STANS Herbstreit column

[t-noah]

Sorry to derail the thread but here's a somewhat relevant link

STANZ: Kirk Herbstreit says he's worried about the state of college football. Well...

Jan 1, 2019; Pasadena, CA, USA; Kirk Herbstreit on the ESPN Championship Drive set prior to the 2019 Rose Bowl between the Washington Huskies and the Ohio State Buckeyes. Mandatory Credit: Kirby Lee-USA TODAY Sports Kirk Herbstreit fired people up in all corners of the Internet on Tuesday when he

cyclonefanatic.com

I disagree with Stans on this " Now, I will give Herbstreit his props for noting the season at Iowa. Even as a writer for Cyclone Fanatic, I can admit what the Hawkeyes have done this season is impressive when you consider everything that went on in Iowa City over the summer"

Impressive? Iowa has beaten NOBODY and lost to Purdue!!!! Oh yeah I'm pretty impressed. To quote Coach McCarney "Are you shittin me?"

Great writeup @Stanz51! I would also agree with our friend isufbcurt! Another astute observation. Otherwise Stanz, great article!

 

[t-noah]

Hence the biggest reason for not wanting 5 star athletes with 5 star egos. Give me a 4 star who'll work his butt off over a 5 star ego any day.

On a parallel thought, I'm kind of hoping CMC feels similarly about ISU vs. any particular blueblood (fill in the blank). I would hope he feels this place (Ames) is really the place to be. This is where I want to coach and make my mark for a long time. Look at the crap I would have to deal with every year if I went elsewhere.

 

[LarryISU]

Yeah so impressive Herbie thinks a big 10 team beating other terrible big 10 teams is a great story.

Well, after all he played for and I assume graduated from a B1G school, do you really think he is going to select some non-B1G school as an example of a "great story?" Seems to me he is now trying to deflect from the fact that he originally demonstrated that all he really cares about is that his Buckeyes make it to the CFP. And so with his other hand while you're not looking, he pulls out, "Oh, let's all quit focusing on the CFP!", when he is the most guilty one of doing that in the first place. What's the word for that, hippo-krit?

 

[jdoggivjc]

What I keep coming back to, is in what other sport at any level, is a whole set of teams literally have no shot at ever playing for a title. All levels of football, basketball, etc have a shot to win a national title. FBS only power 5 schools do. Group of 5 literally can only win their conference then a meaningless bowl game. FBS is the most rigged sports system in existence. And as we are seeing this year, if you have a blue blood brand, you are automatically qualified to the playoff playing less games than other teams. What a joke

It's not just G5 teams. To the extent the committee can control it only "select" P5 teams also will only ever get the opportunity. It was already shown that one year that TCU and Baylor aren't worthy - both had 1 loss that year and finished 5 and 6 in the poll respectively. You honestly think the "13th data point" was ever anything but a red herring? If TCU or Baylor had won a championship game that season they would have found some other red herring that showed that OSU was more worthy. In the Big 12, unless you're OU or UT, and this includes ISU, unless you're sitting at 13-0 and forcing the playoff committee's hand, you're not getting into the playoff, and that will be my hot take until the day comes that I'm proven wrong - and I won't be holding my breath waiting for that day to come.

 

[mp444]

I have found the college football "playoff" pretty easy to ignore. It's just some games between teams that are essentially interchangeable to me. I tend not to watch because I don't care who wins. Although, I did once see a live feed with coaches of other teams analyzing every play which was interesting (but would have been interesting no matter what game they were watching). I don't even think of it as any kind of champion of college football since probably 80% of teams have 0 shot even if they win all their games. Give a path to all teams and it starts to have some legitimacy.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

I think Jared was too easy on him. He's a friggin moron if he can't see outside his own bias. Wah!!!!!! No one cares about anything but CFP, 'I'm sorry Iowa who? Oh the coach that's leaving for Michigan soon?' What a ******* d bag Kirk can be.

