If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Nick Saban doesn't want you to assume that Alabama is going to cover that 40-point spread against Western Kentucky   (youtube.com) divider line 63
    More: Amusing, Nick Saban, Alabama  
•       •       •

627 clicks; posted to Sports » on 06 Sep 2012 at 9:10 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-06 09:34:51 AM  
"Why do we play the games?"

i.qkme.me
 
2012-09-06 11:06:44 AM  
Alright, I'll admit to being no more than a casual college football fan. I try to catch a game a week, but don't follow it as close as I watch the NFL. Can somebody explain to me the Crimson Tide football schedule?

They have twelve games. Somehow one is at a neutral site, four are away, and seven are at home. How in the hell is that fair? Do all the big schools get a schedule heavily slanted in their favor like that?

/it's all about money, isn't it?
 
2012-09-06 11:06:55 AM  
They are who we thought they were!
 
2012-09-06 11:20:08 AM  

skrame:
it's all about money, isn't it?


yes, yes it is, but a better question is why a team like Alabama even schedules Western Kentucky. I know most schools need a few give me games to win enough for bowl eligibility and the smaller schools get a hefty paycheck, but getting beat up by guys twice your size does nothing to help build western kentucky's football program. The coach of Arkansas State said as much as he was getting destroyed by Oregon last week.
 
2012-09-06 11:20:20 AM  

skrame: Alright, I'll admit to being no more than a casual college football fan. I try to catch a game a week, but don't follow it as close as I watch the NFL. Can somebody explain to me the Crimson Tide football schedule?

They have twelve games. Somehow one is at a neutral site, four are away, and seven are at home. How in the hell is that fair? Do all the big schools get a schedule heavily slanted in their favor like that?

/it's all about money, isn't it?




The conference games, the ones that really count, are split, four here, four there . . . the remaining "no one gives a crap" games are all at home . . . the sacrificial lambs show up, get beat, get a check, go home.
 
2012-09-06 11:25:35 AM  
At the very end:

"I didn't mean to intimidate you all today.. I just.. you know I had to take it out on somebody"

What a dick. I dislike Alabama just a little bit more now. Maybe they should get the 2 Sun Belt teams and 1 D-2 game off their schedule if they really are the best.
 
2012-09-06 11:27:19 AM  

ModernPrimitive01: yes, yes it is, but a better question is why a team like Alabama even schedules Western Kentucky.


Because there is a two team playoff at the end of the year. One loss and you're pretty much out of it, so why risk it any more than you have to?

And yeah, I think a lot of big program schools get 8 home games.
 
2012-09-06 11:28:15 AM  
Nick Saban has the biggest, thickest penis of any coach that's ever coached. ROLL TIDE.
 
2012-09-06 11:28:51 AM  

sforce: At the very end:

"I didn't mean to intimidate you all today.. I just.. you know I had to take it out on somebody"

What a dick. I dislike Alabama just a little bit more now. Maybe they should get the 2 Sun Belt teams and 1 D-2 game off their schedule if they really are the best.



Yeah, it shows that the formula for being a complete ass and getting away with it is to be very successful at what you do.
 
2012-09-06 11:33:27 AM  

jbtilley: ModernPrimitive01: yes, yes it is, but a better question is why a team like Alabama even schedules Western Kentucky.

Because there is a two team playoff at the end of the year. One loss and you're pretty much out of it, so why risk it any more than you have to?

And yeah, I think a lot of big program schools get 8 home games.


this isn't a problem for SEC teams but for teams like Boise strength of schedule comes into play and while the playoff will alleviate picking 2 teams, we'll still end up with an argument about which 4 teams deserve playoff spots at the end of the year since at least a couple will be tied.
 
2012-09-06 11:40:51 AM  
You would think a game like that would hose them in the BSC because it kills their strength of schedule. Except that if the get the SEC title it doesn't really matter and maybe they won't lose 1 or 2 players from injuries.
 
