|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 31, 2006 17:31:10 GMT -5
There gonna be a playoff this year? No? Then the whole season is a sham. Again. CFB is currently the only sport in America where every game of the regular season truly matters. Some of us would like to keep it that way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2006 20:40:59 GMT -5
CFB is currently the only sport in America where every game of the regular season truly matters. Some of us would like to keep it that way. Its also the only NCAA team sport at any level that doesn't give out an NCAA national championship trophy. Some corporate meatheads do. C'mon Austin, don't be disingenuous. Teams have gone undefeated and failed to make the big important corporate championship game before, and they will in the future. When there are no undefeated teams and a bunch of teams with one loss, a bunch of computers and voters decide who plays who. There is no good justification for not having a playoff. Don't want to keep the kids out of classes? Mandate X regular season games to start on Y date, all games to be completed by Z. Also, the NCAA lost any good faith it had with this argument when it even ENTERTAINED the idea of adding additional weeks to March Madness. Don't want to render the bowl system obsolete? That happened the day the whole BCS came into being. There is one bowl that matters and the rest are exhibitions.* And how does a playoff devalue the regular season in any way? An eight-team playoff still forces every team to win as many damn games as they can to make that eight. And if the cut-off the computer/formula/voters make is between 8 and 9 rather than 2 and 3, I'll take it... the legit arguments for playing in a game generally weaken by that point. Also, a lot of teams are playing 13 games as it is... you can't tell me every game counts here and then somehow doesn't in the NFL where they only play three more games. The NCAA has pushed these athlete-"students" to the brink as it is. NCAA football is a bloated, corporate, money-making phenomenon. Don't get me wrong, I love the damn thing, I just think its ludicrous there's no playoff considering all the other compromises the sport has made. * = All that said, I am interested to see how this 5th BCS game changes things. If I understand it correctly, its going to create a four-team playoff (1 plays 2 in the "big" BCS game, and 3 plays 4 in the other, with - presumably - the winners of each playing each other in the 5th game). But again, there are going to be teams with legitimate gripes for not being included. Until they can trim the legitimacy of those arguments (i.e. as many team playoff as possible), I stand by my "sham" assessment.
|
|
|
Post by washingtonhoya on Jul 31, 2006 21:04:46 GMT -5
Hey, 2010, UW might be back to relevancy by then.
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Jul 31, 2006 21:49:51 GMT -5
Hey, 2010, UW might be back to relevancy by then. You'd have thought between Callahan and Willingham, one of them would have a Delorean they could use to play this game in September of 1991. Good season that was. Awwwwwwwwww, CRAP...you know what "Pac-10 team beats Miami" game I forgot? The one in 1994 when Washington ended Miami's 58 game home winning streak. One of the last times I was still young enough/not ground into dust emotionally by the Esherick era to get legitimately sad after a game. Seven years (and another loss to UW) later that 65-7 game in 2001 was eerily satisfying.
|
|
|
Post by washingtonhoya on Jul 31, 2006 22:21:58 GMT -5
Yeah, I was definitely going to bring the 94 game up, but then I realized that your counter-evidence consists of the 2001 game, as well as pretty much every game UW has played the last two years.
Although I do distinctly remember Ken Dorsey spending a lot of time on his back in that 2000 game (UW 34, Miami 29). That 2000 team was 11-1 with their only loss at Autzen and finished #3 in the final poll. The pure, unadulterated crap that was the 04 and 05 seasons made me forget how good that 2000 team was. Where have you gone, Marques Tuiasosopo?
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Aug 1, 2006 17:29:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Aug 1, 2006 21:48:30 GMT -5
Its also the only NCAA team sport at any level that doesn't give out an NCAA national championship trophy. Some corporate meatheads do. C'mon Austin, don't be disingenuous. Teams have gone undefeated and failed to make the big important corporate championship game before, and they will in the future. When there are no undefeated teams and a bunch of teams with one loss, a bunch of computers and voters decide who plays who. There is no good justification for not having a playoff. Don't want to keep the kids out of classes? Mandate X regular season games to start on Y date, all games to be completed by Z. Also, the NCAA lost any good faith it had with this argument when it even ENTERTAINED the idea of adding additional weeks to March Madness. Don't want to render the bowl system obsolete? That happened the day the whole BCS came into being. There is one bowl that matters and the rest are exhibitions.* And how does a playoff devalue the regular season in any way? An eight-team playoff still forces every team to win as many damn games as they can to make that eight. And if the cut-off the computer/formula/voters make is between 8 and 9 rather than 2 and 3, I'll take it... the legit arguments for playing in a game generally weaken by that point. Also, a lot of teams are playing 13 games as it is... you can't tell me every game counts here and then somehow doesn't in the NFL where they only play three more games. The NCAA has pushed these athlete-"students" to the brink as it is. NCAA football is a bloated, corporate, money-making phenomenon. Don't get me wrong, I love the damn thing, I just think its ludicrous there's no playoff considering all the other compromises the sport has made. * = All that said, I am interested to see how this 5th BCS game changes things. If I understand it correctly, its going to create a four-team playoff (1 plays 2 in the "big" BCS game, and 3 plays 4 in the other, with - presumably - the winners of each playing each other in the 5th game). But again, there are going to be teams with legitimate gripes for not being included. Until they can trim the legitimacy of those arguments (i.e. as many team playoff as possible), I stand by my "sham" assessment. Let me preface my comments by saying I used to want a playoff. I have changed my mind. I also don't like the BCS. I think a return to the old bowl system would be best, and here's why. We have become too fixated in all college sports with finality. One team must win. One team must become "the best," and everyone must agree. Anything less than a system where America can be in total agreement on who is the champ is typcially referred to as a sham. I think one reason this has occurred is that, as you point out above, most colleges now look at D-I athletics as a commercial enterprise before they look at it as a learning experience for students. However, that's what college athletics is supposed to be. College athletics, originally, was designed to allow student-athletes a forum to excel, and for local or regional college communities to support their success. So I really don't mind a system where more than one team can have a great season, and everyone can be semi-happy that their team had a great season. Was it really so bad when Nebraska and Michigan shared the national championship? Would it have been terrible if USC and Texas had shared it last season (although this probably wouldn't have happened even if both teams had won their bowl games, USC probably would have repeated as champs)? And yeah, I guarantee you I would have been Editeding and moaning about Texas not being #1 on this board last season if that's what had happened. But that's part of what makes college football fun. The polls are what everyone watches and what every team strives to be in. But everyone knows they're not perfect. Teams can get screwed by the polls and go down in history as being screwed by the polls (Colgate 1932, Notre Dame 1993). Conversely, there are teams that go down in history as being strangely blessed by the pollsters (Colorado 1990). The BCS is the worst possible system because, as you point out, it pretends to eliminate imperfecton and fails miserably. Why not just have an imperfect system? What is so wrong with an imperfect system? Furthermore, it is difficult to win your conference in college football. In the 110 year history of the Big Ten, Michigan has won the title outright 18 times. The BCS devalues winning conference championships (Ohio State got to play in the Fiesta last season), and a playoff system would devalue it further. We had a big argument on the basketball board last spring about whether success in the BET even matters, because it's a play-in tournament for the real tournament. Similarly, winning a pennant in baseball used to mean something. Now your team just has to be good enough to be at the top of the wild card standings (Boston 2004). College football was built on conference play, and I don't want to see it get thrown completely out the window, even though it's currently being held over the threshold. I could probably rant more, and these thoughts are pretty rambling and incomplete, but that's about all I can take right now. I may edit this post in the coming days. I will say one more thing first. You're from Buffalo, and you've lived your entire life in the Northeast as far as I can tell. You probably don't root for any one football team. For you, a college football playoff probably makes more sense than it does to me. However, I would rather have a system where my team can be successful in a year where they don't win the national championship. National championships are nice when they come around once in a blue moon, but I don't want a system where most of America pays attention only to who won the whole enchilada in any given year.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Aug 1, 2006 22:22:51 GMT -5
Ryan Moore is a disgrace to the university and should be booted. He will now have missed the Peach Bowl and opening two games (3 straight) due to disciplinary reasons--why is he still on the team? He's a garbage human being and also a garbage player--overrated stiff if you ask me.
Time to cut the losses now and show rest of team that respecting yourself is as important as the university and teammates.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2006 8:16:51 GMT -5
Let me preface my comments by saying I used to want a playoff. I have changed my mind. I also don't like the BCS. I think a return to the old bowl system would be best, and here's why. We have become too fixated in all college sports with finality. One team must win. One team must become "the best," and everyone must agree. Anything less than a system where America can be in total agreement on who is the champ is typcially referred to as a sham. I think one reason this has occurred is that, as you point out above, most colleges now look at D-I athletics as a commercial enterprise before they look at it as a learning experience for students. However, that's what college athletics is supposed to be. College athletics, originally, was designed to allow student-athletes a forum to excel, and for local or regional college communities to support their success. So I really don't mind a system where more than one team can have a great season, and everyone can be semi-happy that their team had a great season. Was it really so bad when Nebraska and Michigan shared the national championship? Would it have been terrible if USC and Texas had shared it last season (although this probably wouldn't have happened even if both teams had won their bowl games, USC probably would have repeated as champs)? And yeah, I guarantee you I would have been Editeding and moaning about Texas not being #1 on this board last season if that's what had happened. But that's part of what makes college football fun. The polls are what everyone watches and what every team strives to be in. But everyone knows they're not perfect. Teams can get screwed by the polls and go down in history as being screwed by the polls (Colgate 1932, Notre Dame 1993). Conversely, there are teams that go down in history as being strangely blessed by the pollsters (Colorado 1990). The BCS is the worst possible system because, as you point out, it pretends to eliminate imperfecton and fails miserably. Why not just have an imperfect system? What is so wrong with an imperfect system? I COMPLETELY agree, Austin. I would rather see the old system over the BCS. My problem with the BCS is that is purports to give us fans some sort of finality, some sense of "Team X is the best college team this season." We all know that more often than not in the BCS' history, that ain't the case. I'd rather have the fun debate you talk about than the "Team X got totally screwed, this 'playoff' is a complete sham" yap we have now. We're totally in agreement. Furthermore, it is difficult to win your conference in college football. In the 110 year history of the Big Ten, Michigan has won the title outright 18 times. The BCS devalues winning conference championships (Ohio State got to play in the Fiesta last season), and a playoff system would devalue it further. We had a big argument on the basketball board last spring about whether success in the BET even matters, because it's a play-in tournament for the real tournament. Similarly, winning a pennant in baseball used to mean something. Now your team just has to be good enough to be at the top of the wild card standings (Boston 2004). College football was built on conference play, and I don't want to see it get thrown completely out the window, even though it's currently being held over the threshold. I disagree. Winning your conference will imply you've won more games than other teams... which strengthens your case for a playoff bid. At the same time, I also think winning your conference is OVERVALUED these days in terms of the BCS. Automatic bids are a crock when the number of "invitations to the dance" are so small. What was FSU when they got their BCS bid last year or the year before? 7-4? C'mon... I'd rather see the second place team in a good conference than the first place team in a crappy one (provided that second place team is actually good). The BCS or any other playoff system should take the best teams ONLY. If that means two from the Big Ten and none from the ACC in a given year, so be it. I just want to see the best teams play for the ultimate prize if we're going to have a playoff system, and the BCS is certainly a quasi-playoff system, especially now with this fifth bowl game. I could probably rant more, and these thoughts are pretty rambling and incomplete, but that's about all I can take right now. I may edit this post in the coming days. I will say one more thing first. You're from Buffalo, and you've lived your entire life in the Northeast as far as I can tell. You probably don't root for any one football team. For you, a college football playoff probably makes more sense than it does to me. However, I would rather have a system where my team can be successful in a year where they don't win the national championship. National championships are nice when they come around once in a blue moon, but I don't want a system where most of America pays attention only to who won the whole enchilada in any given year. Again, I completely agree with you, Austin (and good call on my lack of having a single team to root for! ). We're actually in complete agreement on most of this debate. I'd rather have the old bowl system back because, like you, I liked how college football teams could be successful even if they weren't #1 in the polls at the end of the year. My call for a playoff only stems from the introduction of the BCS. I guess my point is simply, if you're going to have a playoff DO IT RIGHT. The BCS is a weak substitute in my opinion.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 2, 2006 11:43:11 GMT -5
This has to be the worst summer for waiting for football season ever. Week 2 and 3 will be the ones to watch for me early on. I think if Clemson gets a split @bc and @fsu those weeks they have a chance at playing in Jacksonville at the end of the season. Not sure what Clemson games I'll make this year since Charlotte bought the Temple game out in Philly and moved it to BofA Stadium on a Thursday. If nothing else I can visit my family for Thanksgiving and go to the SC game now that it has been moved to that Saturday. Maybe drive down to the Wake game in W-S. @vt on a Thursday will probably be impossible from here and I doubt BC would be do-able right now. I hope to make the ND-Navy game at M&T but I might go to FSU@MD that day instead. Otherwise, I'm hoping to go to the GU-Columbia game and maybe a game or two at the MSF. I follow Clemson a little bit more now since one of my sales reps, and a good friend of mine is a big fan. For that matter his whole family is, and one of his brothers was voted "Professor of the Year" there, especially commendable since he is a diehard conservative. Anyhow, he has said the very same thing. That is a brutal start but if they can get a split those first two games, the rest of the season should be a lot of fun. What has the word been on CJ Spiller? I know practice has only just begun, but how much pt is he expected to get? My rep keeps telling me that they already have a marquee running back as well as the fastest guy ever at the school. Spiller ain't no slouch. Depending on the service, he was a top ten national recruit and state champion in track. I wanted him in orange ... but with blue also. But at least he didn't go to half-ass U.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 2, 2006 12:08:44 GMT -5
I see both sides to this argument. Austin, I agree to a point that the old system gave us a bunch of winners. If you won your conference you were already a winner. Then if you won your Bowl against another conference winner you were again crowned a winner. And with the Bowl tie-ins you could have four or five teams that basically did all that they could and have nothing to be ashamed of. That being said, we are still playing for the Crown. The problem is that if you view it as an all or nothing kind of target, then virtually no one "wins." Are all college hoops teams in any year to be considered failures except for the one that won six in a row starting in late March? I think not.
Still though, I think a playoff system within the Bowls is the best option. I like the "plus one" system which has been proposed. All you have to do is take the 6 main bowls and rotate. You play 2 of them on or around Jan 1st as the semi-finals. The other four are played one week beforehand as the quarterfinals. I know that will interfere with Christmas to a degree. Depending on the day that Christmas falls, I would suggest playing those four on or around Dec. 23rd. That would still give teams several weeks to prepare for the game. Then the remaining four teams could take a couple of days off for Christmas and still have a full week of practice. Then yes, there would be one more week of practice for two teams and it would dig into the spring semester but these are big boys. I think they could handle it. Hell, baseball practice starts in the fall and runs all the way into mid summer if you make it to Omaha.
I also think that a structure like this would maintain the integrity of the "lesser" bowls. Teams like a Georgia Tech or a Boston College which are not typically in the mix for the National Title could still appreciate an earned trip to the Outback or Peach Bowls for example.
Oh, and one more thing ... that final game would be quite a monetary windfall. I have even heard some suggest it would outdo the Super Bowl. I think that is a stretch but it would damn sure bring in bukudles of bucks. I think you could do a 40%-20%-10%-10% or something of the sort for the final four teams.
What part of "a win-win situation" confuses the powers that be?
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Aug 2, 2006 12:21:50 GMT -5
Buff:
I see your point more clearly now. I should probably join you in clamoring for a playoff because I don't think we can really go backwards to the old system. If there's going to be a change it'll be to this plus one system and then perhaps eventually a playoff.
On my "winning your conference is hard" argument, you make a good point. Three of the major conferences now have conference championship games, and those games have produced some wacky results. I would argue it is still difficult to win the Big Ten and the Pac 10, which have no championship game and are decided purely on in-season results. Whether championship games are necessary is debatable, and I think they're in the same mold as the BCS: designed to make the conferences money.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 2, 2006 12:53:53 GMT -5
Buff: I see your point more clearly now. I should probably join you in clamoring for a playoff because I don't think we can really go backwards to the old system. If there's going to be a change it'll be to this plus one system and then perhaps eventually a playoff. On my "winning your conference is hard" argument, you make a good point. Three of the major conferences now have conference championship games, and those games have produced some wacky results. I would argue it is still difficult to win the Big Ten and the Pac 10, which have no championship game and are decided purely on in-season results. Whether championship games are necessary is debatable, and I think they're in the same mold as the BCS: designed to make the conferences money. I don't argue the point concerning money, but I don't find fault with that. The greedy me is all for more football. I like the Conference Title game. I like the twelfth game. Hell, I am looking forward to the first NFL preseason game. Granted it won't be all that exciting but it beats the crap out of watching American Idol, the Contender or the Yankees play the Devil Rays again. I have never understood the criticism against events like a title game "because it is just to make money." I do understand the logic that sometimes someone might get screwed. I Florida were to run the table for example and go 12-0 only to lose to an 8-4 Auburn or LSU team in Atlanta, which the Gators had already beaten earlier in the year I would certainly be upset. And in that scenario the undefeated team going in certainly got screwed by having the title game. But all in all, I love it. It does create a "Title" and therefore a real "Champion." I have been there when we won and I have been there when we lost. Obviously winning beats the crap out of losing. In any case, given that the National Title game is so rarely reached much less won, I truly appreciate the Conference title games.
|
|
TigerHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,808
|
Post by TigerHoya on Aug 2, 2006 13:31:00 GMT -5
Rhett Bomar dismissed from the team at Oklahoma today.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Aug 2, 2006 14:12:00 GMT -5
Here's a link to the Bomar story from ESPN. Apparently OU also dismissed one of its starting guards. sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2537332I don't know what's more disturbing: that the Big XII's respectability rating just took another huge hit, or that Doug Gottleib is apparently now reporting on college football for ESPN.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Aug 2, 2006 23:21:23 GMT -5
Here's a link to the Bomar story from ESPN. Apparently OU also dismissed one of its starting guards. sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2537332I don't know what's more disturbing: that the Big XII's respectability rating just took another huge hit, or that Doug Gottleib is apparently now reporting on college football for ESPN. I don't think Big XII's respectability took a hit--at least the school acted on this before the NCAA and self reported/handled the situation. I respect teams who suspend/boot players who commit violations/break the law--it's what should be done and Bomar/Quinn have had more then just one run in, so it's not a shock they were involved.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 3, 2006 10:52:37 GMT -5
I don't think OU's respectability took a hit either - I'm not the first to defend them - but its hard to lose something that you don't have in the first place. They recruited and admitted a guy from Jenks HS in Tulsa that I knew from track and field - he got the SAT administered to him orally (possibly due to his poor reading skills) by a friend of the coaching staff so he could qualify under clearinghouse standards. OU also has rabid boosters who would do this sort of thing.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 3, 2006 11:53:57 GMT -5
Colin Cowherd did a little clip this morning on the Bomar story. I don't know if it was a joke or not, but he was claiming he was working at "Big Red's Auto Dealership" and made jokes about how could that NOT be a formula for disaster? It was pretty funny. For what it is worth, he said that it dropped OU from a serious National Champion contender to a middle of the pack 8-4 Big XII team. Apparently they have no depth at QB. The start will go to the guy who came in in relief last year when their starter went down with injury. But he was very ineffective and they had moved him to WR in the offseason. Other than that they have a true freshman who was scheduled to redshirt and a Juco transfer who just arrived.
On a related note, you have to know that Bobby Stoops was well aware to their QB situation and for him to dismiss the guy takes balls. He probably could have suspended him for 2 games and made him pay back the money. But no, Stoops showed integrity. Hats off to Coach Stoops.
Bobby Bowden would probably have made Bomar run some extra stadium steps or something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2006 13:07:27 GMT -5
The start will go to the guy who came in in relief last year when their starter went down with injury. But he was very ineffective and they had moved him to WR in the offseason. Believe it or not, the WR you're talking about actually STARTED the season opening loss to TCU. He was something like 11-20-something for 100+ yards. He was moved to WR immediately after. And ironically enough, he had 11 catches for the rest of the season for about the same yardage. OU is in SERIOUS trouble.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 3, 2006 13:24:48 GMT -5
Oh really. I must have misheard the clip. I thought that Colin said that he came in in relief last year and was ineffective. That makes it even worse. Now I am wondering if 8-4 might even be a stretch.
|
|