hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Dec 11, 2019 17:34:03 GMT
The problem is the huge money difference between FBS and FCS football pushes a lot of teams to want to join the higher level. We now have 130 teams in FBS. If you gave automatic bids to every conference champ (and the equal share of revenue associated with such bids), you'd have even more reason for teams to move up to the FBS tier. Give automatic bids, and I don't think we stay at 10 conferences. I think we'd rapidly go to 12 or 13 conferences as more schools make the jump. You're giving ever more financial incentive for schools to try and take that next step.
This would result in a bunch of games that nobody wants to see. Say what you will about teams deserving a fair shot, but FBS was getting along just fine without Coastal Carolina (who I just learned existed as I was looking for a school that had recently moved up). Creating a system that pulls in more and more lower division teams isn't wise. There was a reason that Div 1a and 1aa split back in the 70s. But the growing pot of gold in Div 1a has led to more teams moving up.
As long as it's super easy to move to FBS, nobody is going to agree to an autobid for all conference champions. We'd just end up with more teams and more conferences each wanting their cut. It will not happen, period.
I think it's okay that we just admit that there's a separation within FBS. Some schools are playing to win, and some schools are playing to draw a paycheck. Generally the teams that are legitimately competing are in the P5 conferences. You could completely eliminate the Sun Belt, half of C-USA, half the MAC, and no one would even notice. If I were setting up a playoff, 8 teams would be sufficient. You take the conference champs of each P5 league, plus 3 at large. Take the highest rated Group of 5 school, and then the two highest rated schools that have not already been included, limited to 2 teams from a single conference.
So this year, LSU is in as SEC champ. Ohio State is in as Big 10 champ. Oklahoma, Oregon, and Clemson are in. Memphis is the highest rated G5 school (sorry Notre Dame, you chose to be independent) so they're in. The remaining 2 spots would be Georgia at #5, and Baylor at #7. I think it's hard to argue that any other teams can say they didn't get a fair shake. You'd have LSU vs Memphis, Ohio State vs Baylor, Clemson vs Oregon, and Oklahoma vs Georgia.
Last year, you'd have Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Washington as P5 conference champs. Undefeated UCF gets the nod as highest rated G5 school. Notre Dame and Georgia are the highest rated of the rest. Bama v Washington, Clemson v UCF, Notre Dame v Ohio State, OU v Georgia.
2017 you'd have Clemson v UCF, Oklahoma v USC, Georgia v Wisconsin, Alabama v Ohio State. It seems like everybody has a pretty legit shot to me.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Sept 24, 2019 22:03:57 GMT
Is this a trick question? No. I really can’t remember. I *think* Hoya Sooner was the A-hole. I need to search when I get a chance. Bit too busy right now.? Always nice to be remembered for something.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Jan 1, 2018 3:34:38 GMT
I'm an OU fan, so criticize the SEC all you like. The point of that clause in the playoff setup would be to 1) not specifically treat the P5 conferences differently than the G5, and 2) that if a P5 conference had a crappy year, where a G5 conference was obviously stronger, the G5 conference would be able to get the auto-bid. I think that's more fair. I'm not positive how you'd go about determining who the highest rated conferences were. I'm reluctant to just give it to the Sagarin ratings, or any other computer system. But let's say you have a year where the PAC 12 gets creamed in out of conference matchups, and where every team in the conference has 4+ losses going into the bowls, and the conference champ got destroyed earlier in the season by a matchup with one of the other conference champs. Do they deserve a spot in the playoff over a 1 loss G5 team? Maybe that's the year that you give the American Athletic Conference the "top 5 conference champs" auto-bid, and you let the PAC 12 compete for the "highest rated of the rest" spot. You could theoretically have two G5 schools getting in.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Jan 1, 2018 3:16:14 GMT
There's a fine line between racism and reality with that argument.
Certain positions on the field don't require that much in the way of intelligence. That's not to say the people who play those positions are dumb, but being smart isn't necessarily a job requirement. If you give a coach a choice between a cornerback who is a 4.0 student, and one who runs a 4.4 40 yard dash, he's going to pick the second guy every single time. There just aren't that many guys out there who can run fast enough (and who have the agility to stay with a receiver) to play corner at the college level. So you end up making compromises.
It's more important to have a really fast guy (at some positions) than it is to have a really smart guy. Since there aren't enough with that level of speed to go around, when one becomes available, you want to get him even if he doesn't have great grades.
I'm sure the percentage of people who have the SAT scores to get into a good school, is the same regardless of how fast they run. Fast people, slow people, athletes and non-athletes. Maybe 10% of 18 year olds are smart enough to get into a school like Michigan. But probably only like 1% of 18 year olds can run fast enough to play the skill positions in Div 1 football. So that means that only like 1 out of 1000 are both fast enough and smart enough. And there are 100+ schools out there competing for those same kids. If you have to make a compromise, you do it with the academic standards. Because a cornerback with 4.7 speed is a guy who gets beat deep a whole lot.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Jan 1, 2018 2:10:26 GMT
I haven't posted in a long time, but I'm still around. This is still the best board for smart college football discussion.
I've become convinced that a 4 team playoff isn't enough. There are always going to be deserving teams left out, and that hurts the legitimacy of the teams that get in. As much as people can argue about Alabama getting in vs Ohio State, it will always just be an argument. We'll never really know the answer, and after OSU's beatdown of USC, they look like they've got a legitimate gripe.
So, here's what I've been thinking. It should satisfy everyone short of Bluehen. I'm sure he'll still complain, but I think it covers everyone that has any sort of realistic argument. The problem with including every single conference champ is that college football's competitive power is pretty centralized. Conferences like the Sun Belt and the Mid-American usually suck, and most people don't want to see a 4 loss Toledo (or whoever) go up against #1 Clemson, particularly if they're taking up a spot that an Ohio State or an Alabama would have filled.
Of course, almost every year we have a school like Boise State or UCF this year, who do very well and are undefeated heading into the bowl games. Most of the time they get matched up against a major power with a few losses (Boise St vs OU, UCF vs Auburn), and we never really find out how good they are.
So my proposal is this:
8 team playoff. Take the conference champs from the top 5 highest rated conferences. That's not necessarily the P5 conferences (though it will be most years). Remember how the Big East used to suck, and often the Mountain West would be stronger than them? Leave open the possibility for something like that. Have a rating system to determine which conferences get the 5 auto-bids. Then have an auto-bid for the highest rated champ outside of those conferences. Then have the last two spots selected by committee, with a Kansas State rule like they had in the BCS, where if you were ranked in the top 6 or something, you automatically got it (even if you're not a popular or "sexy" team). And the committee has to follow clearly defined standards when they make a selection. Two teams per conference, max. Finally, the committee has the ability to move teams around as far as seeding goes, but only to ensure that there isn't a 1st round regular season rematch.
So this year, we'd have Clemson, OU, Georgia, Ohio State, and USC as the top 5 auto-bids. UCF would get in as the highest rated non-auto-bid team. Then you'd have Bama and Wisconsin as the at-large teams.
#1 Clemson vs #12 UCF #2 Oklahoma vs #8 USC #3 Georgia vs #6 Wisconsin #4 Bama vs #5 Ohio State
Looks pretty good to me.
In 2016, you'd have had (just going from Week 15 playoff rankings):
#1 Alabama vs #15 Western Michigan (non-P5) #2 Clemson vs #7 Oklahoma (flips with USC to prevent round 1 rematch w/ Ohio State) #3 Ohio State vs #9 USC (at large) (Michigan out per 2 team rule) #4 Washington vs #5 Penn State (at large)
In 2015, you'd have:
#1 Clemson vs #18 Houston (non-P5) #2 Alabama vs #8 Notre Dame (at-large, counts as ACC) #3 Michigan State vs #6 Stanford #4 Oklahoma vs #5 Iowa (at-large)
And in 2014 you'd have:
#1 Alabama vs #20 Boise State (non-P5) #2 Oregon vs #7 Mississippi State (at-large) #3 Florida State vs #6 TCU (at-large) #4 Ohio State vs #5 Baylor
Every year, this includes every team that has even a halfway decent argument for the title.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Jun 26, 2016 1:15:59 GMT
That really sucks man. I feel for you.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on May 25, 2016 1:53:00 GMT
As for Baylor, I'll be very surprised if Briles is still the coach when the season kicks off in a few months. I think the pressure will mount and he'll eventually resign.
I agree.... It is, after all, a Baptist school.. He'll be fine as long as he doesn't go dancing.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on May 4, 2016 23:55:56 GMT
Can I root for terrorists to bomb the debate stage?
Because that's what I'm rooting for.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Apr 13, 2016 0:32:12 GMT
Hogan's Heroes was awesome. You crazy people.
Worst sitcoms:
Homeboys in Outer Space The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer basically anything on UPN
Anybody who doesn't include Mama's Family on the list of best sitcoms can go to hell.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Apr 7, 2016 13:36:32 GMT
I never liked country music.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Eleventh?
Mar 26, 2016 10:18:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by hoya on Mar 26, 2016 10:18:40 GMT
1) I don't know who most of these people are, so they can't be that great.
2) It's crap to put multiple people in one spot. That doesn't add up to 50.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Mar 4, 2016 21:57:20 GMT
Never thought about that! Too bad for JF Kerry that he is the antithesis of the real JFK. He was certainly no Jack Kennedy. No Thomas Jefferson either.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Mar 4, 2016 2:27:06 GMT
There may be a big change coming in the Republican party. It's basically been the same party since Reagan, so we're going on nearly 40 years of the same basic coalition. Arguably longer, because the foundation was likely laid with LBJ and the South's response to the Civil Rights Act. But definitely since Reagan. So for 35+ years, the Republican party has been made up of 1) religious conservatives, 2) foreign policy hawks, and 3) the wealthy (or those who hope to become wealthy). Everybody united together under an idea: traditional values and hard work make America the symbol of freedom to the world, as long as the government gets out of the way. All three groups can get behind that narrative. And for a long time, that worked.
Now we're starting to see those groups fragment.
I think this goes back to Bill Clinton, perhaps the greatest pure politician I've ever seen. When he's elected he pushes a traditional Democratic agenda. Nationalized health care, gun control, etc. That backfires and Newt's Contract With America pushes in a Republican majority in both houses for the first time since cavemen rode dinosaurs. Then a sexy (?) intern comes along and another scandal hits. And what Bill Clinton does the best political about-face that I've ever seen.
Suddenly a Democratic president is signing laws for welfare reform, and tax cuts. Sure, it's a Republican Congress that passes them, but Clinton is quick to take credit. And since then, Democrats have abandoned some of their traditional buddies to cozy up to Wall Street. The Dems have co-opted a lot of the Republican ideas. Want to bomb another country? Democrats can do that. Assassinate foreign citizens inside an ally's territory? No problem. Extend big tax breaks? Absolutely. Free trade agreements? Etc.
Other than Obamacare (which is way less liberal than Clinton's original health care proposal), what was the last big Democratic social program? (crickets)
Now, they've remained liberal, but we're really seeing that on social issues. Gay marriage, feminism, university campus "no white people" zones, etc. But they haven't done shit for the poor, or the working class for that matter. With Clinton, they swooped in and stole some of the popular policy positions that Republicans had held up to that point.
George W Bush comes along, and for Republicans everything is okay for a while. The cracks don't appear yet. Obama brings them out. We get the Tea Party. The Tea Party is really the rebellion of the religious conservatives. The Republican party really hadn't done much to shrink the government, much as they talked about it. The big business arm of the party didn't care about it, as long as taxes stayed low. The pro-military group didn't care about it, as long as they got new planes and tanks. But the religious conservatives did, because there's a strong element of State's Rights mixed in there with their religious beliefs (mainly due to where they're from). They're angry because the issues they really care about (abortion, gay marriage, etc) have been mostly ignored by their party.
Mainstream Republicans also have the problem that they can't really promise much to big business or the pro-military crowd that the Dems can't deliver. You want low taxes? Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. You want to bomb some people? Hillary is totally willing to do that too. She might botch it up, but she's willing to try at least.
Now, the Dems seizing Republican territory does come at a price. Remember how I said they've abandoned some of their traditional policy positions? Those voters didn't go anywhere. What we're seeing with Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is the same thing. It's not just that they're Washington "outsiders" (though how a Senator counts, I don't know), they're getting support because of traditional populist rhetoric. I think we're seeing the traditional blue collar Democrat looking for a new home. While the Democratic party has shifted towards a wealthy, highly educated, diversity at any cost group, their old fashioned union guys are being left out.
Think about it. The corporate exec isn't worried about Pablo the immigrant taking his job. It's the guy at the factory who worries about that. Concerns about immigration, overseas job losses, Muslims coming over, income inequality, these are the concerns of salt of the earth blue collar types. These are the people the Democrats traditionally catered to. But Wall Street money and the gay rights lobby have been running the Democratic party for quite a while now. So many of these people are flocking to Donald Trump.
It's too early to tell if I'm right. But I think this is the way the wind is blowing. Mitt Romney is making the last stand of the old Republican party right now. Whether it works or not, he may alienate the fairly large number of people who have been supporting Trump this election. How this plays out, I don't know.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Feb 23, 2016 1:45:15 GMT
Agreed. Those are absolutely awful.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Feb 19, 2016 16:00:16 GMT
good idea...blame the poor people I'm not blaming poor people. They are simply being used by politicians who will pander to them. They are merely voting for people who promise them things.
Continually giving them everything is just a different form of slavery, and long term, eliminates their drive and self-esteem.
These people "vote for a living," literally and figuratively.
Pfft. Poor people don't vote.
|
|