Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board

BobcatAttack.com Message Board
Ohio Football
Topic:  RE: It's over

Topic:  RE: It's over
Author
Message
Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 7,358

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/15/2020 9:56:18 AM 
OhioBobcat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BSU will be without its best RB when they play for the MACC Friday night. He's opted out to get ready for the NFL draft. https://www.themorningsun.com/sports/ball-states-top-runn...

At least four teams with .500+ records -- BC, Pitt, UVA and Stanford -- have voted not to accept bowl bids.

Looks like a lot of people have had enough of this season.


I'm somewhat baffled schools are even wanting to play in the small bowls this year. Why??? They're no more than glorified scrimmages anyway and hardly anyone cares about them in normal years let alone this season. Play all the conference championships, then let the big boys play the major bowls and playoffs and call it a wrap.


As far as the MAC is concerned I can see why the divisional champs would go to a bowl, especially Buffalo if they win the MACCG. They would be undefeated and ranked in the AP/USAT polls. Otherwise, it's not really worth the time or expenditures. And even at this late date the odds of some of these bowl games getting cancelled are pretty good. Buffalo, BSU and WMU are probably the only three MAC teams that any bowl will look at anyhow.


We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Back to Top
  
Buckeye to Bobcat
General User

Member Since: 9/10/2013
Post Count: 1,560

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/17/2020 8:31:57 AM 
At this point, if a bowl game is willing to pay for us to go I'd take it. Potential extra practices and here's the other catch: if the other team cancels, offer to host a scrimmage for the bowl game between your first team and second team. Treat it like a game and get it on TV. Might as well embrace the extra practices, especially if it's only your team getting COVID or whatnot.
Back to Top
  
Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 7,358

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/17/2020 10:25:39 AM 
Buckeye to Bobcat wrote:
At this point, if a bowl game is willing to pay for us to go I'd take it. Potential extra practices and here's the other catch: if the other team cancels, offer to host a scrimmage for the bowl game between your first team and second team. Treat it like a game and get it on TV. Might as well embrace the extra practices, especially if it's only your team getting COVID or whatnot.


Unfortunately, we'd get only an ESPN bowl and ESPN (or any other network, for that matter) isn't interested in televising an Ohio scrimmage game. Instead, if a team cancels, ESPN tries to move the other team to another bowl. When SMU dropped out of the Frisco Bowl, ESPN cancelled that bowl and moved the opposing team (UTSA) to the First Responders Bowl. This is all probably academic anyway. We're pretty far down on anybody's list for a bowl bid.


We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Back to Top
  
cbus cat fan
General User

Member Since: 12/2/2011
Post Count: 987

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/18/2020 8:15:24 PM 
If this were an Olympic event, the MAC, Big Ten and PAC 12 would be competing for a gold medal in buffoonery. I really don't care about the Big Ten and The Pac 12 being set back by their mistakes, but the MAC can ill afford this type of ineptness. Meanwhile the ACC's medical professionals recommendations (primarily Duke I assume) was able to get pretty much a regular schedule completed. This could set us back when we could ill afford it. With out enrollment numbers going down, financials not looking good, and now this debacle, this has hardly been a banner year for our beloved Alma mater!
Back to Top
  
bobcatsquared
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,172

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/18/2020 8:28:44 PM 
cbus cat fan wrote:
If this were an Olympic event, the MAC, Big Ten and PAC 12 would be competing for a gold medal in buffoonery. I really don't care about the Big Ten and The Pac 12 being set back by their mistakes, but the MAC can ill afford this type of ineptness. Meanwhile the ACC's medical professionals recommendations (primarily Duke I assume) was able to get pretty much a regular schedule completed. This could set us back when we could ill afford it. With out enrollment numbers going down, financials not looking good, and now this debacle, this has hardly been a banner year for our beloved Alma mater!


Handled poorly at almost all levels in this country, starting at the top.
Back to Top
  
Mark Lembright '85
General User

Member Since: 8/22/2010
Location: Lyndhurst, OH
Post Count: 2,385

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/18/2020 9:27:08 PM 
Sometimes I think we infer too much importance to OUr alma mater or OUr conference when it comes to football. When we look back on 2020, the last thing people will think about is how the MAC handled football.

Good grief people. Some perspective. On a good day no one cares about MAC football. During a pandemic, even less.
Back to Top
  
Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 7,358

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/18/2020 10:13:09 PM 
Mark Lembright '85 wrote:
Sometimes I think we infer too much importance to OUr alma mater or OUr conference when it comes to football. When we look back on 2020, the last thing people will think about is how the MAC handled football.

Good grief people. Some perspective. On a good day no one cares about MAC football. During a pandemic, even less.


Agreed. The MAC is merely an after-thought for about 99% of football fans. I think more people will be upset about the clusterf*ck that some teams and conferences made of their schedules this year (the Sun Belt had to cancel its championship game with Coastal at 11-0 and in the top ten of the CFP), that Cincy might go 9-0 and not even be close to making a playoff, and that teams with really poor records might go to bowl games (Palm has 2-7 Baylor and 2-8 South Carolina playing bowl games). How the MAC handled this season is important to us now because it's our conference. But the MAC is probably 9th best out of the ten 1A conferences, and maybe 10th. What the conference is giving right now is a very entertaining nationally televised championship game that looks like nationally ranked Buffalo may get its head handed to it. And if the pandemic is under control by next fall, most of us will be just glad that some semblance of normalcy is returning to even think about this season.


We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Back to Top
  
Jeff McKinney
Moderator

Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 5,088

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/18/2020 10:59:50 PM 
I know the MAC is way down the FBS food chain, but the midweek ESPN games have helped gain the league exposure. So I wouldn't say 99% of fans don't care at all about the MAC.
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 10,879

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/18/2020 11:11:59 PM 
Jeff McKinney wrote:
I know the MAC is way down the FBS food chain, but the midweek ESPN games have helped gain the league exposure. So I wouldn't say 99% of fans don't care at all about the MAC.


I agree, Jeff. And, that Ball State-Beefs game was really an interesting game to watch. I suspect that it gained the MAC few more fans. It was a better game to watch than the C-USA championship game that was on at the same time, though it was on a better network, IMHO.


"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,870

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/19/2020 10:27:30 AM 
Jeff McKinney wrote:
I know the MAC is way down the FBS food chain, but the midweek ESPN games have helped gain the league exposure. So I wouldn't say 99% of fans don't care at all about the MAC.


Agree that 99% is an overstatement, but I think the overall point of the post stands. Nothing about his the MAC handled this college football season is really registering nationally in any meaningful way, and this will have no demonstrable impact on the future prospects of Ohio University.

Back to Top
  
cbus cat fan
General User

Member Since: 12/2/2011
Post Count: 987

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/19/2020 11:09:20 AM 
My earlier post wasn't so much about football, but about the ineptness of the conference which is a reflection on the its member universities. This is why the ACC, through it's medical expertise (Duke's medical professionals) seemed to be the gold standard with regard to athletics and in person instruction. The virus spreads in college campuses through close contact at parties, primarily in off campus housing. There is hardly any medical examples of the virus spreading in classrooms. Even restaurants and bars have spread rates that are in the single digits.

For example, when Ohio State had to shut down their practices due to positive cases, I have been told this was due to third string players going to parites (thinking they were never going to play anyway) and then spreading it to starters when in close contact in training facilities. I assume this was probably the case in most programs.

The college landscape (enrollment, financials) is going through a seismic shift. It didn't start with the virus, as we have discussed in other posts. However, the virus was the lightning strike that ignited the dry tinder. We have to realize that everything the university does, be it athletics, marketing, demographic research etc is a reflection on the university. We don't have much room for error considering our enrollment decline, financials, and our seeming lack of leadership from top university officals.
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 6,308

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/19/2020 11:23:47 AM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
Jeff McKinney wrote:
I know the MAC is way down the FBS food chain, but the midweek ESPN games have helped gain the league exposure. So I wouldn't say 99% of fans don't care at all about the MAC.


I agree, Jeff. And, that Ball State-Beefs game was really an interesting game to watch. I suspect that it gained the MAC few more fans. It was a better game to watch than the C-USA championship game that was on at the same time, though it was on a better network, IMHO.


I had to turn it off. The flying helmet graphic between just about every play got old real quick.

