Recent Comments
I noticed that as well. And the fact that he hints to the sentiment that its London's fault, rather than a complete obliteration of the entire program. weak writing, all around, but entertaining nonetheless.
.... cost to read that article: $0
... Seeing Hoos hatin' on Hoos: Priceless!
GO HOKIES!
Shuman said in an interview that Fisher, Jefferson, and Reid will all be enrolling at VT in January. It is somewhere here in the forums.
I expect both Jefferson and Fisher to be in the two deep next season.
Browning Wynn...no better first name!
It's what the Cavman rode in on.
"Nectar of the Hoos"... Classic!
Anyway, I'm out. It was a good argument, but it's irrelevant for the foreseeable future.
Facts are Alabama did not win the SEC. They did not win the SEC West Division. They didn't even win Best Team in Alabama. They won bupkus. I don't have a problem with giving them an at-large berth in the playoffs as long as all the teams who won a conference title are also there. Conference champs earn that opportunity. Alabama has earned nothing and their appearance in the playoff is only because 13 people in a closed room decided they should get a second chance.
If you want the best teams to play for the national championship then the BCS was a better system. It didn't get the top 2 teams wrong as often as people like to say it did. A playoff can be a crapshoot (does anyone actually think the Ravens win the SB again if they play last years NFL playoffs 10 more times?) but it's more fun.
That's absolutely true. A playoff is more fun, but the BCS is actually a better system for deciding the best team.
But it gives the Sun Belt a recruiting point. As of right now they can't recruit based on having a chance to win it all. They can just recruit playing time. By giving them a spot you'd be giving them a chance to say "We can make the NCAA tournament". That'll draw some more recruits and create more parity. And who doesn't love parity in sports?
Let me put it this way. Without the NCAA tournament in basketball I don't think a school like Gonzaga ever becomes nationally relevant. Now look at them, they were ranked #1 last year.
So maybe you see FSU play AZ State in the second round. But if ULL somehow manages to pull a monumental upset, then the second round gets a helluva lot more interesting. I've always said a playoff doesn't decide who the BEST team is, only the team on the hottest win streak at the end of the season. It is plausible for an NFL team to go 4-2 in winning their division while being winless in their extra-divisional games, finishing the season at 4-12. Yet they could win their last 4 games in the playoffs and be Super Bowl World Champs at 8-12. The playoffs would have decided it. That doesn't make them the best team. A playoff is simply an entertainment exercise. That's it, nothing more.
There's already plenty of parity amongst the 5 major conferences. I don't care about the sport creating more. I care about the best teams playing for the national championship and watching good games.
If the conferences and CFB bowl system keeps games at neutral sites, expect attendances to go way down. Let's say you're an FSU fan and the CFB playoffs started this year. You have enough spendable cash to go to one game. Do you go to the ACCCG, the preliminary playoff game in either New Orleans or Pasedena, or the title game in Arlington, TX? How do you choose to spend your money?
It's a freaking tough question that the average football fan will not have a good answer. I know it's about TV revenue and drawing interest from a national standpoint, but it'll be very sad to see the empty stadiums, like the upper-deck of that ACCCG yesterday.
All the BCS was was a two team playoff. You really can't be a proponent of a playoff system and "hate" the BCS because they are one in the same. Only now, instead of having a hundred and fifty people and several computer algorithms come to a consensus on who should make the playoff, we're gonna have fewer than 15 people, and no computers, meet in secrecy to determine who get to play. That seems like a regression to me.
If you want to make it a bit more objective, then you need to have a sixteen team playoff that includes ALL TEN conference champions and only up to six at-large berths. Let the secret committee decide on the six at-large berths, but all the conference champs need to be in first.
I think I'd like to see a limit on the number of slots a conference could take. Only six at-large spots available... Maybe make it so the SEC (for example) can't have more than one or two of them. I mean, all these at large teams have lost to their conference champ, or another conference opponent, at some point.
You'd probably watch Fresno State-FSU for a quarter, until FSU took an insurmountable lead, then you'd turn on a more competitive game. No one watches the one seeds hammer the 16 seeds in the NCAA tournament, they flip to more competitive games. Duke against FSU was a good-ish game for a quarter, but the Big Championship Game was the compelling matchup. Even though Michigan State was a top-10 team, they were still an underdog to OSU. The 16th team in the playoff field would always be a dog, but when they are the 16th best team in the country, and not the Sun Belt Champion, they stand a better chance to pull the upset, thus making for a better game and television.
Would I rather see Louisiana-Lafayette-FSU or Arizona State-FSU? The latter.
Yeah it was just an assumption. I guess with Dook getting crushed they may sway in the ATL, but they seemingly had a fan base there.
Who knows
Meh... Given that any given year there are usually only three or four teams who have a legit claim to a title shot, I would think a 10+6 format would pretty much guarantee that the best teams would be in the playoff. But it would also guarantee that all the teams who WON a shot at it on the field would also be in the playoff as well. And I think that is more important.
RIP BCS, and never come back. Re the playoffs, give me 16 teams and a real playoff. Don't quibble over who deserves to be there, or "student athletes" etc... Just look at the FCS where 24 teams get into the playoffs. None of those teams/coaches/school administrations complain about a 5-round playoff system, they just want to win. Oh, and they play most of the games at the school's stadiums, what a concept! Come on NCAA, get a clue and tell the bowls that you have come to your senses, want to keep all the $ in your own pocket, and are leaving them behind. (Never gonna happen, but I can dream.)
At least they won something. That's more than Bama can say.
And the beard. Good god does that thing look awesome.
Yes. Plus, Grimes is... an offensive coach? He's said he's like to be an OC someday and he seems to have the personality and football intelligence to do it.
It's just like March Madness, and who doesn't love seeing the underdog pull off that miracle first round win? The best way to create parity is to give everyone a spot. If they don't then teams in smaller conferences will never get better and will rarely be in the field. Fresno State as a 16 seed against FSU? I'd watch that.
The BCS in the long run will be looked at as a good thing. Did everyone hate it? Absolutely, the computers confused everyone. But what it did do is get rid of having so many split national champions. Everyone wants to watch the top 2 teams play and decide who's the best on the field. Without the BCS we never get to the point of having a 4 team playoff (and hopefully they increase that to 8 or 16 eventually).
"WHO? are you!? Hoo-Who? Hoo-Who?
GO HOKIES!