2017 Wisconsin Football Thread

[young guns]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[homer]

Not that it matters, but in the final AP poll UCF jumped to number 6 and Wisconsin dropped to 7. Ha. To me, the system is broken.

 

It's better than it used to be but it's still not right. There were 6 - 7 teams that could have made a great case to be in the playoffs.

[Fear The Chorizo]

It's already shaping up to be a rinse/repeat group of teams leading the week 1 poll rankings in 2018, which will automatically set the SEC up for a huge playoff committee advantage...

 

Both Georgia and Alabama are sure to be ranked in the top 3-4 teams (probably will be #1 and 2) going into next season - Georgia plays Austin Peay, Middle Tennessee State, GA Tech, and UMass out of conference, and Alabama plays a Jackson-less Louisville ("neutral" site game in Orlando), Arkansas State, Louisiana Lafayeete, and the Citadel out of conference. So unless somebody else in a very underwhelming and tumultuous SEC actually beats one of those two quality programs before the SEC Title game, if Alabama and Georgia play each other for the SEC crown in early December the loser is likely to get a CFP spot, anyway.

 

This bowl season more or less indicated that the ACC was vastly overrated as a conference, the Pac 12 stunk, and the SEC was nothing special aside from UGA and it's 3rd place finisher/national champion. The Big Ten had a great bowl season and should be set up for having alot of teams ranked in the top 25 to open in 2018. Problem for them is their best programs have at least respectable out of conference opponents, and they mostly play each other before conference championship week - meaning it'll be darn near impossible for an undefeated Big Ten program to be left standing. Plus they'll already be starting behind SEC schools and probably Clemson, so their margin for error is nil again.

[monkeyman343434]

It's already shaping up to be a rinse/repeat group of teams leading the week 1 poll rankings in 2018, which will automatically set the SEC up for a huge playoff committee advantage...

 

Both Georgia and Alabama are sure to be ranked in the top 3-4 teams (probably will be #1 and 2) going into next season - Georgia plays Austin Peay, Middle Tennessee State, GA Tech, and UMass out of conference, and Alabama plays a Jackson-less Louisville ("neutral" site game in Orlando), Arkansas State, Louisiana Lafayeete, and the Citadel out of conference. So unless somebody else in a very underwhelming and tumultuous SEC actually beats one of those two quality programs before the SEC Title game, if Alabama and Georgia play each other for the SEC crown in early December the loser is likely to get a CFP spot, anyway.

 

This bowl season more or less indicated that the ACC was vastly overrated as a conference, the Pac 12 stunk, and the SEC was nothing special aside from UGA and it's 3rd place finisher/national champion. The Big Ten had a great bowl season and should be set up for having alot of teams ranked in the top 25 to open in 2018. Problem for them is their best programs have at least respectable out of conference opponents, and they mostly play each other before conference championship week - meaning it'll be darn near impossible for an undefeated Big Ten program to be left standing. Plus they'll already be starting behind SEC schools and probably Clemson, so their margin for error is nil again.

 

Wow, ********* B1G fan, much? You sound like my Iowa fan roommate who didn't want to watch the game last night because no B1G team made the playoff. The pre-season rankings don't mean anything when it comes down to who makes the playoff. In Week 13 the top 4 were Clemson, Auburn, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. Only 2 of those 4 made it. Throughout the season, they showed the previous 3 seasons and there was always a big flux towards the end of the season who actually made the playoff vs who the first 4 were at the release of the first football poll in week 9. If Wisconsin would have won, they would have made the playoff. If Ohio State wouldn't have been embarrassed by a mediocre Iowa team, they would have made the playoff. I HATE alabama, but the schedule they play in the SEC is so much more difficult than what Wisconsin or Ohio State plays. You're complaining about Alabama and Georgia's non-con schedules in 2018 when Wisconsin's 2017 non-con schedule was Utah St, BYU, and Florida Atlantic? After watching the three playoff games, I would say it was pretty clear Georgia and Alabama were the two best teams, Oklahoma a very close 3rd, and Clemson a distant fourth.

[tmwiese55]

No, Alabama's schedule is not more difficult than a typical B1G schedule. this year's UW schedule, yes. But that's an anomaly and even so it still rated about even with Bamas. The SEC is vastly overrated after their top few schools, obviously those schools are top notch though. But their 4ish-14 are nothing to write home about. I mean there's a reason basically every school is in coaching turmoil in the SEC. And the SEC only plays 8 conf games instead of 9 and they play an FCS team for a bye midseason every year.

 

Last year UW played LSU, OSU, Mich, MSU, Nebraska, Iowa and PSU in the title game. Next year they'll play at PSU, at Mich, at Nebraska, at Iowa, at NW (who just won 10 games and beat an SEC while playing their backup QB due to injury), oh and they'll have to play OSU in the title game if they make it. That kills what Bama will have to play next year. This isn't the SEC of say 7ish years ago that was so deep all the way through (other than Kentucky). Now it's the perfect storm for the top teams, similar to the ACC for Clem/FSU, with it being very top heavy. It's the ideal scheduling setup for the current playoff structure for Bama.

 

The eastern 4 teams in the big ten obviously all play each other, plus always play a major conf opponent. OSU playing Oklahoma the last two years. Next year they scheduled two in Or ST (they couldn't have known Or St would be a dumpster fire when they did it) plus play TCU in Dallas. And then will have to play us in the title game. Mich plays ND next year and us regular season. MSU plays at ASU in their home stadium. PSU gets it a bit easier since they have the PITT game locked every year that's not too tough. But when's the last time an SEC team has left the south to play a non conference game?

 

I'm not necessarily even claiming the B1G is clearly better than the SEC as the top 2-3 teams in the SEC are so good, especially Bama of course. But the depth isn't there anymore and they totally game the schedule. This notion that they play a tougher schedule is an old ESPN narrative that isn't true anymore. I'd agree it was true roughly 5 years ago when PSU and OSU were in sanctions and Mich was crappy. Now all three have good coaches are legit and two are top 10 level with OSU being the 2nd best team talentwise in NCAA most years. The B1G is essentially shooting themselves in the foot a bit with adding the 9th game and forcing teams to play legit non conf games every year. So essentially two 'cupcakes' at most other than if you happen to get Rutgers on your schedule.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I didn't watch the game, or either of the CFP games, actually. What ticked me off was having two of the 5 power conferences not even get a shot, when the school from the SEC that got put in failed the committee's "criteria" that was supressing other teams the entire way. I disagreed with Alabama getting in this year for the same reasons I disagreed with OSU getting in last year - you shouldn't be able to win a national title in college football without winning your conference first. It's not like basketball, where teams can play a ton more games to crown both regular season and conference tourney champs for each conference, and have a much larger body of work to judge conference strength during THAT SAME SEASON, not how good programs were 3-4 seasons ago.

 

The pre-season rankings don't mean anything when it comes down to who makes the playoff

 

Dead wrong - they still mean everything at the very top...If you open the season ranked in the top 4-6 programs based on the perception you're a quality team, it doesn't matter if you play absolutely nobody and keep winning. If you start ranked high, you get more chances to finish in the top 4, and other teams in your conference get propped up undeservedly simply because they played you and lost. For a season like this, when there were so many 1-loss teams and the undefeated schools most of the year had noticeably softer regular season schedules, it made a huge difference for Alabama to open the year ranked #1 and then basically go until Thanksgiving weekend before playing anyone decent based on how their schedule broke.

 

That's the set up the very best teams in the SEC have currently - they are undoubtedly great programs, but the rest of the conference has proven to be a dumpster fire compared to its heyday in the middle of the BCS era. Had Auburn beaten Georgia in the SEC title game they would've probably got the top overall playoff seed with 2 losses - because they beat Georgia and Alabama when they were both ranked #1. Instead, they're a 4 loss team that lost its bowl game to UCF.

[monkeyman343434]

2000: Oklahoma

2001: Miami (FL)

2002: Ohio State

2003: LSU

2004: USC

2005: Texas

2006: Florida

2007: LSU

2008: Florida

2009: Alabama

2010: Auburn

2011: Alabama

2012: Alabama

2013: Florida State

2014: Ohio State

2015: Alabama

2016: Clemson

2017: Alabama

[monkeyman343434]

There's nothing in the world you can say to me that:

 

Rutgers, Indiana, Maryland, Illinois, Minnesota, and Nebraska even come close to

Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Tennessee, and Missouri.

 

Or, let's even try this:

 

Alabama > Ohio State

Georgia > Wisconsin

Auburn > Penn State

LSU > Michigan State

Mississippi State < Northwestern

South Carolina < Michigan

Florida > Purdue

Texas A&M > Iowa

Missouri > Nebraska

Ole Miss > Minnesota

Tennessee > Indiana

Kentucky > Rutgers

Arkansas > Maryland

Vanderbilt > Illinois

[tmwiese55]

No one said the top teams aren't awesome but having Bama doesn't mean the whole conference is better or does it mean everyone's schedule is therefor tough, which is what we're talking about here. I never even said B1G was better because they do have Bama and in any year one or two of LSU, UGA, Aub will be really freaking good too. We were talking about schedules specifically, not which conference was better. SEC plays only 8 conf games and plays an FCS team midseason to rest, never leaves the south for non conf, and generally besides Bama don't play tough non conf besides some of their allotted rivalry tie ins, and never have to leave warm weather for bowl games, often times playing within a couple hours of home.

