FireChan Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 Except OSU beat Michigan (who had 2 losses) and FSU had 3 losses. Neither resume should have gotten in over a 1 loss team. The right teams were selected. The case for expanding it is that the teams playing the best will advance and make for more competitive semis. Oh I meant they should've been in because they were better teams and would've put on more competitive showings.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 Oh I meant they should've been in because they were better teams and would've put on more competitive showings.That's the reason to go to 8 (although I still don't think FSU would have gotten in). The other 4 teams would have been PSU, UM, Oklahoma and USC.
GunnerBill Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) I like Tyrod but Watson is one of the great college players ever. There is no comparison of them as college players. TT has led a successful NFL offense for 2 years. It is unconventional though which clearly bothers a lot of people here. I am of the school of thought that Tyrod gives them the best chance to win in 2017 and improved defense has them near the playoffs. In fact, I firmly believe that. With that being said I do not know if that is in their best interests long-term. This defense wasted some prime years of some good players (thanks Rex) and set them off schedule. The goal to me isn't to be like Miami this year; it is to be a contender. IF the Bills don't believe that they can be a realistic contender with TT than I am okay with Watson (but not high on the other guys in this draft). It will be a step back in 2017 with someone else taking the snaps (they aren't averaging 26 PPG with a rookie or scrub) but if that is to take 2 steps forward I am okay with it. I do not see the similarities between TT and Watson though outside of their complexion. They both throw a pretty good deep ball with plenty of air under it but that is it with the similarities for me. Tyrod is much more elusive and Watson prefers to play from the pocket. They play a different game. Each is effective but the comparisons are lazy to me. I was really hoping that we could stop comparing every black QB to another black QB if it doesn't make sense. Ironically I think that TT compares to Flutie some with his improv skills and Watson feels more like Mariota to me. At any rate, I think that you can win with either guy. You are slightly higher on Tyrod than me but as I keep saying unless the Bills believe Tyrod is established as a franchise guy (they clearly don't) then taking Watson is a no brainer if he by some miracle falls to them. Other than you being a bit higher om Tyrod we agree. Watson's game is nothing like Tyrod's. I can't understand that comparison at all. Edited January 10, 2017 by GunnerBill
FireChan Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 That's the reason to go to 8 (although I still don't think FSU would have gotten in). The other 4 teams would have been PSU, UM, Oklahoma and USC. that FSU team was very hot and cold this year. Played Clemson to the wire (which was an incredible game) and beat Michigan but lost to UNC and got blown out by Louisville. Terrible. I imagine without a rookie QB, they'll be in the top 4 next season.
Cynical Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 Yeah.....that's how I would fix the selection process. It would more likely keep posers like Washington and OSU out of the semi finals. No, it would just add more posers into the mix. Under the old BCS format, the BCS picked the 2 teams that played for the NC. But people bitched and whine because the selection process was flawed and wasn't fair. So college football added 2 more teams and called it the "playoffs". 3 years later, and all the playoffs have proven so far is BCS was right in their selection more times than not.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) that FSU team was very hot and cold this year. Played Clemson to the wire (which was an incredible game) and beat Michigan but lost to UNC and got blown out by Louisville. Terrible. I imagine without a rookie QB, they'll be in the top 4 next season. Yeah, they are the 2nd favorite in Vegas at 7-1. They open the year vs. the favorite, Alabama. It should be pretty amazing. No, it would just add more posers into the mix. Under the old BCS format, the BCS picked the 2 teams that played for the NC. But people bitched and whine because the selection process was flawed and wasn't fair. So college football added 2 more teams and called it the "playoffs". 3 years later, and all the playoffs have proven so far is BCS was right in their selection more times than not. A 4 seed, a 1 seed and a 2 seed have won. I don't know if that validates the BCS? Edited January 10, 2017 by Kirby Jackson
CardinalScotts Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 I'll take Watson any day...And twice on Sunday... okay but it wont be at QB
Maury Ballstein Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 okay but it wont be at QB Whose gonna be Cardales competition then ?
