Interesting Bowl Predictions

[Coug-Vandal]

Adam Ritterberg on ESPN went through and predicted all the bowl games. It is interesting that he expects the Pac-12 to go 5-1 in Bowls (only losing to Alabama) while the super star best conference in the world Big 10 (really 14) goes only 4-6. Hope his predictions are right.

Go Cougs

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Adam Ritterberg on ESPN went through and predicted all the bowl games. It is interesting that he expects the Pac-12 to go 5-1 in Bowls (only losing to Alabama) while the super star best conference in the world Big 10 (really 14) goes only 4-6. Hope his predictions are right.

Go Cougs

One of the benefits of all the mediocre teams in our conference failing to reach 6-6 records is that we don't have to worry about them in bowl games? Indiana, Northwestern and Maryland are not very good teams.

I will say that it's funny that much was made about Penn State being left out of the playoff but Vegas installed them as a one touchdown underdog to the Trojans that weren't even deemed worthy of being in the discussion.

 

[Coug-Vandal]

I will say that it's funny that much was made about Penn State being left out of the playoff but Vegas installed them as a one touchdown underdog to the Trojans that weren't even deemed worthy of being in the discussion.[/QUOTE]

Right. I read somewhere that UW would be 4 1/2 point favorites over Penn St on a neutral field. I watched the Penn St/Wisconsin game Saturday night. It was an interesting game but both teams had pretty clear weaknesses. I was appalled the next morning to turn on ESPN and listen to the calls for Penn St to be in over UW. I would have been fine with Penn St being in over Ohio St since at least that carried a clear message. Win your conference. Somehow that point wasn't part of the discussion.

 

[SaveFerris]

Right. I read somewhere that UW would be 4 1/2 point favorites over Penn St on a neutral field. I watched the Penn St/Wisconsin game Saturday night. It was an interesting game but both teams had pretty clear weaknesses. I was appalled the next morning to turn on ESPN and listen to the calls for Penn St to be in over UW. I would have been fine with Penn St being in over Ohio St since at least that carried a clear message. Win your conference. Somehow that point wasn't part of the discussion.

Well, if it was Herbstreit on ESPN that makes sense.

 

[ElComanche]

The cougs opened as 4 1/2 pt favorites. it has risen to 6 1/2 pts i would gladly take the cougs in this one

 

[95coug]

I will say that it's funny that much was made about Penn State being left out of the playoff but Vegas installed them as a one touchdown underdog to the Trojans that weren't even deemed worthy of being in the discussion.

Right. I read somewhere that UW would be 4 1/2 point favorites over Penn St on a neutral field. I watched the Penn St/Wisconsin game Saturday night. It was an interesting game but both teams had pretty clear weaknesses. I was appalled the next morning to turn on ESPN and listen to the calls for Penn St to be in over UW. I would have been fine with Penn St being in over Ohio St since at least that carried a clear message. Win your conference. Somehow that point wasn't part of the discussion.[/QUOTE]
I'd just point out that winning your conference has not really been a prerequisite to being in the title hunt, historically.

Who remembers 2001? Nebraska got blown out by Colorado in the last week of the season, and didn't even play in the conference championship game. They were #4 in both polls, but somehow came out at #2 in the BCS and played Miami for the national championship. Colorado (who won the Big 12 championship) ended up in the Fiesta bowl against #2 Oregon, and lost. Oregon was #2 in both polls, won the Pac-10, beat Colorado, and stayed at #2 in the final poll.

How about 2003? Oklahoma got blown out by Kansas State in the Big 12 championship, yet somehow stayed at #1 and played LSU for the national championship.

In 2011, Alabama didn't even win their division. They lost to LSU in early November, but climbed back to #2 over the next 3 weeks and played a rematch against LSU for the title (which they won).

In spite of this, I don't think winning a conference title should really be a prerequisite to the playoff. It's entirely possible for a team to lose in week 2 or 3, and have that cost them the conference title, but by the end of the season they're one of the best teams in the NCAA (USC this year is an example - they looked poor in the first few weeks, but who wants to play them now?). The playoff decision should be about the accumulation of the full season, not about a single week. I think a couple of the examples above were all kinds of wrong - Oregon got hosed in 2001, and Oklahoma should have dropped in 2003, but Alabama was probably one of the best teams in 2011, and Ohio State is one of the best in 2016. I feel pretty safe in saying that if tOSU and Penn State played today, the Buckeyes would win.

 

[Coug-Vandal]

Right. I The playoff decision should be about the accumulation of the full season, not about a single week. I think a couple of the examples above were all kinds of wrong - Oregon got hosed in 2001, and Oklahoma should have dropped in 2003, but Alabama was probably one of the best teams in 2011, and Ohio State is one of the best in 2016. I feel pretty safe in saying that if tOSU and Penn State played today, the Buckeyes would win.

You say that many of these decisions in the past were wrong (and I agree) but then you turn around and endorse a decision making process that invites those kind of decisions. As soon as you invite athletic directors and ESPN commentators to discuss their impressions of a teams entire season without specific criteria (like who beat who or who won the conference championship) you are going to get these types of decisions. Clemson lost to an unranked
Pittsburg team while Michigan lost to an unranked Iowa and both stayed in the top 5. So of course they are still going to be around at the end. It is very easy to manipulate arguments to get the result you want. I would go with conference champs which is a clear unquestionable result. If a good team gets left out so what--that's what happens in sports. Can't wait to hear a top ranked tennis star after he/she loses in the quarter finals in Wimbleton say I should be in the finals because I'm really better.

 

[95coug]

You say that many of these decisions in the past were wrong (and I agree) but then you turn around and endorse a decision making process that invites those kind of decisions. As soon as you invite athletic directors and ESPN commentators to discuss their impressions of a teams entire season without specific criteria (like who beat who or who won the conference championship) you are going to get these types of decisions. Clemson lost to an unranked
Pittsburg team while Michigan lost to an unranked Iowa and both stayed in the top 5. So of course they are still going to be around at the end. It is very easy to manipulate arguments to get the result you want. I would go with conference champs which is a clear unquestionable result. If a good team gets left out so what--that's what happens in sports. Can't wait to hear a top ranked tennis star after he/she loses in the quarter finals in Wimbleton say I should be in the finals because I'm really better.

True, but this is where the problem lies. Whatever measure you use, it's open to question. The only way to diminish the questions is to expand the playoff and let it all be decided on the field.

There will still be questions regarding who gets in and who doesn't - this year, an 8 team playoff would pull in Wisconsin with 3 losses, and leave out USC with 3 losses. A 16-team field would bring in Auburn with 4 losses, but not Florida or Virginia Tech -both have 4 losses too, but played in their conference championships. Why one and not the other? But the bigger the playoff field, the less deserving the teams that get left out will be. I don't think there are many people who honestly believe that teams with 3-4 losses should be in the championship picture.

 

[brettcraycraft51]

True, but this is where the problem lies. Whatever measure you use, it's open to question. The only way to diminish the questions is to expand the playoff and let it all be decided on the field.

There will still be questions regarding who gets in and who doesn't - this year, an 8 team playoff would pull in Wisconsin with 3 losses, and leave out USC with 3 losses. A 16-team field would bring in Auburn with 4 losses, but not Florida or Virginia Tech -both have 4 losses too, but played in their conference championships. Why one and not the other? But the bigger the playoff field, the less deserving the teams that get left out will be. I don't think there are many people who honestly believe that teams with 3-4 losses should be in the championship picture.

this is exactly right. the point of expanding is not to limit controversial choices, it's to limit the significance of the controversies. will virginia tech fans be pissed they got left out of a 16 team playoff? sure, but no one could effectively argue that getting left out cost them the national championship in the same way someone could make that argument (most strongly) under the old bcs system and (only slightly less strongly) under the current system.

 

[DaUwillRiseAgain]

Yep 3 teams made the bcs title game without winning their conference. Now with an expanded field it does not make sense to say every team has to win it all.

 

[Suudy]

Now with an expanded field it does not make sense to say every team has to win it all.

Call me old school, but that's the point. What I love about college football is that EVERY game counts. The regular season IS the playoffs. No weeks off.

 

[CougSinceBirth]

I could've dealt with tOSU in the playoff if they dropped to No. 4.

1. Bama 2. Clemson 3. UW 4. tOSU (or PSU...as it should've been.)

With the way the system is now - what I'm saying is if you don't win your conference, how are you even No. 2 in the country? tOSU's reward should be having to play Bama in the CFP for being "the weakest seed" (I know many will disagree, but they didn't win their conference, why should they be No. 2 OVERALL?) but the committee wouldn't/won't do it because they want $$$ and they probably are hoping it's Alabama v. tOSU in the Natty.

Things to fix:

Furthermore, there should be no conference championship games. Add four more teams to the playoffs for the 8 top teams, regardless of P5 conference and let them duke it out. Additionally, every conference should play the same amount of conference games (9 conference games):

Most conferences are big enough, this isn't a problem. No more scheduling crappy teams in week 12, SEC...you must schedule one P5 school in replacement.

Since the Big XII only has 10 teams...they can play all 9 other teams OR they can play 8 with the notion they schedule one P5 FBS school in non-conference.

IMHO, teams should schedule one lower non-P5 school to play and then P5 the rest of the way. I want the best of the best. Makes non-conference more interesting and entertaining.

TV would love it, fans would love it and it would help level set the rankings. The CFP committee should actually stick to standards as well. Maybe the best route is to by overall record, like the NFL, and then have real tie-breakers.

 

[Coug95man2]

I could've dealt with tOSU in the playoff if they dropped to No. 4.

1. Bama 2. Clemson 3. UW 4. tOSU (or PSU...as it should've been.)

With the way the system is now - what I'm saying is if you don't win your conference, how are you even No. 2 in the country? tOSU's reward should be having to play Bama in the CFP for being "the weakest seed" (I know many will disagree, but they didn't win their conference, why should they be No. 2 OVERALL?) but the committee wouldn't/won't do it because they want $$$ and they probably are hoping it's Alabama v. tOSU in the Natty.

Things to fix:

Furthermore, there should be no conference championship games. Add four more teams to the playoffs for the 8 top teams, regardless of P5 conference and let them duke it out. Additionally, every conference should play the same amount of conference games (9 conference games):

Most conferences are big enough, this isn't a problem. No more scheduling crappy teams in week 12, SEC...you must schedule one P5 school in replacement.

Since the Big XII only has 10 teams...they can play all 9 other teams OR they can play 8 with the notion they schedule one P5 FBS school in non-conference.

IMHO, teams should schedule one lower non-P5 school to play and then P5 the rest of the way. I want the best of the best. Makes non-conference more interesting and entertaining.

TV would love it, fans would love it and it would help level set the rankings. The CFP committee should actually stick to standards as well. Maybe the best route is to by overall record, like the NFL, and then have real tie-breakers.

The point I'll take up. The "no more conference championships" point.

I'm ok with them. And I'll point to WSU fans very recent mentality after the Colorado game. We were almost looking past UW so that we could get another crack at OC at the conference championship. Football is finicky, especially when it gets to a certain level. Anyways, agree with most of what you say, just that point is where I have disagreement.

And besides, they will never get rid of them. Too much money involved. Moot point

 

[Flatlandcoug]

The point I'll take up. The "no more conference championships" point.

I'm ok with them. And I'll point to WSU fans very recent mentality after the Colorado game. We were almost looking past UW so that we could get another crack at OC at the conference championship. Football is finicky, especially when it gets to a certain level. Anyways, agree with most of what you say, just that point is where I have disagreement.

And besides, they will never get rid of them. Too much money involved. Moot point

Agree that conference championships are never going away. For most schools, it's the only championship hardware that they'll have a chance at putting in their trophy case. Thinking of WSU, would we want to throw out our 1997 and 2002 Pac-10 championship trophies? Hell no!

I will say that the Big 12 should not be allowed to have a conference championship game. If they want to be greedy and keep out teams so that they can maximize their TV revenue, they should live with the fact that they aren't considered an equivalent conference in the eyes of everyone else. Make a choice. Grow by two teams and lose a little money or just live with the fact that you are the last one at the table.

I do think that they should establish some rules and I like the idea of requiring that everyone schedule 9 conference games. It's laughable that the SEC was touting their improved schedule rotation in 2014 where everyone plays everyone at least twice in 12 years. If you only play a team at that rate, you aren't really a conference any more. I do like the idea that you aren't eligible for the playoff if you don't schedule at least one Power 5 team in your OOC schedule that season.