 

I don't know how you decided who to match who against in your thing, but think of it this way too for current program consistent quality rankings, and I'm spitballing here, if you ranked SEC/B1G:

 

1)Bama

2) OSU

3) UW

4) PSU, similar to UGA below I'm giving credit for what they should be setup like going forward. No argument if you flip with UGA though, but they were good last year too and UGA wasn't

5) I'll go UGA though it's their first year in a while of being really good, but they're now setup to kill it

6) MSU, honestly could put them 4th if you look at results. Put them below PSU and UGA due to estimating the next few years and how well PSU and UGA are setup

7) Aub (though they averaged 5 losses per year the last 4 years so Idk for sure

 

After that I don't know, kind of a hodgepodge but probably go LSU #7 and Mich #8. Point of it was that after Bama the B1G has the next 3 best teams and really you could easily argue MSU above UGA and even PSU. And no other team besides Bama has consistently been good over the last 8ish years, lots of up and downs. Regardless, I still accept the SEC is better due to Bama and that usually one of the other 3 teams steps up in any given year. But it's a heck of a lot closer than ESPN admits now that OSU is so darn good, PSU is fixed and Mich is good again.

 

But this was all about schedule strength, not which conference is better. If the SEC teams ditched the FCS game and played each other instead I'd probably say it's then accurate. But right now with the depth of the conf not as good as it was the vaunted SEC schedule isn't what it was 7-10 years ago. And maybe they could schedule a true road game at some point? SEC is way smarter and were ahead of their times on gaming the schedule system, good smart business by them. And Bama knows they're the best team, they'd be stupid to make it any harder than needed, just get there and you're the favorite. The B1G is finally starting it too by playing conf games earlier so they can get a break mid season too.

[owbc]

There's nothing in the world you can say to me that:

 

Rutgers, Indiana, Maryland, Illinois, Minnesota, and Nebraska even come close to

Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Tennessee, and Missouri.

 

Looking at common opponents...Missouri lost to Purdue. Nebraska beat Purdue.

 

You listed 12 bad football teams. How is there any evidence that one set is better than the other?

 

As for the other comparisons, how can one put Michigan State and Penn State below SEC teams that lost their bowl games? In the final AP poll, MSU>LSU and PSU>Auburn. Both the B10 and SEC had 5 teams in the final top-25.

 

I'm not saying one conference is better than the other. I would say that we don't know because the top B10 teams didn't play the top SEC teams.

[tmwiese55]

There's nothing in the world you can say to me that:

 

Rutgers, Indiana, Maryland, Illinois, Minnesota, and Nebraska even come close to

Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Tennessee, and Missouri.

 

Looking at common opponents...Missouri lost to Purdue. Nebraska beat Purdue.

 

You listed 12 bad football teams. How is there any evidence that one set is better than the other?

 

As for the other comparisons, how can one put Michigan State and Penn State below SEC teams that lost their bowl games? In the final AP poll, MSU>LSU and PSU>Auburn. Both the B10 and SEC had 5 teams in the final top-25.

 

I'm not saying one conference is better than the other. I would say that we don't know because the top B10 teams didn't play the top SEC teams.

 

Yea I didn't even want to get into nitty gritty of how he picked them and how just said who was better bases of bias instead of actual results. This was all supposed to be about SOS anyway to me, not arguing which conference is better necessarily. But generally the bottom 10ish teams of the SEC have fallen off a cliff the last few years but the ESPN SEC push hides it. Teams like FL, SCAR, ARK, TN, UGA (likely back now), used to be so good but they haven't been recently. LSU used to be natty level good, now they're just normal good. Even the MS schools had that run a few years back but one is sanctions hell now and the other just lost it's coach.

 

That said: if Jimbo fixes A&M, Mullens brings FL back, UGA does what it looks like they're gonna do, and Aub/LSU at least maintain their current good level or maybe even tick it back up a tad to natty level good then yea the SEC SEC SEC is back again. But we'll see, need the results from everyone else, not just Bama.

[FVBrewerFan]

Not that it matters, but in the final AP poll UCF jumped to number 6 and Wisconsin dropped to 7. Ha. To me, the system is broken.

