$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Nov 9, 2006 7:53:06 GMT -5
I wonder the true story behind the Pata slaying. Watch its something dumb like "mistaken identity" as if you could mistake the guy for someone else.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Nov 10, 2006 9:42:36 GMT -5
I was fortunate enough to be invited to last night's Rutgers game about two months ago, when no one had any concept, clue or theory how big of a game it would be.
All I can say is, WOW, what an experience.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 28, 2006 14:37:24 GMT -5
The only bummer about the probable Ohio State/USC National Championship game is that it won't be in the Rose Ball....as it traditionally would have been in the days when the Rose Bowl was exlusively reserved for the Pac-10/Big-10 champs.
But other than that...I think the BCS system has worked out fairly well the past few years.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Nov 30, 2006 0:50:04 GMT -5
No it hasn't. Last year was the lone exception. Other than that it's been disaster after disaster.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 30, 2006 13:22:59 GMT -5
I think it's popular to say "It's a disaster."
In fact it's not. What was unfair about USC the year before...what was unfair about the USC/LSU co-championship the year before that.
I don't really see the need for the playoff that everyone is clamoring for. Can you name a 3rd, 4th, 5th ranked team EVER that had a legitimate gripe about not getting a shot on the final game....maybe 3rd on rare occasions, but never 4th, 5th and beyond.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 30, 2006 13:34:39 GMT -5
I still say it's stupid to have a system where the champion is not determined on the field.
In what other sport does a ranking of teams that don't play all the time determine the champion?
Even at lower college football levels, there is a tournament.
In NCAA basketball, they have a tournament.
Obviously, a football tournament can't have 64 teams, but it sure can have 8. Three wins and you're a champ. And if they want, they could expand it to 10 or 12 teams and work out byes so that lower seeds have to play an extra game.
Other NCAA divisions have a playoff. The NFL has a playoff system. They just don't take the top team in each conference.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 30, 2006 13:48:14 GMT -5
The champion is determined on the field. Has a team ever lost the last game of the season and ended up National Champs? Nope.
The last legitimate gripe a team had for getting cheated out of a National Championship was Washington some years back...and that was, I believe, before the BCS system was revamped.
There is a playoff system. It's a one-game, two-team playoff system.
The 3rd ranked team RARELY has a justifiable claim of being left out.
Wanna talk Michigan? OK, let's talk Michigan. Compare the quality of their wins to the quality of USC's wins. They don't compare. End of story - Ohio State vs. USC for the national championship - OSU will crush USC.
I heard a really good point about the playoff system this morning - it takes away from the relevance of the regular season. Last night the two arguably best college basketball teams in the nation squared off and the ratings were awful. Why? Because everyone already knows that both North Carolina and Ohio State are getting into the tournament regardless of the results of last night's game.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 30, 2006 14:15:01 GMT -5
It's possible that there could be more than 2 undefeated teams in any given year.
For a system to determine the "quality of wins" and their needing to run up scores to help with rankings, is just dumb. Let them settle it. Again, a tournament exists in every sport but NCAA Division I.
By the same logic, baseball should go back to the top 2 teams in each league.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 30, 2006 14:31:25 GMT -5
Baseball, and other professional sports don't have 3472983728376895765 teams to take into consideration the way college sports do. When that many teams are in play, there is no other feasible way to determine who should play in the bowl games other than subjective (while trying to be as objective as possible) interpretation of records.
It IS possible that there may be more than two undefeated teams...but there hasn't been. The system works for what we have. Ohio State is clearly the best team in the country. I doubt many people would argue for a Michigan/OSU rematch other than Michigan fans. USC is clearly better than Michigan. Last year Texas and USC were clearly the best teams. The BCS isn't flawless...it's decent...and it's better than what we had previously.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 30, 2006 14:35:51 GMT -5
However, using that subjective interpretation of records, you can pick the top 8 teams instead of the top 2, seed them, and do a tournament, like in every other sport.
Divisions II and III may not have the same talent as Division I, but they do have the same issues regarding numbers of teams. But they have tournaments.
Same issues.
If Ohio State is clearly the best team, then why even play a bowl game? Declare them the winner and that's that.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Nov 30, 2006 14:45:22 GMT -5
I'm 100% in favor of some kind of playoff.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 30, 2006 14:51:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 30, 2006 14:53:42 GMT -5
How many people watch Division III football on TV?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 30, 2006 15:01:30 GMT -5
Irrelevant. D3 doesn't get national coverage. But that has nothing to do with the system in place.
How many people watch the NCAA basketball tournament on TV?
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 30, 2006 15:19:49 GMT -5
It's not irrelevant. D3 can impose that playoff system because they go unnoticed. They could have the coaches thumb wrestle for the title and no one would care.
Having a drawn out playoff system in D1 football would reduce some relevance to the regular season and translate to some tangible amount of lost interest in the regular season. Your point about the NCAA clearly illustrates that. TONS of people watch the NCAA tournament - few, other than die-hards, watched North Carolina play Ohio State last night - compare that to the interested generated by Ohio State vs Texas earlier this college football season. THAT'S WHY there's no football tourney/playoff.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 30, 2006 15:22:59 GMT -5
It is extremely irrelevant. A playoff system where a team is chosen from among the best exists in every single sport except Division I football.
Having a 32 team, 5 week tournament would BOOST ratings. Just like the NCAA basketball tournament boosts ratings. Plus, the regular season would NOT be irrelevant, because football, unlike basketball, is just once a week and only 10-15 times a year, compared to 3 times that amount of basketball.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Nov 30, 2006 15:44:11 GMT -5
I think it's popular to say "It's a disaster." In fact it's not. What was unfair about USC the year before...what was unfair about the USC/LSU co-championship the year before that. I don't really see the need for the playoff that everyone is clamoring for. Can you name a 3rd, 4th, 5th ranked team EVER that had a legitimate gripe about not getting a shot on the final game....maybe 3rd on rare occasions, but never 4th, 5th and beyond. What was unfair was USC didn't play USC in the title game. USC played Oklahoma when they should have played Auburn. They fucked Kansas State in 99, Miami should have played Oklahoma in 01, the next year the gave the Huskers the nod over Oregon and they got raped by Miami. That system is shit.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 30, 2006 15:48:06 GMT -5
"Having a 32 team, 5 week tournament would BOOST ratings. Just like the NCAA basketball tournament boosts ratings." Agreed...at the END of the season, during the tourneys. But interest in the regular season would fade. And 32 teams? Holy Christ are you kidding me...talking about rendering the regular season pointless. I mean, 4 teams, MAYBE 8. Like I said earlier, and #4 or #5 team at the end of the season has NEVER had a legit gripe that they got jobbed for a shot at the national title.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 30, 2006 17:04:35 GMT -5
The regular season would never be irrelevant. Again, this system works in every single sport on the planet.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Nov 30, 2006 20:34:07 GMT -5
I don't see the need for a 32 team tournament.
I think 8 would suffice, 12 the most with the top 4 getting byes.
32 is overkill.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 30, 2006 21:17:55 GMT -5
Well I only used 32 because that's how D3 does it, but ANYTHING is better than this. 12 would be fine.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Dec 1, 2006 11:08:49 GMT -5
Keep in mind that once you get t0 the #15 team and down, you start to get some 3-4 loss teams.
Some are still good and dangerous, but it would be overkill.
The selfish side of me would be cool with a 16 team playoff system, but I'd really take even a 4 team playoff. ANYTHING is better than the current BCS system.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 1, 2006 11:16:08 GMT -5
No doubt. I think it's realistic to allow for up to 16 teams, but 12 would be fine. The difference between 12 and 16 is just 4 games, but the number of rounds is the same. The top 4 teams get a bye, and you have a real champion at the end. The top 4 teams have to go through 3 games to win, or teams 5-12 will have to win 4. It would be a great month.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Dec 1, 2006 11:21:05 GMT -5
Politics won't allow a hugs playoff system. There are a few boosters who put millions into the college and the teams, and the notion that they could lose to a team like Boise State or Rutgers is something they don't want to face.
that's what makes college football gay.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Dec 1, 2006 12:10:57 GMT -5
I agree 100%. If they can talk shit about how teams like Rutgers and Boise State don't belong, then prove it on the field.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Dec 1, 2006 12:18:40 GMT -5
Well, that would mean that they have the chance at losing, meaning millions down the drain and forever being on the ass end of a great upset story.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Dec 1, 2006 13:02:10 GMT -5
Which is what makes the NCAA hoops tourney the best three weeks in sports.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 1, 2006 13:24:43 GMT -5
But having a 12 team football tournament should mirror the basketball tournament. They can alternate which bowl is for which round.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Dec 1, 2006 14:46:34 GMT -5
Nah, the Bowls would be rendered meaningless. The only one that would matter to anyone would be the final.
There's so much money exchanging hands with bowl games. It's why they don't want to give it up.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 1, 2006 14:55:05 GMT -5
That's the whole reason why you alternate the bowl for the championship and rounds. Don't they do that anyway with the national championship games? One year 1 and 2 square off in the Rose Bowl, another the Orange Bowl?
No matter how it's sliced, a tournament is much better than now.
|
|