[Mick]

Looks like USC vs. Penn State in the Rose Bowl.  Good.  I can't wait to see Penn State get gobsmacked by 'SC.  It'll happen.

[Mick]

Looks like USC vs. Penn State in the Rose Bowl.  Good.  I can't wait to see Penn State get gobsmacked by 'SC.  It'll happen.

[HisKneeWasDown]

NY6 Bowls (via @CFBPlayoff twitter):

[HisKneeWasDown]

NY6 Bowls (via @CFBPlayoff twitter):

[HisKneeWasDown]

I love Chris Peterson's interview on the selection show:

Peterson: "You guys sure like to drag this process out"
Rece Davis: "It takes us a while to make the graphics"
Peterson: "You guys need to hire a new graphics guy".

[HisKneeWasDown]

I love Chris Peterson's interview on the selection show:

Peterson: "You guys sure like to drag this process out"
Rece Davis: "It takes us a while to make the graphics"
Peterson: "You guys need to hire a new graphics guy".

[JJJ]

Pat Forde says committee got it right, while making the case for a 6-team playoff with the top two getting byes.

And he argues a win over Stanford (and Colorado, obviously) helped UW's resume better Penn State's.

The committee also chose Washington over Penn State because the Huskies had a better record (12-1 to 11-2), and because their one loss (to red-hot USC) was certainly superior to the Nittany Lions’ two losses (to four-loss Pittsburgh and the aforementioned blowout against Michigan). Yes, the Huskies played a soft non-conference schedule consisting of Rutgers, Idaho and Portland State. But they also dominated Pac-12 South champion Colorado and a ranked Stanford team: combined margin of victory in those games was 85-16, against teams that finished a combined 19-6

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/colleg...42860.html

[JJJ]

Pat Forde says committee got it right, while making the case for a 6-team playoff with the top two getting byes.

And he argues a win over Stanford (and Colorado, obviously) helped UW's resume better Penn State's.

The committee also chose Washington over Penn State because the Huskies had a better record (12-1 to 11-2), and because their one loss (to red-hot USC) was certainly superior to the Nittany Lions’ two losses (to four-loss Pittsburgh and the aforementioned blowout against Michigan). Yes, the Huskies played a soft non-conference schedule consisting of Rutgers, Idaho and Portland State. But they also dominated Pac-12 South champion Colorado and a ranked Stanford team: combined margin of victory in those games was 85-16, against teams that finished a combined 19-6

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/colleg...42860.html

[CTcard]

Amusing round table on Sports Center this morning, with two guys (I think Matich and Kanell? - pretty interchangable) being shocked, shocked that the committee would choose tOSU over a conference champ - and even worse that the committee uses their discretion and doesn't follow a rigid set of quantitative criteria.

I almost thought I could see in their back pockets the scripts that were made ready in case tOSU had been left out: that they were shocked, shocked that the committee leave off an entirely superior tOSU team and were blindly following an arbitrary set of rules rather than choosing the teams everybody knew were the best.

[CTcard]

Amusing round table on Sports Center this morning, with two guys (I think Matich and Kanell? - pretty interchangable) being shocked, shocked that the committee would choose tOSU over a conference champ - and even worse that the committee uses their discretion and doesn't follow a rigid set of quantitative criteria.

I almost thought I could see in their back pockets the scripts that were made ready in case tOSU had been left out: that they were shocked, shocked that the committee leave off an entirely superior tOSU team and were blindly following an arbitrary set of rules rather than choosing the teams everybody knew were the best.

[fullmetal]

Like the H-man award voters, the selectors will do what it takes to suit their needs/goals while maintaining plausible deniability.  An arbitrary system can be manipulated.

[fullmetal]

Like the H-man award voters, the selectors will do what it takes to suit their needs/goals while maintaining plausible deniability.  An arbitrary system can be manipulated.

[DC 86]

Opening line is Alabama by 14 points.  I take Alabama.  Under Stanford Control (again) lost to Alabama by a 52-3 score, Washington lost to Under Stanford Control (again) 26-13.  I think Petersen's going to do a great job of preparation, but I think Saban will do a better one.

SC beat Washington on the road by 13 points, SC beat Colorado at home by only 4 points. Yet somehow Washington just throttled Colorado by 31 points on a neutral field.

Not to mention that the Max Browne version of the SC offense from over three months ago bears no resemblance to the subsequent Sam Darnold incarnation which is arguably one of the best teams in the country (rightly favored by a touchdown over playoff-bubble Penn State).

Alabama is justifiably a significant favorite over Washington, but the single common opponent analysis is highly misleading to the point of irrelevance.

[DC 86]

Opening line is Alabama by 14 points.  I take Alabama.  Under Stanford Control (again) lost to Alabama by a 52-3 score, Washington lost to Under Stanford Control (again) 26-13.  I think Petersen's going to do a great job of preparation, but I think Saban will do a better one.

SC beat Washington on the road by 13 points, SC beat Colorado at home by only 4 points. Yet somehow Washington just throttled Colorado by 31 points on a neutral field.

Not to mention that the Max Browne version of the SC offense from over three months ago bears no resemblance to the subsequent Sam Darnold incarnation which is arguably one of the best teams in the country (rightly favored by a touchdown over playoff-bubble Penn State).

Alabama is justifiably a significant favorite over Washington, but the single common opponent analysis is highly misleading to the point of irrelevance.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16219.msg181578#msg181578 date=1480876580]
Opening line is Alabama by 14 points.  I take Alabama.  Under Stanford Control (again) lost to Alabama by a 52-3 score, Washington lost to Under Stanford Control (again) 26-13.  I think Petersen's going to do a great job of preparation, but I think Saban will do a better one.

SC beat Washington on the road by 13 points, SC beat Colorado at home by only 4 points. Yet somehow Washington just throttled Colorado by 31 points on a neutral field.

Not to mention that the Max Browne version of the SC offense from over three months ago 59ers no resemblance to the subsequent Sam Darnold incarnation which is arguably one of the best teams in the country (rightly favored by a touchdown over playoff-bubble Penn State).

Alabama is justifiably a significant favorite over Washington, but the single common opponent analysis is highly misleading to the point of irrelevance.
[/quote]

Stanford also beat $C rather handily in September, and we also know what happened against UW. I think it's very safe to say early season $C is not like late season $C. Not that I think UW will beat Bama, but the original point that it might be better to play them first, I think that is true. Aside from having a long time to prepare, the team will, presumably, be healthier in game 1 than game 2. If the goal is to beat Bama, the chances are probably a little higher for UW this way. Not that I would be surprised if Bama crushed them, but I wouldn't say it's a foregone conclusion.

Plus the SEC sucked this year, so Bama ain't played nobody.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16219.msg181578#msg181578 date=1480876580]
Opening line is Alabama by 14 points.  I take Alabama.  Under Stanford Control (again) lost to Alabama by a 52-3 score, Washington lost to Under Stanford Control (again) 26-13.  I think Petersen's going to do a great job of preparation, but I think Saban will do a better one.

SC beat Washington on the road by 13 points, SC beat Colorado at home by only 4 points. Yet somehow Washington just throttled Colorado by 31 points on a neutral field.

Not to mention that the Max Browne version of the SC offense from over three months ago 59ers no resemblance to the subsequent Sam Darnold incarnation which is arguably one of the best teams in the country (rightly favored by a touchdown over playoff-bubble Penn State).

Alabama is justifiably a significant favorite over Washington, but the single common opponent analysis is highly misleading to the point of irrelevance.
[/quote]

Stanford also beat $C rather handily in September, and we also know what happened against UW. I think it's very safe to say early season $C is not like late season $C. Not that I think UW will beat Bama, but the original point that it might be better to play them first, I think that is true. Aside from having a long time to prepare, the team will, presumably, be healthier in game 1 than game 2. If the goal is to beat Bama, the chances are probably a little higher for UW this way. Not that I would be surprised if Bama crushed them, but I wouldn't say it's a foregone conclusion.

Plus the SEC sucked this year, so Bama ain't played nobody.

[CTcard]

Stanford also beat $C rather handily in September ... I think it's very safe to say early season $C is not like late season $C.

I agree with the overall point you were making, but this seemed like a place to chime in and say that while the "two different U$Cs" story, with and without Darnold, starting seems nominally true but heavily over-sold. In particular with respect to our game, Stanford won handily and I see no particular reason to think $C swapping QBs would have changed the outcome.

Sam Darnold not starting at QB didn't make U$C's defense give up their worst rushing yds/game and yds/attempt of the season to Stanford.
[U$C D rush yds/game = 302 (Stan), 242 (Bama), 201 (Zona) ... 134 (avg)]
[U$C D rush yds/att = 6.29 (Stan), 5.38 (Bama), 4.73 (Cal) ... 3.87 (avg)]

Sam Darnold not starting only had a limited effect on $C being well below their own offensive averages in rushing yds and yds/att
[U$C rush yds/game = 117 (Stan), 207 (avg) ]
[U$C rush yds/att = 4.50 (Stan), 5.27 (avg) ]

When Sam Darnold did come into the game, he didn't exactly kill us (though I could see the potential).
Vs Stanford Darnold had a PER of 96.9 (below 100 is bad). He averaged 6.4 yds/att with one INT.
Browne, by the way, had a PER of 121.6 for the game, averaging 6.8 yds/att with no INTs.

Now it is possible that if Darnold had been the full time starter from game #1 vs Bama he would have developed better and played a completely different game against us, leading to an 18+ point difference. However, that's not at all obvious. For that matter, had he started vs Bama he may have become as shell-shocked for the rest of the season as what happened to Browne. 

[CTcard]

Stanford also beat $C rather handily in September ... I think it's very safe to say early season $C is not like late season $C.

I agree with the overall point you were making, but this seemed like a place to chime in and say that while the "two different U$Cs" story, with and without Darnold, starting seems nominally true but heavily over-sold. In particular with respect to our game, Stanford won handily and I see no particular reason to think $C swapping QBs would have changed the outcome.

Sam Darnold not starting at QB didn't make U$C's defense give up their worst rushing yds/game and yds/attempt of the season to Stanford.
[U$C D rush yds/game = 302 (Stan), 242 (Bama), 201 (Zona) ... 134 (avg)]
[U$C D rush yds/att = 6.29 (Stan), 5.38 (Bama), 4.73 (Cal) ... 3.87 (avg)]

Sam Darnold not starting only had a limited effect on $C being well below their own offensive averages in rushing yds and yds/att
[U$C rush yds/game = 117 (Stan), 207 (avg) ]
[U$C rush yds/att = 4.50 (Stan), 5.27 (avg) ]

When Sam Darnold did come into the game, he didn't exactly kill us (though I could see the potential).
Vs Stanford Darnold had a PER of 96.9 (below 100 is bad). He averaged 6.4 yds/att with one INT.
Browne, by the way, had a PER of 121.6 for the game, averaging 6.8 yds/att with no INTs.

Now it is possible that if Darnold had been the full time starter from game #1 vs Bama he would have developed better and played a completely different game against us, leading to an 18+ point difference. However, that's not at all obvious. For that matter, had he started vs Bama he may have become as shell-shocked for the rest of the season as what happened to Browne. 

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=16219.msg181703#msg181703 date=1480969603]
Stanford also beat $C rather handily in September ... I think it's very safe to say early season $C is not like late season $C.

I agree with the overall point you were making, but this seemed like a place to chime in and say that while the "two different U$Cs" story, with and without Darnold, starting seems nominally true but heavily over-sold. In particular with respect to our game, Stanford won handily and I see no particular reason to think $C swapping QBs would have changed the outcome.

[/quote]

Oh yeah, I agree I don't think it's necessarily because they switched QBs, but clearly the team is quite a bit better now than at the beginning of the year. Maybe Helton just needed some experience or something. I don't think Darnold would have lead them to victories against Bama or us.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=16219.msg181703#msg181703 date=1480969603]
Stanford also beat $C rather handily in September ... I think it's very safe to say early season $C is not like late season $C.

I agree with the overall point you were making, but this seemed like a place to chime in and say that while the "two different U$Cs" story, with and without Darnold, starting seems nominally true but heavily over-sold. In particular with respect to our game, Stanford won handily and I see no particular reason to think $C swapping QBs would have changed the outcome.

[/quote]

Oh yeah, I agree I don't think it's necessarily because they switched QBs, but clearly the team is quite a bit better now than at the beginning of the year. Maybe Helton just needed some experience or something. I don't think Darnold would have lead them to victories against Bama or us.

[CTcard]

... but clearly the team is quite a bit better now than at the beginning of the year.

Better, I think yes. How much is not so clear.

Over the first half of the season they played teams that finished with a record of 48-26, including tough games vs Bama, Stanford (when we were healthy), and Utah.

Over the second half of the season they played teams that finished with a record of 32-41, including their signature game vs UW where their star LB got carted off the field in the first half and who just a couple of games earlier lost their top pass rusher (Joe Mathis).

[At the end of the first half of the season was their win over Colorado. Maybe that should be lumped into the second half and the "good $C". On the other hand, that was a four point win and not one of the blow-outs they started piling up thereafter - but treat it as you wish.]

I did watch them a fair amount. I would certainly say they got better. In a lot of ways they are like Stanford - when the schedule got easier the team looked a lot better. In both cases there was actual improvement that included players healing. But in both cases the contributions of the opponents should be factored in.

[CTcard]

... but clearly the team is quite a bit better now than at the beginning of the year.

Better, I think yes. How much is not so clear.

Over the first half of the season they played teams that finished with a record of 48-26, including tough games vs Bama, Stanford (when we were healthy), and Utah.

Over the second half of the season they played teams that finished with a record of 32-41, including their signature game vs UW where their star LB got carted off the field in the first half and who just a couple of games earlier lost their top pass rusher (Joe Mathis).

[At the end of the first half of the season was their win over Colorado. Maybe that should be lumped into the second half and the "good $C". On the other hand, that was a four point win and not one of the blow-outs they started piling up thereafter - but treat it as you wish.]

I did watch them a fair amount. I would certainly say they got better. In a lot of ways they are like Stanford - when the schedule got easier the team looked a lot better. In both cases there was actual improvement that included players healing. But in both cases the contributions of the opponents should be factored in.

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16219.msg181578#msg181578 date=1480876580]
Opening line is Alabama by 14 points.  I take Alabama.  Under Stanford Control (again) lost to Alabama by a 52-3 score, Washington lost to Under Stanford Control (again) 26-13.  I think Petersen's going to do a great job of preparation, but I think Saban will do a better one.

SC beat Washington on the road by 13 points, SC beat Colorado at home by only 4 points. Yet somehow Washington just throttled Colorado by 31 points on a neutral field.

Not to mention that the Max Browne version of the SC offense from over three months ago 59ers no resemblance to the subsequent Sam Darnold incarnation which is arguably one of the best teams in the country (rightly favored by a touchdown over playoff-bubble Penn State).

Alabama is justifiably a significant favorite over Washington, but the single common opponent analysis is highly misleading to the point of irrelevance.
[/quote]

Sounds good.  PM me if you want to do a wager for fun.  I'll take overrated Alabama, you can have one-of-the-best-teams-in-the-country Washington and the points.

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16219.msg181578#msg181578 date=1480876580]
Opening line is Alabama by 14 points.  I take Alabama.  Under Stanford Control (again) lost to Alabama by a 52-3 score, Washington lost to Under Stanford Control (again) 26-13.  I think Petersen's going to do a great job of preparation, but I think Saban will do a better one.

SC beat Washington on the road by 13 points, SC beat Colorado at home by only 4 points. Yet somehow Washington just throttled Colorado by 31 points on a neutral field.

Not to mention that the Max Browne version of the SC offense from over three months ago 59ers no resemblance to the subsequent Sam Darnold incarnation which is arguably one of the best teams in the country (rightly favored by a touchdown over playoff-bubble Penn State).

Alabama is justifiably a significant favorite over Washington, but the single common opponent analysis is highly misleading to the point of irrelevance.
[/quote]

Sounds good.  PM me if you want to do a wager for fun.  I'll take overrated Alabama, you can have one-of-the-best-teams-in-the-country Washington and the points.

[DC 86]

Sounds good.  PM me if you want to do a wager for fun.  I'll take overrated Alabama, you can have one-of-the-best-teams-in-the-country Washington and the points.

Well, I didn't make either of those statements in my posts; was commenting on the relevance of the two referenced games. However, I do consider Washington at a minimum to be one of the ten best teams in the country, which means that they represent the toughest opponent which Alabama will face so far this season (again I am discounting the September 3rd version of SC; otherwise the highest ranked team that Alabama faced this season was Auburn at home).

No bet is necessary, if Alabama wins by 3TD then you can pull up this post and declare victory. In any case I actually have already bet UW +17.5 and also hold a 33-1 ticket on UW to win the championship (bet right after they lost to SC).

[DC 86]

Sounds good.  PM me if you want to do a wager for fun.  I'll take overrated Alabama, you can have one-of-the-best-teams-in-the-country Washington and the points.

Well, I didn't make either of those statements in my posts; was commenting on the relevance of the two referenced games. However, I do consider Washington at a minimum to be one of the ten best teams in the country, which means that they represent the toughest opponent which Alabama will face so far this season (again I am discounting the September 3rd version of SC; otherwise the highest ranked team that Alabama faced this season was Auburn at home).

No bet is necessary, if Alabama wins by 3TD then you can pull up this post and declare victory. In any case I actually have already bet UW +17.5 and also hold a 33-1 ticket on UW to win the championship (bet right after they lost to SC).

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16219.msg181726#msg181726 date=1480980279]

Sounds good.  PM me if you want to do a wager for fun.  I'll take overrated Alabama, you can have one-of-the-best-teams-in-the-country Washington and the points.

Well, I didn't make either of those statements in my posts; was commenting on the relevance of the two referenced games. However, I do consider Washington at a minimum to be one of the ten best teams in the country, which means that they represent the toughest opponent which Alabama will face so far this season (again I am discounting the September 3rd version of SC; otherwise the highest ranked team that Alabama faced this season was Auburn at home).

No bet is necessary, if Alabama wins by 3TD then you can pull up this post and declare victory. In any case I actually have already bet UW +17.5 and also hold a 33-1 ticket on UW to win the championship (bet right after they lost to SC).
[/quote]

Excellent and good for you for getting 17.5, most I've seen is 16.5.  I hope you win the 33:1 payoff, I really do.  I really like Pac-12 NC wins, be they Oregon or SC or Washington or (hopefully) the Good Guys.

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16219.msg181726#msg181726 date=1480980279]

Sounds good.  PM me if you want to do a wager for fun.  I'll take overrated Alabama, you can have one-of-the-best-teams-in-the-country Washington and the points.

Well, I didn't make either of those statements in my posts; was commenting on the relevance of the two referenced games. However, I do consider Washington at a minimum to be one of the ten best teams in the country, which means that they represent the toughest opponent which Alabama will face so far this season (again I am discounting the September 3rd version of SC; otherwise the highest ranked team that Alabama faced this season was Auburn at home).

No bet is necessary, if Alabama wins by 3TD then you can pull up this post and declare victory. In any case I actually have already bet UW +17.5 and also hold a 33-1 ticket on UW to win the championship (bet right after they lost to SC).
[/quote]

Excellent and good for you for getting 17.5, most I've seen is 16.5.  I hope you win the 33:1 payoff, I really do.  I really like Pac-12 NC wins, be they Oregon or SC or Washington or (hopefully) the Good Guys.

[DC 86]

Excellent and good for you for getting 17.5, most I've seen is 16.5.  I hope you win the 33:1 payoff, I really do.  I really like Pac-12 NC wins, be they Oregon or SC or Washington or (hopefully) the Good Guys.

Thank You, Mick. Aside from the betting I also would very much like to see the Pac-12 represent well for obvious reasons. P.S. not only did I find +17.5 at one shop but it was at -105, so I am very pleased with the value.

[DC 86]

Excellent and good for you for getting 17.5, most I've seen is 16.5.  I hope you win the 33:1 payoff, I really do.  I really like Pac-12 NC wins, be they Oregon or SC or Washington or (hopefully) the Good Guys.

Thank You, Mick. Aside from the betting I also would very much like to see the Pac-12 represent well for obvious reasons. P.S. not only did I find +17.5 at one shop but it was at -105, so I am very pleased with the value.