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.

(ESPN)   BCS to introduce new game into playoff format: Monopoly   (espn.go.com) divider line 96
    More: Asinine, BCS, playoff format, SportsBusiness Journal, Conference USA, Orange Bowl, Sun Belt, Big East, Big Ten  
•       •       •

2819 clicks; posted to Sports » on 12 Nov 2012 at 7:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-12 08:02:05 AM
For some reason, I'm not surprised.
 
2012-11-12 08:08:00 AM
Good
 
2012-11-12 08:15:09 AM
This is new how exactly?
 
2012-11-12 08:20:29 AM
No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?
 
WGJ
2012-11-12 08:20:45 AM
media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-12 08:28:54 AM

The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?


The SEC has no skill players.
 
2012-11-12 08:36:03 AM

Free Radical: The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?

The SEC has no skill players.


Not on offense it feels like
 
2012-11-12 08:36:10 AM

The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?


I don't know, but given the fact that it took SEC teams to beat SEC teams it kind of only goes to strengthen the conference's standing.
 
2012-11-12 08:36:33 AM
My preferred playoff format would be to have it be an entirely on-the-field thing (no selection committees, no polls) with as much tradition held onto as possible. To that end, I'd using the conference seedings that the NCAA came up with and have just the 10 major conference champions make the playoffs in a seeded tournament.

Seeds:

1) SEC (1,054)
2) Big Ten (860)
3) Big 12 (816)
4) ACC (673)
5) Pac-12 (671)
6) Big East (240)

7) MWC (58)
8) C-USA (49)
9) Mid-American (21)
10) Sun Belt (0).


Play-in Round: - 3rd weekend in December
MWC vs. Sun Belt
C-USA vs. Mid-American

Tradition Round: - New Year's Day
Winner of MWC/Sun Belt vs. C-USA vs. Mid-American in Fiesta Bowl
SEC vs. Big East in Sugar Bowl
Big Ten vs. Pac-12 in Rose Bowl
Big 12 vs. ACC in Orange Bowl

NCAA Semi-Finals: - 1 week after New Year's game

NCAA Finals: - Prime Time 2nd week of January

Don't try to tell me that this wouldn't make an absolute shiat-ton of money. You can have your minor bowls all you want (there would still be interest in, say, Michigan playing Georgia in the Capital One Bowl or whatever) but people would lose their shiat over this.
 
2012-11-12 08:39:01 AM

Sargun: The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?

I don't know, but given the fact that it took SEC teams to beat SEC teams it kind of only goes to strengthen the conference's standing.


Yeah, that was bittersweet. A&M knocks of the top dog in the SEC, but after leaving the Big 12. Oh well, it was still awesome.
 
2012-11-12 08:41:43 AM

meanmutton: My preferred playoff format would be to have it be an entirely on-the-field thing (no selection committees, no polls) with as much tradition held onto as possible. To that end, I'd using the conference seedings that the NCAA came up with and have just the 10 major conference champions make the playoffs in a seeded tournament.

Seeds:

1) SEC (1,054)
2) Big Ten (860)
3) Big 12 (816)
4) ACC (673)
5) Pac-12 (671)
6) Big East (240)

7) MWC (58)
8) C-USA (49)
9) Mid-American (21)
10) Sun Belt (0).


Play-in Round: - 3rd weekend in December
MWC vs. Sun Belt
C-USA vs. Mid-American

Tradition Round: - New Year's Day
Winner of MWC/Sun Belt vs. C-USA vs. Mid-American in Fiesta Bowl
SEC vs. Big East in Sugar Bowl
Big Ten vs. Pac-12 in Rose Bowl
Big 12 vs. ACC in Orange Bowl

NCAA Semi-Finals: - 1 week after New Year's game

NCAA Finals: - Prime Time 2nd week of January

Don't try to tell me that this wouldn't make an absolute shiat-ton of money. You can have your minor bowls all you want (there would still be interest in, say, Michigan playing Georgia in the Capital One Bowl or whatever) but people would lose their shiat over this.


Put the lower team at home in the QF round so that the 'little' team is guaranteed a home berth and more money flows d--CARRIER LOST--
 
2012-11-12 08:50:28 AM
Why not look at how NCAA's 1-AA division does their playoff format? Or does that make too much sense?
 
2012-11-12 08:57:01 AM

Sargun: The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?

I don't know, but given the fact that it took SEC teams to beat SEC teams it kind of only goes to strengthen the conference's standing.


Exactly, A&M increased in power magically just by entering the SEC.
 
2012-11-12 09:00:50 AM

Sargun: The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?

I don't know, but given the fact that it took SEC teams to beat SEC teams it kind of only goes to strengthen the conference's standing.


It's the sort of tautological circle jerk that SEC fans have come to rely on to get a hard on.
 
2012-11-12 09:02:30 AM

ManOfTeal: Why not look at how NCAA's 1-AA division does their playoff format? Or does that make too much sense?


FCS has a pretty horrible playoff format (and really, they just keep adding more teams every few years) and also, they don't have to worry about money - in fact, if you make the national championship game and lose, you're likely to lose your school a couple hundred grand. (If you win, you still lose that much, but you can make up for it with "National Champions!" gear.

/school won the Division I National Championship while I was covering them for the school paper my senior year
//the "pay-for-play" games against FBS teams pay for us to have a football team
///my school was ranked No. 1 in the country going into the playoffs and got the No. 5 seed the year we won it all
 
2012-11-12 09:17:13 AM

IAmRight: ManOfTeal: Why not look at how NCAA's 1-AA division does their playoff format? Or does that make too much sense?

FCS has a pretty horrible playoff format (and really, they just keep adding more teams every few years) and also, they don't have to worry about money - in fact, if you make the national championship game and lose, you're likely to lose your school a couple hundred grand. (If you win, you still lose that much, but you can make up for it with "National Champions!" gear.

/school won the Division I National Championship while I was covering them for the school paper my senior year
//the "pay-for-play" games against FBS teams pay for us to have a football team
///my school was ranked No. 1 in the country going into the playoffs and got the No. 5 seed the year we won it all


Furman?

/Proud Georgia Southern Alumni
 
2012-11-12 09:19:48 AM

Sargun: I don't know, but given the fact that it took SEC teams to beat SEC teams it kind of only goes to strengthen the conference's standing.


Right, how dare the likes of Western Kentucky and LA-Lafayette fall short. The top six teams in the SEC combined have two marquee OOC wins -- Alabama's dismantling of an underprepared and then-overrated Michigan team, and Texas A&M's squeaker over a fairly legit Louisiana Tech. That's it. Florida just got exposed by a Sun Belt team, and middling one at that. Now, I don't expect teams to go out of their way to schedule punishment (it shuts out the smaller programs that can surprise now and then) but at least five SEC teams tried to ride the conference's overrated rep to bowl season without playing anyone. At least I don't have to look at Mississippi State ranked #11 anymore, but that should never have happened.

To be fair, K-State and Oregon haven't played anyone, either, but as long as no one's playing anyone you gotta win out to contend. You can't beat up cupcakes AND whine about how your conference is so hard when everyone's riding the same boat these days. ND tried to schedule a gauntlet (and damn near laid an egg against Pitt) but MSU, Miami and BYU disappointing isn't their fault. Georgia, on the other hand, is the #5 team in the country (according to the BCS) and I'd like to see someone try to convince me that they proved their might against. . . uh, Buffalo and Florida Atlantic. Well, at least they play Georgia Southern next week; maybe that titan of FBS football will give them a challenge.
 
2012-11-12 09:25:20 AM

ManOfTeal: Furman?


Nope, EWU (2010).

/best part is coming back from a 19-0 deficit to beat Delaware with the VP in the house
//still got HFA throughout the playoffs because the seeds above us all got upset

dragonchild: Well, at least they play Georgia Southern next week; maybe that titan of FBS football will give them a challenge.


In fairness, Georgia Southern is better than Pitt and BC. And they were the team that scored the most on Alabama last season.
 
2012-11-12 09:27:08 AM

dragonchild: Sargun: I don't know, but given the fact that it took SEC teams to beat SEC teams it kind of only goes to strengthen the conference's standing.

Right, how dare the likes of Western Kentucky and LA-Lafayette fall short. The top six teams in the SEC combined have two marquee OOC wins -- Alabama's dismantling of an underprepared and then-overrated Michigan team, and Texas A&M's squeaker over a fairly legit Louisiana Tech. That's it. Florida just got exposed by a Sun Belt team, and middling one at that. Now, I don't expect teams to go out of their way to schedule punishment (it shuts out the smaller programs that can surprise now and then) but at least five SEC teams tried to ride the conference's overrated rep to bowl season without playing anyone. At least I don't have to look at Mississippi State ranked #11 anymore, but that should never have happened.

To be fair, K-State and Oregon haven't played anyone, either, but as long as no one's playing anyone you gotta win out to contend. You can't beat up cupcakes AND whine about how your conference is so hard when everyone's riding the same boat these days. ND tried to schedule a gauntlet (and damn near laid an egg against Pitt) but MSU, Miami and BYU disappointing isn't their fault. Georgia, on the other hand, is the #5 team in the country (according to the BCS) and I'd like to see someone try to convince me that they proved their might against. . . uh, Buffalo and Florida Atlantic. Well, at least they play Georgia Southern next week; maybe that titan of FBS football will give them a challenge.


And the SEC team that beat Alabama is comprised almost entirely of players who were in the big 12 last year, so it's not even like TT got the vaunted "SEC" recruitment push either.
 
2012-11-12 09:38:38 AM
Remember kids, everybody's got to make (and fight over) money except the players.
The players are just indentured servants to a higher learning institute.
 
2012-11-12 09:42:55 AM

dragonchild: Sargun: I don't know, but given the fact that it took SEC teams to beat SEC teams it kind of only goes to strengthen the conference's standing.

Right, how dare the likes of Western Kentucky and LA-Lafayette fall short. The top six teams in the SEC combined have two marquee OOC wins -- Alabama's dismantling of an underprepared and then-overrated Michigan team, and Texas A&M's squeaker over a fairly legit Louisiana Tech. That's it. Florida just got exposed by a Sun Belt team, and middling one at that. Now, I don't expect teams to go out of their way to schedule punishment (it shuts out the smaller programs that can surprise now and then) but at least five SEC teams tried to ride the conference's overrated rep to bowl season without playing anyone. At least I don't have to look at Mississippi State ranked #11 anymore, but that should never have happened.

To be fair, K-State and Oregon haven't played anyone, either, but as long as no one's playing anyone you gotta win out to contend. You can't beat up cupcakes AND whine about how your conference is so hard when everyone's riding the same boat these days. ND tried to schedule a gauntlet (and damn near laid an egg against Pitt) but MSU, Miami and BYU disappointing isn't their fault. Georgia, on the other hand, is the #5 team in the country (according to the BCS) and I'd like to see someone try to convince me that they proved their might against. . . uh, Buffalo and Florida Atlantic. Well, at least they play Georgia Southern next week; maybe that titan of FBS football will give them a challenge.


I'm a realist, so I don't expect my Georgia Southern Eagles to win against the Dawgs on Saturday, but I do seem to remember, in 2007, when Appalachian State, who is Georgia Southern's chief rival, beat #5 ranked Michigan. What a cluster that caused...
 
2012-11-12 09:43:31 AM

Gunderson: Remember kids, everybody's got to make (and fight over) money except the players.
The players are just indentured servants to a higher learning institute.


What is the average tuition plus room and board at BCS schools?
 
2012-11-12 09:44:46 AM

Gunderson: Remember kids, everybody's got to make (and fight over) money except the players.
The players are just indentured servants to a higher learning institute.


I'll be sure to express my pity for them when they ride by in their new Escalade to "class" paid for by a free ride.
 
2012-11-12 09:47:26 AM

Gunderson: Remember kids, everybody's got to make (and fight over) money except the players.
The players are just indentured servants to a higher learning institute.


The players get paid. In addition to tuition and health care (which they're allowed to get but not every school gives them), they receive a cash salary that varies from institution to institution.
 
2012-11-12 09:48:42 AM
Conferences also will not be limited to how many teams it can send to access bowls.

Football Nirvana as the SEC fills all the slots in the access bowls.
 
2012-11-12 09:50:25 AM

TheOther: Conferences also will not be limited to how many teams it can send to access bowls.

Football Nirvana as the SEC fills all the slots in the access bowls.


Honestly, this is a stupid idea. If you have all the schools come from the same region of the country, you're going to have less national interest.
 
2012-11-12 09:53:10 AM

The Muthaship: Gunderson: Remember kids, everybody's got to make (and fight over) money except the players.
The players are just indentured servants to a higher learning institute.

What is the average tuition plus room and board at BCS schools?


And how many make productive uses of their degrees once football is over?

And what student with better academic potential didn't get a scholarship so a player can display his "Rocks for Jocks" degree while he's bankrupt by the time he turns 25. If 78% of NFL players are bankrupt or financial destitute 2 years after retirement, what are a college players odds after school ends for them.

Just pay the players. They earn it. At least some will have a chance.
 
2012-11-12 09:55:39 AM

Gunderson: And how many make productive uses of their degrees once football is over?


As many as put in the effort to.

Here's my answer. Get sports out of colleges.
 
2012-11-12 09:57:43 AM
I wonder how many farking lawyers were involved in coming up with that convoluted split of the money. Jesus, a 1st gradeer could have come up with something simpler, easier, and fairer.
 
2012-11-12 10:01:20 AM

The Muthaship: Gunderson: And how many make productive uses of their degrees once football is over?

As many as put in the effort to.

Here's my answer. Get sports out of colleges.


This I agree with. Why bother with the charade that any of the top school's players are learning a damn thing.
 
2012-11-12 10:01:55 AM

redmid17: Free Radical: The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?

The SEC has no skill players.

Not on offense it feels like


Tennessee has Justin Hunter and Cordarrelle Patterson two of the top projected draft picks at receiver this year. Tyler Bray is putting up big numbers as well. Micheal Rivera is a great TE.

South Carolina had Marcus Lattimore.

Aaron Murray at Georgia is going to do well for himself on Sundays.

Ryan Swope at Texas A&M and Johnny Manziel.

James Franklin at Mizzou.

I would take any of the running backs at Alabama over any back in the country.

Philip Lutzenkirchen at Auburn.

Spencer Ware at LSU.

Jordan Rogers at Vandy.

/not an SEC homer, I just hate stupid statements
 
2012-11-12 10:03:50 AM

Free Radical: Sargun: The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?

I don't know, but given the fact that it took SEC teams to beat SEC teams it kind of only goes to strengthen the conference's standing.

Exactly, A&M increased in power magically just by entering the SEC.


Firing their old coach, and getting a QB that is not a converted WR goes further than just joining the SEC, they would be at the worst 2nd in the big 12 and possibly ruin KSU's chance at a title.

And subby didnt explain how this is a monopoly, seems rather generous since most of those teams have never sniffed a NCG.
 
2012-11-12 10:07:04 AM

Billified: I wonder how many farking lawyers were involved in coming up with that convoluted split of the money. Jesus, a 1st gradeer could have come up with something simpler, easier, and fairer.


Fair would have been allowing lower conferences to continue going to bowl games and if they want to join another conference they can. I fail to see how its fair to give people money they never earned.
 
2012-11-12 10:07:30 AM

ManOfTeal: I do seem to remember, in 2007, when Appalachian State, who is Georgia Southern's chief rival, beat #5 ranked Michigan. What a cluster that caused...


It's actually that game that warmed me up to the idea of scheduling cupcakes at all, because sometimes a "cupcake" isn't really a cupcake and a ranked team is overrated. However, that same Michigan will also typically schedule at least one tough OOC game with or without ND. This season they played UMass. . . but they also played Alabama. So kudos to Alabama and Michigan for being fearless.

My point isn't that good teams shouldn't schedule any cupcakes. The problem is that right now we have the exact opposite, and the all-cupcake diets make evaluating teams more difficult than it should be. Out of the top ten BCS teams, which includes six SEC teams, the only teams that tried to schedule even one challenging OOC game were ND (by default as they're indy), Alabama (Michigan), Florida State (Miami) and maybe Texas A&M (LA Tech). It turns out Miami wasn't very good but I'll give FSU the grade for effort even if it's a tradition thing; LA Tech is pretty darn good but I get the feeling A&M scheduled that game expecting an easy win. Other than that, I have no idea how Clemson would do against Oregon or South Carolina would do against K-State because no one plays anyone anymore. I suppose that's the point of bowl season but everyone knows the bowls don't care about getting the right matchups.
 
2012-11-12 10:09:19 AM

Gunderson: And what student with better academic potential didn't get a scholarship so a player can display his "Rocks for Jocks" degree while he's bankrupt by the time he turns 25.


Zero. People always bring up this straw man and it's stupid. The reason college costs more now is because it's constantly being defunded by the government, as baby boomers who got rich thanks in part to their subsidized education demand subsidized living as they grow old - since they vote in large blocs, politicians pander to them and make cuts to universities because the ROI isn't easily measured and the people they're f*cking over don't vote.

Furthermore, athletic scholarships come from a separate fund. Further beyond that, if you have any significant amount of academic potential, it's not hard to get some partial scholarships, at least. You have to put in some work for it, though - kinda like how the people getting athletic scholarships have to put in 20+ hours/week just on their sport.

/I suppose there would be some "academic" scholarships that might be slipping by the wayside in schools where they're not allowed to offer athletic scholarships, however. But that's not really what anyone here is talking about.

Gunderson: And how many make productive uses of their degrees once football is over?


Thousands upon thousands every year? The people least likely to care about their education are the people most likely to be in the NFL - why worry about your degree when you're going to make millions playing the sport? But there are 80+ scholarship players just in football at every school. Even just at the FBS level, there are 119 or so (don't remember if there have been changes to this number - UTSA came on board recently, so is it 120 now?) schools. So that's nearly 10,000 student-athletes just on that level per year. Number of draftees each year? 250ish.

No one does stories about the thousands of student-athletes who go into regular fields and use their educational opportunities to actually learn while having a great time, because no one cares except for people who pretend to care so that they can get outraged at sh*t - and there's no point in trying to educate those people because they're going to hold on to their beliefs in the face of all evidence.
 
2012-11-12 10:13:50 AM

ModernPrimitive01: redmid17: Free Radical: The Muthaship: No SEC teams in the top 3. When's the last time that happened?

The SEC has no skill players.

Not on offense it feels like

Tennessee has Justin Hunter and Cordarrelle Patterson two of the top projected draft picks at receiver this year. Tyler Bray is putting up big numbers as well. Micheal Rivera is a great TE.

South Carolina had Marcus Lattimore.

Aaron Murray at Georgia is going to do well for himself on Sundays.

Ryan Swope at Texas A&M and Johnny Manziel.

James Franklin at Mizzou.

I would take any of the running backs at Alabama over any back in the country.

Philip Lutzenkirchen at Auburn.

Spencer Ware at LSU.

Jordan Rogers at Vandy.

/not an SEC homer, I just hate stupid statements


It was a broad stroke. You'll have to admit that the skill players on offense pale in comparison to the number of defense
 
2012-11-12 10:28:13 AM

meanmutton: TheOther: Conferences also will not be limited to how many teams it can send to access bowls.

Football Nirvana as the SEC fills all the slots in the access bowls.

Honestly, this is a stupid idea. If you have all the schools come from the same region of the country, you're going to have less national interest.


Honestly, that was sarcasm directed at the whole media rubntug of the SEC.
 
2012-11-12 10:38:20 AM
If TAMU was still in the Big XII, then they would have lost to Bama 33-0
 
2012-11-12 10:44:49 AM

SevenizGud: If TAMU was still in the Big XII, then they would have lost to Bama 33-0


No but they would have beaten KSU 33-17
 
2012-11-12 10:45:11 AM

IAmRight: housands upon thousands every year? The people least likely to care about their education are the people most likely to be in the NFL - why worry about your degree when you're going to make millions playing the sport? But there are 80+ scholarship players just in football at every school. Even just at the FBS level, there are 119 or so (don't remember if there have been changes to this number - UTSA came on board recently, so is it 120 now?) schools. So that's nearly 10,000 student-athletes just on that level per year. Number of draftees each year? 250ish.

No one does stories about the thousands of student-athletes who go into regular fields and use their educational opportunities to actually learn while having a great time, because no one cares except for people who pretend to care so that they can get outraged at sh*t - and there's no point in trying to educate those people because they're going to hold on to their beliefs in the face of all evidence.



My main argument is why aren't they players being paid. In ranked schools, everyone know that the academic side of a player-athlete is a joke. These players are being pushed through just to play football and are learning nothing. You ask a player to write a resume and he'll reply "I don't speak French". As for the poster who said they get free room and board...Well so does the AD and the head coach and they get a salary.

Everybody is making money off the players, especially the schools themselves. Why do you think the highest paid university employees are college coaches and ADs? Because they bring in the most revenue.

Behind all the smoke and charades, the NCAA is just pro sports, with just some rule-bending and double-talk to make it look like its non-pro. The majority of the players will not make any money from pro sports, many will end up with health problems, substance abuse problems, obesity issues as a result of their football tenure.

So let me ask you this, fellow farkers: Why don't you want to pay the NCAA athlete?
 
2012-11-12 11:04:08 AM

Gunderson: So let me ask you this, fellow farkers: Why don't you want to pay the NCAA athlete?


A) They already do make money.
B) Paying some athletes creates issues with other non-revenue sports, and probably Title IX.
C) A better solution is to enforce already-existing rules and require student-athletes to actually meet academic qualifications (though the pressure would always be there to admit dumbasses who are good at football).
D) There are not many programs that actually do make the money you think they do.
 
2012-11-12 11:04:47 AM

IAmRight: Zero. People always bring up this straw man and it's stupid. The reason college costs more now is because it's constantly being defunded by the government, as baby boomers who got rich thanks in part to their subsidized education demand subsidized living as they grow old - since they vote in large blocs, politicians pander to them and make cuts to universities because the ROI isn't easily measured and the people they're f*cking over don't vote.


Wow, that's beyond ignorant. Colleges cost more now because of government funding. Good lord, do some farking research and learn something before you post.
 
2012-11-12 11:10:07 AM

SevenizGud: If TAMU was still in the Big XII, then they would have lost to Bama 33-0


Bullshiat. Everyone knows they'd be up 14-7 at halftime, instilling the fans with a sense of hope, before giving up four unanswered touchdowns in the third quarter.
 
2012-11-12 11:11:05 AM

Gunderson: The Muthaship: Gunderson: Remember kids, everybody's got to make (and fight over) money except the players.
The players are just indentured servants to a higher learning institute.

What is the average tuition plus room and board at BCS schools?

And how many make productive uses of their degrees once football is over?

And what student with better academic potential didn't get a scholarship so a player can display his "Rocks for Jocks" degree while he's bankrupt by the time he turns 25. If 78% of NFL players are bankrupt or financial destitute 2 years after retirement, what are a college players odds after school ends for them.

Just pay the players. They earn it. At least some will have a chance.


THEY GET PAID. Honestly, why is it so tough for people to get this through? They've been getting paid for a long, long, long time. They get a cash salary paid out to them that is comparable to what minor league players in other sports get. This is in addition to their tuition. The big difference is that it's equal to all athletes in all sports who have the scholarship so the start running back is getting the same thing as the freshman women's diver.
 
2012-11-12 11:13:08 AM

Gunderson: My main argument is why aren't they players being paid. In ranked schools, everyone know that the academic side of a player-athlete is a joke. These players are being pushed through just to play football and are learning nothing. You ask a player to write a resume and he'll reply "I don't speak French". As for the poster who said they get free room and board...Well so does the AD and the head coach and they get a salary.

Everybody is making money off the players, especially the schools themselves. Why do you think the highest paid university employees are college coaches and ADs? Because they bring in the most revenue.

Behind all the smoke and charades, the NCAA is just pro sports, with just some rule-bending and double-talk to make it look like its non-pro. The majority of the players will not make any money from pro sports, many will end up with health problems, substance abuse problems, obesity issues as a result of their football tenure.

So let me ask you this, fellow farkers: Why don't you want to pay the NCAA athlete?


There are schools abroad that pay their soccer team.

What they've done, though, is they've made the soccer team an independent separate entity from the college itself, so that the team is little more than a professional club allowed to use university colors and livery. It'd be like snapping the Alabama football team off from the University of Alabama proper, but then putting them in the NFL while still allowing them to be the Alabama Crimson Tide, still allowing them to play at Bryant-Denny Stadium, and still permitting them to use any members of the student body they wish (in addition to the out-and-out pros brought in to fill out the roster).
 
2012-11-12 11:13:28 AM

meanmutton: the freshman women's diver.


She was just experimenting.....
 
2012-11-12 11:13:41 AM

IAmRight: The reason college costs more now is because it's constantly being defunded by the government,


No, it isn't. Government funding of college is vastly higher than it's ever been. The costs are higher because they're paying more to professors, they're spending more on health care, they're spending more on retirement benefits, and they're spending more on facilities.
 
2012-11-12 11:15:13 AM

TheOther: meanmutton: TheOther: Conferences also will not be limited to how many teams it can send to access bowls.

Football Nirvana as the SEC fills all the slots in the access bowls.

Honestly, this is a stupid idea. If you have all the schools come from the same region of the country, you're going to have less national interest.

Honestly, that was sarcasm directed at the whole media rubntug of the SEC.


Sorry, not you -- the bit you quoted from the story.
 
2012-11-12 11:21:15 AM

meanmutton: No, it isn't. Government funding of college is vastly higher than it's ever been.


Who is providing y'all with this "information"? Because every state I've read about over the past few years has been cutting higher ed spending by billions (including the ones I've attended school in).
 
2012-11-12 11:32:09 AM

IAmRight: meanmutton: No, it isn't. Government funding of college is vastly higher than it's ever been.

Who is providing y'all with this "information"? Because every state I've read about over the past few years has been cutting higher ed spending by billions (including the ones I've attended school in).


The Feds have more than made up for it. We've had a couple little blips but when you add it up, we're spending vastly more on higher education that we ever have:

Link

Also on total education spending (which costs US taxpayers more than does total defense spending, making those "hold a bake sale for a bomber" bumper stickers kind of stupid).
 
2012-11-12 11:42:27 AM

meanmutton: IAmRight: The reason college costs more now is because it's constantly being defunded by the government,

No, it isn't. Government funding of college is vastly higher than it's ever been. The costs are higher because they're paying more to professors, they're spending more on health care, they're spending more on retirement benefits, and they're spending more on facilities.


Say what?

www.usnews.com

Since 1977 in Michigan, the percentage of revenue public colleges receive from the state government has fallen from 60% to less than 25%. Every state in the union except for South Dakota has cut its higher education appropriations since 2009, some by as much as 40%.

University professors aren't making significantly more than they have in the past either. The average sociology professor makes between 15 and 27% more (in real dollars) than she did in 1983. You're probably right about health care but pretty much every state college and university has a defined contribution plan now, instead of a defined benefit plan, which is significantly cheaper for the university. Plus, many more adjuncts and TAs are being hired than in the past and they don't usually get benefits. As for facilities, most public colleges and universities usually have capital campaigns to raise money when they want to put up a new building, the funds don't typically come out of students tuition and fees.
 
2012-11-12 11:46:05 AM

meanmutton: The Feds have more than made up for it. We've had a couple little blips but when you add it up, we're spending vastly more on higher education that we ever have:


A site with its own Tea Party section. Seems credible.
 
2012-11-12 11:47:20 AM
If im the pac 10 or the big ten or the big 12, im fighting for the big east. Eventually, the largest slice of the pie will automatically go to the SEC, just because they say they are good.
 
2012-11-12 11:48:22 AM
"First they came for the money given to big east schools, but I was not a big east school, so I said nothing"
 
2012-11-12 11:50:08 AM

rugman11: meanmutton: IAmRight: The reason college costs more now is because it's constantly being defunded by the government,

No, it isn't. Government funding of college is vastly higher than it's ever been. The costs are higher because they're paying more to professors, they're spending more on health care, they're spending more on retirement benefits, and they're spending more on facilities.

Say what?

[www.usnews.com image 425x307]

Since 1977 in Michigan, the percentage of revenue public colleges receive from the state government has fallen from 60% to less than 25%. Every state in the union except for South Dakota has cut its higher education appropriations since 2009, some by as much as 40%.

University professors aren't making significantly more than they have in the past either. The average sociology professor makes between 15 and 27% more (in real dollars) than she did in 1983. You're probably right about health care but pretty much every state college and university has a defined contribution plan now, instead of a defined benefit plan, which is significantly cheaper for the university. Plus, many more adjuncts and TAs are being hired than in the past and they don't usually get benefits. As for facilities, most public colleges and universities usually have capital campaigns to raise money when they want to put up a new building, the funds don't typically come out of students tuition and fees.


1) Your chart ignores Pell Grants (well, it lumps it into the "tuition" category), which have dramatically increased. They're aiming to spend about $30 billion on pell grants in 2014 and are spending well over $20 billion on them this year.
2) A 25% increase in real dollars from 1983 is a significant increase.
 
2012-11-12 11:50:56 AM

IAmRight: meanmutton: The Feds have more than made up for it. We've had a couple little blips but when you add it up, we're spending vastly more on higher education that we ever have:

A site with its own Tea Party section. Seems credible.


Link

If Hitler said the sky was blue, would that convince you that it was green?
 
2012-11-12 11:51:10 AM

Free Radical: magic


New AD.
New HC.
New OC.
New DC.
New QB.
Etc.

Yeah, clearly there is no difference whatsoever between this year's team and last year's team.
 
2012-11-12 11:54:39 AM

IAmRight: meanmutton: The Feds have more than made up for it. We've had a couple little blips but when you add it up, we're spending vastly more on higher education that we ever have:

A site with its own Tea Party section. Seems credible.


It's not wrong, just misleading. He wants you to believe that the federal government is giving money directly to the schools to make up for the loss in state revenue, thus making their tuition increases seem excessive and unnecessary. Most of that federal money, however, is going directly to the students in the form of grants and loans, so the process is more like this:

Step 1 - Cut state appropriations for higher education
Step 2 - Raise tuition to offset cuts
Step 3 - Feds help students pay tuition costs

The result is that the universities come out about the same, financially speaking.
 
2012-11-12 11:57:53 AM

meanmutton: 2) A 25% increase in real dollars from 1983 is a significant increase.


Not when a 1983 dollar bought as much as $2.31 buys now. A 100% increase would still be less, comparatively

/the World Bank says that education funding per student in tertiary education in America has gone down in recent years - I think I'll buy that over the Tea Party site.
//I suppose you think that providing loans that bankruptcy can't erase is increasing spending, too.
 
2012-11-12 12:02:51 PM

Gunderson: IAmRight: housands upon thousands every year? The people least likely to care about their education are the people most likely to be in the NFL - why worry about your degree when you're going to make millions playing the sport? But there are 80+ scholarship players just in football at every school. Even just at the FBS level, there are 119 or so (don't remember if there have been changes to this number - UTSA came on board recently, so is it 120 now?) schools. So that's nearly 10,000 student-athletes just on that level per year. Number of draftees each year? 250ish.

No one does stories about the thousands of student-athletes who go into regular fields and use their educational opportunities to actually learn while having a great time, because no one cares except for people who pretend to care so that they can get outraged at sh*t - and there's no point in trying to educate those people because they're going to hold on to their beliefs in the face of all evidence.


My main argument is why aren't they players being paid. In ranked schools, everyone know that the academic side of a player-athlete is a joke. These players are being pushed through just to play football and are learning nothing. You ask a player to write a resume and he'll reply "I don't speak French". As for the poster who said they get free room and board...Well so does the AD and the head coach and they get a salary.

Everybody is making money off the players, especially the schools themselves. Why do you think the highest paid university employees are college coaches and ADs? Because they bring in the most revenue.

Behind all the smoke and charades, the NCAA is just pro sports, with just some rule-bending and double-talk to make it look like its non-pro. The majority of the players will not make any money from pro sports, many will end up with health problems, substance abuse problems, obesity issues as a result of their football tenure.

So let me ask you this, fellow farkers: Why don't you want to pay the NCAA athlete?


Because they are paid, and because if you pay the football team all the other programs will want to be paid and whether they want to admit it or not most women's programs lose money every year. Even UGA's womens gymnastics team, who has won numerous national titles loses money and relies in the football team donations to stay afloat. Football makes college athletics chug along, even in Kentucky, which is known for basketball, but they make more from their football program than basketball by a wide margin as well.

You won't be able to pay some and not others, if you do lawsuits will fly.....
 
2012-11-12 12:04:18 PM

IAmRight: meanmutton: 2) A 25% increase in real dollars from 1983 is a significant increase.

Not when a 1983 dollar bought as much as $2.31 buys now. A 100% increase would still be less, comparatively

/the World Bank says that education funding per student in tertiary education in America has gone down in recent years - I think I'll buy that over the Tea Party site.
//I suppose you think that providing loans that bankruptcy can't erase is increasing spending, too.


The term "real dollars" mean that the amounts have been updated to account for inflation.

Spending money on subsidizing student loans absolutely is spending money on education. It's a stupid expenditure (personally, I think that full-ride tuition for key, economically valuable degrees is better than subsidizing loans for degrees which don't do a lot of good for the nation's economy but that's beside the point) but it absolutely is the government spending money on higher education.
 
2012-11-12 12:04:25 PM

meanmutton: 2) A 25% increase in real dollars from 1983 is a significant increase.


Not when you factor in the increasing age of the professoriate (college professors are working longer and retiring later) and the increased demand for professors in the time period covered as more people started going to college.
 
2012-11-12 12:05:05 PM
This wouldn't have worked if the WAC was still a football conference

The old BCS format had 6 Power Conferences, because that left 5 lower conferences, any vote about distribution would go 6-5, AQ's won

Without the WAC, there are only 10 conferences now.

Vote goes 5-5. Not sure why the big 5 thinks that a tie vote means they get their way. I still think they need 6 so they have a clear majority
 
2012-11-12 12:08:24 PM

meanmutton: It's a stupid expenditure (personally, I think that full-ride tuition for key, economically valuable degrees is better than subsidizing loans for degrees which don't do a lot of good for the nation's economy but that's beside the point) but it absolutely is the government spending money on higher education.


Realistically, it's just loaning money to individuals. Has little to do with higher ed. You don't even have to go to school once you've got the money, technically.
 
2012-11-12 12:14:10 PM

I sound fat: "First they came for the money given to big east schools, but I was not a big east school, so I said nothing"


The big east farked themselves, if they would have gotten on board with the SEC and ACC with the playoff system they proposed they would be one of the major conference player. Since they decided to suck the big 12s dick they are now kicked down the ladder, they pretty much got what they deserved and it was mainly fueled by their disdain of SEC schools taking the best NE players.

You lie down with dogs you get fleas.....
 
2012-11-12 12:14:13 PM

dragonchild: Out of the top ten BCS teams, which includes six SEC teams, the only teams that tried to schedule even one challenging OOC game were ND (by default as they're indy), Alabama (Michigan), Florida State (Miami) and maybe Texas A&M (LA Tech).


I agree with your overall point but Oregon tried to schedule KSU as has been made abundantly clear during the debate over the last few weeks. Nobody will come to Autzen.

Schedules ought to be forced by the NCAA rather than set by ADs in my opinion.
 
2012-11-12 12:14:15 PM

meanmutton: My preferred playoff format would be to have it be an entirely on-the-field thing (no selection committees, no polls) with as much tradition held onto as possible. To that end, I'd using the conference seedings that the NCAA came up with and have just the 10 major conference champions make the playoffs in a seeded tournament.

Seeds:

1) SEC (1,054)
2) Big Ten (860)
3) Big 12 (816)
4) ACC (673)
5) Pac-12 (671)
6) Big East (240)

7) MWC (58)
8) C-USA (49)
9) Mid-American (21)
10) Sun Belt (0).


Play-in Round: - 3rd weekend in December
MWC vs. Sun Belt
C-USA vs. Mid-American

Tradition Round: - New Year's Day
Winner of MWC/Sun Belt vs. C-USA vs. Mid-American in Fiesta Bowl
SEC vs. Big East in Sugar Bowl
Big Ten vs. Pac-12 in Rose Bowl
Big 12 vs. ACC in Orange Bowl

NCAA Semi-Finals: - 1 week after New Year's game

NCAA Finals: - Prime Time 2nd week of January

Don't try to tell me that this wouldn't make an absolute shiat-ton of money. You can have your minor bowls all you want (there would still be interest in, say, Michigan playing Georgia in the Capital One Bowl or whatever) but people would lose their shiat over this.


Yes, yes they would because you are implying the ridiculous claim that winning the Sunbelt or Mid American conference in any given year indicates you have a superior claim to being in a playoff to the second best team in the SEC or Big 12. That's just farking bizarro world thinking and in 9 out of 10 years would make for epic Roman style stadium slaughter in the first rounds of the "playoff". I'm all for mechanisms to ensure outlier small conference schools get their shot when they've earned it, but guaranteeing all winners of small/weak conferences is not only unrealistic and unfair but would make for some really, really crappy football games.
 
2012-11-12 12:16:07 PM

meanmutton: If Hitler said the sky was blue, would that convince you that it was green?


Which is itself a false analogy...

Something coming from Hitler or a Tea Party source does not, will not, and should not convince me of any stand on an issue simply because I read the Hitler or Tea Party source. However, the Tea Party in general has been demonstrated to release spurious data regarding government spending -- data and conclusions that are misleading, misinterpreted or sometimes false. That does not mean that everything they say is wrong, but that due to past history, things coming from Tea Party sources regarding government spending should be regarded with a higher level of skepticism than usual until proven otherwise.

Since Hitler never tried to deceive people about the color of the sky (as far as I know), there is no reason to regard his statements regarding sky color with any additional scrutiny beyond common sense.
 
2012-11-12 12:17:00 PM

weiserfireman: This wouldn't have worked if the WAC was still a football conference

The old BCS format had 6 Power Conferences, because that left 5 lower conferences, any vote about distribution would go 6-5, AQ's won

Without the WAC, there are only 10 conferences now.

Vote goes 5-5. Not sure why the big 5 thinks that a tie vote means they get their way. I still think they need 6 so they have a clear majority


No its because the other conferences have maybe 1-2 decent teams at best that could finish .500 or above while the other conferences usually have 2-3 that are in the NCG hunt to start the year.
 
2012-11-12 12:28:47 PM

notatrollorami: meanmutton: My preferred playoff format would be to have it be an entirely on-the-field thing (no selection committees, no polls) with as much tradition held onto as possible. To that end, I'd using the conference seedings that the NCAA came up with and have just the 10 major conference champions make the playoffs in a seeded tournament.

Seeds:

1) SEC (1,054)
2) Big Ten (860)
3) Big 12 (816)
4) ACC (673)
5) Pac-12 (671)
6) Big East (240)

7) MWC (58)
8) C-USA (49)
9) Mid-American (21)
10) Sun Belt (0).


Play-in Round: - 3rd weekend in December
MWC vs. Sun Belt
C-USA vs. Mid-American

Tradition Round: - New Year's Day
Winner of MWC/Sun Belt vs. C-USA vs. Mid-American in Fiesta Bowl
SEC vs. Big East in Sugar Bowl
Big Ten vs. Pac-12 in Rose Bowl
Big 12 vs. ACC in Orange Bowl

NCAA Semi-Finals: - 1 week after New Year's game

NCAA Finals: - Prime Time 2nd week of January

Don't try to tell me that this wouldn't make an absolute shiat-ton of money. You can have your minor bowls all you want (there would still be interest in, say, Michigan playing Georgia in the Capital One Bowl or whatever) but people would lose their shiat over this.

Yes, yes they would because you are implying the ridiculous claim that winning the Sunbelt or Mid American conference in any given year indicates you have a superior claim to being in a playoff to the second best team in the SEC or Big 12. That's just farking bizarro world thinking and in 9 out of 10 years would make for epic Roman style stadium slaughter in the first rounds of the "playoff". I'm all for mechanisms to ensure outlier small conference schools get their shot when they've earned it, but guaranteeing all winners of small/weak conferences is not only unrealistic and unfair but would make for some really, really crappy football games.


Should have read better before responding. Games with very limited national interest in the first round, epic slaughter and unfair competetive disparities in the second round.

///Walks off kicking rocks and shrugging
 
2012-11-12 12:43:30 PM

notatrollorami: meanmutton: My preferred playoff format would be to have it be an entirely on-the-field thing (no selection committees, no polls) with as much tradition held onto as possible. To that end, I'd using the conference seedings that the NCAA came up with and have just the 10 major conference champions make the playoffs in a seeded tournament.

Seeds:

1) SEC (1,054)
2) Big Ten (860)
3) Big 12 (816)
4) ACC (673)
5) Pac-12 (671)
6) Big East (240)

7) MWC (58)
8) C-USA (49)
9) Mid-American (21)
10) Sun Belt (0).


Play-in Round: - 3rd weekend in December
MWC vs. Sun Belt
C-USA vs. Mid-American

Tradition Round: - New Year's Day
Winner of MWC/Sun Belt vs. C-USA vs. Mid-American in Fiesta Bowl
SEC vs. Big East in Sugar Bowl
Big Ten vs. Pac-12 in Rose Bowl
Big 12 vs. ACC in Orange Bowl

NCAA Semi-Finals: - 1 week after New Year's game

NCAA Finals: - Prime Time 2nd week of January

Don't try to tell me that this wouldn't make an absolute shiat-ton of money. You can have your minor bowls all you want (there would still be interest in, say, Michigan playing Georgia in the Capital One Bowl or whatever) but people would lose their shiat over this.

Yes, yes they would because you are implying the ridiculous claim that winning the Sunbelt or Mid American conference in any given year indicates you have a superior claim to being in a playoff to the second best team in the SEC or Big 12. That's just farking bizarro world thinking and in 9 out of 10 years would make for epic Roman style stadium slaughter in the first rounds of the "playoff". I'm all for mechanisms to ensure outlier small conference schools get their shot when they've earned it, but guaranteeing all winners of small/weak conferences is not only unrealistic and unfair but would make for some really, really crappy football games.


My biggest concern is removing the subjective bullshiat. The issues people have with the current system all revolve around some group of people making a purely subjective decision. I don't want polls, I don't want computers, I just want to have the play that goes on right there on the field decide it. You want into the playoffs? Win your conference. If it's a craptastic conference, you have to go to a play-in game.
 
2012-11-12 12:47:16 PM

steamingpile: weiserfireman: This wouldn't have worked if the WAC was still a football conference

The old BCS format had 6 Power Conferences, because that left 5 lower conferences, any vote about distribution would go 6-5, AQ's won

Without the WAC, there are only 10 conferences now.

Vote goes 5-5. Not sure why the big 5 thinks that a tie vote means they get their way. I still think they need 6 so they have a clear majority

No its because the other conferences have maybe 1-2 decent teams at best that could finish .500 or above while the other conferences usually have 2-3 that are in the NCG hunt to start the year.


BCS was enabled by vote. Each conference got one vote in determining how to structure the system. There were 11 conferences. 6 of them called themselves AQ and voted to give themselves the most money under the old system. The other conferences got thrown a bone, so the would go along with it.

Now there are only 10 football conferences. None of this goes into effect until the final vote is held. The proposed split is going to get 5 votes from the "power conferences". I don't see why the other 5 conferences will agree. Tie votes usually count, in most systems, as a failed vote. Unless the 5 power conferences can get one of the other conferences to vote with them, This split won't hold up.

If they included the Big East, or any other conference, in a 6-4 split, then they can control again. 

It really has nothing to do with which are the "best conferences" and which are not. It is all about having a solid majority voting block.
 
2012-11-12 12:55:20 PM

meanmutton: My preferred playoff format would be to have it be an entirely on-the-field thing (no selection committees, no polls) with as much tradition held onto as possible. To that end, I'd using the conference seedings that the NCAA came up with and have just the 10 major conference champions make the playoffs in a seeded tournament.

Seeds:

1) SEC (1,054)
2) Big Ten (860)
3) Big 12 (816)
4) ACC (673)
5) Pac-12 (671)
6) Big East (240)

7) MWC (58)
8) C-USA (49)
9) Mid-American (21)
10) Sun Belt (0).


Play-in Round: - 3rd weekend in December
MWC vs. Sun Belt
C-USA vs. Mid-American

Tradition Round: - New Year's Day
Winner of MWC/Sun Belt vs. C-USA vs. Mid-American in Fiesta Bowl
SEC vs. Big East in Sugar Bowl
Big Ten vs. Pac-12 in Rose Bowl
Big 12 vs. ACC in Orange Bowl

NCAA Semi-Finals: - 1 week after New Year's game

NCAA Finals: - Prime Time 2nd week of January

Don't try to tell me that this wouldn't make an absolute shiat-ton of money. You can have your minor bowls all you want (there would still be interest in, say, Michigan playing Georgia in the Capital One Bowl or whatever) but people would lose their shiat over this.


The only negative I see, is how are people going to arrange and/or pay for travel for 4 weekends in a row?
 
2012-11-12 01:02:52 PM

Broktun: meanmutton: My preferred playoff format would be to have it be an entirely on-the-field thing (no selection committees, no polls) with as much tradition held onto as possible. To that end, I'd using the conference seedings that the NCAA came up with and have just the 10 major conference champions make the playoffs in a seeded tournament.

Seeds:

1) SEC (1,054)
2) Big Ten (860)
3) Big 12 (816)
4) ACC (673)
5) Pac-12 (671)
6) Big East (240)

7) MWC (58)
8) C-USA (49)
9) Mid-American (21)
10) Sun Belt (0).


Play-in Round: - 3rd weekend in December
MWC vs. Sun Belt
C-USA vs. Mid-American

Tradition Round: - New Year's Day
Winner of MWC/Sun Belt vs. C-USA vs. Mid-American in Fiesta Bowl
SEC vs. Big East in Sugar Bowl
Big Ten vs. Pac-12 in Rose Bowl
Big 12 vs. ACC in Orange Bowl

NCAA Semi-Finals: - 1 week after New Year's game

NCAA Finals: - Prime Time 2nd week of January

Don't try to tell me that this wouldn't make an absolute shiat-ton of money. You can have your minor bowls all you want (there would still be interest in, say, Michigan playing Georgia in the Capital One Bowl or whatever) but people would lose their shiat over this.

The only negative I see, is how are people going to arrange and/or pay for travel for 4 weekends in a row?


For fans? Yeah, you wouldn't have super fan attendance at these games but it's not like the bowl games get huge turnouts but you'll never get rid of the bowl tie-ins.
 
2012-11-12 02:21:49 PM

meanmutton: You want into the playoffs? Win your conference. If it's a craptastic conference, you have to go to a play-in game.


And if you do well in a craptastic conference, you get to move up to a better conference, while their worst team takes your old spot. A relegation system makes the most sense. A 120 team league is idiotic and needs to be dealt with differently.
 
2012-11-12 02:23:51 PM

DaJesus: meanmutton: You want into the playoffs? Win your conference. If it's a craptastic conference, you have to go to a play-in game.

And if you do well in a craptastic conference, you get to move up to a better conference, while their worst team takes your old spot. A relegation system makes the most sense. A 120 team league is idiotic and needs to be dealt with differently.


STOP TRYING TO MAKE RELEGATION HAPPEN. IT IS A STUPID IDEA.
 
2012-11-12 02:37:03 PM

IAmRight: STOP TRYING TO MAKE RELEGATION HAPPEN. IT IS A STUPID IDEA.


You're a stupid idea.

Relegation will never happen, but it would work if done correctly. Of course, if it ever does get implemented, it won't be done correctly -- because that's the BCS way!
 
2012-11-12 02:50:46 PM

IAmRight: DaJesus: meanmutton: You want into the playoffs? Win your conference. If it's a craptastic conference, you have to go to a play-in game.

And if you do well in a craptastic conference, you get to move up to a better conference, while their worst team takes your old spot. A relegation system makes the most sense. A 120 team league is idiotic and needs to be dealt with differently.

STOP TRYING TO MAKE RELEGATION HAPPEN. IT IS A STUPID IDEA.


You are right. Objectively telling what team out of 120 is the best one after playing less than 15 games is totally going to happen. Your all caps post is full of logic and reason. I can't believe I would ever try to think differently.

Way to criticize other ideas while offering none of your own. Sounds like you are perfectly fine with the system currently in place.
 
2012-11-12 02:53:32 PM

Donnchadha: Relegation will never happen, but it would work if done correctly.


Wherein "if done correctly" means "when it inevitably fails, I can just point out that 'if done correctly' addendum and not look ridiculous for having suggested it."

/it works in the EPL (really, it doesn't - there's a league with less parity than the NBA, thanks, in part, to relegation) to the extent it does due to a number of factors that aren't in play in the US.
//nationalized media, smaller country, smaller stadia
///love when people b*tch about realignment and then talk about wanting relegation, which is realignment EVERY SINGLE YEAR
 
2012-11-12 02:56:04 PM
Until the "tourney" is taken out of the hands of the respective College football conferences and controlled solely by the NCAA and the BCS is given the boot and 16 team tourney held i will continue to have little interest in college football.
 
2012-11-12 02:57:15 PM

DaJesus: Objectively telling what team out of 120 is the best one after playing less than 15 games is totally going to happen.


Didn't say it would.

DaJesus: Sounds like you are perfectly fine with the system currently in place.


Yup. I'm fine with the old bowl system, too. Oh no, people were playing football and enjoying it, and if they had a good season, they got to match up with another team that had a good season in a desirable tourist destination as a way for their fans to celebrate the year! THIS MUST BE FIXED BECAUSE GODDAMMIT I NEED AN "OBJECTIVE" ANSWER TO KNOW WHO THE BEST TEAM IN THE LAND IS! MUCH LIKE I WILL NOT ABIDE A TIE IN SPORTS BECAUSE ONE TEAM ALWAYS IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER!
 
2012-11-12 03:03:41 PM
BTW, the problem with catering to people that want something is that they're NEVER happy.

You don't have 1 vs 2 matching up for the national title game. People whine. You get the Bowl Coalition, which pits No. 1 vs. No. 2.

People whine. You create the BCS, which makes for a more fair representation of teams getting in the top two spots.

People whine. You create a four-team playoff. People whine that it's not enough.

You create an 8-team playoff. People whine that it's not enough.

You create a 16-team playoff. Now people are whining that it's not enough AND that it's too many. Please, people, actually become educated about this. It's happened in every sport and every league. Playoffs just become bigger and bigger until the season is less and less relevant - then we talk about how the regular season doesn't matter at all - all that counts is what you do in the postseason (Eli Manning, Tony Romo, Matt Ryan).

It's idiot reductionism from a populace that simulaneously believes "any given Sunday" AND "the best team is the one that wins."

The FCS had a four-team playoff with its inception in '78. Within a decade they were up to 16 teams. That was cool for a while, then a couple of years ago they made it 20. In a couple more years, it's slated to be 24. Think they're going to stop there? Not a chance in hell.
 
2012-11-12 03:13:36 PM

IAmRight: Donnchadha: Relegation will never happen, but it would work if done correctly.

Wherein "if done correctly" means "when it inevitably fails, I can just point out that 'if done correctly' addendum and not look ridiculous for having suggested it."

/it works in the EPL (really, it doesn't - there's a league with less parity than the NBA, thanks, in part, to relegation) to the extent it does due to a number of factors that aren't in play in the US.
//nationalized media, smaller country, smaller stadia
///love when people b*tch about realignment and then talk about wanting relegation, which is realignment EVERY SINGLE YEAR


It doesn't work as well as it should in the EPL because of the money gap. The rich get richer and the poor can't keep up.

To "work correctly" several things must happen --

1) Three tiers. Any more and a single graduating class may not be able to win a national championship. Any fewer and the top tier either gets too large or too exclusive. This will get a bit problematic if I-AA teams want to move up to I-A and I-A grows much beyond 120 teams.
2) Revenue sharing. Conferences do this now, but pooling in a national sense would help prevent the EPL problem. Vanderbilt benefits a ton from SEC money that it doesn't earn directly. Western Carolina doesn't have a chance at the money now. I'm not saying complete NFL level financial parity, but make it a little more balanced.
3) Allow for the continuation of rivalry games -- I know, duh.
4) Removal of some school autonomy regarding scheduling. Sorry, you can't schedule 4-5 cupcake games as non-conference games anymore.
 
2012-11-12 03:29:30 PM

IAmRight: ///love when people b*tch about realignment and then talk about wanting relegation, which is realignment EVERY SINGLE YEAR


Point out where I have ever complained about realignment. Conferences are a terrible idea. I would put in tiered leagues that have nothing to do with the conferences..

Donnchadha: 1) Three tiers. Any more and a single graduating class may not be able to win a national championship. Any fewer and the top tier either gets too large or too exclusive. This will get a bit problematic if I-AA teams want to move up to I-A and I-A grows much beyond 120 teams.
2) Revenue sharing. Conferences do this now, but pooling in a national sense would help prevent the EPL problem. Vanderbilt benefits a ton from SEC money that it doesn't earn directly. Western Carolina doesn't have a chance at the money now. I'm not saying complete NFL level financial parity, but make it a little more balanced.
3) Allow for the continuation of rivalry games -- I know, duh.
4) Removal of some school autonomy regarding scheduling. Sorry, you can't schedule 4-5 cupcake games as non-conference games anymore.


1) Eh, that still leaves 40 teams per tier. That is quite a lot. I don't really care if a graduating class can get a national championship. I doubt a team would go from the lowest tier to being the best in 4 years. If they do, then they will have moved their school up 3 tiers and set them up for the future.
2) Yes.
3) No. If the team isn't in your league, tough cookies.
4) Yes. The schedules are created by the league office.

Also, I am all for removing the "student" portion from student-athlete for college basketball and football. It is a minor league system and if a player wants to go to college at the same time, more power to them. Pay them a true salary and they can use it towards tuition if they want.
 
2012-11-12 03:39:12 PM

Donnchadha: 2) Revenue sharing. Conferences do this now, but pooling in a national sense would help prevent the EPL problem. Vanderbilt benefits a ton from SEC money that it doesn't earn directly. Western Carolina doesn't have a chance at the money now. I'm not saying complete NFL level financial parity, but make it a little more balanced.


Why should schools that seat 100,000 share that revenue with schools that don't even have 10,000 interested viewers? You realize that there is actually that much of a gap if you go with the whole FBS level, right? Some schools average ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND more fans PER GAME in the seats than others?

I'm fine with creating a separate league, but you have to cut out those also-ran conferences. No reason they should get all that benefit.

Donnchadha: It doesn't work as well as it should in the EPL because of the money gap. The rich get richer and the poor can't keep up.


And the relegation/promotion only contributes to that problem. Why would a good player want to go to a middling team, given the possibility that, if he's injured for a year, suddenly he's down in a completely irrelevant league? Best to just go with the teams that are already good and are guaranteed to be good until they stop spending money. Similarly, the only way to get out of that promotion/relegation cycle is to spend a sh*tton of money.

Relegation would kill off most programs (you think UK fans are going to go watch a bunch of road games against some Sun Belt schools?), leaving only the ones that are currently already consistently highly ranked to succeed. The relegation league would be about as popular as the NIT.

While it would be fun to see Auburn in the Sun Belt, ultimately it doesn't do anyone any good.
 
2012-11-12 03:43:53 PM

DaJesus: I would put in tiered leagues that have nothing to do with the conferences..


D'aww, look, the guy who knows nothing about college football wants to fix it. "I want to get rid of conferences, rivalries, and tradition. Basically, everything that makes college football enjoyable? Get rid of it. Then let's make NFL-lite. Because fans have proven that they respond well to non-NFL football leagues, which is why every one of them has gone bankrupt."

DaJesus: Also, I am all for removing the "student" portion from student-athlete for college basketball and football.


You want a centrally-run football league where the players are professionals, feel free to watch the NFL. You don't need to turn something that was perfectly enjoyable into a bastardized version of something that already exists for no real reason.
 
2012-11-12 04:07:59 PM

IAmRight: You want a centrally-run football league where the players are professionals, feel free to watch the NFL. You don't need to turn something that was perfectly enjoyable into a bastardized version of something that already exists for no real reason.


It has already been bastardized just from the sheer popularity of it. The money flowing around the sport due to people's hunger for more football than the NFL can provide has created this atmosphere. You want your traditional college football back? Have the NFL create a true minor league system that athletes can enter at any time, just like baseball. Don't want to go to college? Enter the draft and be put in the minors.

You want to go back to good ol college football? Get the money and NFL track players out of the colleges.
 
2012-11-12 04:50:51 PM

DaJesus: Have the NFL create a true minor league system that athletes can enter at any time, just like baseball. Don't want to go to college? Enter the draft and be put in the minors.

You want to go back to good ol college football? Get the money and NFL track players out of the colleges.


I'd be fine with this.

The NFL has no incentive to do so, of course. But that would be great.

/one of the few people who actually DOES watch FCS football
 
2012-11-12 05:30:40 PM

IAmRight: I'd be fine with this.

The NFL has no incentive to do so, of course. But that would be great.

/one of the few people who actually DOES watch FCS football


I am fine with either way. Both are just as unlikely, but the current system is a sham. Either set up a legitimate minor league system or accept that NCAA football is a professional league and set it up properly. This half-way solution is horrible.
 
2012-11-12 06:03:29 PM

IAmRight: DaJesus: Objectively telling what team out of 120 is the best one after playing less than 15 games is totally going to happen.

Didn't say it would.

DaJesus: Sounds like you are perfectly fine with the system currently in place.

Yup. I'm fine with the old bowl system, too. Oh no, people were playing football and enjoying it, and if they had a good season, they got to match up with another team that had a good season in a desirable tourist destination as a way for their fans to celebrate the year! THIS MUST BE FIXED BECAUSE GODDAMMIT I NEED AN "OBJECTIVE" ANSWER TO KNOW WHO THE BEST TEAM IN THE LAND IS! MUCH LIKE I WILL NOT ABIDE A TIE IN SPORTS BECAUSE ONE TEAM ALWAYS IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER!


You, of course, have every right to your opinion and it is probably good for your stress level to find a sport enjoyable on its current merits, whatever they may be.

But you have a distinctly minority opinion; the vast majority of sports fans in fact strongly desire a definitive outcome. It's what makes sports different from most of our lives where the results of our human endeavors are often muddled or indeterminate. We, by and large, like to determine a winner and a loser. For most the discussion is only about how to most fairly make that determination. But if you don't care about determining the victor and the vanquished on the playing field in some form or fashion you are so far outside the mainstream of sports fans as to be irrelevant to the process. Like the third parties in the election; you may be more right than everyone else but your cause doesn't stand a chance.
 
2012-11-12 06:04:39 PM

dragonchild: Out of the top ten BCS teams, which includes six SEC teams, the only teams that tried to schedule even one challenging OOC game were ND (by default as they're indy), Alabama (Michigan), Florida State (Miami) and maybe Texas A&M (LA Tech). It turns out Miami wasn't very good but I'll give FSU the grade for effort even if it's a tradition thing


Uhhh..... FSU and Miami are both in the ACC.
 
2012-11-12 07:12:29 PM

Supes: FSU and Miami are both in the ACC.


Ack, I'm still stuck in ten years ago.
 
2012-11-12 08:39:14 PM

notatrollorami: We, by and large, like to determine a winner and a loser. For most the discussion is only about how to most fairly make that determination.


There's no realistic way to determine a "fair" champion based on a 12-game season with 120 teams in the "league."

So stop trying to turn a button into a firecracker and maybe you'll find out all you needed was the button all along. And that really, all you were going to do with the firecracker is blow your own hand off, then realize you never really cared about the button/firecracker in the first place.

notatrollorami: It's what makes sports different from most of our lives where the results of our human endeavors are often muddled or indeterminate.


Honestly, my favorite part of the BCS was that it was EXACTLY THE F*CKING ELECTORAL SYSTEM, but in football. (Well-established fanbases/families start off well ahead of everyone else, use their advantage to create more of an advantage, then allow outsiders to elect two of them (as long as they're from within the "accepted" circles/conferences) to square off for the right to be called national champions/President).

/and somehow the "this is totally unjust" complaints only work for college football
 
2012-11-13 12:33:51 PM
I personally find college football much more compelling than the NFL product. Part of that are the arguments about which team is the best. Go ahead and tell me how the NFL is superior because it's playoff system crowns an actual champion every year. Whatever, it's not much different when a 9-7 wild card teams goes all the way as when an undefeated team gets denied the opportunity to play in the NCG.

Succeed in making college ball an NFL minor league, and it will fail miserably. College ball packs more fans than NFL games. This doesn't happen with minor league pro teams anywhere. There's no reason for 110,000 fans to pack a stadium to watch the minor league Wolverines (ok, I left myself open for a joke there). It won't happen.

College ball may be a bit screwed up compared to the past, but IMO, it's far closer to a "pure" sport than the NFL ever can be. I realize there is money in NCAA, but you're fooling yourself if you think NCAA is worse than NFL. It's not even close.
 
2012-11-14 03:07:58 PM

IAmRight: meanmutton: 2) A 25% increase in real dollars from 1983 is a significant increase.

Not when a 1983 dollar bought as much as $2.31 buys now. A 100% increase would still be less, comparatively

/the World Bank says that education funding per student in tertiary education in America has gone down in recent years - I think I'll buy that over the Tea Party site.
//I suppose you think that providing loans that bankruptcy can't erase is increasing spending, too.


If you're part of the Illuminiati.
 
2012-11-14 03:16:38 PM

stewbert: I personally find college football much more compelling than the NFL product. Part of that are the arguments about which team is the best. Go ahead and tell me how the NFL is superior because it's playoff system crowns an actual champion every year. Whatever, it's not much different when a 9-7 wild card teams goes all the way as when an undefeated team gets denied the opportunity to play in the NCG.

Succeed in making college ball an NFL minor league, and it will fail miserably. College ball packs more fans than NFL games. This doesn't happen with minor league pro teams anywhere. There's no reason for 110,000 fans to pack a stadium to watch the minor league Wolverines (ok, I left myself open for a joke there). It won't happen.

College ball may be a bit screwed up compared to the past, but IMO, it's far closer to a "pure" sport than the NFL ever can be. I realize there is money in NCAA, but you're fooling yourself if you think NCAA is worse than NFL. It's not even close.


What I find more compelling about college football is that I have an emotional investment in the success of my school which is far greater than my feelings toward my favorite pro team. That said, if you watch a college and pro game back to back you'll realize the enormous difference in the skill level and how much more entertaining the pro product is.
 
Displayed 96 of 96 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report