JKinney
-
Posts
51 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by JKinney
-
-
It's a very simple concept: Eliminating (as much as possible) human bias in the playoff selection. How do we accomplish this? Use conference championships to determine playoff spots for most teams. Every other way of determining it including: by committee, 'eye test', SOS, are all subjective tests based on human perception.
I've said it over and over: " In the NCAA basketball tournament last year Arizona No. 2 seed was clearly "better" than Xavier No. 11 seed, so even though Xavier beat Arizona in the tournament, since Arizona was the "better" team they should be the one to advance? The idea that a team should advance to the playoff because someone thinks they are "better" is crazy"
-
2
-
-
Just now, BigRedN said:
My guess ... and probably hope ... would be that the P5 conference champs are in. Next, the champs of the other conferences would go into a pool of teams against the other 2nd best teams from the P5 schools and in that pool of teams their would need to be a committee of some type where rankings and strength of schedule and probably even "eye test" was used to determine the 3 remaining spots (I think I got that number right?) Anyway, nothing would ever be perfect but I would love to see an 8 team playoff. I'd also be in favor of reducing the off-season schedule to three games. Heck, I'd actually like to just play the other B1G teams and do away with out of conference ... but that is probably another issue. If we have an "out of conference" type schedule I'd be a big fan of rotating games with the Big XII, PAC 12 and ACC. Again, that's a whole other issue (just not a fan of playing 2-3 puff games at home to pad the wins).
I would be perfectly happy using the system you just outlined.
Personally, I would reserve the last 3 spots for non-P5 conference championship winners to be selected by some sort of metric, but that is not really a sticking point with me.
-
2 minutes ago, Husker_Bohunk said:
No. Who do you replace the conference champion with? An "eye test" team?
No other sport kicks a conference champion from the playoffs because their record wasn't good enough. If the team wins their conference they are good enough for the playoffs.
Totally AGREE! I think the worse thing that could happen would be if we expanded the playoffs to 8 teams, and we are still using 'Rankings', 'eye tests', committees, and sportswriters to make all these picks. We need to use conference championships as a ticket for the playoffs. All other sports use something similar.
-
I have to respectfully disagree with almost everything in this post. To respond, first let me copy a previous post of mine in support of an 8 team playoff:
The college football 4-team playoff is obviously beyond imperfect, but I believe that the only teams qualified to go to the CFP are CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP WINNERS. I would want 8 teams ideally...5 Power-5 conference championship winners, 3 non-power five conference championship winners. It would get rid of some of the SUBJECTIVE measures and propaganda, such as which team is "the best".
There are some who would then say (in a hypothetical situation), "But a 12-1 Alabama team (that didn't play in a conference championship) is clearly 'better' than Auburn 10-3 (let's pretend for a second that Auburn won the conference championship)." To this I would reply: In the NCAA basketball tournament last year Arizona No. 2 seed was clearly "better" than Xavier No. 11 seed, so even though Xavier beat Arizona in the tournament, since Arizona was the "better" team they should be the one to advance? The idea that a team should advance to the playoff because someone thinks they are "better" is crazy. I think teams would/should be forced to treat their in conference schedule as their toughest test. Teams know what they have to do to win their conference, the rules are clear and easy to follow. If you don't win your conference too bad.
Now to respond point by point:
I want the season to matter. Right now, the season matters for some teams and not for others. What we need is to be consistent. For example, the season 'mattered' for Ohio State (won conference championship but didn't go to playoff), but didn't "matter" for Alabama (didn't even play in conference championship, advanced to playoff)
p5 champions should not automatically get in: If only conference championships mattered, every conference would be treated like a tournament, and every team that advanced to the playoff would be picked by the clear rules of the conference, that everyone understands. This is much preferable to the media and other fans telling me who is better based on an "eye test"
what about the last team left out: There is not a tournament or championship in the world where this doesn't take place. Are you arguing to make the college football playoff less fair, because it will always be a little unfair? I can't support that position.
4 or more post regular season games: They do this in DII all the time. Fans like it and it doesn't seem to be a problem.
other bowl games mean even less: I think the NCAA has done this to themselves with the sheer amount of pointless bowl games (see Dollar General Bowl)
less undefeated champions: This point is well taken. But I do think that undefeated seasons would mean more than they did in the past, because at some point in the season, other than the National Championship, you would be forced to play tough opponents.
Hype: As I have stated before, this is exactly the reason you WOULD switch to a conference championship 8 team playoff
higher chance of playing teams multiple times same season: This would not happen as you suggest if you just picked P5 conference champions and 3 non-power five conference championship winners
Wrong champion: "Coinciding with the first one. Is the champion the best team or the team that played the best at the end of the season?" This is your most incoherent argument. See my example above. Would you advance Arizona in the NCAA basketball tournament, because Arizona just didn't play the best at the end of the season?
hard on fans: I agree with you that games should be moved to campus sites
We can absolutely agree to disagree, but I truly believe an 8 team playoff similar to the one I outlined above, would be a great thing for college football.
-
2
-
-
16 minutes ago, Vern said:
My point is that as long as the CFP committee are making the rankings I really don't think an 8-team playoff is big enough to get an undefeated g5 team in. 16-team playoff would be big enough but then you're getting into too many games territory.
I can not speak for everyone, but I think what you are not acknowledging is that the "wildcards" could be reserved for at least one G5 team. So 5 spots would go to each of the Power Five conference championship winners, 1 to a G5 conference championship winner (still some subjectivity), and 2 true wildcards. I would like at least one of the 3 "wildcard" spots in a 8 team playoff to be specifically reserved for a G5 conference championship winner. The hope is (as other posters have pointed out) to get rid of as much subjectivity as possible.
-
Just now, BigRedBuster said:
I'm interested in knowing what "power" you think the media has now. Right now, the 4 team playoff is decided by random people the NCAA put together that don't have ties to the media. Heck, the AP poll isn't even used anymore.
I don't think moving to what I suggested changes the media's power or place in the world of college football.
*Tin Foil Hat On*
I think the media ( via the Overton Window) absolutely sets the narrative on college football, especially ESPN. They are largely responsible for terms like "SEC" speed, an eye test to know who is the "best team", the X conference is the best conference, this year the bowl record of conference X matters, next year it doesn't. By controlling the Overton window, they are able to control the realm of public opinion, including those members of the playoff selection committee. I think it would be ridiculous to say ESPN is pulling the strings to select the playoff committee voters, or telling them how to vote. But I think it would also be ridiculous to say that ESPN hasn't created the narrative (I would call it pure propaganda) that fosters opinions like this (from committee person Kirby Hocutt) original link is in Ladyhawke's post in Nebraska and UCF Knights thread:
If you want evidence that ESPN is biased that probably belongs in another thread....but it can surely be provided, a sample is below:
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/news/story?id=3553033
*Tin Foil Hat Off*
I would say the media has a vested interest (see link above) in promoting certain teams/narratives/conferences, and it does it's best to promote these and change the Overton window of what most fans (and the committee) sees as acceptable.
I hope that helps explain. I completely respect your opinion if you disagree.
-
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:
That's pretty much what I've always said. conference championship games are basically the first round of the playoff. 8 team play off including winners of Power 5 CCG and 3 wild cards including teams like UCF this year. The first round of playoffs are before Christmas with higher seed getting home field advantage, second round on New Years and the championship a week later.
It's really not a difficult concept.
We basically solved the CFP in less than one page of the message board. The reason it isn't implemented is that it would require the media (also the NCAA and committee members, etc.) to give up control, and control = power for them.
I do think we are getting closer (building fan support) for an 8 team playoff, but my worry would be that if it was expanded to 8 teams we could still possibly be picking by committee. I think that would be the media's next move to attempt to maintain their position. Then I feel like the Power 5 would each get one team a year...and the SEC would get 2-3, with a possible at large pick. The conference champions getting playoff bids are key for me, or else the system only gets slightly better.
Also, I love the idea of home field advantage as previous posters have suggested.
-
1 minute ago, Enhance said:
I think that's a fair point. (I did add a qualifier to my above post by the way but I think you were typing a response and probably didn't see it
).
Ultimately, I would be OK with an eight-team CFP that includes automatic bids and three wildcard spots. It has issues but every system will. This would (mostly) guarantee the best teams in the Power 5 make it in. The three wildcard spots could then be left open to some debate and subjectivity, and would likely allow for a team like a UCF to make it in. It would also give good teams like tOSU a chance to play for a title.
Personally, I'm still happier about what transpired this year rather than what would've happened had the BCS system been in place. Clemson and Oklahoma likely would've played for the title and we now know the two teams ranked underneath them could have (and did) beat them on the biggest stage. I think (and hope) it's time to start having serious conversation about making the system better.
I can't give +1's (technical difficulties) so........
-
9 minutes ago, Enhance said:
In a hypothetical 8-team CFP, I'm still hesitant to award Power 5 conference champions with an automatic berth. Nine times out of 10 this will be a good idea, but, remember 2012 Wisconsin? They won the conference with eight wins because tOSU was ineligible to participate. In this same 8-team scenario, Wisconsin would've gotten in over about 10 or so double-digit winning teams that season.
That's one of the (few) reasons I like the current 4-team format. Simply winning the conference matters but it's not an end-all be-all for making it in.
Well I absolutely respect your opinion, but I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I'll make one last comment in the hopes of clarifying my point. Otherwise no hard feelings.
I don't have a problem with an 8 win Wisconsin in an 8 team playoff, and here's why. Wisconsin followed every OBJECTIVE metric (which they knew before the season began), in order to advance to the 8 team CFP. These metrics were known before the season began (including the OSU ineligibility), and were fair to everyone in the conference and nation. Let's say for a second that you don't let Wisconsin into the CFP that year, and instead you decide to fill their spot with a team that didn't win a championship. That team that you pick would be chosen on purely subjective terms. I.E. a committee's vote, ESPN narratives, who's going to be best for TV ratings, what games the coaches and persons voting actually watched. Choosing conference champions would be the best way of getting rid of the subjectivity. Not completely, but significantly.
You might like to think that Wisconsin would get crushed in an 8-team CFP playoff that year. But let me remind you, these same brilliant analysts and committee members also all predicted an Miami route of Wisconsin this year, and UCF was a 9 point underdog to Auburn.
P.S. I feel like I have to take a shower now after defending Wisconsin....
-
2 hours ago, Enhance said:
I removed that portion of my post as I didn't want to touch on it quite yet.
My main point is yes, the system is imperfect. And I believe there are certain teams who should've had a shot at a title. However, looking at the end result, I'm having a tough time arguing that there are two better teams who should be in that game.
The college football 4-team playoff is obviously beyond imperfect, but I believe that the only teams qualified to go to the CFP are CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP WINNERS. I would want 8 teams ideally...5 Power-5 conference championship winners, 3 non-power five conference championship winners. It would get rid of some of the SUBJECTIVE measures and propaganda, such as which team is "the best".
There are some who would then say (in a hypothetical situation that could have happened this year), "But a 12-1 Alabama team (that didn't play in a conference championship) is clearly 'better' than Auburn 10-3 (let's pretend for a second that Auburn won the conference championship this year)." To this I would reply: In the NCAA basketball tournament last year Arizona No. 2 seed was clearly "better" than Xavier No. 11 seed, so even though Xavier beat Arizona in the tournament, since Arizona was the "better" team they should be the one to advance? The idea that a team should advance to the playoff because someone thinks they are "better" is crazy. I think teams would/should be forced to treat their in conference schedule as their toughest test. Teams know what they have to do to win their conference, the rules are clear and easy to follow. If you don't win your conference too bad.
As for this year, Alabama didn't win their conference championship, in fact they didn't even play in the conference championship game. For all those that are ready to label Alabama one of the two "best" teams in the nation, it is 100% pure subjective opinion. If they are one of the two "best" teams in the nation, why didn't they at least play in their conference championship game? UCF did, Ohio State did, USC did, Clemson did, Georgia did.
-
When Scott Frost was asked on the Mike Bianchi show what he thought of the turnover chain at Miami, he called it "neat", but said as long as he is coaching they are never going to be "self-promoters". So I think overall he is against gimmicks like the turnover chain:
https://player.fm/series/open-mike-1473472/ucf-head-coach-scott-frost-wPxhwD69JTQScHWE
That said, if they had to, as stated by the OP, I would keep it to something simple, like getting to wear a Blackshirt (larger than normal?) practice jersey on the sideline. Just a thought.
-
1
-
-
Just now, BigRedBuster said:
Supposedly has signed.
Nate Clouse on 1620thezone just stated Alston is signed.
-
1
-
-
Farniok I posted to the wrong thread sorry!
-
1
-
-
Posted Will Farniok to the Jordan Allen thread...mods can delete if needed. Sorry!
-
27 minutes ago, Mavric said:
And I am saying I don't care if the Huskers would have run fullback dive on 100% of their plays during that time period. They had good enough athletes on defense to dominate most opponents. So I don't think - in that case - the "specialized" offense was nearly as much of a hindrance as it is now. And the Huskers offense of those days wasn't as specialized as the service academies are now, but that's kind of splitting hairs.
I provided information on a larger sample size - how Navy has done in total defense over the last several years. There are a lot of factors to it but they have been average at best.
Obviously I'm not making myself clear, I apologize. I will try one more time to explain my perspective. If I'm still sounding/am crazy then no hard feelings.
You state above that the reason the Husker defense was good during that time period is because we had enough athletes on defense to dominate most opponents. I would say almost the exact same thing, except I also think they were coached superbly (which I think you would also agree with?). I think what makes a good defense has almost nothing to do with what offense they practice against, but rather the quality of their athletes and how well they've been coached.
So what makes Nebraska different than Navy?
1. The fact that Navy can't recruit nearly as well as other schools (which means they don't get 'good enough athletes to dominate most opponents'.)
2. Navy's players must stay under a weight limit, in some/all cases (they don't have big enough defensive and offensive lineman to fit their needs, among other problems).
So Navy's defensive rankings aren't particularly useful to me, because all things being equal, I believe their athletes are far inferior to other D1 FBS schools, because of the fact they are a service academy. When you say, "See these rankings show Navy's defense isn't well prepped because all they face is an option attack." I will say, "The reason Navy's defense is mediocre, is because they don't have very good athletes." What IS important to me, is whether the fact that your team has a specialized offense can substantially hurt your team's defense, which would be an argument against modern teams running the option offense. I do not believe this to be the case.
-
2 minutes ago, Mavric said:
Comparing the Nebraska teams on that era with the current service academies is apples and oranges. Those Nebraska teams had some of the best athletes in the country. The current service academies have nothing close to that. As I noted, those Huskers played a lot of teams that we simply dominated physically. The service academies are usually on the other end of that battle. Not really comparable.
I don't think just making a blanket "look at the score of those three games" tells you much. There are way too many variables for three games to give you any sort of trend. In the Navy game, UCF turned it over on downs at the Navy 3, had a botched snap that killed a drive, missed a FG on first down as the half expired, and threw an INT in Navy territory. Credit Navy for making some plays but UCF could have easily scored 10 more points - and possibly more - with just a couple things going differently that had nothing to do with how well Navy was playing defense. To say nothing of whether the defenses were playing more aggressive for Memphis vs. playing more to prevent the big play for Navy or anything like that. Need a much bigger sample size than that to draw any conclusions. Considering Navy has more often been in the 70s in the country in total defense than they've been in the Top 50 recently, the aren't exactly setting the world on fire.
Just to clarify, I am not comparing the 94' - 97' Huskers to the current Navy Midshipmen, what I am doing is saying that they ran a similar specialized offense. In 94' - 97' not a lot of teams were running the offense that the Cornhuskers were. You had stated in a previous post: "there is also a component of them not be able to fully prepare for the other offenses they see because the are so decidedly one-dimensional that they would struggle to give their defense a good look in practice." The fact that Nebraska was able to run a similar specialized offense, and still have a top ten defense for multiple years is evidence for (but obviously does not prove) that having a specialized offense does not hurt your defensive preparation.
I absolutely don't think you should "look at the score of those three games", like I said in my post, the sample size is incredibly small to make any such comparison. What I am trying to do is separate two variables: The Navy Midshipmen's recruiting restrictions & player weight limits, from the type of specialized offense they run. Until the sample size is increased, I will agree to disagree.
BTW, Mike Leach at Texas Tech ran a very specialized offense, I will take a look into his defensive statistics and see how they looked on average.
-
7 hours ago, Mavric said:
Yes and no. There is definitely a component of the service academies having less to work with - that’s pretty much why they run that offense to begin with.
But there is also a component of them not be able to fully prepare for the other offenses they see because the are so decidedly one-dimensional that they would struggle to give their defense a good look in practice.
Just like it’s tough for other teams to prepare for their offense on a one-week prep, it’s tough for their defense to prepare for other offenses that they never see.
I think you bring up some good points, but overall I disagree with your above statement. In the History of Nebraska Offenses thread, I provided data showing the total defense ranking for Nebraska from 1989 to 1997. You will find that from 1994 through 1997 Nebraska had a top ten offense and top ten defense every year (provided some assumptions about 1995). Although Tom Osborne was not running Navy's current offense exactly, I think it would be fair to say that the Husker defense practiced against an offense that was also decidedly one-dimensional, and they did well by my standard.
I would also point to the head to head matchup between UCF and Navy, I realize the sample size is just one game, but the score was 31-21 UCF. While Memphis (which runs a similar offense to UCF, so according to your argument the defense should be better prepared) lost 40-13, and 62-55, and in 2016 won 73-56. This seems to point to the fact that the type of offense you run, doesn't necessarily dictate what your defense will be better prepared for.
-
1
-
-
For someone in the know : What was the talent comparison between Nebraska, Penn State, and Florida?
I was not an avid Nebraska volleyball fan (until now!) and I was curious if anyone had some thoughts on this. Based on my very uneducated eye test, it seemed to me that Penn State and Florida both had better athletes, in the sense that they seemed bigger, faster, and stronger on the whole. But that Nebraska seemed much better coached. Agree or disagree?
-
I had a hard time finding Total Defense Rankings since 1973, but I got these numbers from the NCAA archived stats (in .pdf form) on their website for some context (offensive rank followed by defensive):
1989: 2nd, 8th (10-2)
1990: 10th, 7th (9-3)
1991: 3rd, 49th (9-2-1)
1992: 3rd, 24th (9-3)
1993: 7th, 12th (11-1)
1994: 8th, 4th (13-0)
1995: 1st, 13th (12-0) 53.2 ppg
1996: 3rd, 7th (11-2)
1997: 1st, 5th (13-0)
If anyone knows where to find 1973 - 1988 I would love to see that as well. I think what is undeniable is that (as stated by the OP) Tom Osborne was an offensive guru. But I do think what helped him get over the hump was a defense that significantly improved after 1992. In 1995, I think our team was not in the top 10 defensive only because our 2nd or 3rd team would be in by the 2nd half. If that assumption is correct then from 1994 - 1997 we had a top ten defense and offense every year.
-
13 minutes ago, jassman24 said:
You sound like coach diaco.
I think you are on to something with that comment. What gives me pause is the mentality of not really caring how many points are scored on us. I realize in the modern game that no matter how good of a coach, staff, and players you have, there are times where you will get gashed as a defense. But after the AAC conference championship game (and please correct me if I am wrong) it didn't seem as if anyone on the UCF coaching staff was overly concerned.
A win is a win, but my opinion is that both sides of the ball should deserve equal consideration, and even though this may not be a fact, the impression under the Chip Kelly/Scott Frost offense, and the UCF-Memphis, UCF-USF games, was that defense is an afterthought. I think this philosophy/zeitgeist/impression that offense comes first and defense second is what is causing some hesitation among Husker fans.
All that said, I have confidence that Chinander and Frost will do just fine if they have time to adjust, learn, and adapt. I honestly believe that Scott Frost knows and understands the importance of the Blackshirts to Nebraska football.
-
10 hours ago, Kiyoat Husker said:
Yeah, how did the voice of "The Longhorn Network " get into a Husker video?
I did enjoy that video, though. Excellent editing.
Great video, but I couldn't help but be reminded of this Schick and Nick Show from back in the day. Enjoy with headphones if you are at work.
-
2
-
-
Great Post! It forced me to think outside of my box. In my head, I was also imagining that Frost would go after a quarterback with blazing speed, but your post made me re-consider a lot. A good argument could be made that McKenzie Milton is closer to Joe Ganz than Taylor Martinez.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:
I have said this forever. It's not logical for a kid to claim his life goal is to play in the NFL then shy away from a school because it's not in a warm climate.
But....these are kids.
I think most kids see (accurately) that the competition for a spot in the NFL is extremely arduous, so they are trying to find any tiny edge they can get in showcasing their talents to the best of their ability. I think it would be logical for a dual threat quarterback to try to find a school that uses his abilities to the utmost (like at Oregon when they had Chip Kelly/Scott Frost's offense), even though it is unlikely that system will be seen much in the NFL. Much in the same way, I think WR's can see playing for a warm climate school as a tiny edge in their completions and total yards/TDs etc.
That said I do think you make a sound argument, and more kids should take your advice than not.
-
1
-
-
On 12/9/2017 at 8:51 AM, I.M. OLD said:
Jeff Kinney. Game of the century
I second that!
Against adding to playoff
in Husker Football
Posted
We may just have to agree to disagree, but let me try to convince you: SOS, win loss record, and margin of victory are (with maybe the exception of SOS) factual data. The problem is when you interpret and weigh the data subjectively.
For one, you left out a lot of data that other teams or people might consider important, for instance what about defensive ranking or offensive ranking, home or away records, etc. You subjectively picked out the three pieces of data you wanted to use in your calculations.
Second, who gets to determine how each of your three facts get weighed? Why should a team who went 11-1 (with a SOS #15) get to go over a team that went 12-0 (with a SOS #25) or vice versa? Do you see how it can get really dicey depending on how you want to weigh each piece of your data? Which you must admit is pure human bias.
It sounds to me like you want to bring back the BCS, without the coaches or AP poll, just the computer rankings, what you forget is that the BCS formula, was designed by humans with bias from the start. You might be interested to read about the debate over whether to include margin of victory in the rankings (https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/07/11/bcs-computer-rankings-polls-formula-sagarin-billingsley). Definitely not my flavor of Gatorade. 8 team playoff, 5 P5 conference championship winners, 3 chosen among the rest allows far more teams to settle it on the field.