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 6,826

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/20/2020 5:59:15 AM 
cbus cat fan wrote:
My earlier post wasn't so much about football, but about the ineptness of the conference which is a reflection on the its member universities. This is why the ACC, through it's medical expertise (Duke's medical professionals) seemed to be the gold standard with regard to athletics and in person instruction. The virus spreads in college campuses through close contact at parties, primarily in off campus housing. There is hardly any medical examples of the virus spreading in classrooms. Even restaurants and bars have spread rates that are in the single digits.

For example, when Ohio State had to shut down their practices due to positive cases, I have been told this was due to third string players going to parites (thinking they were never going to play anyway) and then spreading it to starters when in close contact in training facilities. I assume this was probably the case in most programs.

The college landscape (enrollment, financials) is going through a seismic shift. It didn't start with the virus, as we have discussed in other posts. However, the virus was the lightning strike that ignited the dry tinder. We have to realize that everything the university does, be it athletics, marketing, demographic research etc is a reflection on the university. We don't have much room for error considering our enrollment decline, financials, and our seeming lack of leadership from top university officals.


Lack of leadership? How do we have lack of leadership when we are rewarding employees for staying with 6 figure longevity bonuses. 😎
Back to Top
  
Club Hyatt
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 4,080

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/20/2020 11:15:29 AM 
Jeff McKinney wrote:
I know the MAC is way down the FBS food chain, but the midweek ESPN games have helped gain the league exposure. So I wouldn't say 99% of fans don't care at all about the MAC.


I'd say its more different approaches to football than like full NCAA-NAIA food chain where it all flows downstream.

SEC level where the donors have all the power and football is everything.

AAC level where its spending as much as possible to appear elite.

MAC level where keeping costs in check is the priority but investing enough to attract quality D1 coaches.

At one time it was desirable to step up to the next level. Now its financially suicidal to do so. Its not needed to get on TV and gain exposure for the university. In fact if you do move up the likelihood of TV reduces because you are buried further in the standings.

I'd be more bitter to be at the AAC level spending big when ultimately you'll lose that staff to bigger programs.


Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended
2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round
2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl
2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086

Back to Top
  
Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 7,358

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/20/2020 11:44:55 AM 
Club Hyatt wrote:
Jeff McKinney wrote:
I know the MAC is way down the FBS food chain, but the midweek ESPN games have helped gain the league exposure. So I wouldn't say 99% of fans don't care at all about the MAC.


I'd say its more different approaches to football than like full NCAA-NAIA food chain where it all flows downstream.

SEC level where the donors have all the power and football is everything.

AAC level where its spending as much as possible to appear elite.

MAC level where keeping costs in check is the priority but investing enough to attract quality D1 coaches.

At one time it was desirable to step up to the next level. Now its financially suicidal to do so. Its not needed to get on TV and gain exposure for the university. In fact if you do move up the likelihood of TV reduces because you are buried further in the standings.

I'd be more bitter to be at the AAC level spending big when ultimately you'll lose that staff to bigger programs.


I didn't mean that 99% don't care about MAC football, only that what the MAC does administratively isn't really a topic of anyone's conversations outside the MAC boards. The administrative stuff just doesn't get noticed unless there's a big controversy, such as cancelling the season then coming back with a six-game schedule.

As for the AAC, I think what's really galling for them is that they spend all that money in the hopes of making it a "Power 6" conference but it still doesn't get the respect from the pollsters and the committee. Cincy finishes 9-0 but can't crack the top five in any poll and winds up behind two or three one-loss "P" teams. From top to bottom, the AAC would stack up well with most of the "P" conferences. Maybe they need to schedule an AAC/"P" challenge where each team plays a team that finished in a similar position in two or three "P" conferences.


We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 6,826

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/20/2020 12:34:27 PM 
Sorry, just canít get into the UC thing, especially with zero non-league games. The AAC is not a great conference, yes they are undefeated, but the CFP is about the best teams, and not just good records. Luke is a great guy and doing a great job, and as they continue to build, they may break that barrier, but just going undefeated should not automatically get you a seat at the table.
Back to Top
  
Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 7,358

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/20/2020 4:00:06 PM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
Sorry, just canít get into the UC thing, especially with zero non-league games. The AAC is not a great conference, yes they are undefeated, but the CFP is about the best teams, and not just good records. Luke is a great guy and doing a great job, and as they continue to build, they may break that barrier, but just going undefeated should not automatically get you a seat at the table.


FTR, Cincy did play two OOC games -- Austin Peay and a very good Army team. On the other hand, O$U played zero OOC games and their B10 schedule featured Rutgers, Nebraska, PSU and MSU, all of which had lousy seasons and would probably have a difficult time vs any AAC team except maybe USF or Temple. O$U beat ONE team with a winning record during the regular season -- IU. Cincy played and beat five teams that had winning records, and beat them by at least two TDs, except for yesterday's Tulsa game. Cincy beat three teams that were ranked when they played (Army, SMU and Tulsa) while O$U beat only two (IU and NWern). Penn St was ranked the first week of play but quickly faded. Further, the CFP really isn't about the best teams getting in; it's about the four teams that the committee, in its extremely biased view, want in. That's why Bama gets in about every year, even when they don't play for the SEC championship.

Last Edited: 12/20/2020 4:03:39 PM by Pataskala


We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Back to Top
  
Club Hyatt
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 4,080

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/20/2020 4:30:35 PM 
Pataskala wrote:
Club Hyatt wrote:
Jeff McKinney wrote:
I know the MAC is way down the FBS food chain, but the midweek ESPN games have helped gain the league exposure. So I wouldn't say 99% of fans don't care at all about the MAC.


I'd say its more different approaches to football than like full NCAA-NAIA food chain where it all flows downstream.

SEC level where the donors have all the power and football is everything.

AAC level where its spending as much as possible to appear elite.

MAC level where keeping costs in check is the priority but investing enough to attract quality D1 coaches.

At one time it was desirable to step up to the next level. Now its financially suicidal to do so. Its not needed to get on TV and gain exposure for the university. In fact if you do move up the likelihood of TV reduces because you are buried further in the standings.

I'd be more bitter to be at the AAC level spending big when ultimately you'll lose that staff to bigger programs.


I didn't mean that 99% don't care about MAC football, only that what the MAC does administratively isn't really a topic of anyone's conversations outside the MAC boards. The administrative stuff just doesn't get noticed unless there's a big controversy, such as cancelling the season then coming back with a six-game schedule.

As for the AAC, I think what's really galling for them is that they spend all that money in the hopes of making it a "Power 6" conference but it still doesn't get the respect from the pollsters and the committee. Cincy finishes 9-0 but can't crack the top five in any poll and winds up behind two or three one-loss "P" teams. From top to bottom, the AAC would stack up well with most of the "P" conferences. Maybe they need to schedule an AAC/"P" challenge where each team plays a team that finished in a similar position in two or three "P" conferences.


That could help but in general once you get outside the Top 20 programs or so in the P5 where recruiting a heisman is realistic there is no point to the massive spending.

Again I'd be more bitter as an also ran in the SEC or AAC having to pay the coaches $4,000,000 and buy them out for $10,000,000 when they fail just because that is what everyone else in the conference is doing.


Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended
2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round
2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl
2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 6,826

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/21/2020 8:10:42 AM 
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Sorry, just canít get into the UC thing, especially with zero non-league games. The AAC is not a great conference, yes they are undefeated, but the CFP is about the best teams, and not just good records. Luke is a great guy and doing a great job, and as they continue to build, they may break that barrier, but just going undefeated should not automatically get you a seat at the table.


FTR, Cincy did play two OOC games -- Austin Peay and a very good Army team. On the other hand, O$U played zero OOC games and their B10 schedule featured Rutgers, Nebraska, PSU and MSU, all of which had lousy seasons and would probably have a difficult time vs any AAC team except maybe USF or Temple. O$U beat ONE team with a winning record during the regular season -- IU. Cincy played and beat five teams that had winning records, and beat them by at least two TDs, except for yesterday's Tulsa game. Cincy beat three teams that were ranked when they played (Army, SMU and Tulsa) while O$U beat only two (IU and NWern). Penn St was ranked the first week of play but quickly faded. Further, the CFP really isn't about the best teams getting in; it's about the four teams that the committee, in its extremely biased view, want in. That's why Bama gets in about every year, even when they don't play for the SEC championship.



Based on what objective data do you have that says UC is better than any of the 4 teams? I like how you quickly just go towards OSU. Sorry, the AAC is not that good of a conference. Just because you go undefeated in a bad conference does not give you a ticket as the top 4 schools.

They beat Army in week 2 when the Big10 and PAC10 were not even playing. They were ranked #22 Army played 3 FCS schools in their 9 wins!

Last Edited: 12/21/2020 8:14:44 AM by BillyTheCat

Back to Top
  
Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 7,358

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/21/2020 10:55:02 AM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Sorry, just canít get into the UC thing, especially with zero non-league games. The AAC is not a great conference, yes they are undefeated, but the CFP is about the best teams, and not just good records. Luke is a great guy and doing a great job, and as they continue to build, they may break that barrier, but just going undefeated should not automatically get you a seat at the table.


FTR, Cincy did play two OOC games -- Austin Peay and a very good Army team. On the other hand, O$U played zero OOC games and their B10 schedule featured Rutgers, Nebraska, PSU and MSU, all of which had lousy seasons and would probably have a difficult time vs any AAC team except maybe USF or Temple. O$U beat ONE team with a winning record during the regular season -- IU. Cincy played and beat five teams that had winning records, and beat them by at least two TDs, except for yesterday's Tulsa game. Cincy beat three teams that were ranked when they played (Army, SMU and Tulsa) while O$U beat only two (IU and NWern). Penn St was ranked the first week of play but quickly faded. Further, the CFP really isn't about the best teams getting in; it's about the four teams that the committee, in its extremely biased view, want in. That's why Bama gets in about every year, even when they don't play for the SEC championship.



Based on what objective data do you have that says UC is better than any of the 4 teams? I like how you quickly just go towards OSU. Sorry, the AAC is not that good of a conference. Just because you go undefeated in a bad conference does not give you a ticket as the top 4 schools.

They beat Army in week 2 when the Big10 and PAC10 were not even playing. They were ranked #22 Army played 3 FCS schools in their 9 wins!


And what objective criteria are there that says any of the four teams is better than UC? None. It's strictly the subjective opinions of the selection committee, at least eleven of whom have ties to "P" schools. Only the Wyoming and Ark St ADs currently represent G5 schools. The only objective criteria would be based on head-to-head competition, which didn't happen this year and will get scarcer as the "P"s are pressured into playing other "P"s OOC.


We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 6,826

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/21/2020 11:54:31 AM 
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Sorry, just canít get into the UC thing, especially with zero non-league games. The AAC is not a great conference, yes they are undefeated, but the CFP is about the best teams, and not just good records. Luke is a great guy and doing a great job, and as they continue to build, they may break that barrier, but just going undefeated should not automatically get you a seat at the table.


FTR, Cincy did play two OOC games -- Austin Peay and a very good Army team. On the other hand, O$U played zero OOC games and their B10 schedule featured Rutgers, Nebraska, PSU and MSU, all of which had lousy seasons and would probably have a difficult time vs any AAC team except maybe USF or Temple. O$U beat ONE team with a winning record during the regular season -- IU. Cincy played and beat five teams that had winning records, and beat them by at least two TDs, except for yesterday's Tulsa game. Cincy beat three teams that were ranked when they played (Army, SMU and Tulsa) while O$U beat only two (IU and NWern). Penn St was ranked the first week of play but quickly faded. Further, the CFP really isn't about the best teams getting in; it's about the four teams that the committee, in its extremely biased view, want in. That's why Bama gets in about every year, even when they don't play for the SEC championship.



Based on what objective data do you have that says UC is better than any of the 4 teams? I like how you quickly just go towards OSU. Sorry, the AAC is not that good of a conference. Just because you go undefeated in a bad conference does not give you a ticket as the top 4 schools.

They beat Army in week 2 when the Big10 and PAC10 were not even playing. They were ranked #22 Army played 3 FCS schools in their 9 wins!


And what objective criteria are there that says any of the four teams is better than UC? None. It's strictly the subjective opinions of the selection committee, at least eleven of whom have ties to "P" schools. Only the Wyoming and Ark St ADs currently represent G5 schools. The only objective criteria would be based on head-to-head competition, which didn't happen this year and will get scarcer as the "P"s are pressured into playing other "P"s OOC.


Let's start with Strength of schedule by school.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/sch...

Power rankings, whatever metric you want to go by.

Do you really believe if a MAC team goes 12-0 they should be a top 4 play-off team?
Back to Top
  
Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 7,358

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/21/2020 1:03:01 PM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Sorry, just canít get into the UC thing, especially with zero non-league games. The AAC is not a great conference, yes they are undefeated, but the CFP is about the best teams, and not just good records. Luke is a great guy and doing a great job, and as they continue to build, they may break that barrier, but just going undefeated should not automatically get you a seat at the table.


FTR, Cincy did play two OOC games -- Austin Peay and a very good Army team. On the other hand, O$U played zero OOC games and their B10 schedule featured Rutgers, Nebraska, PSU and MSU, all of which had lousy seasons and would probably have a difficult time vs any AAC team except maybe USF or Temple. O$U beat ONE team with a winning record during the regular season -- IU. Cincy played and beat five teams that had winning records, and beat them by at least two TDs, except for yesterday's Tulsa game. Cincy beat three teams that were ranked when they played (Army, SMU and Tulsa) while O$U beat only two (IU and NWern). Penn St was ranked the first week of play but quickly faded. Further, the CFP really isn't about the best teams getting in; it's about the four teams that the committee, in its extremely biased view, want in. That's why Bama gets in about every year, even when they don't play for the SEC championship.



Based on what objective data do you have that says UC is better than any of the 4 teams? I like how you quickly just go towards OSU. Sorry, the AAC is not that good of a conference. Just because you go undefeated in a bad conference does not give you a ticket as the top 4 schools.

They beat Army in week 2 when the Big10 and PAC10 were not even playing. They were ranked #22 Army played 3 FCS schools in their 9 wins!


And what objective criteria are there that says any of the four teams is better than UC? None. It's strictly the subjective opinions of the selection committee, at least eleven of whom have ties to "P" schools. Only the Wyoming and Ark St ADs currently represent G5 schools. The only objective criteria would be based on head-to-head competition, which didn't happen this year and will get scarcer as the "P"s are pressured into playing other "P"s OOC.


Let's start with Strength of schedule by school.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/sch...

Power rankings, whatever metric you want to go by.

Do you really believe if a MAC team goes 12-0 they should be a top 4 play-off team?


SOS assumes that "P" teams are better than G5 teams. It's based on who they play and if they play "P" teams vs G5 teams. It's subjective as hell, especially in years where few or no OOC games are played.

And we're not talking about a hypothetical MAC team. We're talking about an actual Cincy team that ran the table against some very good competition this year, and mostly by impressive margins. Nevertheless, if a MAC team were to beat three or four ranked teams and go unbeaten in the MAC by substantial margins, then yes, they should get consideration. But under the current system they don't because the committee considers all G5 teams to be inferior to all "P" teams.

Clemson played The Citadel plus mostly mediocre ACC teams. They were 2-1 vs ranked teams, but nobody questions why they're in.

Notre Dame played a bad USF team plus a similar bunch of mediocre ACC teams. They also were 2-1 vs ranked teams.

As we've discussed, O$U played a similarly mediocre schedule.

Bama was 3-0 vs ranked teams and crushed its entire schedule except for Florida. They might be the only one that nobody can argue against being in the playoff.

So, Cincy's credentials this year are at least as good as three of the four teams in the playoff, but the committee ranked them EIGHTH. They need a committee that is less biased toward "P" teams.


We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,870

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/21/2020 5:54:25 PM 
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Sorry, just canít get into the UC thing, especially with zero non-league games. The AAC is not a great conference, yes they are undefeated, but the CFP is about the best teams, and not just good records. Luke is a great guy and doing a great job, and as they continue to build, they may break that barrier, but just going undefeated should not automatically get you a seat at the table.


FTR, Cincy did play two OOC games -- Austin Peay and a very good Army team. On the other hand, O$U played zero OOC games and their B10 schedule featured Rutgers, Nebraska, PSU and MSU, all of which had lousy seasons and would probably have a difficult time vs any AAC team except maybe USF or Temple. O$U beat ONE team with a winning record during the regular season -- IU. Cincy played and beat five teams that had winning records, and beat them by at least two TDs, except for yesterday's Tulsa game. Cincy beat three teams that were ranked when they played (Army, SMU and Tulsa) while O$U beat only two (IU and NWern). Penn St was ranked the first week of play but quickly faded. Further, the CFP really isn't about the best teams getting in; it's about the four teams that the committee, in its extremely biased view, want in. That's why Bama gets in about every year, even when they don't play for the SEC championship.



Based on what objective data do you have that says UC is better than any of the 4 teams? I like how you quickly just go towards OSU. Sorry, the AAC is not that good of a conference. Just because you go undefeated in a bad conference does not give you a ticket as the top 4 schools.

They beat Army in week 2 when the Big10 and PAC10 were not even playing. They were ranked #22 Army played 3 FCS schools in their 9 wins!


And what objective criteria are there that says any of the four teams is better than UC? None. It's strictly the subjective opinions of the selection committee, at least eleven of whom have ties to "P" schools. Only the Wyoming and Ark St ADs currently represent G5 schools. The only objective criteria would be based on head-to-head competition, which didn't happen this year and will get scarcer as the "P"s are pressured into playing other "P"s OOC.


Let's start with Strength of schedule by school.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/sch...

Power rankings, whatever metric you want to go by.

Do you really believe if a MAC team goes 12-0 they should be a top 4 play-off team?


SOS assumes that "P" teams are better than G5 teams. It's based on who they play and if they play "P" teams vs G5 teams. It's subjective as hell, especially in years where few or no OOC games are played.

And we're not talking about a hypothetical MAC team. We're talking about an actual Cincy team that ran the table against some very good competition this year, and mostly by impressive margins. Nevertheless, if a MAC team were to beat three or four ranked teams and go unbeaten in the MAC by substantial margins, then yes, they should get consideration. But under the current system they don't because the committee considers all G5 teams to be inferior to all "P" teams.


The current system considers all G5 teams inferior to P teams because over the last 20 years:

The MAC is 34-193 against P5 teams.
The Mountain West is 98-239
The Sun Belt is 21-307.
The WAC is 61 - 223.

The current system assumes that because it's true.

(Edit to note that these numbers are from two years ago -- but doubt the winning percentages have moved in any major way.)

Last Edited: 12/21/2020 7:14:29 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 6,308

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/21/2020 8:23:02 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Sorry, just canít get into the UC thing, especially with zero non-league games. The AAC is not a great conference, yes they are undefeated, but the CFP is about the best teams, and not just good records. Luke is a great guy and doing a great job, and as they continue to build, they may break that barrier, but just going undefeated should not automatically get you a seat at the table.


FTR, Cincy did play two OOC games -- Austin Peay and a very good Army team. On the other hand, O$U played zero OOC games and their B10 schedule featured Rutgers, Nebraska, PSU and MSU, all of which had lousy seasons and would probably have a difficult time vs any AAC team except maybe USF or Temple. O$U beat ONE team with a winning record during the regular season -- IU. Cincy played and beat five teams that had winning records, and beat them by at least two TDs, except for yesterday's Tulsa game. Cincy beat three teams that were ranked when they played (Army, SMU and Tulsa) while O$U beat only two (IU and NWern). Penn St was ranked the first week of play but quickly faded. Further, the CFP really isn't about the best teams getting in; it's about the four teams that the committee, in its extremely biased view, want in. That's why Bama gets in about every year, even when they don't play for the SEC championship.



Based on what objective data do you have that says UC is better than any of the 4 teams? I like how you quickly just go towards OSU. Sorry, the AAC is not that good of a conference. Just because you go undefeated in a bad conference does not give you a ticket as the top 4 schools.

They beat Army in week 2 when the Big10 and PAC10 were not even playing. They were ranked #22 Army played 3 FCS schools in their 9 wins!


And what objective criteria are there that says any of the four teams is better than UC? None. It's strictly the subjective opinions of the selection committee, at least eleven of whom have ties to "P" schools. Only the Wyoming and Ark St ADs currently represent G5 schools. The only objective criteria would be based on head-to-head competition, which didn't happen this year and will get scarcer as the "P"s are pressured into playing other "P"s OOC.


Let's start with Strength of schedule by school.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/sch...

Power rankings, whatever metric you want to go by.

Do you really believe if a MAC team goes 12-0 they should be a top 4 play-off team?


SOS assumes that "P" teams are better than G5 teams. It's based on who they play and if they play "P" teams vs G5 teams. It's subjective as hell, especially in years where few or no OOC games are played.

And we're not talking about a hypothetical MAC team. We're talking about an actual Cincy team that ran the table against some very good competition this year, and mostly by impressive margins. Nevertheless, if a MAC team were to beat three or four ranked teams and go unbeaten in the MAC by substantial margins, then yes, they should get consideration. But under the current system they don't because the committee considers all G5 teams to be inferior to all "P" teams.


The current system considers all G5 teams inferior to P teams because over the last 20 years:

The MAC is 34-193 against P5 teams.
The Mountain West is 98-239
The Sun Belt is 21-307.
The WAC is 61 - 223.

The current system assumes that because it's true.

(Edit to note that these numbers are from two years ago -- but doubt the winning percentages have moved in any major way.)


So then why do those four conferences pretend to be "in the game?" It's time to face reality when you are winning at a 15% clip.

Back to Top
  
Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 7,358

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/21/2020 8:56:21 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Sorry, just canít get into the UC thing, especially with zero non-league games. The AAC is not a great conference, yes they are undefeated, but the CFP is about the best teams, and not just good records. Luke is a great guy and doing a great job, and as they continue to build, they may break that barrier, but just going undefeated should not automatically get you a seat at the table.


FTR, Cincy did play two OOC games -- Austin Peay and a very good Army team. On the other hand, O$U played zero OOC games and their B10 schedule featured Rutgers, Nebraska, PSU and MSU, all of which had lousy seasons and would probably have a difficult time vs any AAC team except maybe USF or Temple. O$U beat ONE team with a winning record during the regular season -- IU. Cincy played and beat five teams that had winning records, and beat them by at least two TDs, except for yesterday's Tulsa game. Cincy beat three teams that were ranked when they played (Army, SMU and Tulsa) while O$U beat only two (IU and NWern). Penn St was ranked the first week of play but quickly faded. Further, the CFP really isn't about the best teams getting in; it's about the four teams that the committee, in its extremely biased view, want in. That's why Bama gets in about every year, even when they don't play for the SEC championship.



Based on what objective data do you have that says UC is better than any of the 4 teams? I like how you quickly just go towards OSU. Sorry, the AAC is not that good of a conference. Just because you go undefeated in a bad conference does not give you a ticket as the top 4 schools.

They beat Army in week 2 when the Big10 and PAC10 were not even playing. They were ranked #22 Army played 3 FCS schools in their 9 wins!


And what objective criteria are there that says any of the four teams is better than UC? None. It's strictly the subjective opinions of the selection committee, at least eleven of whom have ties to "P" schools. Only the Wyoming and Ark St ADs currently represent G5 schools. The only objective criteria would be based on head-to-head competition, which didn't happen this year and will get scarcer as the "P"s are pressured into playing other "P"s OOC.


Let's start with Strength of schedule by school.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/sch...

Power rankings, whatever metric you want to go by.

Do you really believe if a MAC team goes 12-0 they should be a top 4 play-off team?


SOS assumes that "P" teams are better than G5 teams. It's based on who they play and if they play "P" teams vs G5 teams. It's subjective as hell, especially in years where few or no OOC games are played.

And we're not talking about a hypothetical MAC team. We're talking about an actual Cincy team that ran the table against some very good competition this year, and mostly by impressive margins. Nevertheless, if a MAC team were to beat three or four ranked teams and go unbeaten in the MAC by substantial margins, then yes, they should get consideration. But under the current system they don't because the committee considers all G5 teams to be inferior to all "P" teams.


The current system considers all G5 teams inferior to P teams because over the last 20 years:

The MAC is 34-193 against P5 teams.
The Mountain West is 98-239
The Sun Belt is 21-307.
The WAC is 61 - 223.

The current system assumes that because it's true.

(Edit to note that these numbers are from two years ago -- but doubt the winning percentages have moved in any major way.)


No. The current system perpetuates the stereotype that NO undefeated G5 team can be better than ANY "P" conference champion because of the biases of the people chosen to sit on the committee. They simply refuse to be open-minded about it.


We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  26 - 50  of 70 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3    Next >
View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



Copyright ©2021 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties