I agree with some others- I have LSU over Ole Miss and I give Cal over Oregon a good chance. Cal/Oregon is one of those games where either Cal wins in an upset or Oregon wins by 60.
Good thing he went with Kentucky. We all know how it would work for Missouri.
Hoosiers. Enough said.
I will never, ever, ever understand why we scheduled Navy. There is nothing that can be gained from that game and lots to lose- they make you look bad even when you win, and preparing for them is wasted time as almost nobody else plays their scheme. They've played this scheme a long time. Scheduling them was just dumb. If you want to play a military academy, schedule Army or Air Force. They've always played more standard offenses.
I think you're absolutely right that we effectively wasted practice time on an offensive scheme we'll never play again.
Rutgers is better than many people on 11W give them credit for. They also have two ingredients that very well could lead to an upset- a currently hot QB against our still unproven pass defense, and a track record of big special teams plays in important games.
I don't think they'll win- I don't think the final score will be close- but the potential for them to win is higher than a lot of people think.
I would argue that the fact college football has so few teams play each other is EVEN MORE reason that only conference champions should be in. It is the only objective criteria that every team has a chance to meet every season. Any other method is sheer speculation as to who is "better" which is a load of bunk. Heck, a team winning a game over another team doesn't even settle who is "better". It only settles who won that day in whatever conditions existed in that point in time.
Yeah, but the problem is the rankings most certainly WON'T be consistent. They can't be because one of the major factors- conference championships- is a completely ignored factor until the final poll when suddenly it exists. If the committee does their job properly, then theoretically the top four the week before the conference championships should be/could be a completely different four from the top four after the conference championships.
I have to put them in categories because in a straight ranking it is a lot of ties:
MY TEAM: Ohio State
RESPECT BUT DISLIKE: Michigan State, Wisconsin
DISRESPECT BUT KINDA LIKE: Minnesota, Rutgers, Northwestern
MEH: Iowa, Maryland
HATE: TSUN, Penn State
EMBARRASSED TO HAVE IN THE CONFERENCE: Indiana, Purdue, Illinois
The exact same thing that happens in the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS, and every other sports league you can think of- the conference champ goes to the playoffs and the other team knows next year they have to win their conference.
College football is the only sport where people have this ridiculous notion that we're trying to find the "best" team.
Eventually, if you want, you can talk adding wild cards IN ADDITION TO all of the conference champs. But it starts with the conference champs. Everywhere. Even college basketball with its 300 plus teams starts by having the conference tournament champs qualify.
Win your conference, get in.
As I've said before, only conference champions should be in the playoff. If we know for a fact you are #2 in your conference, then we know for a fact you aren't #1 in the country. Why the hell should you be in the playoff?
....And that's why the committee should not be releasing rankings during the year. When they first rank on October 28, how are they going to take into account conference champions? Best guess?
The answer, of course, is that they can't. This means that every committee ranking prior to the final will be leaving out a primary factor. What an f'ing disaster. Think about it- right now, without conference championships being considered, clearly two SEC West teams belong in the playoff. This may be true all the way up until conference championship week......at which point the conference champion factor makes it almost impossible to justify two teams from the same conference.
Trust me on this, the rankings throughout the year are going to cause major controversy, all of which will be resolved when conference championships are properly considered.
Releasing rankings prior to the end of the year is a mistake.
What an f'ing mess college athletics are.
I absolutely understand the point that allowing anybody to pay players will in virtually no time at all slide downhill into boosters paying insane amounts of money and a wild, wild west environment. I understand the benefits the players do currently receive and that they aren't unpaid child labor.
That said, for me it is really simple- treat them like nay other student because that is the only thing that is morally justifiable. Are music tusdnets allowed to sell things they produce for profit? Can literature students publish books and make money off them while in school? The simple fact is any student at any school has any number of ways that they CAN make money. Often they don't simply because a music or literature student doesn't have the noteriety or a football player.
