Badgers Football 2019

[PeaveyFury]

Think about the flip side, in the short BCS Championship era when only two teams were selected, we would have had an undefeated returning national champion left out of the title game. It's still not a perfect system but it's better than what we had

 

I agree with this, but it won't live up to its full potential until they have 8 team in.

[pacopete4]

Agree with the 8 teams. You need all power 5’s in and there is always a couple others deserving of an opportunity.

[PeaveyFury]

Agree with the 8 teams. You need all power 5’s in and there is always a couple others deserving of an opportunity.

 

Exactly. Conference champs from the power 5 + 3 at larges. Everyone who potentially has a claim is included.

[MrTPlush]

Id love 8 teams, but consistently 5-8 just don’t really prove their worth. They really just aren’t forcing the issue.

[DuWayne Steurer]

This year there was really no controversy. The 4 best power 5 conference Champs are in the playoffs. There have been some years where we've had some goofy stuff, like teams that didn't even make it to their conference Championship games getting in the playoffs. That being said I really feel like the only reason to expand the field to eight would be to see a few different teams in there. I'm not really against that, but wherever you draw the line you're always going to have a team that says hey we were the one that deserves to be in.

 

I also think when you expand the playoffs a bit more you water the bowls down to the point where they just really are nothing more than a novelty, which they might already be to some degree.

[LouisEly]

Id love 8 teams, but consistently 5-8 just don’t really prove their worth. They really just aren’t forcing the issue.

Yep, we'd just be arguing about which two loss teams that don't deserve to be there should be included.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

So ... where are all those who predicted that the Badgers stood no shot of getting a Rose Bowl bid if they lost to Ohio State? They were pretty vocal.

[pacopete4]

Id love 8 teams, but consistently 5-8 just don’t really prove their worth. They really just aren’t forcing the issue.

 

Then let them get beat in the first round like a 1-4 seed should do. There is no harm in giving a 5-8 seed a shot at knocking off a team in the 1-4 slots. Most years those 1-4 slots have losses of their own on their records so it's not like they are untouchable.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Id love 8 teams, but consistently 5-8 just don’t really prove their worth. They really just aren’t forcing the issue.

 

Then let them get beat in the first round like a 1-4 seed should do. There is no harm in giving a 5-8 seed a shot at knocking off a team in the 1-4 slots. Most years those 1-4 slots have losses of their own on their records so it's not like they are untouchable.

 

I'd be a proponent of 6, with seeds #1 and 2 getting a 1st round bye...that guarantees that if all 5 power conferences actually have a team deserving of the playoff they get in, actually gives a spot for a non-power conference team if they ever reach the status of a Petersen-era Boise State, and also still puts a big incentive on being one of the top two teams after the conference title game dust settles.

 

8 I feel is too many - with 6, this year there would be the debate of which 2 get the by between OSU, LSU, and Clemson - and Oregon the Pac 12 champ finds a way in. Having a field of 6 this year would also shine the light on the travesty that ranking Georgia at #5 is after getting dominated by LSU and having that terrible loss at home against south carolina on their resume. I wouldn't give it to Wisky this year, because if you have 2 shots against a top team and lose both games to them, you shouldn't get a 3rd crack in a playoff scenario. But IMO Florida, Penn State, and Baylor all should be higher than Georgia in this last ranking.

[homer]

with 6 you'd have a bye week which I'm not sure I'd want. 8 is the absolute max I would do. Does the 8 seed have a shot? Probably once out of every 25 years but that's what makes it special.

[owbc]

As much as more playoff teams would be fun for the fans it isn't fair to the student athletes. It seems highly unlikely that the best team in the country would be left out of the top 4, so if our goal is to find the champion then I'm not sure why we need more teams.

 

6 just sounds like a recipe to let more SEC teams in. Which by the way, how is Alabama ranked #13? I would rank them ahead of a Georgia team that has a bad loss on their resume and just got throttled by LSU.

[tmwiese55]

Well they finally looked at Bama's resume which has essentially no good wins on it. But yea I agree it's an overreaction. We all know they'd only be underdogs to the top 3 teams, and if Tua is healthy that might not even be true.

 

I actually like the 6 team option better than 8. I think 8 waters it down too much and opens up 3 loss teams. But most importantly, I like that it would give the top 2 teams a bye in that it will keep the emphasis on being undefeated and how every game is so huge, which is what make CFB great now. Team would still have a massive care and emphasis on being top 2 for that bye so that, as an example, that SEC title game mattered last weekend. Sure would've been rough on the committee this year picking who doesn't get the bye though. But, imagine this year's scenario with the old system of picking just two? At least that problem is gone.

[olliegjw]

Any system that a team could go undefeated, and have zero chance at a national championship is a terrible system. That is what we currently have. UCF went undefeated a couple years ago, beat an SEC team in a bowl game, and were not close to the playoffs.

[MrTPlush]

UCF actually went undefeated two years in a row, neither time did they have much of a real shot at the CFP. The second year featured a lot more dominating wins than the 13-0 season. It is funny Utah was set to make it this year beating the #17 and #13 teams, but UCF couldn't go 25-0 over two seasons and make it. UCF beat #22 and #16 in their first undefeated regular season.

 

Is what it is. If you aren't in a major conference you ain't going without dominating almost every week. Maybe partly fair, but kind of unfortunate.

[tmwiese55]

So ... where are all those who predicted that the Badgers stood no shot of getting a Rose Bowl bid if they lost to Ohio State? They were pretty vocal.

 

And the Chryst has to go crowd from two months ago.

 

In 5 years he's won 10+ 4 times. Made the Rose, Cotton, and Orange Bowls. Having won the first two. Won division 3/5 years.

 

Realistic areas to improve being I think 4/5 years is an attainable goal for winning the West. And of course pull of a win vs OSU at some point and winning the conference. But still at least they gave OSU a legit game this weekend. To me that's all I want vs OSU, play them close and have a chance almost every time you play and eventually you'll catch a few breaks and win like 1/6 times. Or I mean if you really want to get whiny, Fields shouldn't be playing at OSU right now so then all of a sudden you might've got this championship. Obviously they're still OSU so it's not a freebie, but you go from huge dogs to even or small dogs without Fields (their backups have transferred so would've had a huge question mark if he was ruled ineligible). Or maybe you're playing PSU instead.

 

But of course we can't get a kid who sat out the whole year last year to be eligible in basketball.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

So ... where are all those who predicted that the Badgers stood no shot of getting a Rose Bowl bid if they lost to Ohio State? They were pretty vocal.

 

I'm not one of those you are referring to but I just want to point out that I've been given timeout warnings for doing the same thing you're doing here. Just looking for some consistency here.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

So ... where are all those who predicted that the Badgers stood no shot of getting a Rose Bowl bid if they lost to Ohio State? They were pretty vocal.

 

I'm not one of those you are referring to but I just want to point out that I've been given timeout warnings for doing the same thing you're doing here. Just looking for some consistency here.

 

As you know, I've been wrong a lot. Like A LOT! But I certainly try to own it when I am. I just would like a little accountability from those who were absolutely certain that the Badgers stood no chance of getting a Rose Bowl bid.

 

Not really trying to go all "Old Takes Exposed" here, but the certainty that some had that the Badgers wouldn't sniff the Rose bowl with a loss just bugged me.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

So ... where are all those who predicted that the Badgers stood no shot of getting a Rose Bowl bid if they lost to Ohio State? They were pretty vocal.

 

I'm not one of those you are referring to but I just want to point out that I've been given timeout warnings for doing the same thing you're doing here. Just looking for some consistency here.

 

As you know, I've been wrong a lot. Like A LOT! But I certainly try to own it when I am. I just would like a little accountability from those who were absolutely certain that the Badgers stood no chance of getting a Rose Bowl bid.

 

Not really trying to go all "Old Takes Exposed" here, but the certainty that some had that the Badgers wouldn't sniff the Rose bowl with a loss just bugged me.

 

PM sent.

[brewcrewdue80]

They chose Jalen Hurtz over Taylor for the Heisman final 4. I understand the other 2QBs and Young. Hurtz though, weak competition. Seriously, I was thinking oh, Baylor was good, but they didn't beat a single ranked team losing to Oklahoma twice. The career he's already had.

 

He's 5th all time for RBs and a 326yard game vs Oregon would make him #1 all time.

[JosephC]

LOL at any offensive player from the Big 12 getting nominated for the Heisman. Voters still too dumb to figure out that they do not play defense in that league.

 

Taylor can get his revenge by returning to Wisconsin and setting the all-time college football rushing record...a record that would make him immortal and could stand for a long, long, long time. That is unlikely to happen (the part about him going back to school), but all Wisconsin-ite's would love to see it happen. Maybe the boosters will save up enough pennies to pay the premium on an insurance policy so large that he wouldn't have to worry about getting hurt at all. We all can dream.

[Mr Southpaw]

As much as more playoff teams would be fun for the fans it isn't fair to the student athletes. It seems highly unlikely that the best team in the country would be left out of the top 4, so if our goal is to find the champion then I'm not sure why we need more teams.

 

6 just sounds like a recipe to let more SEC teams in. Which by the way, how is Alabama ranked #13? I would rank them ahead of a Georgia team that has a bad loss on their resume and just got throttled by LSU.

 

[sarcasm]Yeah, I hate the way those Division II, III, IV, V, VI, NAIA, and high school kids just get abused![/sarcasm]

[tmwiese55]

I'd actually say Taylor should be there over Young. Yes, Young is ridiculous and the best defensive player, but simply not playing 2 games should virtually eliminate him. That said, this comes down to the voting, this means all those guys beat Taylor in voting. They're not gonna have Taylor be there over guys who beat him in voting. So the people really at fault are the voters, not some Heisman committee or anything.

 

As much as I know Taylor is going pro and financially he has to. I'd be curious the long term life and money implications of coming back and setting that record, one that is very unlikely to get beat. One could probably make an argument the lifelong implications of that, and possibly getting the career achievement type Heisman next year could outweigh the one year of earning NFL money. But, that's as long as he doesn't get hurt. For example, down the line he could probably get paid a chunk of money by UW each year to kind of be an ambassador for the program. Going around to all the events, glad handing, fund raising etc. I'm not positive, but I think Dayne is on the payroll now in a similar capacity.

[MrTPlush]

Ron Dayne made $30k in 2016, wasn't on payroll for 2018.

 

There is no chance he would come back and win the Heisman. Lets be honest, he can't even get Top 4. I am not sure what insane stats would be required for him to actually win these days.

 

We would likely be serious CFP contenders with him on the squad next year (easy schedule). Not point in dreaming though. It was a fun 3 years, but we should be happy to have a player who won't come back for their senior year. That usually means they were a heck of a player for us.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The Rose Bowl was just as pointless when it "meant something." Even if the game itself was fantastic, like the UCLA game where they were massive underdogs and won 38-31 while Dayne carried the Bruins on his back half the game, they ended the year ranked 3rd or 4th. It's the definition of pointless. It was an amazing game, but part of the reason I've only ever been half-interested in CFB.

 

The 8 team thing seems utterly pointless. Let's say the Badgers are 8th and get in. They're going to beat OSU/LSU/Clemson in consecutive weeks? LOL, ok. Those bottom 4 teams are never going to pull that off in CFB.

[homer]

The Rose Bowl was just as pointless when it "meant something." Even if the game itself was fantastic, like the UCLA game where they were massive underdogs and won 38-31 while Dayne carried the Bruins on his back half the game, they ended the year ranked 3rd or 4th. It's the definition of pointless. It was an amazing game, but part of the reason I've only ever been half-interested in CFB.

 

The 8 team thing seems utterly pointless. Let's say the Badgers are 8th and get in. They're going to beat OSU/LSU/Clemson in consecutive weeks? LOL, ok. Those bottom 4 teams are never going to pull that off in CFB.

 

If the only meaningful game is the national championship then why even watch college football at all? I will enjoy the hell out of the Rose Bowl.