BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Chris Stasse » Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:02:07


Quote:


> > [...] if the bubble
> > team (#9 Miami) wants to whine, "we could have done that, too!"...
> > [...] all they had to do to get into the playoff [...] would
> > have been to NOT LOSE to that very same Tennessee team at home.
> Every bit of this rationale is also an argument that could easily be
> applied to the current setup.

Southern Cal, Oklahoma, and Lousiana State all lost to Tennessee?

Seriously, as my original post said:  there's a big difference
between #8/#9 being "on the bubble" and #2/#3.  Especially in a year
like 2003, where there are three roughly equally deserving teams, and
the #9 team (Miami) is clearly *not* nearly as deserving.

While we're on this topic, I would like to hear an argument agaisnt
playoffs which is: (1) sensible (i.e., not merely "it's traditional
that way"); and (2) not a greater argument against existing playoffs
in other divisions of football than it is against I-A football
playoffs (e.g., "a few extra games for a few schools takes too much
time away from coursework").

--
Chris Stassen                  http://www.stassen.com/chris

 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Trent Woodru » Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:56:46

Quote:
>Chris Stassen was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
>While we're on this topic, I would like to hear an argument agaisnt
>playoffs which is: (1) sensible (i.e., not merely "it's traditional
>that way"); and (2) not a greater argument against existing playoffs
>in other divisions of football than it is against I-A football
>playoffs (e.g., "a few extra games for a few schools takes too much
>time away from coursework").

I've said several times that I think avoiding playoffs in D1-A
collegiate football is critical because it is what sets apart the
sport from all others.  I really believe that the specialness of the
sport hinges on this.

Not a real factual-based argument, I'll grant.  But I feel it pretty
strongly.

Trent
Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger

...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.

 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Daniel Serif » Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:50:59

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 20:38:54 -0600, Trent Woodruff wrote

Quote:
>> Daniel Seriff was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
>>> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:00:39 -0600, Trent Woodruff wrote
>>>> Chris Stassen was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...

>>>> Sure, as anti-playoff advocates claim, there will be "bubble" teams
>>>> no matter how many play for the title.  But the argument "we're #9
>>>> but we deserve to be #8" is far weaker, and less meaningful in terms
>>>> of having a shot at the title, than an argument over #2/#3, which
>>>> seems to happen more often than not in the BCS.

>>> Unless that #8 team wins it all. Then it's pretty meaningful.

>> Who might potentially win a tournament is not relevant to who initially
>> gets into the tournament.

> This makes absolutely no sense to me. If this is the case, then why
> have a regular season? Why not just start week one as the first round
> of a season-long tournament and go from there?

Reductio ad absurdam. Come on, Trent, you're smarter than that.

Tournament bids and seedings aren't given in anticipation of future
performance in the tournament, they're given as a reward for performance
during the regular season.

In college athletics, there are always going to be bubble teams passed over.
Where I think you're wrong is in your insinuation that a bubble team that got
in is somehow representing all the bubble teams that didn't get in, and that
on the off-chance that the former wins it all, it indicates that any of the
latter would have done so, as well.

--
Daniel Seriff

Would you eat a rectal thermometer? ANSWER ME, DAMN YOU!!!

 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by lei » Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:10:53

Quote:

> >Chris Stassen was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...

> >While we're on this topic, I would like to hear an argument agaisnt
> >playoffs which is: (1) sensible (i.e., not merely "it's traditional
> >that way"); and (2) not a greater argument against existing playoffs
> >in other divisions of football than it is against I-A football
> >playoffs (e.g., "a few extra games for a few schools takes too much
> >time away from coursework").

> I've said several times that I think avoiding playoffs in D1-A
> collegiate football is critical because it is what sets apart the
> sport from all others.  I really believe that the specialness of the
> sport hinges on this.

> Not a real factual-based argument, I'll grant.  But I feel it pretty
> strongly.

Another words, lets keep college football's championship policy on par
with boxing, figure skating, and synchronize swimming.

--
John Leinaweaver

 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Michael Falkn » Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:05:57

Quote:

> > In every other year, there has been a clear-cut #1, and everyone
> > argues about who's #2.

> > This year, there's a chance that the team who is #1 in the polls won't
> > be in the BCS title game.

> I seriously doubt that will happen.

> Very seriously.

It happened.

The difference is that most people knew who the #1 was -- and the only
question was who was the sacrificial lamb to play them.

Now, there's three teams with equal claim!!

BOOM!!

There goes the BCS.

Mike  (PLAYOFF!!!)