2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Like the title says, anything and everything else goes here. As long as it follows the forum rules.

Moderator: Raccoon

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:04 pm

With games only days away, this seems an appropriate time to start the discussion. Let's start with this: "How do you feel about your team?"

My answer? Great. Question on the OL, DL, and WRs. But best TE corp in the country, two potential first-rounders anchoring the OL and teaching the 3 new guys, and a very solid LB/DB corp backing up the line. Oh, and the best QB in the country and a remarkably soft schedule (some of it out of our control: AZ St and Utah are both contenders to win the South and we miss them, Oregon is late and at home, etc). So I'm cautiously optimistic.

User avatar
top1214
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:10 am
Location: St Louis, MO, USA

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by top1214 » Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:55 pm

Worried. The Eagles added Asumugha, and Vick hasn't killed any dogs lately. Meanwhile, we've been getting guys injured at camp, especially at CB.

Oh wait, were you talking about minor league football? ;-)

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Mon Aug 29, 2011 10:16 pm

I don't want to talk about it. At least Miami makes us look better though.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:28 am

thacon wrote:I don't want to talk about it. At least Miami makes us look better though.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh I'm sorry that was rude.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:08 pm

Any thoughts on the upcoming Suspension Bowl between Oregon (star cornerback/punt returner Cliff Harris suspended) vs. LSU (starting QB Jordan Jefferson and others suspended)?
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:23 pm

Or the slow collapse of the traditional system of conferences? How likely do you think it is that we end up with a handful of super conferences?

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:21 pm

thacon wrote:Or the slow collapse of the traditional system of conferences? How likely do you think it is that we end up with a handful of super conferences?
In what time frame? In the grand scheme of things it's about 100%.

Honestly, that would make the BCS much more bearable. If there were 4 16-team conferences each with a championship game, we'd be most of the way to a playoff. A 8-team playoff for the NC would only require two extra games, one extra round.

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:27 pm

I agree with Stu on all his points. It'll end up as Pac-16 (current 12 plus Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and two others), Big Ten (current 12 plus 4 more, maybe Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State), SEC (current 12 plus Texas A&M, Texas?, Florida State?, and Virginia Tech), and one other one to be fought to the death between Big East and Big-12. . . .
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:58 pm

Raccoon wrote:I agree with Stu on all his points. It'll end up as Pac-16 (current 12 plus Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and two others), Big Ten (current 12 plus 4 more, maybe Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State), SEC (current 12 plus Texas A&M, Texas?, Florida State?, and Virginia Tech), and one other one to be fought to the death between Big East and Big-12. . . .
And some of the MWC and WAC, since schools like Boise and Nevada have shown that they don't actually suck as hard as everyone once thought. Nevada in the PAC-N would make more geographical sense, too.

At some point there's going to need to be some kind of actual structure that governs everything. But since it'll take a lot to get the commissioners to give up their little fiefdoms, that will likely be further down the road.

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:54 pm

So where does that leave everyone else? MAC, Conference USA, Big East, etc. etc.

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:25 pm

thacon wrote:So where does that leave everyone else? MAC, Conference USA, Big East, etc. etc.
A few teams from those conferences, like the carcass of Miami after the NCAA is done with it, Boise State, and a few others, will end up in superconferences. The rest will be left to rot away.
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:25 pm

Basically what Raccoon said. I mean, we already have 68 (by my count) teams that have been decided to be better than all the others, many of those could be lost (entire Big East, huge chunks of the ACC), so adding back in good teams from other conferences (TCU, Boise, BYU, whatever else) and you'd do pretty okay.

Really, though, the best solution is to just have a goddamn playoff. But I don't see any way that that happens. Conferences expanding and cannibalizing each other is obviously happening, and making superconferences is obviously something the bigwigs want. So while having 64 privileged teams with a playoff among them is non-ideal, it's better than the clusterfuck we currently have and something you can envision happening within 10 years.

