, your team has gone downhill.
Notre Dame was robbed of the win. Clearly , FSU paid somebody. Horrible call, and the end of the game, that was very petty, from the 2 yard, affecting the whole outcome of the game! This happens all the time, and they call it at this point in the game?!
Notre Dame clearly outplayed FSU and it showed.
Notre Dame was robbed of the win. Clearly , FSU paid somebody. Horrible call, and the end of the game, that was very petty, from the 2 yard, affecting the whole outcome of the game! This happens all the time, and they call it at this point in the game?!
Notre Dame clearly outplayed FSU and it showed.
#171
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
Still, it was a clear-cut OPI. There is no denying it.
Sure it may not get called all the time but rules are rules.
Now the helmet removal...that's an interesting conversation.
Sure it may not get called all the time but rules are rules.
Now the helmet removal...that's an interesting conversation.
#173
Q('.')=O
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
It is pointless to watch A&M play if they keep playing like they did vs Alabama. SO BAD is so many aspects. Luckily they have a bye this week and maybe can work some shit out.
At least the Cowboys are winning and hockey season has begun...
At least the Cowboys are winning and hockey season has begun...
#175
Senior Moderator
We sucked 4 weeks in a row. Our "showing" in Tuscaloosa was inexcusable and pathetic, so don't take this as bitching or whining.
Why the fuck did we play 8 games before a bye-week? I see Vanderbilt went 7 games. Is it some kind of random draw type of thing. We could have really used one after the Arkansas game.
EDIT: Just looked at next year's schedule. SEC will only allow one bye week and it appears the average is week 8. A&M gets theirs week 6, but Ole Miss has to wait until week 11.
Why the fuck did we play 8 games before a bye-week? I see Vanderbilt went 7 games. Is it some kind of random draw type of thing. We could have really used one after the Arkansas game.
EDIT: Just looked at next year's schedule. SEC will only allow one bye week and it appears the average is week 8. A&M gets theirs week 6, but Ole Miss has to wait until week 11.
Last edited by oo7spy; 10-20-2014 at 03:23 PM.
#176
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
Yea but what does it really matter? There won't be 3 SECW teams in the playoffs. Lol
I'm going to go with...
1. Florida State (Undefeated ACC Champion)
2. Alabama (1-loss SEC Champion)
3. Oregon (1-Loss PAC 12 Champion)
4. Michigan State / Ohio State (1-Loss Big 10 Champion)
I'm going to go with...
1. Florida State (Undefeated ACC Champion)
2. Alabama (1-loss SEC Champion)
3. Oregon (1-Loss PAC 12 Champion)
4. Michigan State / Ohio State (1-Loss Big 10 Champion)
#177
Senior Moderator
All the more reason why 4 teams is a waste of time. If Bama beats Miss St and Miss St beats Ole Miss, any one of those three is better than Oregon.
Oh, and they will let 2 SECW teams in before OSU gets in.
Oh, and they will let 2 SECW teams in before OSU gets in.
#178
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
A one-loss Big 10 champion will get in before a one-loss non-champion will.
Believe it.
That championship game means everything.
Edit: bc horrible English.
Believe it.
That championship game means everything.
Edit: bc horrible English.
Last edited by maharajamd; 10-20-2014 at 03:36 PM.
#180
The Dumb One
iTrader: (1)
and its a judging committee, not based off winning your conference.
if the voters want a 1 loss non-conference champ in, they'll get in.
From the College football playoffs page.
if the voters want a 1 loss non-conference champ in, they'll get in.
From the College football playoffs page.
A team's strength of schedule will be one of the most pertinent considerations for the committee in making its selections.
Due to the increased emphasis on strength of schedule under the new playoff system, teams will consider playing more challenging opponents during the non-conference portion of their schedules. Some teams have traditionally played three or four "weak" non-conference opponents, but wins against such low-level competition are unlikely to impress the committee. For teams on the cusp of making the playoff four, "I think one of the first things the committee will look at is strength of schedule," said selector Oliver Luck.[39]
Due to the increased emphasis on strength of schedule under the new playoff system, teams will consider playing more challenging opponents during the non-conference portion of their schedules. Some teams have traditionally played three or four "weak" non-conference opponents, but wins against such low-level competition are unlikely to impress the committee. For teams on the cusp of making the playoff four, "I think one of the first things the committee will look at is strength of schedule," said selector Oliver Luck.[39]
Last edited by Rockstar21; 10-20-2014 at 03:44 PM.
#181
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
Look at all the future games, ranks and records, the divisions who will play in the championships, and it's very plausible post #176 will come to fruition.
And I'm not saying a one-loss Big10 team is better than even a two loss SEC team. Not at all. I'm just saying that's how I imagine the politics will play out.
And I'm not saying a one-loss Big10 team is better than even a two loss SEC team. Not at all. I'm just saying that's how I imagine the politics will play out.
The following users liked this post:
Rockstar21 (10-20-2014)
#183
Senior Moderator
We just need 8. One more game won't hurt anything. It will keep teams in playing condition instead of taking 6 weeks off, and best of all, it will create even more $$$. Who can argue that?
#184
The Dumb One
iTrader: (1)
yes, but Bama, could win The Sec Championship, and Miss St. could finish with 1 loss. (having their only loss to Alabama)
they would still both be in the top 5 undoubtedly.
Last edited by Rockstar21; 10-20-2014 at 03:53 PM.
#186
Senior Moderator
Well, it looks like another year of not looking forward to playing LSU. I was getting hopeful there for a while.
The following users liked this post:
Rockstar21 (10-27-2014)
#187
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
Anyone watch the CFB "Who's In" shows?
1 SEC
1 ACC
1 PAC
1 B1G
Lol. We shall see.
OSU gave up a big lead but still came out with a victory. It all comes down to Nov 7th in East Lansing. Going to be tough and honestly with how OSU's young players had trouble in Happy Valley I'm not sure if they are going to be able to handle MSU @ MSU.
1 SEC
1 ACC
1 PAC
1 B1G
Lol. We shall see.
OSU gave up a big lead but still came out with a victory. It all comes down to Nov 7th in East Lansing. Going to be tough and honestly with how OSU's young players had trouble in Happy Valley I'm not sure if they are going to be able to handle MSU @ MSU.
#188
Senior Moderator
I would be surprised if the Big12 doesn't get in. But then again, I can't imagine who it would be.
#189
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
TCU or K State?
#191
The Dumb One
iTrader: (1)
its like we played well, but the score tells a different tale.
im stoked we held Ole Miss to 7 pts (and pulled off the win).. frustrated that we couldn't score more than twice... the fumbles and dropped INTs have to stop if they are gonna win against teams like A&M.. and heaven forbid, BAMA
#192
Senior Moderator
Don't worry. We haven't beaten a ranked team at Kyle Field since 2011.
#193
Senior Moderator
I liked this editorial on the CFP process, so I thought I would share.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/what-th...826-ncaaf.html
The College Football Playoff committee will release its first weekly poll Tuesday evening and one of the chief concerns is how many teams from the Southeastern Conference will be in the top four.
Here's what should be a bigger concern: How will the committee react to the inevitable outrage that will come from their initial ranking, no matter what it is?
It's late October, so who the committee puts at the top doesn't matter. There are plenty of games yet to be played.
It is, in fact, idiotic to even release a poll based on partial data that will soon change.
It's also idiotic to use a top-25 poll in any way, shape or form since … smart people who know math have proven rankings are illogical. (Arrow's Impossibility Theorem decries rankings as a way to chose one from many. A basic Borda count system is prone to discounting majority opinion; there's the inherent mathematical issue with assigning equal value between each rank – some might be closer, or greater, than others – and … well, there's more but that's a lot of book learnin' and face it, college football administrators have never been much for actual college.)
Screaming about bias and cheating and inconsistency and incompetency, even where it doesn't exist … now that is what college football is about.
(An aside: remember, it makes perfect sense to believe a new, billion-dollar national sports entity and its international broadcast partner would do all it can to favor teams from small, poor Southern television markets. Perfect sense.)
Embracing the debate is the reason the committee has foolishly decided to release a weekly top 25 in the first place … public relations getting in the way of actual problem solving.
How much in the way is the question.
The four-team playoff should include the four most deserving teams and only the four most deserving teams. If that includes two SEC teams, three SEC teams, even four SEC teams, then so be it. Or four Big Ten teams. Don't laugh; this is a hypothetical discussion.
If you are a fan of the sport, then this isn't debatable, no matter how much you want to see a local team.
Anything else is a perversion to the system. Dumb arguments, such as Michigan State coach Mark Dantonio's that the Midwest's many television sets should help a Big Ten team, can be ignored.
That's why you have a committee of 12 highly intelligent and fully engaged people to make the call. In the calm of a conference room, they can follow a set process to reject nonsense that doesn't carry any real value. Under the old BCS, there was no telling what was influencing the nearly 200 poll voters. Heck, Dantonio was a voter.
Still, completely rejecting outside opinion isn't easy and that's one of the reasons why releasing a weekly top-25 poll is such a bad idea.
Which four teams are picked now matters about as much as whom is leading a 100-meter dash after 60 meters … when Usain Bolt is just getting up to speed.
The selection committee is like a jury and thousands of years of global jurisprudence concluded that a jury runs best when it isn't influenced by public opinion and it should never, ever discuss anything internally until after all the evidence is presented and the closing arguments are complete.
Say a word and you're dismissed. The judge will then determine if the process has been so corrupted that a mistrial is in order. It's all in an effort to avoid predetermination, voting factions and a failure to fully assess final evidence.
The College Football Playoff selection committee apparently has no interest in bedrock principles handed down from the ancient Greeks, let alone how it's done by august entities such as American Idol or Dancing with the Stars, where the original weekly judges aren't allowed to pick the final winner.
Instead it will render not just partial, real-time verdicts, but it will essentially lay out how much it values incomplete evidence and progressing facts as the trial plays out, allowing for extra second-guessing and credibility-questioning criticism.
Seems like a sound idea when you're trying to build trust with the public.
And slighted fan bases will surely be expressing outrage through Twitter, Facebook and email. Or simply by shouting at committee members in person.
It would be best for the committee to convene the final weekend of the year and hash this out across a couple days, if it even took that long. They should explain the decision to the public. Then go home.
Instead, busy work created solely to generate publicity puts the spotlight square on the members and hinges them to a ranking system that insults science.
So, will they be susceptible to the ensuing rage … no matter what it is? Will they lose their nerve when a trend that is defensible, but unpopular, emerges? Will they bristle at the unnecessary beating coming about the back half of the rankings that don't matter in the first place? Will they wind up mimicking popular opinion and media narratives in an effort to create calm?
This is a good group of people, but a six-week onslaught of counter arguments isn't easy to ignore.
Despite being poorly set up and overextended, the selection committee should work. Picking four teams isn't that difficult.
They just made it that way.
Here's what should be a bigger concern: How will the committee react to the inevitable outrage that will come from their initial ranking, no matter what it is?
It's late October, so who the committee puts at the top doesn't matter. There are plenty of games yet to be played.
It is, in fact, idiotic to even release a poll based on partial data that will soon change.
It's also idiotic to use a top-25 poll in any way, shape or form since … smart people who know math have proven rankings are illogical. (Arrow's Impossibility Theorem decries rankings as a way to chose one from many. A basic Borda count system is prone to discounting majority opinion; there's the inherent mathematical issue with assigning equal value between each rank – some might be closer, or greater, than others – and … well, there's more but that's a lot of book learnin' and face it, college football administrators have never been much for actual college.)
Screaming about bias and cheating and inconsistency and incompetency, even where it doesn't exist … now that is what college football is about.
(An aside: remember, it makes perfect sense to believe a new, billion-dollar national sports entity and its international broadcast partner would do all it can to favor teams from small, poor Southern television markets. Perfect sense.)
Embracing the debate is the reason the committee has foolishly decided to release a weekly top 25 in the first place … public relations getting in the way of actual problem solving.
How much in the way is the question.
The four-team playoff should include the four most deserving teams and only the four most deserving teams. If that includes two SEC teams, three SEC teams, even four SEC teams, then so be it. Or four Big Ten teams. Don't laugh; this is a hypothetical discussion.
If you are a fan of the sport, then this isn't debatable, no matter how much you want to see a local team.
Anything else is a perversion to the system. Dumb arguments, such as Michigan State coach Mark Dantonio's that the Midwest's many television sets should help a Big Ten team, can be ignored.
That's why you have a committee of 12 highly intelligent and fully engaged people to make the call. In the calm of a conference room, they can follow a set process to reject nonsense that doesn't carry any real value. Under the old BCS, there was no telling what was influencing the nearly 200 poll voters. Heck, Dantonio was a voter.
Still, completely rejecting outside opinion isn't easy and that's one of the reasons why releasing a weekly top-25 poll is such a bad idea.
Which four teams are picked now matters about as much as whom is leading a 100-meter dash after 60 meters … when Usain Bolt is just getting up to speed.
The selection committee is like a jury and thousands of years of global jurisprudence concluded that a jury runs best when it isn't influenced by public opinion and it should never, ever discuss anything internally until after all the evidence is presented and the closing arguments are complete.
Say a word and you're dismissed. The judge will then determine if the process has been so corrupted that a mistrial is in order. It's all in an effort to avoid predetermination, voting factions and a failure to fully assess final evidence.
The College Football Playoff selection committee apparently has no interest in bedrock principles handed down from the ancient Greeks, let alone how it's done by august entities such as American Idol or Dancing with the Stars, where the original weekly judges aren't allowed to pick the final winner.
Instead it will render not just partial, real-time verdicts, but it will essentially lay out how much it values incomplete evidence and progressing facts as the trial plays out, allowing for extra second-guessing and credibility-questioning criticism.
Seems like a sound idea when you're trying to build trust with the public.
And slighted fan bases will surely be expressing outrage through Twitter, Facebook and email. Or simply by shouting at committee members in person.
It would be best for the committee to convene the final weekend of the year and hash this out across a couple days, if it even took that long. They should explain the decision to the public. Then go home.
Instead, busy work created solely to generate publicity puts the spotlight square on the members and hinges them to a ranking system that insults science.
So, will they be susceptible to the ensuing rage … no matter what it is? Will they lose their nerve when a trend that is defensible, but unpopular, emerges? Will they bristle at the unnecessary beating coming about the back half of the rankings that don't matter in the first place? Will they wind up mimicking popular opinion and media narratives in an effort to create calm?
This is a good group of people, but a six-week onslaught of counter arguments isn't easy to ignore.
Despite being poorly set up and overextended, the selection committee should work. Picking four teams isn't that difficult.
They just made it that way.
#194
Earth-bound misfit
#195
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
3-4 same conference teams in the playoffs would be disrespectful to all the other conferences. Plain and simple.
I have faith that in the end that won't happen anyway so it's not worth arguing over.
I think the committee, unlike the BCS, will favor teams like TCU and the style points they put up.
I have faith that in the end that won't happen anyway so it's not worth arguing over.
I think the committee, unlike the BCS, will favor teams like TCU and the style points they put up.
#196
The Dumb One
iTrader: (1)
let an undefeated Marshall meet a 1-loss Alabama in the playoffs... that would be real disrespect.
your record keeps you ranked, the committee decides weather you are one of the best 4 teams in the country, not your record, and not your conference championship... its gonna be based off your season, who you played, and who you impressed.
The system isn't perfect, not even close, but its headed in the right direction. they just need more teams in it.
your record keeps you ranked, the committee decides weather you are one of the best 4 teams in the country, not your record, and not your conference championship... its gonna be based off your season, who you played, and who you impressed.
The system isn't perfect, not even close, but its headed in the right direction. they just need more teams in it.
#197
Senior Moderator
I was really only interested in the bolded parts. What's the point of preliminary rankings? The only "good" it does is boost ESPN viewer ratings. The worst thing it does is allow for doubt and biased influence to creep in. That combination makes it a joke.
It's the 4th week in a row that A&M didn't play. Like you, I'm just glad we didn't have to watch.
It's the 4th week in a row that A&M didn't play. Like you, I'm just glad we didn't have to watch.
#198
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
Marshall, no, probably not. Although I remember that same argument against a Boise State team that went on to beat Oklahoma in 2007...
#199
The Dumb One
iTrader: (1)
I remember that game.
Boise got what they deserved with the fiesta bowl... and they fought for their lives to win it.
what I remember is them saying they deserved a shot at the title... and that was campaigning a little too far.
Last year's UCF team reminds me of that boise squad.
it was a season full of miracles, and they wanted more spotlight, but the teams they played through the season were just garbage and they skipped by each one barely.
I applaud good records, but play a handful of GOOD teams along the way before you start throwing around words like Title shot, or in this case, playoffs.
Boise got what they deserved with the fiesta bowl... and they fought for their lives to win it.
what I remember is them saying they deserved a shot at the title... and that was campaigning a little too far.
Last year's UCF team reminds me of that boise squad.
it was a season full of miracles, and they wanted more spotlight, but the teams they played through the season were just garbage and they skipped by each one barely.
I applaud good records, but play a handful of GOOD teams along the way before you start throwing around words like Title shot, or in this case, playoffs.
Last edited by Rockstar21; 10-28-2014 at 01:46 PM.
#200
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
Why? Probably would have given LSU more of a run than OSU did...
Actually I'd say their style of offense that year would have given LSU some issues.
Actually I'd say their style of offense that year would have given LSU some issues.