2012 College Football

[jazzcyclist]

During the middle of the week, Saban warned his team that they needed to hurry up and get over the LSU win and based on his comments in his post-game interview, he didn't seem surprised at the outcome today. Last week, Notre Dame had similar problems coming back down to earth after their win over Oklahoma and had to be saved at the last minute by the "luck of the Irish", but then Texas A&M is a lot better than Pitt also. In team sports, it's only in the game which immediately follows big emotional wins do coaches find out if their team can handle success. IMO, both Notre Dame and Alabama failed this test and if I were a voter, I might penalize the Irish more for their 3OT win over Pitt than I would penalize the Tide for their loss to Texas A&M.

[Pego]

Wouldn't a potential match-up of Alabama-ND delight a lot of folks here? I can think of a few, eh Preston ?

[Marlow]

Wouldn't a potential match-up of Alabama-ND delight a lot of folks here?

I wouldn't know whom to root more against.

[Pego]

Wouldn't a potential match-up of Alabama-ND delight a lot of folks here?

I wouldn't know whom to root more against.

It is simple for me, because I would pick Alabama in our prediction pool .

[Marlow]

Wouldn't a potential match-up of Alabama-ND delight a lot of folks here?

I wouldn't know whom to root more against.

It is simple for me, because I would pick Alabama in our prediction pool .

Nice! I used to hate lots of teams . . . USC, Cal, UCLA . . . but I've narrowed it down to just Bama and ND now. When Saban came on board, that was the last straw, and as for ND, it's just great fun to hate a school that believes it has a deity on its side.

[DrJay]

I'm kind of practical, and don't care too passionately about college football, so I understand a top 20 better when it contains the Alabamas, Notre Dames, USCs, Ohio Sts and Michigans, and not the Louisiana Techs, Boise Sts and Kansas Sts. Get rid of the formers and throw in the latters and I just get confused. Thus, I'm glad to see ND back in the fray.

[Daisy]

it's just great fun to hate a school that believes it has a deity on its side.

They don't?

[Bruce Kritzler]

Did we witness a paradigm shift shift in college football last night?
Where no-huddle, spread-the-field, quick teams can compete with traditional power football. Also have noticed that the smaller schools seem to be more competitive with the bigs. Sunbelt and WAC teams are upsetting Big 12, SEC teams.
These new offenses (50-60 passes/game) give the have-nots a chance.
Will the football powers legislate to limit their success?

[Marlow]

Will the football powers legislate to limit their success?

More offense and greater parity makes for better television, which we know is the only power that matters.

[jazzcyclist]

The biggest mistake that's been made by the BCS honchos in the history of the BCS, was the decision to completely remove the margin-of-victory (MOV) component from all of the computer rankings after one-loss Nebraska, which didn't win its conference, but had a lot of blowout wins, got into the BCS championship game over one-loss, PAC-10 champion Oregon, which won five of its games by a touchdown or less. After it was revealed that the MOV component caused the Ducks a chance to play for the Crystal Football, Oregon coach Mike Belotti led the lobbying effort to have MOV removed from the formula, which was done the following year. Ironically, it's the lack of a MOV component that's hurting Oregon and helping Notre Dame this year, and I think it would be poetic justice if somehow this caused the Ducks a chance to play for the Crystal Football. What's also ironic is that the SEC, which has been the strongest conference during the BCS era, benefits the most from not having MOV as part of the BCS formula.

[Dutra5]

The biggest mistake that's been made by the BCS honchos in the history of the BCS, was the decision to completely remove the margin-of-victory (MOV) component from all of the computer rankings after one-loss Nebraska, which didn't win its conference, but had a lot of blowout wins, got into the BCS championship game over one-loss, PAC-10 champion Oregon, which won five of its games by a touchdown or less. After it was revealed that the MOV component caused the Ducks a chance to play for the Crystal Football, Oregon coach Mike Belotti led the lobbying effort to have MOV removed from the formula, which was done the following year. Ironically, it's the lack of a MOV component that's hurting Oregon and helping Notre Dame this year, and I think it would be poetic justice if somehow this caused the Ducks a chance to play for the Crystal Football. What's also ironic is that the SEC, which has been the strongest conference during the BCS era, benefits the most from not having MOV as part of the BCS formula.

The only way Oregon gets to the BCS championship game is to win out and should they do so they cannot be passed by ND. So they won't be hurt by the lack of MOV.

[jazzcyclist]

The only way Oregon gets to the BCS championship game is to win out and should they do so they cannot be passed by ND. So they won't be hurt by the lack of MOV.

Don't bet any money on it. Kansas State is a strong #1 but Oregon is a weak #2, barely ahead of Notre Dame, mainly because of their weak computer ranking. They're actually ranked behind Florida in the computers, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that they could drop further in the computers due to the top-10 games left to be played by SEC and ACC teams. Also, don't forget that voters can be fickle as evidenced by Oregon losong some points after giving up 51 points to USC, and another unimpressive win or an Irish woodshedding USC would be all it would take to affect the polls a little. As for the Ducks overall rankiong, all it would take would be for them to drop a spot in one or two of the computers or for a handful of voters to move Kansas State to #1 and/or move Notre Dame to #2, and the Ducks would be the team left out in the cold on December 1. If you don't believe me, do the math.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs

[preston]

Thankfully, nd was pushed to 3rd. 6 SEC schools in the top-10 and not a single Big-10 school in the entire top-10, though one school, Michigan, made the top-25. Is it time to consider removing the Big-10 from AQ status? Dropping them below the Big East? Clearly the brand and quality of football being played in that conference is below the SEC, Big 12 and Pac 12; I might also include the ACC in the above Big-10 group

And, Bruce's point is real. New offenses and diluted teams (85 scholarships) -and the fact that everyone plays on TV every week now- has brought about parity. In this environment it might not be considered an upset for nonAQ schools to win over auto AQ schools.

One last thing: if nd loses to USC, how far would they drop?

[26mi235]

1 Oregon (45) 10-0 1,485 2
2 Kansas State (14) 10-0 1,451 3
3 Notre Dame (1) 10-0 1,382 4
4 Alabama 9-1 1,259 1
5 Georgia 9-1 1,223 5
6 Ohio State 10-0 1,212 5[In Big Ten last time I looked]

[jazzcyclist]

Dropping them below the Big East?

You can't be serious.

[preston]

Dropping them below the Big East?

You can't be serious.

of course, jazz, you should know that by now...

6 Ohio State 10-0 1,212 5[In Big Ten last time I looked]

1. Conversation was focused on BCS.

1 Kansas State .9674
2 Oregon .9497
3 Notre Dame .9396
4 Alabama .8534
5 Georgia .8328
6 Florida .7955
7 LSU .7331
8 Texas A&M .6621
9 South Carolina .6349
10 Florida State .6071

2. OSU is on time-out for previous transgressions (Which are Bull****. I don't see any reason why an athlete couldn't trade a signature or jersey for a tattoo, car, sex, drugs or anything else...but I digress)

3. I wouldn't be surprised if they were drubbed at seasons end by MI; big 10 is overrated.

[Pego]

3. I wouldn't be surprised if they were drubbed at seasons end by MI

They don't have to survive the trip to Madison on Saturday.

[j-a-m]

As for the Ducks overall rankiong,

Ducks are gonna improve in the computer rankings if they win out, they have a significantly tougher remaining schedule than ND. Stanford and Oregon State are ranked 11 and 12 in the computers right now, beating them would improve Oregon's position a lot; plus the Pac championship game is most likely against a ranked opponent.

[Dutra5]

The only way Oregon gets to the BCS championship game is to win out and should they do so they cannot be passed by ND. So they won't be hurt by the lack of MOV.

Don't bet any money on it. Kansas State is a strong #1 but Oregon is a weak #2, barely ahead of Notre Dame, mainly because of their weak computer ranking. They're actually ranked behind Florida in the computers, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that they could drop further in the computers due to the top-10 games left to be played by SEC and ACC teams. Also, don't forget that voters can be fickle as evidenced by Oregon losong some points after giving up 51 points to USC, and another unimpressive win or an Irish woodshedding USC would be all it would take to affect the polls a little. As for the Ducks overall rankiong, all it would take would be for them to drop a spot in one or two of the computers or for a handful of voters to move Kansas State to #1 and/or move Notre Dame to #2, and the Ducks would be the team left out in the cold on December 1. If you don't believe me, do the math.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs

Oregon has to play two ranked teams in the next two weeks which will solidify their computer rankings plus the PAC 12 championship game as well. How does ND possibly pass them playing USC who Oregon already played and beat?

The guy who does the BCS analysis for ESPN....the site you posted...has stated that if all three teams win out that it is Kstate that can be passed by ND but only in the longest of long shots. If all three win out it will almost assuredly be Kstate vs. Oregon.

[jazzcyclist]

The guy who does the BCS analysis for ESPN....the site you posted...has stated that if all three teams win out that it is Kstate that can be passed by ND but only in the longest of long shots. If all three win out it will almost assuredly be Kstate vs. Oregon.

If you're talking about Brad Edwards, he's been wrong in prognostications before, so don't take his word as the gospel. However, I will concede that things look pretty good for the Ducks if they win their remaining games convincingly, but if they struggle, or if Notre Dame beats USC more impressively than they did, all bets are off.

[KevinM]

I'm kind of practical, and don't care too passionately about college football, so I understand a top 20 better when it contains the Alabamas, Notre Dames, USCs, Ohio Sts and Michigans, and not the Louisiana Techs, Boise Sts and Kansas Sts. Get rid of the formers and throw in the latters and I just get confused. Thus, I'm glad to see ND back in the fray.

K-State was so bad for so long that people look past the fact that they've been a mainstay in the top 25 since 1993, not much different than UConn basketball.

[gh]

Improbable, but Ohio State could still end up as No. 1?

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/art ... 028569.php

[jhc68]

ND has to beat USC in the Coliseum to win out. And they need to beat SC as convincingly as Oregon did.
The first big-time football game I attended was the 1964 game wherein ND was 93 seconds away from the national championship but Rod Sherman broke the Irish hearst by hauling in the winning touchdown pass from Craig Fertig.
SC has a pretty fair passing game this year but back in '64 they had a running back named Garrett.

[26mi235]

Improbable, but Ohio State could still end up as No. 1?

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/art ... 028569.php

They have to win this weekend

I am seriously surprised; I saw that Wisconsin, an unranked team with three losses, is a favorite over undefeated #6 Ohio State. Must have been a misprint...

[jazzcyclist]

Someone call the wambulance for Jimbo Fisher. His team plays in one of the weakest AQ conferences, he had two FCS teams on his schedule this year, including hapless Savannah State which should be in division II, and now he's whining because his team isn't getting any love from the BCS computers.

Lamenting his team's position in computer polls of the latest BCS standings, Florida State coach Jimbo Fisher railed against the use of computers in determining the standings, saying he'd prefer a move back to a pre-BCS system in which human pollsters simply ranked teams at the conclusion of a season to determine a champion.


"I think it stinks," Fisher said. "I think the BCS and how we do it with these computers, I think we're ruining it. And the playoff isn't going to solve it, either. They've got to change how we pick the top teams in this country. It's not working. I think it was better in the old days when you did it by the eye test and you didn't have a championship game."

http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... bcs-system

He should be put in a straitjacket for even suggesting that college football go back to the pre-BCS system in which the #1 and #2 teams would routinely play in different bowls.

[Marlow]

"I think it stinks," Fisher said. "I think the BCS and how we do it with these computers, I think we're ruining it. And the playoff isn't going to solve it, either. They've got to change how we pick the top teams in this country. It's not working. I think it was better in the old days when you did it by the eye test and you didn't have a championship game."

Spoken like a true Luddite, who would change his tune to whatever system he thinks best serves his needs. I love FSU - not a fan of Jimbo.

[j-a-m]

Someone call the wambulance for Jimbo Fisher. His team plays in one of the weakest AQ conferences, he had two FCS teams on his schedule this year, including hapless Savannah State which should be in division II, and now he's whining because his team isn't getting any love from the BCS computers.

Plus in another out-of-conference game they played South Florida, a team that's tied for last in the Big East. The computers got this right, not ranking Florida State near the top 10 at this point.

[DrJay]

Yet another season in which we need a four-team playoff. Not an eight-team playoff. Four will always do just fine.

[j-a-m]

Yet another season in which we need a four-team playoff.

This season a four-team would work just fine, with three conferences way ahead of the rest, and only one (eligible) undefeated team outside of those conferences. There may be seasons, though, with more than three strong conferences and/or more than one undefeated team from other conferences.

[jazzcyclist]

Here's an idea. Why don't track statiticians start using the letter "C" to designate FAT times that werer un on cinder tracks? For example, why not list Bob Hayes PR as 10.06C? It would be similar to the "A" for times run at altitude, except that "C" would enhance the performance, not diminish it like "A' does. And so for the list of fastest football players ever the list would be:

Jim Hines 9.95A
Trindon Holliday 10.00
Bob Hayes - 10.06C

Would the "C" designation be enough to satisfy folks who feel that Hayes doesn't get the credit that he deserves?

[preston]

Hayes gets EXACTLY the credit he deserves, 10.06. The problem is when people try to attribute more time to him or other athletes like C for cinders, or M for modern techniques (Arthur Lydiard, born 1917; Bud Winter, born 1909...several years before 2012 ) or Y ... because they want to.

Track and Field is about time or a distance/height or a combination of those factors. It's NOT an algorithm where some middle-aged reformed couch potato is World-record holder when height, weight, age, surface, race (someone will ultimately want to factor that too), altitude, barometric pressure and previous meal are taken into account. One part of this sport (masters) has already gone down that nonsense road with age-grading. If we can't roll it back, let's preserve at least some part of this sport for what IS - is.

Thankfully we still see a 9.69 (+2.0) as the world-record over a 9.70 (-1.0).

[Marlow]

Hayes gets EXACTLY the credit he deserves, 10.06. The problem is when people try to attribute more time to him . . . One part of this sport (masters) has already gone down that nonsense road with age-grading.

While you're totally correct about the nonsense of age-grading in Masters T&F, there is a fundamental difference when trying to equate Hayes's 1964 10.06 as a 2012 10.06. He would OBVIOUSLY be faster on a modern track with modern spikes. Teleport him through time and space - unchanged - into the London final and he's AT LEAST sub-9.90, if not 9.80.

[preston]

Hayes gets EXACTLY the credit he deserves, 10.06. The problem is when people try to attribute more time to him . . . One part of this sport (masters) has already gone down that nonsense road with age-grading.

[...] there is a fundamental difference when trying to equate Hayes's 1964 10.06 as a 2012 10.06. He would OBVIOUSLY be faster on a modern track with modern spikes. Teleport him through time and space - unchanged - into the London final and he's AT LEAST sub-9.90, if not 9.80.

sub-9.90? sub-9.80? Well at least you didn't say sub-9.60 this time. Trust... no better than 9.93, imo. By your assessments Figuerola would be the only sub-10 cuban (which is about right) and Jerome would be one of only 3 Canadians - and the only one to be actually born in The northern provinces of the United States of America. I think the allowances are not that great - my opinion. I have to believe that at a certain point of force/speed surface MAY not make that much of a difference - again, my opinion.

[jazzcyclist]

Here's an idea. Why don't track statiticians start using the letter "C" to designate FAT times that werer un on cinder tracks? For example, why not list Bob Hayes PR as 10.06C? It would be similar to the "A" for times run at altitude, except that "C" would enhance the performance, not diminish it like "A' does. And so for the list of fastest football players ever the list would be:

Jim Hines 9.95A
Trindon Holliday 10.00
Bob Hayes - 10.06C

Would the "C" designation be enough to satisfy folks who feel that Hayes doesn't get the credit that he deserves?

I just realized that I posted this on the wrong thread. GH, if you don't mind, would you please move my post and the ones that responed to it over to the Trindon Holliday thread so as not hijack the college footbal thread?

[Marlow]

I have to believe that at a certain point of force/speed surface MAY not make that much of a difference - again, my opinion.

You bounce a steel ball on a modern track and then on a cinder track (perhaps in lane 1 after a distance race) and you tell me whether you see much of a difference in force return . . .