Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Some Guy)   Blind resume test for the five NCAA BCS Championship contenders. I figured no one had been fighting over this for like, an hour, so what the heck, let's drag it back up again, right?   (mrsec.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, BCS, NCAA, BCS championship, Gus Malzahn, ACC Championship, Harris Poll, RPI, Southern Cal  
•       •       •

2095 clicks; posted to Sports » on 05 Dec 2013 at 8:42 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-05 12:35:50 PM  

Khellendros: Mid_mo_mad_man: 16 team playoff with every conference winner in it.

Uh no.  Some four loss, mid-conference champion has no business being in a bracket to determine the national championship.  Using a regional and monetary designation (conference) to show who's the best is, at best, arbitrary.  The current system is actually better than that, and our current system is awful.

A mix of simple statistical models and human ranking (more weighed on the former) to create a small elite group of 6 or 8 teams to play for it all is the way to go, if your goal is to actually determine the best team.  I've never seen a team ranked 13th or 14th by any poll or composite model that had a regular season that demonstrated that they deserve to be in a playoff for a national championship.  And I've seen way too many 3 and 4 loss conference winners that should be playing in the Chewy's IceCream and BBQ Bowl, not for the trophy.

Keep it small, simple, and limited to elite teams that had stellar regular seasons against quality opponents.


A 3rd place team in a major conference has even less business being eligible for a national championship.
 
2013-12-05 12:36:50 PM  

asimplescribe: Khellendros: I_C_Weener: You know what people dont fight over? Who the NCAA basketball national champion is.

No one argues over who the BCS Champion either - the rules are pretty clear, and a champion is outright crowned ever year.  Both methods are terrible at determining the best team that year.

Haven't they had split national champs like 12 times?


No I think its been twice maybe and one was during USC cheating days so they dont matter.
 
2013-12-05 12:40:47 PM  

meanmutton: A 3rd place team in a major conference has even less business being eligible for a national championship.


So you think the BCS 14th team (undefeated Northern Illinois) is better than the 3rd place in the SEC (Alabama)?
 
2013-12-05 12:45:37 PM  

meanmutton: I see they have conviently left out the most important criteria, number of losses.


The more important criteria is quality of opponent and OSU's/FSUs suck, bama did get lucky missing any east teams this year worth a damn.

The entire big 10 is down and the ACC has never been up at best they were decent but the year both division champions got plastered in their final games against SEC teams pretty much says it all.
 
2013-12-05 12:48:59 PM  

steamingpile: meanmutton: I see they have conviently left out the most important criteria, number of losses.

The more important criteria is quality of opponent and OSU's/FSUs suck, bama did get lucky missing any east teams this year worth a damn.

The entire big 10 is down and the ACC has never been up at best they were decent but the year both division champions got plastered in their final games against SEC teams pretty much says it all.


Sorry, but no. Quality of opponents is not a more important criteria than if you beat everyone on your schedule.

Otherwise we'd have a Utah/Washington State NCG, since those two teams played the toughest schedules in the country.
 
2013-12-05 12:51:51 PM  
So Auburn didn't play Missouri until the title game, Alabama won't play Missouri at all and we can honestly say that anyone of those three teams should be in the championship game?

Missouri has the best argument to be in the title game if the win, as they lost in double OT without their starting QB to a 10 win team

Auburn lost to a three loss LSU team and only beat Alabama because they missed 4 FGs.  Also needed a miracle against 4 loss Georgia.  Anyone saying Auburn deserves a shot if they win is an SEC wonk.

Alabama didn't win their division, didn't win their conference title.  Not that it stopped them when they beat LSU in the rematch for the national championship, but that should have never happened again after Nebraska 2001.  NEVER

I hate to say it, but this year, the SEC was nowhere near as tough as it has been in previous years.  The only reason there are 4 teams in the top 10 is because of where they started.  If rankings didn't come out until we've actually seen the teams play, Baylor and Michigan State would likely be ranked above South Carolina and Stanford.

Rankings are stupid, because they are done by people who don't watch the majority of the games.
 
2013-12-05 12:53:22 PM  
OMG!  The SEC might not win the NCG this year!  Something's broken!

What's broken is the BCS.  It was a system designed to artificially inflate SEC teams' rankings and promote a pro-SEC environment, making it easier for their teams to win NCs.  Once ESPN signed that deal with the SEC, it was a given that the SEC would dominate the BCS.  Now that the SEC is creating their own broadcast, we suddenly get a 4-team playoff.  Anybody think the SEC will win the next 7 NCs?  Anybody?
 
2013-12-05 12:53:40 PM  

Fizpez: * Most importantly: Only automatic bids can get a bye. So if you lose your conference championship game, you have to play an octofinal.

That's an important one (and as such would NEVER be in the actual system). We're going to end up with a much better system but instead of biatching about which two teams should get in (and why one of them should automatically come from the SEC) we'll argue about who should get a first round bye and why 3 SEC teams should all have a first round bye... better, but we'll still get to biatch and moan.


I've got a formula on my computer at home that basically weights AP polls, Coaches poll, the BCS computes, and 6 computer rankings that DO include margin of victory. I don't have the full thing in front of me, but I think it looked like this (using BCS rankings for convenience):
11 Arizona St at 9 Baylor; winner at 1 Florida St
16 Central Florida* at 4 Alabama; winner at 6 Oklahoma St
14 Northern Illinois at 5 Missouri; winner at 2 Ohio St #
10 Michigan St at 7 Stanford; winner at 3 Auburn

*-I decided that the higher ranked of the AAC and MWC champions would be the 6th "major" champion,
#-Just like the NCAA basketball tournament, I adjust the bracket to avoid conference and repeat matchups in early rounds, so Missouri doesn't go in the same quarter as Auburn.
 
2013-12-05 12:55:08 PM  

tdunning: They seem to have forgotten a very important stat, winning percentage


Perhaps because it means less when a significant number of those wins are against teams that may as well not show up. A 9-3 team that plays tough opponents may actually be better than an 11-1 that avoids contenders for most of the season.

Are you actually impressed when Alabama beats Chattanooga by 49 points? To me, Stanford's total domination of Oregon and six point win speaks a lot more loudly.

I'm not specifically advocating Stanford in the BCS title game, but I think fans are tiring of teams hanging championship expectations on perfect seasons that involve too many tomato can games, especially when all those weak opponents are hand-picked by the school. The Kansas City Chiefs were overrated due to a weak early schedule too, but at least it's not done by the team on purpose just to produce a handsome record for financial or prestige reasons.
 
2013-12-05 12:55:13 PM  

proteus_b: meanmutton: A 3rd place team in a major conference has even less business being eligible for a national championship.

So you think the BCS 14th team (undefeated Northern Illinois) is better than the 3rd place in the SEC (Alabama)?


No, I don't. Being "better" isn't the right criteria. Winning your games, winning your division, winning your conference is.
 
2013-12-05 01:01:42 PM  
I still don't understand why so many people seem to love the idea of using subjective judgement to include teams in a playoff.  Why do we do that in college football?  Could you imagine there being a poll in the NFL to see which teams get in?
 
2013-12-05 01:02:41 PM  

RminusQ: Fizpez: 
#-Just like the NCAA basketball tournament, I adjust the bracket to avoid conference and repeat matchups in early rounds, so Missouri doesn't go in the same quarter as Auburn.


So we can still end up with an all-SEC final.  Sounds legit
 
2013-12-05 01:04:10 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: steamingpile: meanmutton: I see they have conviently left out the most important criteria, number of losses.

The more important criteria is quality of opponent and OSU's/FSUs suck, bama did get lucky missing any east teams this year worth a damn.

The entire big 10 is down and the ACC has never been up at best they were decent but the year both division champions got plastered in their final games against SEC teams pretty much says it all.

Sorry, but no. Quality of opponents is not a more important criteria than if you beat everyone on your schedule.

Otherwise we'd have a Utah/Washington State NCG, since those two teams played the toughest schedules in the country.


Winning against those teams is also a big deal, you can't just schedule top 15 programs and lose them all.

Just like you can't play a schedule full of lesser teams and not expect an argument against you being in the NCG. Its how LSU got there with 2 losses.
 
2013-12-05 01:13:59 PM  

Carousel Beast: TheShavingofOccam123: Let's see...Auburn, Alabama and Missouri. SEC teams.

I'm betting at least one team will be an SEC team.

It's just pure coinkdinky that 4 of the top 5 programs are in the South. No corruption there.

/although I have to say Penn State and USC carry the weight for the rest of the nation in corruption

So...you disagree with reality? Can you provide some stats for other teams not considered in TFA ?


You missed my point. It's about criminal behavior on the part of boosters, admins, coaching staffs and players...the whole program at various universities.

You know like Joe Pa. Like the ASU professor who was fired for not passing a football player. Like Reggie Bush.

And if anyone believes that Southern football hasn't honed improper and illegal behavior and made them part of daily life in college football programs, well, do yourself a favor and bet heavy on any Southern team in the BCS debacle.

I hear SMU used to be a real powerhouse...then they went real small for some reason...now I hear they've fixed that thingee and are back to the good old days.
 
2013-12-05 01:30:43 PM  
The only thing I completely agree with from that article is that Alabama should not even be in the discussion.  Once again they failed to be the best team in their division of their conference.  They are the third or fourth place team in the SEC.  That does not qualify them to have a shot to call themselves the national champion.  Alabama's weak schedule and the fact that they have only won the SEC Western Division once in the last five years means that they have not earned a free pass.  I don't care if everyone loses this week, Alabama is out.

As for whether to send Missouri or Auburn over Florida State or Ohio State, I have no real opinion about it.  Personally, if both OSU and FlaSt end the year undefeated, they should be in.  If someone wants to elevate Missouri or Auburn, there are reasonable reasons for it.
 
2013-12-05 01:38:46 PM  

RminusQ: Fizpez: * Most importantly: Only automatic bids can get a bye. So if you lose your conference championship game, you have to play an octofinal.

That's an important one (and as such would NEVER be in the actual system). We're going to end up with a much better system but instead of biatching about which two teams should get in (and why one of them should automatically come from the SEC) we'll argue about who should get a first round bye and why 3 SEC teams should all have a first round bye... better, but we'll still get to biatch and moan.

I've got a formula on my computer at home that basically weights AP polls, Coaches poll, the BCS computes, and 6 computer rankings that DO include margin of victory. I don't have the full thing in front of me, but I think it looked like this (using BCS rankings for convenience):
11 Arizona St at 9 Baylor; winner at 1 Florida St
16 Central Florida* at 4 Alabama; winner at 6 Oklahoma St
14 Northern Illinois at 5 Missouri; winner at 2 Ohio St #
10 Michigan St at 7 Stanford; winner at 3 Auburn

*-I decided that the higher ranked of the AAC and MWC champions would be the 6th "major" champion,
#-Just like the NCAA basketball tournament, I adjust the bracket to avoid conference and repeat matchups in early rounds, so Missouri doesn't go in the same quarter as Auburn.


I would watch all of those excent 16 @ 4 and 14 @ 5. Those games would likely suck. The rest seem like they would make for good matchups
 
2013-12-05 01:44:18 PM  
A tournament with conference champions would be a step backwards.
In the NFL a team can finish the regular season 11-5 and miss the playoffs while a team that finished 8-8 gets in... that stupid result is because of conferences AKA divisions.
Any of the current top 5 "power" conferences could split in half and each half would still be stronger than NIU's conference.
A playoff of conference champions will just cause conference realignment.
Notre Dame, for example, could say "Hey, we are now The Notre Dame Football Conference" and we'll invite half a dozen creampuff schools to join ... sure you will be a sacrificial lamb but you get a guaranteed sellout on a home-and-home and national tv coverage every year plus some years we are down!
The entire existing conference structure would splinter and re-arrange into a bunch of 8 team conferences with no more than 2 traditionally good teams per conference.  Yuck!
 
2013-12-05 01:51:13 PM  

meanmutton: I still don't understand why so many people seem to love the idea of using subjective judgement to include teams in a playoff.  Why do we do that in college football?  Could you imagine there being a poll in the NFL to see which teams get in?


It has never happened, and probably never will, but the final tiebreaker for a team to make the NFL playoffs is a coin flip.
 
2013-12-05 01:55:51 PM  

TheWhoppah: A tournament with conference champions would be a step backwards.
In the NFL a team can finish the regular season 11-5 and miss the playoffs while a team that finished 8-8 gets in... that stupid result is because of conferences AKA divisions.
Any of the current top 5 "power" conferences could split in half and each half would still be stronger than NIU's conference.
A playoff of conference champions will just cause conference realignment.
Notre Dame, for example, could say "Hey, we are now The Notre Dame Football Conference" and we'll invite half a dozen creampuff schools to join ... sure you will be a sacrificial lamb but you get a guaranteed sellout on a home-and-home and national tv coverage every year plus some years we are down!
The entire existing conference structure would splinter and re-arrange into a bunch of 8 team conferences with no more than 2 traditionally good teams per conference.  Yuck!


That scenario would tend towards conference parity. Is that bad?
 
2013-12-05 01:59:20 PM  
BREAKING: Rape culture continues. No charges against Winston
 
2013-12-05 02:02:58 PM  

steamingpile: The_Six_Fingered_Man: steamingpile: meanmutton: I see they have conviently left out the most important criteria, number of losses.

The more important criteria is quality of opponent and OSU's/FSUs suck, bama did get lucky missing any east teams this year worth a damn.

The entire big 10 is down and the ACC has never been up at best they were decent but the year both division champions got plastered in their final games against SEC teams pretty much says it all.

Sorry, but no. Quality of opponents is not a more important criteria than if you beat everyone on your schedule.

Otherwise we'd have a Utah/Washington State NCG, since those two teams played the toughest schedules in the country.

Winning against those teams is also a big deal, you can't just schedule top 15 programs and lose them all.

Just like you can't play a schedule full of lesser teams and not expect an argument against you being in the NCG. Its how LSU got there with 2 losses.


So wins matter, just not against the schedules you deem to be lesser.

Sorry, but you really have to be the only person I have seen that has said that schedules matter MORE than winning all of your games. Schedules matter, sure, when trying to compare teams with an equal win/loss record. But since when do we punish teams for winning all the games on their schedule?
 
2013-12-05 02:15:04 PM  

mikaloyd: TheWhoppah: A tournament with conference champions would be a step backwards.
In the NFL a team can finish the regular season 11-5 and miss the playoffs while a team that finished 8-8 gets in... that stupid result is because of conferences AKA divisions.
Any of the current top 5 "power" conferences could split in half and each half would still be stronger than NIU's conference.
A playoff of conference champions will just cause conference realignment.
Notre Dame, for example, could say "Hey, we are now The Notre Dame Football Conference" and we'll invite half a dozen creampuff schools to join ... sure you will be a sacrificial lamb but you get a guaranteed sellout on a home-and-home and national tv coverage every year plus some years we are down!
The entire existing conference structure would splinter and re-arrange into a bunch of 8 team conferences with no more than 2 traditionally good teams per conference.  Yuck!

That scenario would tend towards conference parity. Is that bad?


Yes.  Conference games would become jokes and the playoff is all anyone would care about.  Imagine every team that has won any BCS splitting off and starting their own conference with a bunch of cream-puffs, nobodies and has-beens.  We'll have a dozen undefeated teams going into the tournament every year.
 
2013-12-05 02:15:41 PM  
BREAKING: Rape culture continues. No charges against Winston


5/10
 
2013-12-05 02:22:25 PM  

Bad Man Jose: RminusQ: Fizpez:
#-Just like the NCAA basketball tournament, I adjust the bracket to avoid conference and repeat matchups in early rounds, so Missouri doesn't go in the same quarter as Auburn.

So we can still end up with an all-SEC final.  Sounds legit


If they beat the champions of other conferences, they will have earned it on the field.
 
2013-12-05 02:22:52 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: But since when do we punish teams for winning all the games on their schedule?


Well, how about when a large percentage of the wins are garbage that are specifically engineered to be easy kills?

If the majority of your trophies are three-legged, blind, deaf deer, does that make you the nation's best hunter?
 
2013-12-05 02:28:37 PM  

TheKingOfMexico: The_Six_Fingered_Man: But since when do we punish teams for winning all the games on their schedule?

Well, how about when a large percentage of the wins are garbage that are specifically engineered to be easy kills?

If the majority of your trophies are three-legged, blind, deaf deer, does that make you the nation's best hunter?


If a majority of an NFL team's wins are against the NFC North, do we not let them into the playoffs?
 
2013-12-05 02:35:20 PM  

IanMoone: BREAKING: Rape culture continues. No charges against Winston


I'll bite - so people not being charged with rape is indicative of a rape culture?
 
2013-12-05 02:35:40 PM  

TheWhoppah: The entire existing conference structure would splinter and re-arrange into a bunch of 8 team conferences with no more than 2 traditionally good teams per conference.  Yuck!

That scenario would tend towards conference parity. Is that bad?

Yes.  Conference games would become jokes and the playoff is all anyone would care about.  Imagine every team that has won any BCS splitting off and starting their own conference with a bunch of cream-puffs, nobodies and has-beens.  We'll have a dozen undefeated teams going into the tournament every year.


It's a wonder that the SEC schools haven't split into two conferences by now.
 
2013-12-05 02:38:47 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: If a majority of an NFL team's wins are against the NFC AFC North, do we not let them into the playoffs?


In the case of the Bears, who will sweep the puny AFC North and may only get to 8 wins this year, no we do let them into the playoffs.
 
2013-12-05 02:50:10 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: steamingpile: meanmutton: I see they have conviently left out the most important criteria, number of losses.

The more important criteria is quality of opponent and OSU's/FSUs suck, bama did get lucky missing any east teams this year worth a damn.

The entire big 10 is down and the ACC has never been up at best they were decent but the year both division champions got plastered in their final games against SEC teams pretty much says it all.

Sorry, but no. Quality of opponents is not a more important criteria than if you beat everyone on your schedule.

Otherwise we'd have a Utah/Washington State NCG, since those two teams played the toughest schedules in the country.


And that's also how we got a BYU national champion.
 
2013-12-05 02:51:44 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So wins matter, just not against the schedules you deem to be lesser.

Sorry, but you really have to be the only person I have seen that has said that schedules matter MORE than winning all of your games. Schedules matter, sure, when trying to compare teams with an equal win/loss record. But since when do we punish teams for winning all the games on their schedule?


When those wins come against shiatty teams

And you think Im the only one saying then you obviously havent been paying attention, this has been the knock on teams like BSU/NIU/TCU, etc.... So to say that I am the only one is either being an idiot or willfully ignorant.

I think the difference between most of the big name conferences is tiny at best, except for AAC but there is room for argument with the ACC being so shiatty most years and the big 10 being way down this year.
 
2013-12-05 02:58:14 PM  

Komplex: And that's also how we got a BYU national champion.


Except BYU didnt play even a remotely tough schedule, their toughest and only ranked game was pittsburgh that wound up 3-7, BYU got a NC because the writers are idiots and why the BCS is better than what they had in the past.
 
2013-12-05 03:00:14 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: If a majority of an NFL team's wins are against the NFC North, do we not let them into the playoffs?


In the pro leagues, just about any team can be a strong or weak opponent in a given season (who expected Houston to suck like this?). Western Carolina, on the other hand, only shows up on college powerhouse schedules for one reason.
 
2013-12-05 03:03:13 PM  

steamingpile: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So wins matter, just not against the schedules you deem to be lesser.

Sorry, but you really have to be the only person I have seen that has said that schedules matter MORE than winning all of your games. Schedules matter, sure, when trying to compare teams with an equal win/loss record. But since when do we punish teams for winning all the games on their schedule?

When those wins come against shiatty teams

And you think Im the only one saying then you obviously havent been paying attention, this has been the knock on teams like BSU/NIU/TCU, etc.... So to say that I am the only one is either being an idiot or willfully ignorant.

I think the difference between most of the big name conferences is tiny at best, except for AAC but there is room for argument with the ACC being so shiatty most years and the big 10 being way down this year.


The argument for BSU/TCU is that they were up against other undefeated teams, so schedule comes into play. Same with NIU. So we go with schedule. That's the only time schedule should enter the equation. No one I have seen has argued, other than this year, that a team with one loss jump a team with no losses.
 
2013-12-05 03:04:08 PM  
The blind resume test i'd like to see is, once all the ESPN hype is stripped away, does the 1 loss team with the top defense in the country still land at a laughable #10 or do they rightfully fall in the top 5 like they damn well should. Of all the bullshiat ranking arguments lately, everyone is ignoring how ridiculous it is to have not one, but two different 2-loss teams and some questionable 1-loss teams like Baylor ranked over the nation's best defense with only one close loss in September season when their rookie QB was still adjusting to the college level.

Losing to Utah and a middling USC = gtfo of the top 10. Losing to frigging Tennessee = GTFO of the top 10.

Remove the labels and institutional bias and Sparty would be #5-ish this week, but that would help Ohio State's SoS far too much to allow it to actually happen. Sparty at #10 behind Baylor, Stanford and South Carolina is a crock of shiat.
 
2013-12-05 03:04:55 PM  
Fark has gone to the dogs. The Jameis decision, the biggest sports news all week, comes down an hour ago and Fark has neither a Breaking News nor a Sports thread on it.

I submitted a Breaking News link on it. Nothing.
 
2013-12-05 03:08:25 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: The argument for BSU/TCU is that they were up against other undefeated teams, so schedule comes into play. Same with NIU. So we go with schedule. That's the only time schedule should enter the equation. No one I have seen has argued, other than this year, that a team with one loss jump a team with no losses.


Im not arguing that either so I dont know what you are talking about but what I am saying their schedules are questionable at best and the only way we are going to get more than the playoff proposed is if conferences are severely limited in who can be invited. I liked the one proposed by one poster which limited it to 2 at large teams per conferences but no other conferences would agree to that since some years the SEC would have 3 teams, even it meant other years their conferences could have 3 teams(including champion).

What really pisses me off is we could have had a playoff years ago if the big12/pac10/big10 didnt conspire to kill it before real discussions happened by convincing the big east to vote no, what farking suckers they were now they are gone and the AAC will be getting farked for years now.
 
2013-12-05 03:09:32 PM  

meanmutton: A 3rd place team in a major conference has even less business being eligible for a national championship.


Often, yes.  But in the last seven years, the 3rd SEC team is often better than the conference champion of nearly EVERY other conference.  In the decade before that, the 3rd BigXII team was in about the same place.  Before that, the Big10, etc.  So let's not place a lot of emphasis on that as an indicator of quality.  Conferences are artificial constructs based on cash and region.

Mid_mo_mad_man: Every conference needs at least one team. It isn't the lower conference teams fault they can't play better teams. It's the power conference teams fault. If your even remotely good you won't get a game. March Madness is great because of everyone having a title chance. Football would improve with the same thing.


Yes, scheduling needs to be more balanced.  I won't argue there.  But nearly every time of of these mid major teams bubbles up, they get killed.  Sure, there's a Boise every once in a while, but for every one of those, you have 5 Hawaii collapses, or Rutgers.  They don't hold up well.

But I will argue against this - March Madness does a terrible job of weeding down to the elite teams.  Sure, a lot of #1s often make it through, and the lower seeds tend to fall off.  But people only look at one side of it.  How many 1 - 4 seeds (power conference, great records, proven quality) get knocked off early?  Nearly all of them.  The final four is usually a decent mix, but rarely did the best teams compete in the third and fourth round to get there.  It's luck and streaky play.  There's just too many teams.  It's akin to the WSOP Main Event.  Too many ankle biters eroding good teams in fluke games.

I won't say it's not a spectacle.  It's great entertainment, makes a ton of money, and gets great ratings.  It's an sporting event like no other.  But the competitive angle is pretty poor on that one.  I wish they'd narrow the field (or at least stop expanding it).  College football would do itself a disservice by going beyond 8 teams.  In 20 years, I haven't seen a team outside of the top 10 have a good argument after the regular season that they should be playing for the top spot.
 
2013-12-05 03:14:10 PM  

jasimo: Fark has gone to the dogs. The Jameis decision, the biggest sports news all week, comes down an hour ago and Fark has neither a Breaking News nor a Sports thread on it.

I submitted a Breaking News link on it. Nothing.


I kept checking back to see if there is going to be one.  I guess not.
 
2013-12-05 03:16:51 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: The blind resume test i'd like to see is, once all the ESPN hype is stripped away, does the 1 loss team with the top defense in the country still land at a laughable #10 or do they rightfully fall in the top 5 like they damn well should.


Again, quality of opponent comes into play, get back to us if they beat OSU or hold them to under 350 yards, the SEC took a beating this year because their conference is obviously down but that doesnt mean the big 10 cant take their beating because their conference is still down further than it was last year.

jasimo: The Jameis decision, the biggest sports news all week,


Because it was expected, I mean really once the delays happened who thought he was gonna get charged?
 
2013-12-05 03:17:22 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: jasimo: Fark has gone to the dogs. The Jameis decision, the biggest sports news all week, comes down an hour ago and Fark has neither a Breaking News nor a Sports thread on it.

I submitted a Breaking News link on it. Nothing.

I kept checking back to see if there is going to be one.  I guess not.


That's how bad folks hate FSU. If charges had been brought, green light and main page.

Go Noles!
 
2013-12-05 03:17:59 PM  
No Winston thread? Guess it isn't news.
 
2013-12-05 03:18:15 PM  

Khellendros: meanmutton: A 3rd place team in a major conference has even less business being eligible for a national championship.

Often, yes.  But in the last seven years, the 3rd SEC team is often better than the conference champion of nearly EVERY other conference.  In the decade before that, the 3rd BigXII team was in about the same place.  Before that, the Big10, etc.  So let's not place a lot of emphasis on that as an indicator of quality.  Conferences are artificial constructs based on cash and region.

Mid_mo_mad_man: Every conference needs at least one team. It isn't the lower conference teams fault they can't play better teams. It's the power conference teams fault. If your even remotely good you won't get a game. March Madness is great because of everyone having a title chance. Football would improve with the same thing.

Yes, scheduling needs to be more balanced.  I won't argue there.  But nearly every time of of these mid major teams bubbles up, they get killed.  Sure, there's a Boise every once in a while, but for every one of those, you have 5 Hawaii collapses, or Rutgers.  They don't hold up well.

But I will argue against this - March Madness does a terrible job of weeding down to the elite teams.  Sure, a lot of #1s often make it through, and the lower seeds tend to fall off.  But people only look at one side of it.  How many 1 - 4 seeds (power conference, great records, proven quality) get knocked off early?  Nearly all of them.  The final four is usually a decent mix, but rarely did the best teams compete in the third and fourth round to get there.  It's luck and streaky play.  There's just too many teams.  It's akin to the WSOP Main Event.  Too many ankle biters eroding good teams in fluke games.

I won't say it's not a spectacle.  It's great entertainment, makes a ton of money, and gets great ratings.  It's an sporting event like no other.  But the competitive angle is pretty poor on that one.  I wish they'd narrow the field (or at least stop expanding it) ...


Yeah, anything more than 8 would be too much for college football in my opinion.  My idea has always been 8 teams.  5 of them being auto invites to the champs of the Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, SEC and ACC and 3 at large bids for other deserving teams.  Keep it limited to 2 per conference so we don't end up with too many inter conference rematches in the post season.  No one curr about Alabama LSU redux.  shiat was boring once, it was doubly boring twice.  I'd rather keep the emphasis on the regular season meaning the most and allowing half a damn conference to slide into a post season playoff would negate a lot of the importance of those other 10-12 games.  That playoff scenario makes winning the conference every team's primary goal.  If you lose your conference, you have absolutely no leg to stand on period.  If you're a really amazing team, you might luck your way into an at large bid, but there are only 3 of them a year so that's not odds you want to play if you're serious about being a champion.

Win your AQ conference and go to playoffs. It's as simple as that.  If you don't do that, you don't get to whine.  While this leaves a lot of Div 1-A teams potentially out of the running, there really are not 120 teams that deserve to be called top flight Division 1-A teams.  The MAC and the Sun Belt and the Big East should not get auto bids as they have no track record of being even remotely competitive.  If one of those teams is hot shiat for a single year, they can vie for an at large bid or join an AQ conference.  I have a feeling we're heading towards 14 or 16 team power conferences anyways over the next decade or so.
 
2013-12-05 03:18:17 PM  

mikaloyd: meanmutton: I still don't understand why so many people seem to love the idea of using subjective judgement to include teams in a playoff.  Why do we do that in college football?  Could you imagine there being a poll in the NFL to see which teams get in?

It has never happened, and probably never will, but the final tiebreaker for a team to make the NFL playoffs is a coin flip.


I'm pretty sure it's been used for draft position, though.  Also, lots of places in the US use a coin flip in the case of an electoral tie.
 
2013-12-05 03:20:22 PM  

steamingpile: Spaced Cowboy: The blind resume test i'd like to see is, once all the ESPN hype is stripped away, does the 1 loss team with the top defense in the country still land at a laughable #10 or do they rightfully fall in the top 5 like they damn well should.

Again, quality of opponent comes into play, get back to us if they beat OSU or hold them to under 350 yards, the SEC took a beating this year because their conference is obviously down but that doesnt mean the big 10 cant take their beating because their conference is still down further than it was last year.

jasimo: The Jameis decision, the biggest sports news all week,

Because it was expected, I mean really once the delays happened who thought he was gonna get charged?


I dunno, because it really farking matters to tens of thousands of students and fans?

And should be part of a larger conversation on athletes' treatment, media bias, how this country deals with rape accusations, sexism, racism, and the deep suckitude of the TPD?
 
2013-12-05 03:20:42 PM  

TheWhoppah: mikaloyd: TheWhoppah: A tournament with conference champions would be a step backwards.
In the NFL a team can finish the regular season 11-5 and miss the playoffs while a team that finished 8-8 gets in... that stupid result is because of conferences AKA divisions.
Any of the current top 5 "power" conferences could split in half and each half would still be stronger than NIU's conference.
A playoff of conference champions will just cause conference realignment.
Notre Dame, for example, could say "Hey, we are now The Notre Dame Football Conference" and we'll invite half a dozen creampuff schools to join ... sure you will be a sacrificial lamb but you get a guaranteed sellout on a home-and-home and national tv coverage every year plus some years we are down!
The entire existing conference structure would splinter and re-arrange into a bunch of 8 team conferences with no more than 2 traditionally good teams per conference.  Yuck!

That scenario would tend towards conference parity. Is that bad?

Yes.  Conference games would become jokes and the playoff is all anyone would care about.  Imagine every team that has won any BCS splitting off and starting their own conference with a bunch of cream-puffs, nobodies and has-beens.  We'll have a dozen undefeated teams going into the tournament every year.


The error in your logic -- Schools in general are less concerned about winning national championships than they are about revenue.  Breaking down the conference structure as you indicate would dramatically lessen revenue.
 
2013-12-05 03:21:25 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: does the 1 loss team with the top defense in the country still land at a laughable #10 or do they rightfully fall in the top 5 like they damn well should.


FSU already is ranked #1.
 
2013-12-05 03:23:03 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: TheKingOfMexico: The_Six_Fingered_Man: But since when do we punish teams for winning all the games on their schedule?

Well, how about when a large percentage of the wins are garbage that are specifically engineered to be easy kills?

If the majority of your trophies are three-legged, blind, deaf deer, does that make you the nation's best hunter?

If a majority of an NFL team's wins are against the NFC North, do we not let them into the playoffs?


Why NFC North instead of, say AFC South?
 
2013-12-05 03:29:28 PM  

supageil: I dunno, because it really farking matters to tens of thousands of students and fans?

And should be part of a larger conversation on athletes' treatment, media bias, how this country deals with rape accusations, sexism, racism, and the deep suckitude of the TPD?


Or you could argue how much special treatment athletes get when in school? It looks worse when they were in an undefeated season and most of the biggest questions people have is if he would have been arrested if they were a 4 loss team.

flak attack: FSU already is ranked #1.


He means YPG which is Mich State, problem is they only played or two defenses in the top 70 in the nation so that holds little weight, FSU just played a bunch of bad red zone teams.
 
2013-12-05 03:32:46 PM  

Khellendros: meanmutton: A 3rd place team in a major conference has even less business being eligible for a national championship.

Often, yes.  But in the last seven years, the 3rd SEC team is often better than the conference champion of nearly EVERY other conference.  In the decade before that, the 3rd BigXII team was in about the same place.  Before that, the Big10, etc.  So let's not place a lot of emphasis on that as an indicator of quality.  Conferences are artificial constructs based on cash and region.


Quality is irrelevant.  They're the 3rd place team in their conference.  I don't care if they're better than the best team in another conference -- they're not the best team in their conference and thus have no business being eligible for a national championship.
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | 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