2017-2018 College Football Predictions

[OFFNY]

20 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

(OCTOBER 13th)

 

When Syracuse had a 14-7 lead in the 2nd quarter of their game against Clemson, they had a touchdown called back because of a borderline offensive pass interference call.

Still, 2 plays later on 3rd down and long they still had a chance for a long field-goal attempt when their running back fumbled the ball ......... he not only fumbled, by a Clemson defender scooped the ball up and ran it all the way back the other way for a touchdown.

So instead of Syracuse being up by a score of 21-7 (or at least 17-7), the score was instead tied at 14 ........ and I immediately thought that they probably just blew the game, because a heavy underdog with a record of 3-3 going against the undefeated (6-0) #2 team in the country can ill-afford to give away 10-point swings like that.

 

I was wrong. Syracuse kept their composure, continued to outplay Clemson (particularly on their offensive vs. Clemson's defensive side of the ball), and completed a stunning 27-24 upset in front of their home crowd at the Carrier Dome.

 

o

 

 

4 minutes ago, SteveA said:

 

Yeah, that was quite a game. Clemson has a fantastic defense, I'm not sure how Syracuse managed to put up 27 on them.

On the other side of the ball, QB Kelly Bryant came in lame and couldn't run the ball, which was a big part of his game. Then he got knocked out with a concussion. So I didn't expect Clemson to score a lot. I had a little bit of $$ on Syracuse +24. The Tigers have been playing with fire the past couple weeks (tied 7-7 going into the 4th quarter vs BC, and only beating Wake 28-14, both at home). Their offense is way down from last year.  

But you gotta give Syracuse serious props for what they did against the Clemson defense, which is as good as any in the country. First big win for Babers there, I think he's going to turn out to be a good hire, maybe their best since McPherson.

 

o

 

They also had a big win last year against #17 Virginia Tech is his first season with the team.

 

o

[SteveA]

Just now, OFFNY said:

 

 

o

 

They also had a big win last year against #17 Virginia Tech is his first season with the team.

 

o

You just had to remind me, didn't you?

[Reboulet'sStache]

I like Babers, and loved the vision by the Syracuse AD even more .  That's the exact type of hire you have to make if you're a team like Syracuse.  You're not going to be able to recruit that well because of the lack of talent in your geographic area.  So hire an offensive minded guy who can hopefully take Florida rejects and just plug them into the system and run up and down the field.  It's hard to beat an Art Briles disciple in that regard.  

[mrbig1]

Notre Dame still has to play 4 top 25 teams. If they run the table they have to be in the final four.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Big Ten West is an absolute joke.  Big Ten needs to do away with divisions (as should all conferences).  But short of that, realign the divisions.  ASAP.  I don't even understand what yearly game are they hoping to get in their Big Ten Title Game?  That much coveted Penn State-Wisconsin matchup?  Nebraska-Ohio State?  Michigan-Minny?  
The showcase game you should want as a conference at the end of the year is some combination of Penn State-Michigan-Ohio State.  And that is impossible thanks to the divisional alignment.

[OFFNY]

20 hours ago, mrbig1 said:

 

Notre Dame still has to play 4 top 25 teams. If they run the table they have to be in the final four.

 

o

 

They are kind of like a boxer who gets knocked down in the early round of a 12-round fight, and loses said round by a score of 10-8 on the scorecards ...... but still has time to stick and move and make up for that 10-8 round over the course of the entire fight.

 

That said, I believe that there is a larger problem which continues to not be address by Division I-A college football.

Division I-AA, Division II, and Division III college football all have had 16-team playoffs (and now, 24-team playoffs) since the 1973, which is what Division I-A football should have always had, and never has. College basketball has a 68-team playoff for 300-plus teams, and although every year there are complaints about teams being "snubbed", those complaints and critiques pale in comparison to the ludicrous and unjust system of Division I-A football (in which teams that are ranked #4, #5, #6, #7, etc don't get a chance to play for the national title.

And they choose to continue to do what they do. The 4-team playoff is only slightly better than the BCS, which was only slightly better than the previous system .......... which was horrible in the first place. Making slight improvements every 20 years or so isn't going to cut it if you are trying to establish your product as having a legitimate playoff system, and subsequent crowning of your champion.

With 16 teams in the playoffs, you could have 5 automatic bids from the major conferences, and 11 at-large bids. There would be very little controversy as compared to now. An undefeated team from a middle-tier or lower-tier conference (such as the University of Houston and Boise State) would be in the playoffs. They would probably have a lousy seed (perhaps a 13-seed or a 14-seed) and have to play against a very tough team in the first round (a 3-seed or a 4-seed), but at least they would be in it and have a chance, which is the most important thing. And since at least 3 or 4 of the major conference champions that got automatic bids would have made the playoffs anyway, it would ensure that every team that was ranked in the Top-10 would make the playoffs every year, without fail ...... which is the way that it should be when you have 130 teams in your classification throughout the nation.

But instead of this, we get to see ....... 70 teams in bowl games. 70 out of 130. That's more than half of the teams across the nation, and it includes teams with losing records such as my Nebraska Cornhuskers, who actually were invited to a bowl game in 2015 with a 5-7 record. That year (2015), I would much rather see deserving teams like 11-1 Ohio State, 12-1 Iowa, 10-2 Stanford, 10-2 Notre Dame, etc. at least get a chance to be in the playoffs than see 5-7 Nebraska play UCLA in the Who Cares? bowl, and/or see Louisiana Tech play Arkansas State in the Who Cares Even Less? bowl.

 

o

[Reboulet'sStache]

College football was never suppose to be about national champions.  It was always suppose to be localized, and largely still is.  There isn't a Duke-UNC college basketball type rivalry in college football that the average sports fan tunes into, even if that's the only college football game they watch. Not with any sustained draw (Miami-ND of the late 80's, UF-FSU in the mid to late 90's probably had it for a while).  College football traditionally has always been measured in Rose Bowl appearances.  Cotton Bowl appearances.  Apple Cup trophies.  Things that matter to particular regions and/or particular schools.  So a playoff system never made sense. 
And 16 team playoffs are unnecessary.  Especially in a few years when the Big XII folds.  There's a relative few teams getting all the recruits.  The disparity between the top class and even the 20th ranked class has never been greater.  Even within the top 10.  Last year was the weakest average recruit ranking for having a top 10 recruiting class.  And that's because the very top hogged an even greater slice of the pie.  So having crumbs got you into the Top 10. 

Unlike in college basketball or the lower football divisions, where the talent disparity isn't so great.  A large playoff pool only makes sense when there is a large pool of teams capable of winning it.  There isn't in college football.  There's a few haves that are becoming even more haves with every year.  And then there is everybody else.  We don't need to expand the number of "everybody else" teams in the playoffs. 
What we need is for the Big XII to hurry up and fold.  Create the 4 Super Conferences.  Ditch divisions, limit out of conference games to 1 or 2 a year, and have a pod based regular conference season with 1 or 2 permanent rivals on the schedule (Alabama plays Auburn and Tenn. every year, Michigan plays Michigan State and Ohio State, etc.).  Then have a conference championship game.  At that point each conference schedule becomes like a mini playoff bracket because the schedule becomes a meat grinder.   Take the 4 to 6 teams that survive the meat grinder, and there's your playoffs. 

[OFFNY]

11 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

They are kind of like a boxer who gets knocked down in the early round of a 12-round fight, and loses said round by a score of 10-8 on the scorecards ...... but still has time to stick and move and make up for that 10-8 round over the course of the entire fight.

 

That said, I believe that there is a larger problem which continues to not be address by Division I-A college football.

Division I-AA, Division II, and Division III college football all have had 16-team playoffs (and now, 24-team playoffs) since the 1973, which is what Division I-A football should have always had, and never has. College basketball has a 68-team playoff for 300-plus teams, and although every year there are complaints about teams being "snubbed", those complaints and critiques pale in comparison to the ludicrous and unjust system of Division I-A football (in which teams that are ranked #4, #5, #6, #7, etc don't get a chance to play for the national title.

And they choose to continue to do what they do. The 4-team playoff is only slightly better than the BCS, which was only slightly better than the previous system .......... which was horrible in the first place. Making slight improvements every 20 years or so isn't going to cut it if you are trying to establish your product as having a legitimate playoff system, and subsequent crowning of your champion.

With 16 teams in the playoffs, you could have 5 automatic bids from the major conferences, and 11 at-large bids. There would be very little controversy as compared to now. An undefeated team from a middle-tier or lower-tier conference (such as the University of Houston and Boise State) would be in the playoffs. They would probably have a lousy seed (perhaps a 13-seed or a 14-seed) and have to play against a very tough team in the first round (a 3-seed or a 4-seed), but at least they would be in it and have a chance, which is the most important thing. And since at least 3 or 4 of the major conference champions that got automatic bids would have made the playoffs anyway, it would ensure that every team that was ranked in the Top-10 would make the playoffs every year, without fail ...... which is the way that it should be when you have 130 teams in your classification throughout the nation.

But instead of this, we get to see ....... 70 teams in bowl games. 70 out of 130. That's more than half of the teams across the nation, and it includes teams with losing records such as my Nebraska Cornhuskers, who actually were invited to a bowl game in 2015 with a 5-7 record. That year (2015), I would much rather see deserving teams like 11-1 Ohio State, 12-1 Iowa, 10-2 Stanford, 10-2 Notre Dame, etc. at least get a chance to be in the playoffs than see 5-7 Nebraska play UCLA in the Who Cares? bowl, and/or see Louisiana Tech play Arkansas State in the Who Cares Even Less? bowl.

 

o

 

 

2 hours ago, Reboulet'sStache said:

 

College football was never suppose to be about national champions.

 

o

 

If it isn't supposed to be about national champions, then they should not have bothered to institute a 2-team playoff system through the BCS for almost 20 years from the mid-90's through the 2013 season, and now a 4-team playoff system from 2014 through the present. 

 

College football's refusal to institute a legitimate playoff system has made it the most backward form of sport in the last 40-50 years. Virtually every amateur and professional sport league from Little League baseball all the way up through the Major League sports leagues in North America has a champion that is crowned on the field, through some sort of reasonable playoff system ........ except for Division I-A college football, which rewards more than half of the teams that exist with various meaningless bowl games (even some teams with losing records), while disincluding numerous deserving teams of a chance to play for the national championship. 

 

o

[Reboulet'sStache]

College football now has a legit playoff system.  And there aren't "numerous" deserving teams.  And certainly not anywhere even close to 16. 

[OFFNY]

10 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

If it isn't supposed to be about national champions, then they should not have bothered to institute a 2-team playoff system through the BCS for almost 20 years from the mid-90's through the 2013 season, and now a 4-team playoff system from 2014 through the present. 

 

College football's refusal to institute a legitimate playoff system has made it the most backward form of sport in the last 40-50 years. Virtually every amateur and professional sport league from Little League baseball all the way up through the Major League sports leagues in North America has a champion that is crowned on the field, through some sort of reasonable playoff system ........ except for Division I-A college football, which rewards more than half of the teams that exist with various meaningless bowl games (even some teams with losing records), while disincluding numerous deserving teams of a chance to play for the national championship. 

 

o

 

 

1 hour ago, Reboulet'sStache said:

 

College football now has a legit playoff system.  And there aren't "numerous" deserving teams.  And certainly not anywhere even close to 16. 

 

o

 

There are 130 Division I-A college football teams. 

4 teams out of 130 is absurd. That's not even 1 for every major conference champion.

How is going 11-1 or 10-2 in a major conference and being a Top-10 team in the nation out of 130 teams (and/or) going undefeated in a lower conference not deserving of a place in a playoff tournament?

 

An 8-team playoff would at least be on the verge of reasonable, but it would still disinclude teams that have played entire seasons to have a door closed on them because there would still be less than 10 percent of the teams in the country would be permitted into the playoff tournament.

There is no legitimate reason ........ other than stubbornness and an inability to concede that their has been something inherently wrong with the way that one has been doing things for decades ........ for Division I-A football not to have a true/legitimate playoff system as does every other college football division, or for that matter, virtually every other amateur and professional sports league in the country.

 

o

[Reboulet'sStache]

What does the number of teams have to do with the price of tea in China?

There aren't anywhere close to 16 teams in college football that deserve to play for the national championship.  That's just a fact.

[OFFNY]

5 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

There are 130 Division I-A college football teams. 

4 teams out of 130 is absurd. That's not even 1 for every major conference champion.

How is going 11-1 or 10-2 in a major conference and being a Top-10 team in the nation out of 130 teams (and/or) going undefeated in a lower conference not deserving of a place in a playoff tournament?

 

An 8-team playoff would at least be on the verge of reasonable, but it would still disinclude teams that have played entire seasons to have a door closed on them because there would still be less than 10 percent of the teams in the country would be permitted into the playoff tournament.

There is no legitimate reason ........ other than stubbornness and an inability to concede that their has been something inherently wrong with the way that one has been doing things for decades ........ for Division I-A football not to have a true/legitimate playoff system as does every other college football division, or for that matter, virtually every other amateur and professional sports league in the country.

o

 

 

2 hours ago, Reboulet'sStache said:

 

What does the number of teams have to do with the price of tea in China?

There aren't anywhere close to 16 teams in college football that deserve to play for the national championship. That's just a fact.

 

o

 

A fact, based on what ??? If you have 130 teams playing 11 or 12 regular season games, you're going to tell the numbers 5 through 10 teams, almost all of whom have 11-1 and 10-2 records, and many having gone through challenging schedules that they have no business in a playoff tournament? Or that a team that plays in a non-power conference that goes undefeated (such as Boise State in 2005 and 2008, and Utah in 2004 and 2008 before they entered the Pac-10 Conference) that they have no business being in a playoff tournament?

 

There is no good reason whatsoever why the top 3 or 4 teams in the country should not have to play in a bonfide playoff tournament after an 11-game season (plus perhaps conference championship games.) If they are that good, they can prove it on the field by taking on all challenges, as does every other major sport in the nation (pro and amateur.) There is more than enough time to play those games in such a tournament, as Division I-AA has been doing it for 40 years now.

 

o

[mrbig1]

The system is not perfect but it's much closer than it was. More games and of a chance of a career ending injury. Keep it like it is.

[OFFNY]

On 9/16/2017 at 10:19 PM, mrbig1 said:

 

Kelly just saved his job for the time being. Big win over Boston College.

 

o

 

They got an even bigger one earlier today, against USC.

 

o

[mrbig1]

2 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

They got an even bigger one earlier today, against USC.

 

o

A win next week against NCS will put them in the hunt for the playoffs. What I saw tonight is that Penn state is for real and will beat the Buckeyes. I don't care if the game is on Mars. Penn state is just a better team.