buckeye_in_WI's picture

buckeye_in_WI


MEMBER SINCE   June 04, 2018

Favorites

  • SPORTS MOMENT: 2014 National Championship
  • COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER: Ted Ginn Jr
  • NFL TEAM: Green Bay Packers
  • MLB TEAM: Milwaukee Brewers

Recent Activity

Comment 21 May 2019
Really hope this isn't the start of an injury trend for him. Some guys just get unlucky and catch the injury bug and never can shake it. It would be a complete tragedy if that happens to Nick. Hes too damn talented to be kept off the field for any reason.
Comment 18 May 2019
The real reason I dont want Urban returning and coaching a different team is because he is an absolute force recruiting. And his ties to Ohio would mean we would lose out on a lot of targets, both in state and out. I'm holding out that these "Urban may come back someday" whispers mean only that hed consider taking back the tOSU job after Ryan Days time here is done. If we find instant success with Day and he wins a NC within the next 3 years, the NFL is going to come calling and they will push hard for Day. I'm not sure where Days priorities would fall in that scenario, but he may take an NFL job. A Meyer-Day-Meyer sandwich would be just ok by me :)
Comment 10 May 2019
The only way to truly settle this is to form 2 teams: those for expansion and those against. Then have a paintball game and the last dude standing gets to pick.
Comment 10 May 2019
Our understanding of the pathogenesis of cancers is still very limited. However, it is often that cancers are caused by a multitude of mutations that are either inherited and/or acquired through our lifetimes. One of the theories of cancer treatment resistance is that there are multiple driver mutations, and some of them are not sensitive to certain treatments/chemotherapies/immunotherapies/etc. Where am I going with this? Radon is known to damage DNA. In lab animal studies, radon exposure was associated with higher rates of cancer. Lung cancer is found in higher incidences in people who have higher estimations of radon exposure. So there is an association. Whether or not decreasing radon levels in your house will prevent cancer is a big leap from all that. However, spending money to decrease the chance of developing a mutation that might contribute to either cancer development or cancer resistance is money well spent in my opinion.
Comment 08 May 2019
It's a hypothetical/alternate universe kind of thing, so it's kind of weird why you are concerned about how possible it is or isnt; it isn't possible because none of those guys actually stayed. So the answer to how possible is it is 0% possible But it wasn't that long ago that transfers were few and far between and kids staying on the depth chart with the hopes of one day starting vs nowadays where its if you're not starting today then transfer so you can. It wasn't that long ago we had a guy named Kenny Guiton who was arguably better than Burrow/Martell/Baldwin yet chose to stay in the backup role and ended up being a Buckeye hero. It's just a fun mind game to play; if tOSU had 0 QB transfers over the past year our QB room would look like option 2, would we prefer that or not.
Comment 08 May 2019
You might be right, and this is just a hypothetical, but if tate lost the job to burrow and was staring at transfering plus sitting out a year vs staying and starting next year, he may very well have stayed. Who knows. Were damn lucky to have Fields right now, but I was just wondering if we lived in the era of "transfers almost never happen", who thinks we'd be better off with what we had.
Comment 23 Apr 2019
Great topic. 1. Probably hardest to guess this one. Has to be a big enough school to have the resources/facilities to attract talent and coaching and be in a recruitable area (not Iowa st for example). Maybe USF? They've knocked on the door of top 25 a few times. Total wild guess would be UNLV. 2. I dont think we will see what Dabos done at Clemson in awhile, but maybe what Dantonio has done at MSU would be realistic. A&M is probably the best guess posted so far, but to think outside the box I would add UNC and Vtech. Who knows what tricks Mack Brown has up his sleeves still and Fuentes is a good coach too and hes had a few years now so let's see. A stretch could be Kansas with Les Miles. 3. Every tOSU fanboy will put scum here, but I dont think that'll happen. My money would be on ND, USC, or maybe Texas, although they do seem to be on the upswing and live in the heart of a gold mine for recruiting.
Comment 23 Apr 2019
As a Packers fan myself, I also would be super excited to see him get drafted by them. I always want the pack to take Buckeyes. But if I'm honest I dont think it makes sense for them to draft Rodgers replacement just yet. They just signed him to the extension and there are a lot of needs on offense and defense still to support him. I see a lot of mocks predicting we take one of the Iowa TEs or a WR and maybe an Olineman, which I agree seems most likely and makes most sense.
Comment 23 Apr 2019
Sometimes we overreach in drawing comparisons, but this situation kind of reminds me of the whole Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers scenario. A team gets excited about a guy (Murray) who fits their team and they will expect to come in right away and win. Vs a guy (Haskins) who will fall down the draft board a bit (maybe giants maybe Washington), but will get to sit a year or two learn the system and probably be set up for more success down the road. This is what happened with Smith and Rodgers and it's been well documented Smith saying being thrown right into the fire with expectations of winning despite being on a bad team negatively impacted his mental approach. For Dwaynes sake, I'd love to see it play out this way. Kid is incredibly talented and even tho his time at tOSU was short lived, I am lucky to see him play for the school I love.
Comment 16 Apr 2019
I absolutely respect your opinion on why you like the current format. But what you're saying is is that you enjoy severely limiting the playoff so only teams who you/the committee/the masses feel are "deserving" of a shot at a championship. But that goes against what, in my opinion, is what makes sport great, which is to decide it on the field. You cant analyze two teams matching up and only 1 coming away with a win. You say a 3 loss Washington shouldn't get a shot at a NC presumably because you feel they dont deserve it. I say, if a 3 loss team beats 3 of the top 8 teams and wins the championship, well they just proved you wrong. But I've gotten in enough discussions on this topic that I know I wont change your mind. It's totally cool though, I can respect that you have a different opinion on what makes sport good or not.
Comment 16 Apr 2019

Thanks! Now that you mention it I do remember Burrow transferred not too long after the spring game. Was it in May?

And to clarify I wasn't drawing a correlation that not naming a starter right after the spring game means your QB will have a Haskins type year. That would be ridiculous. I was simply saying it wasn't a problem last year so there's no reason to think it will be a problem this year. You took it a few steps farther than I intended!

Comment 16 Apr 2019

I'll bite

2015: Clemson vs ND occurred Oct 3rd. Teams are very different by end of December. Rematches happen all the time in other sports and nobody shrieks. It would be no big deal because it never is. And ND isn't "rewarded" for losing their "biggest game", they would be rewarded for winning enough games to get an at large bid, if that ended up happening in this hypothetical scenario.

2016: Again, you're using one game as an example of "punishment/reward." Teams are not put in the playoffs because of 1 game, they are put in the playoff because of their season. And you could easily change how seeding is done to avoid the rematch between tOSU and ttun. Top 5 seeds go to conference champs, then seeds 6-8 are the at large. So in 2016 the top 5 seeds would be: 1 Bama 2 Clemson 3 Washington 4 PSU 5 OU 6 tOSU 7 ttun 8 UW. See? no problem at all. Also, UW getting in at 8 would be a product of no other team having a better resume. That was a good Wisconsin squad in 2016. Their 3 losses were all by 1 score. They beat a good LSU team early in the season. They deserved a top 8 ranking when you look at the competition.

2017: UCF could get in by writing in that an undefeated non-P5 champ gets a 6th auto bid. So problem solved. Seeding for the playoff doesn't have to strictly follow top 8, thats another benefit of expansion. You take away the archaic ranking system which relies on what people think and lets the teams play it out and decide it on the field. A 10-3 Auburn team isn't gross, considering they pummeled both UGA and Bama that year (both of which were in the championship game), and 2 of their losses were close games to top ranked teams Clemson and LSU. They had a great resume and in fact were ranked #2 in then nation with 2 losses headed into conference championship weekend. Lastly, why risk injury in the CCG game? because you're talking about guaranteeing a spot in the playoff vs hoping for an at-large bid, and improving your seed so your 1st game isn't vs a top 4 team. If we take the matchups you listed, UGA vs Auburn with UGA winning, they get the #3 seed and get to play #6 while Auburn gets the #8 seed and has to play #1. tOSU and UW would end up being #4 seed playing #5 compared with #7 seed playing #2. So there still is motivation because it guarantees your spot vs relying on the at large selection and it improves your seeding, on top of the pride of saying you're conference champions. There is PLENTY of motivation to win that game and it is in NO WAY meaningless.

2018: ttun wouldn't get in. Seeds 1-5 would go to the champions (Bama, Clemson, OU, tOSU, Washington), ND and UCF get auto-bids for being undefeated taking seeds 6 and 7, and the 8th seed would go to UGA. Problem solved.

In my opinion, an 8 team playoff would have improved each of the 2015-2018 4 team playoff, and pretty much mitigate all the concerns you raised about it making the playoff "stink".

Comment 15 Apr 2019
When has this actually happened? I hear the "what if a 4 loss/undeserving team wins their conference?" argument a lot but I've never seen anyone back it up with facts how that could have happened. The reason I think is because it rarely has happened. And I'd happily trade the rare risk of potentially allowing a 4 loss team in a playoff if you gain significant objectivity of a playoff system. Also, you could easily prevent this by writing in that conference champions must have less than X losses to earn an auto-bid, otherwise that conference's auto-bid is forfeited for an at large bid.
Comment 15 Apr 2019

2. Three programs (OSU, Bama, Clemson) have accounted for a staggering 87% (13 out of 15) playoff wins. The only two games these three teams didn't win were the Rose Bowl in year #1 (Oregon vs. FSU) and the Rose Bowl in year #4 (UGA vs. OU). Also, these three programs have never lost a playoff game to anyone but each other (Bama has lost to Clemson and OSU, Clemson has lost only to Bama, and OSU has only lost to Clemson).

Nice work with the statistics. I think including us in with Bama/Clemson though is over-stepping things. While tOSU/Bama/Clemson account for 13 of the 15 playoff wins, Bama/Clemson account for 11 of those 13.

Which is important to note when you're talking about more parity needed because the playoff era thus far has really been the Bama/Clemson era. tOSU kicked things off though.

Comment 15 Apr 2019

This. I wish the man no ill-will. He made a decision he felt was in the best interest of his career. That is literally what you go to college for, whether you're a D1 football player or an english major.

Comment 15 Apr 2019

The problem with the committee is that they wrote in their protocol the ability to bypass the criteria. Here's the section copied from the Selection Committee website:

"Establish a committee that will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength of schedule and head-to-head competition when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree (treat final determination like a tie-breaker; apply specific guidelines).

The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.

When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:

Championships won
Strength of schedule
Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)"

There's enough soft language in here to allow the committee to pretty much do whatever they want, particularly the parts "when circumstances at the margins," and "under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country".

So for your 3 scenarios where you state the committee didn't follow their own guidelines: in 2016-2018 the committee could simply have said "tOSU/Bama/ND is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country", and the comparisons end there. So in essence, they have been following at least the written explanation of how the select the 4 teams, because the way its written it allows them to bypass the criteria if they feel strongly one team is definitely a top 4 team.

My problem with the committee hasn't been that they aren't following their own rules, or that the teams they've selected each year have been egregious mistakes, its that IMO 4 is simply not enough to objectively choose based on the sample size of the season, and it will always come down to subjectivity of the committee. If you take last year as an example, I disagree that you can unequivocally come up with a ranking of OU/ND/UGA/tOSU based on their resumes before bowl season. You can easily say "I think" or "X is probably better than Y", but its no where near unequivocal, and it rarely is year in and year out. There's always 5-8 teams in the fold causing enough doubt.

I also hate the beauty pageant feel the committee has made the sport of football. It feels wrong; this is football not figure skating or american idol. Figure out a way to let them settle it on the damn field, but also allow a path for non-P5 conference teams to compete. No system is perfect, but 8 does that significantly better than the current format.

I think 8 is coming, probably not anytime soon, but certainly within the next 5-10 years. Until then, I will just have to put up with the circus show this CFP committee has turned the sport I love into.