Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
    I am so glad I stopped taking anything more than a passing interest in college football years ago.
    seriously. if 'this' is how one determines a national champion, well that's all we need to know
    a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by CLS View Post
      Or you could say it's OK for college teams to play 15 games.
      if you are going to hold practices from july through january, why quibble about 15 games

      "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE STUDENTS?!!?!?!?!111111?!?"
      a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by mookie1995 View Post
        if you are going to hold practices from july through january, why quibble about 15 games

        "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE STUDENTS?!!?!?!?!111111?!?"
        That's student-athletes, Mookie

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by CLS View Post
          That's student-athletes, Mookie
          apologies.....

          a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by CLS View Post
            Would you eliminate the conference championship in hockey also? There's pretty much the same situation. Sure, there are differences, like you're more likely to have played everybody in your conference. But still you have teams being pretty much assured that they will be selected for the national championship even if they don't win their conference. But, if anything, that makes the situation worse; Alabama had to sweat a bit wondering if they would make the tournament at all. For some college hockey teams, the conference championship truly is irrelevant to the national tournament.
            College hockey conference championships are different. The 8 seeded CC Tigers have a chance to win the conference championship despite finishing last in the regular season. In college football, the conference championship is the best team from X division vs the best team from Y division. There's no chance for a low seed to win out to make the NCAA tournament.

            And to SJHovey's post, if only 4 teams were picked for the NCAA hockey tournament, more often than not you wouldn't expect the third ranked team in the NCHC to make the tournament, especially over the 2nd ranked team who just beat them a couple weeks prior. When you open it up to 10 at-large bids versus just 4 overall teams, of course you're going to have more non-regular season champions in the tournament. And those non-champions go on to win the NCAA tournament, which is what we all enjoy. Let's get some Cinderella teams in there who may come in as the 8 seed and go on to upset a couple of teams.

            I would have loved to see UCF play Alabama and I think most of the country would be supporting UCF in that game. Hopefully, this year is the push to get it to 8 teams with 5 autobids, one autobid from top of P5 and two at-large teams. Alabama would have been the toughest 7 seed you've ever seen.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
              First, it's pretty hard to claim that the playoffs this year weren't "competitive football." I thought they were very competitive games.

              Second, let's consider our own sport. How many national champions failed to win their conference's regular season crown? Quite a few I would guess. I think 5 of the last 10, for starters.

              Conference play is significant for purposes of rivalries and conference banners, etc... But once we went to a playoff system, it's all about getting the four best teams into the playoffs and let them go at it.
              Except in our sport, every conference champion gets into the tournament. Just like BB.

              This set up is very far from that.

              "Competitive football" only matters to ESPN. I don't see that as a good measuring stick. But that result has set in stone many of the problems that I see with the system. I personally hate it when Michigan plays patsies. But Bama feeds on them.

              Based on that, I don't see that as a good comparison.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by cF[Authentic] View Post
                Alabama would have been the toughest 7 seed you've ever seen.
                and hopefully would have played in the 1st round.

                mookie is sure as chit that if there were 8 teams some fool would have positioned the bamas into a 3 seed
                a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by CLS View Post
                  Would you eliminate the conference championship in hockey also? There's pretty much the same situation. Sure, there are differences, like you're more likely to have played everybody in your conference. But still you have teams being pretty much assured that they will be selected for the national championship even if they don't win their conference. But, if anything, that makes the situation worse; Alabama had to sweat a bit wondering if they would make the tournament at all. For some college hockey teams, the conference championship truly is irrelevant to the national tournament.

                  I agree with SJHovey -- there's going to be a lot of clamor for an eight team playoff. The question is how do you do that? You could eliminate the conference championships. You could eliminate a regular season game (the big loser probably being the cupcakes, who rely on being a cupcake for revenue). Or you could say it's OK for college teams to play 15 games.
                  Not the same at all. All conference champs get in- hockey, BB and even FCS football. Then they fill that in with "at large" bids. And in that stance, winning the conference matters.

                  I'm fine with Bama having to sweat worrying about getting a bid- they didn't earn a spot by an auto bid. Put some pants on and win your conference, and you don't have to worry about it. And that is exactly my point- for some selected teams/conferences in this country, your schedule and your conference don't matter- you get in regardless (or not, regardless). And that sucks. This championship sets that in stone.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by alfablue View Post
                    All conference champs get in- hockey, BB and even FCS football.
                    Not all.
                    Cornell University
                    National 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, 2019, 2020

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by cF[Authentic] View Post
                      College hockey conference championships are different. The 8 seeded CC Tigers have a chance to win the conference championship despite finishing last in the regular season. In college football, the conference championship is the best team from X division vs the best team from Y division. There's no chance for a low seed to win out to make the NCAA tournament.
                      ...
                      Originally posted by alfablue View Post
                      Not the same at all. All conference champs get in- hockey, BB and even FCS football. Then they fill that in with "at large" bids. And in that stance, winning the conference matters.
                      Excellent point. Also, in college hockey the conference tournament is always meaningful for at least some teams (teams that wouldn’t qualify as at-large teams) even if it’s not equally meaningful for all.

                      Originally posted by alfablue
                      I'm fine with Bama having to sweat worrying about getting a bid- they didn't earn a spot by an auto bid. Put some pants on and win your conference, and you don't have to worry about it. And that is exactly my point- for some selected teams/conferences in this country, your schedule and your conference don't matter- you get in regardless (or not, regardless). And that sucks. This championship sets that in stone.
                      I’m fine with Alabama having sweated also. But the hockey equivalent of Alabama – a very good team that lost a key game – wouldn’t 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 “doesn’t matter”. 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 Alabama’s 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 UCF’s schedule? If you do, we disagree.

                      Comment


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

                        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.

                        Comment


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

                          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 wouldn’t qualify as at-large teams) even if it’s not equally meaningful for all.


                          I’m fine with Alabama having sweated also. But the hockey equivalent of Alabama – a very good team that lost a key game – wouldn’t 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 “doesn’t matter”. 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 Alabama’s 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 UCF’s 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.

                          Comment


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

                            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 don’t agree on how important winning the conference championship is. That’s a point reasonable people can disagree on.

                            I hate Alabama, but I’m OK with their being in the tournament. I’d 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 don’t 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

                            Comment


                            • 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 wouldn’t qualify as at-large teams) even if it’s not equally meaningful for all.


                              I’m fine with Alabama having sweated also. But the hockey equivalent of Alabama – a very good team that lost a key game – wouldn’t 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 “doesn’t matter”. 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 Alabama’s 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 UCF’s schedule? If you do, we disagree.
                              If the hockey tourney was 4 they’d a been frucked

                              Make the foosball 16 teams and you’re golden
                              a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by CLS View Post
                                OK, so we just don’t agree on how important winning the conference championship is. That’s a point reasonable people can disagree on.

                                I hate Alabama, but I’m OK with their being in the tournament. I’d 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 don’t 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
                                a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X