:up: :sick: :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes
Perhaps a change from UGA to UGAy or UGAg? :popcorn:
Printable View
:up: :sick: :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes
Perhaps a change from UGA to UGAy or UGAg? :popcorn:
He was definitely a target of ours, but, IIRC, he never verballed to Ohio State. Good to hear that he's getting down to business.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
For anyone that hasn't seen it ...
Multiple Gunshot Victims Near Auburn University
Personal account on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/auburn/comme...reported_dead/
Idiots man. Just stupid juvenile idiots.
:smh:
my friends email's just talked about this..pretty sad for a major college football program. At least Mora is taking care of a few things early on
Quote:
I was reading that UCLA Football never had a Strength and Conditioning Coach. For years they said they've had one but it was the S&C Coach for all programs. Mora fought for Football to have it's own S&C coach. No wonder we had so many injuries. We're getting training form some women's softball or swimming conditioning coach.
I HATE THAT CRAP FROM UCLA ! Everybody's equal. Bull
since when is ucla a major college football program? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ram29jackson
I'd actually have to agree. I'd probably put them at 2 right behind Oklahoma. The teams are actually pretty similar. Veteran QBs who should be the front runners for the Heisman. Talent at the skill positions and looks of experience on defense. I'm giving Oklahoma the nod because of coaching.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
http://ithuglife.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/622.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by psuexv
Stoops over Kiffin..... ummm.... YeahQuote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
theyve been lacking certain disciplines, but they still get better recruits than 60-70 % of all the major colleges. Some might say they fail becauseQuote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
theyve actually had a clean program...or a lazy one...
stoops' staff over kiffin's staff? NOOOOOQuote:
Originally Posted by psuexv
So what's more preferable: Top 4 or top 4 conference champs if they're in the top 6? Also, who or what picks the top 4/6?
imo, if a team cant even win their conference, they should never be allowed to play for the national championship.
:+1:Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
It should be several stipulations:
1. Win Conference (either via conference championship game or just straight up winning it via head-to-head games)
2. Preferably be the top 4 schools in the BCS Poll unless rule #1 disqualifies them
3. Be in the top 12
4. If no above rules apply, take the first school that fits rule #3 going from #1 down the polls
Now, there's no worry of a school like Western Kentucky (just an example of a low tier school with possibly an easy schedule) skating by with a stupid easy schedule, going undefeated, and possibly making it in (since it's highly unlikely they'd be in the top 12) and gives the power conferences a possible chance at having two of their schools in the National Championship Playoff at the end of the year.
As a for example, here is the breakdown of the above for the past several years (with logical seedings of #1 playing #4 and #2 playing #3):
2011: #1 LSU vs #7 Boise State and #3 Oklahoma State vs #4 Stanford (with the MNC Alabama left out because of rule #1)
2010: #1 Auburn vs #4 Wisconsin and #2 Oregon vs #3 TCU (Perfect setup with the best one loss team in the nation as the extra with 3 undefeated teams)
2009: #1 Alabama vs #4 Cincinnati and #2 Texas vs #3 TCU (Perfect once again. This time with 4 undefeated teams squaring off for the Championship - unfortunately, Boise State would have been on the outside looking in that year at #6 behind one loss Florida who just got trounced in the SEC Championship Game by Alabama)
2008: #1 Oklahoma vs #6 Utah and #2 Florida vs #5 USC (first time that #3 and #4 have been skipped over because of rule #1 but definitely meaningful as Oklahoma beat Texas already and Florida already beat Alabama)
2007: #1 Ohio State vs #4 Oklahoma and #2 LSU vs #3 Virginia Tech (the most controversial season for the BCS probably ever would be easily solved pitting what most considered the four best teams in the nation against one another)
2006: #1 Ohio State vs #6 Louisville and #2 Florida vs #5 USC (the original "rematch" possibility between Ohio State and Michigan became null-in-void when Florida trounced Ohio State in the MNC game)
2005: #1 USC vs #6 Notre Dame and #2 Texas vs #3 Penn State (the one time that there probably wouldn't be a reason to have a playoff as the two only undefeated teams faced one another but giving Penn State a chance at the Championship still)
2004: #1 USC vs #6 Utah and #2 Oklahoma vs #3 Auburn (a battle of 4 undefeated teams as it should always be - unfortunately, once again, Boise State, while undefeated, is left asking why they didn't get a chance)
2003: #1 Oklahoma vs #4 Michigan and #2 LSU vs #3 USC (battle of the top 4 conference champions again, as it should be)
2002: #1 Miami vs #4 USC and #2 Ohio State vs #3 Georgia (the one year where things are a bit weird: Ohio State and #5 Iowa both went undefeated in the Big Ten but Ohio State went undefeated overall and Iowa lost to instate rival Iowa State early in the season - hard to judge this one but the current setup of the Big Ten with the conference championship would prevent such a thing from happening again)
2001: #1 Miami vs #5 Florida and #3 Colorado vs #4 Oregon (#2 Nebraska would be skipped over because of rule #1)
Pretty interesting stuff. I'd LOVE to see a setup like this. Imagine the incredible games you'd have and the Cinderella stories that could happen with a team like Boise State or BYU making the playoffs.
Arkansas State at Oregon on 9/1 will be on ESPN at 9:30pm CT.
one reason i'm glad to live on the west coast.Quote:
Originally Posted by gschwendt
although I prefer how in the east coast on Sundays, games dont start till 1 PM LOL
looking at Athlons...
so let me get this straight....? TCU is predicted to finish 5th in their own conference, but ranked 22 in the nation L O freaking L
a little bit a Big 12 bias there :D
I'm guessing OK, OK St., K-St., and West Virginia or Texas are ranked ahead? I can see TCU being 5th and still ranked
exactly why playoffs are needed though. Thats a bunch of subjective new math bullpucky :DQuote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
Subjective math? Is that a thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by ram29jackson
Anyway, I still say that playoffs don't really tell you who truly is the best is.
A full fledged 16 team playoff would. You'll occasionally have a New York Giants moment (team gets hot at the right time and rattles off the wins necessary to win it all) but, more often than the bullshit system they have right now, it would result in a true National Champion for the sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
I don't believe any playoff system, no matter how many teams, will tell you who the true champ is. Playoff brackets only determine who can be the first to beat/win 3 or 4 games/series.Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
Take the NCAA basketball tournament. You're telling me that of the "best" 68 teams, the champ only has to beat 6 of them? Yeah, THAT proves who's the best.
How many times have you seen the best team in college basketball not, at the very least, be in the Final 4 to win it all? I'd venture to guess it's close to never. If the team really is great and worthy of winning a National Championship, they'll be in place to win that championship.Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
Do you really think what we have now is better than that? I just can't possibly see how that is the case.
:D and youre confused by my subjective math joke ?Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
dude, single elimination is just that, single elimination. You beat who you play or go home. You would rather have...Mr. fat ass in khaki's picked that team because his computer ratings and a little funny money told him to ? Or a playoff where you beat the team in front of you who is at least rated somewhat near what you are ?
I don't believe the current system is necessarily the best but when someone squeks into the playoffs, then wins the thing, does that prove that team is the best, especially when they didn't have to play at least 1/2 the field? One and dones are also the worst because anyone can have a "Little Giants" moment and win a game. In a one and done situation, the 2001 NBA champs would be the Philadelphia 76'ers and not the Lakers who wound up winning the next 4 games and went, like 15-1 in that playoff run or something like that. Whatever year George Mason went to the Final Four, you'll have a hard time convincing me that they were, at worst, the 4th best team in the country.
If 8-4 Rutgers beats 13-0 Alabama in a playoff game, are we really gonna say that Rutgers is better then Alabama or that they played a good game and they got lucky? Even last year in LSU/Bama I, Alabama was the better team but LSU caught all the breaks and won but when LSU/Bama II came around, Bama (the team that didn't win their conference or division) showed they they were clearly the better team.