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:24 pm

stupac2 wrote:So while having 64 privileged teams with a playoff among them is non-ideal, it's better than the clusterfuck we currently have and something you can envision happening within 10 years.
I'm not about to defend the current system, but I do think there's something to be said for a smaller playoff compared to, say, college basketball. There, I think the NCAA tournament largely devalues regular season games for many teams. Even under the current football non-playoff, the late October and November games for the contenders are all meaningful -- extremely so, since if you mess up, there's someone else waiting to move up a spot.

I'd like to see more details about the allegedly 4-team playoff that the BCS is contemplating. I'm not sure if 4 or 8 is the right number of playoff teams, but my tentative feeling is that 4 or 8 is better than 16.
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
top1214
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:10 am
Location: St Louis, MO, USA

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by top1214 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:54 pm

What will superconferences do for basketball? The BIg East is already a huge clusterfuck of teams (some of whom don't play Division-1A minor league football) where (at least recently, I think), some you play twice a year, some you won't play at all in the given year. The automatic bids for March Madness make me think that the loser power conferences conferences won't just go away.

Also, what is the incentive for these conferences to expand? At 12 teams, you get to the conference championship thingy, but why go to 16?

User avatar
slaphappy snark
Widdle Fudge Bunny
Posts: 2689
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:27 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by slaphappy snark » Wed Aug 31, 2011 9:48 pm

Raccoon wrote:I'd like to see more details about the allegedly 4-team playoff that the BCS is contemplating. I'm not sure if 4 or 8 is the right number of playoff teams, but my tentative feeling is that 4 or 8 is better than 16.
Death to the BCS did a great job of selling the 16 team playoff, but I could see something smaller being pretty appealing. It will at least still have the exciting feature of not being the BCS.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 9:59 pm

I think that right now the BCS is "considering" a 4-team playoff the same way that John Boehner is "considering" cooperating with Obama. They're not actually considering it.

But yes, the current structure (or something close) but with an 8-team playoff would be way better. I think 16 would be fine, but 8 is way better than nothing and probably easier to sell. Also, 16 teams is just NOT that many. This isn't basketball, you'd still need to prove yourself to get into the tournament. Seriously, read Death to the BCS, they address this very effectively.

One plus about having 4 conference championships being the 8-team round of a playoff is that it effectively isn't an extra game. Now 4 of the big 6 conferences have that game anyway, so using it as the first of 3 would only be adding one game. Adding a playoff structure on top of that would add another game, and while I think the downsides of adding more games are ridiculously overblown (why did no one, and I mean NO ONE, mention it when the PAC-10 expanded? Because it doesn't matter), it helps defuse the stupidity of that argument somewhat.

Anyway, we'll see what happens. All I know is that the current system is completely indefensible.

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:33 am

stupac2 wrote:Seriously, read Death to the BCS, they address this very effectively.
Um, yeah, I was flogging this book in last year's college football thread. I guess the bad BCS part stuck out in my mind much more than the good 16-team playoff did.

Just looking at last year, I definitely see how TCU and Stanford had seriously valid claims to be in a national championship hunt, and the BCS screwed them out of it. I was less impressed by Wisconsin and Ohio State, who were 11-1 each but almost lost a number of times during the season. The other three BCS teams were Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Virginia Tech, all of whom had 2 losses. I don't think a national championship playoff would lose any luster for not having those 2 loss teams. That leaves Michigan State, Boise State, and Nevada as the other 1 loss teams.

So a 4 team playoff would've been Auburn vs. Stanford, and Oregon vs. TCU. That would have been AWESOME.

8 teams, assuming you go with my suggestion above and then pick between Boise State and Nevada as the 8th team, would've been Auburn vs. Boise State/Nevada, Oregon vs. Michigan State, TCU vs. Ohio State, and Stanford vs. Wisconsin. Certainly respectable, but those first round games look kind of bleh to me.

With 16 teams, we're digging pretty deep, with LSU (understandable, I guess), Missouri (really?), Oklahoma State (eh), and a 3-loss Alabama (yeah, it's the SEC but still, 3 losses?). Sure, any one of those teams *could* go on a run and win 4 games, but honestly, I have a hard time seeing how any of the bottom eight teams has any real gripes about being excluded. With the 8 team scenario, I suppose Boise State and Nevada have an interesting point, since they're both 11-1, with Boise State ranked higher, but Nevada having won the head-to-head matchup. One of them would get screwed, but even that doesn't really bother me. Weak conference -- win all your games and you can sit at the table. Lose one, and that's tough.
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
slaphappy snark
Widdle Fudge Bunny
Posts: 2689
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:27 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by slaphappy snark » Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:49 am

The 16-team playoff proposed in Death the BCS included all of the conference champions, even the minor conferences, plus wildcards. This would add national interest to a lot more regular season games, would hopefully improve schedule quality (regular season losses to very good teams would be less devastating to championship hopes) and would also mean that every team has a potential path (however minor) toward the national championship every year, which just isn't true right now. I think you'd lose some of what makes playoffs magical by limiting the team selection, but, as I said, I could certainly live with just about any playoff.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Thu Sep 01, 2011 11:30 am


User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:16 am

First day done! Did everyone beat up on their cupcake? My team did! Luck's numbers weren't great, but that might have been our ridiculous field position more than anything. And some other players did very well, so it seems like a promising start. The first real test is in two weeks, @AZ.

Also, how about that Oregon game? It might have been closer than the score made it seem, since Oregon had entirely too many turnovers. Oregon did have some long drives against LSU's defense, but they weren't fast. And, of course, they're now 0/4 against good teams with time to prepare for them. I'm just hoping David Shaw will watch the film and take some notes...

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:33 am

Toledo got royally screwed this weekend. I'm not sure if anyone caught the Toledo - Syracuse game, but it was a travesty. It was an exciting back and forth game and with just over 2 minutes left in the fourth, Syracuse scored a touchdown to go up 27-29. The extra point went wide left, but for some strange reason, the officials raised their arms in the air and awarded Syracuse the extra point to put them up by 3. Luckily, the official in the booth was paying attention, so he stopped the game for a review. During this time, the TV broadcast showed the replay from a few angles and pretty solidly proved that the kick was wide. But then the referee walked out to field and announced that the ruling on the field stood, 27-30. Toledo managed to drive down the field and kick the tying field goal as time expired, but lost in overtime.

The Big East even admitted their mistake, making this announcement:
"After studying the videos of the Syracuse extra point attempt at 2:07 of the fourth quarter, we have concluded that the ruling on the field that the kick passed between the uprights was incorrect, and that the replay official made an error in failing to reverse that ruling. In reviewing the video, we have determined that the angle from behind the kicking team shows conclusively that the ball passes outside the right upright.

Our review of the process determined that the replay official mistakenly focused his attention on the sideline angle, which proved to be distorted. We are confident that our officiating staff will learn from this situation in order to prevent a reoccurrence. "
Well, as long as they've learned from this situation... wow.

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:27 am

Bah, typical Cal. I had some flickering hopes for an epic upset when the Golden Bears clung to a 15-14 lead at halftime over the Oregon Ducks. But I guess the missed Cal FG at the end of the half was a harbinger of the second half. Before the third quarter was over, it was 36-15. I can only imagine how much worse it would have been if LaMichael James hadn't gotten injured. . . .
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:20 am

I'm not rooting for Oregon, but I must admit to being impressed at how the Ducks are now starting to pour it on against a pretty good Arizona State team . . . without LaMichael James or Darron Thomas on the field.
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:10 am

Oh. My. God. I nearly died in that game.

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:39 pm

I can't believe this is real

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:11 pm

...That is absolutely unbelievable.

Also, is it just me or was that LSU-Bama game terrible? Neither of those teams looked that good. I know that they say "defense wins championships", but holy shit, you need some kind of offense to go with it.

User avatar
Eigenbasis
My Pie Blown Sky High
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:07 pm

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Eigenbasis » Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:52 am

I only watched the overtime, but it seemed like every play was either a sack or a RB tackled for a loss in the backfield. Not sure if the defenses are good or the lines are bad... I mean, I know the defenses are good, but at the same time those offensive lines should have been doing way better.
"Have you ever heard the expression, ‘When life gives you lemons, make lemonade, and then throw it in the face of the person who gave you the lemons until they give you the oranges you originally asked for?’"

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:42 am

I went to a bar with a friend and asked the bartender to turn off the South Carolina v Arkansas game in favor of watching LSU v Alabama. That was a poor decision because most any game would have been more entertaining that LSU and Alabama's suckfest. I actually like watching a battle of defenses, but this was just awful. It was good defenses paired with horrible looking offenses and miserably bad special teams. With Alabama falling to only third in the BCS, there's a possibility we could get a rematch for the national championship game. I really hope that doesn't happen.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:41 am

I read this morning that if that game had an MVP, it was Wing, LSU's punter. Kinda sad.

Anyway, it would really take something crazy for a rematch to happen. If Stanford wins this weekend then it's moot, because we'll hop Alabama easily and there's no way we lose at home to Cal or ND, regardless of what OKST does. And since the computers love the shit out the BIG-12 this year, 1-loss OK gets in ahead of 1-loss Alabama anyway. Hell, Boise would get in before a rematch, I think. For a rematch to happen you'd need Boise, Stanford, and OKST to lose, plus OK losing another game. It just doesn't seem likely.

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:49 am

You're probably right, but Oregon won't be easy for you and Oklahoma won't be easy for Oklahoma State. Lots of good games coming up!

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:03 pm

thacon wrote:You're probably right, but Oregon won't be easy for you and Oklahoma won't be easy for Oklahoma State. Lots of good games coming up!
Part 1 has definitely been validated. . . .
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:17 pm

And the Oregon game ball goes to... Stanford's turf. Seriously, what's wrong with Stanford's turf?

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:42 pm

thacon wrote:And the Oregon game ball goes to... Stanford's turf. Seriously, what's wrong with Stanford's turf?
Maybe Stanford messed with the turf in an effort to slow Oregon down, but only made it worse for themselves?
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:38 pm

Man was that game disappointing. It was almost like everyone involved had their worst game this year. Luck was mediocre, the defense was clearly outmatched, the OL couldn't contain the pressure, the receivers (outside of Whalen, who's not fast or tall enough to really burn a CB) couldn't get separation, YAC, or even fucking catches, Shaw was way, way too cautious with his playcalling. The injuries clearly hurt us, and even the guys who came back weren't at 100%. Hell, we didn't even have the right cleats for the turf. It was just a total failure by everyone involved.

The one plus side is that we really ought to curbstomp Cal, and that will be satisfying.

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:49 pm

stupac2 wrote:Man was that game disappointing.
Actual conversation from the Raccoon household:

MRS. RACCOON: You know, if you want #1 Raccoon son to consider going to Stanford for college,* you probably shouldn't be rooting against them all the time.

ME: Huh.

***

#1 RACCOON SON: Who should we root for in the Oregon-Stanford game?

ME: Maybe we should root for Stanford. Oregon is becoming kind of a bully, and they may have cheated [with the Willie Lyles incident].

#1 RACCOON SON: Okay. Go Stanford.

***

So naturally, to reward me for adjusting my brain chemistry, etc. so that I can bring myself to root for Stanford, they get walloped by Oregon.


* Why would I want my son to go to Stanford? Well, obviously, I must concede that it has a terrific reputation, it seems to be a quite pleasant place to be a student, and it's much closer to the Pacific Northwest than the East Coast. And at the rate tuition is inflating at the UCs (no in-state tuition for the little raccoons), I don't expect Cal to much cheaper than Stanford, if at all. Of course, all this presumes that #1 and/or #2 son(s) get into Stanford, which is something no one in the Raccoon family has accomplished yet -- I'm 0 for 1 (undergrad), and my brother is 0 for at least 1, if not more. . . .
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:42 pm

I'm only 1/2! To be fair, I didn't really want to go to grad school anyway. And yeah, we really shit the bed that game, bad one to pick to start rooting for us...