2012-09-06 11:46:15 AM  

mc_madness: Nick Saban has the biggest, thickest penis of any coach that's ever coached. ROLL TIDE.


Saban IS the biggest, thickest penis of any coach that's ever coached.

/FTFY
 
2012-09-06 11:59:25 AM  

TheGreatGazoo: You would think a game like that would hose them in the BSC because it kills their strength of schedule. Except that if the get the SEC title it doesn't really matter and maybe they won't lose 1 or 2 players from injuries.


The thing is, playing in the SEC West allows them to have a top-notch strength of schedule even with three gimme games. Look at last year. They had three crappy games and still managed a Strength of Schedule of 15th (according to Sagarin). Pretty much every Big XII and SEC school finished in the top 30 in strength of schedule regardless of their non-conference schedule. They only need one good game on the schedule and then they can use filler because they're already guaranteed to play LSU (#2), Arkansas (#8), and Texas A&M (#25) in the conference season.
 
2012-09-06 12:21:04 PM  
if memory serves me correctly, wku played arizona a couple years ago. they got paid something like $800,000 to play as the sacrificial lamb which actually went to buying them a new field at their stadium.. so its a win win.. the big school gets an easy w, the small school gets free stadium improvements.
 
2012-09-06 12:25:52 PM  
I find it incredibly ironic that Nick Saban of all people thinks his players are being treated unfairly.
 
2012-09-06 12:31:15 PM  

Krowdaddy Chixdiggit: mc_madness: Nick Saban has the biggest, thickest penis of any coach that's ever coached. ROLL TIDE.

Saban IS the biggest, thickest penis of any coach that's ever coached.

/FTFY


assets.sbnation.com
 
2012-09-06 12:42:42 PM  

Browncoat: Krowdaddy Chixdiggit: mc_madness: Nick Saban has the biggest, thickest penis of any coach that's ever coached. ROLL TIDE.

Saban IS the biggest, thickest penis of any coach that's ever coached.

/FTFY

[assets.sbnation.com image 521x459]


Nope......just stating a fact.
 
2012-09-06 12:52:33 PM  
I thought the line was 70.
 
2012-09-06 01:08:25 PM  

mc_madness: Nick Saban has the biggest, thickest penis of any coach that's ever coached. ROLL TIDE.


Damn right, ROLL TIDE!
 
2012-09-06 01:12:40 PM  

imnotthefiveo: if memory serves me correctly, wku played arizona a couple years ago. they got paid something like $800,000 to play as the sacrificial lamb which actually went to buying them a new field at their stadium.. so its a win win.. the big school gets an easy w, the small school gets free stadium improvements.


Holy crap, I didn't know schools got paid that much for a game. I mean, it makes sense given the ticket prices and everything; I just never thought about it.

Also, thanks to all who responded to my question earlier.
 
2012-09-06 01:25:00 PM  

skrame: They have twelve games. Somehow one is at a neutral site, four are away, and seven are at home. How in the hell is that fair? Do all the big schools get a schedule heavily slanted in their favor like that?



Yep.  Its not like a real sport where you have to play an evenly balanced schedule like all teams of your caliber.  It would be like the NY Giants were allowed to open the season with three home games against Division III college football teams.  Oh, and the NY Giants could pick these teams and work out the schedule themselves, not involving the NFL.  The whole thing is a sham.
 
I really wish they just divided up college football into 16-30 (I dunno, pick a number) team "levels".  And play a schedule only within that level.  Every team plays every other team in said level.  Or half of them.  Then have a playoff seeded based on record.  Because your record would count.
 
2012-09-06 01:29:36 PM  

rugman11: TheGreatGazoo: You would think a game like that would hose them in the BSC because it kills their strength of schedule. Except that if the get the SEC title it doesn't really matter and maybe they won't lose 1 or 2 players from injuries.

The thing is, playing in the SEC West allows them to have a top-notch strength of schedule even with three gimme games. Look at last year. They had three crappy games and still managed a Strength of Schedule of 15th (according to Sagarin). Pretty much every Big XII and SEC school finished in the top 30 in strength of schedule regardless of their non-conference schedule. They only need one good game on the schedule and then they can use filler because they're already guaranteed to play LSU (#2), Arkansas (#8), and Texas A&M (#25) in the conference season.


Which is why I say get rid of the conferences.  Have "levels".  Have the Ohio States, LSUs, Alabamas, USCs in the top level.  They all play each other, and no one else.
 
Everyone in level 2 (I'm no expert but I'm guessing that's teams like Wake Forest, Houston) plays each other.
 
And allow for movement up and down between levels after the season.
 
2012-09-06 01:31:18 PM  

skrame: imnotthefiveo: if memory serves me correctly, wku played arizona a couple years ago. they got paid something like $800,000 to play as the sacrificial lamb which actually went to buying them a new field at their stadium.. so its a win win.. the big school gets an easy w, the small school gets free stadium improvements.

Holy crap, I didn't know schools got paid that much for a game. I mean, it makes sense given the ticket prices and everything; I just never thought about it.

Also, thanks to all who responded to my question earlier.


Yes, and that's why FCS schools don't really want to see FBS schools not allowed to schedule them, either. I know my alma mater makes about $400,000/game when we play FBS schools and loses money the rest of the year, especially during playoff games (which take place over winter break so there aren't any students around and no one goes to the games)...they won the national championship my senior year and yet it was the pay-for-play game that paid the bills for the whole athletic department - the championship cost the school money (they made it back, probably, due to all the National Champs merchandise...but that has to suck if you're the runner-up. No one wants to buy that gear).
 
2012-09-06 01:32:03 PM  

downstairs: I really wish they just divided up college football into 16-30 (I dunno, pick a number) team "levels".  And play a schedule only within that level.  Every team plays every other team in said level.  Or half of them.  Then have a playoff seeded based on record.  Because your record would count.


EVERYTHING ALL HAS TO HAVE THE SAME FORMAT OR ELSE I REFUSE TO CARE ABOUT IT!
 
2012-09-06 01:49:35 PM  

IAmRight: downstairs: I really wish they just divided up college football into 16-30 (I dunno, pick a number) team "levels".  And play a schedule only within that level.  Every team plays every other team in said level.  Or half of them.  Then have a playoff seeded based on record.  Because your record would count.

EVERYTHING ALL HAS TO HAVE THE SAME FORMAT OR ELSE I REFUSE TO CARE ABOUT IT!



No, not at all.  But the current format sucks and makes the whole sport meaningless to the casual fan.  Propose something different than what I did... I'm all ears.
 
2012-09-06 01:58:09 PM  

downstairs: But the current format sucks and makes the whole sport meaningless to the casual fan.


If the sport is meaningless to the "casual fan," then they're not really a casual fan. College football doesn't need to try to pander to everyone else - it's plenty successful as it is and is easily the most enjoyable American in-game experience (well, as long as you're rooting for good teams).

Just because people that aren't interested in your product don't understand it doesn't mean you have to appeal to them.

I personally enjoy the fact that each school is in control of its own schedule, that the individual schools and conferences have most of the power, and that there isn't a strong central authority in charge of everything (as we all know, the NCAA has very limited powers and they only have it as far as the schools give it to them).

/but then, I also don't need to have a hokey "playoff" and act as though its results are vastly more significant than the regular season
//I also don't need to have a "national champion"
///I just like watching football and talking sh*t about opposing teams/schools
 
2012-09-06 02:07:10 PM  

IAmRight: skrame: imnotthefiveo: if memory serves me correctly, wku played arizona a couple years ago. they got paid something like $800,000 to play as the sacrificial lamb which actually went to buying them a new field at their stadium.. so its a win win.. the big school gets an easy w, the small school gets free stadium improvements.

Holy crap, I didn't know schools got paid that much for a game. I mean, it makes sense given the ticket prices and everything; I just never thought about it.

Also, thanks to all who responded to my question earlier.

Yes, and that's why FCS schools don't really want to see FBS schools not allowed to schedule them, either. I know my alma mater makes about $400,000/game when we play FBS schools and loses money the rest of the year, especially during playoff games (which take place over winter break so there aren't any students around and no one goes to the games)...they won the national championship my senior year and yet it was the pay-for-play game that paid the bills for the whole athletic department - the championship cost the school money (they made it back, probably, due to all the National Champs merchandise...but that has to suck if you're the runner-up. No one wants to buy that gear).


Don't forget that the FBS school makes more money by paying the FCS school $600k to come a play at their place rather than scheduling a home and home with another big school. It's all about the money.
 
2012-09-06 02:16:51 PM  
The thing about the Savannah States of the world is: (1) it's incredibly hypocritical to take a $400k payday for a game you have no chance of winning by risking the health of players who won't see a dime of that money. (2) I hope college football fans start to rebel against lopsided FBS-FCS match-ups and stop buying tickets. At least schedule a good team like Appalachian State and make things a little interesting. Savannah State is something like 19-108 since 2000 and has no business playing at the FCS level, much less any FBS teams. And maybe I could forgive scheduling a patsy every few years - but the schools who schedule 1-2 every year are a joke.
 
2012-09-06 02:16:57 PM  

pion: Don't forget that the FBS school makes more money by paying the FCS school $600k to come a play at their place rather than scheduling a home and home with another big school. It's all about the money.


True. But it's like trickle-down economics that actually provide some benefit.

I actually kind of liked the BCS because it was almost a perfect analogy for the American political process - a group of very, very wealthy people select the top choices, who are presented to the American public as the only choices for national champions/President, based largely on their ability to draw viewers/voters, and we "accept" it as legitimate and whoever wins that one game gets to be champ.

/of course, it's easier to see how they're f*cking over No. 3 and No. 4 in football than it is in politics, and therefore easier to be mad at, but it really is very, very apt.
 
2012-09-06 02:20:18 PM  

IAmRight: downstairs: But the current format sucks and makes the whole sport meaningless to the casual fan.

If the sport is meaningless to the "casual fan," then they're not really a casual fan. College football doesn't need to try to pander to everyone else - it's plenty successful as it is and is easily the most enjoyable American in-game experience (well, as long as you're rooting for good teams).

Just because people that aren't interested in your product don't understand it doesn't mean you have to appeal to them.

I personally enjoy the fact that each school is in control of its own schedule, that the individual schools and conferences have most of the power, and that there isn't a strong central authority in charge of everything (as we all know, the NCAA has very limited powers and they only have it as far as the schools give it to them).

/but then, I also don't need to have a hokey "playoff" and act as though its results are vastly more significant than the regular season
//I also don't need to have a "national champion"
///I just like watching football and talking sh*t about opposing teams/schools



All good.  You happen to enjoy sports in a much different way than most of the people in the world.
 
By the way, I'm a "casual fan" only because it pains me to watch most college football.  Because of the way its set up.
 
I guess I'm an LSU fan because I live near there.  So what am I watching for?  At the end of the game I'm now... what... thinking how a bunch of coaches, newspaper writers, and computers are going to rank my team?
 
I know they're going to win almost every game because they only play the best of the best like 2-3 times during the season.  And that's because they're in the SEC where they have to play the best of the best THAT many times.
 
And if they lose twice, the season is over.  And there's no underdog allowed to come from nowhere and be crowned champion... which is the beauty of every other sport.
 
There's no chance for a #6 N.C. State to beat Houston to win it all... a game that we all still talk about 20+ years later.  There's no George Mason (#11) advancing to the semi-finals.
 
2012-09-06 02:21:18 PM  

skrame: imnotthefiveo: if memory serves me correctly, wku played arizona a couple years ago. they got paid something like $800,000 to play as the sacrificial lamb which actually went to buying them a new field at their stadium.. so its a win win.. the big school gets an easy w, the small school gets free stadium improvements.

Holy crap, I didn't know schools got paid that much for a game. I mean, it makes sense given the ticket prices and everything; I just never thought about it.

Also, thanks to all who responded to my question earlier.


Yeah, Georgia State played Alabama the first year that the GS program was in existence. They got killed, but they made enough money on the game that the next year, the whole team got to have helmets.
 
2012-09-06 02:22:43 PM  

velvet_fog: And maybe I could forgive scheduling a patsy every few years - but the schools who schedule 1-2 every year are a joke.


a) No one schedules two per year.
b) Some states require that schools play in-state opponents in order to keep cash within the state - not much the school can do in that situation.
c) Eliminating those pay-for-play games would eliminate sports at a ton of schools (or force them to be funded from something else).

velvet_fog: (1) it's incredibly hypocritical to take a $400k payday for a game you have no chance of winning by risking the health of players who won't see a dime of that money.


a) The $400K payday keeps the athletic department afloat, which enables you to afford the scholarships for those student-athletes playing there. There's not a more significant injury risk playing against FBS teams than FCS opponents. So they do see that money.
b) The athletes themselves love the pay-for-play games. No one grows up dreaming of playing football for an FCS school - this is the only way they're going to get to play in those giant stadia with 100,000 fans - it's a hell of a lot more atmosphere and it's an opportunity to get on TV.
 
2012-09-06 02:23:54 PM  
t3.gstatic.com

media.scout.com

Sometimes this happens.
 
2012-09-06 02:28:35 PM  

downstairs: So what am I watching for?  At the end of the game I'm now... what... thinking how a bunch of coaches, newspaper writers, and computers are going to rank my team?


You watch because you enjoy seeing your team win, and at the end of the game, you're either happy because they won, or you're upset because they lost. You shouldn't really give a f*ck where you're ranked. This is why I liked it before the BCS, because it was a lot more clear: Your primary goal is to win your conference and beat all the people in the area near you so you can talk sh*t to them. That's it. It's supposed to be fun.

downstairs: I know they're going to win almost every game because they only play the best of the best like 2-3 times during the season.  And that's because they're in the SEC where they have to play the best of the best THAT many times.


Since when does a team have to be better than the other to win one game of football? That's what makes the regular season something to watch - you better be on point all season. No slipping up and dropping a game to a team you are better than, or else you're going to get killed in the polls.

downstairs: There's no chance for a #6 N.C. State to beat Houston to win it all... a game that we all still talk about 20+ years later.  There's no George Mason (#11) advancing to the semi-finals.


If you want to watch mediocre teams catch a hot streak and get rewarded over teams that played well week-in and week-out all season, then watch any other sport. If you want to watch a sport where consistent excellence is the goal, watch college football. I prefer to watch teams try to be great every game, rather than round themselves into shape for the playoffs and then start giving a sh*t.
 
2012-09-06 02:34:17 PM  

IAmRight: a) No one schedules two per year.


They typically only do so when another game falls through, such as Florida State did this year. Teams don't because you can only count 1 FCS win toward your bowl eligibility.

Per the original topic of the thread, I think it's more likely than people think, since I could see Alabama winning the game something like 30-3 or 30-0.
 
2012-09-06 02:36:06 PM  

IAmRight: velvet_fog: And maybe I could forgive scheduling a patsy every few years - but the schools who schedule 1-2 every year are a joke.

a) No one schedules two per year.



LSU is starting the season against North Texas, Washington, Idaho.
 
Oregon is starting the season against Arkansas State, Fresno State, Tennessee Tech.
 
Yeah, must see TV right there.
 
2012-09-06 02:38:12 PM  
If people understood the vast difference between "playoff champion" and "best team," I wouldn't mind a playoff so much. But people all too often confuse the two.

I'll give you an example, using matchups (which are very important, especially in football, where some teams' personnel just match up REALLY well with a particular team). Let's assume:

Team A always beats Team B
Team B always beats Team C
Team C always beats Team A
Team A, B, and C will always beat Team D.

Which team is better, if all teams finish, say, 11-1? With a ranking system, we can hypothetically rank them all even, or rank them based on their performance against other teams. With a playoff, we have to accept the results of the games played. But with this setup, we're basically determining the champion by how we seed it.

If A is 1, B is 2, C is 3 and D is 4, then A wins the first game (1-4), B wins the second game (2-3), and Team A wins the title (1-2).
If B is 1, A is 2, C is 3, and D is 4, then B wins the first game (1-4), C wins the second game (2-3) ,and Team B wins the title (1-2).
If C is 1, A is 2, B is 3, and D is 4, then C wins the first game (1-4), A wins the second game (2-3) and Team C wins the title (1-2).

We won't hear any arguments about how any of the non-champs was the better team - we act as though the playoffs proved whichever team won was the best, but it was really decided by the seeding. A single-elimination tournament is the single worst way to have the best team of the season win the national title. It creates a lot of excitement, though, but those of us who value excellence over randomness don't think that's necessarily the ideal.
 
2012-09-06 02:40:36 PM  

IAmRight: You watch because you enjoy seeing your team win



I'm a White Sox and Saints fan.  I would not care if my White Sox beat the Nebraska college baseball team.  I would not care to watch my Saints play the Toronto Argonauts.
 
I'm a rabid fan of the Saints.  I clear my schedule for every game, and usually hit the local bar and spend way too much money to see the game with friends.  Still, I want to see them playing NFL teams.
 
2012-09-06 02:41:01 PM  

downstairs: LSU is starting the season against North Texas, Washington, Idaho.
 
Oregon is starting the season against Arkansas State, Fresno State, Tennessee Tech.
 
Yeah, must see TV right there.


Ah, we're going with "other FBS teams count as patsies."

Yeah, there are no preseason games, so when every game counts, teams tend to opt to go with opponents they should be able to handle before they get into conference play (which is ultimately what matters).

/and it's pretty fun to watch those games because it's fun to see teams go for records
//UW isn't a patsy anymore, BTW
 
2012-09-06 02:45:44 PM  

downstairs: I'm a White Sox and Saints fan.  I would not care if my White Sox beat the Nebraska college baseball team.  I would not care to watch my Saints play the Toronto Argonauts.


So now you're specifically referring to these games, rather than games in general - I thought you were talking about not caring about the results of all games because there's no playoff at the end.

View it properly - non-conference games against patsies are meant to be preseason games - you're watching to see how your team's going to look this year, how they handle themselves, if the freshmen look ready, etc. Non-conference games against other powers are measuring-stick games - how does your team handle a tougher test? How will you feel about your conference heading into bowl season, when they'll be taking on other conferences around the country?

Conference games are the regular season, because the conference is the foundation of college football. It's the reason there's a Big 10 network, a Pac-12 network, a Big XII network, etc. There's no NFC North network, NFC South network, because the NFL is a centralized government structure while college football is basically a confederacy.
 
2012-09-06 02:45:58 PM  

IAmRight: It creates a lot of excitement, though, but those of us who value excellence over randomness don't think that's necessarily the ideal.



First of all, playoffs are not random.  The winner is not determined by the opening coin flip.
 
Secondly, an NCAA football team needs to be excellent to enter a playoff where only 4-8 teams are selected across, what, 130 teams?
 
Finally... there are teirs of importance in sports.
 
1. Playoffs
2. Regular season
3. Pre-season
 
2012-09-06 02:50:07 PM  

IAmRight: View it properly - non-conference games against patsies are meant to be preseason games - you're watching to see how your team's going to look this year, how they handle themselves, if the freshmen look ready, etc. Non-conference games against other powers are measuring-stick games - how does your team handle a tougher test? How will you feel about your conference heading into bowl season, when they'll be taking on other conferences around the country?



Ok, we can drop this argument.  I agree with you.  I didn't realize there wasn't a pre-season.
 
Actually, I agree with a lot of what you're saying.  I do like that every game matters to a certain extent*.  But the end result is flawed.  The best play the best so rarely we have to use near calculus (and 20 people arguing their formula is better) to determine a champion.
 
*But what if your saddled with injuries for 2-3 games and lose them.  But in reality you're the best team at your level.  You're now out of the picture?
 
2012-09-06 02:51:02 PM  

delathi:

Yeah, Georgia State played Alabama the first year that the GS program was in existence. They got killed, but they made enough money on the game that the next year, the whole team got to have helmets.


The Georgia State game was something a favor to their head coach Bill Curry, who left Alabama after getting a bit of a raw deal from the administration after the 1989 season.

People also forget that these "gimme games" serve a purpose beyond just easy wins: high stakes practice. Often times, teams don't just randomly schedule their patsies, they look for teams that run offenses similar to other teams they're going to face. For example, Alabama is playing Western Kentucky this week, who runs a pro-style offense similar to what they'll see at Arkansas in two weeks. Now, obviously, the Hilltoppers are not the Razorbacks, but this will give Alabama a chance to see formations and action similar to what they'll see later in the season.
 
2012-09-06 02:51:29 PM  

downstairs: But what if your saddled



Sigh.  your = you're.
 
/pet peeve
 
2012-09-06 02:58:23 PM  
IAmRight:
 
Also, you mention rewarding excellence.  You have to admit that certain teams have an advantage just by name, and others are shut out just by name.  LSU is always going to be looked at better than a Boise State no matter what happens on the field.  (At least by many in the NCAA/BCS cabal).
 
When Boise State was ranked around #4 a few years ago... they had zero shot to prove that maybe- just maybe- they *were* the best team in the nation.
 
Too much politics in play... and come on, as an NCAA FB fan, you know it.
 
So... let them have their rankings... but let the top 4 (I prefer 8) enter a playoff where no politics are in play.
 
Playoffs negate politics and insider business.
 
2012-09-06 03:08:20 PM  

downstairs: *But what if your saddled with injuries for 2-3 games and lose them.  But in reality you're the best team at your level.  You're now out of the picture?


Well, there's really no way to fully account for injuries anyway, short of completely playing the games on paper.

downstairs: Secondly, an NCAA football team needs to be excellent to enter a playoff where only 4-8 teams are selected across, what, 130 teams?


Here are the problems I have with a playoff in FBS football:

1) the teams selected will still be selected by the BCS, so it does not address the problems with the BCS selection method - in fact, the wider you cast the net, the more teams have a legitimate gripe that they belonged in the playoff.
2) money - the polls and networks already give the SEC way more money than everyone else. Last year, the SEC would have had half the teams in the top 8 or so - so depending on how you set up the payouts, the SEC could basically take damn near all the playoff money for a year, leaving the other conferences completely f*cked, or you'd be putting in teams that don't belong there (like ACC/Big East champs) over better teams.
3) there are a different number of teams I'd consider "deserving" of a shot at a title every year. In 2003, it should've been USC and LSU, not Oklahoma (though I suppose I'd let Oklahoma in a larger playoff). Not many more teams deserved to compete. In 2004, Auburn, USC, and Oklahoma (and maybe Utah) deserved it. No more than that. In 2005, USC and Texas were far and away the best. In 2006, probably 10 teams deserved a shot. Then again, I'd say that LSU should've won the title outright last year prior to the BCS title game. Shouldn't have even been a game.

Utlimately, if I had to set up a system, and if I were looking at a system in the future, I could see four conferences (Big XII probably splits up, half going to the Big 10, half going to the Pac-12 in this scenario) of 16 teams, two divisions - play everyone within your division, then winners play a title game - winner of the title game goes into a tournament for the title. Runners-up go into a tournament for a runner-up title.

F*ck the "champions take all" - let's go Olympic-style, we'll also have bronze-medal-esque games in each tourney. That way each place gets four games over two weeks (oh, hi, games around Christmas and games around New Year's!)

Each tourney takes place in the same location, and you run it kinda like the NCAA tourney, where you get tickets to sessions or the whole event.

Then you also have a Conference Cup

Championship tourney: 10 points winner, 7 points runner-up, 5 points bronze, 2 points last
Runner-up tourney: 8 points winner, 5 points runner-up, 3 points bronze, 1 point last
3rd place tourney: 5 points winner, 3 points runner-up, 1 point bronze
Every other tourney: 3 points, 2 points, 1 point

Whichever conference amasses the most points overall is crowned the top conference in the nation for the year.

/yo dawg I heard you like tournaments so I put tournaments in your tournaments so you can bracket while you bracket
 
2012-09-06 03:17:05 PM  

downstairs: LSU is always going to be looked at better than a Boise State no matter what happens on the field.  (At least by many in the NCAA/BCS cabal).


Not always - attitudes shift over time. That's another fun thing for people who like the long run, rather than instant gratification. You can see how Boise State built their program - it doesn't just come from "hey we got a bunch of great recruits and got a title one random year!"

They built their program. Had success in lower divisions. Got bigger. Built a bigger stadium. Got a gimmick (field). Had more success. Lured in more recruits. Got bigger. Won FCS titles. Jumped up again. Got a bigger stadium. Got into a conference. Had some success. Created their own bowl game to ensure TV coverage. Got better recruits. Got into a better conference. Got more money. Got ranked. Got into some better bowl games. Got more money. Got better recruits. Got into a BCS-eligible conference.

I think of it as more of an RPG while the NFL is much more of a level-based game. You have to look at a lot more than just what happens on the field to evaluate overall success and it takes a lot longer. Boise State wasn't even an FBS school 20 years ago. Now they're consistently ranked and it's considered significant for BCS teams to beat them. That's pretty badass.

/ASU did a similar thing earlier with creating the Fiesta Bowl, which helped them get into the Pac-8 at the time
//since then, though, they just besh*t themselves

downstairs: they had zero shot to prove that maybe- just maybe- they *were* the best team in the nation.


See, having watched all the games that year, I wouldn't have said they were the best. And, like I said earlier, I don't think that a playoff would've "proved" they were the best. They would have been champions, though.

/actually did think they'd beat Oklahoma in that Fiesta Bowl
//also was a late Colorado State TD against Fresno State from being No. 1 overall in Yahoo's bowl pick 'em back when I watched all the college football I could (finished No. 7 overall)...so I was pretty good at ascertaining relative levels of skill
 
2012-09-06 03:22:00 PM  

JaredPointer: [t3.gstatic.com image 275x183]

[media.scout.com image 220x175]

Sometimes this happens.


larrygeorge.edublogs.org

And sometimes this happens.

thingsthatdontsuck.info

And sometimes it happens again a couple years later.
 
2012-09-06 03:35:32 PM  
The o/u on Illinois-ASU is currently 48.5. Vegas wants to give some money away.
 
2012-09-06 03:38:02 PM  

Browncoat: JaredPointer: [t3.gstatic.com image 275x183]

[media.scout.com image 220x175]

Sometimes this happens.

[larrygeorge.edublogs.org image 641x467]

And sometimes this happens.

[thingsthatdontsuck.info image 610x395]

And sometimes it happens again a couple years later. you get lucky because of the bias towards your top-heavy, overrated conference and the idea that 'every game counts' is thrown out the window


FTFY
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report