moshermw Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 Whose gonna be Cardales competition then ? Contend that we use the 1st round pick on someone other than Watson - Bills D was the issue last season no O - keep TT for now. After last night, I am more of a believer in Watson. Offense was NFL-like - but his biggest impact was when the Bama D was gassed. He was completely lost and neutralized when the Bama D was fresh like an NFL D. He looked great and made great throws - in NFL schemes but only in the second half. That game was won by the Clemson D and Mike Williams. 12 straight 3rd down stops, Unreal catches in clutch times. Watson is not ready to come in and take over an NFL team and rescue it. TT is ready to take the next step with a real OC and a real D. If wrong continue to draft QB's in the 2nd or 3rd like Dallas did Dak. Especially if drafting positions of more need like DB's and WR's is what CLEARLY needed. Always draft a QB in the 3rd or 4th: There's as many Romo, Dak, Wilson, Brady's as there are Luck, Rodgers, Cam, Matty Ice's. This year, it might be this guy: http://www.whatsondr...od-evans-report
Cynical Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 Yeah, they are the 2nd favorite in Vegas at 7-1. They open the year vs. the favorite, Alabama. It should be pretty amazing. A 4 seed, a 1 seed and a 2 seed have won. I don't know if that validates the BCS? Other than the 4th seed, yes it validates BCS. The whole point of the BCS (and the bowl alliance before it) was to pit the consensus 1 vs the consensus 2, and let those 2 teams decide the NC so there was no dispute who was #1 when it was all said and done. Looking back at the past 3 years of the playoffs, the #1 and #2 seeds for the playoffs were: 2014 - Alabama at 1, Oregon at 2 2015 - Clemson at 1, Alabama at 2 2016 - Alabama at 1, Clemson at 2 Of those 6 teams, 5 made the NC. If they had stuck with pairing 1 vs 2, the outcomes would have been nearly identical.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 Other than the 4th seed, yes it validates BCS. The whole point of the BCS (and the bowl alliance before it) was to pit the consensus 1 vs the consensus 2, and let those 2 teams decide the NC so there was no dispute who was #1 when it was all said and done. Looking back at the past 3 years of the playoffs, the #1 and #2 seeds for the playoffs were: 2014 - Alabama at 1, Oregon at 2 2015 - Clemson at 1, Alabama at 2 2016 - Alabama at 1, Clemson at 2 Of those 6 teams, 5 made the NC. If they had stuck with pairing 1 vs 2, the outcomes would have been nearly identical. Except 33% of the teams that have won the title wouldn't have played for it. I use that number to further the point that the sample size isn't big enough. The BCS wasn't broken but if 1 out of every 3 years the 3 or 4 seed wins, it proves that it wasn't perfect. If we go to 8 teams you will see more parody. I don't think as you get beyond that though you will see teams win the title. I don't see someone like Oklahoma State this year winning 4 games against the types of opponents that they would be playing. It isn't insane to me though that someone like USC could have won 3 this year.
Cynical Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 Except 33% of the teams that have won the title wouldn't have played for it. I use that number to further the point that the sample size isn't big enough. I agree the sample size is not big enough. That includes using any aspect of it to justify expanding the playoffs. (ie The semi final games suck. We need to expand the playoffs) The BCS wasn't broken but if 1 out of every 3 years the 3 or 4 seed wins, it proves that it wasn't perfect. The BCS wasn't perfect. I don't need a college playoff to prove it. Games like ND vs Alabama proved it. If we go to 8 teams you will see more parody. Disagree. 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 is not parity. Heck, the 2 vs 3 semi final game for the past 3 years has been laughable. I don't think as you get beyond that though you will see teams win the title. I don't see someone like Oklahoma State this year winning 4 games against the types of opponents that they would be playing. It isn't insane to me though that someone like USC could have won 3 this year. And the problem with expanding the number of teams, in order to get "USC", you will have to take on more "Okie State". By the way, here are the final top 8 teams ranked by the CFP committee, prior to the 2016 bowl games, in order: Alabama Clemson Ohio State Washington Penn State Michigan Oklahoma Wisconsin Jesus. Instead of one overrated Big 10 team, there would have been 4 of them. Notice whats not on that list: USC http://collegefootballplayoff.com/content/ranking/2016
Kirby Jackson Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 I agree the sample size is not big enough. That includes using any aspect of it to justify expanding the playoffs. (ie The semi final games suck. We need to expand the playoffs) The BCS wasn't perfect. I don't need a college playoff to prove it. Games like ND vs Alabama proved it. Disagree. 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 is not parity. Heck, the 2 vs 3 semi final game for the past 3 years has been laughable. And the problem with expanding the number of teams, in order to get "USC", you will have to take on more "Okie State". By the way, here are the final top 8 teams ranked by the CFP committee, prior to the 2016 bowl games, in order: Alabama Clemson Ohio State Washington Penn State Michigan Oklahoma Wisconsin Jesus. Instead of one overrated Big 10 team, there would have been 4 of them. Notice whats not on that list: USC http://collegefootballplayoff.com/content/ranking/2016 There is no way though that they would have had those as the 8 teams if teams 5-8 mattered. USC would have been over Wisconsin. Once you get to 5 it really doesn't matter where you are as long as you are in a New Year's 6 game. The parity comes in when teams like PSU, USC and Oklahoma get a chance to play the quarterfinal games. Those are teams that were playing well at the end of the year and not the beginning. Maybe OSU & Washington never get to the semifinals? If you want better semifinal games more teams playing to decide who belongs there is more effective than Condeleeza Rice and company sitting in a board room declaring 1 team slightly better than the others.
MAJBobby Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 Give me the best out of 3 match in a year please.
KD in CA Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 I agree the sample size is not big enough. That includes using any aspect of it to justify expanding the playoffs. (ie The semi final games suck. We need to expand the playoffs) The BCS wasn't perfect. I don't need a college playoff to prove it. Games like ND vs Alabama proved it. Disagree. 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 is not parity. Heck, the 2 vs 3 semi final game for the past 3 years has been laughable. And the problem with expanding the number of teams, in order to get "USC", you will have to take on more "Okie State". By the way, here are the final top 8 teams ranked by the CFP committee, prior to the 2016 bowl games, in order: Alabama Clemson Ohio State Washington Penn State Michigan Oklahoma Wisconsin Jesus. Instead of one overrated Big 10 team, there would have been 4 of them. Notice whats not on that list: USC http://collegefootballplayoff.com/content/ranking/2016 Exactly. Highlights the fallacy in most of these 'best teams' playoff arguments. The only possible way an 8 team playoff makes sense is to have 6 automatic bids (5 power conference champs and 1 non-power conference champ or Independent); and two wild cards (who must come from different conferences). As it stands, the existing system is still nothing more than a TV ratings grab, with rigged pre-season polls setting the table for the hopeful result.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 Exactly. Highlights the fallacy in most of these 'best teams' playoff arguments. The only possible way an 8 team playoff makes sense is to have 6 automatic bids (5 power conference champs and 1 non-power conference champ or Independent); and two wild cards (who must come from different conferences). As it stands, the existing system is still nothing more than a TV ratings grab, with rigged pre-season polls setting the table for the hopeful result. I agree with this but the non-power 5 would have to achieve a certain level to secure an automatic bid (maybe top 10 ranking). Otherwise there would be years that one of the 8 just didn't belong. This year you would have been looking at potentially the exact 8 that I mentioned (OSU, UM and USC as the wildcards).
Mr. WEO Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 I agree the sample size is not big enough. That includes using any aspect of it to justify expanding the playoffs. (ie The semi final games suck. We need to expand the playoffs) The BCS wasn't perfect. I don't need a college playoff to prove it. Games like ND vs Alabama proved it. Disagree. 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 is not parity. Heck, the 2 vs 3 semi final game for the past 3 years has been laughable. And the problem with expanding the number of teams, in order to get "USC", you will have to take on more "Okie State". By the way, here are the final top 8 teams ranked by the CFP committee, prior to the 2016 bowl games, in order: Alabama Clemson Ohio State Washington Penn State Michigan Oklahoma Wisconsin Jesus. Instead of one overrated Big 10 team, there would have been 4 of them. Notice whats not on that list: USC http://collegefootballplayoff.com/content/ranking/2016 Of the 8 "BCS Championship" games before the playoff system started, 5 were lopsided wins by at least 14 points.
KD in CA Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 I agree with this but the non-power 5 would have to achieve a certain level to secure an automatic bid (maybe top 10 ranking). Otherwise there would be years that one of the 8 just didn't belong. This year you would have been looking at potentially the exact 8 that I mentioned (OSU, UM and USC as the wildcards). Certain level in terms of record, yes. Certain level in terms of ranking, no, since rankings are a rigged game. Good example this year: Western Michigan was 13-0 so IMO would have deserved a spot far more than the 4th place team in the Big 10. This is why the old system was better; there was no big wall separating the top 4 1/2* conferences from the rest. * at this point the Big 12 is just on standby in case they can't credibly arrange the SEC/ACC/Big 10 match ups they want.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 Certain level in terms of record, yes. Certain level in terms of ranking, no, since rankings are a rigged game. Good example this year: Western Michigan was 13-0 so IMO would have deserved a spot far more than the 4th place team in the Big 10. This is why the old system was better; there was no big wall separating the top 4 1/2* conferences from the rest. * at this point the Big 12 is just on standby in case they can't credibly arrange the SEC/ACC/Big 10 match ups they want. The problem is they lost to that 4th placed big 10 team. Did they deserve a spot because they were the best non-power 5 conference team or because they were undefeated? If they weren't better than the 4th place Big 10 team should they have been given a chance to compete for the title over them? These are things to consider and why I tend to lean towards a top 10 ranking as the criteria for a non-power 5. The best of the non-power 5 conference schools over the years have achieved a top 10 ranking (like Houston last year). I don't think that 4 Big 10 teams would have gotten in if it were 8 either. They would have found a way to elevate USC over Wisconsin. They were wildly considered the biggest threat at the end of the year. There was no need to flip flop 8 and 9 because it made no difference. If a playoff spot would have been on the line they would have.
Cynical Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 Of the 8 "BCS Championship" games before the playoff system started, 5 were lopsided wins by at least 14 points. And OSU beat Oregon by 22 points in the first CFP Championship game. The horrors. The inhumanity. Blow outs happen. Its a part of the game.
Recommended Posts