Jonas Gray to Notre Dame now, FYI.
I guess he's afraid of competing with McGuffie.
I'm not in the least bit broken up about losing Gray, but why in the wide world of sports would he pick Notre Dame?
2 letters ChicaGoBlue: P. T.
Other two letters: T. V.
They can have him. They'll need everyone they can get for their up and coming juggernaut dynasty. Good luck with that fatty fat weis. We'll all continue laughing at you.
How did the M Zone have a 4.13 bias when they had Michigan ranked 19 and they ended up being ranked 19????
to continue the UM-UT discussion from the other thread:
how much would M have to do to overcome the ASU loss in the minds of the blogpollers? clearly, M has done more to help themselves (ie, more wins vs better opponents) than Tex. but M has also done more to hurt themselves (the bad loss to ASU) than Tex.
to me, M has shown that they are a significantly different team today than what they showed on 9/1, and thus, that that game was perhaps more of an abberation than not. what has texas done (more than Michigan) to show that they are significantly different than a bottom half team? the only answer to that is their close loss ot OU.
basically, these 2 teams are mainly (90% ???) being judged on one game each: Ms loss to ASU and Texs loss to OU. the other 5-6 games each has played tell a different story than those ASU, OU games tell.
clearly, for these 2 teams, people are looking at the smaller sample size. i guess i don't understand why that is.
Gray was already committed to Nebraska, right? I guess you can rightly say that ND has hit bottom, whereas Nebraska seems to be headed that way. Only one way to go from here Irish!
I wonder how the Neb and ND seasons will affect their recruiting. UM would like to get a few of those recruits. Several from ND and at least one from Neb.
i just spent a half hour of my looking at victory chains. thanks to georgia southern, we've got some awesome ones now. here's our longest, which proves DII St. Augustine's is better than Texas, if Michigan is better than Texas....
St Augustine's beat
Virginia St who beat
Bowie St who beat
Fayetteville St who beat
Shaw who beat
Elizabeth City St who beat
Virginia Union who beat
Central St OH who beat
Lincoln MO who beat
Southern Virginia who beat
Frostburg St who beat
Randolph-Macon who beat
Carnegie Mellon who beat
Rochester who beat
WPI who beat
UMass-Dartmouth who beat
Western New England who beat
Hartwick who beat
Ithaca who beat
Brockport St who beat
Cortland St who beat
Western Conn St who beat
Iona who beat
Wagner who beat
Robert Morris who beat
Morehead St who beat
Dayton who beat
Fordham who beat
Colgate who beat
Towson who beat
Richmond who beat
New Hampshire who beat
Hofstra who beat
Furman who beat
Chattanooga who beat
Georgia Southern who beat
Appalachian St who beat
Michigan
I think Colgate should make the BCS.
the real question is, should the voters be allowed to vote for all of those SUNY schools?
and how the hell is suny-albany not in there somewhere?
i want to punch BoiFromTroy right in the fleshy patch that used to be where his nuts were.
DanK - are we not also being judged for losing 39-7 at home to Oregon? Or trailing Northwestern midway through the 4th quarter? Or letting Eastern Michigan put 22 points on us? I think Michigan's better than 19, but it's not like ASU was a complete anomaly.
yes, Maize we are. but i'm not sure the judgement 'factor' applied to those (filler, to borrow BoNs term) games is equal to that of texas'.
ie, b/c of the ASU loss, any subsequent loss or even any non-blowout win is judged REALLY harshly. whether or not we had Henne, hart for the games (PSU, NW, Ill). maybe that's fair, i mean, i don't think so.....but i guess others do.
my point is, sure, hammer M for the ASU loss. drop them out of the top 25 entirely those 1st weeks. to make a crazy analogy: that ASU loss was like M caught an anvil in the waters of CFB. so, we sank. almost to the bottom. but, should M be allowed to drop the anvil & rise back up on their own? or, should that anvil be subsequently tied to Ms foot for the rest of the season?
It will always be a mystery why UM never showed much interest in Grey (and even seemed to spur the kid). Conventional wisdom says that it was simply a matter of fit, but there had to be something more.
He's a drug dealer.
thanks for the fix Brian. Is it wrong that i want both Hart's and your DNA in my first born son? that way he can win 3 heisman (no 4th thanks to a waisted lack of redshirt)and write witty things about himself online for the amusement of millions of fans every day.
DanK -
"or should that anvil be subsequently tied to Ms foot for the rest of the season?"
IMO that anvil will allow us no higher than about #10 even if we run the table from here on out. It will also consequently pull down the rest of the big 10. (and already has)
Fair? Not like the polls have ever really been fair (insert limitless examples here).
i agree, 97, but this blogpoll is supposed to be superior, and really i'm just interested in how this very unique situation plays itself out. it's unprecidented (sp). hence my interest.
But that's what I like about the blogpoll. It's a an experiment in football polling.
Tons of different strategies (the blind vote that doesn't take into account your previous poll, the purely record poll, the purely perception of talent poll, etc.). We can discuss which ones have the most merit, but obviously some people believe that how LOW of a floor one team has (and Michigan has shown a really low-- like, dank, musty basement low) matters. I.e.-- once you've shown certain warts, we'll never look at you again.
I think that's silly and flies in the face of all those that say, "the BCS should pit the two best teams at the END OF THE SEASON" (obviously, omitting certain teams regardless of how good they look, if they have 2+ losses), but while Michigan has no business in the BCS conversation if they win out, they have business in the top 10 conversation.
And DanK, I'm not saying you're like a musty basement. I mean it as the adjective, "dank."
So instead of wasting everyones time with polls why not create a playoff. Have a 32 team playoff bracket. Take the the 11 conferences and divide them into East (ACC, Big East, SEC, Big 10, MAC) and West (Pac 10, Big 12, MWC, WAC, Sun Belt and CUSA(Eastern/Western most school in CUSA moves to east/west bracket based on bracket with playin game.)). You take the top 3 teams from each conference (based on conference record, with overall record and head to head as a tie breaker). All teams are seeded based on overall record with conference record and head to head as tie breaker. The two teams with the worst record participate in a play in game. Playoffs begin first weekend in Dec with the Championship game the first weekend in Jan.
If the season ended today the seedings would look like this:
East
1 OSU
16 Miami (OH)/Mid Tenn St (play-in game)
8 Bama
9 USC
12 Rutgers
5 LSU
4 Uconn
13 Buffalo
14 CMU
3 Virginia
11 Wake
6 USF
7 Mich
10 PSU
15 ECU
2 BC
West
1 ASU
16 Houston
8 AFA
9 Troy
5 BSU
12 BYU
4 OU
13 NMU
14 FAU
3 KU
11 Fresno
6 USC
10 UCLA
7 Mizzou
15 So Miss
2 Hawaii
*higher ranking hosts
The only problem with that. Well i lied, i see more than one. The regions are unbalanced, the east is way more difficult than than the west, and 32 teams is way too many. 8 is plenty. Use the BCS for that. and play the first round games at the bowl sites.
SO:
1.) Ohio State
8.) Virginia Tech
@ Rose Bowl
2.)Boston College
7.)West Virginia
@ Sugar Bowl
3.) LSU
6.) Oklahoma
@ Orange Bowl
ps: its unfortunate that this is the first round matchup. IMO these are the best two teams in the country.
4.) Arizona State
5.) Oregon
@ Fiesta Bowl
8 team playoff:
-6: Division champs from BCS conf.
-1*: Highest ranked mid major.
-1*: Highest ranked non-BCS conf. champ.
*You can make a ND/independant school rule here.
Seeding goes by BCS ranking.
Playoffs played at campus sites, home team goes to higher ranked in BCS.ex:(#8 Va. Tech @ #1 OSU)
Bowl games are for the championship game, consolation games, and the you sucked and didn't make the playoffs but you still get to play one more game somewhere warm unless you sucked enough to get an invite to the motor city bowl.
Advantages:
-No bitching from mid-majors/ND
-Regular season still important
-People will still get pissed about certain teams not making the cut (we all secretly like to complain about how teams are ranked)
-Still keep the bowls and all the money that goes with them
Disadvantage:
-People will still get pissed about certain teams not making the cut.
-Less importance on non-conference games. However, this may lead to tougher/better non-conference games that fans like.
I made a mistake my post should start out:
8 team playoff:
-6: BCS conference champs
-1*: Highest ranked mid major
-1*: Highest ranked BCS school that did not win its conference.
Meh, its even simpler...
-6: BCS conference champs
-2: 2 highest non-BCS conference champs
No ND rule, or if they insist, ND can get in if they are 12-0! No special treatment for the "special" people.
Minor nitpick from the ARV section: "Troy State University" hasn't been "Troy State University" in three or four years. Now, thy're just "Troy University."
Also, those playoff proposals suck. 32 teams is too many, 8 teams is too few.
16 team single-bracket field, 11 automatic conference bids, then the next best five teams in the country taken as at-larges. When I build a bracket (like I did last year), I grant an at-large spot to any independent team that has won X games (where X is 9 in an 11-game year and 10 in a 12-game year) and limit the selection to two teams per conference. Obviously, teams that are on probation are ineligible for bids.
I've done brackets going all the way back to 1983, and I haven't found one yet in which a team would have had a strongly persuasive gripe about being left out (there's the occasional marginal case, of course, but it's impossible to eliminate that no matter how you structure the postseason). At some point, I'll actually get around to putting them online.
I think a 16 team playoff would take away from the regular season. However, I would take a 16 team format over the current one.
OK, Jason, then you get to tell Auburn 2004 that their regular season was, like, totally meaningful and stuff.
I don't really even like doing the 6 conference champs. I mean, yes its nice to have incentive to win your conference. However, what happens when wake forest comes out at 9-3. Or after the Big East is done beating up on each other we get stuck with a 10-2 Rutgers that will lose 48-7 to someone.
Regardless, we may be able to come up with a perfect playoff system, but its not going to matter. DAMN YOU BCS!!!
I mean, yes its nice to have incentive to win your conference. However, what happens when wake forest comes out at 9-3. Or after the Big East is done beating up on each other we get stuck with a 10-2 Rutgers that will lose 48-7 to someone.
1) OK. Why is that a bad thing?
2) Louisville was the Big East champion last year, not Rutgers.
3) If you follow the formula I laid out in my first comment in this thread, 10-2 Rutgers wouldn't even have made the 16-team field last year because of the no-more-than-two-teams-per-conference restriction. WVU would have gotten the Big East's at-large bid.
4) Rutgers got stuck playing a crappy K-State team in a third-tier bowl that was way beneath them. Frankly, getting blown out in the opening round of a 16-team playoff is a damn sight better than playing the sixth-best team in the Big 12 in the Who-Gives-A-Shit Bowl.
i'm aware of the big east winner last year. i should have specified that i was referring to an 8 team playoff with with 6 conf champions in... i dont like that idea. And even though I think 16 teams is too many, I do like your format better
OK. But I'm still interested in getting the important question answered.
Why is an "unexpected" team winning a conference championship and getting an automatic bid a bad thing?
Personally, I think that the "unexpected" teams are exactly what makes the NCAA basketball tournament by far the best sporting event in the United States, and so does pretty much everyone else I've ever asked about it. But strangely enough, some of those exact same people also use the "unexpected" teams as an argument against playoffs in football. I've never figured that out.
the problem i have with that is not a surprise team that deserves to be there. But are you going to tell me that the ACC was a good conference last year? That Wake Forest really compared to Florida, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, etc.? I mean a surprise team (like south florida this year if they go 11-1) or an 11-1 Kansas team.. or a 12-0 ASU or 11-1, its one thing. I just don't want to see inferior teams get creamed but still risk injuring opposing teams players in the process... its a wasted game, in my opinion
the problem i have with that is not a surprise team that deserves to be there. But are you going to tell me that the ACC was a good conference last year?
I couldn't care less if the ACC was a good conference last year, because that's completely beside the point. In fact, the whole concept of "best" is beneath my concern. I don't care who the "best" team is, I care who wins. On the field. Where the game is actually played.
And I reject out of hand any argument that hinges on the use of the word "deserve." Replacing the BCS's popularity contest with your own personal one is a lateral move at the absolute best.
I just don't want to see inferior teams get creamed but still risk injuring opposing teams players in the process... its a wasted game, in my opinion
Pardon my bluntness, but that's a total load of crap. If this argument actually held any water at all, then American Division I-A college football wouldn't be the only organized sport in the world that lacked a playoff of some kind.
Or just go back to traditional bowl tie-ins and have the AP and coaches vote at the end of the year.
Very rarely do I hear anyone bandy about what I think should be a more obvious playoff possibility: rip off the NFL.
12 teams. The six major conference champs get spots, as do any other conference champs ranked in Poll X's top 20. The remainder of the slots are filled by the next highest ranked at-large teams regardless of conference. Independents have to qualify at-large to make the cut. The top 4 seeded teams get first round byes, and teams 5-8 host 9-12. Last year would have looked like this:
1. OSU (B10 champ)
2. Florida (SEC champ)
3. Michigan
4. LSU
5. USC (Pac-10 champ)
6. Louisville (Big East champ)
7. Wisconsin
8. Boise State (WAC champ #8)
9. Auburn
10. Oklahoma (Big XII champ)
11. Wake Forest (ACC champ)
12. BYU (MWC champ #20)
That gets every team that played in a BCS bowl last year, save Notre Dame (let them qualify along with mid-majors if you really care about 'em--they'd replace Auburn), every team in the top 10, and two strong mid-major champs. You also avoid stuff like 11-1 Wisconsin being shut out of the biggest games just for being the third-best Big Ten team.
The logistics of the playoffs and finding a role for bowl games are still a nightmare, but if you're committed to a playoff, I think this provides a good balance between inclusiveness and awesomeness, the two most key of virtues.
I agree with the 6 winners of six conferences and here's why. After 5 years with this format there will be more parity in those six conferences because players will see that they get a chance at the BCS championship if they win their conference. I also like the point made earlier that if you play for your conference then your non-conference games will likely be to schedule challenging opponents to get your team ready for conference play. Also, isn't that the point of a playoff system like hoops, there will be a few teams that people will think don't belong there, but guess what sooner or later everyone will be talking because they are going to upset somebody. No ND rule - they must either join a conference or get a high BCS rating to make the 8 - game playoff. Right now ND could threaten to opt out and they have no leverage nobody will care.
I'm predicting right now that at the end of the season we will see a team with at least 2 losses get into the national championship game.
oh noes...not the playoff arguements again. is it mid-february already?
here's the thing, imo:
1) 16 teams makes the reg season next to pointless. this format allows 3 or even 4 loss teams a shot at the MNC, which is stupid imo. not to mention the 'finished 3rd in the conf but won the NC' thing. hello, MSU hockey 2007 anyone?.
2) there will be only 2 possibilities for a different playoff than what we have now: the +1 (the current bowls are the semi finals for the MNC bowl 2 weeks later) and the 16 team format. imo, any change in the structure will involve the smaller teams (who have more power b/c of numbers). there's no way they go for a playoff structure that excludes a guarenteed tie-in to their conf champ. that's 11 confs == an 11 team structure min. the big teams will demand at larges (more than 1)....thus 16. they might swing the +1 format just b/c it's so similar to the current format. every one clamoring for a playoff doesn't realize that the playoff they wil get is 16 teams, which dilutes the meaning of the regular season.
16 teams makes the reg season next to pointless. this format allows 3 or even 4 loss teams a shot at the MNC, which is stupid imo. not to mention the 'finished 3rd in the conf but won the NC' thing. hello, MSU hockey 2007 anyone?
Like I said above, if you honestly believe that is the case, then you're the one who gets to tell Tommy Tuberville and Auburn 2004 that their regular season was oh-so-meaningful. You can tell MSU 2007 and Arizona 1997 that they don't deserve their national championship trophies. Then you can come back here and tell us exactly how much time they spent laughing directly in your face.
And if you honestly believe that is the case for Division I-A college football, then aren't you logically required to declare that the regular season in every other sport in the world is "next to pointless," too? If playoffs make the regular season so pointless, explain why the NFL and the English Premier League are raking in money hand over fist despite featuring a prominent and wildly successful playoff structure as an integral part of their season. Explain why FOX Sports has a whole channel that shows European soccer almost exclusively, despite the fact that almost no one in this country even gives a flying fuck about domestic soccer, to say nothing of the foreign kind. Explain why anyone ever goes to a regular-season MLB game. Explain why NCAA Division I-AA, II and III teams aren't playing to completely empty stadia every week.
Clearly, if we are to believe your protestations, these games are all meaningless. So here's what I want to know: Why do so many people seem to care so much about such meaningless games?
Frankly, given the abundant evidence we have available, the choice between "billions of people are so damn stupid that they're wasting their time on so many meaningless games" and "playoffs don't actually make the regular season meaningless" isn't even remotely difficult.
I don't think 32 is too many. It puts a stop to the money issue as we'll have multiple games on multiple weekends when nothing is happening.
Playoffs will not make the regular season meaningless. Is the NFL regular season meaning less. Football games are an event. They happen less frequently than basketball games, so a comparision is an apples to oranges comparison.
Taking the top three from each conference eliminates the polls all together.
So what if a 3 loss team makes the playoffs, if they're not good, they get beat in their first game. If you're a two loss team and didn't make it but a MWC team with 4 losses did, don't lose. Plain and simple.
Commenting by HaloScan