 

[LarryISU]

Alabama, Oregon, Florida State, Ohio State
Clemson, Alabama. Oklahoma, Michigan State
Alabama. Clemson, Ohio State, Washington
Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama
Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, Oklahoma
LSU, Ohio State, Clemson, Oklahoma

There is the history so far of the teams in the CFP.
24 spots available: 5 to Alabama, 5 to Clemson, 3 to Oklahoma and 3 to Ohio State.
So there's 3/5 of the available spots given to just those 4 teams.
So, I think a lot of you have made a good point, the CFP is for a select few programs that have huge athletic budgets and get all the publicity from the one-sided, narrow-minded TV dictators.

To Rece Davis and his brethren, Texas essentially forfeited that game to us, we did not win it with better coaching, better execution of our game plan, and/or better determination and grit by our players. No, no, no, to ESPN it is just a mistake when someone like ISU gets into the top ten. It certainly is not a "great story." Better to just ignore it and hope it goes away.

 

[t-noah]

It's not just G5 teams. To the extent the committee can control it only "select" P5 teams also will only ever get the opportunity. It was already shown that one year that TCU and Baylor aren't worthy - both had 1 loss that year and finished 5 and 6 in the poll respectively. You honestly think the "13th data point" was ever anything but a red herring? If TCU or Baylor had won a championship game that season they would have found some other red herring that showed that OSU was more worthy. In the Big 12, unless you're OU or UT, and this includes ISU, unless you're sitting at 13-0 and forcing the playoff committee's hand, you're not getting into the playoff, and that will be my hot take until the day comes that I'm proven wrong - and I won't be holding my breath waiting for that day to come.

The obvious (well they'd find a reason not to) solution might be to
go to eight teams. Talked about before. You could do it two ways: 1) Seed the top 8, then #1 plays 8, 2 vs. 7, etc., three rounds. Or, 2) Continue to have the top 4 play each other in the first 2 rounds, just like now. Seeds 5-8 also play two rounds, each other. After 2 rounds of that, the Final (round 3). You have one team from the top 4 playing one team from the next 4, winner take all.

I like option 2 best? You'd still get the excitement of the two games from top 4. Plus the Final game would verify the champion from an initial list of 8 schools instead of 4. The final might not be as good as the semi-final top 4 game, but someone in the top 8 still has an outside chance of going all the way. Kind of convoluted but works for me.

 

[clonedude]

If tOSU can't make the playoff due to Covid.... Herbie should be blaming tOSU head coach and players for getting Covid.... not Michigan.

As for Iowa.... what a joke. They've done NOTHING impressive this year at all. Haven't beaten a single team with even a pulse, and lost to one meh team and one above average team. And what did they overcome from this summer?? Oh that's right..... a 20 year racist history they created themselves.... how awesome they are!!! They should get some kind of medal or something!

Just stupid.

 

[flycy]

I think Jared was too easy on him. He's a friggin moron if he can't see outside his own bias. Wah!!!!!! No one cares about anything but CFP, 'I'm sorry Iowa who? Oh the coach that's leaving for Michigan soon?' What a ******* d bag Kirk can be.

Its professional curtesy, sort of like how you hear him and CW defend Randy professionally. For all I know a great guy, but he definitely deserves great professional criticism as does the Rag in general.

 

[superiorcyclone]

Herbie would spend less time wringing his hands about his picks for the CFP if you had to play your way in by winning your conference. I find it really offensive that some teams get a do over when they do not win their own conference.

 

[cyclones500]

What I keep coming back to, is in what other sport at any level, is a whole set of teams literally have no shot at ever playing for a title.

Yes, that part is a "sham of a mockery." FBS structure eliminates one-third of its membership from having ANY path to the possibility of competing for the title.

It doesn't have to make it "easy" for a non-P5 to have a path to the playoff, by any means, but the opportunity simply has to exist. There are ways to do it without expanding the field beyond a reasonable number of teams or requiring high-seeded teams to play more than 1 additional playoff game.

 

[carvers4math]

Stanz>that fathead.

Makes Game Day unwatchable.

Another great Hawk comeback from racism every two years. Maybe quit being racist pricks.

Just doesn’t have a clue what the vast majority of programs are like or what they experience.

 

[NWICY]

Only reason Herbie is whining is because his precious tOSU might get left out.

 

[Cyched]

Creating a 4 team playoff was the right move, but it was a backwards step to reintroduce human bias into the process.

The BCS computers weren't perfect, but it was a fine method to rank teams by giving them the same unbiased treatment. The problem was always that they only allowed 2 teams to play for the title.

Keep the computer rankings, but take the top 4. Sofa king simple

 

[jdoggivjc]

The obvious (well they'd find a reason not to) solution might be to go to eight teams. Talked about before. You could do it two ways: 1) Seed the top 8, then #1 plays 8, 2 vs. 7, etc., or 2) Continue to have the top 4 play each other in the first round, just like now. Seeds 5-8 also play in first round, each other. Next in the Final round/game, you have one team from the top 4 playing one team from the next 4, winner take all.

I like option 2 best? You'd still get the excitement of the semi-final top 4 game. Plus the Final game would verify the champion from an initial list of 8 schools instead of 4. The final game might not be as good as the semi-final top 4 game, but someone in the top 8 still has an outside chance of going all the way.

The structure for an 8-team playoff is so obvious there's no reason why it shouldn't be done this way: The 5 P5 conference champs, the highest ranked G5 conference champ, and 2 at-large teams. While this doesn't guarantee equal chances for every FBS team, at least every FBS team has a chance, unlike the current setup where nearly every year it's Alabama, Clemson, Ohio St, and a wildcard team (usually either Oklahoma or a Pac-12 team)

 

[Papajets]

Creating a 4 team playoff was the right move, but it was a backwards step to reintroduce human bias into the process.

The BCS computers weren't perfect, but it was a fine method to rank teams by giving them the same unbiased treatment. The problem was always that they only allowed 2 teams to play for the title.

Keep the computer rankings, but take the top 4. Sofa king simple

I disagree, kind of. To create the most excitement there needs to be 8 teams, one team from each power 5 conference, so teams have a reason to play beyond their conference championship, and then 3 at large teams either selected via computer or the committee. More teams more excitement throughout college football

 

[Cyched]

I disagree, kind of. To create the most excitement there needs to be 8 teams, one team from each power 5 conference, so teams have a reason to play beyond their conference championship, and then 3 at large teams either selected via computer or the committee. More teams more excitement throughout college football

Yeah, an 8 team playoff would allow P5 champions, 3 at large, in which you could include the best G5 if they're having an undefeated/11-1 type season

I think the 4 team playoff was part of the wet dream when the Big 12 was on the brink and we would have the champions of these 4 superconferences facing off, but I think that idea has gone by the wayside

 

[burn587]

Creating a 4 team playoff was the right move, but it was a backwards step to reintroduce human bias into the process.

The BCS computers weren't perfect, but it was a fine method to rank teams by giving them the same unbiased treatment. The problem was always that they only allowed 2 teams to play for the title.

Keep the computer rankings, but take the top 4. Sofa king simple

Absolutely. The only controversies in the BCS was 2 vs 3. Usually by the 4th team you couldn’t make an argument for them being in the championship game. They completely threw the baby out with the bath water due to BCS “controversies” none of which were any more controversial than the same teams always making the playoff.

Since we are stuck with the current system, I’m on board with 8 teams compromised of the champs of the power 5 conferences, top group of 5 team, and 2 at large.

 

[Cyched]

Thinking back to some of the more controversial years of the BCS if we had the playoff. We were deprived of some awesome matchups:

2000

(1) Oklahoma vs. (4) Washington
(2) Florida St vs. (3) Miami

2001

(1) Miami vs. (4) Oregon
(2) Nebraska vs. (3) Colorado

2004

(1) USC vs. (4) Texas
(2) Oklahoma vs. (3) Auburn

2010

(1) Auburn vs. (4) Stanford
(2) Oregon vs. (3) TCU

2011

(1) LSU vs. (4) Stanford
(2) Alabama vs. (3) Oklahoma State


There's several other years you can do this what-if as well. And I'm sure you could go back even farther to some of those years where we had split national champs thanks to the pollsters.