College Football 2014: Hurry Up No Huddle comment posting

[S John]

Its kind of crazy how even though the playoff is more inclusive of conferences than the BCSNCG, the conference pissing match is already a big storyline and will continue to be. Maybe even more of a big deal than it was in the BCS era. Makes me wonder if the buzz that the '5 conferences for 4 spots' drama generates this season actually ends up being a strike against moving to an 8 team playoff. Because the conference intrigue is actually a pretty compelling element in itself. I think an 8 team playoff would be perfect, but a 4 team playoff does retain the importance of a great regular season and emphasizes playing tough ooc games in case your conference is slacking that year.

And also consider that Notre Dame is undefeated right now and looks like they are actually good. What happens if they go undefeated or one-loss in year one of the playoff era? Then two of the five power conferences might get left out. and if FSU also went undefeated then you've only got 2 more spots between the B1G, pac, sec, and big 12 with the SEC likely angling for both. That would be some good shit, entertainment-wise, even if objectively unfair to one or two of the candidates who are left out.

As far as rooting for other teams in conference games, I usually want to root for chaos. For example, I know it is better for the Big 12 overall if Baylor does not lose to Iowa State this year. But if Iowa State were in a position to win late in the game - I would definitely be pulling for Iowa State to win. I do that in most games. If I don't hate the underdog for some reason then that is the team that I want to win. For out of conference games I almost always pull for the conference mate. I usually did that in the post-2004 Big East too, unless the conference mate was Pitt.

[Rhom]

That is not how you root for college football.

S-E-C!

S-E-C!!

S-E-C!!!

[Howdyphillip]

For the record, I want to reiterate my stance that I think the playoff format in college football is a terrible idea that degrades the game even more than the travesty that was the BCS did. College football is not, nor should be set up for this type of system. The drama this year does nothing but prove my point for me.

[lokisnow]

I always root against notre dame and Oklahoma. Hate is more powerful than conference affiliation. On the other hand it is fairly fun to root against the big ten in total at the moment.

[Kalbear]

Yeah, howdyphillip - your view of college rivalries is nothing like what virtually every fan I've ever met feels. And didn't you say you just started following the longhorns recently, like a few years ago?

The rooting for your conference thing is a very recent addition to many fans - and even then, no Michigan fan roots for osu. No Washington fan roots for Oregon. Auburn and Alabama won't be rooting for each other.

[sperry]

Yeah, howdyphillip - your view of college rivalries is nothing like what virtually every fan I've ever met feels. And didn't you say you just started following the longhorns recently, like a few years ago?

The rooting for your conference thing is a very recent addition to many fans - and even then, no Michigan fan roots for osu. No Washington fan roots for Oregon. Auburn and Alabama won't be rooting for each other.

I am a lifelong OU fan and root for Texas and Oklahoma State non-conference. As an under 30, my entire fandom has been in the BCS era, so rooting for conference mates in the non-conference season is good business. It's better for a number of reasons for Texas to be undefeated when they come into the Cotton Bowl every October.

[Howdyphillip]

Yeah, howdyphillip - your view of college rivalries is nothing like what virtually every fan I've ever met feels. And didn't you say you just started following the longhorns recently, like a few years ago?

The rooting for your conference thing is a very recent addition to many fans - and even then, no Michigan fan roots for osu. No Washington fan roots for Oregon. Auburn and Alabama won't be rooting for each other.

I think you may have a misunderstanding... I grew up a Longhorns fan. I was a huge supporter of the SW conference, and I miss it to this day.

Also, you are absolutely 100% wrong. Well, maybe 97% as some people might not understand the college ranking system. Everyone wants to meet their biggest rivals with as much at stake as possible and that means grudgingly wanting them to win their other games. This is almost as old as college football itself. Even when the NC was decided by the AP and coaches polls, this was the way college football fans watched the games.

I'm not saying I get my pompoms out and paint my face red when OU plays, but I definitely want to see them unblemished coming into the Cotton Bowl in October, and I want them to win their bowl games so the conference is stronger for the next year.

We had this conversation before, and you tried saying that the Red River Rivalry game was different as both teams used to play for different conferences, and you had somewhat of a point. The counter logic to that is because they played on each other schedules each year, they might as well have been in the same conference as one teams W/L record would effect the other in a similar fashion

[Kalbear]

Everyone wants to meet their biggest rivals with as much at stake as possible and that means grudgingly wanting them to win their other games. This is almost as old as college football itself. Even when the NC was decided by the AP and coaches polls, this was the way college football fans watched the games.

Again, no. We've had this debate before. And at least ESPN nationally doesn't agree with you - they had a whole series of commercials about how big the rivalry is between Michigan and Ohio State.

I think you simply don't really have a good grasp of what a college rivalry is. Perhaps Texas/Oklahoma isn't that big a deal. Perhaps it's a 'friendly' rivalry, since it always gets played in a neutral site instead of a home and home series. I can tell you very authoritatively that your view of (for example) the Washington/Oregon rivalry is not remotely accurate. Nor is it accurate for Michigan/Ohio State. Nor is it accurate for Auburn/Alabama.

The ranking system is neat and all, but for many teams it has been a non issue. That's probably another factor - the Big 12 has had Texas and Oklahoma and that's basically it. The Pac-12 has had either one amazing team or way more than two good ones. The SEC has had, like, all the teams good. Meaning that your rival sucking? Not a big deal on the grand scheme of things.

[lokisnow]

The only teams in the big 12 that think it is fun to root for your rival are Texas and Oklahoma. Nebraska never had a rival in the north equivalent and the other nine teams hate and loath Texas and Oklahoma and are always delighted to see them lose.

Kansas and Missouri had probably the most vicious and mean spirited rivalry in the country which is big 12 rivalry disproving howdys country club rivalry between the pair of greedy elites

[Howdyphillip]

Again, no. We've had this debate before. And at least ESPN nationally doesn't agree with you - they had a whole series of commercials about how big the rivalry is between Michigan and Ohio State.

I think you simply don't really have a good grasp of what a college rivalry is. Perhaps Texas/Oklahoma isn't that big a deal. Perhaps it's a 'friendly' rivalry, since it always gets played in a neutral site instead of a home and home series. I can tell you very authoritatively that your view of (for example) the Washington/Oregon rivalry is not remotely accurate. Nor is it accurate for Michigan/Ohio State. Nor is it accurate for Auburn/Alabama.

The ranking system is neat and all, but for many teams it has been a non issue. That's probably another factor - the Big 12 has had Texas and Oklahoma and that's basically it. The Pac-12 has had either one amazing team or way more than two good ones. The SEC has had, like, all the teams good. Meaning that your rival sucking? Not a big deal on the grand scheme of things.

So, you really think that the fans of OSU want to see a winless Michigan team come into the horseshoe every couple of years? I'm not sure about how the folks in Washington and Oregon do it, but I can tell you for a fact that the SEC teams Auburn and Alabama sure as hell hope that their schedule is as tough as possible. ESPN not understanding college football is not a very good selling point either.

I can also assure you as well that you know nothing of the rivalry between Texas/OU. I have lived in the other two regions where the biggest rivals play (Michigan/Ohio State, and Alabama/Auburn.. sorry, your Washington/Oregon rivalry doesn't come anywhere close to being as important as the other three as it has never come close to mattering on a national stage.) Let me assure you that Red River Rivalry is second to none.

I'm not sure if you know this, but the DFW area is fairly large. The entire weekend for this entire Metroplex is dedicated to that game. Two entire states of football fans make this the most important game of the year. Even if you are a fan of another team in Texas, you generally watch this game.

Call it a "friendly" rivalry if you want, but it isn't very friendly on the field.

[Kalbear]

So, you really think that the fans of OSU want to see a winless Michigan team come into the horseshoe every couple of years?

Yes, I absolutely do. I know a ton of OSU fans who will be occasionally sad that OSU lost but be happy because at least Michigan got completely wrecked too. Again, talk to actual people about this. You have, like, zero knowledge about this at all.