User avatar
lotsofphil
Leader of rum ham
Posts: 4075
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:56 pm

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by lotsofphil » Mon Nov 14, 2011 5:29 pm

Does this particular kid know he's #1 in your heart? :)

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:23 pm

lotsofphil wrote:Does this particular kid know he's #1 in your heart? :)
#2 Raccoon son is still our baby. Well, he's four years old, but he's still our baby. I can't conceive of our baby going off to college. In a few years, I can handle that thought. Or something like that.
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
top1214
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:10 am
Location: St Louis, MO, USA

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by top1214 » Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:38 pm

What is there left that can "go wrong" this season? Georgia winning the SEC title game?

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:11 pm

top1214 wrote:What is there left that can "go wrong" this season? Georgia winning the SEC title game?
Arkansas winning on Friday would be pretty nuts. I think that would result in Alabama winning the SEC West, unless they lose to Auburn.

What I'm hoping for, personally, is an Auburn victory over Alabama, a Virginia (or Clemson) win over Virginia Tech, and ORST beating Oregon. Plus OKST losing to OK next week. Regardless of what happens with LSU, that would put Stanford in the title game (probably). I would say that there's no way all of those will happen, but we got almost every plausible upset we needed last weekend, so who knows? (Plausible because 'bama was playing an FCS team, LSU was playing Ole Miss, and Arkansas was playing Miss St (someone remind me again why people say the SEC is deep).)

Anyway, it's been a nutty year. I just wish Stanford hadn't shit the bed two weeks ago...

User avatar
top1214
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:10 am
Location: St Louis, MO, USA

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by top1214 » Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:45 pm

But LSU losing to Arkansas creates such a sweet amount of bickering! Arkansas > LSU > Alabama >Arakansas. Only one gets to go to the SEC title game, and then (maybe!) the "Championship" game.

I always root for the most chaos. I'm trying to figure out a way for the last game of the year to involve 2 2-loss teams, but since the Big 12 doesn't have a title game any more, that might be impossible.

Man, if only Boise hadn't shit the bed when they had the chance.

Houston vs. LSU just isn't going to happen, right?

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:10 pm

I don't think Houston can get in, since you can't get Oklahoma and OKST another loss, and both are ahead of them.

I think Arkansas beating LSU might be interesting, but it's not really in my best interest. If that were to happen LSU would probably still be #1 and still be in their title game against Georgia, but now Arkansas is solidly #2. I want as many teams to fall below Stanford as possible, and that's easier if Arkansas loses.

That said, I can certainly understand why someone would be a Razorbacks fan for the sheer chaos that would result. Plus we can all get behind rooting for Georgia in the championship game. That could be crazy, because if the SEC west still has the top 2 teams afterward, either they wouldn't get to go to the Sugar Bowl, or you would rip the #2 team out of the championship game because of the "only 2 teams" rule (I don't know which would happen).

At any rate, all of this bullshit just furthers the need for a playoff.

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:49 pm

stupac2 wrote:I don't think Houston can get in, since you can't get Oklahoma and OKST another loss, and both are ahead of them.

I think Arkansas beating LSU might be interesting, but it's not really in my best interest. If that were to happen LSU would probably still be #1 and still be in their title game against Georgia, but now Arkansas is solidly #2. I want as many teams to fall below Stanford as possible, and that's easier if Arkansas loses.

That said, I can certainly understand why someone would be a Razorbacks fan for the sheer chaos that would result. Plus we can all get behind rooting for Georgia in the championship game. That could be crazy, because if the SEC west still has the top 2 teams afterward, either they wouldn't get to go to the Sugar Bowl, or you would rip the #2 team out of the championship game because of the "only 2 teams" rule (I don't know which would happen).

At any rate, all of this bullshit just furthers the need for a playoff.
I'm not sure why Alabama wins the SEC West if Arkansas beats LSU. Doesn't that mean that they are all 7-1 in conference, with each being 1-1 against the other two? I think then the tiebreaker is highest BCS standing, but who knows what that would be.

Also, if Arkansas beats LSU but LSU stays #1, then LSU goes to the SEC championship game. If Georgia beats LSU, then wouldn't that help Stanford more than Arkansas losing to LSU would?
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:12 pm

I think LSU would still be #1 because they've beat a stupid number of good teams, and Arkansas hasn't really done that (granted, beating LSU would...). I know predicting this stuff is folly, and it's anyone's guess how that trio would turn out if they were all 7-1, but their all being 7-1 doesn't really help me, it's much more important for 2 of them to be 10-2. Since my goal is to see as many 2-loss teams as possible, and putting LSU at 1 loss and then having whoever lose in the SEC championship would do that too (assuming 'bama still loses to Auburn, without that it doesn't really matter). But I think Arkansas falls further losing to LSU than having that other scenario play out. Plus that requires an extra upset.

In short, I'm not looking for EVERY team to have 2 losses, that can't happen at this point, just 4 of the 5 ahead of Stanford.

User avatar
top1214
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:10 am
Location: St Louis, MO, USA

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by top1214 » Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:51 pm

I think it was made pretty clear a couple of years ago when an idle Georgia at #3 was leapfrogged when one of the top 2 lost in their title game. Georgia was not even in the SEC title game, so I think the voters wouldn't put a team that didn't win its conference into the title game. So I think you only need to root for Georgia to win the SEC title game.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:55 am

I don't ONLY need to root for that, a lot of other stuff has to happen. Auburn HAS to win, and I believe LSU does as well. Virginia Tech losing helps, as does Oregon. If you really care about who a Stanford fan needs to root for, look here: http://www.ruleoftree.com/2011/11/21/25 ... ot-for-BCS

User avatar
top1214
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:10 am
Location: St Louis, MO, USA

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by top1214 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:27 am

stupac2 wrote:I don't ONLY need to root for that, a lot of other stuff has to happen. Auburn HAS to win, and I believe LSU does as well. Virginia Tech losing helps, as does Oregon. If you really care about who a Stanford fan needs to root for, look here: http://www.ruleoftree.com/2011/11/21/25 ... ot-for-BCS
Sorry, I was speaking only of the SEC. Assume with me that a team that doesn't win the SEC can't make the title game due to the Georgia precedent. According to the standings, you need 2 of 4 things to happen: Ark/LSU/Ala lose SEC title game, OK State loss to OK, Virginia Tech loss (either to Virginia or Clemson).

User avatar
slaphappy snark
Widdle Fudge Bunny
Posts: 2689
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:27 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by slaphappy snark » Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:57 am

2003 title game included conference-championship-game-loser Oklahoma (there might be a more recent example, but I am old and that was memorable), plus it's important to remember that the computers (who absolutely hate Stanford) have a 1/3 say in the title game matchup, no matter what the voters want.
I try to just be full of blind faith rather than actual facts when it comes to college football, but this craziness has me actually reading stuff that Stu links. And reading up on my own over and over how the bcs works now. And growling that we would destroy VT. (Okay, that last thing is back to the faith...)

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:48 pm

I was playing around with my big spreadsheet of football figures and came up with this. I posted to /r/cfb, but thought you might be interested as well.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:46 pm

Why wasn't I already subscribed to that?

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:42 am

We're number 4! We're number 4! Stanford will probably be in a BCS bowl regardless, but being #4 next week guarantees it, and its unlikely VT jumps us. Incidentally, does anyone really believe VT is the #5 team in the country? I realize that a good number of the top 10 would give Stanford some real trouble, but I don't think anyone in the top 10 is anything but a 10-point favorite over VT.

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:58 am

Do I have this right? If UCLA wins the Pac-12 Championship, it will be 7-6 and go the Rose Bowl. If it loses, it will be 6-7, and it will not go to any bowl game at all. :shock:
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:33 am

stupac2 wrote:Incidentally, does anyone really believe VT is the #5 team in the country?
Not at all. They've played a really weak schedule (Sagarin has them with the 60th best SoS) and were one helmet punch away from losing to Georgia Tech. Their ranking feels a lot like Boise State's was.

bennieloohoo
Dropped to Casual
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:21 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by bennieloohoo » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:19 am

I know next to nothing about football, but I just want to take this opportunity to say "GO COOGS!!!!!"

... That is all.

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:20 am

Also, Arkansas really let me down this weekend, but now I'm a giant Georgia fan.

User avatar
Eigenbasis
My Pie Blown Sky High
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:07 pm

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Eigenbasis » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:29 am

Enjoy Urban Meyer, thacon!
"Have you ever heard the expression, ‘When life gives you lemons, make lemonade, and then throw it in the face of the person who gave you the lemons until they give you the oranges you originally asked for?’"

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:38 am

Raccoon wrote:Do I have this right? If UCLA wins the Pac-12 Championship, it will be 7-6 and go the Rose Bowl. If it loses, it will be 6-7, and it will not go to any bowl game at all. :shock:
Yes, you have that right. Rose Bowl or bust for UCLA. And since they're terrible and playing Oregon, it's almost certainly "bust". It's too bad for them, but if they had beaten a terrible Arizona team it'd be fine. To add to the facepalmness of this, Neuheisel is almost certainly going to be fired immediately after making the inaugural PAC-12 title game. It's almost surreal.

Incidentally, I though having USC be ineligible was hilarious, now it's just kind of sad for the conference. USC-Oregon in Autzen 13 days after the upset would have been incredible. Oh well.

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:53 am

Eigenbasis wrote:Enjoy Urban Meyer, thacon!
Thanks! I'm excited to see what he can do, but I'm a little nervous that his play style won't work well in the Big Ten. Either way, he's probably going to be better than Adam Sandler was this year and I'm looking forward to 2012.

User avatar
lotsofphil
Leader of rum ham
Posts: 4075
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:56 pm

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by lotsofphil » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:15 pm

Raccoon wrote:Do I have this right? If UCLA wins the Pac-12 Championship, it will be 7-6 and go the Rose Bowl. If it loses, it will be 6-7, and it will not go to any bowl game at all. :shock:
Then there's the matter of what happens to the Bruins' bowl prospects if they lose. Technically, at 6-7, they wouldn't qualify. However, an obscure clause in the NCAA's postseason handbook addresses this exact scenario. UCLA can apply for a waiver, which it would likely be granted based on the stated criteria because the Pac-12 won't have enough teams to fill its seven contractual bowl partnerships. A source at a Pac-12 affiliated bowl confirmed this is the case.

But would UCLA even want that bowl berth with a lame-duck coach and a losing record? Would it want the possibility of becoming the first bowl team from a major conference to finish 6-8? (The lone precedent: In 2001, Sun Belt champion North Texas finished 5-6 but was allowed to play in the New Orleans Bowl, where it lost 45-20 to Colorado State.) Oregon may answer that question for UCLA if it delivers its own 50-0 (or worse) shellacking on Friday night.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... z1f1cf5EOf

User avatar
slaphappy snark
Widdle Fudge Bunny
Posts: 2689
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:27 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by slaphappy snark » Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:09 pm

I think that UCLA will probably not bother applying for a waiver when they are in the middle of firing their coach, but maybe I underestimate the allure of spending a bunch of money to go to some crappy bowl game with no coach. I do think they'd have a good argument for getting one, since they are only (probably) going to end up less than 50% because USC isn't allowed to play on Friday.

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:33 pm

slaphappy snark wrote:I think that UCLA will probably not bother applying for a waiver when they are in the middle of firing their coach, but maybe I underestimate the allure of spending a bunch of money to go to some crappy bowl game with no coach. I do think they'd have a good argument for getting one, since they are only (probably) going to end up less than 50% because USC isn't allowed to play on Friday.
Underestimation.

I mean, UCLA is my second favorite football team (Mrs. Raccoon earned her BA and JD there), but seriously, this is just plain embarrassing. If I were supreme dictator of college football for a day, the first thing I would do is institute a 4- or 8-team playoff. The second thing I would do is change the rule so that you have to have a winning record to be eligible for a bowl game. If that means some bowls end up being phased out because there aren't enough bowl eligible teams, oh well, no loss.
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:51 pm

I think 16-team would be better. It's a bit sad to me that even if there were a 4-team playoff we could have been in 2 years in a row. Oh well, this year we'd get smoked anyway.

And yes, I think this is more embarrassing for UCLA than not going to a bowl. If it gets accepted they could end up earning the dubious distinction of being the first team to go 6-8.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:54 pm

I'll just leave this here: http://i.imgur.com/PXDkx.jpg

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:46 pm


User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:21 pm

I cannot understand why they would apply given that:

1) Most bowl games lose the school money.
2) They just fired their coach.
3) They would be the first program to go to a bowl game 6-7.

But whatever, if UCLA really wants to go 6-8 that's their business.

User avatar
slaphappy snark
Widdle Fudge Bunny
Posts: 2689
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:27 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by slaphappy snark » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:29 pm

Wishful thinking that my sister's school would do the smart, classy thing, I guess.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:27 pm

Well, as far as the bowls I care about are concerned, everything went as expected.

Also, I like that the only games worth watching are on Dec 2nd.

Finally, what are the odds that the Sugar Bowl selection this year is what kills the BCS?

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:28 pm

stupac2 wrote:Well, as far as the bowls I care about are concerned, everything went as expected.

Also, I like that the only games worth watching are on Dec 2nd.

Finally, what are the odds that the Sugar Bowl selection this year is what kills the BCS?
Dec. 2? Presumably you mean Jan. 2. . . .

The Sugar Bowl selection is pretty bad, but really, if the BCS can survive the fact that there's no good reason for why Alabama got picked over Oklahoma State (though there's no good reason for the reverse, either) for the Championship game, I have a hard time seeing why it doesn't continue to survive like a cockroach.

I guess what we should be hoping for is another ugly 9-6 or 6-3 type of game between Alabama and LSU, won by Alabama, and then for Stanford to annihilate Oklahoma State. (Oklahoma State annihilating Stanford would accomplish the same chaotic result, but in my view, non-USC Pac-12 teams >>>>> other conferences.) That would leave LSU, Alabama, and Stanford all with 1 loss, but in looking at the last game, Stanford would have an impressive win, while LSU would have a loss, and Alabama a lackluster win. Split coaches' vote?
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:24 pm

Yes, Jan 2nd. The Rose Bowl should be incredible, I just hope I can watch it while pregaming the Fiesta. Pissed they're the same day.

And you're probably right, but I don't know if the BCS had had a moment where it was so obviously about money before. They've done a lot of stupid shit, but it's never (to my knowledge) been so obviously about money.

As for the Fiesta, I think we have a real shot, especially with 5 weeks off to get healthy (the reason we sucked down the stretch compared to the beginning was injuries to everyone important except Luck). Plus extra time to prepare should benefit the smart team. But I don't really foresee a rout either way (then again, I didn't against Oregon either). We'll see though, I'm sure Vegas will have us as the underdog.

User avatar
playultm8
Gatekeeper of Hell
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:47 am

Re: 2011-2012 College Football Discussion

Post by playultm8 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:28 pm

I might try and get tickets to the We Just Fired Our Coaches Bowl between Illinois and UCLA (I'm an Illinois alumni). If any team can get UCLA back to .500, it's Illinois.

Post Reply