I can't come up with any morally justifiable reason to prevent college football players from doing what any other student can do. They should be able to make money, they should be able to transfer to any school they choose without the school having any say, they should be able to transfer without sitting out a year. They should be under no additional rules.
I don't think he's advocating blind obedience at all.
What he is sayng is that, before you join any organization, you should evaluate the rules of that organization. If you can accept those rules, join. If you cannot, don't join. Once you've joined, it is incumbent upon you to follow the rules. If you feel you cannot or the rules unfairly changed, you have the option of quitting the organization. Nobody is making you stay,
That is very different from blind obedience.
That is very true about the o-line. Good point
Braxton will be coming off a shoulder injury after sitting a year.
I love me some Brax, but if they have a fair competition it is even money who wins the job. Brax has physical talents few players have, but JT is clearly a better QB. Will be interesting.
I am not all-in for Braxton as the starter already.
Regardless of what happens next year, JT will be here two more years after that. Do you want to risk retarding his development when he is on a fantastic career development path? Do you want to risk it in exchange for one year of a great QB, but a great QB's who's limited passing ability, touch, and defensive reads actually limit the rest of the offense?
I know there are varying opinions on this and it is being argued ad naseum. I really wish Braxton had shown enough last year passing that we'd be in the best of both worlds- Braxton an NFL pick despite the injury rehab and JT starting for four straight years. I hate that one or both of them may get the shaft here, and that the team may regress by having two great QBs instead of one. Contrary to the Braxton/Guiton experience, it usually works out very poorly.
Coach, I grew up with you as the Buckeyes coach. I started watching when I was nine in 1980 and remember fondly the whole Earle Bruce era. Back then, the Big Ten had a solid reputation. The national narrative now is that the B1G has fallen behind the curve, that it's teams can't win big games, it's programs are losing recruits from their own states to other conferences, and it's coaching staffs and facilities do not live up to the amount of money flowing through the conference's coffers. Do you agree with that narrative? If so, why do you think the B1G is not what it once was, and what must it and it's programs do to reverse the trend?
I'm with Seabass.
I almost never watch Gameday, any pre-game, any post-game, or half time because ESPN/CBS bias used to annoy me so much. I don't watch anything but live action of games on Saturdays or on DVR now.
Buutttt, Saturday I did not have control over the remote and ended up watching a little Gameday, where I watched a full discussion of every SEC game, included such dreck as Florida v Tennessee, before a single other game between non-SEC ranked teams was discussed.
Even allowing for Gameday being at an SEC site, that is ridiculous.
F'em. I will watch nothing but live action. I don't need their SEC mouths to tell me what to think.
I don't think I'll ever understand why it so difficult to follow the basic liferule of "Dude, don't rape".
And one caveat that I will also predict- the first committee poll released on October 28 will have 2 or 3 SEC teams in the top four. So will all the subsequent polls......until the final poll, which is the only one after the conference championships.
Just going to go ahead and make this prediction- it doesn't matter what happens from here. When the committee gets in the room and looks at five power conferences champions and four spots, no conference is going to get two into the playoff. The fanbases of whatever SEC team thinks they should have gotten in will be livid, ESPN will run practically non-stop conversations on how the committee screwed up, and we'll see endless graphics about the number of "ranked" AP teams some SEC team beat versus whatever conference champion is in.
Four is just too small and sanity will prevail.
Now if it were 8? Well, at 8 it would not shock me to see the 5 power conference champs plus 3 additional SEC teams.
I hear you.
Said it before and I'll say it again-
If it has been proven that you are not #1 in your conference than it has also been proven that you aren't #1 in the country. So why are we wasting time with putting you in the playoffs? Why should that team even be there?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Georgia versus Missouri is a game where both teams are ranked. Hahahaha. OMG. I can't even.
That score is never to be mentioned on this site.
Makes sense. Ole Miss and Mississippi State beat top five teams so now they're right there at the top.
Arizona and TCU only beat top five teams so now they're around ten.
Arizona is a pac-12 undefeated team.
They also have arguably the best win of the year, against Oregon on the road.
Did it for you