RealGM

Arda K wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:

bondom34 wrote:Alright Lions, good half. I was hoping they'd hang w/ OSU for the first half so I'm happy.

I was already thinking of it...if Penn St somehow pulled off the upset, but then OSU ends up beating Michigan, and they both end the season with 1 loss, if only one makes the playoffs, who deserves it?

This argument existed with TCU and Baylor a few seasons ago, but neither made.

But, ignoring the fact that one of the two teams ended up winning the conference championship, which might decide it (thought that situation has actually played out before and the team that didn't win the championship got in instead), WHO is more deserving of getting in?

A team that lost to Penn St on the road, or a team that lost to Ohio St on the road? Now many would argue that since Ohio St beat Michigan h2h, they should get in. But being that this is such a subjective process, and good losses are better than worse losses, shouldn't Michigan get in? Particularly since the h2h matchup was played AT Ohio St?

Just another reason why I'm in favor of more teams making the playoffs.

h2h definitely carries more weight, not only it is a better gauge but also michigan-osu is the last game of the regular season which traditionally has bigger impact on the polls than earlier games. anything can happen in away conference games, penn st very likely to finish the season ranked even possibly with only two losses so this is not a bad loss at all.

GG man, unreal. I'm still in shock.

Arda K wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:

bondom34 wrote:Alright Lions, good half. I was hoping they'd hang w/ OSU for the first half so I'm happy.

I was already thinking of it...if Penn St somehow pulled off the upset, but then OSU ends up beating Michigan, and they both end the season with 1 loss, if only one makes the playoffs, who deserves it?

This argument existed with TCU and Baylor a few seasons ago, but neither made.

But, ignoring the fact that one of the two teams ended up winning the conference championship, which might decide it (thought that situation has actually played out before and the team that didn't win the championship got in instead), WHO is more deserving of getting in?

A team that lost to Penn St on the road, or a team that lost to Ohio St on the road? Now many would argue that since Ohio St beat Michigan h2h, they should get in. But being that this is such a subjective process, and good losses are better than worse losses, shouldn't Michigan get in? Particularly since the h2h matchup was played AT Ohio St?

Just another reason why I'm in favor of more teams making the playoffs.

h2h definitely carries more weight, not only it is a better gauge but also michigan-osu is the last game of the regular season which traditionally has bigger impact on the polls than earlier games. anything can happen in away conference games, penn st very likely to finish the season ranked even possibly with only two losses so this is not a bad loss at all.

Well obviously you are biased so opinions of people who are not probably hold more weight. I understand that argument, but what if it is close and you never know what would happen on a neutral field or at Michigan.

So you think a loss to Ohio St on the road is worse than a loss Ohio Stete on the road?

bwgood77 wrote:

Arda K wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:
I was already thinking of it...if Penn St somehow pulled off the upset, but then OSU ends up beating Michigan, and they both end the season with 1 loss, if only one makes the playoffs, who deserves it?

This argument existed with TCU and Baylor a few seasons ago, but neither made.

But, ignoring the fact that one of the two teams ended up winning the conference championship, which might decide it (thought that situation has actually played out before and the team that didn't win the championship got in instead), WHO is more deserving of getting in?

A team that lost to Penn St on the road, or a team that lost to Ohio St on the road? Now many would argue that since Ohio St beat Michigan h2h, they should get in. But being that this is such a subjective process, and good losses are better than worse losses, shouldn't Michigan get in? Particularly since the h2h matchup was played AT Ohio St?

Just another reason why I'm in favor of more teams making the playoffs.

h2h definitely carries more weight, not only it is a better gauge but also michigan-osu is the last game of the regular season which traditionally has bigger impact on the polls than earlier games. anything can happen in away conference games, penn st very likely to finish the season ranked even possibly with only two losses so this is not a bad loss at all.

Well obviously you are biased so opinions of people who are not probably hold more weight. I understand that argument, but what if it is close and you never know what would happen on a neutral field or at Michigan.

So you think a loss to Ohio St on the road is worse than a loss Ohio Stete on the road?

I'd tend to agree, if they beat UM they'd get the nod. First its H2H, second its later in the season.

bwgood77 wrote:So you think a loss to Ohio St on the road is worse than a loss Ohio Stete on the road?

i think they are just about the same

What a great day. I love football. I really love college football. My only regret is that I couldn't possibly watch every single game.

bondom34 wrote:AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I'm not sleeping tonight, was gonna work overtime tomorrow but F it, WE ARE!

Enjoy it. I have a buddy on another forum who is probably still awake. And will probably not sleep tonight either.

bwgood77 wrote:

Otis Driftwood wrote:

studcrackers wrote:i guess im the only one who wouldnt wanna see more than 6 teams in the playoff.

I could be convinced to go 8. But that's all. I like the idea of 6.

Why the limits? I guess I can see people liking it if they are a fan of a powerhouse, but for the vast majority of fans, they lose interest, because halfway through the season what are you even playing for?

I think 12 would be good, with 4 bye teams and then 5 vs 12, etc, and then it moves on.

If you are a die hard sports and football fan, why would you NOT want more win move on, lose go home playoff games? I guess I don't understand.

I advocate for 16, but 12 might be good to reward top 4, though since it's all subjective, that would still create another controversy of who gets they byes on top of who gets in.

With 16, you don't have that.

What is the downside with more? You still need to be a damn good team to get in, even if it was 16. If you were not, you'd get killed by the top seed in the first game.

studcrackers made solid points. I'm going to add a few more.

Remember all the hubbub after the semi finals this year around the TV ratings not being where the bean counters thought they should be? Because I'm sure espen does. So now, we are going to add more playoff games that dilute those expected numbers further? Once again - you have to sell that to the World Wide Leader. Also remember this - espen shows tons of college bowl games in December. Too many as far as I'm concerned. But - it's cheap entertainment for them and to up the ante for some of these games with no significant return on investment...

And also take into account that it's inevitable some of these games would go up directly against the NFL. One thing we all know about the NFL and the Ginger God. Benevolence is not their strong suit.

I hate bringing up the business side of this. I hate it because it's ugly and shouldn't matter. But it's there and it matters. And don't forget who drives this bus. Don't forget who works the matchups to their favor for these games. And don't forget who puts a significant bag of money into these games every year with ROI at the forefront of these games.

espen

Otis Driftwood wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:

Otis Driftwood wrote:
I could be convinced to go 8. But that's all. I like the idea of 6.

Why the limits? I guess I can see people liking it if they are a fan of a powerhouse, but for the vast majority of fans, they lose interest, because halfway through the season what are you even playing for?

I think 12 would be good, with 4 bye teams and then 5 vs 12, etc, and then it moves on.

If you are a die hard sports and football fan, why would you NOT want more win move on, lose go home playoff games? I guess I don't understand.

I advocate for 16, but 12 might be good to reward top 4, though since it's all subjective, that would still create another controversy of who gets they byes on top of who gets in.

With 16, you don't have that.

What is the downside with more? You still need to be a damn good team to get in, even if it was 16. If you were not, you'd get killed by the top seed in the first game.

studcrackers made solid points. I'm going to add a few more.

Remember all the hubbub after the semi finals this year around the TV ratings not being where the bean counters thought they should be? Because I'm sure espen does. So now, we are going to add more playoff games that dilute those expected numbers further? Once again - you have to sell that to the World Wide Leader. Also remember this - espen shows tons of college bowl games in December. Too many as far as I'm concerned. But - it's cheap entertainment for them and to up the ante for some of these games with no significant return on investment...

And also take into account that it's inevitable some of these games would go up directly against the NFL. One thing we all know about the NFL and the Ginger God. Benevolence is not their strong suit.

I hate bringing up the business side of this. I hate it because it's ugly and shouldn't matter. But it's there and it matters. And don't forget who drives this bus. Don't forget who works the matchups to their favor for these games. And don't forget who puts a significant bag of money into these games every year with ROI at the forefront of these games.

espen

How do they go against the NFL if they are on Saturday? And how are fewer fans watching if more fans of more teams have a vested interest in seeing how it plays out. Plus, down the stretch of the college football fans, may fans begin to tune out of most all of the games outside of a few because they are meaningless.

bwgood77 wrote:

Otis Driftwood wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:
Why the limits? I guess I can see people liking it if they are a fan of a powerhouse, but for the vast majority of fans, they lose interest, because halfway through the season what are you even playing for?

I think 12 would be good, with 4 bye teams and then 5 vs 12, etc, and then it moves on.

If you are a die hard sports and football fan, why would you NOT want more win move on, lose go home playoff games? I guess I don't understand.

I advocate for 16, but 12 might be good to reward top 4, though since it's all subjective, that would still create another controversy of who gets they byes on top of who gets in.

With 16, you don't have that.

What is the downside with more? You still need to be a damn good team to get in, even if it was 16. If you were not, you'd get killed by the top seed in the first game.

studcrackers made solid points. I'm going to add a few more.

Remember all the hubbub after the semi finals this year around the TV ratings not being where the bean counters thought they should be? Because I'm sure espen does. So now, we are going to add more playoff games that dilute those expected numbers further? Once again - you have to sell that to the World Wide Leader. Also remember this - espen shows tons of college bowl games in December. Too many as far as I'm concerned. But - it's cheap entertainment for them and to up the ante for some of these games with no significant return on investment...

And also take into account that it's inevitable some of these games would go up directly against the NFL. One thing we all know about the NFL and the Ginger God. Benevolence is not their strong suit.

I hate bringing up the business side of this. I hate it because it's ugly and shouldn't matter. But it's there and it matters. And don't forget who drives this bus. Don't forget who works the matchups to their favor for these games. And don't forget who puts a significant bag of money into these games every year with ROI at the forefront of these games.

espen

How do they go against the NFL if they are on Saturday? And how are fewer fans watching if more fans of more teams have a vested interest in seeing how it plays out. Plus, down the stretch of the college football fans, may fans begin to tune out of most all of the games outside of a few because they are meaningless.

NFL plays Saturday games at that point in the season.

Latrell wrote:NFL plays Saturday games at that point in the season.

Only because college football has ended. They wouldn't do it otherwise. Especially if they were college playoff games.

I don't expect Alabama or Ohio St fans to want more playoff teams, because they are usually there anyway, but that's also the primary reason half the people here in this forum are fans of those two teams because not too many other people give a crap at this point unless their team is still in it with a chance.

I'm not necessarily against more playoff teams, but 16 is WAY too many. 8 might be ok but Id prefer 6 with the Top 2 getting byes. I think that would be the most ideal.

With 6 you could potentially get teams like Boise in and few 2 loss Power 5 teams.

EDIT: 3 or more loss teams and non P 5 multi loss teams don't belong in College Football playoff. And that's what you'd get in a 16 team playoff.

bwgood77 wrote:

Latrell wrote:NFL plays Saturday games at that point in the season.

Only because college football has ended. They wouldn't do it otherwise. Especially if they were college playoff games.

I don't expect Alabama or Ohio St fans to want more playoff teams, because they are usually there anyway, but that's also the primary reason half the people here in this forum are fans of those two teams because not too many other people give a crap at this point unless their team is still in it with a chance.

Half? I count 1 Ohio State fan and 1 Alabama fan in this forum.

Latrell wrote:I'm not necessarily against more playoff teams, but 16 is WAY too many. 8 might be ok but Id prefer 6 with the Top 2 getting byes. I think that would be the most ideal.

With 6 you could potentially get teams like Boise in and few 2 loss Power 5 teams.

EDIT: 3 or more loss teams and non P 5 multi loss teams don't belong in College Football playoff. And that's what you'd get in a 16 team playoff.

Six would be a good start, though 12 would give perhaps a few other teams that may have gotten off to a slow start before getting on a roll down the stretch. And while 4 potential playoff games seems like a lot, it would only be if you were one of the last 4 in, IF it happened, and they'd have to get to the championship. Likely 2 of the top 8 make it so no one plays more than 3 games.

The good thing about 6 though is that you could have 5 Power Conference champs plus next best team, so like one wildcard.

So frustrated at OSU, what a pathetic loss. I feel like we just gave it away, and PSU wanted it badly. They won in the most improbable way lol, the momentum just seemed to roll their way for the night, the stars aligned for OSU to F up again and again, and obviously PSU gets some credit for this.

OSU has some serious issues on offense. The offense is crap. We know 3 plays, and our OC's are morons, and since we cannot adjust, teams just bull rush right past our OL because they have no reason to respect our passing game, and why should they we cant throw past 5 yards.

OSU still controls it's own destiny, but this was a massive fail. OSU has some improving to do and do so fast, because if we play with this kind of offensive calling and execution vs anyone else the rest of the year, we can kiss the B10 title and playoff chances goodbye.

Just wanted to share a story from the game against tOSU.

http://onwardstate.com/2016/10/24/franklin-explains-why-sickels-sat-first-half-of-ohio-state-game/

Sickels was benched for the first half. Because he skipped a class. A D1 football player skipped a class (shocking) but actually got punished. Love Franklin doing this, he's running the program right.

Latrell wrote:http://www.espn.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/122825/its-time-for-alabama-freshman-qb-jalen-hurts-to-be-a-heisman-candidate

He damn sure should be. At the very top of the list.

Otis Driftwood wrote:

Latrell wrote:http://www.espn.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/122825/its-time-for-alabama-freshman-qb-jalen-hurts-to-be-a-heisman-candidate

He damn sure should be. At the very top of the list.

I agree that he should certainly be in consideration, but I don't think he's quite there yet. Next year it's his to lose, but this year I'd still have Lamar Jackson, DeShaun Watson, and possibly Jabril Peppers ahead of him.

bleu wrote:

Otis Driftwood wrote:

Latrell wrote:http://www.espn.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/122825/its-time-for-alabama-freshman-qb-jalen-hurts-to-be-a-heisman-candidate

He damn sure should be. At the very top of the list.

I agree that he should certainly be in consideration, but I don't think he's quite there yet. Next year it's his to lose, but this year I'd still have Lamar Jackson, DeShaun Watson, and possibly Jabril Peppers ahead of him.

I don't know bleu... that eye test thing keeps rearing its head for me.