Only because math, by nature, isn't subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by ram29jackson
sports is based on time clocks ( for the most part) instantaneous moments. If you didnt have the larger score by the final buzzer ( or final out LOL) you are not the better team for that moment in time and that is all that matters. Thats the point of a playoff. You are still basing your ideas on subjective opinionated rankings by saying "we all know so and so was/is better "Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
if Rutgers beats LSU in one game thats tough shit for LSU :down:. It means Rutgers was better for that game and thats all that matters in sports.
You are only as good as your last game.
:D thats why its called a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
then again, that BCS math seems a little funky at times :D
Look, I'm not crazy. I fully realize that games aren't played on paper and "that's why you play the games" and all that. I'm just saying, it's not like questions and doubts won't exist because all of a sudden just because their's a playoff.Quote:
Originally Posted by ram29jackson
(I don't follow NHL hockey so their may be some inaccuracies in what I'm about to say) Take the LA Kings for example, the 8th best team in the west. Now, their trophy is well deserved because apparently, they beat the top 3 teams in the west to reach the Finals and beat the Devils but are they the best? They didn't get to play the Penguins, the Flyers, the Rangers, the Capitals, etc. they may have avoided every team capable of beating them just because somebody else played them instead.
sports is about "little giants" moments... that is why if you are to be the best, you beat every tom, dick, and harry, bill, joe, and bobby that lines up in front of you... no excuses... no regrets... if Bama lost to Western Kentucky in round 1 of a playoff, who is to blame? they knew it was a playoff... they knew they were collectively better... but still didn't execute...
i don't buy anybody's point of view that a playoff is NOT the way to go with college football... regardless of the made up situation above, how many times do people get into arguments because of late season wins over tougher opponents that help their team jump in the BCS polls... SAME LOGIC... if you are expected to win, you should win, if not, you go home
the best way i can think of to do a college football tournament would be to have 16 teams play... all drawn at random live... then the 8 teams standing that saturday night get tossed into another drawing to play at random... then 4... and then champion... so long as you make the cut of 16, your future is entirely in your hands... this would really show off not only the players, but the coaches, being pressed for time to scout, assemble, and execute... this would be my dream playoff
I'm not against playoffs. I'm just saying playoffs don't "prove" who the best is.
Then why didnt any of them make it that far ? Answer = you are only as good as your last game.Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
uh oh, I'm seeing e mails now.
My friends are planning for going to the UCLA,Nebraska game on September 8th :)
They may not be definitive, but they, most definitely, are better than what they trot out there as a Championship game right now. Having two teams play that have already played once in the season again in a single elimination winner takes all game without anyone else having a chance is utter bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
You do know that Baylor, TCU, Kansas State, Oklahoma and West Virginia finished #13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 in the AP poll last year, right? Granted, they weren't all Big 12 schools last year, and so they will take each other out to an extent this year, but they're certainly got the talent to have five in the Top 20.Quote:
Originally Posted by ram29jackson
If playoffs don't, nothing else does either. The BCS certainly doesn't (which, BTW, is a 2-team playoff ;)). Split National Championships certainly doesn't. It's the end-all-be-all, but it's progress in the right direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
If Gordon Hayward had hit that last second shot and Butler had defeated Duke, would anyone dispute that they won the national championship? If VCU had completed their improbable run and won the championship, would anyone have disputed it? March Madness has the same problems with hot teams or teams that barely get in that a college football playoff does, but because the playoffs have been around longer, people are okay with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
Hell, the Kings were an 8 seed and did about as well in the Stanley Cup playoffs as any team can do ... they may not have been the best team all year, but they're Stanley Cup Champions.
But ... they're Stanley Cup Champions. So ... :dunno:. Since the NHL Lockout ended, no #1 seed in the East has even reached the Finals, so being the "best" team all year has done jack lot of good.Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
You guys gotta see who clemson got :o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtJ5iNzV_zk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvwEjkc97cY
yes,but what difference does it make since its all based on a fictional criteria ?Quote:
You do know that Baylor, TCU, Kansas State, Oklahoma and West Virginia finished #13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 in the AP poll last year, right? Granted, they weren't all Big 12 schools last year, and so they will take each other out to an extent this year, but they're certainly got the talent to have five in the Top 20.
wat?Quote:
Originally Posted by ram29jackson
My thoughts exactly. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross