congrats, florida!

[Mephistopheles]

He wasn't drawing a line in the sand between contributors and non-contributors. He was drawing a line between kids who buy into the system and aren't a cancer for the team. Andre Caldwell was an example. Several of the graduating seniors were bad apples. The guys who weren't great but gave it their best, he loves those kinds of guys. He said the team MVP last season was Jemalle Cornelius who barely contributed at all...but he stayed in, bought into the system, worked hard and graduated with good grades.

 

And cromagnon, it really was a great rebuttal because I already argued against that post....oh wait I didn't. My mistake it was the same argument that you posted before, just restructured in different sentences: Ws and Ls because Ws and Ls are the goal blah blah blah blah. Hypocritical remark considering you accept Ws and Ls as not accurate indicators of Ws and Ls in baseball.

[Exile on Waveland]

That isn't what he said.

 

That's exactly what he said. It's exactly what every god complex next big thing coach who thinks he's got the system to beat all systems thinks. The only thing between him and a title is effort from the kids. In a way, you probably have to think that way. But it's pretty funny how insanely overhyped "buying into the system" has become with modern coach/gods.

 

It's pretty ridiculous. I think this is the first time I've ever heard a coach call out his seniors in that sort of manner.

 

I don't know how anyone can actually defend that statement.

 

It was way out of line. Mike Davis did the same thing after the 2003 NCAA tournament.

[sneakypower]

And cromagnon, it really was a great rebuttal because I already argued against that post....oh wait I didn't. My mistake it was the same argument that you posted before, just restructured in different sentences: Ws and Ls because Ws and Ls are the goal blah blah blah blah. Hypocritical remark considering you accept Ws and Ls as not accurate indicators of Ws and Ls in baseball.

No, the two are simply not comparable. Winning singular games isn't the sole priority in baseball, not by a longshot. In football, it is.

[Mephistopheles]

wait? you dont try to win in baseball? what the...

[sneakypower]

It's not the overarching sole goal for managers.

 

If you're down 5-0 after the first inning, the coach generally brings in the long men to save the bullpen for later in the series. The Packers don't put Aaron Rodgers in the game to save Favre's arm, if they're down 17-0 after the first quarter. Game one of the playoff series is another example of this. If winning that game alone was the sole objective, Zambrano pitches 9 innings. Starters get days of rest in baseball when not injured.

 

This really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

 

wait? you dont try to win in baseball? what the...

If you actually read what I said and understood it as this thought, then your reading comprehension is dismal.

[Mephistopheles]

but wait your point helps florida... :lol:

 

(you cant win im just too good)

 

so Ws and Ls are more important in football because teams run up the score

[Mephistopheles]

the point is that the teams only play 13 games so classifying each game as a 0 for a loss and a 1 for a win is stupid. Edited January 3, 2008 by Mephistopheles

[sneakypower]

the point is that the teams only play 13 games so classifying each game as a 0 for a loss and a 1 for a win is stupid.

 

This isnt tough. This is pretty basic. Im sure I could teach a cro magnon it if one were alive.

Then the only other alternative is to hand the national championship to the preseason #1, i.e. the most talented team in the nation.

[Mephistopheles]

im all for deciding the game on a field in a tournament.

[sneakypower]

I don't see how that prevents teams which get out-yarded from losing.

[imb]

im all for deciding the game on a field in a tournament.

 

i don't understand the idea of hating on a system that rewards teams for not losing in a short season and then advocating a system that kicks a team out that loses one game in a shorter season.

[Mephistopheles]

im all for deciding the game on a field in a tournament.

 

i don't understand the idea of hating on a system that rewards teams for not losing in a short season and then advocating a system that kicks a team out that loses one game in a shorter season.

 

because the system in the season that sucks right now is trying to put just 2 teams in the championship. look at it right now. osu is probably the 6th or 7th best team in the nation. if you have an 8 team format, then you wont have any huge glaring omissions...like the best team, USC.

[imb]

im all for deciding the game on a field in a tournament.

 

i don't understand the idea of hating on a system that rewards teams for not losing in a short season and then advocating a system that kicks a team out that loses one game in a shorter season.

 

because the system in the season that sucks right now is trying to put just 2 teams in the championship. look at it right now. osu is probably the 6th or 7th best team in the nation. if you have an 8 team format, then you wont have any huge glaring omissions...like the best team, USC.

 

Oh, I get it. Yeah, I totally agree.

[Guest]

im all for deciding the game on a field in a tournament.

 

i don't understand the idea of hating on a system that rewards teams for not losing in a short season and then advocating a system that kicks a team out that loses one game in a shorter season.

 

because the system in the season that sucks right now is trying to put just 2 teams in the championship. look at it right now. osu is probably the 6th or 7th best team in the nation. if you have an 8 team format, then you wont have any huge glaring omissions...like the best team, USC.

 

If USC didn't want to get omitted from the National Title game I guess they shouldn't have lost at home to Stanford then. I don't feel the least bit sorry for them. Same goes for WVU with losing to Pitt.

[UMFan83]

im all for deciding the game on a field in a tournament.

 

i don't understand the idea of hating on a system that rewards teams for not losing in a short season and then advocating a system that kicks a team out that loses one game in a shorter season.

 

because the system in the season that sucks right now is trying to put just 2 teams in the championship. look at it right now. osu is probably the 6th or 7th best team in the nation. if you have an 8 team format, then you wont have any huge glaring omissions...like the best team, USC.

 

I agree. And what is interesting to see is all 3 BCS games have featured a case for a two loss team to be in the national title race. I was hoping after the Rose Bowl that USC would have enough momentum with their slaughter of Illinois to have the AP vote them number 1 if LSU wins, but similar drubbings by Georgia and West Virginia have made that difficult. If LSU wins next week, there are going to be a lot of people up in arms over this BCS system.

[rawaction]

FWIW, even an 8-team tourney would have controversy.

 

As I see it, Ohio St., LSU, USC, Mizzou, Georgia, WVU, Oklahoma, Kansas, Virginia Tech, and yes, Hawaii were all worthy to be in an 8-team tournament. Which 2 teams do you kick out, without knowing any of the results of the BCS games so far?

[Mephistopheles]

there is still controversy but it would usually result over teams 6-10 getting in or not getting in. 1-5 will always get in except for really rare occasions.

[Exile on Waveland]

FWIW, even an 8-team tourney would have controversy.

 

As I see it, Ohio St., LSU, USC, Mizzou, Georgia, WVU, Oklahoma, Kansas, Virginia Tech, and yes, Hawaii were all worthy to be in an 8-team tournament. Which 2 teams do you kick out, without knowing any of the results of the BCS games so far?

 

Easy, Kansas and Hawaii. Neither team beat anyone of note all season.

[CubinNY]

FWIW, even an 8-team tourney would have controversy.

 

As I see it, Ohio St., LSU, USC, Mizzou, Georgia, WVU, Oklahoma, Kansas, Virginia Tech, and yes, Hawaii were all worthy to be in an 8-team tournament. Which 2 teams do you kick out, without knowing any of the results of the BCS games so far?

Hawaii and Kansas.

 

They need to quit pretending that teams from the WAC, MAC, C-USA, Mountain West, and Sunbelt are D-I, this isn't basketball.

 

In my opinion they should make D-Ia

 

Big 10

SEC

ACC

Big 12

Pac 10

 

D-1b

 

WAC

MAC

C-USA

Mountain West

Sun Belt

 

Each division has a 10 team playoff, with the top two teams from each conference getting into the playoffs. The teams in each division only play schools in their division during the regular season and total records count for playoffs, not just conference records.

 

Edit: Oh, and the money generated gets distributed evenly to all institutions in each division. These are places of higher learning after all.

Edited January 3, 2008 by CubinNY

[rawaction]

there is still controversy but it would usually result over teams 6-10 getting in or not getting in. 1-5 will always get in except for really rare occasions.

 

I'm not arguing against a playoff system, but I also don't agree that it's the end-all-be-all of colllege football. How many teams have had a legit gripe since the BCS that they haven't played for the title? It has, for the most, part done its job.

[Soul]

im all for deciding the game on a field in a tournament.

 

The only reason we have these arguments is because the bowl organizers won't give up power in order to give us a playoff system. That's why I try to stay out of it. I think everyone realizes it would be better. It's like banging your head against a brick wall with these guys though. They don't care if it's better.

[RynoRules]

FWIW, even an 8-team tourney would have controversy.

 

As I see it, Ohio St., LSU, USC, Mizzou, Georgia, WVU, Oklahoma, Kansas, Virginia Tech, and yes, Hawaii were all worthy to be in an 8-team tournament. Which 2 teams do you kick out, without knowing any of the results of the BCS games so far?

Hawaii and Kansas.

 

They need to quit pretending that teams from the WAC, MAC, C-USA, Mountain West, and Sunbelt are D-I, this isn't basketball.

 

In my opinion they should make D-Ia

 

Big 10

SEC

ACC

Big 12

Pac 10

 

D-1b

 

WAC

MAC

C-USA

Mountain West

Sun Belt

 

Each division has a 10 team playoff, with the top two teams from each conference getting into the playoffs. The teams in each division only play schools in their division during the regular season and total records count for playoffs, not just conference records.

 

Edit: Oh, and the money generated gets distributed evenly to all institutions in each division. These are places of higher learning after all.

 

I think you are painting with a bit of a broad brush. The Sun Belt, MAC and CUSA (in its current form) can't compete, I agree. But the WAC (Boise, Hawaii, Fresno St) and Mountain West (BYU, Air Force, TCU, Utah and occassionaly Colorado St) conferences have solid, if not upper-level, DI programs.

[rawaction]

Where's the Big East?

[Derwood]

Where's the Big East?

 

bumped down to NAIA

 

 

If you get rid of any sort of "selection committee" and just make an 8 team playoff with BCS teams 1-8, you at least get rid of SOME of the controversy

[CubinNY]

FWIW, even an 8-team tourney would have controversy.

 

As I see it, Ohio St., LSU, USC, Mizzou, Georgia, WVU, Oklahoma, Kansas, Virginia Tech, and yes, Hawaii were all worthy to be in an 8-team tournament. Which 2 teams do you kick out, without knowing any of the results of the BCS games so far?

Hawaii and Kansas.

 

They need to quit pretending that teams from the WAC, MAC, C-USA, Mountain West, and Sunbelt are D-I, this isn't basketball.

 

In my opinion they should make D-Ia

 

Big 10

SEC

ACC

Big 12

Pac 10

 

D-1b

 

WAC

MAC

C-USA

Mountain West

Sun Belt

 

Each division has a 10 team playoff, with the top two teams from each conference getting into the playoffs. The teams in each division only play schools in their division during the regular season and total records count for playoffs, not just conference records.

 

Edit: Oh, and the money generated gets distributed evenly to all institutions in each division. These are places of higher learning after all.

 

I think you are painting with a bit of a broad brush. The Sun Belt, MAC and CUSA (in its current form) can't compete, I agree. But the WAC (Boise, Hawaii, Fresno St) and Mountain West (BYU, Air Force, TCU, Utah and occassionaly Colorado St) conferences have solid, if not upper-level, DI programs.

Not one of those schools will ever come close to the BCS championship game. The best that they can hope for is what Hawaii accomplished this year.

 

They have to decide what matters. If it is money, keep the system the same but find a way to more evenly distribute the money. If finding the best team matters most, they need to winnow away the lesser conferences and go to a playoff.

 

I also forgot to mention that ND should be forced to join a conference.