RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions
Enough politics, the real travesty affecting...(35 posts)
|Enough politics, the real travesty affecting...||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 8, 2003 5:57 AM
|the country right now is the botched I-A College football championships, yet again!
WTF, I don't know who it benefits (I suspect the major bowls and in someway the major football programs/NCAA) to keep having this dumb bowl system.
Why not have a playoff with 16 teams and just assign games in each round to the "bowls". With a 4 week single elimination you'd have 15 "bowl" games (8 + 4 + 2 + 1). You could still rotate the semifinals and final through the biggest bowls, and with only 15 games you'd get rid of a lot of the smaller bowl games that are meaningless and increase the viewership for the smaller bowls that host the early play-off rounds.
I'm sure it has to do with money why they keep this archaic system going, I've yet to hear anyone defend it as a good thing. If anything, the pre-BCS bowl system was better although still seriously flawed.
|We have a playoff system,||TJeanloz|
Dec 8, 2003 6:42 AM
|The beauty of D1 College football is that it has a playoff. Any major conference team that wins all of its games will be the National Champion. Period. Every team that whines and complains when it gets left out of the BCS championship game can blame themselves for losing to somebody at some point in the season. Installing a post-season playoff would destroy the regular season's importance. It would improve viewership at the end of the season - but not through the entire season, where the games are held in on-campus stadiums.
Getting rid of smaller bowls that are "meaningless" also creates a problem. They might be meaningless to fans of Oklahoma, Florida State, Ohio State, and Miami, but to programs on the rise, the provide money, and more importantly, three extra weeks of practice. That extra practice time (the equivilent of spring football) has been pivotal to the rise of programs like Kansas State and Maryland.
Who would benefit from a playoff system? The 16 teams that made it, no doubt, who would monopolize the money, practice time, and national exposure.
I think this year has finished in a best case scenario, really. If Oklahoma and USC both win, they will share the National Championship (OK from the BCS, USC from the AP), which is about right. If the game were OK/USC, then LSU could fairly argue that they were left out.
Can you seriously say that the pre-BCS system was better? In the pre-BCS era, USC would be playing Michigan, Kansas State would be playing Miami in the Orange Bowl, LSU would be playing Florida State in the Sugar Bowl. Oklahoma would be playing somebody weaker in the Fiesta Bowl. We would then potentially end up with three one-loss teams - how would that be better?
A BCS-type system is the fairest objective way to determine bowl pairings. A playoff would be disasterous to the spirit of college football, and the old system is certainly not better than the current.
|Agreed. They have all season to prove their worth...||94Nole|
Dec 8, 2003 1:46 PM
|The only playoff I would condone would be the situation that may happen this year if two teams (USC and OK) finish with same record and an inconsistency in the polls.
My playoff recommendation? One game, after the New Years bowls, Number 1 plays Number 1.
However, that wouldn't work either. With that, you'd open up the ability for manipulation by biased voters.
8 or 16 team playoff? No! Like MLB. I don;t believe that wildcard teams should be given a chance to play for the World Series against those who won the divisions. Reduce the divisions back to 4 or increase to 8. These teams had 160 games to win their divisions. Prove it then.
|Agreed. They have all season to prove their worth...||TJeanloz|
Dec 8, 2003 1:52 PM
|I don't feel the same way about MLB. Actually, I think it should be changed to a best record system. The wildcard is important because the second best team in the league could be in the same division as the first-best team. Without the wildcard, you ended up with the third best team (and sometimes significantly worse than the #2 team) playing the best team in the LCS. I wouldn't be opposed to having the 2 or 4 best teams in each league (by record) in the playoffs, regardless of division (with a balanced schedule).
But if I'm USC, I'm thrilled. I get a shot at being the national champ by beating Michigan, which is significantly more do-able than beating Oklahoma. I think USC fans should be happiest about the "controversy".
|Ok, I concede on MLB. You're right. I did the usual...||94Nole|
Dec 8, 2003 1:55 PM
|spoke before I thought. Bad habit for 43+ years.|
|If school were in, there would be rioting on campus...||No_sprint|
Dec 8, 2003 2:02 PM
|I'm kinda glad the students are in finals, if they weren't, I'd probably have to lock my door not to get *talked into* joining them or to meet my maker! Not the type where idiots destroy their own neighborhoods but serious anger filled protests.
There is venom everywhere. SC is capable of pummeling those food wagon types worse than No_sprint could take care of MJ the Eunuch.
|re: Enough politics, the real travesty affecting...||No_sprint|
Dec 8, 2003 10:23 AM
|I think post BCS is better than pre BCS. I wouldn't be a fan of a 16 team playoff. Having potentially a 4 loss team of nododies who have played nobodies have a couple of fluke games and take the cake would not be good in my opinion. Why let a Miami of Ohio into the show at all? I could stomach a 4 team playoff.|
|Paging Dave Hickey||PaulCL|
Dec 8, 2003 10:35 AM
|No_Sprint is disparaging your RedHawks of Miami of Ohio. You don't have to take it!
I agree with your opinion. BCS is better than no BCS. There will always be problems - this year being one of them. So what if we end up having co-National Champions. Personally, I'm rooting for Michigan to destroy USC (at home) by ...like..48-3. Then OK and LSU have a sloppy 7-6 defensive mistake-ridden game. That way, Michigan will be the AP #1 and everybody's real #1 even though not with the BCS. OK, I'm lookin' for trouble.
Dec 8, 2003 10:46 AM
|I still can't get used to Redhawks. When I went to Miami, we were the polically incorrect " Redskins". But that is a discussion for another day:-)|
|RedHawks? The school caved||PaulCL|
Dec 8, 2003 1:27 PM
|to the pressure of a small minority of people. So sad.
But then again...what would you expect from Miami??? Save for this year, just a bunch of wimps.
All said in good fun since I'm a Univ. of Cincinnati grad and Miami is our hated enemy #1 in football.
My wife is a Miami grad. We make an annual "pilgrimage" to Oxford just to absorb the ambience of the campus. Boring. Liz (my wife) is absolutely determined to have our kids go to Miami. Only problem: we live in Kentucky. The estimate for four years at Miami (including room, board, books, etc..) in ten years is: $55,000 instate, $152,000 out of state. Univ. of Kentucky here they come!
|What's ironic...||Dave Hickey|
Dec 8, 2003 1:40 PM
|The school and the whole area are named after the Miami indians.
I'm in the same boat with out of state tuition. Both of my kids are going to attend University of Texas
|Good for them, they'll take after a fine pair of twins! :) nm||No_sprint|
Dec 8, 2003 1:41 PM
|Don't do it, Dave! Friends don't let friends...||Dale Brigham|
Dec 8, 2003 2:07 PM
|...send their kids to t.u. (what us Aggies call the Univ. Texas). Here's why:
1) If they move to Austin, they'll become ultra-liberal dope-smoking hippies intent on politico-cultural overthrow (like Willie Nelson, or Old Ed). Send 'em to Texas A&M or Texas Tech, and they'll become obedient lil' Young Republicans. (Well, it didn't quite work out that that way for me, but it does for most of 'em).
2) Do you have girls in your brood? If so, and if Lance is still on the prowl, he might hit on 'em in some 6th Street dive in Austin. Wouldn't that be too creepy for words?
3) Send 'em off to Lubbock (or, to a lesser degree, College Station), and they'll be too far away to come home on weekends to do their laundry, eat all of your food, and bum money off of you. Think of it as shipping them off to the wild frontier (AKA, anything west of Foat Wuth) to learn how to make their own way in life. The struggle will do them good.
4) Burnt orange don't go with nothin.'
Of course, its your money and your kids, Dave. I'm just trying to help keep you from making a huge mistake.
Dale (TAMU '77, TTU '85)
Dec 8, 2003 2:17 PM
|I'd prefer they to to Tech. My older will be a senior next year and my youngest is in 7th grade so I have a little time to convince them...|
|Just kiddin' about UT, of course.||Dale Brigham|
Dec 8, 2003 2:30 PM
|Dave, UT is a fine school. I spent a summer on campus there when I was in high school, and it sure seemed like a good place to go to school. But ... maybe a little too fun, if you know what I mean.
Lubbock is just boring enough to allow time for studying. Also, no beer or booze sold in town stores (have to go past the city limits to The Strip). That alone is worth a 0.5 GPA boost!
And, if you want to do a family holiday ski vacation in NM or CO, you can just pick up the kid(s) in Lubbuttocks (as my wry NM friends call it), and keep drivin' til you hit the mountains. Only 5 hours to Santa Fe! (Just next door, by West Texas standards.)
Seriously, Tech is my favorite of my three alma maters (TAMU, Tech, and Penn State). It's just as good of a school as A&M and UT, despite what their flacks say.
|LOL! Good stuff!||No_sprint|
Dec 8, 2003 10:47 AM
|Since we're dreamin', I was thinking something similar... The OK/LSU game gets canceled, SC pummels Michigan like a Eunuch twin and Leinart gets the Heisman since it simply can't go to a 4 loss team and White got a shellacking. :)|
|Football playoffs--descend to lower level of college sports hell||Continental|
Dec 8, 2003 10:48 AM
|These are college institutions, not professional sports franchises established for entertainment. Big time college football and basketball already compromise college academics. A Div 1-A football playoff will only make the programs more powerful than they already are. I like the games, but multimillion dollar/year coaches, mercenary players with no intent of getting an education, and half billion dollar athletic facilities don't belong associated with a college.|
|Don't assume all Universities are the same as Florida State...||No_sprint|
Dec 8, 2003 10:55 AM
|That place is just a front for a farm team. :)
What's the median age of a Florida State team? 24? LOL
|Okay, enough, I have to break my "no post" silence!!!!!||94Nole|
Dec 8, 2003 12:41 PM
|One player who comes back to school after playing pro baseball (Chris Weinke) and now every player on FSU is average 24 years old? I think NCAA eligibility rules are the same for all. If the truth was known, BYU probably has the highest average age of its players.
But when one finds fault of the Noles, I guess success breeds jealousy. Try to find something legit to find fault of before spewing ridiculous comments abotu players' ages. Shoe shopping or drunken kicker incidents or some other off-field problems - we've certainly had more than our share.
Certainly don't try and belittle based on our on field performance.
If my memory serves me correctly, 2003 is another 10 win season (I think number 15 out of the last 17 and not to mention 14 straight seasons of finishing in the top 5 - this will likely be number 15 of 17 of that stat too) and our 22nd or 23rd straight bowl appearance. Any other D-1 program that can tout that stat? And oh yeah, 2 national championships in the past 10 years (I guess one could argue that we should have more titles, but then that person would still find something else to whine about). But who is counting. I'll certainly put that record up against anyone in the nation.
And please don't mention referees.
|To be reasonable,||TJeanloz|
Dec 8, 2003 12:53 PM
|Florida State plays in what was the worst of the BCS conferences. Until very recently, the ACC was completely worthless in football. I doubt the next ten years [with Miami and VA Tech in the mix] will be as kind to the Seminoles as the last ten have. FSU certainly has had more than its share of problems, current gambling scandal notwithstanding.
As for comparable D1 programs, Nebraska is looking at a 35th consecutive bowl game, which is a few more than 23. Ten win seasons have more to do with a weak conference than anything else.
|Certainly that tale will be told in the coming years||94Nole|
Dec 8, 2003 1:31 PM
|and I will admit that the ACC has been weak....
With that said, those days are over with the addition of UM, VT and BC.
However, other than Miami (who, although UM has won the last 4 , we have actually split with them over the last 10 meetings and those who know the series know the history of "Wide Right", indicating that margin of victory in several of these games, losses nonetheless), the change to the ACC does not present opponents that have shown the ability to beat the Seminoles. I do not think that we have ever lost to VT with the last two games being very comfortable victories in the 2000 Sugar (National Title - Michael Vick) and 2002 Gator Bowl.
Nebraska. FSU vs. NE (6 wins vs. 2 losses, most recent win over NE was 1994 Orange Bowl for Nat'l Title) Last loss to NE was in September of 1986.
2003 Alamo Bowl? Now that is something to be proud of.
And what does it say about a program who fires a coach after a 9-3 season?
|Didn't Florida State start as a women's college?||No_sprint|
Dec 8, 2003 1:38 PM
|men have been there for only a small part of it's history.
|Yes, and that is why our record over that past 50+ years...||94Nole|
Dec 8, 2003 1:50 PM
|is as impressive as those who have been at it much longer.
History of FSU
In 1905, the University of Florida was established and designated a men's school, and the Florida State College became a women's school called the Florida Female College.
In 1909 the name of the college was changed to Florida State College for Women. In 1947, the Florida State College for Women was returned to coeducational status and renamed The Florida State University. And thus the legend began.
Dec 8, 2003 12:57 PM
|I was just poking fun.
One that's inarguable though is that Bowden is one large mouth @sshole.
|Come on N_s, I agree with your politics, but...||94Nole|
Dec 8, 2003 1:37 PM
|your assessment of Saint Bobby is way off.
His record speaks for itself but he IS getting to the stage where he needs to step down. That was indicated by the half-time interview (I can't remember the game, I think Clemson), when he didn't know that his top defensive player, Darnell Dockett, had been ejected from the game.
Don't be diss'n my Noles!! ;-)
|St. Bobby!?!?!?! LOL!!! Good stuff man... just ribbin ya...||No_sprint|
Dec 8, 2003 1:39 PM
|I know you can handle it.|
|Okay, enough, I have to break my "no post" silence!!!!!||PbOkole|
Dec 10, 2003 9:46 AM
|The 'noles are a great team, no doubt about it. Heck, the only reason FSU isn't an expansion team for the NFL is the players would all have to take pay cuts.....;-)|
|Har, har har. Nothing done in Tally not done elsewhere.||94Nole|
Dec 10, 2003 10:57 AM
|Does that make right those things that have happened? Heck no. I guess the players just haven't been as good at keeping it hidden. It is the players, not the program. At least to this point. Don't blame a program for the ills of a few of its players.
But I must add, have there been any NCAA sanctions? I'll answer that, no.
How can that be for a program that has been so successful over the past 2 decades and there is no doubt that the NCAA is watching the program like a hawk?
|Not just Universities, High Schools too||Dave Hickey|
Dec 8, 2003 11:02 AM
|Our local paper had an article about a Texas high school football team. The school was in a Houston suburb called the Woodlands. The varsity team has 17 assitant coaches!|
|In 1983, I lived in Plano.......||Len J|
Dec 8, 2003 11:34 AM
|Texas. The local High school team played every friday night in a 30,000 seat astroturf stadium and was broadcast on local cable. You couldn't get a seat. Local companies would recruit people based on their sons Football prowess. In 1984, due to overcrowding, the split the high school into Plano & Plano East. Both teams made the 5A playoffs the next year. We had a kid on our street that "Redshirted" his freshman year in high school, and proceeded to grow from 200 lbs to 260. LOL
And we wonder where the college craziness comes from.
|What's all the whining and crying about?||No_sprint|
Dec 8, 2003 1:00 PM
|I don't know about you all, however, the big story is the big game and it has nothing to do with the Sugar Bowl.
I simply am shaking in my boots with anxiety waiting for the Motor City bowl.
Northwestern vs. Bowling Green.
Too bad I've got unchangable plans that night. I've got to clean the can and rewind my videotapes.
|Only one way to settle this.||Turtleherder|
Dec 8, 2003 1:26 PM
|A sixteen team, round robin tournament of rock, paper, scissors. Almost as good as tic- tac-toe, which seems to be what the BCS computer uses to pick teams.|
|I've been looking for this ending all year..............||Len J|
Dec 8, 2003 1:54 PM
|anything that points out how screwed up the BCS system is, isa OK by me. C'mon, the teams playing best right now are, inarguably, USC, LSU, OKLA & MICH. I think any one of them could legitimatly win a playoff. Unfortunatly, unlike every other sport in college athletics, the national champion is not decided on the field, but rather it's based on oponion.
No wait, let's change college basketball and do away with the tournement, let's go to a BCS formula.
Dec 9, 2003 5:29 AM
|the arguements for the status quo just don't hold water. So what if college tradition is upset or the smaller schools lose out (which wouldn't necessarily be the case, you could always hold invitational bowls for the teams that don't make the play-offs). Simply put, the top teams in the country rarely play each other or even have common opponents consequently you end up with multiple teams staking a claim to #1. Every year you also have smaller programs who have a good year against second tier opponents who even if they went undefeated would never be national champ. A play-off system solves all the problems and you end up with a national champion. Somehow all the other divisions in college football manage to pull it off, just not division IA. I don't know how any fan of college football couldn't be clamouring for a play-off system after this year's mess.|
|It's all about money............||Len J|
Dec 9, 2003 6:40 AM
|right now, the big confrences get all the money, in a playoff system, if it were like other sports, the NCAA gets the money and splits it among all Division 1 member schools. This is the main obstacle at this point, no matter what the public relations people say.
Until they can come up with a system where the richer schools keep the money, nothing will happen. It's like revenus sharing in Baseball, it will never happen until the system fails, the NY's of the world will never give up the advantage they have.