Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 28, 2020, 04:17:28 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Sports / Fantasy Sports  |  Topic: 2011 College Football 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] Go Down Print
Author Topic: 2011 College Football  (Read 130707 times)
Tannhauser
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4436


Reply #1225 on: January 11, 2012, 06:44:35 PM

Ehhh, I'll watch a few minutes of the Pro Bowl.  I like the novelty of say, Rodgers throwing to Calvin Johnson.
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #1226 on: January 11, 2012, 06:46:34 PM

I would say they're pretty meaningful to the alumni and fans of the participating schools.

Are they really though? I am a pretty avid UW fan, and I can barely remember the bowl wins and losses after a week or two. If I attended it in person or was a student or something I can see it being special, but I just don't think anyone really cares other than on game day and the week after when the coaching staff gets shitcanned for being terrible  awesome, for real

As for the Pro Bowl- don't ask me to explain it. I can't believe ANYONE watches it. When I was a kid I looked forward to all star games in all the sports like they were Christmas, and I still quit watching the Pro Bowl when I was about 10. Half speed football is an abomination.

Probably not the Dave's Corner Liquor Store Bowl, I'll grant, but stuff like the Rose Bowl? Absolutely.

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10579


Reply #1227 on: January 11, 2012, 08:33:36 PM

I would say they're pretty meaningful to the alumni and fans of the participating schools.

There's this, and they are meaningful to the final AP and BCS rankings. 
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10579


Reply #1228 on: January 13, 2012, 07:14:03 PM

This Onion piece on the BCS championship is very, very funny.
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335


Reply #1229 on: January 20, 2012, 04:16:10 AM

I love this crazy idea that the "best team" should be in the BCS championship, where "best team" is defined as "whatever the fuck we feel like."

Furthermore if the BCS is so good at determining who the "best team" is and the "best team" deserves to be in the championship game why not take the last step, get rid of the championship game and just give the award to the #1 team? After all, if the idea is that a playoff is flawed because the so-called best team can be eliminated isn't the same true of the final game? Oh man, the #1 team is clearly better than the #2 team but they lost! The system is flawed!

The BCS is a total joke, it's complete BS masquerading as pseudo-science. It has no more validity than US New and World Report's annual rating of the best colleges for academics, or a list of the top yummiest cheeses I just made up. The formula used has no logical basis and no argument can be made that the formula is any better than an infinite number of other variations. It's actually worse than straight up voting because at least plain old voting doesn't pretend to be scientific. Furthermore there are incredibly obvious flaws like taking into account margin of victory, which changes the goal of any individual football game from "win the game" to "win the game by a lot." And stuff like pre-season rankings being taken into account, which rewards teams not for being good but for people believing they are going to be good.

The idea that you can come up with a formula for who is better without using something like an elo system is ridiculous to begin with as there is no mathematical basis for anything, there's no way to know which categories to include or how to weigh them and no way to measure how well the system is working, but even beyond that the BS formula they've chosen is dumb even by BS formula standards.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 04:18:59 AM by Margalis »

vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10579


Reply #1230 on: January 20, 2012, 07:49:19 AM

I would be all for a return to straight up voting.

That was a nice rant, but it doesn't answer the fundamental question that none of the proponents of a playoff seem to be able to answer:  what is a playoff intended to accomplish?  Why is it necessary?
01101010
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11342

You call it an accident. I call it justice.


Reply #1231 on: January 20, 2012, 07:52:11 AM

I would be all for a return to straight up voting.

That was a nice rant, but it doesn't answer the fundamental question that none of the proponents of a playoff seem to be able to answer:  what is a playoff intended to accomplish?  Why is it necessary?

People like ladders for competitions.

"I want to watch it all burn in an orgy of smashed Coke machines and weasel rape." - HaemishM
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10579


Reply #1232 on: January 20, 2012, 07:57:20 AM

I would be all for a return to straight up voting.

That was a nice rant, but it doesn't answer the fundamental question that none of the proponents of a playoff seem to be able to answer:  what is a playoff intended to accomplish?  Why is it necessary?

People like ladders for competitions.

Well that's a silly reason to have a playoff.  There's a ladder for competition that is just peachy during the NCAAF regular season.
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27070

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #1233 on: January 20, 2012, 08:25:55 AM

The only people in favor of "voting" or the BCS just enjoy arguing about it. Those people suck.

Don't be that guy ghost.

The playoff decides things by head-to-head. Granted that didn't work this year because of a rematch, but that's rare. The point is that a playoff of conference champions would prove who was the best that year through head-to-head since they didn't play each other in the regular season.

CPA, Sports blogger, Mount and Blade enthusiast
Braves by the Numbers, my sports blog
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10579


Reply #1234 on: January 20, 2012, 09:29:53 AM

I legitimately enjoy the system the way it used to be, prior to the BCS.  I don't need a playoff to enjoy college football, and I feel that a heavy post season will take away from the regular season games.  I also think that it will lead to national champions that are less worthy of that designation than we have now.  I have shown numerous examples where this has happened in basketball, a sport where the regular season is almost meaningless.  I don't have a great desire to see that happen to college football.  I also like the bowl system because it gives teams with no shot at the title something meaningful to do in the post season that tends to be fun for the fans of those schools.  I don't really have a great desire to see that go by the wayside. 

I do find it interesting that you said that the "point is that a playoff of conference champions would prove who was the best".  I seriously doubt that it would, and, as I understood it from reading previous posts, the point wasn't to prove who was the best.   Oh ho ho ho. Reallllly?
01101010
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11342

You call it an accident. I call it justice.


Reply #1235 on: January 20, 2012, 09:42:27 AM

I legitimately enjoy the system the way it used to be, prior to the BCS.  I don't need a playoff to enjoy college football, and I feel that a heavy post season will take away from the regular season games.  I also think that it will lead to national champions that are less worthy of that designation than we have now.  I have shown numerous examples where this has happened in basketball, a sport where the regular season is almost meaningless.  I don't have a great desire to see that happen to college football.  I also like the bowl system because it gives teams with no shot at the title something meaningful to do in the post season that tends to be fun for the fans of those schools.  I don't really have a great desire to see that go by the wayside. 

I do find it interesting that you said that the "point is that a playoff of conference champions would prove who was the best".  I seriously doubt that it would, and, as I understood it from reading previous posts, the point wasn't to prove who was the best.   Oh ho ho ho. Reallllly?

This year was a case in point of the fact that the regular season meant fuck all in terms of the voting outcome overall. The regular season has meaning in that determines where you fall in the playoff slots - has even more meaning when you get away from an assload of teams and only have 4 teams at the end with a +1 game to determine the champion. Those 4 spots are the drive for a meaningful season. The playoffs are the drive for the national title. If a team with 2 losses and squeaks into a win in one of those four playoff bowls, then so be it. If they get hot and win out to the title, more power to them. Case is proven they are the better team during that time. But at least it was played out on the field rather than a couple of guys and a bunch of computers and some made up algorithm to determine who gets the money and the trophy. But this has all been said before and falls on deaf ears. Let's hope the shitty ratings from this past BCS will provide the impetus to make a few changes.

"I want to watch it all burn in an orgy of smashed Coke machines and weasel rape." - HaemishM
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10579


Reply #1236 on: January 20, 2012, 09:58:48 AM

Well, if they go to a +1 system there will eventually be a full fledged playoff.  You guys will eventually win that battle.  That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. 

And I disagree with your point that the regular season didn't matter.  It mattered more.  Stanford, Oklahoma State, Oregon and every other shitty team had their opportunity to get into the title game.  Alabama deserved to be there and deserved to win the title because of their regular season wins.  The polls and the BCS got it right-  Alabama was the best team.  I would have much preferred LSU to win the title, but it was clear even in that win at Tuscaloosa that Alabama lost the game, not the other way around.  But, LSU was the clear #2, so the system worked.
Chimpy
Terracotta Army
Posts: 9783


WWW
Reply #1237 on: January 20, 2012, 10:13:16 AM

Your fucking ESPN/SEC koolaid drinking bias is showing pretty starkly there, ghost.

Ok State, Stanford, and Oregon are "shitty teams" only in the eyes of people who buy into this bullshit that the SEC is categorically better than the rest of college football by such a large margin that they shit gold bricks that smell like roses. If that conference were really so fucking awesome they would not be playing Div I-AA teams in the last two weeks of the season. Doing that is entirely a ploy by the SEC to insure that their teams have a guaranteed blowout win at a time when every other team in the country is playing against conference rivals when it matters most.

You are so delusional on this topic it is almost tragic.

'Reality' is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.
01101010
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11342

You call it an accident. I call it justice.


Reply #1238 on: January 20, 2012, 10:21:14 AM

Well, if they go to a +1 system there will eventually be a full fledged playoff.  You guys will eventually win that battle.  That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. 

And I disagree with your point that the regular season didn't matter.  It mattered more.  Stanford, Oklahoma State, Oregon and every other shitty team had their opportunity to get into the title game.  Alabama deserved to be there and deserved to win the title because of their regular season wins.  The polls and the BCS got it right-  Alabama was the best team.  I would have much preferred LSU to win the title, but it was clear even in that win at Tuscaloosa that Alabama lost the game, not the other way around.  But, LSU was the clear #2, so the system worked.

But again, LSU seasons came down to one single title game. Alabama and LSU split, period. This goes to what you were saying before how a team can get hot. Great, Bama got hot in the game that mattered and LSU faltered. But this year proved, the season doesn't matter... just the bowl game. The national title game was full of field goals again and a single touchdown later in the game. This was not a 70-14 mauling. Bottom line is that Alabama's season was fairly meaningless in their strength of schedule and failing to win the SEC championship as much as LSU's strength of schedule. It doesn't matter, which is apparent in the fact bama won the national accolades across the board.

"I want to watch it all burn in an orgy of smashed Coke machines and weasel rape." - HaemishM
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335


Reply #1239 on: January 20, 2012, 10:47:18 AM

That was a nice rant, but it doesn't answer the fundamental question that none of the proponents of a playoff seem to be able to answer:  what is a playoff intended to accomplish?  Why is it necessary?

Seriously dude? I can give you like 100 answers. What a playoff is intended to accomplish:

1. Determine which team is the best, not based on a formula but based on actually beating other teams.

2. Provide a structure with a logical underpinning rather than something completely arbitrary

3. Give every team equal footing at the start of the season and reward them based solely on whether they win games

4. Let every team control it's own destiny - if you play well enough you WILL be the champion

5. Provide clear rules that make it completely transparent what a team has to do to become champion and a complete explanation for why they placed where they did

Edit: You can't say that the BCS got it right and Alabama was clearly the better team and the final game is the proof of that and in the same breath dismiss a playoff because teams can get lucky and the better team can lose. Those are completely contradictory.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 11:03:32 AM by Margalis »

vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10579


Reply #1240 on: January 20, 2012, 11:03:32 AM

1. Determine which team is the best, not based on a formula but based on actually beating other teams.


But it doesn't actually do this as often as you might think.  You only have to look at the basketball playoffs to see that this is true.  

The only one of your points that a playoff does do is #4, which is really kind of moot because small players don't win the NCAA basketball tournament anyway.  Even #5 if suspect because of the weird seeding and pod systems.  

A small number playoff for football is going to exclude good teams and be just as biased as the current system.  

Edit:  Chimpy-  I'm sure you're right that the current SEC BCS streak is completely because of ESPN's bias.   swamp poop  Oklahoma State clearly didn't deserve to be in the BCS game this year, and played the absolute worst of the BCS teams to a virtual draw.  Color me unimpressed. 
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 11:11:28 AM by ghost »
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27070

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #1241 on: January 20, 2012, 01:38:59 PM

Ok State, Stanford, and Oregon are "shitty teams" only in the eyes of people who buy into this bullshit that the SEC is categorically better than the rest of college football by such a large margin that they shit gold bricks that smell like roses. If that conference were really so fucking awesome they would not be playing Div I-AA teams in the last two weeks of the season. Doing that is entirely a ploy by the SEC to insure that their teams have a guaranteed blowout win at a time when every other team in the country is playing against conference rivals when it matters most.

Oregon is starting off against Arkansas State, Fresno State, and Tennessee Tech. You can argue just as much that they are front end loading their crap so they can gain momentum into the regular season and not risk their status. Stanford? They start off with San Jose and Duke. Wheeeeee.

You know who Alabama plays first? Michigan. Also, if you look, LSU isn't playing any crap opponents late this year, and they play Washington second in the year. Those are your two big boys in the SEC.

Go down the street and buy a clue. The top of the SEC is categorically better than every other conference right now. Nobody denies this except for crazy people. I asked a while back how many titles they have to win before people get over this stupid argument. The answer is apparently not SIX IN A ROW. Guess we have to have seven.

CPA, Sports blogger, Mount and Blade enthusiast
Braves by the Numbers, my sports blog
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #1242 on: January 20, 2012, 01:55:18 PM

Fresno State has a good program. They have twice as many players in the NFL as Washington does, more than Michigan State, more than Texas A&M, etc.

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27070

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #1243 on: January 20, 2012, 02:10:59 PM

Fresno State has a good program. They have twice as many players in the NFL as Washington does, more than Michigan State, more than Texas A&M, etc.

They went 4-9 last year. They went 8-5 the year before that and got their doors blown off by NIU in the Humanitarian Bowl. They were 106th out of 120 in giving up point last year.

They suck now. That's all that matters to Oregon who will beat them by 40.

CPA, Sports blogger, Mount and Blade enthusiast
Braves by the Numbers, my sports blog
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #1244 on: January 20, 2012, 02:15:06 PM

Well you have to make these sorts of scheduling sacrifices when top programs won't take the risk of scheduling a home-and-away that involves one game played at Autzen.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 02:48:41 PM by Ingmar »

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10579


Reply #1245 on: January 20, 2012, 02:46:51 PM

The SEC is just better, plain and simple.  The Pac 12 has been making strides, but aside from USC they just haven't had much consistency.
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27070

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #1246 on: January 20, 2012, 03:21:21 PM

The Big 12 made large strides this year in a market that oddly enough almost saw them completely disband. Top to bottom, I would say that conference has the most depth.

The SEC has a fantastic top end, with a shitty middle and a passable bottom (except Ole Miss).

The PAC 12 has a great top end with Oregon and USC, a decent middle, and a horrific bottom end. A third of the conference couldn't win 5 games. That's bad.

The ACC is by far the worst conference, with two pretender programs in VA Tech and Clemson, a reemerging program in FSU, and the rest of the conference is forgotten shit that is better off playing basketball.

The ACC went 7-29 against ranked teams this year. The PAC 12 went 5-32 against the AP. The SEC went 14-41. The Big 12 went 12-29. Obviously, that shows how top to bottom the Big 12 was much improved this year, but they couldn't achieve at the high end.

CPA, Sports blogger, Mount and Blade enthusiast
Braves by the Numbers, my sports blog
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #1247 on: January 20, 2012, 03:28:08 PM

Keep in mind the Pac-12 now plays 9 conference games a year I believe (we certainly are next season anyway). I'd guess that most of those games "against the AP" were conference games against Oregon and Stanford.

Going forward we're also all supposed to have a guaranteed non-conference game against a Big 10 team every season, too, so I don't think there will be much room to criticize our scheduling. At best we'll be playing 2 patsies a year. (Presumably the same applies to the Big 10.)

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
sigil
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1538


Reply #1248 on: January 20, 2012, 06:36:17 PM

Is that counting the Big 10 as your two patsies?  awesome, for real
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10579


Reply #1249 on: January 21, 2012, 09:49:03 AM

The only reason the SEC seems to have a "passable" middle and a shitty bottom third is that the good teams are really, really, really good.  Put Kentucky, Vanderbilt and Ole Miss in the ACC and they are top 1/3 teams. 
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27070

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #1250 on: January 21, 2012, 10:39:51 AM

Ole Miss is dreadful.

CPA, Sports blogger, Mount and Blade enthusiast
Braves by the Numbers, my sports blog
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10579


Reply #1251 on: February 15, 2012, 01:35:16 PM

Well this is nice.  Four TCU players busted for dealing drugs.   Ohhhhh, I see.

Players with talent that don't end up at top schools always make me wonder if there isn't something fishy going on.  

Addendum:  Now there is a rumor floating around that 82 of their players failed a mass drug test..... ACK!
« Last Edit: February 15, 2012, 09:32:04 PM by ghost »
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Sports / Fantasy Sports  |  Topic: 2011 College Football  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC