Glendower

Not sure I understand this new method- I think the top four teams will play in two bowl games and the final two in a championship game in the new year. I don't know if this is much better than the BCS or the previous method. Looking at this first list, its possible that there could be more than 4 teams considered worthy- especially by the fans and writers. I still think they should play all bowl games as they have been played up to now and then select the top 4 teams. The semi-finals should be played in mid January and the championship game on the day before the Super Bowl. There may be more than 4 teams looking like championship teams after all bowl games are played but less likely that the present method. I sent an email to Perlman and his opinion was that the extended time would be too disruptive to the academics. I think only four schools would be affected and they would be more than compensated by huge TV revenues. FCS teams play a 24-team playoff and somehow manage to still be college students- I think their games all take place in December. Perlman is full of crap. The committee's top four teams will be in the two playoff bowls with the winners playing in a new championship game. I believe the committee will also select the participants for the four non-playoff major bowls. Not sure if they are locked in to #5-#12, or how that all works. And no one watches their regular season. It's funny that you think their play off is why nobody watches their regular season. Besides, if tere were a playoff that took the power 5 champions and only 3 wildcards (whic could easily be champions from other conferences), the regular season would STILL MATTER A LOT. I don't know where this "regular season wouldn't matter" idea comes from. There are over 100 teams that would be vying for 8 spots, not 32 vying for 16 or whatever. No .500 team would make it into a college playoff. Even a 2 loss team would have a problem unless they backed into their conference title game and then won. It wouldn't devalue the regular season at all; in some ways, it would make it MORE meaningful because the conference title would really mean they had a shot at a national title.

Ha! That was fun. I was hoping for some actual footage of the game and Manning picking himself up off the ground repeatedly. It's because of that game that I can like Payton-- He can go on to all the success in the world, and that royal pwning will be like a big N branded on his neck. Seeing him win just reminds me of how awesome Nebraska was that year.

Strip down the "preseason" out of conference crap games-- begin conference play on week 2 and have teams play as many of their conference mates as possible and, consider the conference championships to be, effectively, the first round of the playoffs. After that, conference champions from the big 5 conferences and 3 wildcards (which would be selected by a committee but, possibly, be less critical than deciding the top four) for an 8 game playoff. Since we don't have a good way to determine ranking (that's what the playoffs are for in this scenario), pairings for each round are determined randomly. Yes, maybe there will be a #2 from a conference that is better than the top team from another, but so what? They lost their conference. They might pick up a wildcard slot, anyway, unless a non-power 5 conference seems to offer more interesting or worthy addition, but this isn't double elimination. This way, it's not a question of ranking (which, without extensive and significant interconference play, are based on previous rankings reaching back to the preseason rankings-- they really just have to be in order to ascertain the value of a win or loss), just a question of performance during the regular season. Wins will still matter, etc.

That game vs Auburn is gonna be fun to watch. Yet, somehow, it will prove how great both of them are and they'll both rise in the rankings.

So we hate kenny bell now? This is weird. I need to edit my enemies list, I guess.

Only a fool can't see the problem with ESPN and the SEC. Except that controlling public opinion about the SEC doesn't really do the SEC any good in the playoff picture. We don't get to vote on that-- there are only 12 people who do. The only thing that can come of ESPN hyping the SEC in a hypothetical time when the SEC were bad is that ESPN looks like a bunch of idiots. I don't think they'd want to do that. I think they might be guilty of spinning things more positively (I heard someone on the radio, on an ESPN affiliate, point out that when a team in the PAC 12 beats a top team in the PAC 12, we say, "Oh, the PAC 12 just isn't that good"; but if a lower teams knocks off a top team in the SEC we say, "man, the SEC is so good!" I use "we" loosely there, but I think that is pretty representative of a common thought pattern that people have currently. It leads to, say, two SEC teams vying for a national championship that is actually an SEC championship). If you hate ESPN, you should hope they wrongly hype the SEC and make themselves look like fools. I think they're money wise enough to know that if the SEC starts to wane, they'll drop the overt and the subtle hyping and spinning. They just want to sell the network right now-- that's probably a bigger concern for the people who have the power there than how any one team or conference actually does. Those decision-making types also know that they can't afford to look like SEC homers on a national sports network. It'll all level out soon enough, one way or another.

I think you are twisting his words. It was stupid of him to even raise that point, but he didn't make it as his own view. Doooon't go actually reading the piece. Just react to the way it's presented here to make him look like a mean-spirited crank. If you make it obvious that he's reacting to a common sentiment and then goes on to show why this is a win worth celebrating, we won't be able to hold onto the "Teh Mean Media QQ" meme.

I'm not sure what you mean about being satisfied if we win the conference championship. Like, I wouldn't have any expectations next year? That we could just fold up shop because there was a conference championship? Or if next year has 7 or 8 wins I wouldn't be upset because there was a conference championship the year before? The concept of satisfied suggests finality; I think most people want progress. Of course, if you're at the absolute top, there is literally no where to go but down, so that's a special circumstance.

I'm just going to quote this at the end of the thread because it looks like people are being smug because they think they've tricked you into contradicting yourself into saying what you wrote in the OP. Of course, people had to angrily agree with you first. Mississippi State recruiting under Dan Mullen: #25 #38 #44 #30 #26 #37 Mississippi State win-loss records under Dan Mullen: 5-7 9-4 7-6 8-5 7-6 Ole Miss recruiting under Hugh Freeze: #7 #19 Ole Miss win-loss records under Hugh Freeze: 7-6 8-5 Don't let facts get in the way of your delusion. How many times in that time span did they play teams that ended up being serious contenders for the national championship? I mean, looking at that list of national title winners, it seems like they would have played quite a few. As much as I hate the SEC hype, there are some good teams there that would have decimated NU. I don't know if you're implying that Nebraska would have had a better record in the SEC than these teams or what, but the fact that both of these coaches are doing well in less time than Bo&co. is kind of startling. It could just be that the SEC is way down (and yay if it is!) and we are still living under the impression that they're just so awesome, and the Miss.es aren't all that great. Who knows? I hope we find out and don't see multiple SEC teams in the playoff. So, my point is that the "facts" aren't what you imply they are-- their records can't be compared straight across to Nebraska's record with NU's weak schedules. Of course, that might be your own delusions allowing you to see them as a simple 1:1 comparison, I don't know. I guess we could just have a civil conversation instead of guessing how the other's delusions are affecting their reading of the data.

I'm just going to quote this at the end of the thread because it looks like people are being smug because they think they've tricked you into contradicting yourself into saying what you wrote in the OP. Of course, people had to angrily agree with you first.

Hmm.... "Posted Yesterday, 04:20 PM"

I've been reading about how kids are getting worse and worse in documents written over the last two thousand years. Oh my God how old are you? it's jesus. it has to be. Shh! I'm not supposed to be back yet!

I've been reading about how kids are getting worse and worse in documents written over the last two thousand years.

...a saltwatershed, mayhaps?

There are a lot of terms like that that get bandied about but are really devoid of any meaning. If they were emotional and lost, then they could be too emotional, and that would be the problem. If the team were jumping around and... I don't even know what the proper high emotions would be... while down 27-3 at the end of the 3rd quarter, then there'd be people who'd say they need to focus and get their heads in the game. It's just something salient that can be pointed at as a reason because it's something that can be easily observed by laymen.

Nevermind. That joke I made already exists.

And BYU, who waffle stomped Texas and is undefeated, is only 2 spaces ahead of Texas. Texas must be secretly awesome.

I don't know why people are comfortable with this. This is really, really unnerving. If there is a slugfest with an actually good team, giving up a free TD on the opening drive might be very crippling. I honestly don't understand what's going on. On that opening drive against Illinois, there were holes that were 10 yards wide. It was completely bizarre! I am willing to accept that these have been virtually unrelated flukes in the first few games (meaning that there were just different, unrelated mistakes in the first few games that had similar results) and that it's an "easy" fix, but if it's just something that the D is going to do, it could end up hanging a millstone around the team's neck for the entire game. I'm sure the staff and team are studying film to figure out what's happening. I hope it's all sorted out soon! Right now NU has the #27 scoring defense in the nation giving up 19.0 points per game. LINK If we DIDN'T give up that initial touchdown every game, instead holding opponents to 12.0 points per game, we'd be sitting in 5th place in the nation in scoring defense. Then again, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas. I started kicking something around (but I don't care enough to do all of the data entry for it )-- how close (or far) do defenses keep teams relative to their averages? I worked it out for Nebraska-- Fresno St. and Miami were pretty close to their averages (I removed the Nebraska game from their averages so it wouldn't skew the data): Fresno was within a point and Miami was within 1.75 (over and under, respectively. That's probably within a margin of error-- unless you win or lose by a point ). THe remainder of the schedule has been kept well under their average: FAU -12.25 McNeese -30.5 (though we only have 2 other data points for them, and since they're not even in our division, they should be way off... but still.) Illinois -18.75 I really thought that I'd have to do the same thing for the Spartans; the Spartans have, with the exception of Jackson State who were 34 points below their average, kept all teams within roughly 3 points of their averages (Oregon 3.33, Eastern Michigan was +2.66, and Wyoming was -2.75). What I would really love to do is get way more data points and see if anything real can be derived. There are all sorts of confounding variables out there (players swapped out during a blow out, just to name one), but... I don't know. It looks like teams do as well against Sparty as they do against anyone, while NU keeps teams significantly below their average... on average MSU scores an average of 50 points and NU has an average of 45.4. If the Huskers are held to their average by a team that seems to hold teams to roughly their average and holds MSU to below their average... hmm... tie? I have always thought that the way that the way that scoring defenses are ranked is a little specious if the teams on the schedule normally don't score very much. I mean, Easter Michigan scores 11.33 points on average and put 14 on MSU; Wyoming, 16.75, and had 14 against MSU. However, Nebraska held most of their teams to at least 2 TDs below their average! Again, this is probably some Homerism math, but maybe it could be a valuable way to look at defenses-- do they make their opponents play significantly worse than normal?

I am confused... He put Ameer 3rd in his list... Are you mad? If you mean "insane," then apparently, yes. :"> I read the list on that page that looked like this: "Todd Gurley, Kenny Hill, Nick Marshall and Melvin Gordon all went off Saturday, while Amari Cooper and Marcus Mariotawere idle during their bye week"; then, I started typing without reading the link that I obviously missed. I've since had caffeine.

I don't know why people are comfortable with this. This is really, really unnerving. If there is a slugfest with an actually good team, giving up a free TD on the opening drive might be very crippling. I honestly don't understand what's going on. On that opening drive against Illinois, there were holes that were 10 yards wide. It was completely bizarre! I am willing to accept that these have been virtually unrelated flukes in the first few games (meaning that there were just different, unrelated mistakes in the first few games that had similar results) and that it's an "easy" fix, but if it's just something that the D is going to do, it could end up hanging a millstone around the team's neck for the entire game. I'm sure the staff and team are studying film to figure out what's happening. I hope it's all sorted out soon!

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2213057-heisman-watch-2014-top-5-rankings-for-week-5 Is this a joke? These guys....

I don't hate the SEC, I just think it's been pretty funny for the last few years how we get comments like the one I exaggerated I still think it was kind of a mild travesty (as travesties go) that the BCS made the NT an SEC title game one year. The structure of the title game had the inherent assumption that the best team in the SEC was the best team in the country, and they didn't need to play anyone else to prove it. It was just a foregone conclusion that no one outside the SEC was worthy of playing the SEC for the championship. Might an SEC team still have one? Maybe, but who knows? I'm glad that they're taking some hits in non-conference play.

Crappy conference! Stop being brainwashed. Compared to all of the power conferences, B1G Ten is near the bottom. Not being brainwashed, I just see this conference being a bit down this year... Nebraska should take advantage of that. a zero loss big ten team can still make the playoffs. I doubt there is more than 1 SEC team with l1 loss or less(obviously can only be 1 with zero losses). Everyone knows that you can lose every game in the SEC and it's like winning every other conference and even a weak conference in the NFL. O settle down... The infatuation HB has with hate for the SEC is worse than the infatuation ESPN has with the SEC. You settle down. You're out of control!

Huh... I'd have to agree. That would, at least, be confusing and lead to a lot of interesting discussions. Losing to a good team and beating a bad one would just put us between those two and be unremarkable. So, if I had to pick one, I'd choose the same way you did.

Crappy conference! Stop being brainwashed. Compared to all of the power conferences, B1G Ten is near the bottom. Not being brainwashed, I just see this conference being a bit down this year... Nebraska should take advantage of that. a zero loss big ten team can still make the playoffs. I doubt there is more than 1 SEC team with l1 loss or less(obviously can only be 1 with zero losses). Everyone knows that you can lose every game in the SEC and it's like winning every other conference and even a weak conference in the NFL.