I shutoff yesterday. It's black out time for me till kick off. Enough talk already.
Anybody else had enough of the analysis?
- Thread starter Rip_E_2_Joe_PA
- Start date
Honestly, in years past I would read it all. Now? I pass right over it. I haven't read one bit. You are right, there is a lot of it. The fact remains that they will play the damn game, and that's all that matters.
7:30 PM tomorrow. Nothing else matters. May as well........................
The reality is that BSU is virtually a complete unknown - their schedule outside of Oregon tells us absolutely nothing. They played Oregon the 2nd Week of the season and lost by a FG at the buzzer in a frankly pretty ugly game. Actually, Oregon looked bad in their first two games - in their 1st game, Oregon was only beating Idaho 17-14 midway through the 4th QTR... they ended up winning 24-14. Against BSU, Oregon only put up 352 yards of Offense, had 2 TOs both fumbles (BSU had 0 TOs) and recorded 9 penalties (Oregon had 8 penalties against Idaho the week before and a fumble).
Hard to draw a ton of conclusions from that Oregon game as Oregon did not look very good at all the first two weeks of the season - Oregon was ranked #3 in AP Preseason Poll; they immediately dropped 4 spots after Week 1 to #7 and then dropped another 2 spots to #9 after the BSU game. So again, it is hard to read a tremendous amount into that one game, but they did play Oregon tough (but then again, so did Idaho early in the season).
So much of this analysis about BSU is complete speculation as they are a complete unknown that has played an extremely weak AAC type schedule outside of Oregon (the second best team they've played is UNLV).
Hard to analyze. The only team they've played that would be as physical as PSU is Oregon and they played them tough -- but Oregon wasn't playing very well at that part of the season.
The interesting game is Wyoming. In a turnover-free game Wyoming was able to control the clock with a mixture of running and passing. A bunch of long sustained drives and they were a fourth-down conversion away from winning despite giving up a long Jeunty TD. PSU at its best this year has been able to do patient methodical drives.
The interesting game is Wyoming. In a turnover-free game Wyoming was able to control the clock with a mixture of running and passing. A bunch of long sustained drives and they were a fourth-down conversion away from winning despite giving up a long Jeunty TD. PSU at its best this year has been able to do patient methodical drives.
Yeah, that is an interesting game given that Wyoming was only 3-9 overall and 2-5 in the MWC. There were no TOs in the game either way and the Final Score was only 17-13 (i.e., a pretty ugly game offensively both ways. BSU only had 15 First Downs and Wyoming 14).
So your point is well taken, this game looks just as awful (really bad) as the Oregon game looks good (and again, Oregon lost the TO battle 2-0... and had 9 penalties... and did not execute well offensively - they only had 350 yards of Total Offense, so they were their own worst enemy as much as anything).
Yes...but I also hope we're complaining this time next week about too much analysis
6-8 hours of analysis for a game that takes 4 hours at most. Analysis to paralysis. Got to give the talking heads TV time.
I honestly don't see that - why would PSU try to slow it down? They have the talent advantage.... they have the explosive plays advatage..... they have a significant Passing Game / QB Advantage (BSU has a below average Offensive Passing Game and Passing Defense - and this is playing against a putrid MWC schedule!). No, I don't see PSU slowing it down and playing "ball control".... control the clock.... if they get out front. They're more likely to try and "run away and hide" if they get out front then "slow it down" ball control.
Pretty funny that this thread about being finished with 'analysis' is full of 'analysis'
Actually full of posts that say you can't really accurately analyze the matchup because each team's stats are built against complete different universes, especially "quality" of universes. The comparisons, and accompanying analysis, of "averages" really don't have any meaning because they really aren't statistically comparable due to how the stats were compiled and against what opponents.
I would have more confidence in saying PSU's rush defense (which is #7 in the nation) will hold up, than predicting BSU's rush defense (which is #23 in the nation) will hold up because PSU's stats were built against a much better average quality of opponent. In any event, I would say raw comparisons of statistical averages really have very little meaning and predictions based on them are pure speculation as they just aren't statistically comparable. I would compare it to reading a Thoroughbred Racing Form - one of the first, and most important, things you look at in predicting performance is "Class" - in front of statistical finishes. PSU has a significant "Class" advantage which is probably the most important item of each team's "racing form". Whether it holds, as it does the vast majority of the time in Thoroughbred Racing is hard to say - I guess we'll see. As they say, "That's why they play the game.", which is what most of these people arguing against an inclusive Playoff (i.e., top quintile of total universe) don't seem to understand - they'd rather determine 8 Playoff participants via a subjective Ranking that excludes 75% of the teams (99 of 134) and gives them absolutely no shot at a "National Championship" regardless of record or season accomplishments??? Much easier, and fairer, to let the top quartile teams - 16 for FBS - just determine it on the field - giving everyone a shot (i.e., "inclusive") - with seeding and homefield advantage rewarding a team's regular season (including Conference Championships).... like they do with every other Football Playoff at every level including every other NCAA Division....
Why some are making this fairly basic, and simple, concept so over-complicated and distorted with their incessant blowhard utterly false rhetoric and hyperbole, is rather baffling.
Last edited:
Each team has 12 or 13 games to prove if they are good enough. It's a season long playoff.
If we did it your way, why even play a schedule? Just creat the brackets and have at it.
Do it my way??? You clearly aren't paying attention - I'm the one advocating for a fully-populated 16-Team Playoff rather than this joke of a 12-Team Structure w/ absurd nonsensical byes. Where did I say BSU didn't belong in the Bracket? I've been arguing the diametric opposite in multiple posts. Just because we have no idea of how truly reliable BSU's Stats are, isn't equivalent to saying they don't belong in the Playoffs - they do, as 12-1 Conference Champs with their only loss to #1 Oregon on a last second FG.
I still believe the championship games should be the first round.
The at large and smaller conference teams can have their own first round.
Then you end with 4 teams for the playoff.
I don't actually care if the conferences have a four team playoff themselves. It would be great if they did.
Eastern Conf. Championship
Western Conf. Championship
Then one final.
From there send a single team to the BCS
Last edited:
4 play-in games for the non-P2 Conferences after their CCG (i.e., between the 8 non-P2 Conferences Champions) in a 16-Team Field might be the way to go then do the CFP Final Selection Rankings that include those 4 in the Top 16 and the remaining 10 at-large are determined by the CFP Final Selection Rankings with the lower seed playing at the homefield of the higher seed (and no, I'm not saying the 4 "play-in" winners have to be seeded 13-16 - just that they have to be included in the Top 16 Seeds. Nor am I saying that the play-in losers can't be included... they would have to rely on one of the 10 at-large spots which will be very iffy given that the top quarter of the B1G and SEC [likely 3 or 4 at-large type resumes each]).
Last edited:
