detlef Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Same could be said with the NFL and MLB and NBA as well. Say for example the NFL might have the 2 best teams in the NFC yet the AFC still gets a team in the Super Bowl. Just because a multi round play-off system doesn't assure you that you'll get the two best teams in the finals, doesn't mean that you're odds of allowing the 2 best teams the chance to prove on the field that they're the best. Maybe those two best teams play in the semi but the more teams you include, the better your chances of making sure that everyone who has a rightful claim to the title gets a shot at it. That is, the more teams to a point... I'm not quite sure why everyone seems to have a problem with the simple proposition that there no way to know for sure who is the best team in any league in any sport, barring a few cases where a team is simply so dominant that it's not contestable. And anyways, the idea of a single elimination playoff as the best way to determine the top teams is almost as much of a joke as the current system - just ask George Mason... ...which brings up the NCAA hoops championship. In terms of drama and great TV, it is quite possibly unparalleled. However, it fails to typically prove who's the best team in the country for the opposite reason than football. Because there's too many teams involved. Not that any of the bottom 32 have a legit shot at winning it all. Rather that so many teams require the ultimate winner to win 6 straight games and further, the inclusion of these super underdogs can take out a powerful team that happened to have a bad night which then paves the way for a lesser upper level contender to get further than they might have because now they're playing the #12 seed rather than the #1. Thus, the compromise between a 1 round play-off and a it's failure to include enough relevant teams and 64 team one and it's inclusion of teams that simply have no business in the conversation. Not even talking about champs of minor conferences. I'm talking about the 6th or 7th place team from a major one. At any rate, 8 seems just right. Inclusive enough that nobody is going to take #9's gripes nearly as serious as #3s now. Small enough that the eventual champ doesn't need to wade through a long play-off filled with pitfalls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Miscreant Posted September 29, 2008 Author Share Posted September 29, 2008 College football is broken. "Upsets" aren't exciting when they happen by the dozen, every week, all year long. Last year I was supposed to believe that South Florida was the David knocking off Goliath . . . then the Goliath that got knocked off by a new David . . . then David again a few weeks later. It's ridiculous and pointless. "The Most Meaningful Regular Season" is a joke when every team in the top 80 schedules the softest patsies they can get away with for the first four games . . . and in order to squeeze all those patsies in, the major conferences don't even all play each other anymore. You have no way of knowing who's a national power and who's an also-ran until December, and even then you don't REALLY know until the bowl games are played. Then we can look back in retrospect and wax eloquent about the whole mess . . . blah. Peace policy Sounding a whole lot like a fan of a "big time" program. Broken? Come on?!?! As a fan of the game I don't see "upsets" happening in large quantities over several weekends as diminishing said "upsets". I see the upcoming weekend as greater potential for watchable games. In the "old days" you might have been treated to a handful of games worth watching over the course of a season, let alone a single weekend. Used to be you had to wait for OU/Tex, OU/Neb, Ohio St/Mich, FL/Fla St, USC/ND, or a few other "major" match-ups. The last two seasons has me watching football almost all day Saturday, not to mention Thursday/Friday and occasional Wednesday nights. The shift, albeit ever so slight, in the balance of power has played a hugh part in why there are so many televised games now. There are more games worth watching. Ten years ago, maybe even five, ESPN would've lost their asses trying to show so many games because there weren't enough to bother watching. And hey, who knows, the more muddled it gets as the middle gains ground, the more attractive a playoff may look to the powers that be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 I'm not quite sure why everyone seems to have a problem with the simple proposition that there no way to know for sure who is the best team in any league in any sport, barring a few cases where a team is simply so dominant that it's not contestable. And anyways, the idea of a single elimination playoff as the best way to determine the top teams is almost as much of a joke as the current system - just ask George Mason... Just ask the Patriots what being a dominant team means... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Just because a multi round play-off system doesn't assure you that you'll get the two best teams in the finals, doesn't mean that you're odds of allowing the 2 best teams the chance to prove on the field that they're the best. Maybe those two best teams play in the semi but the more teams you include, the better your chances of making sure that everyone who has a rightful claim to the title gets a shot at it. That is, the more teams to a point... ...which brings up the NCAA hoops championship. In terms of drama and great TV, it is quite possibly unparalleled. However, it fails to typically prove who's the best team in the country for the opposite reason than football. Because there's too many teams involved. Not that any of the bottom 32 have a legit shot at winning it all. Rather that so many teams require the ultimate winner to win 6 straight games and further, the inclusion of these super underdogs can take out a powerful team that happened to have a bad night which then paves the way for a lesser upper level contender to get further than they might have because now they're playing the #12 seed rather than the #1. Thus, the compromise between a 1 round play-off and a it's failure to include enough relevant teams and 64 team one and it's inclusion of teams that simply have no business in the conversation. Not even talking about champs of minor conferences. I'm talking about the 6th or 7th place team from a major one. At any rate, 8 seems just right. Inclusive enough that nobody is going to take #9's gripes nearly as serious as #3s now. Small enough that the eventual champ doesn't need to wade through a long play-off filled with pitfalls. Actually, I don't think that 8 is enough teams and here's why. How are you going to choose those 8 teams, by the polls? It is quite possible that an undefeated Sun Belt or Mountain West finish outside the top eight in the weekly beauty pageant and still have a legitimate claim to be included in the playoff. Are you going to take only conference champions? I do believe that there are more than 8 conferences and you'd still have to find a way to account for Sucktre Dame. In order for a NC playoff to be legit, It would have to include at least 12 if not 16 teams. An while you may think that you'd be including teams that don't have a legitimate shot at winning it all, you's also be making sure that no legitimate contender was left out. Anything else is only a partial fix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbs0121 Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Just ask the Patriots what being a dominant team means... Personally, I have little doubt that the Pats were the best team in the NFL last year by a wide margin. Their offense was dominant, the defense and special teams did enough to hold opponents, and nobody really gave them any trouble until very late in the year. That's kind of my point - playoffs don't guarantee the best team in the league winning the title. That being said, having the teams and not the computers and voters decide that is much easier to swallow for most people. Let's just recognize the role that randomness and chance play in these things - when you're only playing a 12 to 20 games a year, all it takes is a little bad luck to significantly underperform in terms of your record compared your ability. With baseball, the 162 games do a lot to even this out, though there are still examples of mediocre teams winning the title (St. Louis, anyone?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Personally, I have little doubt that the Pats were the best team in the NFL last year by a wide margin. Their offense was dominant, the defense and special teams did enough to hold opponents, and nobody really gave them any trouble until very late in the year. That's kind of my point - playoffs don't guarantee the best team in the league winning the title. That being said, having the teams and not the computers and voters decide that is much easier to swallow for most people. Let's just recognize the role that randomness and chance play in these things - when you're only playing a 12 to 20 games a year, all it takes is a little bad luck to significantly underperform in terms of your record compared your ability. With baseball, the 162 games do a lot to even this out, though there are still examples of mediocre teams winning the title (St. Louis, anyone?). dayum- u guys kill me with this chit - it is called SPORTS - upsets happen- especically in football. My Seahawks lost to Pitt in the SB - do I believe they were the better football team?? absolutely- does it matter- HELL NO they didn't win the game ,the NYG beat the Pats - they won the title - next. Playoffs DO guarantee the best teams wins- they prove it on the field. period. end of story. what exactly is yer point here? we should take "chance" and upstets out of the equation and play these games on a computer model?? it is football- you can't compare it to MLB and NBA and 7 game series- apples and oranges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 dayum- u guys kill me with this chit - it is called SPORTS - upsets happen- especically in football. My Seahawks lost to Pitt in the SB - do I believe they were the better football team?? absolutely- does it matter- HELL NO they didn't win the game ,the NYG beat the Pats - they won the title - next. Playoffs DO guarantee the best teams wins- they prove it on the field. period. end of story. what exactly is yer point here? we should take "chance" and upstets out of the equation and play these games on a computer model?? it is football- you can't compare it to MLB and NBA and 7 game series- apples and oranges I agree with you 100%, but, the Steelers were solid favorites in that Super Bowl, and no, I don't want to argue about how they won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonkis Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I love college football when I can turn on the TV last night and see a Hail Mary pass as the time expires to push Middle Tennessee State over Florida Atlantic and then get another game tonight on the blue carpet. Awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 (edited) No I am NOT a Tech fan despite the name Louisiana that's in front of it. In fact I would consider myself more of a Boise fan ever since that BCS win over Oklahoma (perhaps the most enjoyable college game of all time that didn't include LSU or me having a wager on the game). Sorry for digressing. The point I'm trying to make is that Tech got absolutely HOSED last night by either the officials and/or instant replay in the 3rd quarter of that game. In all 3 cases the ruling on the field stood because there was not 100% indisputable evidence to overturn the calls. I know that is how the instant replay rule is suppose to work, but from my unbias seat it just seemed like the officials were favoring the home team. Was it just me?. Did anyone else watch the 3rd Quarter? 1. Tech's incomplete pass that was reviewed looked like a catch 2. The Boise RB that was rolled tackled but advanced the ball another 20 yards because he never actually touched the ground because there was a Tech player between him and the ground. 3. Boise WR leaving the field of play and coming back in to make a catch. Officials said he was forced OB. Oh and that blue field... Edited October 2, 2008 by Rockerbraves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 2. The Boise RB that was rolled tackled but advanced the ball another 20 yards because he never actually touched the ground because there was a Tech player between him and the ground. I did not see the game in question so am simply assuming the play was as described by you. However, it is my understanding that if you don't touch the ground, it is not a tackle. Period. If you're on top of another player, you can get up and keep running. Also, wasn't that something like a 40 pt game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 (edited) I did not see the game in question so am simply assuming the play was as described by you. However, it is my understanding that if you don't touch the ground, it is not a tackle. Period. If you're on top of another player, you can get up and keep running. Also, wasn't that something like a 40 pt game? Yep, you're correct ..... 35-3 Not sure why were discussing Tech getting "hosed" by the referee's on a blue field during a 32 point blowout? Certainly there has to be more interesting topics to discuss Edited October 3, 2008 by theprofessor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I did not see the game in question so am simply assuming the play was as described by you. However, it is my understanding that if you don't touch the ground, it is not a tackle. Period. If you're on top of another player, you can get up and keep running. Also, wasn't that something like a 40 pt game? There's also a rule that says a player is down when his forward motion is stopped even though he is not touching the ground. The problem with that play wasn't the instant replay official but the referee not calling the play dead at that point. Like the announcers said, you would think as much as the NCAA is trying to prevent injuries they would prefer that these new breed strong safeties not take a shot when a player is perceived down. Yeah the final score was like 38-3, but when these plays happened the score was like 21-3. Not saying Tech could have won, but the game could have been alot more competitive. And as we both know, style points do count especially for a non bcs school like Boise State. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Yep, you're correct ..... 35-3 Not sure why were discussing Tech getting "hosed" by the referee's on a blue field during a 32 point blowout? Certainly there has to be more interesting topics to discuss Didn't mean to start a new topic about Boise vs Tech. Just gave my thoughts on how disappointed I was with the officiating under the topic I love college football. To be real honest, the instant replay actually worked like it was designed to do. The plays stood as called on field because there was no indisputable video evidence to overturn the calls. Even though I thought all three calls could/should have been overturned as an unbiased college fan. Guess my real beef is that I've gotten use to the fact that official calls are routinely reversed on much less evidence in the past. aka http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESgoMBi6d3g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Miscreant Posted October 3, 2008 Author Share Posted October 3, 2008 Like the title says, I love college football but I hate being a knowedgeable football person and a passionate fan. Knowledge and passion just don't make for a good combination in this arena. USF friggin killed me last night. I felt like I was trapped at the game, wishing I was home so I could change the channel or walk out of the room. Apparently Pitt was well prepared because Grothe was quoted as saying that (and I'm paraphrasing) "they(Pitt) looked like a completely different team than we saw on film". That's fine but how about gametime adjustments? Are you kidding me? The offense produced just 245 total yards. They had 11(I think it was closer to 15) penalties for 84 yards. And #6 Tyler Roberts may very well be the worst starting CB in America. He was burned for a long TD during which he had position and allowed the WR to run by him to make the catch. He committed at least two pass interference penalties and and should have been flagged for another during which the ball hit him in the back of the head. The other two? He never turned to look for the ball. You could just see Pitt drooling over this. Almost every time they had third and long they just threw deep in his direction. He was also beaten on the two-point conversion that was overturned by a penalty. This is not his first bad game. My point in raking this poor young man over the coals? Coaching. He should not still be starting, maybe not even playing. No decent on the fly adjustments. No real halftime adjustments. Like I've said before, these guys have the horses to run with just about anybody but the coaching is suspect at best. This team is not overrated. Their coaching staff is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.