12-31-2021, 10:29 PM
There’s just fatigue among many fans when it comes to seeing the same few teams from the southeast in the CFP finals. Nothing to really do with a team’s football merit.
College Football Playoff Thread
12-31-2021, 10:55 PM
(12-31-2021, 09:27 PM)Farm93 Wrote: Finally got a conference title and beat tOSU, so after a few days they will realize that's not all that bad. A good season, but not a great season.
CFP, in 4-team format, is not a "great" season? Are you serious?
And btw, we don't even have a "good" season - by your definition - on our horizon.
But of course no talk about Shaw's job security, right?
(12-31-2021, 09:27 PM)Farm93 Wrote: Finally got a conference title and beat tOSU, so after a few days they will realize that's not all that bad. A good season, but not a great season.
CFP, in 4-team format, is not a "great" season? Are you serious?
And btw, we don't even have a "good" season - by your definition - on our horizon.
But of course no talk about Shaw's job security, right?
(12-31-2021, 04:58 PM)JJJ Wrote: I believe the announcers said something like “every single recruiting class by Saban at Bama has experienced a national championship”—that’s pretty impressive.Not unprecedented; Lele Forood (Stanford W Tennis) has been doing that for 7 years longer than Saban (but harder to do in football I'd say)
(12-31-2021, 04:58 PM)JJJ Wrote: I believe the announcers said something like “every single recruiting class by Saban at Bama has experienced a national championship”—that’s pretty impressive.Not unprecedented; Lele Forood (Stanford W Tennis) has been doing that for 7 years longer than Saban (but harder to do in football I'd say)
12-31-2021, 11:29 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-31-2021, 11:30 PM by cardcrimson.)
(12-31-2021, 10:01 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-31-2021, 09:12 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:(12-31-2021, 08:32 PM)Phogge Wrote: Alabama/Georgia for the trophy. BFD.
Hear hear. As will likely be the case next year as well. Yawn.
Why, yawn? They play terrific football. I’m looking forward to the Championship game. That they are two SEC team doesn’t bother me in the least. I truly don’t understand it. If there’s a better team out there that you feel you’d rather watch then by all means let me know. But Alabama boat raced Cincinnati and then Georgia did the same thing to Michigan. Proving beyond a shadow of the doubt that they’re the best two teams in the nation. The teams that should be playing for the championship. If you feel otherwise by all means give me some facts to support it.
Why yawn? I can't put a finger on it, but college sports have lost their appeal to me, especially football and hoops. I'm not sure why. Even before Harbaugh and Shaw made it much more personal, I always tuned in, even to the likes of the Poulan Weedeater Bowl. Now it's a feeling of ambivalence. Towards the pros, too.
I think two things that gnaw at me are the constant preening of the athletes today and the bias/agenda the networks, especially ESPN, continually push. The crotch grabbing, the choreographed td celebrations, and the gyrations after a tackle or catch by the players, to me, is off-putting. Maybe it's a generational thing, but still, I tire of it.
As for ESPN, I lived in Syracuse for many years, and still despised their favoritism of the Big East. They still push UConn, albeit from the women's side. I lived in Alabama and have ties to the Tide, and their constant marketing of the SEC may cause a divorce. I think it's played a significant role in why kids from CA head to Tuscaloosa and Athens. And I still don't understand how lacrosse, a predominately New England sport, was put in ESPN's version of the Sears Cup.
And if I had a lawn, I'd tell you to get off of it. . ..
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(This post was last modified: 12-31-2021, 11:30 PM by cardcrimson.)
(12-31-2021, 10:01 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-31-2021, 09:12 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:(12-31-2021, 08:32 PM)Phogge Wrote: Alabama/Georgia for the trophy. BFD.
Hear hear. As will likely be the case next year as well. Yawn.
Why, yawn? They play terrific football. I’m looking forward to the Championship game. That they are two SEC team doesn’t bother me in the least. I truly don’t understand it. If there’s a better team out there that you feel you’d rather watch then by all means let me know. But Alabama boat raced Cincinnati and then Georgia did the same thing to Michigan. Proving beyond a shadow of the doubt that they’re the best two teams in the nation. The teams that should be playing for the championship. If you feel otherwise by all means give me some facts to support it.
Why yawn? I can't put a finger on it, but college sports have lost their appeal to me, especially football and hoops. I'm not sure why. Even before Harbaugh and Shaw made it much more personal, I always tuned in, even to the likes of the Poulan Weedeater Bowl. Now it's a feeling of ambivalence. Towards the pros, too.
I think two things that gnaw at me are the constant preening of the athletes today and the bias/agenda the networks, especially ESPN, continually push. The crotch grabbing, the choreographed td celebrations, and the gyrations after a tackle or catch by the players, to me, is off-putting. Maybe it's a generational thing, but still, I tire of it.
As for ESPN, I lived in Syracuse for many years, and still despised their favoritism of the Big East. They still push UConn, albeit from the women's side. I lived in Alabama and have ties to the Tide, and their constant marketing of the SEC may cause a divorce. I think it's played a significant role in why kids from CA head to Tuscaloosa and Athens. And I still don't understand how lacrosse, a predominately New England sport, was put in ESPN's version of the Sears Cup.
And if I had a lawn, I'd tell you to get off of it. . ..
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
01-01-2022, 09:41 AM
I envy great programs. The championships, the recognition, the high ol' times at the Big Bowls, the dopamine buzz of seeing your lauded team kickinass and being written and talked about everywhere. Hey, I admit it. Losing sucks, an unwatchable team sucks and so does a putting up with a delusional naked emperor. When you've lived and partied in the penthouse (thanks Harbs, I don't care if you're an AH) you can't move back in to the basement, setting traps for the mice.
#ShawAndMuirMustGo
#ShawAndMuirMustGo
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
I envy great programs. The championships, the recognition, the high ol' times at the Big Bowls, the dopamine buzz of seeing your lauded team kickinass and being written and talked about everywhere. Hey, I admit it. Losing sucks, an unwatchable team sucks and so does a putting up with a delusional naked emperor. When you've lived and partied in the penthouse (thanks Harbs, I don't care if you're an AH) you can't move back in to the basement, setting traps for the mice.
#ShawAndMuirMustGo
#ShawAndMuirMustGo
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
01-01-2022, 09:59 AM
I am looking forward to the championship game. There is no question there will be some great athletes out there and some wonderful plays made. However, I don't actually "watch" sports on TV these days, especially football. I turn it on and do something else at the same time. Due to so many commercial breaks, each containing many commercials, there is no game continuity. The content per unit time just isn't there. I can do productive work at the same time without difficulty.
Unfortunately the same is true of attending Stanford football games in person. The action is too "low density". Football always was 30 seconds of actual play followed by 30 seconds of discussion/analysis/planning. The game moved along (and if Oregon was involved it went even faster). That was about the right mix on a nice afternoon where being in the sun with your friends was a good experience. Currently, it may be dark and cold instead, and you probably won't know that until two weeks in advance. Every change of possession we must endure a two minute "break" for commercials, plus a few more breaks thrown in by the networks. This doesn't include any "further reviews" or PAC-12 officials conferring on how to make a call that nobody will understand. So indeed, "watching" kind of has to be a qualified activity. This is also a primary reason why people complain about bad wifi at the stadium. A good part of the time they aren't watching the game that isn't actually being played.
Unfortunately the same is true of attending Stanford football games in person. The action is too "low density". Football always was 30 seconds of actual play followed by 30 seconds of discussion/analysis/planning. The game moved along (and if Oregon was involved it went even faster). That was about the right mix on a nice afternoon where being in the sun with your friends was a good experience. Currently, it may be dark and cold instead, and you probably won't know that until two weeks in advance. Every change of possession we must endure a two minute "break" for commercials, plus a few more breaks thrown in by the networks. This doesn't include any "further reviews" or PAC-12 officials conferring on how to make a call that nobody will understand. So indeed, "watching" kind of has to be a qualified activity. This is also a primary reason why people complain about bad wifi at the stadium. A good part of the time they aren't watching the game that isn't actually being played.
I am looking forward to the championship game. There is no question there will be some great athletes out there and some wonderful plays made. However, I don't actually "watch" sports on TV these days, especially football. I turn it on and do something else at the same time. Due to so many commercial breaks, each containing many commercials, there is no game continuity. The content per unit time just isn't there. I can do productive work at the same time without difficulty.
Unfortunately the same is true of attending Stanford football games in person. The action is too "low density". Football always was 30 seconds of actual play followed by 30 seconds of discussion/analysis/planning. The game moved along (and if Oregon was involved it went even faster). That was about the right mix on a nice afternoon where being in the sun with your friends was a good experience. Currently, it may be dark and cold instead, and you probably won't know that until two weeks in advance. Every change of possession we must endure a two minute "break" for commercials, plus a few more breaks thrown in by the networks. This doesn't include any "further reviews" or PAC-12 officials conferring on how to make a call that nobody will understand. So indeed, "watching" kind of has to be a qualified activity. This is also a primary reason why people complain about bad wifi at the stadium. A good part of the time they aren't watching the game that isn't actually being played.
Unfortunately the same is true of attending Stanford football games in person. The action is too "low density". Football always was 30 seconds of actual play followed by 30 seconds of discussion/analysis/planning. The game moved along (and if Oregon was involved it went even faster). That was about the right mix on a nice afternoon where being in the sun with your friends was a good experience. Currently, it may be dark and cold instead, and you probably won't know that until two weeks in advance. Every change of possession we must endure a two minute "break" for commercials, plus a few more breaks thrown in by the networks. This doesn't include any "further reviews" or PAC-12 officials conferring on how to make a call that nobody will understand. So indeed, "watching" kind of has to be a qualified activity. This is also a primary reason why people complain about bad wifi at the stadium. A good part of the time they aren't watching the game that isn't actually being played.
(12-31-2021, 07:17 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: My gawd could I not be more profoundly disappointed in Michigan. I was genuinely looking forward to this game and anticipating something classic. Instead? 27-3 at halftime.
Nothing in college football is worse than the prospect of the team that got destroyed by Alabama in the SEC Championship Game, destroying the Big Ten Champion and getting another shot at Alabama in the National Championship game. Nothing. It will give everyone the evidence to show a conference championship game loser shouldn't be eliminated from playoff (at least in a 4-team format).
To me there is something inherently un-sports-like to give the loser of a championship game a playoff berth. This game provides people who want to argue that point ammunition I'd rather they not have available for them to use.
Georgia in going 12-0 out scored opponents 488-83. That’s my “point ammunition “
(12-31-2021, 07:17 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: My gawd could I not be more profoundly disappointed in Michigan. I was genuinely looking forward to this game and anticipating something classic. Instead? 27-3 at halftime.
Nothing in college football is worse than the prospect of the team that got destroyed by Alabama in the SEC Championship Game, destroying the Big Ten Champion and getting another shot at Alabama in the National Championship game. Nothing. It will give everyone the evidence to show a conference championship game loser shouldn't be eliminated from playoff (at least in a 4-team format).
To me there is something inherently un-sports-like to give the loser of a championship game a playoff berth. This game provides people who want to argue that point ammunition I'd rather they not have available for them to use.
Georgia in going 12-0 out scored opponents 488-83. That’s my “point ammunition “
01-01-2022, 11:50 AM
(12-31-2021, 10:01 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-31-2021, 09:12 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:(12-31-2021, 08:32 PM)Phogge Wrote: Alabama/Georgia for the trophy. BFD.
Hear hear. As will likely be the case next year as well. Yawn.
Why, yawn? They play terrific football. I’m looking forward to the Championship game. That they are two SEC team doesn’t bother me in the least. I truly don’t understand it. If there’s a better team out there that you feel you’d rather watch then by all means let me know. But Alabama boat raced Cincinnati and then Georgia did the same thing to Michigan. Proving beyond a shadow of the doubt that they’re the best two teams in the nation. The teams that should be playing for the championship. If you feel otherwise by all means give me some facts to support it.
They do play terrific football. Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, occasionally Georgia or LSU play such terrific football that the rest of the country is not competitive with them in playoff games. There have now been 16 semifinal games played in the College Football Playoff era. Only 3 have been decided by less than 10 points. I'm just bored knowing that the same few schools will be playing for the national championship every year. And there is nothing to indicate that anything will change this in the future. Coaching, money, transfers, recruiting, institutional support all favor the same few schools.
But I do still love watching college football. I'll be sorry after January 10 to have to wait almost 8 months for more.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(12-31-2021, 10:01 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-31-2021, 09:12 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:(12-31-2021, 08:32 PM)Phogge Wrote: Alabama/Georgia for the trophy. BFD.
Hear hear. As will likely be the case next year as well. Yawn.
Why, yawn? They play terrific football. I’m looking forward to the Championship game. That they are two SEC team doesn’t bother me in the least. I truly don’t understand it. If there’s a better team out there that you feel you’d rather watch then by all means let me know. But Alabama boat raced Cincinnati and then Georgia did the same thing to Michigan. Proving beyond a shadow of the doubt that they’re the best two teams in the nation. The teams that should be playing for the championship. If you feel otherwise by all means give me some facts to support it.
They do play terrific football. Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, occasionally Georgia or LSU play such terrific football that the rest of the country is not competitive with them in playoff games. There have now been 16 semifinal games played in the College Football Playoff era. Only 3 have been decided by less than 10 points. I'm just bored knowing that the same few schools will be playing for the national championship every year. And there is nothing to indicate that anything will change this in the future. Coaching, money, transfers, recruiting, institutional support all favor the same few schools.
But I do still love watching college football. I'll be sorry after January 10 to have to wait almost 8 months for more.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
01-01-2022, 12:10 PM
(01-01-2022, 11:31 AM)lex24 Wrote:(12-31-2021, 07:17 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: My gawd could I not be more profoundly disappointed in Michigan. I was genuinely looking forward to this game and anticipating something classic. Instead? 27-3 at halftime.
Nothing in college football is worse than the prospect of the team that got destroyed by Alabama in the SEC Championship Game, destroying the Big Ten Champion and getting another shot at Alabama in the National Championship game. Nothing. It will give everyone the evidence to show a conference championship game loser shouldn't be eliminated from playoff (at least in a 4-team format).
To me there is something inherently un-sports-like to give the loser of a championship game a playoff berth. This game provides people who want to argue that point ammunition I'd rather they not have available for them to use.
Georgia in going 12-0 out scored opponents 488-83. That’s my “point ammunition “
interestingly enough Georgia opens as a 2.5 point favorite...
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(01-01-2022, 11:31 AM)lex24 Wrote:(12-31-2021, 07:17 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: My gawd could I not be more profoundly disappointed in Michigan. I was genuinely looking forward to this game and anticipating something classic. Instead? 27-3 at halftime.
Nothing in college football is worse than the prospect of the team that got destroyed by Alabama in the SEC Championship Game, destroying the Big Ten Champion and getting another shot at Alabama in the National Championship game. Nothing. It will give everyone the evidence to show a conference championship game loser shouldn't be eliminated from playoff (at least in a 4-team format).
To me there is something inherently un-sports-like to give the loser of a championship game a playoff berth. This game provides people who want to argue that point ammunition I'd rather they not have available for them to use.
Georgia in going 12-0 out scored opponents 488-83. That’s my “point ammunition “
interestingly enough Georgia opens as a 2.5 point favorite...
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
01-01-2022, 12:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-01-2022, 12:42 PM by OutsiderFan.)
My displeasure with Georgia being allowed in the playoff after losing in its conference championship game, is based on several factors, some directly related to Georgia's situation, some in the interest of college football as a sport, and some based on past experience that I'm still bitter about.
First of all, what did Georgia lose by losing its championship game? They are the only team that lost a championship game and suffered no real consequences. You can say that was the regular season, not a part of the playoff and be correct, but with so few teams allowed in, to me, teams should have to win their conference to get in, period. Otherwise, the SEC Championship game was just a practice game exhibition for Georgia, to experiment with things and not take the outcome seriously at all. This is just antithetical to what sports competition is suppose to be about. "Well they were undated..." Stanford basically missed the playoff twice because it had to play Utah and USC games on the road in different years, when if playing Sac State instead would have put them in the playoff. Meanwhile, SEC teams got to play Chatanooga at home to pad their record and make the playoff.
So we have now established that if you are in the SEC, you get to play by different standards than everyone else. Giving one conference advantages over every other one is absurd. The fact that the SEC gets these advantages further allows Georgia and Alabama to corner the market on the best players. "Want to play for a national championship, then come here!" At least if the field was expanded to 8 or 12 or 16, many more schools would be able to credibly claim to play for a national championship, the talent would be more dispersed, there would be more better teams, and interest in the sport would grow. The SEC wouldn't get to consolidate its unfair competitive advantages if the system was more equitable.
I remember the 1987 49ers were 13-2, and overwhelming favorites to beat the Vikings in playoffs, having won their last three games by a combined 124-7. The Vikings won the NFC Divisional playoff 38-24. NOBODY saw that coming. The Niners were clearly the best team in the NFL. They didn't get a mulligan like Georgia. Instead, I sat in the stands as a teenager wondering WTF is happening?!?!?! The next week, the Washington Redskins beat the Vikings team that beat the Niners, and went on to win the Super Bowl the Niners would have won had they played, as evidenced by the fact they had outscored their final three opponents 124-7 and were clearly the best team, right?
First of all, what did Georgia lose by losing its championship game? They are the only team that lost a championship game and suffered no real consequences. You can say that was the regular season, not a part of the playoff and be correct, but with so few teams allowed in, to me, teams should have to win their conference to get in, period. Otherwise, the SEC Championship game was just a practice game exhibition for Georgia, to experiment with things and not take the outcome seriously at all. This is just antithetical to what sports competition is suppose to be about. "Well they were undated..." Stanford basically missed the playoff twice because it had to play Utah and USC games on the road in different years, when if playing Sac State instead would have put them in the playoff. Meanwhile, SEC teams got to play Chatanooga at home to pad their record and make the playoff.
So we have now established that if you are in the SEC, you get to play by different standards than everyone else. Giving one conference advantages over every other one is absurd. The fact that the SEC gets these advantages further allows Georgia and Alabama to corner the market on the best players. "Want to play for a national championship, then come here!" At least if the field was expanded to 8 or 12 or 16, many more schools would be able to credibly claim to play for a national championship, the talent would be more dispersed, there would be more better teams, and interest in the sport would grow. The SEC wouldn't get to consolidate its unfair competitive advantages if the system was more equitable.
I remember the 1987 49ers were 13-2, and overwhelming favorites to beat the Vikings in playoffs, having won their last three games by a combined 124-7. The Vikings won the NFC Divisional playoff 38-24. NOBODY saw that coming. The Niners were clearly the best team in the NFL. They didn't get a mulligan like Georgia. Instead, I sat in the stands as a teenager wondering WTF is happening?!?!?! The next week, the Washington Redskins beat the Vikings team that beat the Niners, and went on to win the Super Bowl the Niners would have won had they played, as evidenced by the fact they had outscored their final three opponents 124-7 and were clearly the best team, right?
(This post was last modified: 01-01-2022, 12:42 PM by OutsiderFan.)
My displeasure with Georgia being allowed in the playoff after losing in its conference championship game, is based on several factors, some directly related to Georgia's situation, some in the interest of college football as a sport, and some based on past experience that I'm still bitter about.
First of all, what did Georgia lose by losing its championship game? They are the only team that lost a championship game and suffered no real consequences. You can say that was the regular season, not a part of the playoff and be correct, but with so few teams allowed in, to me, teams should have to win their conference to get in, period. Otherwise, the SEC Championship game was just a practice game exhibition for Georgia, to experiment with things and not take the outcome seriously at all. This is just antithetical to what sports competition is suppose to be about. "Well they were undated..." Stanford basically missed the playoff twice because it had to play Utah and USC games on the road in different years, when if playing Sac State instead would have put them in the playoff. Meanwhile, SEC teams got to play Chatanooga at home to pad their record and make the playoff.
So we have now established that if you are in the SEC, you get to play by different standards than everyone else. Giving one conference advantages over every other one is absurd. The fact that the SEC gets these advantages further allows Georgia and Alabama to corner the market on the best players. "Want to play for a national championship, then come here!" At least if the field was expanded to 8 or 12 or 16, many more schools would be able to credibly claim to play for a national championship, the talent would be more dispersed, there would be more better teams, and interest in the sport would grow. The SEC wouldn't get to consolidate its unfair competitive advantages if the system was more equitable.
I remember the 1987 49ers were 13-2, and overwhelming favorites to beat the Vikings in playoffs, having won their last three games by a combined 124-7. The Vikings won the NFC Divisional playoff 38-24. NOBODY saw that coming. The Niners were clearly the best team in the NFL. They didn't get a mulligan like Georgia. Instead, I sat in the stands as a teenager wondering WTF is happening?!?!?! The next week, the Washington Redskins beat the Vikings team that beat the Niners, and went on to win the Super Bowl the Niners would have won had they played, as evidenced by the fact they had outscored their final three opponents 124-7 and were clearly the best team, right?
First of all, what did Georgia lose by losing its championship game? They are the only team that lost a championship game and suffered no real consequences. You can say that was the regular season, not a part of the playoff and be correct, but with so few teams allowed in, to me, teams should have to win their conference to get in, period. Otherwise, the SEC Championship game was just a practice game exhibition for Georgia, to experiment with things and not take the outcome seriously at all. This is just antithetical to what sports competition is suppose to be about. "Well they were undated..." Stanford basically missed the playoff twice because it had to play Utah and USC games on the road in different years, when if playing Sac State instead would have put them in the playoff. Meanwhile, SEC teams got to play Chatanooga at home to pad their record and make the playoff.
So we have now established that if you are in the SEC, you get to play by different standards than everyone else. Giving one conference advantages over every other one is absurd. The fact that the SEC gets these advantages further allows Georgia and Alabama to corner the market on the best players. "Want to play for a national championship, then come here!" At least if the field was expanded to 8 or 12 or 16, many more schools would be able to credibly claim to play for a national championship, the talent would be more dispersed, there would be more better teams, and interest in the sport would grow. The SEC wouldn't get to consolidate its unfair competitive advantages if the system was more equitable.
I remember the 1987 49ers were 13-2, and overwhelming favorites to beat the Vikings in playoffs, having won their last three games by a combined 124-7. The Vikings won the NFC Divisional playoff 38-24. NOBODY saw that coming. The Niners were clearly the best team in the NFL. They didn't get a mulligan like Georgia. Instead, I sat in the stands as a teenager wondering WTF is happening?!?!?! The next week, the Washington Redskins beat the Vikings team that beat the Niners, and went on to win the Super Bowl the Niners would have won had they played, as evidenced by the fact they had outscored their final three opponents 124-7 and were clearly the best team, right?
01-01-2022, 01:43 PM
I actually enjoy having massively successful teams/programs in sports. For me, it provides an extra something to upsets, rivalries, rankings, etc. Alabama football is enjoying some crazy success right now, but they will have their issues over the years, teams will beat them and that will be great. I like rooting against SEC teams in the bowl games. I enjoy going to baseball games when the Yankees are in town more than when other teams are in town. I had way more fun watching the NBA finals with the Warriors against the Cavs than watching last year's Suns-Bucks. I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of contributors on this board LOVE it when UConn loses, way more than when NC State or Louisville lose. As time goes UConn is gradually losing their spot as the nation's top program and that's fun to track. Georgia and Alabama are the best 2 teams and they deserve to play for the natty. And in the end, I would much rather watch an Alabama-Georgia final than two other random top teams (e.g. Ohio State-Baylor or something like that).
I actually enjoy having massively successful teams/programs in sports. For me, it provides an extra something to upsets, rivalries, rankings, etc. Alabama football is enjoying some crazy success right now, but they will have their issues over the years, teams will beat them and that will be great. I like rooting against SEC teams in the bowl games. I enjoy going to baseball games when the Yankees are in town more than when other teams are in town. I had way more fun watching the NBA finals with the Warriors against the Cavs than watching last year's Suns-Bucks. I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of contributors on this board LOVE it when UConn loses, way more than when NC State or Louisville lose. As time goes UConn is gradually losing their spot as the nation's top program and that's fun to track. Georgia and Alabama are the best 2 teams and they deserve to play for the natty. And in the end, I would much rather watch an Alabama-Georgia final than two other random top teams (e.g. Ohio State-Baylor or something like that).
01-01-2022, 01:45 PM
(01-01-2022, 12:40 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: My displeasure with Georgia being allowed in the playoff after losing in its conference championship game, is based on several factors, some directly related to Georgia's situation, some in the interest of college football as a sport, and some based on past experience that I'm still bitter about.
First of all, what did Georgia lose by losing its championship game? They are the only team that lost a championship game and suffered no real consequences. You can say that was the regular season, not a part of the playoff and be correct, but with so few teams allowed in, to me, teams should have to win their conference to get in, period. Otherwise, the SEC Championship game was just a practice game exhibition for Georgia, to experiment with things and not take the outcome seriously at all. This is just antithetical to what sports competition is suppose to be about. "Well they were undated..." Stanford basically missed the playoff twice because it had to play Utah and USC games on the road in different years, when if playing Sac State instead would have put them in the playoff. Meanwhile, SEC teams got to play Chatanooga at home to pad their record and make the playoff.
So we have now established that if you are in the SEC, you get to play by different standards than everyone else. Giving one conference advantages over every other one is absurd. The fact that the SEC gets these advantages further allows Georgia and Alabama to corner the market on the best players. "Want to play for a national championship, then come here!" At least if the field was expanded to 8 or 12 or 16, many more schools would be able to credibly claim to play for a national championship, the talent would be more dispersed, there would be more better teams, and interest in the sport would grow. The SEC wouldn't get to consolidate its unfair competitive advantages if the system was more equitable.
I remember the 1987 49ers were 13-2, and overwhelming favorites to beat the Vikings in playoffs, having won their last three games by a combined 124-7. The Vikings won the NFC Divisional playoff 38-24. NOBODY saw that coming. The Niners were clearly the best team in the NFL. They didn't get a mulligan like Georgia. Instead, I sat in the stands as a teenager wondering WTF is happening?!?!?! The next week, the Washington Redskins beat the Vikings team that beat the Niners, and went on to win the Super Bowl the Niners would have won had they played, as evidenced by the fact they had outscored their final three opponents 124-7 and were clearly the best team, right?
These are all excellent points. My comments:
1) On any given day, major and minor upsets will occur in sports. Let's think back to the NCAA basketball tourney where #1 Virginia was upended by the #16-seeded University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Play that game 50 times, and Virginia wins 49 of them. But not that day. Virginia was out. And even though Georgia's performance yesterday was spectacular and showed that they are truly elite, they lost to Bama in the SEC championship game, and that should have been the end of it. I would have preferred to see Baylor or Utah in the other playoff spot simply to show that winning a conference title means something.
2) Yes, it is important to ensure some level of parity in college athletics, which involves uniform conditions for all teams. The slate of eight conference games in the SEC is a problem. Make it nine and even the playing field.
3) It is clear that the top end of the SEC is better than the the top end in other conferences. The NCAA should be interested in changing that dynamic and getting better parity between the conferences Otherwise, we might as well implement three levels in college football (20-25 teams in a super conference with 3 or 4 divisions, 90-100 teams in division II, and today's FCS division). The SEC will win the national championship again this year, which will mean 12 of the last 16 national titles belong to one conference (Florida 2x, LSU 2x, Auburn 1x, Alabama 6x, 2021 TBD). This is not healthy for any sport.
(01-01-2022, 12:40 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: My displeasure with Georgia being allowed in the playoff after losing in its conference championship game, is based on several factors, some directly related to Georgia's situation, some in the interest of college football as a sport, and some based on past experience that I'm still bitter about.
First of all, what did Georgia lose by losing its championship game? They are the only team that lost a championship game and suffered no real consequences. You can say that was the regular season, not a part of the playoff and be correct, but with so few teams allowed in, to me, teams should have to win their conference to get in, period. Otherwise, the SEC Championship game was just a practice game exhibition for Georgia, to experiment with things and not take the outcome seriously at all. This is just antithetical to what sports competition is suppose to be about. "Well they were undated..." Stanford basically missed the playoff twice because it had to play Utah and USC games on the road in different years, when if playing Sac State instead would have put them in the playoff. Meanwhile, SEC teams got to play Chatanooga at home to pad their record and make the playoff.
So we have now established that if you are in the SEC, you get to play by different standards than everyone else. Giving one conference advantages over every other one is absurd. The fact that the SEC gets these advantages further allows Georgia and Alabama to corner the market on the best players. "Want to play for a national championship, then come here!" At least if the field was expanded to 8 or 12 or 16, many more schools would be able to credibly claim to play for a national championship, the talent would be more dispersed, there would be more better teams, and interest in the sport would grow. The SEC wouldn't get to consolidate its unfair competitive advantages if the system was more equitable.
I remember the 1987 49ers were 13-2, and overwhelming favorites to beat the Vikings in playoffs, having won their last three games by a combined 124-7. The Vikings won the NFC Divisional playoff 38-24. NOBODY saw that coming. The Niners were clearly the best team in the NFL. They didn't get a mulligan like Georgia. Instead, I sat in the stands as a teenager wondering WTF is happening?!?!?! The next week, the Washington Redskins beat the Vikings team that beat the Niners, and went on to win the Super Bowl the Niners would have won had they played, as evidenced by the fact they had outscored their final three opponents 124-7 and were clearly the best team, right?
These are all excellent points. My comments:
1) On any given day, major and minor upsets will occur in sports. Let's think back to the NCAA basketball tourney where #1 Virginia was upended by the #16-seeded University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Play that game 50 times, and Virginia wins 49 of them. But not that day. Virginia was out. And even though Georgia's performance yesterday was spectacular and showed that they are truly elite, they lost to Bama in the SEC championship game, and that should have been the end of it. I would have preferred to see Baylor or Utah in the other playoff spot simply to show that winning a conference title means something.
2) Yes, it is important to ensure some level of parity in college athletics, which involves uniform conditions for all teams. The slate of eight conference games in the SEC is a problem. Make it nine and even the playing field.
3) It is clear that the top end of the SEC is better than the the top end in other conferences. The NCAA should be interested in changing that dynamic and getting better parity between the conferences Otherwise, we might as well implement three levels in college football (20-25 teams in a super conference with 3 or 4 divisions, 90-100 teams in division II, and today's FCS division). The SEC will win the national championship again this year, which will mean 12 of the last 16 national titles belong to one conference (Florida 2x, LSU 2x, Auburn 1x, Alabama 6x, 2021 TBD). This is not healthy for any sport.
(01-01-2022, 12:40 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: My displeasure with Georgia being allowed in the playoff after losing in its conference championship game, is based on several factors, some directly related to Georgia's situation, some in the interest of college football as a sport, and some based on past experience that I'm still bitter about.
First of all, what did Georgia lose by losing its championship game? They are the only team that lost a championship game and suffered no real consequences. You can say that was the regular season, not a part of the playoff and be correct, but with so few teams allowed in, to me, teams should have to win their conference to get in, period. Otherwise, the SEC Championship game was just a practice game exhibition for Georgia, to experiment with things and not take the outcome seriously at all. This is just antithetical to what sports competition is suppose to be about. "Well they were undated..." Stanford basically missed the playoff twice because it had to play Utah and USC games on the road in different years, when if playing Sac State instead would have put them in the playoff. Meanwhile, SEC teams got to play Chatanooga at home to pad their record and make the playoff.
So we have now established that if you are in the SEC, you get to play by different standards than everyone else. Giving one conference advantages over every other one is absurd. The fact that the SEC gets these advantages further allows Georgia and Alabama to corner the market on the best players. "Want to play for a national championship, then come here!" At least if the field was expanded to 8 or 12 or 16, many more schools would be able to credibly claim to play for a national championship, the talent would be more dispersed, there would be more better teams, and interest in the sport would grow. The SEC wouldn't get to consolidate its unfair competitive advantages if the system was more equitable.
I remember the 1987 49ers were 13-2, and overwhelming favorites to beat the Vikings in playoffs, having won their last three games by a combined 124-7. The Vikings won the NFC Divisional playoff 38-24. NOBODY saw that coming. The Niners were clearly the best team in the NFL. They didn't get a mulligan like Georgia. Instead, I sat in the stands as a teenager wondering WTF is happening?!?!?! The next week, the Washington Redskins beat the Vikings team that beat the Niners, and went on to win the Super Bowl the Niners would have won had they played, as evidenced by the fact they had outscored their final three opponents 124-7 and were clearly the best team, right?
I don’t get the Niner analogy. They got beat in the playoffs by a lesser team. If College football had a similar playoff and Georgia was given a mulligan, you’d have a point. (Maybe a better analogy is the Giants getting beat by the second place Dodgers. Course, Giants won a WS as a WC in 2014.)
I don’t like the 4 team system. I think it should be at least 6 with all 5 conference champions and a wild card. Or 8 or 12. In any of those scenarios Georgia is in.
They went 12-0. By an average margin of about 40-7. That is why they still got in despite losing a Championship game.
You think Georgia considered an SEC Championship game an exhibition game to “experiment on “? Please. Winning an SEC Championship by beating Alabama is “meaningful”. And consider that if they did beat Bama, they knock them out of the playoffs. Making their road to the NC considerably easier.
You were quite certain Michigan would beat Georgia. Michigan is a damn good team. They got waxed. By a MUCH better team.
The SEC dominates because they get the best players. Period. Look at the NFL. Check the numbers by conference. Why? I’ll give you a couple plausible reasons - first is demographics. Football more and more is a Southern sport. At least at the HS level. Throw in Texas and Oklahoma.(If you want some proof - check out a top 100 recruiting list)
Then, kids have the chance to play in stadiums with 80,000 fo 100,000 most games. In areas where College Football is unquestionably King. (Which is why, I think, you now see top Calif recruits at Bama, Georgia etc.)
I do agree with you on the 8 vs 9 team conference schedule. The PAC-12 could go to that should it wish.
(01-01-2022, 12:40 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: My displeasure with Georgia being allowed in the playoff after losing in its conference championship game, is based on several factors, some directly related to Georgia's situation, some in the interest of college football as a sport, and some based on past experience that I'm still bitter about.
First of all, what did Georgia lose by losing its championship game? They are the only team that lost a championship game and suffered no real consequences. You can say that was the regular season, not a part of the playoff and be correct, but with so few teams allowed in, to me, teams should have to win their conference to get in, period. Otherwise, the SEC Championship game was just a practice game exhibition for Georgia, to experiment with things and not take the outcome seriously at all. This is just antithetical to what sports competition is suppose to be about. "Well they were undated..." Stanford basically missed the playoff twice because it had to play Utah and USC games on the road in different years, when if playing Sac State instead would have put them in the playoff. Meanwhile, SEC teams got to play Chatanooga at home to pad their record and make the playoff.
So we have now established that if you are in the SEC, you get to play by different standards than everyone else. Giving one conference advantages over every other one is absurd. The fact that the SEC gets these advantages further allows Georgia and Alabama to corner the market on the best players. "Want to play for a national championship, then come here!" At least if the field was expanded to 8 or 12 or 16, many more schools would be able to credibly claim to play for a national championship, the talent would be more dispersed, there would be more better teams, and interest in the sport would grow. The SEC wouldn't get to consolidate its unfair competitive advantages if the system was more equitable.
I remember the 1987 49ers were 13-2, and overwhelming favorites to beat the Vikings in playoffs, having won their last three games by a combined 124-7. The Vikings won the NFC Divisional playoff 38-24. NOBODY saw that coming. The Niners were clearly the best team in the NFL. They didn't get a mulligan like Georgia. Instead, I sat in the stands as a teenager wondering WTF is happening?!?!?! The next week, the Washington Redskins beat the Vikings team that beat the Niners, and went on to win the Super Bowl the Niners would have won had they played, as evidenced by the fact they had outscored their final three opponents 124-7 and were clearly the best team, right?
I don’t get the Niner analogy. They got beat in the playoffs by a lesser team. If College football had a similar playoff and Georgia was given a mulligan, you’d have a point. (Maybe a better analogy is the Giants getting beat by the second place Dodgers. Course, Giants won a WS as a WC in 2014.)
I don’t like the 4 team system. I think it should be at least 6 with all 5 conference champions and a wild card. Or 8 or 12. In any of those scenarios Georgia is in.
They went 12-0. By an average margin of about 40-7. That is why they still got in despite losing a Championship game.
You think Georgia considered an SEC Championship game an exhibition game to “experiment on “? Please. Winning an SEC Championship by beating Alabama is “meaningful”. And consider that if they did beat Bama, they knock them out of the playoffs. Making their road to the NC considerably easier.
You were quite certain Michigan would beat Georgia. Michigan is a damn good team. They got waxed. By a MUCH better team.
The SEC dominates because they get the best players. Period. Look at the NFL. Check the numbers by conference. Why? I’ll give you a couple plausible reasons - first is demographics. Football more and more is a Southern sport. At least at the HS level. Throw in Texas and Oklahoma.(If you want some proof - check out a top 100 recruiting list)
Then, kids have the chance to play in stadiums with 80,000 fo 100,000 most games. In areas where College Football is unquestionably King. (Which is why, I think, you now see top Calif recruits at Bama, Georgia etc.)
I do agree with you on the 8 vs 9 team conference schedule. The PAC-12 could go to that should it wish.
01-01-2022, 04:31 PM
I don’t like to watch Bama’s rhinos and mastodons. I do like watching Brandon Covey.
01-01-2022, 04:53 PM
(12-31-2021, 10:55 PM)teejers1 Wrote:Michigan is THE winningest program in college football, so a season without a bowl game win is not a great season. Lots of Michigan seasons simply have been much better. Yes, after more than a decade of far below average seasons this good season feels great, but in historic terms this simply isn't one of Michigan's 10 or 15 best seasons. Therefore, IMHO merely good.(12-31-2021, 09:27 PM)Farm93 Wrote: Finally got a conference title and beat tOSU, so after a few days they will realize that's not all that bad. A good season, but not a great season.
CFP, in 4-team format, is not a "great" season? Are you serious?
And btw, we don't even have a "good" season - by your definition - on our horizon.
But of course no talk about Shaw's job security, right?
And that's without factoring in the reality that they didn't just lose the bowl game, they were crushed.
Just different standards for different programs. The Cubs get into the playoffs then that's a great season. If the Yankees don't win the World Series, it simply can't be a great season...for their fans.
Back to Stanford...Shaw has coached Stanford to 3 of its 15 best seasons. Shaw definitely has had two of Stanford's greatest seasons. And THAT is job security, at least for a bit longer. For me his job security is tied to a brutal reality that the Pac-12 is not a desirable destination for fame and prestige right now. When Shaw leaves I am confident (fearful) that the next coach will regress towards our historic mean and will depart if they ever get an 8-4 or better season. Therefore I am all in on hoping Shaw fixes the problems as the Pac-12 coaching shuffle is a tough way to compete given our academic requirements, the NIL and the evolving use of the transfer portal.
Besides Shaw won't be fired before Haase IMHO. Until Muir has the courage to terminate Haase, a coach that has accomplished so little, there is no way Shaw will be fired. But I know folks love to complain and there is no doubt 2021 was not a great season. It's all good. Haters gonna hate even if they are hating on the winningest coach in the history of Stanford football.
(12-31-2021, 10:55 PM)teejers1 Wrote:Michigan is THE winningest program in college football, so a season without a bowl game win is not a great season. Lots of Michigan seasons simply have been much better. Yes, after more than a decade of far below average seasons this good season feels great, but in historic terms this simply isn't one of Michigan's 10 or 15 best seasons. Therefore, IMHO merely good.(12-31-2021, 09:27 PM)Farm93 Wrote: Finally got a conference title and beat tOSU, so after a few days they will realize that's not all that bad. A good season, but not a great season.
CFP, in 4-team format, is not a "great" season? Are you serious?
And btw, we don't even have a "good" season - by your definition - on our horizon.
But of course no talk about Shaw's job security, right?
And that's without factoring in the reality that they didn't just lose the bowl game, they were crushed.
Just different standards for different programs. The Cubs get into the playoffs then that's a great season. If the Yankees don't win the World Series, it simply can't be a great season...for their fans.
Back to Stanford...Shaw has coached Stanford to 3 of its 15 best seasons. Shaw definitely has had two of Stanford's greatest seasons. And THAT is job security, at least for a bit longer. For me his job security is tied to a brutal reality that the Pac-12 is not a desirable destination for fame and prestige right now. When Shaw leaves I am confident (fearful) that the next coach will regress towards our historic mean and will depart if they ever get an 8-4 or better season. Therefore I am all in on hoping Shaw fixes the problems as the Pac-12 coaching shuffle is a tough way to compete given our academic requirements, the NIL and the evolving use of the transfer portal.
Besides Shaw won't be fired before Haase IMHO. Until Muir has the courage to terminate Haase, a coach that has accomplished so little, there is no way Shaw will be fired. But I know folks love to complain and there is no doubt 2021 was not a great season. It's all good. Haters gonna hate even if they are hating on the winningest coach in the history of Stanford football.
01-01-2022, 06:33 PM
I think if you ask most Michigan fans, most would be extremely happy with how the season turned out, even if the ending wasn’t what they wanted. They beat Ohio State, won the Big Ten and made the CFP playoffs.
BC
BC
I think if you ask most Michigan fans, most would be extremely happy with how the season turned out, even if the ending wasn’t what they wanted. They beat Ohio State, won the Big Ten and made the CFP playoffs.
BC
BC
01-01-2022, 07:19 PM
(01-01-2022, 06:33 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think if you ask most Michigan fans, most would be extremely happy with how the season turned out, even if the ending wasn’t what they wanted. They beat Ohio State, won the Big Ten and made the CFP playoffs.
BC
Who do you think will remember this season with more happiness, Michigan fans or OSU fans? I'm guessing it could well be OSU fans.
(01-01-2022, 06:33 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think if you ask most Michigan fans, most would be extremely happy with how the season turned out, even if the ending wasn’t what they wanted. They beat Ohio State, won the Big Ten and made the CFP playoffs.
BC
Who do you think will remember this season with more happiness, Michigan fans or OSU fans? I'm guessing it could well be OSU fans.
01-01-2022, 08:08 PM
(01-01-2022, 04:53 PM)Farm93 Wrote: Michigan is THE winningest program in college football, so a season without a bowl game win is not a great season. Lots of Michigan seasons simply have been much better. Yes, after more than a decade of far below average seasons this good season feels great, but in historic terms this simply isn't one of Michigan's 10 or 15 best seasons. Therefore, IMHO merely good.
You have mentioned in several posts that Michigan is "THE" winningest program in college football, as the rationale for why reaching the national semifinal game (as champion of the second best conference in the country) should be categorized as merely "good" and not "great".
It's true that Michigan has won the most games in the sport's history, owing to the fact that they've played the most games in the sport's history. Alabama, Ohio State and Notre Dame all have slightly higher all-time winning percentages.
Nevertheless, Michigan indeed has one of the game's highest winning percentages (73%). However, their best period took place over a century ago. Their record in the 19th century was 98-31 and then Fielding Yost became coach in 1901 and promptly began his tenure by going 43-0. He retired in 1925 with a record of 165-29. Without question Michigan was one of the most dominant teams of the 19th century and first quarter of the 20th century.
This season it is likely that Michigan will finish third in the AP poll, given that #4 Cincinnati was blown out in their semifinal and #5 Notre Dame also lost. #6 Ohio State won but it seems unlikely they will jump Michigan for obvious reasons.
Since the inception of the AP poll (in 1938) Michigan has finished in the top three of the AP poll 8 times (first twice, second twice, third four times.) So in the last 84 seasons Michigan has had four finishes better than their projected finish this year. Four of those top-three finishes took place between 1940 and 1948; thus in the last 73 seasons Michigan has won a single (1) national championship and has finished in the top three of the AP poll 4 times (first once, second once, third twice). So Michigan has had two finishes better than this season's projected finish in roughly the last three quarters of a century.
You're right that Michigan has had 10 or 15 better seasons than this one in its history; in fact it may be more than 15. However, the vast majority of these seasons took place when Harvard, Yale and Army were still national powers and the sport was in its relative infancy.
Bo Schembechler never won a national championship and only had one team ranked higher than third in the final AP poll. His Bowl record at Michigan was 5-12.
This year's Michigan team won their first conference championship in 17 years. This will be their highest final AP poll ranking in 24 years.
Jim Harbaugh's two immediate predecessors complied a 46-42 overall record (24-32 in conference.) Harbaugh has recorded a 61-24 overall record (42-17 in conference.)
Michigan is an iconic program and one of the most important programs historically, which is perhaps why fans overestimate their actual performance in the game's modern era, which is far from elite. This year's performance in the context of 1950 through the present is outstanding. Of course it's your right to be disappointed and call it merely "good" but that doesn't square with the bar that's been set over the last 70+ years. Expecting Michigan to be the best program in the country now because it was a dominant team through 1925 is a real reach. They do have the most wins in history but lag way behind at least a dozen programs in the modern era - reaching the semifinal game and finishing third in the final poll are "great" accomplishments relative to the actual standard they've set in the non-leather helmet era.
(01-01-2022, 04:53 PM)Farm93 Wrote: Michigan is THE winningest program in college football, so a season without a bowl game win is not a great season. Lots of Michigan seasons simply have been much better. Yes, after more than a decade of far below average seasons this good season feels great, but in historic terms this simply isn't one of Michigan's 10 or 15 best seasons. Therefore, IMHO merely good.
You have mentioned in several posts that Michigan is "THE" winningest program in college football, as the rationale for why reaching the national semifinal game (as champion of the second best conference in the country) should be categorized as merely "good" and not "great".
It's true that Michigan has won the most games in the sport's history, owing to the fact that they've played the most games in the sport's history. Alabama, Ohio State and Notre Dame all have slightly higher all-time winning percentages.
Nevertheless, Michigan indeed has one of the game's highest winning percentages (73%). However, their best period took place over a century ago. Their record in the 19th century was 98-31 and then Fielding Yost became coach in 1901 and promptly began his tenure by going 43-0. He retired in 1925 with a record of 165-29. Without question Michigan was one of the most dominant teams of the 19th century and first quarter of the 20th century.
This season it is likely that Michigan will finish third in the AP poll, given that #4 Cincinnati was blown out in their semifinal and #5 Notre Dame also lost. #6 Ohio State won but it seems unlikely they will jump Michigan for obvious reasons.
Since the inception of the AP poll (in 1938) Michigan has finished in the top three of the AP poll 8 times (first twice, second twice, third four times.) So in the last 84 seasons Michigan has had four finishes better than their projected finish this year. Four of those top-three finishes took place between 1940 and 1948; thus in the last 73 seasons Michigan has won a single (1) national championship and has finished in the top three of the AP poll 4 times (first once, second once, third twice). So Michigan has had two finishes better than this season's projected finish in roughly the last three quarters of a century.
You're right that Michigan has had 10 or 15 better seasons than this one in its history; in fact it may be more than 15. However, the vast majority of these seasons took place when Harvard, Yale and Army were still national powers and the sport was in its relative infancy.
Bo Schembechler never won a national championship and only had one team ranked higher than third in the final AP poll. His Bowl record at Michigan was 5-12.
This year's Michigan team won their first conference championship in 17 years. This will be their highest final AP poll ranking in 24 years.
Jim Harbaugh's two immediate predecessors complied a 46-42 overall record (24-32 in conference.) Harbaugh has recorded a 61-24 overall record (42-17 in conference.)
Michigan is an iconic program and one of the most important programs historically, which is perhaps why fans overestimate their actual performance in the game's modern era, which is far from elite. This year's performance in the context of 1950 through the present is outstanding. Of course it's your right to be disappointed and call it merely "good" but that doesn't square with the bar that's been set over the last 70+ years. Expecting Michigan to be the best program in the country now because it was a dominant team through 1925 is a real reach. They do have the most wins in history but lag way behind at least a dozen programs in the modern era - reaching the semifinal game and finishing third in the final poll are "great" accomplishments relative to the actual standard they've set in the non-leather helmet era.
01-01-2022, 10:30 PM
(01-01-2022, 04:53 PM)Farm93 Wrote:(12-31-2021, 10:55 PM)teejers1 Wrote:Michigan is THE winningest program in college football, so a season without a bowl game win is not a great season. Lots of Michigan seasons simply have been much better. Yes, after more than a decade of far below average seasons this good season feels great, but in historic terms this simply isn't one of Michigan's 10 or 15 best seasons. Therefore, IMHO merely good.(12-31-2021, 09:27 PM)Farm93 Wrote: Finally got a conference title and beat tOSU, so after a few days they will realize that's not all that bad. A good season, but not a great season.
CFP, in 4-team format, is not a "great" season? Are you serious?
And btw, we don't even have a "good" season - by your definition - on our horizon.
But of course no talk about Shaw's job security, right?
And that's without factoring in the reality that they didn't just lose the bowl game, they were crushed.
Just different standards for different programs. The Cubs get into the playoffs then that's a great season. If the Yankees don't win the World Series, it simply can't be a great season...for their fans.
Back to Stanford...Shaw has coached Stanford to 3 of its 15 best seasons. Shaw definitely has had two of Stanford's greatest seasons. And THAT is job security, at least for a bit longer. For me his job security is tied to a brutal reality that the Pac-12 is not a desirable destination for fame and prestige right now. When Shaw leaves I am confident (fearful) that the next coach will regress towards our historic mean and will depart if they ever get an 8-4 or better season. Therefore I am all in on hoping Shaw fixes the problems as the Pac-12 coaching shuffle is a tough way to compete given our academic requirements, the NIL and the evolving use of the transfer portal.
Besides Shaw won't be fired before Haase IMHO. Until Muir has the courage to terminate Haase, a coach that has accomplished so little, there is no way Shaw will be fired. But I know folks love to complain and there is no doubt 2021 was not a great season. It's all good. Haters gonna hate even if they are hating on the winningest coach in the history of Stanford football.
Winningest coach in Stanford history and the guy driving the program into oblivion. Quite the double-whammy.
BTW, assuming your definition of "historic mean" is somewhere around .500 (5-7, 6-6, 7-5), well, we were not there in 2021.
Do you expect Stanford to be at historic mean next season?
Maybe I'm unduly jaded by the last 4 games of 2021, but that seems like a pretty tall order.
The O could be good, taking into account systemic limitations; however, the front 7 looks . . . well . . . dubious.
Can you be a .500 team if you have no ability to stop the run?
P.S. I agree that Shaw won't be fired before Haase . . . or ever. Certainly not by Muir (he's the guy who inked him to the significant extension and pay bump).
P.P.S. Great post by DC 86 on Michigan's historic (and current) place in college football world.
(01-01-2022, 04:53 PM)Farm93 Wrote:(12-31-2021, 10:55 PM)teejers1 Wrote:Michigan is THE winningest program in college football, so a season without a bowl game win is not a great season. Lots of Michigan seasons simply have been much better. Yes, after more than a decade of far below average seasons this good season feels great, but in historic terms this simply isn't one of Michigan's 10 or 15 best seasons. Therefore, IMHO merely good.(12-31-2021, 09:27 PM)Farm93 Wrote: Finally got a conference title and beat tOSU, so after a few days they will realize that's not all that bad. A good season, but not a great season.
CFP, in 4-team format, is not a "great" season? Are you serious?
And btw, we don't even have a "good" season - by your definition - on our horizon.
But of course no talk about Shaw's job security, right?
And that's without factoring in the reality that they didn't just lose the bowl game, they were crushed.
Just different standards for different programs. The Cubs get into the playoffs then that's a great season. If the Yankees don't win the World Series, it simply can't be a great season...for their fans.
Back to Stanford...Shaw has coached Stanford to 3 of its 15 best seasons. Shaw definitely has had two of Stanford's greatest seasons. And THAT is job security, at least for a bit longer. For me his job security is tied to a brutal reality that the Pac-12 is not a desirable destination for fame and prestige right now. When Shaw leaves I am confident (fearful) that the next coach will regress towards our historic mean and will depart if they ever get an 8-4 or better season. Therefore I am all in on hoping Shaw fixes the problems as the Pac-12 coaching shuffle is a tough way to compete given our academic requirements, the NIL and the evolving use of the transfer portal.
Besides Shaw won't be fired before Haase IMHO. Until Muir has the courage to terminate Haase, a coach that has accomplished so little, there is no way Shaw will be fired. But I know folks love to complain and there is no doubt 2021 was not a great season. It's all good. Haters gonna hate even if they are hating on the winningest coach in the history of Stanford football.
Winningest coach in Stanford history and the guy driving the program into oblivion. Quite the double-whammy.
BTW, assuming your definition of "historic mean" is somewhere around .500 (5-7, 6-6, 7-5), well, we were not there in 2021.
Do you expect Stanford to be at historic mean next season?
Maybe I'm unduly jaded by the last 4 games of 2021, but that seems like a pretty tall order.
The O could be good, taking into account systemic limitations; however, the front 7 looks . . . well . . . dubious.
Can you be a .500 team if you have no ability to stop the run?
P.S. I agree that Shaw won't be fired before Haase . . . or ever. Certainly not by Muir (he's the guy who inked him to the significant extension and pay bump).
P.P.S. Great post by DC 86 on Michigan's historic (and current) place in college football world.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »