Interesting take and makes more sense to what you have been trying to argue. Completely disagree and I am sure you could get less than 0.0001% of people to agree with you.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Could this football post-season have gone any better?
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
Hokie - do you know why CU has such a great cross country program, while our track program is decidedly "middle of the road"?
It's because we play the rules differently than most schools do. We give cross country scholarships to athletes who will also run track. Other schools give track scholarships and ask the kids to run cross country while they're at it. It's not against the rules. It's a choice we have decided to make. And it's paid off in multiple national championships for us in Cross Country. Nobody is saying "CU is cheating!". Using your logic, we should not be able to have a national championship in cross country because we play the system differently.
I couldn't disagree more.
It's because we play the rules differently than most schools do. We give cross country scholarships to athletes who will also run track. Other schools give track scholarships and ask the kids to run cross country while they're at it. It's not against the rules. It's a choice we have decided to make. And it's paid off in multiple national championships for us in Cross Country. Nobody is saying "CU is cheating!". Using your logic, we should not be able to have a national championship in cross country because we play the system differently.
I couldn't disagree more.
Deleted member 807
Guest
It's true. Big 12 is not like other conferences. The 10 team structure means no conference championship game and one less potential quality win.
If you are a B12 school, you better run the table to be ensured a seat at the playoffs. To get away with a one-loss your OOC schedule can't be a joke with Incarnate Word or Buffalo. TCU and Baylor ought to look into booking from the top 25 if they want to be taken seriously.
If the B12 expands, they are looking downmarket at G5 schools instead of poaching from another P5 conference. We all know the B12 is always looking for ways to engineer the OOC and conference membership to give OU and UT the best chance to advance. When they get screwed due to their own greed and manipulation, it's hard to feel sympathy.
If, hypothetically, the B12 were to have retaliated against the SEC by poaching Tennessee and LSU, and TCU beat one or both of those schools, played a CCG against Baylor, and finished 12-1, then they would have jumped tOSU.
I'd rather push the B12 to strengthen the quality of that conference before automatically jumping to the conclusion that the playoffs should expand to 8 games. The B12 gets to sleep in the bed they made. Don't accommodate them. Screw em.
For Christ's sake (pun intended), that's not fair. the points of my argument have been very consistent. I have not wavered on a single issue related to the college football playoffs since long before I started posting on AB.
For team sports, as long as academic standards, recruiting territories and athletic budgets are on such very different levels, I don't think a single "national champion" in any college team sport is all that meaningful (compared to conf. champs), but in football I believe the discrepancy is larger than in any other collegiate sport (i.e the differences between the haves and have-nots is wider in football than it is in other sports). I do think that football is at one extreme w/r/t the difference in money being spent (e.g. football programs spend orders of magnitude different sums on recruiting and coaching salaries, but for volleyball and wrestling, the difference isn't that big). I believe that academic standards are bent more so in the revenue generating sports than in the others, driving a bigger difference between how football teams are assembled and how golf teams are assembled.
I do think individual national championships at the college level have more meaning, because you're comparing individual performances and not team performances; theoretically that individual could've gone to school at any NCAA institution.
That is not to say the games that are played in those 'national championship' tournaments aren't competitive or interesting or exciting. They certainly are.
I guess I don't get the obsession with having a single, objective, deterministic process for crowning a "national champion", but then, my alma mater is conspicuously lacking in team national championships, so maybe I don't know what I'm missing (holding the door wide open for anyone who wants to use that a reason to dismiss my position).
We agree the BSA and BCS were terrible, but I don't believe the preceding system was bad before the media started trying to rig the system to get to a single champ. Maybe I'm not appreciating things, but was it really so terrible in 1991 when some geeks in Atlanta were claiming they were also MNCs? Maybe, but I have a feeling you guys pretty fucjking happy and probably partying like it was the end of time. I could be wrong -- I'm sure there were a few who were bitter over the lack of consensus: "man, this sucks. what we really need is a deterministic method for knowing that we're better than GIT."
hokie: I wish you'd just kept things simple. You seem to like the regionality and traditions of college football and dislike the nationalizing of the sport. That's a personal preference and your opinion is as valid as any other. When you get beyond that personal preference, the arguments fall apart.
Hokie, you are talking in circles. You like strawberry, everyone else doesn't.
to me, the phrase, 'talking in cirlces', means "arguing by assuming the conclusion". are we on the same page with that meaning? where have I done that? you can say a lot of negative things about me, and most will be true, but my logic isn't circular. dammit.
here's my most recent explicit statement to that effect. in fairness to you, the post was hidden so you wouldn't have seen it (because at that point I had been politely asked to knock off the anti-playoff rhetoric and I was being accommodating).
but, even in absence of me posting that statement, I would still take issue with your characterization that I've changed my argument -- everything I've argued has been consistent with that underlying premise. If you want to fault me for not re-hashing every single counter-argument for a playoff every time this topic comes up, I guess that's your prerogative (maybe I should post a blog entry and then just link that every time the subject arises). It was also in an NFL thread, so again, wouldn't expect you to have spotted it thinking of college.
if you really think I'm trolling, OK. I think I've gone out of my way to use logic and reason, as well as avoid personal remarks. Feel free to ignore me if you see it otherwise. Deja-vu: I had a similar conversation with a different Jesus about 20 years ago -- he and I still speak, but it's more contentious than it used to be.
man, if I had a dime for every time I heard that. Look, i don't care if anyone disagrees with me or not. I don't care if you love the playoffs, loved the BSA/BCS or loved the old-school system (pun intended). Disagreeing with opinions is fine. Disagreeing with my opinions is encouraged. Calling me out for faulty logic or claiming I changed my position, without backing it up, is what I take issue with. I don't know if I have an issue with "nationalizing the sport" -- I think that's broader than the statement I've been making, my issue is limited to the notion of putting validity behind the "one champion to rule them all".
Now, why the fucjk I give a shijt what Allbuffers think of my reasoning is another topic.
Fair enough. I'm out on this topic.
To start with I am absolutely against an 8 team play off, I don't want to see wild cards, I don't want to see "comeback" teams. I want to see the champion be a team that can legitimately say that for this year, this entire year, they were the best team in college football.
Sacky has posted a lot of very good stuff in this thread, I'd multi post but it would fill another couple pages.
What is important is that this system works, adding teams is not going to make it better and is probably going to make it worse.
What the four team format says is that you have to play a schedule worthy of being a champion and play that schedule like a champion. Losing 2 or 3 games isn't going to do it. Playing a pathetic schedule and not going undefeated is not going to do it.
The four team format did take away the "voter bias" that likely would have resulted in Alabama getting an automatic trip to the championship game. What it left us with though is two teams in the final game that each if they happen to win can legitimately say that not only did they win the final trophy but that they really were the years best team, not just a team that got hot or lucky at the end of a "pretty good" season.
With the four team format we retained the aspect of college football that I love. The fact that every regular season game can be the one that puts you out of contention for the final prize. Go to an eight team format and that is no longer necessarily the case.
Will TCU and Baylor and maybe even some other top 10 teams cry that they were unfairly excluded, certainly. Were they unfairly excluded? No, all they had to do was win the games in front of them and they would have been in just like Florida State was in, even with a less than spectacular season against a less than spectacular schedule.
Sacky has posted a lot of very good stuff in this thread, I'd multi post but it would fill another couple pages.
What is important is that this system works, adding teams is not going to make it better and is probably going to make it worse.
What the four team format says is that you have to play a schedule worthy of being a champion and play that schedule like a champion. Losing 2 or 3 games isn't going to do it. Playing a pathetic schedule and not going undefeated is not going to do it.
The four team format did take away the "voter bias" that likely would have resulted in Alabama getting an automatic trip to the championship game. What it left us with though is two teams in the final game that each if they happen to win can legitimately say that not only did they win the final trophy but that they really were the years best team, not just a team that got hot or lucky at the end of a "pretty good" season.
With the four team format we retained the aspect of college football that I love. The fact that every regular season game can be the one that puts you out of contention for the final prize. Go to an eight team format and that is no longer necessarily the case.
Will TCU and Baylor and maybe even some other top 10 teams cry that they were unfairly excluded, certainly. Were they unfairly excluded? No, all they had to do was win the games in front of them and they would have been in just like Florida State was in, even with a less than spectacular season against a less than spectacular schedule.
Gotta admit, I have been of the school that an 8 team playoff would take care of everything. But now I'm in the 4 school camp, nothing could beat yesterday, period. Keep the same format for at least 5 years and see how it all plays out.
Agreed. Was a huge proponent of 8 and yesterday was so awesome that its hard for me to argue for 8 now. Now, saying that, next year will probably be completely different and will be back on the 8 team wagon!
I was always an 8-team guy until New Years Day. Now I am firmly in the 4 camp. It was perfect yesterday.