 

Wisconsin beats Miami on the road, and drops in the AP. Makes perfect sense doesn't it? Even worse, Miami was being picked by a lot of national talking heads to knock off Clemson and be a real factor for the Natl Champ. That was with like a wee or two to go in the regular season.

[paul253]

Alabama > Ohio State

Georgia > Wisconsin

Auburn > Penn State

LSU > Michigan State

Mississippi State < Northwestern

South Carolina < Michigan

Florida > Purdue

Texas A&M > Iowa

Missouri > Nebraska

Ole Miss > Minnesota

Tennessee > Indiana

Kentucky > Rutgers

Arkansas > Maryland

Vanderbilt > Illinois

 

I’m sorry but this is hilarious to me. First , how can you just proclaim

Alabama is with certainty better than Ohio St? Did they play on a neutral field? Or are you just assuming? Same with Georgia over Wisconsin. These teams are close enough that they’d need to play on a neutral field to determine who is better.

 

But just using your method Id argue Auburn is NOT > Penn St. LSU is NOT > than Michigan St. Florida is NOT > than Purdue. Also Tennessee over Indiana is very questionable, as is Mississippi over NW and Texas AM over Iowa.

 

The issue with the SEC is that nobody can consistently beat Alabama. What does it say about the conference when one team is so much better than everyone else? The SEC used to be the best conference bar none. That’s just not the case anymore.

 

Also keep in mind that they only play 8 conference games. It may not seem like a big deal but an extra conference game guarantees half of the teams get an additional loss. It’s one less cupcake on their schedule.

[owbc]

Not that it matters, but in the final AP poll UCF jumped to number 6 and Wisconsin dropped to 7. Ha. To me, the system is broken.

 

Wisconsin beats Miami on the road, and drops in the AP. Makes perfect sense doesn't it? Even worse, Miami was being picked by a lot of national talking heads to knock off Clemson and be a real factor for the Natl Champ. That was with like a wee or two to go in the regular season.

 

How Clemson is still #4 is a complete mystery to me, but Ohio State got an easy bowl game and had no chance to prove that they were better.

 

Clearly UCF's promotional blitz worked well.

 

It's clear that the AP and coaches polls needs to be abolished prior to abolished prior to week 4 or so. It would be one thing if the polls were "for fun", but the final rankings show that some preseason biases and overall program biases made it all the way to the end. Why should Alabama get to start the season at #1? Make them earn the #1 first and if they start the season looking flat or lose an early game, start them where they belong and let the 4-0 teams occupy the top-10.

[paul253]

Another problem with the preason polls is that teams get credit for “top 25 wins” over teams that have no business being in the top 25. Michigan, Tennessee, Florida and Florida St all come to mind as preason top 25 teams who had horrible seasons. Alabama’s wins over Florida St and Tennessee were not good wins.

[homer]

I really wanted UW to make the playoffs just to see how they would have stacked up against those four teams. I don't think they win the whole thing but I wanted to see how they compared as much as anything.

[stoutdude04]

I really wanted UW to make the playoffs just to see how they would have stacked up against those four teams. I don't think they win the whole thing but I wanted to see how they compared as much as anything.

 

I agree. They may not have won, but I truly believe they would have been good games against any of the top 3....or 4 if you include clemson.

[ZBTMP]

Auburn > Penn State

LSU > Michigan State

Florida > Purdue

Texas A&M > Iowa

Tennessee > Indiana

Arkansas > Maryland

 

According to Massey Ratings, none of these things are true.

[Fear The Chorizo]

There's nothing in the world you can say to me that:

 

Rutgers, Indiana, Maryland, Illinois, Minnesota, and Nebraska even come close to

Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Tennessee, and Missouri.

 

Or, let's even try this:

 

Alabama > Ohio State

Georgia > Wisconsin

Auburn > Penn State

LSU > Michigan State

Mississippi State < Northwestern

South Carolina < Michigan

Florida > Purdue

Texas A&M > Iowa

Missouri > Nebraska

Ole Miss > Minnesota

Tennessee > Indiana

Kentucky > Rutgers

Arkansas > Maryland

Vanderbilt > Illinois

 

It's not 2009 anymore - I'd say roughly 2/3 of these comparisons are dead wrong, and as others have said there's no rhyme or reason to how these are organized.

 

Alabama is a unicorn program - put them in any conference and they are consistently a top 2-3 team because they basically get their pick of the litter in terms of recruiting and facilities. However, one can say the same thing about OSU now (as much as I despise them). The difference in perception between these two programs is due to the fallacy that the rest of the SEC is still great when that's far from the case.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I really wanted UW to make the playoffs just to see how they would have stacked up against those four teams. I don't think they win the whole thing but I wanted to see how they compared as much as anything.

 

The Big 10 title game showed they could hang with anyone in the country - they were outclassed talentwise but still found a way to stay in that game. Then they followed it up by winning a road bowl game against Miami, who destroyed ranked teams at home in November while the rest of the country was hyping them up.

 

Clemson finishing at #4 this year is mainly due to making it easier to slot them comfortably in next season's top 5 preseason rankings...

[brewcrewdue80]

The hardest thing for me is what are the Badgers supposed to do? They go12-1 losing to Ohio State when beginning the season what 10/11th ranked? Heck beat a team that was in the Playoffs had they won vs Clemson at their home field for a bowl game! And WI drops a spot in the rankings. Clemson/Oklahoma lost in playoffs first round they should have fallen below OSU, UCF, and WI. Just blows my mind that Auburn finishes 10th at 8-4. How that school jumps up for a big win, and doesnt fall down in rankings and a team like WI just vibrates from 7-10 all season while winning to finally get top 5 leading in to the cconference championship that resulted in being a 1 possession result.

[tmwiese55]

I feel like UW's D should've been able to keep them in the game vs any of these teams. Of course I would've expected to lose but I would have expected to be in the game in the 4th vs all. Going into the playoffs I would have picked UW to beat UGA, but UGA showed so much more offensive diversification in these two games than they did through the year. Basically going into it I thought our D would shut them down, but after what we just saw that was probably wrong. OK would've scared me as no D can fully hold them down but you'd think we'd have been able to run down their face just like UGA did since their D is terrible and soft. And after what UGA did 2nd half (basically the blitzing our D does at all times) I think we'd have at least a 50/50 chance there. Clemson I'd have picked them but in hindsight I'd call it 50/50, their O isn't anything special and our D should have matched up well on them.

 

Bama was the one I'd have most not wanted to play. You can't line up power and run on their D, and obviously that's UW's offense. More or less same problems our O ran into vs OSU. Still our D would have likely done well vs Bama and I'd have called a 20-10 type loss as long as Hurts played QB the whole time so they couldn't throw. Next year Bama with a QB who can throw might be a cakewalk to the title for them.

[tmwiese55]

The hardest thing for me is what are the Badgers supposed to do? They go12-1 losing to Ohio State when beginning the season what 10/11th ranked? Heck beat a team that was in the Playoffs had they won vs Clemson at their home field for a bowl game! And WI drops a spot in the rankings. Clemson/Oklahoma lost in playoffs first round they should have fallen below OSU, UCF, and WI. Just blows my mind that Auburn finishes 10th at 8-4. How that school jumps up for a big win, and doesnt fall down in rankings and a team like WI just vibrates from 7-10 all season while winning to finally get top 5 leading in to the cconference championship that resulted in being a 1 possession result.

 

And Clemson got manhandled by Bama. Wasn't even competitive. Did they even have a play over 10 yards? I know that's hyperbole as they must have, but sure didn't seem like it...

[monkeyman343434]

I was pointing out that there are a lot of cupcakes in the B1G each year, and that your arguments of "well the B1G plays 9 conference games where the SEC plays 8" is not a good argument that B1G teams play a tougher schedule. When WI gets to play Illinois, Nebraska, and Minnesota Or OSU getting to play Rutgers, Indiana, and Maryland each year vs playing Ole Miss, Miss St, and Arkansas each year, that's night and day.

[tmwiese55]

There are cupcakes in the SEC too. Ark, Mizz, Vandy, TN, and Kent (before this year) have been really poor the last few years. Look at some of the point totals these guys have been giving up, it's shocking SEC teams have gotten that bad. This didn't exist 5-8 years ago when SEC actually was the god you're talking like they are now. Yes, better than Illinois and Rutgers but not on any different level than any other B1G middling team, probably actually worse if you look at real results and head to heads. Indiana and MN have really not been bad teams over the last few years in spite of what you say. Even joke team MD blew out TX this year before they had 3 QBs get hurt. Oh I guess I should include Purdue in the bad level team category up until this year, they were truly weak before they got the new coach this year.

 

And yes having to play a 9th B1G team is much different than playing Mercer. If OSU plays Mercer instead of at Iowa they're in the playoff. If Bama had to play another crossover game, let's say vs UGA then one of those teams is not in the playoff. Or if not that, if UGA had to play another crossover game instead of Samford, let's say at LSU and lose it, they're not in. It's that simple. In 2016, if UW gets to play Mercer instead of at Mich or OSU that's one less loss headed into the conf title game leaving them possibly alive for the playoff. The 9th game is a big deal for schedule strength.