***2021-22 Bowl Games Discussion Thread***

[JUKEBOX]

Wait, how does scholarship limits hurt parity?

What we have now is the best it has ever been in college football in terms of a free market. Cincy had a chance to play its way to a title. This is way better than the decades of when it was based on the media and coaches polls. That was disgusting. Imagine the title being determined in any manner by the hawk fanboys in the Iowa media. If settling it on the field leads to the same teams competing, so be it.

Also, I don't think we're giving Saban his due. The SEC will likely have as good of chance as any conference, but the field is getting shutout because of his anomalous greatness. If not Saban, you'd have more upsets and diversity. LSU can win one year and be 6-6. UF can win and then have a decade in which they are up and down.

With basketball, the talent seems to get a little more evenly distributed because the best players can go straight to the NBA and having less players per-team.

With football, teams like Alabama and Georgia have a 24/7 propaganda department running on ESPN (due to SEC TV rights contract) and can fill their rosters with tons of 5-star talent (nationally, i.e. Alabama's Heisman Trophy-winning 5-star QB from California). Top players have no pathway straight to the NFL like in other sports. NIL has legalized what they were probably doing already with paying players (and I'm not sure if there are really scholarship limits anymore if you could just pay walkons). Also the playoff system and committee has made it more difficult to knock these teams out even when they do lose games in the regular season since they get in anyway.

 

[CloneGuy8]

When I was in college, USC was rolling and that was for like a 3-4 year period and seemed impressive. What Alabama is currently doing is insane.

 

[WhoISthis]

And they had their chance against one of the current CFP teams in Michigan and got their asses handed to them. That same Michigan team that just got done getting railroaded by Georgia. All we know is Ohio State got handled by the two best teams they played (Michigan State I may put in front of Oregon, but Oregon beat the Buckeyes in the Shoe). Cincinnati did play and beat, on the road, what ended up being a top-5 team. They never lost, so they should have got in over Ohio State on every measure that actually matters. Who cares about metrics? Win the games in front of you. Metrics really did well for us this year and our 7-6 record.

If you want to continue to go with "had their chance", be punitive for harder schedules, and a transitive one-game simpleton, you'll continue to be prone to having blowouts.

Kids have bad days, and they didn't get handled. They had some bad execution and lost. Did you watch those games? Handled was what we saw tonight.

This is just a transitional phase on the way to a real postseason with 3 or 4 conferences and expanded playoffs. Auto bids plus wildcards to those that got upset.

 

[WhoISthis]

The guy you are responding to is right about everything, just ask him. He is God on here, and don't even try to disagree with him. He contradicts himself all of the time. This is a gem right here on the post you are responding to:

"Way too much emphasis on record in college football. In the NFL, teams like GB's 2011 super bowl team or Tampa's team last year wouldn't even make the playoffs. Yes, that adds value to the season, but it makes for a bad postseason."

He argues that the "four best" teams should be how you determine the CFP teams by some subjective manner. Then uses a couple of NFL teams (countless others like the last two Giants Super Bowl wins) who if the NFL used some subjective reasoning to decide who makes the playoffs wouldn't have made those playoffs and thus, not won those Super Bowls. Very confusing to what his point is. The NFL season is the popular thing going, and it isn't close. They have a defined criteria how to make the postseason in their league. Until college football expands and/or figures that out, this is what we get.

Oh, so you're disagreeing and discussing because you think you're wrong. LMAO, thanks for the laughs

It is not a contradiction, he asked for what constituted the best, and that exemplifies that the best team is not necessary the one with the best W-L. Hence, the current 4 team CFP is too punitive on losses. Changing what the committee looks at will help with that. And this will blow your mind, but so will expanding the playoffs. Two different solutions to the same problem.

Please tell me you can comprehend that?

As I posted, this is a transitional step from the legacy model on the way to expanded playoffs

 

[Cyched]

 

[jctisu]

Oh, so you're disagreeing and discussing because you think you're wrong. LMAO, thanks for the laughs

It is not a contradiction, he asked for what constituted the best, and that exemplifies that the best team is not necessary the one with the best W-L. Hence, the current 4 team CFP is too punitive on losses. Changing what the committee looks at will help with that. And this will blow your mind, but so will expanding the playoffs. Two different solutions to the same problem.

Please tell me you can comprehend that?

As I posted, this is a transitional step from the legacy model on the way to expanded playoffs

But in your NFL examples, neither the Packers or the Bucs would have made a 4-team playoff because of their record, metrics, and whatever else you want to use. You. Make. No. Sense. You just talk a lot and convince yourself you do.

 

[Cyforce]

Superbad is on TBS…you’re welcome.

Remake of Midway on Paramount for me.

 

[WhoISthis]

But in your NFL examples, neither the Packers or the Bucs would have made a 4-team playoff because of their record, metrics, and whatever else you want to use. You. Make. No. Sense. You just talk a lot and convince yourself you do.

LMAO, are you drunk?

Yes, and if the NFL used a 4-team esoteric approach to selecting their teams that was overly damning to losses, they would not have been SB champs. That is the point. Very basic stuff here.

 

[jctisu]

If you want to continue to go with "had their chance", be punitive for harder schedules, and a transitive one-game simpleton, you'll continue to be prone to having blowouts.

Kids have bad days, and they didn't get handled. They had some bad execution and lost. Did you watch those games? Handled was what we saw tonight.

This is just a transitional phase on the way to a real postseason with 3 or 4 conferences and expanded playoffs. Auto bids plus wildcards to those that got upset.

Exactly! We all want an expanded playoff, but what we have right now is what we are talking about and using your advanced metrics to determine who is the "best teams" to get in is flat out stupid. It's sports, and it's why you play the games. Starting to think you didn't ever play in them. In a cut throat set up like college football, the powers that be forced the hands of the committee in certain years because they would expand past four to begin with and have a set criteria you speak of.

You have to win the games when they are in front of you simple as that. Otherwise what the hell is the point of playing? Ohio State this year proved it couldn't best a pair of teams that were CFP contenders throughout the year. Cincinnati did with their Notre Dame win at South Bend. The part you are missing is the committee did do the right thing because Cincy did at least prove they could beat a playoff-contending team on the road. That's why unbeaten UCF didn't get anywhere close because they played absolutely nobody that year. Even if it's just a single game to get up for as you say, Cincy did it and won. In the CFP, you have a giant layoff to get ready for a single game to reach the National Championship Game. There's no difference.

And metrics sometimes work, and sometimes they don't. I am just a prove it on the field guy to determine as much as I can. I usually forgive a loss for P5 teams because it is harder, but Ohio State had two of them this year. Sorry, you're out.

 

[jctisu]

LMAO, are you drunk?

Yes, and if the NFL used a 4-team esoteric approach to selecting their teams that was overly damning to losses, they would not have been SB champs. That is the point. Very basic stuff here.

You threw out earlier about a 4-team college basketball tournament if they did that, which they don't so it was a worthless point, and said it would make the regular season even more pointless because any losses you would be out by February and tune out.

But you are arguing that we should just go with the "best team" and "eye test" and "metrics" to determine the top-4 four college football? Talk about devaluing the regular season when you are certain teams and if you lose, who cares? You are still one of the "four best" in our "eyes" based on "metrics". Talk about nobody caring when they actually don't have any chance of making a CFP unless you are 1 of 10 schools.

You and I may be saying the same thing in a different way because what I want is what you say we need, a 12-team, clearly defined criteria, playoff for college football, thus making the regular season even more important to fans of teams not named Bama, Georgia, etc.

I am honestly just confused what you are arguing because if you re-read what you have typed in here, you contradict yourself. Dude you HAVE TO learn to take criticism and admit when you are A) Wrong or B) Not explaining yourself correctly. It's ok. Nobody is going to judge you because you can't always be right, but damn man, you are on some serious high-horse and look down on everyone in here.

If you were this all-knowing, please submit your resume to the NCAA to fix this crap. That wasn't a joke either.

 

[Jonyrose]

Ok, here is the fix…for every player drafted from any team, that team loses a scholarship spot for two years, Alabama keeps sending their entire roster to the nfl, then no scholarships to hand out till next year. Teams would probably try to find a balance of nfl and Non nfl caliber players to limit the hit from multiple years.

Though nil payment of walk-on tuition screws that up, so…

 

[StPaulCyclone]

They created this monster. ESPN is the host network for the SEC and ACC. They get the most airtime, get talked about ad nauseam. The recruits pay attention. In a sport of 130 teams, only Ohio State has been good enough to take them down. Ohio State has won one title in the CFP era and the other seven (including this year’s) belong to the ACC and SEC. So yes I think ESPN is at least at some fault for cultivating what looks like an unstoppable monopoly.

ESPN is not a news agency, thy are a marketing machine for their own broadcasts and the media rights they own.

 

[WhoISthis]

Exactly! We all want an expanded playoff, but what we have right now is what we are talking about and using your advanced metrics to determine who is the "best teams" to get in is flat out stupid. It's sports, and it's why you play the games. Starting to think you didn't ever play in them. In a cut throat set up like college football, the powers that be forced the hands of the committee in certain years because they would expand past four to begin with and have a set criteria you speak of.

You have to win the games when they are in front of you simple as that. Otherwise what the hell is the point of playing? Ohio State this year proved it couldn't best a pair of teams that were CFP contenders throughout the year. Cincinnati did with their Notre Dame win at South Bend. The part you are missing is the committee did do the right thing because Cincy did at least prove they could beat a playoff-contending team on the road. That's why unbeaten UCF didn't get anywhere close because they played absolutely nobody that year. Even if it's just a single game to get up for as you say, Cincy did it and won. In the CFP, you have a giant layoff to get ready for a single game to reach the National Championship Game. There's no difference.

And metrics sometimes work, and sometimes they don't. I am just a prove it on the field guy to determine as much as I can. I usually forgive a loss for P5 teams because it is harder, but Ohio State had two of them this year. Sorry, you're out.

Are you arguing because you're wrong again?

So you see why it is not a contradiction, it was just you taking what is posted, not understanding, as well as ignoring context? Great.

What we have right now is a 4 team playoff in which the committee has criteria, one of which is eye test. They already are using a heuristic method of determining best that is more like what I am saying than your simpleton prove it on the field nonsense. Going with a 10-2 Big 10 team that computers like better over a 13-0 G5 team is not going to change "that is why you play the games". That is hyperbolic.

I get you think one game matter that much, with your UCF vs Cincy comparison- that is on the verge of devaluing the rest of the season! Prove it on the field is not simply about who has the least losses, do you agree? Playing a much more difficult schedule should be considered, and it is.

 

[ISUTex]

It has to mean something, just far less than it currently does imo

And yes, I am. first, it wasn't a drubbing physically- only if scoreboard watching. UGa just got drilled more. It happens.

Care to give me a ton of points and UGa next week? I mean, they just got drubbed by the same team two games ago. Who do you think gives Bama a better game, Ohio St or Cicny?

The good news about realignment is that this will be taken care of when the CFP is expanded imo

Neither

 

[Dopey]

The cream will rise on average more than other teams. There is no way around that.

But more rounds add more chances for upsets/flukes. If college basketball were just 4 teams, the hit rate on the overall #1 team making the NC game is much higher.

Football is harder, but the more games played, the more likely an A&M game happens

So then what? A 2011 Iowa State team that knocked off Okie St hopes magic strikes twice and we beat Cam Newton? Likely wouldn't have happened and would have resulted in another semifinal style blowout.

For all the heartburn about the football championship game, I feel like the 4 team playoff and even the BCS almost always got it right.

 

[BigJCy]

Of course:

 

[madguy30]

Freeman's debut looking solid so far.

 

[JM4CY]

Honestly, I’m genuinely 10 times more interested in the okie st game than the ToE game.

 

[jctisu]

Freeman's debut looking solid so far.

He is a cool customer and will connect with today's college players.

Side note, the audible they just called against that OSU blitz was a thing of beauty. That's the type of smart football I hope our offense eventually gets to. Elite recognition and audible.

 

[madguy30]

He is a cool customer and will connect with today's college players.

Side note, the audible they just called against that OSU blitz was a thing of beauty. That's the type of smart football I hope our offense eventually gets to. Elite recognition and audible.

Made it look easy because it can be.

1. They're blitzing.
2. RB get open.
3. Throw to RB.