College Football 2015-16: The Big Ten Rises

[JF_Gophers]

I just think the argument of "team A lost 2 games and team B only lost 1" is way too simplistic.

How many losses before it's valid? 3 to 1?

I agree not all losses are equal. But losing has to mean something. Also winning the Pac 12 against a 5 loss opponent doesn't look all that stellar.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football 2015-16: The Big Ten Rises

I'm not looking at them in a vacuum. They played a tough schedule and lost. Twice.

Alabama, Michigan state, Oklahoma, and Clemson played tougher schedules and lost fewer times. So no, they don't deserve to get in. Expanding this playoff makes it far less meaningful. When teams with two losses start to have legit claims to being in, let me know. So far I haven't seen one.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: College Football 2015-16: The Big Ten Rises

I think 8 teams is perfect. All power 5 champions would get in (most years) and the group of 5 teams would feel like they have a chance at representation.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football 2015-16: The Big Ten Rises

This is one of those years that four teams make sense. Six and eight have never made sense.

If you have to whine about being left out from eighth place, tough *****. Do better next year. Expanding the playoffs means teams that have no business being in the conversation are included have a chance at being crowned "champions" because they won a single-elimination tournament. No thanks.

 

[Biddco]

Re: College Football 2015-16: The Big Ten Rises

This is one of those years that four teams make sense. Six and eight have never made sense.

If you have to whine about being left out from eighth place, tough *****. Do better next year. Expanding the playoffs means teams that have no business being in the conversation are included have a chance at being crowned "champions" because they won a single-elimination tournament. No thanks.

I thought I would want them to expand to 8 to be like DII or FCS football but after this second year I think that would be a mistake. It already bothers me that the bowl games are not historically like they normally have been. Small thing to complain about but I'm a traditionalist.

Four times is just the right number because 8 teams would make it less exciting and draw out the bowl games even more. Now I think it could happen because it would increase the TV contract in the future, but that's about the only reason.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: College Football 2015-16: The Big Ten Rises

This is one of those years that four teams make sense. Six and eight have never made sense.

If you have to whine about being left out from eighth place, tough *****. Do better next year. Expanding the playoffs means teams that have no business being in the conversation are included have a chance at being crowned "champions" because they won a single-elimination tournament. No thanks.

So, you are fine with 4 team playoffs in the NFL, college hockey, college basketball, etc? Where they are all single elimination tournaments.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football 2015-16: The Big Ten Rises

So, you are fine with 4 team playoffs in the NFL, college hockey, college basketball, etc? Where they are all single elimination tournaments.

Sure. I would be.

ETA: They're fun, but they are less meaningful in determining the best teams because of the cinderella stories. A hot goalie or a couple of unlucky calls.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football 2015-16: The Big Ten Rises

I thought I would want them to expand to 8 to be like DII or FCS football but after this second year I think that would be a mistake. It already bothers me that the bowl games are not historically like they normally have been. Small thing to complain about but I'm a traditionalist.

Four times is just the right number because 8 teams would make it less exciting and draw out the bowl games even more. Now I think it could happen because it would increase the TV contract in the future, but that's about the only reason.

Agree. On all accounts.

I don't like how the Rose Bowl is potentially a game without a Big Ten and PAC 12 team. I'm very much a traditionalist.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football 2015-16: The Big Ten Rises

Actually, in college basketball, I think maybe eight or 12 would be more reasonable given the number of power conference teams. Maybe. I haven't put much though into what I, personally, would consider an ideal size. We already have 16 seeds who have never won a single game. Why even invite them? Ditto on 15 seeds. It's just meaningless games in hopes of an inferior team upsetting a goliath. Do we really believe that Northern Iowa Technical State College of Mining is really better than Duke if they beat them in a game? No. It doesn't make sense and it degrades the tournament's credibility in picking a true champion.

The regular season should matter. Expanding to eight, 12, or 16 teams would be a major mistake for everything but TV ratings and revenue.

 

[MavHockey14]

No- other than the top teams, the bowls get to pick who they want. That is still how it works.

Once MSU got into the top 4, the Rose Bowl does not have to take the best B1G team- they can do what they want. The only team they have to take right now is Stanford- as they are the P12 best and not already spoken for.

Again, I WANT Iowa to got to the Rose Bowl, but the Buckeyes spend more money.

You're wrong. I'm not trying to be an ***, but you're wrong. That's why it was important Iowa wasn't jumped by OSU in the CFP Rankings.

http://www.hawkcentral.com/story/sports/college/iowa/football/2015/11/02/college-football-playoff-committee-hawkeyes-rose-bowl-chances/75012164/

From linked article written in November when Iowa fans started wondering about the Rose Bowl:

“I really want to emphasize that the strong presumption is we’re going with the next-highest-ranked team. OK? Because I don’t want to mislead people,” Jenkins said. “And I really mean that. We’ve had a lot of discussions with (athletic directors) from both conferences. It’s really important. They’re putting a lot of weight in these rankings systems, and we will, too. It would truly have to be an extraordinary situation.”
The only “extraordinary situation" that Jenkins could think of that would apply for one team to jump another was if a team had already gone to the Rose Bowl for three consecutive years, as Wisconsin did from 2011-13. He said both conferences agreed three years in a row was too many, but two in a row wasn't.

 

[MavHockey14]

Buckeyes spend more money? Have you seen how well Iowa travels? The only teams in the Big Ten that travel better are Wisconsin and Nebraska.

Iowa has to be a lock given they haven't been to the rose bowl in a while. The Big Ten does use that as a factor to boost teams.

There were 40,000 Iowa fans in Indianapolis.(largest crowd in the game's history thus far) It was insane. Hawkeye Nation will be headed to Pasadena in droves. 25 years since they've been. I know tons of old timers who basically said they'd rather travel to see Iowa in Pasadena than in a playoff game. (I know, I know)

Kirk Herbstriet said on air he expects 60,000 Iowa fans at the Rose Bowl. I don't know about that, but there will be a ton of black and gold.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football 2015-16: The Big Ten Rises

There were 40,000 Iowa fans in Indianapolis.(largest crowd in the game's history thus far) It was insane. Hawkeye Nation will be headed to Pasadena in droves. 25 years since they've been. I know tons of old timers who basically said they'd rather travel to see Iowa in Pasadena than in a playoff game. (I know, I know)

Kirk Herbstriet said on air he expects 60,000 Iowa fans at the Rose Bowl. I don't know about that, but there will be a ton of black and gold.

Agreed. Iowa travels well and when it comes to something that a lot of fans haven't seen in their lifetimes? **** man, "mortgage the pig farm and sell the corn fields. We're going no matter what."

 

[French Rage]

Re: College Football 2015-16: The Big Ten Rises

Agreed. Iowa travels well and when it comes to something that a lot of fans haven't seen in their lifetimes? **** man, "mortgage the pig farm and sell the corn fields. We're going no matter what."

Two years ago Stanford offered Rose Bowl tickets as part of the deal if you bought season tickets for the next season (or maybe it was if you put a deposit down). A LOT of MSU fans jumped on that since it was cheaper than what it took to get tickets from their allotment. I wonder if the ticket office will do it this year. One one hand, it gets you badly outnumbered at the game. On the other hand, the even years are usually the weak home-game-wise (USC is good, but WSU/OSU/Colorado is blah), so getting more money for that year will likely factor in too.

 

[alfablue]

Re: College Football 2015-16: The Big Ten Rises

You're wrong. I'm not trying to be an ***, but you're wrong. That's why it was important Iowa wasn't jumped by OSU in the CFP Rankings.

http://www.hawkcentral.com/story/sp...ommittee-hawkeyes-rose-bowl-chances/75012164/

From linked article written in November when Iowa fans started wondering about the Rose Bowl:

“I really want to emphasize that the strong presumption is we’re going with the next-highest-ranked team. OK? Because I don’t want to mislead people,” Jenkins said. “And I really mean that. We’ve had a lot of discussions with (athletic directors) from both conferences. It’s really important. They’re putting a lot of weight in these rankings systems, and we will, too. It would truly have to be an extraordinary situation.”
The only “extraordinary situation" that Jenkins could think of that would apply for one team to jump another was if a team had already gone to the Rose Bowl for three consecutive years, as Wisconsin did from 2011-13. He said both conferences agreed three years in a row was too many, but two in a row wasn't.

You are assuming that the Committee would not have moved Iowa down. Both OSU and Iowa lost close games to MSU, arguably OSU had a harder schedule, therefore it was not out of reason that OSU would have jumped Iowa. there was even mention that the match ups for the bowls were taken into consideration for the 6 games.

after the top 4, the requirement to get the best 4 teams gets a lot less restrictive.

Could have easily happened. Thankfully it did not.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: College Football 2015-16: The Big Ten Rises

Quick Lane Bowl
Central Michigan vs Minnesota
Dec. 28th, 5 pm, Detroit

 

[St. Clown]

Re: College Football 2015-16: The Big Ten Rises

Quick Lane Bowl
Central Michigan vs Minnesota
Dec. 28th, 5 pm, Detroit

I am outraged that the Gophers have been snubbed on a Jan. 1 bowl game yet again! (Actually, it's a shame they got a bowl at all, given their record.)

 

[MavHockey14]

You are assuming that the Committee would not have moved Iowa down. Both OSU and Iowa lost close games to MSU, arguably OSU had a harder schedule, therefore it was not out of reason that OSU would have jumped Iowa. there was even mention that the match ups for the bowls were taken into consideration for the 6 games.

after the top 4, the requirement to get the best 4 teams gets a lot less restrictive.

Could have easily happened. Thankfully it did not.

My point was that I thought the system would be broke if after how the game went last night, Iowa was punished for playing in the conference championship game by being ranked below idle OSU. That was all that mattered. Nothing about money or anything. The Rose Bowl and the Pac -12 and B1G ADs wanted assurance that the rankings would matter.

I'm going to believe the Head of the Rose Bowl committee on this one, sorry.

 

[MavHockey14]

Two years ago Stanford offered Rose Bowl tickets as part of the deal if you bought season tickets for the next season (or maybe it was if you put a deposit down). A LOT of MSU fans jumped on that since it was cheaper than what it took to get tickets from their allotment. I wonder if the ticket office will do it this year. One one hand, it gets you badly outnumbered at the game. On the other hand, the even years are usually the weak home-game-wise (USC is good, but WSU/OSU/Colorado is blah), so getting more money for that year will likely factor in too.

I remember you posting that here, so I went there to check in case I strike it out in our allotment. Doesn't look like it as of now.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: College Football 2015-16: The Big Ten Rises

My point was that I thought the system would be broke if after how the game went last night, Iowa was punished for playing in the conference championship game by being ranked below idle OSU. That was all that mattered. Nothing about money or anything. The Rose Bowl and the Pac -12 and B1G ADs wanted assurance that the rankings would matter.

I'm going to believe the Head of the Rose Bowl committee on this one, sorry.

If tOSU played a stronger schedule and ended at 11-1, while Iowa had a relatively weak SOS, then it's reasonable to conclude that 11-1 tOSU is the better team and should be ranked higher than 12-1 Iowa.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football 2015-16: The Big Ten Rises

If tOSU played a stronger schedule and ended at 11-1, while Iowa had a relatively weak SOS, then it's reasonable to conclude that 11-1 tOSU is the better team and should be ranked higher than 12-1 Iowa.

Right, but OSU didn't play a more difficult schedule. Iowa barely eked them out.