One coach in that rivalry said happily that he'll be fine if they go 1-11 that year as long as that 1 win is against the rival. And he got cheered for it!

but I can tell you for a fact that the SEC teams Auburn and Alabama sure as hell hope that their schedule is as tough as possible.

Realistically it doesn't matter how good Auburn or Alabama is when playing each other in the SEC, because everyone gets such a high ranking for playing in the SEC. Right now 5 SEC west teams are in the top 10. No matter what happens in the conference whoever wins the conference will be ranked in the top 5. Furthermore, SEC teams don't really care about their strength of schedule (and in fact have the weakest OOC schedules year in and year out) because they get such a boost from being in the SEC to start with and playing other teams in the SEC. So yes, this is also completely wrong.

In fact the whole thesis is fairly flawed, as in conference it doesn't matter how teams do. You can happily root for Texas to lose all of their games because it means that you'll just be playing 8 other teams that have 1 more win and thus look better than normal. The only time to root for a team in your conference is when they're playing teams that you don't play. But again - that's not what many big rivalries do.

I can also assure you as well that you know nothing of the rivalry between Texas/OU. I have lived in the other two regions where the biggest rivals play (Michigan/Ohio State, and Alabama/Auburn.. sorry, your Washington/Oregon rivalry doesn't come anywhere close to being as important as the other three as it has never come close to mattering on a national stage.) Let me assure you that Red River Rivalry is second to none.

I've actually lived in Austin. Have you? Not that actually living in a place seems to matter; you clearly didn't talk to any OSU or Michigan fans. I do agree that Washington/Oregon doesn't come close to any of the big rivalries as far as national importance, but we weren't talking about that, so other than saying how awesome things are in Texas I'm really not sure what your point is.

I'm not sure if you know this, but the DFW area is fairly large. The entire weekend for this entire Metroplex is dedicated to that game. Two entire states of football fans make this the most important game of the year. Even if you are a fan of another team in Texas, you generally watch this game.

Might be the most important game in Texas. Hasn't been an actually important game in the grand scheme of things for what, 5 years now? In any case it's quite possible that the game is a big deal but the rivalry doesn't really matter that much. The Baylor/Oklahoma game was significantly more important last year, for instance.

Being friendly on the field also doesn't really defuse the argument one way or another. The Civil War between Oregon and Oregon State is downright hostile most of the time when they're playing - but outside of that it's often a fairly friendly rivalry and the fans routinely are cool with each other and hope the other team wins. That's a friendly rivalry - and apparently that's what Texas/Oklahoma is. That's not what Alabama/Auburn is. That's not what Washington/Oregon is. And that's really, really not what Michigan/Ohio State is. When your school refuses to use the name of the rival, when the coach would rather push his car out of gas across the border than pay for gas in Michigan - that's a rivalry. When your fan is so fucking crazy that you poison trees, that's a rivalry.

Y'all have a fair. With funnel cake.

Also, this is the best quote about rivalries ever.

When asked why he went for two points with an already insurmountable 50–14 lead, Woody Hayes is rumored to have said, "Because I couldn't go for three."

[Howdyphillip]

Yes, I absolutely do. I know a ton of OSU fans who will be occasionally sad that OSU lost but be happy because at least Michigan got completely wrecked too. Again, talk to actual people about this. You have, like, zero knowledge about this at all.

One coach in that rivalry said happily that he'll be fine if they go 1-11 that year as long as that 1 win is against the rival. And he got cheered for it!

Realistically it doesn't matter how good Auburn or Alabama is when playing each other in the SEC, because everyone gets such a high ranking for playing in the SEC. Right now 5 SEC west teams are in the top 10. No matter what happens in the conference whoever wins the conference will be ranked in the top 5. Furthermore, SEC teams don't really care about their strength of schedule (and in fact have the weakest OOC schedules year in and year out) because they get such a boost from being in the SEC to start with and playing other teams in the SEC. So yes, this is also completely wrong.

In fact the whole thesis is fairly flawed, as in conference it doesn't matter how teams do. You can happily root for Texas to lose all of their games because it means that you'll just be playing 8 other teams that have 1 more win and thus look better than normal. The only time to root for a team in your conference is when they're playing teams that you don't play. But again - that's not what many big rivalries do.

I've actually lived in Austin. Have you? Not that actually living in a place seems to matter; you clearly didn't talk to any OSU or Michigan fans. I do agree that Washington/Oregon doesn't come close to any of the big rivalries as far as national importance, but we weren't talking about that, so other than saying how awesome things are in Texas I'm really not sure what your point is.

Might be the most important game in Texas. Hasn't been an actually important game in the grand scheme of things for what, 5 years now? In any case it's quite possible that the game is a big deal but the rivalry doesn't really matter that much. The Baylor/Oklahoma game was significantly more important last year, for instance.

Being friendly on the field also doesn't really defuse the argument one way or another. The Civil War between Oregon and Oregon State is downright hostile most of the time when they're playing - but outside of that it's often a fairly friendly rivalry and the fans routinely are cool with each other and hope the other team wins. That's a friendly rivalry - and apparently that's what Texas/Oklahoma is. That's not what Alabama/Auburn is. That's not what Washington/Oregon is. And that's really, really not what Michigan/Ohio State is. When your school refuses to use the name of the rival, when the coach would rather push his car out of gas across the border than pay for gas in Michigan - that's a rivalry. When your fan is so fucking crazy that you poison trees, that's a rivalry.

Y'all have a fair. With funnel cake.

Also, this is the best quote about rivalries ever.

When asked why he went for two points with an already insurmountable 50–14 lead, Woody Hayes is rumored to have said, "Because I couldn't go for three."

Again, you misunderstand the situation. Every good rivalry game is the most important game on the schedule for that team. Of course a coach would rather lose his whole season and win the rivalry because that is the most important game of the year. That doesn't mean that you want the other team to suck heading into it because that would be stupid and counter productive to wishing your team success. I did talk to OSU, Michigan, Alabama and Auburn fans. Any person who actually knew football wanted to meet their biggest rivals with both teams having the best record possible. That way, the games were more important as more was on the line. I am sorry that you can't seem to grasp this, but for the majority of college football fans, conference is king.

Thinking that Baylor/OU was a bigger game last year than the Red River Rivalry tells me that you really don't have a clue what this game means. I have lived in Austin as well as Norman OK, but neither place tells you the full story of this game. It is here in Dallas where both sides converge to play one of the most unique game and fiercest rivalries in all of sports. You haven't seen this, so you don't really understand. This entire city shuts down for the game. It has more of an effect than the Rose Bowl has on LA, or the Orange Bowl has on Miami. It even is as large of a party as the Sugar Bowl is for New Orleans, but that doesn't count as nothing really changes for New Orleans, they party like that every night of the year.

That it happens to take place at the largest and best state fair in the country is just the cherry on top... Oh and fuck your funnel cake, I'll raise you funnel cake ale, and fried gulf shrimp boil.

http://sidedish.dmagazine.com/2014/09/01/big-tex-choice-awards-winners-announced-for-texas-state-fair-2014-fried-shrimp-boil-and-funnel-cake-ale/

[Kalbear]

Any person who actually knew football

Oh good - it's the No True Scotsman argument. Thanks for bringing that one in.

Any person who actually knew football wanted to meet their biggest rivals with both teams having the best record possible. That way, the games were more important as more was on the line. I am sorry that you can't seem to grasp this, but for the majority of college football fans, conference is king.

From a statistical point of view it doesn't really matter. Any true fan who knows football would understand this - you root for your conference when playing other conferences, and inside your conference it doesn't matter at all. I'm sorry that you don't understand that wins and losses in conference are a zero sum game.

Thinking that Baylor/OU was a bigger game last year than the Red River Rivalry tells me that you really don't have a clue what this game means.

I didn't say it was a bigger game. I said it was a more important game. Let's try and not talk past each other too much here. The Texas/Oklahoma game hasn't mattered in the grand scheme of things for something like 5 years, right? Neither Oklahoma or Texas have been good enough for it to matter significantly. Especially Texas, which appears to have been getting their asses soundly kicked by pretty much everyone. For the conference results the Baylor/Oklahoma game was far more significant last year.

What's also interesting when looking at the results is that the two teams haven't played each other when they were both ranked all that often. There was a good chunk of games in the mid 2000s where it was a big deal and both teams were highly ranked - but a lot of the time one of the teams was significantly worse or unranked. Huh. I had thought that both teams had largely been up there for some time, but it turns out both teams had some fairly big doldrums.

You haven't seen this, so you don't really understand.

Who says I haven't seen it?

But in any case, I'm not talking about how big a deal the event is. The world's largest cocktail party is a major event too. How awesome the funnel cake and carny rides isn't what makes a rivalry heated.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kalbear,

Yes, I absolutely do. I know a ton of OSU fans who will be occasionally sad that OSU lost but be happy because at least Michigan got completely wrecked too. Again, talk to actual people about this. You have, like, zero knowledge about this at all.

I hadn't thought about rivalry in this context before. South Carolina/Clemson is a fairly intense rivalry. When South Carolina lost to Texas A&M the balm that weekend was that Clemson lost to Georgia.

It is completely irrational. Clemson is a great school my youngest brother graduated from Clemson. If either of my children wanted to go their I'd encourage them to do so but I will not ever root for their athletic teams it seems wrong.

When my father lived in SC when I was a child he pulled for Clemson. Now that he's moved back he's pulling for South Carolina. That is just wrong somehow. You don't flip allegences between these two schools.

Rivalries are weird.

[Ken Stone]

I don't think anyone can say "The entire fan base of Michigan and Ohio State feel this certain way". That is incredibly stupid. The fan bases are made up of individuals. Some of those individuals are spiteful. They feel joy when the opposing team is wrecked, even if it is bad for their team specifically. Other fans are savvy. They want the best long term outcome for their team always, even if that means cheering for a hated rival. What is the percentage of savvy to spiteful fans? I'm not sure. Maybe someone could do a study on it.

[lokisnow]

This argument reminds me of espn's beloved and oft repeated fallacy, "the 'game' is better when x is good."

No. No. The sport is NOT better when a few teams who dominated all competition in the 1930s-80s are having an up year. It's nonsense and holds the sport back from being better because teams without wins in the 1950s, like oregon or stanford, dont just have to win they also have to make up the gap created by usc possessing a big handicap due to their history of wins.

The game is better when play on the field matters more than play in the past and teams don't own huge handicaps just for being themselves.

[Ken Stone]

This argument reminds me of espn's beloved and oft repeated fallacy, "the 'game' is better when x is good."

No. No. The sport is NOT better when a few teams who dominated all competition in the 1930s-80s are having an up year. It's nonsense and holds the sport back from being better because teams without wins in the 1950s, like oregon or stanford, dont just have to win they also have to make up the gap created by usc possessing a big handicap due to their history of wins.

The game is better when play on the field matters more than play in the past and teams don't own huge handicaps just for being themselves.

I feel like that happens more in MLB with the Yankees, but yeah, it happens with college football also. I've always felt that the game is better when there is more parity, as it means that it is more accessible to more fans.

[S John]

This argument reminds me of espn's beloved and oft repeated fallacy, "the 'game' is better when x is good."

No. No. The sport is NOT better when a few teams who dominated all competition in the 1930s-80s are having an up year. It's nonsense and holds the sport back from being better because teams without wins in the 1950s, like oregon or stanford, dont just have to win they also have to make up the gap created by usc possessing a big handicap due to their history of wins.

The game is better when play on the field matters more than play in the past and teams don't own huge handicaps just for being themselves.

This is the way I feel about it too. I'm sure opinions on this topic would vary the most based on which school you are a fan of and where that school falls in the CFB pecking order. People who are fans of traditional blue blood programs likely want to test themselves only against big name competition in bowls and therefore there is disappointment when OU draws Boise, Bama draws Utah, or Florida draws Cincy. They don't want to play those teams because no matter how good they are, the perception is that its a lose/lose. Even if they blow them out, nobody is going to respect the win. Schools on the upswing ALSO want to make their mark by knocking off blue bloods, but because they themselves want a seat at the big boy table they don't typically subscribe to the game being better when the traditional powers are all good.

Perception really is the key and the sooner we can do away with perception influencing results in CFB, the better the sport will be. To use the Big 12 as an example, when Texas is down, as they are now, I think it does hurt the perception of the Big 12 from an outside perspective. However, I don't think that necessarily means that the Big 12 *is* weaker because Texas is down. There are probably 4 or 5 teams objectively better than Texas right now who are good teams in their own right and some may even play to or exceed the ability of what you would expect from a decent UT team. The idea that it must be a down year for the conference, or for college football in general, if a team that rarely wins its conference rises up and does is profoundly annoying. I'd call that a great year for the sport. If the same handful of teams are going to win over and over again and that is the way it should be... then why even have the games? Why play the sport if the deck is going to be stacked and everyone pouts when one of the programs with major built-in advantages doesn't meet expectations?

My opinion is that college football is good when some of the traditional teams are playing true to form. But I think it is boring when the top 2-3 teams in each conference dominate year in and year out. I like the occasional Cinderella team* and I'm all about the upset in general. It is fun to watch a team lose to another team that they usually beat or were supposed to beat. I'm also all about removing the human element when it comes to deciding rankings and choosing who is going to play for it all. Put the numbers into a computer system and math the fuck out of it. No bias, no polls, no eye test, just measurables.

*Unless that team is Boise St. who I hate because of their stupid blue field.

[Howdyphillip]

[quote] Oh good - it's the No True Scotsman argument. Thanks for bringing that one in.

[Kalbear]

What matters in CFB is the polls. Having a weak conference influences your teams rankings. Therefore, in conference games do matter and have a profound effect and have always done so.

Um, not really. Here's the deal.

Out of conference games matter because they give the illusion that your conference is stronger than others. Inside the conference games aren't nearly as important to the conference strength as a whole because it is a zero sum game. No matter what happens at the end of each week when you have conference games you will have x wins and x losses in your conference. Period. Now, you can make the argument that to the observer it is usually better to have a couple of REALLY good teams that are unblemished and then a bunch of meh, instead of, say, a bunch of 9-3 teams - but actual conference strength doesn't change.

Similarly, thanks to the transitive power of human rankings you almost never have a problem with a conference's overall rankings if a team with a high individual ranking loses to another team in conference. If a team ranked #5 loses to an unranked team in conference, what will happen is that that losing team will drop - but the other team in conference will rise, usually by a very similar amount. Again, the overall conference ranking and perception of strength stays very much the same.

This is why it's such a big deal that the SEC only has 8 in-conference games, for instance; all other conferences essentially have 5-6 extra losses because they have to, since they play an extra game in conference. And this is also why preseason rankings are usually bad - because it's very difficult for that ranking to correctly adjust itself, especially relative to other teams in your conference.

The only way that the Baylor/OU game was more important than Texas/OU last year is if you look at it myopically. Yes, the two teams were ranked higher when they met each other, but that game didn't have nearly the audience and therefore influence of the Red River Rivalry.

Audience doesn't mean influence. Baylor-OU directly determined who won the Big-12. Oklahoma-Texas ended up determining nothing at all, even though Texas actually won. If you only care about big games because the game environment and audience is big and not because of what they put on the field that's pretty sad. That's like Notre Dame levels of fandom, right there.

I can not imagine anyone who has actually been to this game (which is held about two blocks away from my house), would be of the opinion that this is not a significant rivalry.

I think it's a significant game. Compared to OSU/Michigan and Auburn/Alabama it's not a particularly significant rivalry, especially since it's been so unimportant.