you are saying so and so finished with this and that rank like its a assumed given that its a truth in the number when its really not.Originally Posted by JeffHCross
you are saying so and so finished with this and that rank like its a assumed given that its a truth in the number when its really not.
Last edited by ram29jackson; 06-17-2012 at 05:56 PM.
In 2011 the Final Four here in Houston consisted of: Kentucky (#15 in the final AP regular season AP poll), UConn (#21 and the eventual "champ"), Butler (unranked) and VCU (ditto).
Last edited by coogrfan; 06-17-2012 at 05:34 PM.
But, that year, the highly ranked teams all lost early. Pretty good indication to me that their ranks were inflated in my mind and, yet again, a perfect example of how a playoff system is FAR superior to anything else that the NCAA has trotted out in an attempt to have a champion.
Rankings are subjective and, more than anything, based on past performances more than current achievements. At least a playoff system including 8-16 teams would give teams that don't have the ability to live off of other teams' success in that conference for the ability to win the thing that every college player wants to achieve.
What it indicates is that the only games that really matter in CBB are the ones after the regular season is concluded. UConn finished 9th in the Big East (9-9 in it's conference). They got hot in the conf tourny, and continued that hot streak thru the NCAA's to the title. In other words, the 2010-11 MBB regular season was even more pointless and meaningless than it usually is...and that's saying something.
Even if it means sacrificing the thing that sets cfb apart from all other sports?
The regular season has always been pointless and always will be. Just like the NBA and the NFL. When you have more than 10-12 games, the regular season doesn't matter because there are games that you can lose without it being a big deal. I can guarantee you two things though:
1: The end of the regular season absolutely matters for the teams fighting to get in the playoffs/better seedings in the playoffs.
2: In a season like college football's season (12 or 13 games a season before the postseason begins) and the setup that I have posited (win conference to get bid, top 4 unless they don't fit criteria #1, take top ranked team that fits criteria #1 in place of top 4), you have a postseason where the regular season absolutely matters. Being in the top 4 with a conference win is a guaranteed spot in the playoffs. Being outside of the top 4 means you have to hope someone in it loses their conference, giving you a chance.
You mean, the thing that sets the FBS portion of college football from all other sports since the FCS has been doing a playoff system since 1978 without any issues at all (including slowly expanding the number of playoff teams from 4 in 1978, to including 20 teams starting the 2010 season).
No controversy over who won and who didn't get a chance. No bullshit. Just games decided on the field when it matters the most.
FCS playoffs are exciting as hell. I can only imagine how exciting FBS playoffs would be in a stadium with 75,000 fans screaming for their teams to win.
Which is why all this "think of the students" bullshit from the NCAA and playoff opponents annoy the hell out of me. FCS, Division 2, Division 3, NAIA, they all have playoffs with 16+ teams, they all do just fine and people in those divisions don't complain about the "students missing class time", but as soon as we get to the FBS level, oh, well, heaven forbid they have to play more than one game. You play the tournament during the same time as the bowl games (since I imagine the bowl games would remain for all the other teams), and you'll be done by the first or second week of January at the latest, long before students start up the spring semester, instead of this current stupid "lets wait 40+ days from the end of the regular season to play the championship game" bullshit.
Funny enough, if the playoffs thing really takes off for FBS (as it should), then bowl games will disappear because, once again, bowl games DO NOT make money for schools. Conferences; sure, but not schools. WVU reported losing somewhere in the neighborhood of $250,000 on their trip to the Orange Bowl. A bowl game that they won, and a BCS bowl game no less. I can only imagine the type of money lost by a school like Boise State who got fucked out of playing in a BCS bowl game again and instead had to go to some shitty bowl game.
It just blows me away that people are actually ok with this current system. It's corrupt as hell (numerous times top 12 outside of the power conference teams have been skipped over in favor of bullshit matchups like Michigan vs Virginia Tech last year), teams rarely make money off of them in the long run, and it's not a real logical goal to have as a team on the outside looking in.
Well, I don't know, I've always felt we'd probably have some hybrid system, at least at first. While the schools make take a bath on the bowl games, they do help when it comes to recruiting.Funny enough, if the playoffs thing really takes off for FBS (as it should), then bowl games will disappear because, once again, bowl games DO NOT make money for schools. Conferences; sure, but not schools. WVU reported losing somewhere in the neighborhood of $250,000 on their trip to the Orange Bowl. A bowl game that they won, and a BCS bowl game no less. I can only imagine the type of money lost by a school like Boise State who got fucked out of playing in a BCS bowl game again and instead had to go to some shitty bowl game.
It just blows me away that people are actually ok with this current system. It's corrupt as hell (numerous times top 12 outside of the power conference teams have been skipped over in favor of bullshit matchups like Michigan vs Virginia Tech last year
And yeah, this current system is always going to be corrupt and biased. It's led by men and, to give it an appearance of "fairness", by computers created and programmed by men. Just look at this year. It was perfectly fine (in the eyes of the BCS) to have Alabama and LSU rematch and play each other again in the championship game, but heaven forbid if it had happened between Ohio State and Michigan in 2006. Or a couple years ago when, I think it was Auburn, was one of three teams who were undefeated and they got left out, how is any decision and voting there not potentially biased towards one team and against another? It's one massive biased and corrupt system and basically nothing but college football's version of "the good old boy network".
FWIW, Ohio State started back on January 3 when I was thereThat will change next year though.
In any playoff system, the regular season is meaningful. How meaningful it is is dependent on what the criteria is for selecting the playoff team. Right now we're talking about a four team playoff system. In the vast majority of seasons, losing once will put you on the "needing some help" list, and losing twice will all but eliminate you. That's really no different than the current BCS system. 2007 is the only season in recent memory where the regular season may look "meaningless" with a four team playoff, but the BCS title game between a two-loss LSU team and an Ohio State that backed its way into the championship didn't look much better. In a 12 game season (11 games in FCS), you only have so many chances to blow it.
I've been a massive fan of the FCS playoffs for years. Yes, a few times Appalachian State didn't look so hot during the season and then went on a run in the playoffs. But it works.
And I still contend that VCU or Butler, if they had won their championship, would be just as deserving as the LA Kings were this year in the Stanley Cup Finals. You still have to be good enough to win the tournament to claim the championship.
The BCS is a playoff system, but the "championship final" is set by the voters and computers, not on the field. A four-team playoff only changes this marginally.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
FWIW, Ohio State started back on January 3 when I was there
I like this one:
I like this one:
even better is this
and one of my most favorite moments in ucla/USC history
Youre obsessing pretty hard on it though
ucla and boise state are two teams i will always give the finger to.
Very nice to see our name come up in recruiting when it's also attached to two higher profile teams.
http://www.missourinet.com/2012/06/1...-hits-for-619/
The University of Missouri is among the top three choices of 6’2, 190 pound Cedar Hill, TX quarterback Damion Hobbs. He’s a dual threat quarterback who says he will make his decision before the start of his senior season. In addition to Mizzou, Hobbs is also considering Nebraska and Arkansas State (coached by former Auburn offensive coordinator, Gus Malzahn). During his junior year, Hobbs threw for 997 yards and completed 67% with 21 total touchdowns. He also added another 875 yards rushing. The three-star recruit also visited with Baylor and Kansas State.
rumor has it that your present Ark State QB is considered a better than average talent they expect good things from this year.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks