evilwaldo Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 You are not getting to a Bowl game or the BCA playoffs by losing. LIke I said, call me when Arkansas beats a good team because I have no indication that they can beat a good team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVA Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 LIke I said, call me when Arkansas beats a good team because I have no indication that they can beat a good team. See, right here, you're basically admitting you know nothing about college football. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I just think it will be silly to include a team that couldn't win their division into the 4 team playoff. ND makes things trickier by not being in a conference. And if 2 SEC teams get in we'll get more bitching about how college football is broken and in a few years we'll have an 8 team playoff (which I wouldn't be surprised is what the NCAA wants anyway $$$) or they'll roll out some revamped BCS model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolfan in NYC Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 Jameis Winston has declared he will enter the NFL Draft after this season. F her right in the P indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuetsar Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Jameis Winston has declared he will enter the NFL Draft after this season. F her right in the P indeed! I'm glad I was sitting down when I read that. . . . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APO Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I just think it will be silly to include a team that couldn't win their division into the 4 team playoff. ND makes things trickier by not being in a conference. And if 2 SEC teams get in we'll get more bitching about how college football is broken and in a few years we'll have an 8 team playoff (which I wouldn't be surprised is what the NCAA wants anyway $$$) or they'll roll out some revamped BCS model. If you're going to constantly say stuff like "We'll only put the best four teams in the playoff," then it shouldn't matter if one of the teams didn't win the division/conference if they're in the same division as one of the other playoff participants. Adding qualifiers just makes the whole thing silly as hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilwaldo Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 LIke I said, call me when Arkansas beats a good team because I have no indication that they can beat a good team.See, right here, you're basically admitting you know nothing about college football. So I should say that they are a quality team when they have beaten no quality teams? Just because they are in SEC West does not make them a good team. They have no wins in their division and their wins are over teams paid to roll over. This 7-5 team will have how many wins over cupcake programs leaving them with what record? 0-5? 2-5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I still want a 16 team field where all conference champs are in, with the remaining spots going to wild cards. Of course, I also think they should be using the bcs formula to pick the four playoff teams. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabe Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I'd be on board with that if the BCS formula specifically excluded any ranking systems that released a ranking prior to week 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Honestly, if I was fully in control, they'd go back to the BCS version from before USC got left out of the title game, with the quality win bonus and SOS components included. (Of course, I've never felt USC was truly "screwed" that year, at least insomuch as thinking they were massively more deserving of going to the title game than LSU and Oklahoma. I think all three teams had pretty similar resumes if you look past when the Sooners lost, and a system that only allowed two teams was going to have to "screw" one of them. And I found it hilarious that they dropped all the features they'd added to the BCS after Miami got "screwed" a few years earlier. They were fixing their own fixes.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdA Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Yeah, I am on board with that since more often than not the BSC rankings were pretty OK. And yeah, SOS/Quality Wins REALLY needs to be factored more heavily, if they were to do this. When even Ohio State's moronic fan base is grumbling about the cupcake schedule, you know something is bad. Personally, if things are getting revamped, not only do you allow the BSC rankings to determine the playoffs (which will naturally have to be upped to 8 teams, with the conference champs getting automatic shots), but you NFL the non-conference games and force whoever was in the top 25 the year before to play each other the next. None of this will ever happen though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I have heard that SOS is not something that the committee is looking at (or allowed to). There are like 15-20 stat categories that they look at, and the committee members are not allowed to bring up non-agreed upon statistics. I'll leave it up to the cynics to conjecture why that is. edit: Another thing that is strange about the selection process is that a couple of the stats are "wins against teams with above .500 records" and "wins against teams with below .500 records". They also don't look at margin of victory. So a win vs a 7-5 team is counted equal to a win vs. a 10-2 team. It doesn't matter if you win by 3 or 30 points in these games. This diminishes the impact of a true quality win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVA Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 LIke I said, call me when Arkansas beats a good team because I have no indication that they can beat a good team.See, right here, you're basically admitting you know nothing about college football.So I should say that they are a quality team when they have beaten no quality teams?Just because they are in SEC West does not make them a good team. They have no wins in their division and their wins are over teams paid to roll over. This 7-5 team will have how many wins over cupcake programs leaving them with what record? 0-5? 2-5? No, I'm clearly just saying that things like strength of schedule and margin of victory and the way the games actually played out on the field should matter when evaluating the quality of a team. You know, sensible things. If Arkansas was getting blown out 52-0 like they have been the past few years, I wouldn't be making a case for them "just because they are in the SEC West." But they've been right there with nearly all of the high quality competition they've faced, which should lead anyone with eyeballs to suspect that they're a better team than their record indicates. College football is not the NFL. It is not a "you are what your record says you are" league. It's a league of disparity. Therefore, you can't simply judge teams based on a binary system of wins and losses. For instance, Nebraska is 6-1. You probably think they're a pretty good team and substantially better than Arkansas. But look deeper into their record (I'm probably going to offend Assassin now, if he's still hanging around): Nebraska has played all of 2 teams with winning records this year, of which they only beat one - a 4-3 Miami team. Conversely, Arkansas has played 5 teams with winning records, of which they only beat one - 5-2 Northern Illinois. (Not trying to prop up NIU or anything, but it should be noted that since 2010, the Huskies are 51-12 with a trip to a BCS game under their belts, so they're not exactly Jabronie U.) Nebraska has played 4 games against Power 5 opponents, Arkansas has played 5. Nebraska has played 1 ranked team, Arkansas has played 4. So with all this information at our disposal, can we really say that Nebraska is a demonstrably better team than Arkansas? Or would it perhaps be more accurate to say that they're probably pretty close to being at the same level, but one has played a substantially easier schedule than the other? The bottom line is, schedules are not created anywhere close to equal in college football, and your record doesn't always tell the tale of how good a team is. Hell, I could take it a step farther and say that Michigan State has only played 2 teams with winning records this year - Oregon and Nebraska. So Michigan State has one win against a team with a winning record...and it was over a team that only has one win over a team with a winning record. So what do we even really know about Sparty at this point? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 It should also be said that numbers aren't everything. They are important, and I think there should be some computer component in the selection process, but teams need to pass the eye test also. If you watch Arkansas play, they aren't a bad team. Are they a great team? certainly not. I think we all know that the SEC is a very difficult conference and a team can be making incremental improvements (Arkansas, Tennessee) and not get a win. It's sort of like the NFL in that it is very difficult to get a win and easy to lose a game. So, I think wins and losses are very important; sometimes we have to look beyond that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuetsar Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I guess this should go here. . . http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/unc-academic-and-athletic-officials-steered-student-athletes-to-bogus-classes-181214478.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 So, wait a second... Less than half the students who took these bogus courses were student-athletes? I'm kinda perplexed by this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolfan in NYC Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 Good lord. These are like Accreditation level issues. Heads are going to be rolling in Chapel Hill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilwaldo Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 It must have been bad if they got caught. This happens at every school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabe Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 It must have been bad if they got caught. This happens at every school. They threatened to press fraud charges against one of the faculty involved. That person rolled instead. This is a big, ugly mess that's been going on for a long, long time at UNC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilwaldo Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 This happens at every campus that has football and basketball as major sports. Don't kid yourself that it is confined to one campus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVA Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 So, wait a second... Less than half the students who took these bogus courses were student-athletes? I'm kinda perplexed by this. This is an old trick schools use to mitigate the damage if they get caught. It's considered a lesser offense -and sometimes not even an offense at all - if the extra benefit is available to all students, not just student athletes. That's how Auburn was able to skate on the sociology scandal back in the day. "Yeah, it's a bullshit course, but it was open to everyone! It's not just there to benefit athletes." *crosses fingers behind back* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 The things you don't learn when you attend a Division III private school... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Or you attended a Division I school that took its academics/athletics balance more seriously than most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLowe Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 The things you don't learn when you attend a Division III private school... I did too, and I know of several things that were ignored/overlooked about some of the players (albeit not academically). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raziel Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Or you attended a Division I school that took its academics/athletics balance more seriously than most. So a non-Power 5 school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now