College football season around the corner... BTW, check out the video on this kid
dirtmonkey
Posts: 3,048 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
I like the NFL and all, but to me there's nothing better than sitting down to watch your favorite team on Saturday afternoon. Cheerleaders, the bands, the rankings, the cheerleaders, rivalries, the winged helmets, the cheerleaders... College has so much pressure on every game until you suffer your first loss. But if you lose early, you're begin rooting for 6 other teams to lose just 1 game so your team might move back ahead of them. Tons of history, great old stadiums, mascots, cheerleaders... The season begins soon and to me, there's no better time of the sports year. College on Saturday, pros on Sunday. Time to stock up on beer and burgers. And as the season moves, we can begin the debates of strength of schedule, heisman performers, conference strength... Did I mention the cheerleaders?
Go Blue
edited - I added the youtube mix tape of Sam McGuffie, the Texas HS runningback that's going to Michigan. There's some pretty bada$$ runs by him, including about 5+ times where he hurdles a player. That could get you into trouble in college, but still fun to watch. But this kid has excellent cuts and can do some impressive things in small spaces. Will be fun to watch.
Go Blue
edited - I added the youtube mix tape of Sam McGuffie, the Texas HS runningback that's going to Michigan. There's some pretty bada$$ runs by him, including about 5+ times where he hurdles a player. That could get you into trouble in college, but still fun to watch. But this kid has excellent cuts and can do some impressive things in small spaces. Will be fun to watch.
0
Comments
marching band pounding away in practice down the road by Sparty, got me to thinking "It's that time of year again".
<< <i>As I am sure you recall, both were obliterated in bowl games. The OSU QB spent more time on his back than a $20 hooker. >>
<< <i>Wake me up when college football starts a playoff. It is OK, but with the media bias toward the PAC 10 and Big 10, it is difficult for other schools to get a fair shot at the national championship. Last year all the talking heads thought OSU-Mich should play a rematch for the national championship. As I am sure you recall, both were obliterated in bowl games. The OSU QB spent more time on his back than a $20 hooker. >>
Well the media was a major factor in there not being a rematch, as they vote in the polls which are part of the BCS formula. The majority of the media voted Florida ahead of Michigan. I wasn't happy at the time, but as you mentioned, both got thumped so the decision seems to have been for the best. And also as I recall, the majority of those in the media also favored the SEC as the best conference.
I'd prefer some form of a playoff system to remove some of the doubt surrounding the championship. But no matter how you try, there's really no legitimate way to do so without creating more questions. Where's the cutoff? You cannot add too many games or the season becomes too long. Lets say you add 12 teams. Is it fair if the #1 team goes undefeated, but loses to a three loss team and no longer has the chance to be champion? If you only took 4 teams, what about a team like Boise last year that didn't lose but wasn't in the top four. How do you exclude them?
It's college. These guys don't have the time to put into a long season like the professionals do because some actually do study and most will have to consider a career besides football after they graduate. Add a playoff system and there's another 2 months of a season for them. Some say they should remove pre-conference games, but then think of all of the money lost with games like Michigan /ND or Miami /Florida. No way they'll risk losing money of that magnitude. In the end, the BCS is what college has. I think it's a bit screwed up like most do. But no matter what system they have, someone will always gripe. C'mon, the basketball tourney has 65 teams and there's still a debate as to why teams like Syracuse didn't get in last year. And with good reason.
That way after the bowls are played and everyone has got their money secured--they have the 2 best teams left (not sure how that decision will be made--either by polls or media or computers or a combination) play a final deciding game to determine the true champ.
Maybe I dreamed it...I sure haven't heard anything about it since.
<< <i>I don't think I imagined it---but wasn't there a story on one of the ESPN shows (maybe PTI) last month, where they announced that there was serious consideration for a new plan involving keeping the BCS bowls, but then having one playoff championship game after the bowls?
That way after the bowls are played and everyone has got their money secured--they have the 2 best teams left (not sure how that decision will be made--either by polls or media or computers or a combination) play a final deciding game to determine the true champ.
Maybe I dreamed it...I sure haven't heard anything about it since. >>
I've heard talk of the +1 game, but not sure if it's really a consideration or not. The problem is, how would that game be any different than the game that is supposed to already pit the two best? Isn't that what the BCS was created to do? Pit the two best teams? What benefit would a +1 do other than to create more controversy?
They could have 2 top BCS bowls be termed the "championship semi finals" and have something like the #1 seed play the #4 seed in one bowl, the #2 seed play the #3 seed in the other bowl--followed by the new championship game featuring the 2 winners of those bowl games. That way the top 4 seeds have a chance to prove they are the best.
It does seem the main debate each year is which 2 teams have the right to meet for "all the marbles"--and this way they could lessen the debate by having the top 4 seeds have the chance to control their own destiny.
It still wouldn't be a perfect system, but in my mind it seems a little better.
<< <i>I would think they would have to alter the current BCS bowls system of having the one BCS championship bowl with #1 seed vs. #2 seed.
They could have 2 top BCS bowls be termed the "championship semi finals" and have something like the #1 seed play the #4 seed in one bowl, the #2 seed play the #3 seed in the other bowl--followed by the new championship game featuring the 2 winners of those bowl games. That way the top 4 seeds have a chance to prove they are the best.
It does seem the main debate each year is which 2 teams have the right to meet for "all the marbles"--and this way they could lessen the debate by having the top 4 seeds have the chance to control their own destiny.
It still wouldn't be a perfect system, but in my mind it seems a little better. >>
I'm not saying the idea isn't good, but it still will just leave to many questions IMO. The fifth team left out maybe having a better loss than the fourth, a team like Boise last year being undefeated and not getting a shot. What happens if the #1 and #4 already played and #4 got spanked at home, but this time squeaks by the #1 team. Lots of other questions would also be out there.
I suggest that any championship game be held at a neutral site/state. Miami, Florida or Florida St shouldn't be playing for a championship in the Orange Bowl. UCLA/USC shouldn't play for a championship in the Rose... and so on. There are advantages that could be eliminated by having these games at a neutral area altogether. That's my biggest complaint about the championship game. The rest just seems like we'd be spinning tires.
<< <i>CFB fans blind faith in the polls make them by far the dumbest sports fans in the world. >>
I'm pretty sure most of the fans have no faith in the polls. One would have to be stupid to think college football fans have that confidence in the polls (unless their team is #1 at the time). Every year, there's nothing but complaints about the voting. Further, the voters are human and will sometimes vote for emotional reasons. There's nothing about the polls that's really legit and fans are aware of that.
Yep, it was on PTI and treated as a HUGE scoop, I don't remember what their sources were but the story did not seem to have
any legs as the rest of the sports media never picked up on it as best as I can remember.
<< <i>I'm not saying the idea isn't good, but it still will just leave to many questions IMO. The fifth team left out maybe having a better loss than the fourth, a team like Boise last year being undefeated and not getting a shot. What happens if the #1 and #4 already played and #4 got spanked at home, but this time squeaks by the #1 team. Lots of other questions would also be out there >>
I agree, it is still a flawed system which would still leave questions--but I would consider it a "baby step" in the possible evolution of a better system. Outside of a legit playoff tournament like the rest of the NCAA champion sports, I feel the desire to have some improvement or at least experiments. Unfortunately, we may be stuck forever with the current bowl system because college football post season is dominated by the money the teams/conferences get from the bowls. And unless they shorten the regular season (almost guaranteed NOT to happen because of the revenues generated by regular season games and the need for the conferenes to determine a champion and still have non-conference games with traditional rivals), I wouldn't argue with at least trying the +1 format for now. Maybe it could evolve into a +3 system where the top 8 teams get to have a chance--that would allow for a team like Boise State to get a chance to control their destiny at the end of the season if they are a top 8 team. Have the top 4 bowls be the "championship playoffs" and then have 2 semifinal games after that, with a final championship game between the 2 teams left after that.
If there are already questions/controversies with the present system--even though it may not be that much different with the +1--but the exception will be that 4 teams get a chance instead of just 2 teams.
All in all, I'm doubtful anything will change from the current BCS system--but I gotta dream
And for the point about whether one of the contenders already played another contender--it does not bother me that much--I think the regular season is for determining who is qualified to contend--just like the other sports post season tournaments where teams have rematches with opponents they already faced in the regular season. It happens in the basketball, baseball, and hockey playoffs--and it seems they do not have a problem with facing prior opponents because they recognize that it is who wins now that matters instead of who won earlier. Isn't a goal of most sports contenders to get better as the season progresses and "peak" at the end when the stakes are highest? True, football is different than basketball and baseball because they play far less games--but still, the vast majority of the top football contenders would have a loss coming into the postseason (especially if there were going to be 4-8 contenders), so the fact that their loss would be against another top contender only shows that only the best have beat them--and now a rematch would show which coaching staffs make the best adjustments and if they learned from their previous mistakes.
Sorry for the long post--but I would be a huge advocate of a legit playoff system--but also am a realist that understands how hard it would be to actualy change the current football season and postseason because of the money factor. Thus I would take any change/experiment they offer--even if it is just a +1 game for now.
<< <i>And for the point about whether one of the contenders already played another contender--it does not bother me that much--I think the regular season is for determining who is qualified to contend--just like the other sports post season tournaments where teams have rematches with opponents they already faced in the regular season. >>
No, I do agree but consider last year for instance. Some people didn't want to see a Michigan /OSU rematch, so they ended up voting Florida over Michigan in the final two weeks. I'm not saying that was the sole reason for Florida being voted higher, but some voters did admit that they were likely to vote Florida over Michigan because they wanted to see a different game. If this is the case and you now have a 4-team (top two bowls) playoff system or a +1, who's to say a team that was maybe deserving of the four spot might get dropped in the last week by the voters because they already played #1 and lost? Maybe again, the voters just don't want to see a rematch in the first round. You see, my problem with a playoff system based off from voting is that there's too many politics involved. 1 vote by a writer who went to school for a particular conference, so he feels obligated to vote for that conference, could change the playoff brackett. How would that be any more fair or legitimize the playoff system and its eventual champion? To me, the only way to really solve anything is to have the winner of each conference be included in the playoffs. Second place in the conference might be voted in to even out the field. There's like 11 major conference and then the independants. Make a field of 16, 11 conference champions and the final 5 spots being filled by the voters (arg, I hate using the voters for any portion of this but hey). Seed them like the NCAA basketball, 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, etc... Game on. At least is gives each conference a representative so it eliminates the Boise-type situation. It puts the focus back on winning the conference championship. Dump a game or 2 off the preconference schedules so each team only has 2. Arg, now my post is getting long - LOL. I quit.
<< <i>
<< <i>CFB fans blind faith in the polls make them by far the dumbest sports fans in the world. >>
I'm pretty sure most of the fans have no faith in the polls. One would have to be stupid to think college football fans have that confidence in the polls (unless their team is #1 at the time). Every year, there's nothing but complaints about the voting. Further, the voters are human and will sometimes vote for emotional reasons. There's nothing about the polls that's really legit and fans are aware of that. >>
When there is a 1 vs 2 match up in the polls, people act like the system worked. In addition everyone rushes to see where thier team is in the polls before they complain. If the fans would genuinely ignore the polls then their would be no champion. Most fans consider florida to be the champion from last year. They won a BCS title game and most importantly finished number 1 in the AP poll. Most college football fans recognize USC as the champion from 2004 despite the undefeated Auburn team. This is because they recognizer the polls as being a standing instead of a joke! You couldn't be more wrong if you think college football fans don't count the poll being anything but absolute truth or no one would claim a championship from any year. Which is how the NCAA sees it.
Finally some of the teams have5-11 starters that wouldn't gain admission to a university if they weren't so talented. They never graduate but they assist the team in winning unless of course they end up in jail or kicked out.
End of my rant.
PS, still nothing better than walking a college campus on game morning.
Nothing better than College Football!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>CFB fans blind faith in the polls make them by far the dumbest sports fans in the world. >>
I'm pretty sure most of the fans have no faith in the polls. One would have to be stupid to think college football fans have that confidence in the polls (unless their team is #1 at the time). Every year, there's nothing but complaints about the voting. Further, the voters are human and will sometimes vote for emotional reasons. There's nothing about the polls that's really legit and fans are aware of that. >>
When there is a 1 vs 2 match up in the polls, people act like the system worked. In addition everyone rushes to see where thier team is in the polls before they complain. If the fans would genuinely ignore the polls then their would be no champion. Most fans consider florida to be the champion from last year. They won a BCS title game and most importantly finished number 1 in the AP poll. Most college football fans recognize USC as the champion from 2004 despite the undefeated Auburn team. This is because they recognizer the polls as being a standing instead of a joke! You couldn't be more wrong if you think college football fans don't count the poll being anything but absolute truth or no one would claim a championship from any year. Which is how the NCAA sees it. >>
The system worked... as it is. Again, everyone is excited about rankings because as the system IS, that's what you have to do. It doesn't mean that people agree with the rankings. It just means that they understand the importance of being ranked higher because the "system in place" bases strength and its champion on rankings. Most fans never agree with where their team is ranked, unless their team is #1 or just higher than they expected. I didn't agree with Michigan getting bumped from #2 last year by Florida, but the end result indicates they should have been. Does it mean that I think Florida was undeniably the best team in college football? No... But the system in place awarded them the title and so I recognize them as such mainly based on that.
Further, everybody thinks that systems in place in NCAA basketball & the NFL are great. Yet I argue that they're not as good as a 7-game series. Any team can get lucky once, but the better team often wins a 7-game series. Don't tell me that you think a team like S. Illinois knocking off a team like Kansas means that S. Illinois is simply better. In a seven game set, they may lose the next 4 games convincingly and Kansas could then go on to win it all. In the NFL, maybe some guy has to sit out a game because of the flu. His team goes on to lose and they are eliminated from the playoffs even though they could have easily won a 7-game series. So in these two instances, I don't feel that the best team always wins the game/championship. But as the system is, we recognize them as such. Also you must consider match-ups. One team may dominate the regular season. But then in the playoffs they meet a team that just has their number. The best team may lose that game, but be better than everyone else in the playoffs. Further, the bad team may not be able to beat anybody else in the playoffs. So in part, games can be decided by luck of the draw and not be an acurate portrayal of who's the best overall.
The problem is that even with a 7-game series, you tell me any sport that allows division winners to get an automatic bid into the playoffs isn't, in part, a farce. In the NBA for example, a division winner will make the playoffs even if they only have the 11th best record in their conference. Football, baseball and hockey do the same thing. I understand much of the reasoning for this, but does it really do justice to the system by not pitting the 8 teams with the best record overall? Doesn't the team with the eighth best record stand a better chance to win than a weak-division winner with the 11th best? And again, match-ups also play a big part.
My point is this... Although we know that most of the teams in the small conferences cannot compete with the big teams from the major conferenes, we also know that strange stuff can happen on any given Sunday (or in this case, Saturday). So wouldn't it be unfair for us to simply exclude them from consideration based on our assumption that they cannot compete with certain teams? But if we were forced to include them, then the playoff system would be lengthy considering the amount of teams and conferences in college football. You would then have to extend the season by at least a couple of months if they decided to create a legitimate playoff system. I think there's ways to accomodate that, but it would cost universities a lot of revenue in lost games by shortening their preconference schedules. Is the system perfect? Of course not. But is there any perfect system? I don't believe so because I don't feel that the best team is always the one that wins any championship. There's a lot of luck invloved. A lucky bounce or an unlucky one, a faulty clock operator, a rule that doesn't allow a play to be reviewed, injuries, match-ups, weather, home field advantage and more can all be factors that decide a game or series. Once luck is factored in, can you really ever guarantee that the best team is decided? Not at all. But the systems in place force us to recognize them as such.
As for finding the best team, I don't care. I want a winner. They are not the same thing. You can make a strong argument that the chargers were the best team in the NFL lest year. But they lost in the tournament. They aren't champions, simple.
The playoffs exist in D !-AA and below. There is no reason a system can't be set up for the big schools. There will be people left out, but I honestly think 16 teams would do the trick. The money just might not work out as nicely as the bowls do, so we don't get to see it.
<< <i>Well, I'm suggesting that we look again at the polls as complete crap and question the term "Champion". We have a system that is based on the acceptance of the polls as the determining factor for one. I think the term champion should only be applied to a team that wins a tournament of some sort where teams play each other. The winner of an election should not be crowned "champion". It is for this reason that I stated that CFB fans are the dumbest for clearly accepting the polls as fact at the end of the season. To say that it is what the system IS, isn't good enough for me. The reason the system IS that is because CFB fans accept it. I know they accept it because of the use of the term champion. I think the Championships are fake. There isn't an NCAA sanctioned system and a third party vote doesn't count for me. Especially a vote that is so brutally flawed.
As for finding the best team, I don't care. I want a winner. They are not the same thing. You can make a strong argument that the chargers were the best team in the NFL lest year. But they lost in the tournament. They aren't champions, simple.
The playoffs exist in D !-AA and below. There is no reason a system can't be set up for the big schools. There will be people left out, but I honestly think 16 teams would do the trick. The money just might not work out as nicely as the bowls do, so we don't get to see it. >>
I'm not disagreeing that a playoff wouldn't be more amusing and generate more interest from the fans. Most fans complain every year about the system, but the bowls make so much money for the universities in the end that it isn't forcing the hand of the NCAA to change. Boycotting the bowl games might be the only way to get them to consider a playoff, but fans aren't willing to do that. Fans complain about the absurd ticket prices to games too, but the stands are generally still full on gameday so the owners have no reason to drop prices. If fans didn't go, owners would be forced to reconsider prices. In the end, the current system is better than it used to be. Unlike the old system, it at least pits the 2 teams that are perceived to be the best. And I love college football because of the atmosphere and the emotion the players show. Further, the system as it is puts a lot of pressure on a team not to lose any games, so every game of the season has more pressure than regular season games in other sports which makes it more dramatic IMO.
But I'm not sure about the one loss elimination being a good thing. By week 5 most teams are out of the running for a "title". That takes a lot away from the rest of their games. Imagine if more than a few teams could lose a game and still contend. The excitement going into the end of the season would be unreal.
<< <i>I agree with almost everything there, especially the part about the CFB atmosphere. My passion against the current format is comes from years of frustration with what was my favorite league. (I prefer the NFL now)
But I'm not sure about the one loss elimination being a good thing. By week 5 most teams are out of the running for a "title". That takes a lot away from the rest of their games. Imagine if more than a few teams could lose a game and still contend. The excitement going into the end of the season would be unreal. >>
Yes, completely agree. But 1 loss doesn't always eliminate a team. Further, if Michigan loses a game, I'm watching every game of teams ranked ahead of them hoping they'll dump theirs. To be honest, it makes me watch more games than I usually would. We obviously have many of the same thoughts regarding the state of college football. You choose not to like it because it doesn't provide what you're looking for in the end. I like it because it's good enough for me and although by no means perfect, more enjoyable to watch than most other sports offerings IMO including my sad Lions because at least Michigan is usually a pretty good team. I'll continue to gripe about the BCS every year unless Michigan is #1 or #2 at the end of the season - lol. If they win the championship, everyone else can say it's a fictional championship but I'll have a t-shirt that says otherwise
<< <i>
<< <i>I agree with almost everything there, especially the part about the CFB atmosphere. My passion against the current format is comes from years of frustration with what was my favorite league. (I prefer the NFL now)
But I'm not sure about the one loss elimination being a good thing. By week 5 most teams are out of the running for a "title". That takes a lot away from the rest of their games. Imagine if more than a few teams could lose a game and still contend. The excitement going into the end of the season would be unreal. >>
Yes, completely agree. But 1 loss doesn't always eliminate a team. Further, if Michigan loses a game, I'm watching every game of teams ranked ahead of them hoping they'll dump theirs. To be honest, it makes me watch more games than I usually would. We obviously have many of the same thoughts regarding the state of college football. You choose not to like it because it doesn't provide what you're looking for in the end. I like it because it's good enough for me and although by no means perfect, more enjoyable to watch than most other sports offerings IMO including my sad Lions because at least Michigan is usually a pretty good team. I'll continue to gripe about the BCS every year unless Michigan is #1 or #2 at the end of the season - lol. If they win the championship, everyone else can say it's a fictional championship but I'll have a t-shirt that says otherwise
lol
<< <i>I really, really hope they adopt a true playoff soon so these yearly discussions about who really is #1 ends...that to me is the only negative of college football. >>
I have no doubts it will happen some day, but in the end it will still take voters to get teams in just like it does with the NCAA hoops tourney. Thus, there will always be some debate. There's simply too many teams and conferences unless as I mentioned before, they take each conference winner (11) and then round out the field with the best left including a possible independant/s... determined by votes (arg).
<< <i>The NCAA basketball tourney is a farce. Every freaking conference in the country gets a team into the tournament. Its become a bloated pregnant elephant. Does anyone really believe Villanova was a better team than Georgetown or NC State was better than Houston. It serves to crown a national champion not the best team in the country.At least recognize it for what it is. >>
It's an athletic competition with an objective winner. Works just fine for me.
<< <i>I'm going to try and make it to an OSU game this year. It would be my first!
Nothing better than College Football! >>
Great pagentry at the "horseshoe" in Columbus, I like the marching band spelling out OHIO and dotting the I.