Page 42 of 51 FirstFirst ... 3233343536373839404142434445464748495051 LastLast
Results 821 to 840 of 1001

Thread: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

  1. #821
    Just a boring user.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Walking to Yost
    Posts
    9,707

    Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    Not all.
    Except that is by choice. They don't want to participate. If they did, I'm sure they would have a representative.

  2. #822
    Just a boring user.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Walking to Yost
    Posts
    9,707

    Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    Quote Originally Posted by CLS View Post
    Excellent point. Also, in college hockey the conference tournament is always meaningful for at least some teams (teams that wouldnít qualify as at-large teams) even if itís not equally meaningful for all.


    Iím fine with Alabama having sweated also. But the hockey equivalent of Alabama Ė a very good team that lost a key game Ė wouldnít even have to have sweated; the would have been in the tournament anyway based on their regular season record. I disagree with your statement that the regular season ďdoesnít matterĒ. Yes, they played Mercer. But they also played and beat some very good teams. Do you think UCF would have been undefeated if they had played Alabamaís schedule? Do you think Alabama would have gotten in if they had gone 8-3 in the regular season? Or if they had gone 11-0 playing UCFís schedule? If you do, we disagree.
    IMHO, that is irrelevant. I'm not pining for UCF, but am at least thinking that USC or OSU did more to actually earn a right to be in the championship. Bama got there on "merit". Just like OSU did last year. The fact that you don't even have to take a chance on your conference championship game and you still get in sucks. And that makes NOT winning the conference perfectly fine. And I don't like that.

    For the entire season, Wisconsin got hammered for a light schedule. The ONLY team that beat them was OSU. Bama had a weaker schedule, especially when you take the context of the bowls in. Had Bama beat Auburn, and then had the crap kicked out of them by Georgia- would they still have gotten a spot? It's just one loss.

    This whole championship thing sucks.

  3. #823
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    framingham, ma
    Posts
    5,279

    Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    Quote Originally Posted by alfablue View Post
    IMHO, that is irrelevant. I'm not pining for UCF, but am at least thinking that USC or OSU did more to actually earn a right to be in the championship. Bama got there on "merit". Just like OSU did last year. The fact that you don't even have to take a chance on your conference championship game and you still get in sucks. And that makes NOT winning the conference perfectly fine. And I don't like that.

    For the entire season, Wisconsin got hammered for a light schedule. The ONLY team that beat them was OSU. Bama had a weaker schedule, especially when you take the context of the bowls in. Had Bama beat Auburn, and then had the crap kicked out of them by Georgia- would they still have gotten a spot? It's just one loss.

    This whole championship thing sucks.
    OK, so we just donít agree on how important winning the conference championship is. Thatís a point reasonable people can disagree on.

    I hate Alabama, but Iím OK with their being in the tournament. Iíd also be OK with a college hockey team that comes in second in their conference during the regular season, getting bounced in the first round of their conference championship, making the tournament based on their PWR, and winning the national tournament. Presumably, you wouldn't be.

    I am curious as to how you arrive at the conclusion that Alabama had a weaker schedule than Wisconsin. I donít know what algorithm the NCAA uses, but using this one (which has the advantage of being able to get rankings on a specific date) here are the rankings for Wisconsin and Alabama:

    Completion of regular season: Alabama 7, Wisconsin 45
    Following conference championships: Alabama 10, Wisconsin 20
    Following Orange and Sugar Bowls: Alabama 6, Wisconsin 14
    End of Season: Alabama 2, Wisconsin 14

  4. #824
    there's a good buck in that racket.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    40,031
    Quote Originally Posted by CLS View Post
    Excellent point. Also, in college hockey the conference tournament is always meaningful for at least some teams (teams that wouldnít qualify as at-large teams) even if itís not equally meaningful for all.


    Iím fine with Alabama having sweated also. But the hockey equivalent of Alabama Ė a very good team that lost a key game Ė wouldnít even have to have sweated; the would have been in the tournament anyway based on their regular season record. I disagree with your statement that the regular season ďdoesnít matterĒ. Yes, they played Mercer. But they also played and beat some very good teams. Do you think UCF would have been undefeated if they had played Alabamaís schedule? Do you think Alabama would have gotten in if they had gone 8-3 in the regular season? Or if they had gone 11-0 playing UCFís schedule? If you do, we disagree.
    If the hockey tourney was 4 theyíd a been frucked

    Make the foosball 16 teams and youíre golden

  5. #825
    there's a good buck in that racket.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    40,031
    Quote Originally Posted by CLS View Post
    OK, so we just donít agree on how important winning the conference championship is. Thatís a point reasonable people can disagree on.

    I hate Alabama, but Iím OK with their being in the tournament. Iíd also be OK with a college hockey team that comes in second in their conference during the regular season, getting bounced in the first round of their conference championship, making the tournament based on their PWR, and winning the national tournament. Presumably, you wouldn't be.

    I am curious as to how you arrive at the conclusion that Alabama had a weaker schedule than Wisconsin. I donít know what algorithm the NCAA uses, but using this one (which has the advantage of being able to get rankings on a specific date) here are the rankings for Wisconsin and Alabama:

    Completion of regular season: Alabama 7, Wisconsin 45
    Following conference championships: Alabama 10, Wisconsin 20
    Following Orange and Sugar Bowls: Alabama 6, Wisconsin 14
    End of Season: Alabama 2, Wisconsin 14
    How could Bama sos go up after playing uga? That team blew a huge lead and gave up a 41y td to lose.
    They were awful

  6. #826
    Just a boring user.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Walking to Yost
    Posts
    9,707

    Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    Quote Originally Posted by CLS View Post
    OK, so we just donít agree on how important winning the conference championship is. Thatís a point reasonable people can disagree on.

    I hate Alabama, but Iím OK with their being in the tournament. Iíd also be OK with a college hockey team that comes in second in their conference during the regular season, getting bounced in the first round of their conference championship, making the tournament based on their PWR, and winning the national tournament. Presumably, you wouldn't be.

    I am curious as to how you arrive at the conclusion that Alabama had a weaker schedule than Wisconsin. I donít know what algorithm the NCAA uses, but using this one (which has the advantage of being able to get rankings on a specific date) here are the rankings for Wisconsin and Alabama:

    Completion of regular season: Alabama 7, Wisconsin 45
    Following conference championships: Alabama 10, Wisconsin 20
    Following Orange and Sugar Bowls: Alabama 6, Wisconsin 14
    End of Season: Alabama 2, Wisconsin 14
    And if you look at other sites, they come up with a totally different SOS rating. Seems like Bamas would have gone down after the bowl games, since the SEC was well under .500. In other words, there's barely a way to come up with a number that is statistically relevant and meaningful.

    But ignore the SEC bias, the non conference schedule- Bama played FSU (which should have been strong, but they were barely .500), Colorado State, Fresno (who ended up good) and Mercer. If I were a fan, I would not be all that happy, since none of those teams, other than FSU, are terribly interesting.

    Still, IMHO, it sucks that winning a conference championship has so little importance, and that also means that losing a conference, even by one game, has barely an impact. That sucks a lot of life out of what should make football interesting. Now it's more of a national sport just to get TV ratings. yay....

  7. #827
    Yep, still here
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    28,102

    Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    Quote Originally Posted by mookie1995 View Post
    How could Bama sos go up after playing uga? That team blew a huge lead and gave up a 41y td to lose.
    They were awful
    Because beating a (then) 13-1 team seeded 1st-3rd improves your SOS.

    Duh.
    "I went over the facts in my head, and admired how much uglier the situation had just become. Over the years I've learned that ignorance is more than just bliss. It's freaking orgasmic ecstasy".- Harry Dresden, Blood Rites


    Western Michigan Bronco Hockey- 2012 Mason Cup Champions

  8. #828

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Further on down the road
    Posts
    60,343

    Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    Quote Originally Posted by bronconick View Post
    Because beating a (then) 13-1 team seeded 1st-3rd improves your SOS.

    Duh.
    I think your sarcasm detector is broken.
    Cornell University
    NCAA Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018

  9. #829

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Further on down the road
    Posts
    60,343

    Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    Quote Originally Posted by mookie1995 View Post
    If the hockey tourney was 4 theyíd a been frucked

    Make the foosball 16 teams and youíre golden
    32.
    Cornell University
    NCAA Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018

  10. #830
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    framingham, ma
    Posts
    5,279

    Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    Quote Originally Posted by alfablue View Post
    And if you look at other sites, they come up with a totally different SOS rating. Seems like Bamas would have gone down after the bowl games, since the SEC was well under .500. In other words, there's barely a way to come up with a number that is statistically relevant and meaningful.
    Agree there. Similar to hockey, there arenít enough interconference games. Also, to some extent SOS is a matter of luck. As you point out, Alabama Ė FSU looked like a blockbuster prior to the season. And as for Wisconsin, when BYU in Provo was scheduled (probably several years ago), it looked like a great game. The trend seems to be one tough non-conference game and the rest cupcakes. If what you thought was going to be a tough game turns out to be a semi-cupcake (and/or as with Wisconsin, the teams you're scheduled to play have off years), your SOS is going to suffer.

    But ignore the SEC bias, the non conference schedule- Bama played FSU (which should have been strong, but they were barely .500), Colorado State, Fresno (who ended up good) and Mercer. If I were a fan, I would not be all that happy, since none of those teams, other than FSU, are terribly interesting.
    Agree again. Unfortunately, the cupcakes arenít going away. The power schools like them because they generally donít risk a loss (I wonít bring up Appalachian State) and the cupcakes like them because of the revenue. The only thing that could curtail them is if fans stop going and/or watching them on TV.

    Still, IMHO, it sucks that winning a conference championship has so little importance, and that also means that losing a conference, even by one game, has barely an impact. That sucks a lot of life out of what should make football interesting. Now it's more of a national sport just to get TV ratings. yay....
    I think that was one of the ďbe careful what you wish forĒ outcomes of the creation of, and tinkering with, the national championship tournament. Weíve seen something similar happen in hockey, but hockeyís been able to offer a plum to the tournament winner Ė an autobid. Still, many teams know pretty much where they will end up prior to the conference tournament. And the conference tournaments arenít near what they used to be.

    Given the national football tournament isnít going away, what would you do? I like the suggestion of an eight team tournament with an autobid for the power five and three at-large teams, one of which must be a group of five. Might have changed some of the argument, but IMO, Alabama would have gotten in and still would have won.

  11. #831

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    35,238

    Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    What if hockey went to just the tournament champions? The conference tournaments would become intense, full barn, showcases knowing that one loss, or a lost series, and your season is kaput.

    Envision the ACC tournament prior when the NCAA only took 1 team per conference and you'll get the idea.

  12. #832
    Lucia Apologist
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    25,884

    Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    I hate the idea of tournament champions so much. It erases the importance of the regular season.

  13. #833

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Further on down the road
    Posts
    60,343

    Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    Quote Originally Posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    I hate the idea of tournament champions so much. It erases the importance of the regular season.
    Wait, you mean the idea of taking exclusively tourney champs, right? Because yes then you're right.

    I have no problem at all with the current system of picking teams. Seeding has one thing that's wrong: there should be no concept of "host" and seeding should be strictly according to PWR and completely ignore proximity and attendance. We're picking the best hockey team, not the deepest alumni pockets.
    Cornell University
    NCAA Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018

  14. #834
    Lucia Apologist
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    25,884

    Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    Iíd be happy taking conference champions. From the regular season. Get rid of the fluky tournaments.

    Obviously in football itís a necessary evil to have a final game. But for sports with enough games itís a dilution if the meaning of a championship.

  15. #835

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    35,238
    Quote Originally Posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    Iíd be happy taking conference champions. From the regular season. Get rid of the fluky tournaments.

    Obviously in football itís a necessary evil to have a final game. But for sports with enough games itís a dilution if the meaning of a championship.
    Money from fat cat alums. However, in hockey the tournaments have lost their lustre. Back in the day when I was an undergrad you had to make the conference finals to get an NCAA bid (unless you were BU).

    The ECAC tournament at the Garden was some intense hockey.
    Last edited by joecct; 01-10-2018 at 08:13 PM.

  16. #836
    there's a good buck in that racket.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    40,031

    Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    SF has won 5 in a row. Why arenít they in the playoffs?

    Or are they and they got a bye out of the wild card game....

  17. #837

    Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    Clemson got some good news today for the 2018 season, as Clelin Ferrell, Austin Bryant, Kendall Joseph, and Mark Fields all announced they will return for next season. This follows up on Mitch Hyatt announcing his return earlier this week. The Tigers are still waiting for Christian Wilkins to make his decision, and Deon Cain already announced he will enter the NFL Draft. There is still a long way to go in the offseason and crazy things can happen, but Clemson looks like the early favorite to win the ACC and make their 4th straight Playoff appearance.
    North Dakota
    National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

  18. #838
    NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Mountain View, CA
    Posts
    18,577

    Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    Quote Originally Posted by mookie1995 View Post
    SF has won 5 in a row. Why arenít they in the playoffs?

    Or are they and they got a bye out of the wild card game....
    This bit would be funnier if it were in the right thread.

    Cornell '04, Stanford '06


    KDR

    Rover Frenchy, Classic! Great post.
    iwh30 I wish I could be as smart as you. I really do you are the man
    gregg729 I just saw your sig, you do love having people revel in your "intelligence."
    Ritt18 you are the perfect representation of your alma mater.
    Shirtless Bob That's it, you win.
    TBA#2 I want to kill you and dance in your blood.
    DisplacedCornellian Hahaha. Thread over. Frenchy wins.

  19. #839
    there's a good buck in that racket.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    40,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post
    Clemson got some good news today for the 2018 season, as Clelin Ferrell, Austin Bryant, Kendall Joseph, and Mark Fields all announced they will return for next season. This follows up on Mitch Hyatt announcing his return earlier this week. The Tigers are still waiting for Christian Wilkins to make his decision, and Deon Cain already announced he will enter the NFL Draft. There is still a long way to go in the offseason and crazy things can happen, but Clemson looks like the early favorite to win the ACC and make their 4th straight Playoff appearance.
    Everyone on earth is trying to avoid being drafted by the clowns.....

  20. #840

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Further on down the road
    Posts
    60,343

    Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    Quote Originally Posted by mookie1995 View Post
    Everyone on earth is trying to avoid being drafted by the clowns.....
    We should test this by having CLE trade the 1 & 4. How many of these guys would have an agonizing reappraisal?
    Cornell University
    NCAA Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •