Standings:
1.) Hoying 5-3 (0-2 upset)
2.) Schweinfurth 4-4 (2-0 upset)
2.) Draper 4-4 (0-2 upset)
2.) Seeberg 4-4 (0-2 upset)
What makes a game site turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or is it just born with a heart full of neutrality? This is your semi-periodic reminder that neutral site games are stupid and terrible and should be changed to home-and-aways (or cancelled) whenever possible. Even ESPN isn't buying this "neutral site" garbage, having College Gameday in Fort Worth AT TCU even though the game's being played all of 20 miles away over in Arlington.
#12 Louisiana State Tigers @ #7 Auburn Tigers
Draper: Pump the brakes Buckeye truthers, Joe Burrow was pedestrian at best last week. However, the Tiguhs looked quite good in a route of daU. The defense was phenomenal but Malik Rosier was always butt. Auburn was eh against Washington, but Washington may be pretty good. This is a tough call because I think both of these teams COULD be really good this year, but I'm guessing one will be a mirage (no clue which one). I'll go with the home team in a close one. Honestly, nothing would surprise me in this game (even Coach O suiting up at halftime. LSU: 17 -- Aub: 20
Hoying: How about that LSU defense and the way they totally ground Miami into fine powder? Then they shut out Nobody FCS State and...oh no...this is that Auburn team that beat Washington in a field goal kicking contest...no, no! Get your penalty kick shootout away from my college football! Please, Joe Burrow, get your act together and deliver us from having to hear about "SEC defense" for another year! LSU: 13--Aub: 16
Schweinfurth: I am not sold on either of these teams, but it will eventually sort itself out. Neither sports a great offense (don't hate Joe Burrow fans, but there is a reason he isn't starting at OSU). Auburn can do a little more than manage the game on offense. LSU pretty much does manage the game on offense. That's the difference. Auburn in a close, ugly game. LSU: 10--Aub: 12
Seeberg: Any traditionalists out there? This game should be right up your proverbial alley. Lots of defense, mostly running the ball, and, oddly enough, two respectable quarterbacks in an SEC game (only because they both transferred from out of conference, obviously). Jeauxy Burreaux and Ceaux looked fabulous out of the gate against the U, but I'm still convinced Auburn is the better team despite struggling against Washington. The home-team TIgers stiffened well in the red zone several times, and I expect red zone conversions (or lack thereof) to be key in this one as well. One more touchdown or one less field goal is likely to be the difference here. Tigers win! #hedgingmybets LSU: 16--Aub: 21
#17 Boise State Broncos @ #24 Oklahoma State Cowboys
Draper: Death, taxes, and points by the Pokes. Honestly, I know absolutely nothing about these teams this year but Mike Gundy's offense is always a treat. Another who knows type early season game but those paddles can be intimidating for those who wander into Stillwater. Temperature may still be a factor for teh boys from Boise so go Pokes. BSU: 38 -- OkSt: 41
Hoying: OK, whew, here's some offense to plow my sidewalk. Maybe a bit too much, actually, seeing as how the boys in blue put up 818 yards against UConn last week in one of the most thorough dismantlings in recent memory. The Pokes have been no slouches themselves, transitioning smoothly from the Mason Rudolph era to the age of Taylor Cornelius, but they'll have their hands full keeping up with Brett Rypien and the Broncos. The Playoff committee hates Group of 5 teams, as shown by national champion UCF's woeful #12 finish, but a win over a real live ranked opponent could put Boise State in the conversation. Let's see where this goes. BSU: 41--OkSU: 35
Schweinfurth: Who likes high scoring games with no defense? Okay, I do like to see some high scoring games, but only because the offenses are that good, not because the defenses are inept. This game feels like the latter. This game is essentially Boise State's season as they should roll through their conference. We've all seen what a motivated little school can do against the big boys. I'll keep that trend. This game may last 5 hours. BSU: 52--OkSU: 45
Seeberg: I'll take "games that should be the polar opposite of LSU/Auburn for 400," Alex. The points will be coming fast and furious in this one. Honestly? Kudos to Okie State for scheduling a big boy from the non-big-boy conferences instead of, you know, ducking a home-and-home (cough TCU cough). Unfortunately, the outcome of this game may display why schools are hesitant to schedule such games. The Broncos have played better competition than the Cowboys and beaten them just as badly, if not worse. Get your popcorn and your abacus ready, this one will be fun to watch. BSU: 49--OkSU: 41
#1 Alabama Crimson Tide @ Ole Miss Rebels
Draper: Finally a game I feel comfortable in picking. Bama has looked really good (as per usual). Tua is that high upside high variance type QB that Saban usually prefers to avoid, but he can't avoid the excitement brought to the table. I truly believe that Tua is setting us up for a monster clunker in a game this season....but not today. I have no faith in the Landsharks to touch this Bama defense. Yeah, yeah, it's in the Grove. I don't care. Bama big. Bama: 38 -- Miss: 6
Hoying: This one's only really here because Mississippi is the only team with two wins over the Tide in the playoff era (and darn near a third). Last year, however, Alabama rolled Ole Miss 66-3, and I don't really see a reason why this one should be any different. You could say "same old invincible Bama," and you'd be wrong, because this year they have one of the top passing attacks in the country with Tua Tagovailoa. "Oh, but Ole Miss is averaging over 60 points a game!" you might say. And then I would slap you over the head because that was against Texas Tech and the Little Sisters of the Poor. Alabama has given up 21 points in two games, all in garbage time (yes, against Alabama, the early third quarter is garbage time). Looks like this is one contest in the south that the Rebels won't win. Ala: 45--Miss: 17
Schweinfurth: I'm not gonna say much about this game. Ole Miss isn't the same team that used to be a thorn in Bama's side. Add to that the Crimson Tide Death Machine has restarted using jet fuel and this one gets ugly. Ala: 49--Miss: 6
Seeberg: Honestly, now that 'Bama has an above average offense to go with their always elite defense, it would be borderline insane to pick against them unless they're on the road (check) in a rivalry-type game (check- at least lately as the Rebels have pulled off a couple Ws) against a legitimate top 20 opponent (oops). Two out of three isn't bad, but it also isn't enough. Bama: 38--Miss: 10
#4 THE Ohio State University Buckeyes "vs." Texas Christian Horned Frogs
Draper: OSU has had two nearly flawless tuneup weeks. This game has been circled for awhile as the first 'true test', but I'm not sure it actually is. TCU was extremely boring and blah last week against SMU, but I won't put too much stock in a Thursday night game before their National Championship game. I do remember the Buckeyes in another National Championship game in Arlington recently and their opponent was none too please. Honestly, I feel very comfortable with the Bucks in this game. Yes, TCU is by far the best defense of the young year OSU has faced, but this offense is simply explosive. I don't think the Horned Frogs can stop the 1-2-3 punch of Bosa, Young, and Jones. I'm feeling like TCU will be seeking out the actual Little Sisters of the Poor after this one. OSU: 41 -- TCU: 17
Hoying: In 1957 and 1961, the Buckeyes were crowned national champions. Both years, they played the TCU Horned Frogs. Both years, they failed to defeat the TCU Horned Frogs (lost in 1957, tied in 1961). What connection do those teams have to this Saturday's opponents? None besides the names, really. Far more interesting is the grudge TCU holds against Ohio State for slipping into the #4 spot in the final 2014 playoff rankings. If Florida State could have done the world a favor and lost one of the 10 or so games they trailed by double digits in the second half, this might have been your 2014 national championship. The Horned Frogs have tailed off a little bit since then, while the Buckeyes have gotten...better? This year's squad was touted before the season as Ryan Day's...er...Urban's most talented ever, and they've lived up to their billing so far (other than the defense falling asleep after the rain delay against Oregon State). They'll face a stiff test this weekend, but nothing they can't handle. TCU's a good rushing team (never seems to matter against Ohio State) and they have some talented receivers (more problematic) but I don't think they can slow down Haskins, Weber, Dobbins (suddenly an afterthought) and a stable of receivers that's finally starting to gain some separation downfield. Bucks win comfortably. OSU: 38--TCU: 20
Schweinfurth: Can the 4-2-5 defense stop the Ohio State offense? That is what TCU is trying to figure out. To me it will be hard to stop the Bucks offensive line with a front 6. Watching the O-line last week, the Slobs were pushing Buttergs front 7 back 3 yards before Dobbins or Weber even took a step forward. Yes, TCU is a step up from the previous two teams, but that is crazy. On the other side of the ball, someone needs to declare the Silver Bullet D-Line illegal before Young and Bosa turn a QB into red mist. I'm not going to call this a blowout because TCU has shown the ability to hang around with elite teams. The talent gap is just so large and the entire Buckeye team is motivated and playing at a level we haven't seen since Cardale Jones took the reins in the 2014 B1G Championship game. The Bucks win, but TCU will put a scare into the Bucks for at least 3 quarters. OSU: 42--TCU: 24
Seeberg: Well, both teams have looked very solid against...well, technically against some form of competition, albeit not all that great. The Horned Frogs have athletes everywhere, including last year's thorn in the Buckeyes' side in an elite kick returner. Despite putting up 77 points against Oregon State in a game the Buckeyes could have come close to the century mark had they tried, the Beavers gashed the silver bullets for several big plays, which will have to happen for TCU to hang around. I suspect they will get two or three chunk plays, but the Bucks are too deep, and too good at Jerry World, to let this one slip away. Best part of 3-0 is a chance to go 4-0...here's hoping Haskins is up to the challenge from a solid D. OSU: 38--TCU: 21
Upset Special
Draper: San Diego State over Arizona State
Hoying: Vanderbilt over Notre Dame
Schweinfurth: Iowa St. over Oklahoma
Seeberg: North Texas over Arkansas (On the record: I wanted Draper's pick. Solid choice)
Saturday, September 15, 2018
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Grading the Bucks: Week 2 -- Buttgers
Another solid performance against an inferior opponent. Big strides forward by the D in week 2 over week 1. Not a lot to say, but here we go.
Offense: A
co-MVPs: Dwayne Haskins and Tate Martell
Another fantastic week for the offense with little to complain about. Haskins was nearly perfect....and Martell was perfect. Yes, the opponent was buttgers, but that's still really impressive. I didn't analyze the game that deeply because it was never in doubt, but the good news was there was essentially nothing off script. No surprises and a very solid performance.
Defense: F (I kid)
MVPs: OSU Defensive line
You. Let. Rutgers. Score. WHHHHHHYYY?!?! Yes, I'm joking (although that was the first points the Scarlet Knights have scored on OSU since 2015 -- in garbage time). The defense was fantastic. I'm now ready to buck the narrative that the Clemson D-line is the best in the country. The Buckeyes have the more impressive line in the country (Pro-football Focus agrees). The front four can't be beat, but the secondary will be tested next week.
Special Teams: B
Don't put anyone back to field punts. I've said it for 3 years now, but it's time. No matter who is back there, they are greater threats to fumble than to get a positive outcome (better than 0). It's more likely that bad things happen than good things (and the cost outweighs the benefits). Even the GOAT McCall fumbled. Go 100% safe or at the least, fair catch everything (and find someone that is reliable to catch.
Coaching: A
What is there to say? Another great gameplan and execution.
Overall: A
You did what you were supposed to. Often, lofty expectations aren't met. This time, they were comfortably exceeded.
On to the first real test of the season!
Offense: A
co-MVPs: Dwayne Haskins and Tate Martell
Another fantastic week for the offense with little to complain about. Haskins was nearly perfect....and Martell was perfect. Yes, the opponent was buttgers, but that's still really impressive. I didn't analyze the game that deeply because it was never in doubt, but the good news was there was essentially nothing off script. No surprises and a very solid performance.
Defense: F (I kid)
MVPs: OSU Defensive line
You. Let. Rutgers. Score. WHHHHHHYYY?!?! Yes, I'm joking (although that was the first points the Scarlet Knights have scored on OSU since 2015 -- in garbage time). The defense was fantastic. I'm now ready to buck the narrative that the Clemson D-line is the best in the country. The Buckeyes have the more impressive line in the country (Pro-football Focus agrees). The front four can't be beat, but the secondary will be tested next week.
Special Teams: B
Don't put anyone back to field punts. I've said it for 3 years now, but it's time. No matter who is back there, they are greater threats to fumble than to get a positive outcome (better than 0). It's more likely that bad things happen than good things (and the cost outweighs the benefits). Even the GOAT McCall fumbled. Go 100% safe or at the least, fair catch everything (and find someone that is reliable to catch.
Coaching: A
What is there to say? Another great gameplan and execution.
Overall: A
You did what you were supposed to. Often, lofty expectations aren't met. This time, they were comfortably exceeded.
On to the first real test of the season!
Friday, September 07, 2018
Week 2: Conference game already?
Yes, welcome to college football in 2018, everybody is playing conference games right away. The B1G, however, is smart enough to keep the big boys away from each other too early. I'd be shocked if the Bucks ever play Michigan State, Penn State, or Wisconsin before at least week five.
Not much of a slate this week, but we will make the most of it. And on behalf of your favorite prognosticators, I would like to apologize for the fact that we ALL bought into the Michigan hype again. Harbaugh is literally a .500 coach over the last season and a half, and quite frankly we should have known better.
Standings:
1.) Draper 2-3 (0-1 upset)
1.) Hoying 2-3 (0-1 upset)
3.) Schweinfurth 1-4 (1-0 upset)
3.) Seeberg 1-4 (0-1 upset)
#3 Georgia Bulldogs vs. #24 South Carolina Gamecocks
Draper: An early season clash for the Bulldogs. And a ranked matchup at that! (but should it count?) Does anyone really believe that Will Muschamp's team is any good. Yeah, they made Michigan look incredibly stupid last year in the bowl game, but who doesn't do that? Georgia is still a juggernaut and I don't see them sweating at all, even in Williams-Brice Stadium. UGA: 38--SoCar: 10
Hoying: Just how good has Georgia's recruiting been of late? Can a team really lose a two-headed monster at RB, a Butkus-winning LB, and a first-round OL talent and keep chugging toward a national title? The Dawgs' ceiling remains to be seen, and we're probably not going to get much insight into it from the likes of South Carolina. Or anyone else from the SEC East. Wake me up for the LSU game in October. UGA: 24 -- USC: 13
Schweinfurth: Well last week didn't go so well. Back at it this week. When it comes to this game, which of these two teams as a competent offense, has elite recruiting, and isn't coached by Will Muschamp? That would be Georgia. Muschamp's defense will keep it close for maybe a quarter or two, but the Dawgs are just better. UGA: 35--SCar: 13
Seeberg: Are the Gamecocks for real? We get a pretty good indicator early in the season. Many were surprised that Muschamp got a second SEC gig so quickly after scoring approximately 45 points total in his four seasons in the swamp at UF. That said, he has a lot of returners and has the east-coast USC headed in the right direction. His teams always play solid D which should, combined with the home field, keep this one close, but UGA has too much talent and should pull away late. SC: 16-- UGA: 31
#17 USC Trojans at #10 Stanford Cardinal
Draper: Another game of teams I simply don't care about. Call it East-coast bias, but no one west of the Rockies (or even west of Oklahoma for that matter) is interesting to me at all. The Cardinal are everyone's favorite boring as watching paint dry team until Bryce Love started 80 yard running on everyone's face, but he's been very quiet thus far. SC keeps looking for a 'return to prominence' but I don't know how long that may take (if ever). Still, Stanford is boring and SC can spice things up now and then. Fight On! USC: 28 -- Stan: 24
Hoying: Speaking of losing weapons, USC has had to replace their starting QB (Darnold) and RB (Jones II), whom you probably don't remember from the Cotton Bowl, and LB Uchenna Nwosu, whom you probably do. These teams played to a virtual standstill last December in the Pac-12 Championship, and I expect much the same this time, only with USC feeling the loss of so many key contributors, while the Tree rides the Love train to the head of the Pac-12 title chase (and how empty it looks this year). USC: 24--Stan: 27
Schweinfurth: So, Bryce Love was the Heisman front runner entering the season. It is going to take a lot for Love to get back into contention after those 29 yards last week. The good news for Stanford is that USC lost a TON and their QB should be in high school. While I could see USC pulling the upset here, I just don't see a how they can win on the road with a 17 year old QB. USC is close, but this is not their year. USC: 17--Stan: 24
Seeberg: Has anyone seen Bryce Love? The all-everything Stanford back all but disappeared in a lackluster win over SDSU for the Cardinal last week, piling up a whopping 29 yards on 18 carries (that's a less-than-impressive 1.6 ypc if you were curious). Meanwhile, the Trojans trotted out a true freshman starter who seemed mostly up to the task in their mediocre opener against UNLV. I HAVE to assume the Cardinal were saving their good run stuff for a better game...right? Either way, USC clipped Stanford's wings twice last year, and they should be primed for some payback. Fight on...to an L. USC: 20--Stan: 27
Rutgers Scarlet Knights at #4 THE Ohio State Buckeyes
Draper: Oh, Buttgers, how I've missed you. Anyone remember that Mike Weber guy? He's pretty good, huh? And Haskins looked very nice as well. Does this game mean anything? I'd say yes. The D needs to show that last week's mistakes aren't the normal. Bosa and Young should continue to dominate but the back 7 need to improve. Offensively, it's more of the same. Expect a similar game to last week with (hopefully) fewer points for the bad guys. Buttgers: 17 -- OSU: 62
Hoying: So, the Buckeye offense still works. That's good. And the Buckeye defense...well, perhaps we could optimistically compare them to the 2014 unit that looked a little shaky against Navy, totally lost against Virginia Tech, and then slowly started to suffocate their opponents. Except that the 2014 Buckeye D was still getting used to a new scheme under Chris Ash, and this one is tromping steadily along under the continuous management of Greg Schiano. Hey, speaking of Chris Ash and Greg Schiano, Rutgers is coming to town! The cure for what ails ya (don't tell 2014 Michigan). The Scarlet Knights have probably improved, maybe even posing a Michigan-level threat to the Buckeyes, but come on, it's not going to happen. Nah. No way. Rutgers: 14 -- OSU: 56
Schweinfurth: This is a bit of an odd week. Meyer returned to practice, but that has been the biggest news around this football team. That says a lot about an opponent who hasn't scored a single point against the Buckeyes since 2015 and has been outscored 219- 24 since joining the B1G. Yea, bad. I really enjoyed what I saw out of the Buckeye offense last week. My only gripe would be that Paris Campbell STILL can't read a deep ball. I do think Rutgers will hit a few big plays when the young guys are in. Get the mistakes out now and get them on tap for next week. I'm not sure the Bucks break 50 this week just due to the weather (lots and lots of rain Saturday). Kick back and enjoy the blowout. Rut: 14--OSU: 45
Seeberg: Ok, please read my post last week about how Weber might be better than Dobbins. You're welcome, Buckeye Nation. Now, I also said the back 7 of the D might be in trouble, and without Jordan Fuller at all, and a less-than-100% Tuf Borland there were several gash plays that absolutely cannot continue to happen, particularly with how dominant the front four can be (also, can someone explain to me how Bosa had two sacks, two fumble recoveries, a touchdown, and his Heisman odds went DOWN? Insanity). The last two games between these two conference opponents have been a hilariously combined score of 114-0. It can't get much worse for Rutgers, and it won't, but it will still be a beatdown. Sorry Coach Ash, should've stayed in town. Rut: 13- OSU: 52
Upset Special
Draper: Western Michigan over M!ch!g@n
Hoying: Pitt over Penn State
Schweinfurth: Arizona St. over Michigan State
Seeberg: Nevada over Vanderbilt
Not much of a slate this week, but we will make the most of it. And on behalf of your favorite prognosticators, I would like to apologize for the fact that we ALL bought into the Michigan hype again. Harbaugh is literally a .500 coach over the last season and a half, and quite frankly we should have known better.
Standings:
1.) Draper 2-3 (0-1 upset)
1.) Hoying 2-3 (0-1 upset)
3.) Schweinfurth 1-4 (1-0 upset)
3.) Seeberg 1-4 (0-1 upset)
#3 Georgia Bulldogs vs. #24 South Carolina Gamecocks
Draper: An early season clash for the Bulldogs. And a ranked matchup at that! (but should it count?) Does anyone really believe that Will Muschamp's team is any good. Yeah, they made Michigan look incredibly stupid last year in the bowl game, but who doesn't do that? Georgia is still a juggernaut and I don't see them sweating at all, even in Williams-Brice Stadium. UGA: 38--SoCar: 10
Hoying: Just how good has Georgia's recruiting been of late? Can a team really lose a two-headed monster at RB, a Butkus-winning LB, and a first-round OL talent and keep chugging toward a national title? The Dawgs' ceiling remains to be seen, and we're probably not going to get much insight into it from the likes of South Carolina. Or anyone else from the SEC East. Wake me up for the LSU game in October. UGA: 24 -- USC: 13
Schweinfurth: Well last week didn't go so well. Back at it this week. When it comes to this game, which of these two teams as a competent offense, has elite recruiting, and isn't coached by Will Muschamp? That would be Georgia. Muschamp's defense will keep it close for maybe a quarter or two, but the Dawgs are just better. UGA: 35--SCar: 13
Seeberg: Are the Gamecocks for real? We get a pretty good indicator early in the season. Many were surprised that Muschamp got a second SEC gig so quickly after scoring approximately 45 points total in his four seasons in the swamp at UF. That said, he has a lot of returners and has the east-coast USC headed in the right direction. His teams always play solid D which should, combined with the home field, keep this one close, but UGA has too much talent and should pull away late. SC: 16-- UGA: 31
#17 USC Trojans at #10 Stanford Cardinal
Draper: Another game of teams I simply don't care about. Call it East-coast bias, but no one west of the Rockies (or even west of Oklahoma for that matter) is interesting to me at all. The Cardinal are everyone's favorite boring as watching paint dry team until Bryce Love started 80 yard running on everyone's face, but he's been very quiet thus far. SC keeps looking for a 'return to prominence' but I don't know how long that may take (if ever). Still, Stanford is boring and SC can spice things up now and then. Fight On! USC: 28 -- Stan: 24
Hoying: Speaking of losing weapons, USC has had to replace their starting QB (Darnold) and RB (Jones II), whom you probably don't remember from the Cotton Bowl, and LB Uchenna Nwosu, whom you probably do. These teams played to a virtual standstill last December in the Pac-12 Championship, and I expect much the same this time, only with USC feeling the loss of so many key contributors, while the Tree rides the Love train to the head of the Pac-12 title chase (and how empty it looks this year). USC: 24--Stan: 27
Schweinfurth: So, Bryce Love was the Heisman front runner entering the season. It is going to take a lot for Love to get back into contention after those 29 yards last week. The good news for Stanford is that USC lost a TON and their QB should be in high school. While I could see USC pulling the upset here, I just don't see a how they can win on the road with a 17 year old QB. USC is close, but this is not their year. USC: 17--Stan: 24
Seeberg: Has anyone seen Bryce Love? The all-everything Stanford back all but disappeared in a lackluster win over SDSU for the Cardinal last week, piling up a whopping 29 yards on 18 carries (that's a less-than-impressive 1.6 ypc if you were curious). Meanwhile, the Trojans trotted out a true freshman starter who seemed mostly up to the task in their mediocre opener against UNLV. I HAVE to assume the Cardinal were saving their good run stuff for a better game...right? Either way, USC clipped Stanford's wings twice last year, and they should be primed for some payback. Fight on...to an L. USC: 20--Stan: 27
Rutgers Scarlet Knights at #4 THE Ohio State Buckeyes
Draper: Oh, Buttgers, how I've missed you. Anyone remember that Mike Weber guy? He's pretty good, huh? And Haskins looked very nice as well. Does this game mean anything? I'd say yes. The D needs to show that last week's mistakes aren't the normal. Bosa and Young should continue to dominate but the back 7 need to improve. Offensively, it's more of the same. Expect a similar game to last week with (hopefully) fewer points for the bad guys. Buttgers: 17 -- OSU: 62
Hoying: So, the Buckeye offense still works. That's good. And the Buckeye defense...well, perhaps we could optimistically compare them to the 2014 unit that looked a little shaky against Navy, totally lost against Virginia Tech, and then slowly started to suffocate their opponents. Except that the 2014 Buckeye D was still getting used to a new scheme under Chris Ash, and this one is tromping steadily along under the continuous management of Greg Schiano. Hey, speaking of Chris Ash and Greg Schiano, Rutgers is coming to town! The cure for what ails ya (don't tell 2014 Michigan). The Scarlet Knights have probably improved, maybe even posing a Michigan-level threat to the Buckeyes, but come on, it's not going to happen. Nah. No way. Rutgers: 14 -- OSU: 56
Schweinfurth: This is a bit of an odd week. Meyer returned to practice, but that has been the biggest news around this football team. That says a lot about an opponent who hasn't scored a single point against the Buckeyes since 2015 and has been outscored 219- 24 since joining the B1G. Yea, bad. I really enjoyed what I saw out of the Buckeye offense last week. My only gripe would be that Paris Campbell STILL can't read a deep ball. I do think Rutgers will hit a few big plays when the young guys are in. Get the mistakes out now and get them on tap for next week. I'm not sure the Bucks break 50 this week just due to the weather (lots and lots of rain Saturday). Kick back and enjoy the blowout. Rut: 14--OSU: 45
Seeberg: Ok, please read my post last week about how Weber might be better than Dobbins. You're welcome, Buckeye Nation. Now, I also said the back 7 of the D might be in trouble, and without Jordan Fuller at all, and a less-than-100% Tuf Borland there were several gash plays that absolutely cannot continue to happen, particularly with how dominant the front four can be (also, can someone explain to me how Bosa had two sacks, two fumble recoveries, a touchdown, and his Heisman odds went DOWN? Insanity). The last two games between these two conference opponents have been a hilariously combined score of 114-0. It can't get much worse for Rutgers, and it won't, but it will still be a beatdown. Sorry Coach Ash, should've stayed in town. Rut: 13- OSU: 52
Upset Special
Draper: Western Michigan over M!ch!g@n
Hoying: Pitt over Penn State
Schweinfurth: Arizona St. over Michigan State
Seeberg: Nevada over Vanderbilt
Tuesday, September 04, 2018
Grading the Bucks: Week 1 -- Oregon State
Not bad. Not perfect, but I near perfect game from a coaching standpoint. Game was never really in doubt, but there were some flaws to work on.
Offense: A
Offensive co-MVPs: Dwayne Haskins, Mike Weber
Can't ask much more from the offense. Haskins was nearly flawless in his first start and Weber reminded people that there's more to the backfield than JK. Everything was churning at a high clip. It was weird seeing the receivers run routes and catch passes (I wonder what changed for the receivers...hmmmmm....I wonder....not the QB....something else....). My favorite part of the offense was the emergence of a quick slant game that has been missing for years. Perhaps that was due to JT's skill set and lack of the quick strike (although I thought he was under-utilized in that capacity), but it was nice to see the Bucks carve up a secondary. No real deep game to speak of, but it was totally unnecessary. Honestly, nothing to harp on here. Mack, Hill, and McLaurin stepped up and the backfield got the job done.
Defense: C+
Defensive co-MVPs: Nick Bose, Chase Young
Honestly, this is a dichotomous grading. The line was spectacular (primarily in pass rush). Bosa and Young are going to terrorize QBs all year and Dremont Jones plugs up the middle with style. This unit will contend with Clemson's juggernaut line for title of best D-line throughout the year. Then we get to the back 7....eh.... It wasn't a total loss, but there were some serious problems that need to be fixed ASAP. Yes, Tuf Boreland and Jordan Fuller were out, and there return will help bolster the unit, but the linebackers and DBs simply looked slow (something we've been spoiled with avoiding in the past). The lineabackers haven't been great for year (weird for OSU) but the secondary is essentially all in the NFL now. The biggest concern for me was the lack of initial and closing speed (simply getting beat by an RB on multiple huge runs). Oregon State is a power 5 program...but in name only. They stink. I'm hoping it was the weather delay (very well could be), but it was concerning to me. In addition, the let down before the half (giving up a 3rd and 19 on an obvious draw is inexcusable). The team likely checked out as the game was in hand, but that's a great mistake for coaches to harp on in practice next week.
Special Teams: C
Special Teams MVP: Drue Chrisman
Nice punt (on the only attempt) and no miss kicks...that's good. but........ Another fumble on a punt return. Can. Not. Happen. With this team, I'm essentially to the point at which I don't want to field any kick. It seems like they always want the homerun, rarely get it, and turn the ball over far too often.
Coaching: B+
Coaching co-MVPs: Ryan Day, Brian Hartline
Coach Day stepped into the big time and didn't disappoint. Granted, I think a hippo from the zoo could have coached the team to a win (Brady Hoke available?), but Ryan Day made it look like nothing had changed and kept the train rolling. The playcalling on offense was great (finally throwing vertically?!?!) but the defense looked a little shell-shocked (when Young and Bosa weren't meeting at the QB). Seeing receiver technique, poise, and focus was also a major plus (welcome back Hartline!).
Overall: A-
C'mon, first game jitters happen, and the offense was spectacular. I'm a little hyper-critical of the defense, but the flashes of brilliance up front are going to lead to a lot of exciting plays this season. This is likely one of the most talented teams in the Urban era, but it's going to be a wild ride! Go Bucks!
Offense: A
Offensive co-MVPs: Dwayne Haskins, Mike Weber
Can't ask much more from the offense. Haskins was nearly flawless in his first start and Weber reminded people that there's more to the backfield than JK. Everything was churning at a high clip. It was weird seeing the receivers run routes and catch passes (I wonder what changed for the receivers...hmmmmm....I wonder....not the QB....something else....). My favorite part of the offense was the emergence of a quick slant game that has been missing for years. Perhaps that was due to JT's skill set and lack of the quick strike (although I thought he was under-utilized in that capacity), but it was nice to see the Bucks carve up a secondary. No real deep game to speak of, but it was totally unnecessary. Honestly, nothing to harp on here. Mack, Hill, and McLaurin stepped up and the backfield got the job done.
Defense: C+
Defensive co-MVPs: Nick Bose, Chase Young
Honestly, this is a dichotomous grading. The line was spectacular (primarily in pass rush). Bosa and Young are going to terrorize QBs all year and Dremont Jones plugs up the middle with style. This unit will contend with Clemson's juggernaut line for title of best D-line throughout the year. Then we get to the back 7....eh.... It wasn't a total loss, but there were some serious problems that need to be fixed ASAP. Yes, Tuf Boreland and Jordan Fuller were out, and there return will help bolster the unit, but the linebackers and DBs simply looked slow (something we've been spoiled with avoiding in the past). The lineabackers haven't been great for year (weird for OSU) but the secondary is essentially all in the NFL now. The biggest concern for me was the lack of initial and closing speed (simply getting beat by an RB on multiple huge runs). Oregon State is a power 5 program...but in name only. They stink. I'm hoping it was the weather delay (very well could be), but it was concerning to me. In addition, the let down before the half (giving up a 3rd and 19 on an obvious draw is inexcusable). The team likely checked out as the game was in hand, but that's a great mistake for coaches to harp on in practice next week.
Special Teams: C
Special Teams MVP: Drue Chrisman
Nice punt (on the only attempt) and no miss kicks...that's good. but........ Another fumble on a punt return. Can. Not. Happen. With this team, I'm essentially to the point at which I don't want to field any kick. It seems like they always want the homerun, rarely get it, and turn the ball over far too often.
Coaching: B+
Coaching co-MVPs: Ryan Day, Brian Hartline
Coach Day stepped into the big time and didn't disappoint. Granted, I think a hippo from the zoo could have coached the team to a win (Brady Hoke available?), but Ryan Day made it look like nothing had changed and kept the train rolling. The playcalling on offense was great (finally throwing vertically?!?!) but the defense looked a little shell-shocked (when Young and Bosa weren't meeting at the QB). Seeing receiver technique, poise, and focus was also a major plus (welcome back Hartline!).
Overall: A-
C'mon, first game jitters happen, and the offense was spectacular. I'm a little hyper-critical of the defense, but the flashes of brilliance up front are going to lead to a lot of exciting plays this season. This is likely one of the most talented teams in the Urban era, but it's going to be a wild ride! Go Bucks!
Friday, August 31, 2018
Week 1: Welcome back
Aaaaah....wonderful to be back into another exciting college football season. Will the Buckeyes return to the playoffs? Will the committee follow the principles stated this year as opposed to last? Will Michigan be trash as is tradition? (I'll go with "yes", "I doubt it", and "Is there any other option?") Even though we at Let's Go Bucks have had an incredibly busy offseason, we're back to give our prognostications once again.
Final 2017 Regular Season Standings
1. Draper (51-17, 3-11 upset)
2. Schweinfurth (48-20, 0-14 upset)
3. Seeberg (47-21, 6-8 upset)
4. Hoying (44-24, 2-12 upset)
Bowl Standings 2017
1. Draper (23-8)
2. Hoying (20-11)
3. Seeberg (17-14)
4. Schweinfurth (16-15)
1. Draper (51-17, 3-11 upset)
2. Schweinfurth (48-20, 0-14 upset)
3. Seeberg (47-21, 6-8 upset)
4. Hoying (44-24, 2-12 upset)
Bowl Standings 2017
1. Draper (23-8)
2. Hoying (20-11)
3. Seeberg (17-14)
4. Schweinfurth (16-15)
Washington Huskies vs. Auburn Tigers
Draper: Not much time to research but this is the most intriguing game of the week to me. Washington is getting the hype this year, but they're making the annual trek to the south by strong preseason teams to face SEC teams on "neutral" turf (the death of the home-and-home is very sad). I think the location (Atlanta) gives the edge to the Tigers. While there's a good chance UW is the better team, pre conference games in SEC territory are usually predictable. The Tigers snip the Huskies in a close one (and the south won't shut up...) UW: 28--Aub: 31
Hoying: Eccchhh...I really don't trust either of these teams. Auburn is great for a couple of unexpected upsets every few years before showing they're catastrophically unprepared to deal with success. And Washington just hasn't been good since they beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl 27 years ago (fake good the last two years doesn't count). Tough to win in the Confederacy if you're not a general from Ohio, so we'll ride the Tigers until their season comes crashing down against LSU in a couple weeks. UW: 24--Aub: 27
Schweinfurth: I'm with Draper, I really want to watch this game as it has the potential to be a classic opening weekend game. Washington is playing for, not only the Huskies' national perception, but the entire Pac-12 (correct or not). Chris Peterson has shown he is willing to pull out all the stops in these big games, and has had months to plan this one out. A crazy trick play decides this one. Washington close. UW: 31--Aub: 28
Seeberg: Oh fabulous, another early season neutral site home game for an SEC team. At least it's against a relevant opponent. The PAC-12 was just annihilated last bowl season, and for its current king, a big out-of-conference W would certainly help the league's perception. Honestly if these two played ten times this season I'd be shocked if it was more than 6-4 one way or the other. I'm going with the Huskies (mainly because I want the south to shut up). UW: 34-- Aub: 27
Michigan Wolverines @ Notre Dame Fighting Irish
Draper: Another intriguing game....in 1995. Actually, this is a nice litmus test for both teams. Notre Dame has been trying to bust into the conversation since they were smashed by Bama in the 2013 title game and Michigan is still searching for their first win of note since Harbaugh got there (that's actually a true statement). Will Shea Patterson get it done in Ann Arbor? Probably not, but that defense should prove problematic for the Irish. I don't know if this is a signature win, but it will start the hype train running (unrealistically). We all know beating a highly ranked preseason ND team means you're "back". ND: 14 -- UM: 17
Hoying: Speaking of fake good, let's welcome back Jim Harbaugh and the Michigan Wolverines, fresh off a 5-loss season which featured a scoring average of 14.4 points per defeat. Now, you might say that was because the QB situation was SPS last season. And I would say that Chip Kelly, the most offensive...minded college coach maybe ever, just decided that outgoing Michigan QB Wilton Speight was good enough to start for him this season at UCLA. You might then say that Speight was hurt for most of last season and didn't play in any of their losses. And I might say...shut up. Anyway, the Maize and Blue now have a QB they can actually use: Shea Patterson, a transfer. Where have I seen this before...oh yeah, Jake Rudock back in 2015. Problem was, Rudock experienced a few growing pains in a season-opening loss to Utah. Add that to the fact that Harbaugh still hasn't won a road game of consequence at UM, and...argghhhh, I can't buy into the Irish either, especially against that nasty UM defense. ND: 13 -- UM: 16
Schweinfurth: I am not buying the Shea Patterson hype. I don't know if it's because I just didn't watch enough of him at MIss St. or it's the grad transfer thing. Harbaugh just hasn't developed a QB since Andrew Luck (or was Luck just that good?). I will say that the Meatchicken defense looks like it could be really good. Notre Dame is ranked, big woop. I really want history to continue with the Wolverines continuing that road losing streak to ranked teams, but, unfortunately, they are the better team. I guess this helps the B1G perception? Who cares, I still hate TUN. ND: 17 -- UM: 21
Seeberg: Hey, at least these two formerly relevant college football superpowers are playing each other again...except that means one of them has to win. Bleh. The good news is that TTUN might only be the fifth best team in the B1G. The bad news, however, is the four teams above them (OSU, PSU, Wisc, MSU, in whatever order you please) range from really good to daaammnnnnn. With even semi-competent quarterback play the Wolverines are a threat to win every game with that unfortunately nasty defense. Patterson may take awhile to get acclimated, but I don't see the Golden Domers scoring enough points to threaten late. Won't be pretty, but it'll keep the heat off Harbaugh- at least until the MSU and OSU contests. ND: 13-- UM: 23
Miami Hurricanes vs. Louisiana State Tigers
Draper: Will Jeauxy Burreaux lead the Tigahs into relevance? I think he could be the best QB in Baton Rouge in a long time, but the Canes got some serious swag back last year. This one is super tough and I believe Miami is the better team, but preseason SEC neutral site games.... I'll root for Burreaux to succeed (and Miami to fail), but I don't think LSU has the horses to stick with the speedy Canes. UM: 21 -- LSU: 17
Hoying: Speaking of Notre Dame, the last time we saw them was in a victory against Farmer Fran and the Tigers. Losing to the Irish in a bowl game is a tremendous embarrassment, about on the level of losing to Troy, but it's not like they're coming in on a 3-game streak of losing by double digits. No, that distinct honor belongs to the Hurricanes. But as I recall, Da U faced Notre Dame themselves last year. And how did that go...ah, yes, the Turnover Chain got to Brandon Wimbush & co. early and often and the Canes blew past them. The Chain's stranglehold isn't a warm welcome for any first time starter at QB, even a carpetbagging turncoat. UM: 31 -- LSU: 17
Schweinfurth: Let's be honest, LSU has more issues than who is going to play QB. Burrow is going to help out, but they have been so mediocre since Ogeron took over. Couple that with Miami is getting the swagger back and I just don't see LSU winning this game. UM: 35 -- LSU: 21
Seeberg: To me, Mark Richt is the modern-day college football equivalent of our beloved former Buckeye coach John Cooper. Pretty easy-going, excellent recruiter, and often ready to go out of the gate...before peaking WAY too early and crashing late in seasons time and time again. Unfortunately for Buckeye southern transplant Joey Burrow, this matchup is early in the season and I just don't think he's had enough time to mesh with LSU's...meh?...offensive talent. Hurricanes pull away late. UM: 27-- LSU: 13
Virginia Tech Hokies @ Florida State Seminoles
Draper: Mr. Francois returns under center for the Noles. Last year was extremely (extremely) disappointing, but expectations are reset for the 2018 season. I don't expect the moon, but the Noles need to come out of the gates firing. Their uniforms are stupid, but the warchant will lead Taggart's new squad to victory. I wonder how a new spread style will fly in Tallahassee. I think it's gonna be fun! VT: 17 -- FSU: 27
Hoying: Remember that one year when VT lost in week 2 to James Madison, and then went on to win the ACC? It doesn't have much bearing on this game, but it's really funny, and embarrassing for the ACC. Kind of like if Michigan had won the B1G after losing to App State. I mean, they were a win over the Buckeyes from doing so, and they would've split the title with Ohio State if they hadn't pooped the bed against Wisconsin. But Michigan lost their last two conference games, which got them demoted to the Capital One Bowl after the Rose Bowl passed them over for...Ron Zook and Illinois? College football is weird. Where was I? Oh yes, in that hilarious ACC season, the last team that tried (and failed) to stop James Madison's vanquished opponent from becoming ACC champions was *drum roll* Florida State! Can the Noles do better this year? I don't know. Depends on whether they have a coach who gives a crap and isn't just looking out for with his next big paycheck. Good thing they didn't just hire a jumping bean arriving at his third school in 3 years... VT: 31 -- FSU: 32
Schweinfurth: It is good to see Francois back under center after a stupid coaching decision torpedoed last season. Virginia Tech has been better since Beemer retired, but the 'Noles just have more talent. I'll take FSU, but the offensive style will provide some hiccups. VT: 20 -- FSU: 38
Seeberg: Squads dealing with a ton of different things in this matchup. Va Tech's offense should be better without a freshman QB under center, but the defense lost more than 2/3 of it's 2-deep, so both talent and depth will be stretched. The Seminoles went in the tank after Deondre Francois went down week 1 last year, but righted the ship to finish above .500. FSU gets Francois back, and week one at home, that's enough to convince me. VT: 20-- FSU: 31
Oregon State Beavers @ THE Ohio State Buckeyes
Draper: Oregon State is terrible. The Bucks have been embroiled in this off field insane scandal, but I honestly don't see it affecting on field performance. Actually, I think this will be a statement push to show that while the coaching staff is off doing god-knows-what, they're laser focused on the game. I've seen the markets start to hedge the Bucks, but that's way to premature. This is all about the development and progress of Haskins. We won't learn much here, but I want to see maturity in the secondary, a step forward in WR play, and QB confidence. Give me that and a monster win and 'we good'. Oreg St.: 6 -- OSU: 52
Hoying: I hear a lot of talk about Urban, I hear a lot of talk about Dwayne Haskins, I hear a lot of talk about rebuilding the O-line and the secondary, and what I DON'T hear a lot about is our opponent. Whom are we even playing? The Angry Beavers? I get that OSU Pacific Time is supposed to be (and probably are) awful, but in the era of style points you can fail to impress if you don't take your opponent seriously. You can even lose (see above re: James Madison and App State). Just focus on getting to 1-0 and don't read too much into how the Buckeyes perform with regard to any particular unit; there'll be a lot of kinks to work out before the season begins in earnest against Rutgers. Oreg St: 14 -- OSU: 49
Schweinfurth: FINALLY, some football to talk about. Let's be honest, if we are tired of hearing about all the crap surrounding this program, imagine the players. This is going to be one ticked off team this year and I almost feel bad for the Beavers. They almost feel like a sacrifice being marched out. The Bucks are going to win, and it won't be close. I am looking to see how the linebackers operate and are they improved, how Dobbins and Weber are deployed (run the ball!), and how Haskins looks in his first start. It should be fun. Enjoy your first football Saturday of the year! Oreg. St.: 3 -- OSU: 55
Seeberg: I'm going to say this right now, in week one. As phenomenal as J.K. Dobbins is, Mike Weber is JUST as good, if not better, and when he finally got his hammy right late last season you saw that. Do NOT sleep on him. Now that that is out of the way, I'd like 30-35 carries between the two of them in this one, lots of sharp, intermediate level routes from the WRs (you know, the ones that have been almost entirely absent from the playbook the last couple of seasons), and workman like performance from the D. The only two concerns on this team should be QB (no experience, even less depth), and the back 7, but we should be able to run the ball, stop the run, and mash the opposing QB better than anybody else we play, and that alone is a solid recipe for winning. See you in the 'Shoe on Saturday everybody. Oreg St: 10 -- OSU: 45
Upset Special
Draper: FAU over OU
Hoying: Tennessee over West Virginia
Schweinfurth: UC over UCLA
Seeberg: Troy over Boise State
Sunday, January 07, 2018
Old Man Yells at Playoffs (And Other Fans)
The Committee Got It Wrong
For the first time in 4 years, the Committee selected the wrong playoff field, though their error wasn't egregious. After Wisconsin fell at the hands of the Buckeyes, I said that I would put Ohio State at #4, but I expected the Committee to choose Alabama. Both choices were easily defensible (to me, at least), but I thought that Ohio State's overall resume was stronger than the Tide's, with wins over the #6 (Wisconsin), #9 (Penn State), and #16 (Michigan State) teams, along with a championship in a pretty tough league, cleansing the sins of an atrocious loss to unranked, 8-4 Iowa. Yes, 2017 Ohio State greatly resembled the memorably snubbed 2016 Penn State, but 2017 Alabama was hardly 2016 Ohio State; in fact, as I wrote a few weeks ago, they more closely resembled 2015 Ohio State, with only one loss, to a pretty good team, but no great wins or even a conference championship on which to hang their hats. I thought the lesson of 2016 was that a great resume could trump the lack of a conference title, but it turns out the lesson was even simpler: don't lose twice (and don't be a Group of 5 team). However...
The Committee - Liars One and All
That's not what the Committee was telling us all along. Going into championship week, the playoff rankings looked like this:
The "Eye Test"
I have always hated the "eye test," by which people can supposedly just watch teams play and suddenly be struck by inspiration regarding which one is better, independent of any further analysis. All too often, it's really just the "I" test, as in "'I' think Team A is better than Team B, and 'I' don't care to give any reasons justifying why." You probably heard plenty of this from Booger McFarland and the other brain geniuses at ESPN on Selection Sunday. Well, the Committee had plenty of opportunities to feast their eyes upon Alabama once November arrived and the cupcake train ended, so what exactly did they see?
Take Off the Tinfoil Hats
Yes, I think the Buckeyes should have been in the playoff. No, I don't think that selecting Alabama was indefensible (even if the reasons given were). And no, I don't think UCF deserved to be within a whiff of the semifinals. Almost as annoying as the "eye test" crowd we already discussed are the "the fix is in" crowd who insisted that the Committee selected Alabama because [the bowls/ESPN/the money gods] told them to. Yes, Alabama draws lots of eyes. More than Ohio State? Not likely. And certainly not when matched up against Georgia. ESPN is heading for another SEC vs. SEC title game ratings nightmare like back in 2012, even if tickets are going for more than $2,000 a pop thanks to both teams' proximity to the title game location (Atlanta).
As for UCF, a Group of 5 team isn't going to crack the playoff absent extraordinary circumstances. The Knights had a nice campaign, but beating Maryland and ducking Georgia Tech out of conference aren't going to move the needle nearly far enough to pass Alabama, Ohio State, USC, or even the likes of Penn State, Auburn, or Miami. Someday a Group of 5 team will make the playoff, but it'll take a combination of a team like 2016 Houston, with a big marquee win like Oklahoma to cling to, with a field like this year's, lacking an obvious choice for #4.
And stop with the self-awarded National Championship. You're embarrassing yourselves.
Conference Pride
Speaking of embarrassing, how about the bowl performances from the Pac-12? East coast bias was in full effect this bowl season, as the Conference of Champions went 1-7, including giant eggs laid by USC, Washington, and Washington State against Big Ten opponents in the conference's marquee matchups. The ACC and SEC didn't do too well either, though two playoff wins took the SEC back to nearly .500, where they'll stay after going 1-1 in the championship next week. But our boys, the B1G, completed a darn near perfect bowl season, with only You-Know-Who choosing to Harbaugh an easy win away.
What does all this mean? Not much. SEC homers will complain that having two teams in the playoffs pulled the rest of their teams up a bowl slot, resulting in unfavorable matchups. But the B1G also put 3 teams into the New Year's Six, and they went 3-0 and didn't lose to a Group of 5 team. Big picture, bowls are only one piece of the conference supremacy puzzle. And conference supremacy doesn't mean much, either. Conferences don't win games; teams do. The SEC didn't get two teams into the playoff because the Committee thought the SEC was so great, or the Big Ten was terrible. Alabama and Georgia just managed to be the only teams standing with fewer than 2 losses when the dust cleared.
The New Resume Comparison - Alabama vs. Ohio State
But just for fun, in the light of such bowl performances, let's take a look at how Alabama's and Ohio State's resumes have changed since Selection Sunday:
Ohio State's opponents:
Indiana, UNLV, Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska, and Illinois did not play
Army beat Navy, then beat San Diego State in the Armed Forces Bowl
Penn State beat Washington in the Fiesta Bowl
Iowa beat Boston College in the Pinstripe Bowl
Michigan State beat Washington State in the Holiday Bowl
Michigan lost to South Carolina in the Outback Bowl
Wisconsin beat Miami in the Orange Bowl
Oklahoma lost to Georgia in the Rose Bowl
and
Ohio State beat USC in the Cotton Bowl
So Ohio State notched another great win, its three top opponents all notched more quality wins, including 2 in the New Year's Six, while their top loss took a hit to Georgia.
Alabama's opponents:
Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Mercer did not play
Florida State beat Southern Miss in the Independence Bowl
Fresno State beat Houston in the Hawai'i Bowl
Colorado State lost to Marshall in the New Mexico Bowl
Texas A&M lost to Wake Forest in the Belk Bowl
LSU lost to Notre Dame in the Citrus Bowl
Mississippi State beat Louisville in the Taxslayer Bowl
Auburn lost to UCF in the Peach Bowl
and
Alabama beat Clemson in the Sugar Bowl
Obviously Alabama beating Clemson is a huge deal, but Alabama's opponents didn't score a single quality win in bowl season, other than Louisville (woo), with Alabama's top win (LSU) and only loss (Auburn) suffering upset losses.
What does this prove? Not a whole lot, other than to gently suggest to the "Alabama's win proved that the Committee was right" crowd that the picture isn't quite as cut-and-dry as they'd like to think.
Ex Ante (Or, Hindsight Is 2018)
Not that the Committee needs bowl results to vindicate their decisions. Every year (maybe less so in 2015) the Committee's selections have stirred up controversy. And every year, fans and analysts try to use playoff results to judge playoff selection. 2014 Ohio State won the playoff so they must have belonged. 2016 Ohio State and Washington got waxed so maybe Penn State was the better option. 2017 Alabama stomped Clemson so the Committee made the right choice. This is hindsight bias at its finest. The Committee doesn't have the luxury of a crystal ball showing them how teams will perform going forward; and it's not their job to pick the four teams they think have the best chance to win the playoff. Their mandate is to select the best four teams based on the performances the teams have provided. You could have a (Power 5) team that takes care of business, wins all of its games, then enters the playoff and does a total face plant (2014 Florida State). Doesn't mean the team shouldn't have been there. You could have a team hit a stumbling block, enter the field as #4 and a step behind the rest, and run the table and win (2014 Ohio State, probably 2017 Alabama). Doesn't mean that they were the correct selection, particularly if a team snubbed by the Committee also has an impressive bowl performance (2014 TCU, 2017 Ohio State). You never know how any team will perform on any given day in the future; you can only reward teams for what they have accomplished already. And speaking of not knowing how teams will perform...
Fear of...Success?
Leading up to the Big Ten Championship game, the great debate in Buckeye Nation, apart from whether Ohio State would jump Alabama with a win over Wisconsin, was whether Buckeye fans wanted Ohio State to leap into the top 4. 31-0 was fresh on people's minds, not to mention the Iowa City Massacre, and did we really want this team, with terrible [JT/linebackers/secondary/special teams/playcalling/Urban in general] to face Clemson and get slaughtered again?
Then you saw the Cotton Bowl. Then you saw the performance Clemson gave in the Sugar Bowl semifinal. Anyone still want to claim that Clemson probably would have run Ohio State out of the building? Maybe; we'll never know what a game between those two specific teams would have looked like. But that's entirely the point. You can't win the playoff if you're not in the playoff, and though sometimes you get smacked down (Clemson) or pantsed by an inferior opponent (Florida) or just get solidly beat (LSU), sometimes YOU get to be the Florida, or the Iowa, ruining some other team's season. All it takes is the other team not bringing its A-game, or your defensive line getting to the QB on darn near every play, or JT playing downright unconscious, all of which we have seen this very season in Ohio State games against top opponents, and suddenly it's the Buckeyes lifting the championship trophy once again.
Do you feel satisfied with a Cotton Bowl win? Doesn't at least part of you wish you could see the Buckeyes playing Georgia this Monday?
Expansion Solves Nothing
Of course, that debate would have been moot if the playoff field had comprised 8 teams instead of 4. Every year, the fans that aren't terrified of their team making the playoff, but nevertheless find themselves on the outside looking in, demand that the playoff field expand to 8 teams. What does the Committee know, anyway (the fix is in!); wouldn't we be better off if we decided the championship on the field instead of in a board room? The expansion proposal most often bandied around these days is to give auto-bids to the five Power 5 champions, another auto-bid for the top Group of 5 champion, and two at-large bids. This is somehow supposed to create less controversy. There are several problems with this approach:
In 2014, I don't think Michigan State would have been too thrilled to be left out in favor of Mississippi State. 2015 would have been pretty cut and dry, other than the outcry over three Big Ten teams making the field (though there wasn't any controversy over the 4 teams that made that year's real-life playoff field). As for 2016, remember the USC team that everyone was salivating over, the one that inexplicably ended up ranked #3 after beating Penn State by 3 in the Rose Bowl? Out, in favor of putting another three Big Ten teams in the playoff. And in 2017, Auburn would find themselves left out at #7 in favor of USC, and so would've a Penn State team that lost two games by a combined 4 points. And just look at that murderer's row of Group of 5 teams. Anyone want to claim that any of them would have hung with the #1 team any of those 4 years? The only one with a prayer was this year's UCF team, but otherwise, they would just be wasting a spot and adding another playoff snoozer (like so many crappy conference champions do in March Madness).
Two teams was too few. Eight teams is too many. Four teams is just right.
Best 4 vs. Most Deserving
But which four teams are just right? The "best" four, or the "most deserving"? What does this distinction even mean? The Committee, of course, claims to select the four "best" teams, but, as we discussed above, nothing they say matters except the final rankings. Usually, when people talk about the "best" teams, they mean the teams they would expect to give the best performance in a hypothetical future playoff game. In other words, who would be the Vegas favorites against other playoff contenders? Unfortunately, this presents the same problem as the "eye test" discussed above: judgments are made independently of the team's body of work. Remember that USC team from 2016? The one that ended up ranked #3? There's a reason they didn't make the playoff: they had three losses, including losing by 46 to Alabama. Remember 2015 Ohio State, the one that sent the best draft class ever to the NFL? They didn't make the playoff either, because they lost the one big game they played.
Of course, "most deserving" presents problems as well. Was 2016 Penn State "deserving" because they had a conference championship and Ohio State didn't? Could the same be said for 2017 Ohio State vis-a-vis Alabama? Did Western Michigan and UCF "deserve" to make the playoff after doing the best they could with the schedule they were presented?
The truth is somewhere in the middle. The playoff field should be, not the 4 "best teams," but the 4 teams that had the best seasons, taking into account who they played, who they beat, how many losses they had, and whether they won a championship along the way. In other words, pretty much the way the Committee picks the teams now (gobbledygook aside). Is the process subjective? Definitely. But what's the alternative? What's the objective way to select 4 teams out of a field of 130 teams playing schedules too widely disparate to easily compare and too short to adequately analyze? One way to make the process more "objective" would be to add computer rankings or some other analytic, but fans start to froth at the mouth when anything smacking of the BCS is proposed. After all, those "objective" computers left #1 USC out of the title game in 2004 and put Alabama in the 2012 BCS championship in a rematch with LSU. And what did the fans demand in response? That the computers be thrown out and replaced with, well, a committee of people who knew what they were talking about and had time to carefully consider the decisions they were making (not the SIDs filling out the coaches' poll because the coach doesn't have time or motivation to).
For all the controversy surrounding the Playoff Committee, they got the playoff field right 3 years in a row, and they almost nailed it again this year. Almost.
For the first time in 4 years, the Committee selected the wrong playoff field, though their error wasn't egregious. After Wisconsin fell at the hands of the Buckeyes, I said that I would put Ohio State at #4, but I expected the Committee to choose Alabama. Both choices were easily defensible (to me, at least), but I thought that Ohio State's overall resume was stronger than the Tide's, with wins over the #6 (Wisconsin), #9 (Penn State), and #16 (Michigan State) teams, along with a championship in a pretty tough league, cleansing the sins of an atrocious loss to unranked, 8-4 Iowa. Yes, 2017 Ohio State greatly resembled the memorably snubbed 2016 Penn State, but 2017 Alabama was hardly 2016 Ohio State; in fact, as I wrote a few weeks ago, they more closely resembled 2015 Ohio State, with only one loss, to a pretty good team, but no great wins or even a conference championship on which to hang their hats. I thought the lesson of 2016 was that a great resume could trump the lack of a conference title, but it turns out the lesson was even simpler: don't lose twice (and don't be a Group of 5 team). However...
The Committee - Liars One and All
That's not what the Committee was telling us all along. Going into championship week, the playoff rankings looked like this:
- Clemson
- Auburn
- Oklahoma
- Wisconsin
- Alabama
- Georgia
- Miami
- Ohio State
After releasing these rankings, Committee chairman Kirby Hocutt stated, "There's very little separation between teams 5 through 8." The implication was clear: Clemson/Miami and Auburn/Georgia were pairing off in championship games, with the winner of each in the playoff and the loser almost certainly out; and Oklahoma was win-and-in (maybe even lose-and-still-in), leaving one more spot to fill. Wisconsin was win-and-in, and Alabama was idle, hoping for a Wisconsin loss in order to slide into the top 4, but if there was truly "very little separation" between teams 5 and 8, Ohio State should have had the opportunity to play their way ahead of Alabama with a win over Wisconsin and a conference championship. Note that Wisconsin was specifically NOT included in the "very little separation" range indicated by Hocutt, implying that before championship week, the Committee believed that Wisconsin was clearly superior to Alabama.
You know what happened next. Ohio State beat Wisconsin and won the Big Ten Championship, and then they finished ranked #5, behind Alabama. On Selection Sunday, Kirby Hocutt followed up his earlier comments by stating that Committee's support for Alabama over Ohio State was "widespread," "strong," and "unequivocal." So much for "very little separation"; if a win over a top-4 team and a conference championship isn't enough to close the gap between the two teams, I cannot imagine a possible scenario that would, other than the higher-ranked team losing (and normally you don't need "very little separation" for a team to drop after a loss). But maybe my thinking is too "small picture." Let's look at what else happened on championship weekend:
- Georgia blew out Auburn, diminishing the quality of Alabama's loss.
- Oklahoma blew out TCU (again), strengthening the quality of Ohio State's loss.
- Boise State beat Fresno State, knocking one of Alabama's ranked wins out of the top 25.
- Florida State beat Louisiana-Monroe, giving Alabama one more bowl eligible opponent.
So there are three possibilities for what happened on championship weekend:
- A win over a top 4 opponent and a conference championship, coupled with crippling blows to Alabama's resume and a small boost to Ohio State's, were not enough to make up for "very little separation" between the two teams,
- The Committee was really, really impressed with Florida State's bowl eligibility, or
- The Committee is full of crap and lied about the level of separation between Ohio State and Alabama on November 28th.
As I said above, putting Alabama in ahead of Ohio State is a defensible choice. All the Committee had to say was that losing twice is unacceptable, or losing by 31 is unacceptable (not losing by 27, though, right, Georgia?). But instead, the Committee insisted on making the rankings first and coming up with compelling reasons why second. Even reasons that make no sense, like this gem from the Committee on Selection Sunday:
"The selection committee just favored the whole body of work. As we saw Alabama play week in and week out, the selection committee believed Alabama was the better football team."
Body of work? I thought we put that to rest after Ohio State pulled out 3 ranked wins higher than either of Alabama's (#17 LSU, #23 Mississippi State) and won the Big Ten championship. Interesting point about how you "saw Alabama play" though...
The "Eye Test"
I have always hated the "eye test," by which people can supposedly just watch teams play and suddenly be struck by inspiration regarding which one is better, independent of any further analysis. All too often, it's really just the "I" test, as in "'I' think Team A is better than Team B, and 'I' don't care to give any reasons justifying why." You probably heard plenty of this from Booger McFarland and the other brain geniuses at ESPN on Selection Sunday. Well, the Committee had plenty of opportunities to feast their eyes upon Alabama once November arrived and the cupcake train ended, so what exactly did they see?
- November 5: An ugly win over LSU that saw the Tigers outgain the Tide.
- November 12: An ugly win over Mississippi State that saw the Tide trail into the 4th quarter and tied into the final minute.
- November 19: A paycheck game against an FCS opponent (which Ohio State has not played this year, or this decade).
- November 26: A double digit loss to Auburn.
Really eye-popping results there. This isn't to say Alabama hadn't often looked impressive during the regular season. They beat Vanderbilt 59-0, Ole Miss 66-3, Arkansas 41-9, and Tennessee 45-7. Problem is, all of those teams sucked. Vanderbilt and Tennessee finished 6th and 7th in one of the worst divisions in the Power 5 (the SEC East) with one conference win between them (Vanderbilt beating Tennessee). Arkansas went 4-8 with one conference win, and Ole Miss led the pack at 6-6.
Hey, guess who else blew out a lot of crappy conference teams this year? Ohio State! They beat Rutgers 56-0, Maryland 62-14, Nebraska 56-14, Illinois 52-14, and Michigan State 48-3. Wait...Michigan State finished the regular season 9-3 and ranked #16. Surely Alabama handled some ranked team by more than a couple of scores...no? Huh. Better rethink that "eye test" then.
Going into the Big Ten championship game, I thought that a big blowout win over Wisconsin (remember 59-0?) would put Ohio State in the playoff, while a close win would keep them out. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought "why would it matter?" The Buckeyes already dismantled the Spartans in a win as impressive as any win by any playoff contender. Why should the Committee care if they did it again?
Take Off the Tinfoil Hats
Yes, I think the Buckeyes should have been in the playoff. No, I don't think that selecting Alabama was indefensible (even if the reasons given were). And no, I don't think UCF deserved to be within a whiff of the semifinals. Almost as annoying as the "eye test" crowd we already discussed are the "the fix is in" crowd who insisted that the Committee selected Alabama because [the bowls/ESPN/the money gods] told them to. Yes, Alabama draws lots of eyes. More than Ohio State? Not likely. And certainly not when matched up against Georgia. ESPN is heading for another SEC vs. SEC title game ratings nightmare like back in 2012, even if tickets are going for more than $2,000 a pop thanks to both teams' proximity to the title game location (Atlanta).
As for UCF, a Group of 5 team isn't going to crack the playoff absent extraordinary circumstances. The Knights had a nice campaign, but beating Maryland and ducking Georgia Tech out of conference aren't going to move the needle nearly far enough to pass Alabama, Ohio State, USC, or even the likes of Penn State, Auburn, or Miami. Someday a Group of 5 team will make the playoff, but it'll take a combination of a team like 2016 Houston, with a big marquee win like Oklahoma to cling to, with a field like this year's, lacking an obvious choice for #4.
And stop with the self-awarded National Championship. You're embarrassing yourselves.
Conference Pride
Speaking of embarrassing, how about the bowl performances from the Pac-12? East coast bias was in full effect this bowl season, as the Conference of Champions went 1-7, including giant eggs laid by USC, Washington, and Washington State against Big Ten opponents in the conference's marquee matchups. The ACC and SEC didn't do too well either, though two playoff wins took the SEC back to nearly .500, where they'll stay after going 1-1 in the championship next week. But our boys, the B1G, completed a darn near perfect bowl season, with only You-Know-Who choosing to Harbaugh an easy win away.
What does all this mean? Not much. SEC homers will complain that having two teams in the playoffs pulled the rest of their teams up a bowl slot, resulting in unfavorable matchups. But the B1G also put 3 teams into the New Year's Six, and they went 3-0 and didn't lose to a Group of 5 team. Big picture, bowls are only one piece of the conference supremacy puzzle. And conference supremacy doesn't mean much, either. Conferences don't win games; teams do. The SEC didn't get two teams into the playoff because the Committee thought the SEC was so great, or the Big Ten was terrible. Alabama and Georgia just managed to be the only teams standing with fewer than 2 losses when the dust cleared.
The New Resume Comparison - Alabama vs. Ohio State
But just for fun, in the light of such bowl performances, let's take a look at how Alabama's and Ohio State's resumes have changed since Selection Sunday:
Ohio State's opponents:
Indiana, UNLV, Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska, and Illinois did not play
Army beat Navy, then beat San Diego State in the Armed Forces Bowl
Penn State beat Washington in the Fiesta Bowl
Iowa beat Boston College in the Pinstripe Bowl
Michigan State beat Washington State in the Holiday Bowl
Michigan lost to South Carolina in the Outback Bowl
Wisconsin beat Miami in the Orange Bowl
Oklahoma lost to Georgia in the Rose Bowl
and
Ohio State beat USC in the Cotton Bowl
So Ohio State notched another great win, its three top opponents all notched more quality wins, including 2 in the New Year's Six, while their top loss took a hit to Georgia.
Alabama's opponents:
Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Mercer did not play
Florida State beat Southern Miss in the Independence Bowl
Fresno State beat Houston in the Hawai'i Bowl
Colorado State lost to Marshall in the New Mexico Bowl
Texas A&M lost to Wake Forest in the Belk Bowl
LSU lost to Notre Dame in the Citrus Bowl
Mississippi State beat Louisville in the Taxslayer Bowl
Auburn lost to UCF in the Peach Bowl
and
Alabama beat Clemson in the Sugar Bowl
Obviously Alabama beating Clemson is a huge deal, but Alabama's opponents didn't score a single quality win in bowl season, other than Louisville (woo), with Alabama's top win (LSU) and only loss (Auburn) suffering upset losses.
What does this prove? Not a whole lot, other than to gently suggest to the "Alabama's win proved that the Committee was right" crowd that the picture isn't quite as cut-and-dry as they'd like to think.
Ex Ante (Or, Hindsight Is 2018)
Not that the Committee needs bowl results to vindicate their decisions. Every year (maybe less so in 2015) the Committee's selections have stirred up controversy. And every year, fans and analysts try to use playoff results to judge playoff selection. 2014 Ohio State won the playoff so they must have belonged. 2016 Ohio State and Washington got waxed so maybe Penn State was the better option. 2017 Alabama stomped Clemson so the Committee made the right choice. This is hindsight bias at its finest. The Committee doesn't have the luxury of a crystal ball showing them how teams will perform going forward; and it's not their job to pick the four teams they think have the best chance to win the playoff. Their mandate is to select the best four teams based on the performances the teams have provided. You could have a (Power 5) team that takes care of business, wins all of its games, then enters the playoff and does a total face plant (2014 Florida State). Doesn't mean the team shouldn't have been there. You could have a team hit a stumbling block, enter the field as #4 and a step behind the rest, and run the table and win (2014 Ohio State, probably 2017 Alabama). Doesn't mean that they were the correct selection, particularly if a team snubbed by the Committee also has an impressive bowl performance (2014 TCU, 2017 Ohio State). You never know how any team will perform on any given day in the future; you can only reward teams for what they have accomplished already. And speaking of not knowing how teams will perform...
Fear of...Success?
Leading up to the Big Ten Championship game, the great debate in Buckeye Nation, apart from whether Ohio State would jump Alabama with a win over Wisconsin, was whether Buckeye fans wanted Ohio State to leap into the top 4. 31-0 was fresh on people's minds, not to mention the Iowa City Massacre, and did we really want this team, with terrible [JT/linebackers/secondary/special teams/playcalling/Urban in general] to face Clemson and get slaughtered again?
Then you saw the Cotton Bowl. Then you saw the performance Clemson gave in the Sugar Bowl semifinal. Anyone still want to claim that Clemson probably would have run Ohio State out of the building? Maybe; we'll never know what a game between those two specific teams would have looked like. But that's entirely the point. You can't win the playoff if you're not in the playoff, and though sometimes you get smacked down (Clemson) or pantsed by an inferior opponent (Florida) or just get solidly beat (LSU), sometimes YOU get to be the Florida, or the Iowa, ruining some other team's season. All it takes is the other team not bringing its A-game, or your defensive line getting to the QB on darn near every play, or JT playing downright unconscious, all of which we have seen this very season in Ohio State games against top opponents, and suddenly it's the Buckeyes lifting the championship trophy once again.
Do you feel satisfied with a Cotton Bowl win? Doesn't at least part of you wish you could see the Buckeyes playing Georgia this Monday?
Expansion Solves Nothing
Of course, that debate would have been moot if the playoff field had comprised 8 teams instead of 4. Every year, the fans that aren't terrified of their team making the playoff, but nevertheless find themselves on the outside looking in, demand that the playoff field expand to 8 teams. What does the Committee know, anyway (the fix is in!); wouldn't we be better off if we decided the championship on the field instead of in a board room? The expansion proposal most often bandied around these days is to give auto-bids to the five Power 5 champions, another auto-bid for the top Group of 5 champion, and two at-large bids. This is somehow supposed to create less controversy. There are several problems with this approach:
- Complacency. If each Power 5 champion makes the playoff regardless of how they perform on the field, there is zero incentive to schedule aggressively in an attempt to set a a team apart from the pack. But it gets worse: you know that lovely NFL tradition of a team resting its starters after they've wrapped up a playoff spot? Imagine a Power 5 team clinching its division a week early, then taking Rivalry Week off to rest up for the conference championship and a possible playoff berth. The sound you just heard was me vomiting violently.
- Diminishing the regular season. For all the bluster that's been spent on how Ohio State or Alabama deserved to make the playoff, just consider these teams' championship cases would look if we were under the old 2-team playoff, aka the BCS. There would've been a fierce battle for the top two spots among Clemson, Oklahoma, and Georgia, but Alabama and Ohio State would have been laughed out of the discussion. Like it or not, Ohio State's loss to Iowa was nearly absolved thanks to the 4-team playoff, and had Alabama taken care of business against Auburn and Georgia, Ohio State would have been in the playoff at #4 with 2 losses, including a 31 point loss to an unranked team. Part of what makes college football special is that every loss is devastating, and every playoff expansion makes losses a little more tolerable, until we reach NFL-style loss apathy.
- No less controversy. Oh, so the #5 and #6 teams have been complaining about being left out? That really burns your biscuits, 2014 TCU and Baylor, and 2016 Penn State, and 2017 Ohio State? Well, let's look at the top nine rankings from each playoff season, plus each highest ranked Group of 5 team, with the playoff field under the above 8 team proposal bolded.
2014 2015
1. Alabama 1. Clemson
2. Oregon 2. Alabama
3. Florida State 3. Michigan State
4. Ohio State 4. Oklahoma
5. Baylor 5. Iowa
6. TCU 6. Stanford
7. Mississippi State 7. Ohio State
8. Michigan State 8. Notre Dame
9. Mississippi 9. Florida State
20. Boise State 18. Houston
2016 2017
1. Alabama 1. Clemson
2. Clemson 2. Oklahoma
3. Ohio State 3. Georgia
4. Washington 4. Alabama
5. Penn State 5. Ohio State
6. Michigan 6. Wisconsin
7. Oklahoma 7. Auburn
8. Wisconsin 8. USC
9. USC 9. Penn State
15. Western Michigan 12. UCF
In 2014, I don't think Michigan State would have been too thrilled to be left out in favor of Mississippi State. 2015 would have been pretty cut and dry, other than the outcry over three Big Ten teams making the field (though there wasn't any controversy over the 4 teams that made that year's real-life playoff field). As for 2016, remember the USC team that everyone was salivating over, the one that inexplicably ended up ranked #3 after beating Penn State by 3 in the Rose Bowl? Out, in favor of putting another three Big Ten teams in the playoff. And in 2017, Auburn would find themselves left out at #7 in favor of USC, and so would've a Penn State team that lost two games by a combined 4 points. And just look at that murderer's row of Group of 5 teams. Anyone want to claim that any of them would have hung with the #1 team any of those 4 years? The only one with a prayer was this year's UCF team, but otherwise, they would just be wasting a spot and adding another playoff snoozer (like so many crappy conference champions do in March Madness).
Two teams was too few. Eight teams is too many. Four teams is just right.
Best 4 vs. Most Deserving
But which four teams are just right? The "best" four, or the "most deserving"? What does this distinction even mean? The Committee, of course, claims to select the four "best" teams, but, as we discussed above, nothing they say matters except the final rankings. Usually, when people talk about the "best" teams, they mean the teams they would expect to give the best performance in a hypothetical future playoff game. In other words, who would be the Vegas favorites against other playoff contenders? Unfortunately, this presents the same problem as the "eye test" discussed above: judgments are made independently of the team's body of work. Remember that USC team from 2016? The one that ended up ranked #3? There's a reason they didn't make the playoff: they had three losses, including losing by 46 to Alabama. Remember 2015 Ohio State, the one that sent the best draft class ever to the NFL? They didn't make the playoff either, because they lost the one big game they played.
Of course, "most deserving" presents problems as well. Was 2016 Penn State "deserving" because they had a conference championship and Ohio State didn't? Could the same be said for 2017 Ohio State vis-a-vis Alabama? Did Western Michigan and UCF "deserve" to make the playoff after doing the best they could with the schedule they were presented?
The truth is somewhere in the middle. The playoff field should be, not the 4 "best teams," but the 4 teams that had the best seasons, taking into account who they played, who they beat, how many losses they had, and whether they won a championship along the way. In other words, pretty much the way the Committee picks the teams now (gobbledygook aside). Is the process subjective? Definitely. But what's the alternative? What's the objective way to select 4 teams out of a field of 130 teams playing schedules too widely disparate to easily compare and too short to adequately analyze? One way to make the process more "objective" would be to add computer rankings or some other analytic, but fans start to froth at the mouth when anything smacking of the BCS is proposed. After all, those "objective" computers left #1 USC out of the title game in 2004 and put Alabama in the 2012 BCS championship in a rematch with LSU. And what did the fans demand in response? That the computers be thrown out and replaced with, well, a committee of people who knew what they were talking about and had time to carefully consider the decisions they were making (not the SIDs filling out the coaches' poll because the coach doesn't have time or motivation to).
For all the controversy surrounding the Playoff Committee, they got the playoff field right 3 years in a row, and they almost nailed it again this year. Almost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)