College Football makes me sick
- Thread starter Nick Douglas
- Start date
YYZ--
damn, beat me to that answer...LMAO!
I know what you are saying about the hoop games, but like Nick says, 70-80,000 seats is a bit tougher sell than 15-20,000 in a basketball arena.
No easy answers to these questions--but even if there were, its not like the NCAA powers-that-be would get it right anyway...
damn, beat me to that answer...LMAO!
I know what you are saying about the hoop games, but like Nick says, 70-80,000 seats is a bit tougher sell than 15-20,000 in a basketball arena.
No easy answers to these questions--but even if there were, its not like the NCAA powers-that-be would get it right anyway...
The fact remains that most teams simply don't deserve a bowl game! We should have a game for them so their followers feel good? WTF is that?!
That's like when schools had kids stop keeping score at sports, because the constant losers had feelings, too! I understand the sentiment, but christ.........at what point do we tell a kid to suck it up? Somes good, and somes aint. That's how it is in life. Let your 10 year old get kicked in the nuts a couple of times, and he'll realize you can't win every battle, but you can fight every one.
We have about 20 more games than we need, and it has watered it down to where the teams still on the outside want their shot, too. Why don't we give every team a "feel good" bowl, and then the fans can be happy that they got to go to Shreveport, or Biloxi, or Scranton to play a game?
That's like when schools had kids stop keeping score at sports, because the constant losers had feelings, too! I understand the sentiment, but christ.........at what point do we tell a kid to suck it up? Somes good, and somes aint. That's how it is in life. Let your 10 year old get kicked in the nuts a couple of times, and he'll realize you can't win every battle, but you can fight every one.
We have about 20 more games than we need, and it has watered it down to where the teams still on the outside want their shot, too. Why don't we give every team a "feel good" bowl, and then the fans can be happy that they got to go to Shreveport, or Biloxi, or Scranton to play a game?
I used to think taoist knew nothing...but Nick you have him beat by a mile...is someone logging in under your name?
Nobody ever said that USC was the mythical National Champion in 2002. Ohio State was. USC was just the best team that year. Hell, OSU was the best team in 1996 when Florida won the mythical National Championship. I don't see what is so ridiculous in thinking that some team other than the mythical National Champion is the best team in a sport where the top teams don't play each other.
For the record, I did have money on Miami based on advice from a MadJack's member that everyone here knows very well. It was an action bet placed at slightly more than 1/18th the stake of my normal wager. My point is that it doesn't influence my opinion of OSU and USC from that year at all.
SixFive,
In defining Elitist, you forgot to add the phrase at the end, "or religious beliefs." Also, it's a huge misconception that both USC alums and liberals (two groups I am proud to be a part of) consider themselves to be deserving of favored treatment. We simply want to be treated fairly, be allowed to work hard for what we get and not have our freedom compromised by others pushing their beliefs on us.
yyz,
You have absolutely no clue how to define which teams, "deserve," to play in a bowl game. If you want to rail against mediocrity, rail against college basketball, where teams from podunk conferences and sixth place finishers get a shot at being called the National Champion. At least with bowl games only the great teams get a shot at being named number one and the mediocre teams get to have an out of town party with their alumni one last time.
For the record, I did have money on Miami based on advice from a MadJack's member that everyone here knows very well. It was an action bet placed at slightly more than 1/18th the stake of my normal wager. My point is that it doesn't influence my opinion of OSU and USC from that year at all.
SixFive,
In defining Elitist, you forgot to add the phrase at the end, "or religious beliefs." Also, it's a huge misconception that both USC alums and liberals (two groups I am proud to be a part of) consider themselves to be deserving of favored treatment. We simply want to be treated fairly, be allowed to work hard for what we get and not have our freedom compromised by others pushing their beliefs on us.
yyz,
You have absolutely no clue how to define which teams, "deserve," to play in a bowl game. If you want to rail against mediocrity, rail against college basketball, where teams from podunk conferences and sixth place finishers get a shot at being called the National Champion. At least with bowl games only the great teams get a shot at being named number one and the mediocre teams get to have an out of town party with their alumni one last time.
still on the drugs i see nicky...the way down feels much worse than the way up...freebasing is your friend
" It was an action bet placed at slightly more than 1/18th the stake of my normal wager"
Whats that 42 cents?
Whats that 42 cents?
Rail againat basketball? Well, since this thread was about football, I didn't see any reason for that, but at least, for once in your fuking life, you are correct. 65 teams don't deserve that shot at being champ. So why should we pollute football the same way? Sure, only a couple teams in foots play in the Nat'l Championship game, but the 64th best team in basketball has no shot at winning the games needed to be called number one. The whole machine is about money.
More and more, you just want to argue with people to hear yourself talk. If that's fun for you, so be it.
Maybe I don't have a clue as to which teams "deserve" a bowl bid, but I sure as shit know which ones are playing that don't
Grow a sac, and get some better arguements.
More and more, you just want to argue with people to hear yourself talk. If that's fun for you, so be it.
Maybe I don't have a clue as to which teams "deserve" a bowl bid, but I sure as shit know which ones are playing that don't
Grow a sac, and get some better arguements.
I didn't forget any part of the definition; it was straight from Webster's.
ND, you are an elitist. If anybody disagrees with you, he is a "knucklehead". This is clear in almost every post you make. What has happened to you??? You're not the same BM I met online at lynx many moons ago.
ND, you are an elitist. If anybody disagrees with you, he is a "knucklehead". This is clear in almost every post you make. What has happened to you??? You're not the same BM I met online at lynx many moons ago.
You can't make a statement like "Unless you are an alumni of a BCS school WHO ATTENDS GAMES REGULARLY, stop complaining about not having a playoff. " and say that you aren't an elitist. Both can't be true.
Illinois just beat Wake Forest in CBB and it doesn't matter. The regular season is everything in CFB because EVERY GAME matters if you're trying to get a national championship. Last December, the BCS computers had LSU looking at how they could schedule some harder OOC teams so that they wouldn't get shut out of a chance to play in a NC game, but then ND and Hawaii lost, LSU went to the NC game, and the computers were downgraded in the BCS formula. What we need is a system that encourages a tougher schedule for all teams, so that the NC is decided on the field without a playoff - just like in 2002 and 2003.
Illinois just beat Wake Forest in CBB and it doesn't matter. The regular season is everything in CFB because EVERY GAME matters if you're trying to get a national championship. Last December, the BCS computers had LSU looking at how they could schedule some harder OOC teams so that they wouldn't get shut out of a chance to play in a NC game, but then ND and Hawaii lost, LSU went to the NC game, and the computers were downgraded in the BCS formula. What we need is a system that encourages a tougher schedule for all teams, so that the NC is decided on the field without a playoff - just like in 2002 and 2003.
SixFive,
I believe very strongly in certain things. That may make me a know-it-all or arrogant, but not an elitist. Read the definition back, for Pete's sake. Trust me, buddy, if I every get to travel to your part of the country for work, you'll see that I'm a laid back, gregarious individual in person. One of the reasons I appear to be such an asshole on MadJack's from time to time is that there are many widely held beliefs that I disagree with and I enjoy discussing them, sometimes in a confrontational manner, with fellow sports gamblers that I hold a kinship with due to our shared hobby.
I'm sure the comment about having to be an alumni of a BCS school who attends games regularly angers some. There are a lot of folks who really love watching college football on television, and most of them have strong views on how to determine a National Champion. My position is that the views of those people should be secondary to the people who actually support the schools through enrollment, endowments and attendance at football games. Call that elitist if you want, but I call it fair.
I believe very strongly in certain things. That may make me a know-it-all or arrogant, but not an elitist. Read the definition back, for Pete's sake. Trust me, buddy, if I every get to travel to your part of the country for work, you'll see that I'm a laid back, gregarious individual in person. One of the reasons I appear to be such an asshole on MadJack's from time to time is that there are many widely held beliefs that I disagree with and I enjoy discussing them, sometimes in a confrontational manner, with fellow sports gamblers that I hold a kinship with due to our shared hobby.
I'm sure the comment about having to be an alumni of a BCS school who attends games regularly angers some. There are a lot of folks who really love watching college football on television, and most of them have strong views on how to determine a National Champion. My position is that the views of those people should be secondary to the people who actually support the schools through enrollment, endowments and attendance at football games. Call that elitist if you want, but I call it fair.
Willingham seems like a nice guy and a good coach. His record was very similar to the prior ND coach that was also shown his walking papers. Wonder if Ron Zook felt that he had a "fair chance" in Florida? Willingham's race was not a factor in this decision. Haven't heard any rumors of UCLA dumping Dorrell, though manay alumnus would probably like to see it.
Ferdville :clap:
Exactly my point!!!
Kosar,
Do you think.................
Nick Douglas (USC) = Scott4USC (USC) :scared
Read both posts, the similarity in thinking is amazing :142lmao:
Think I might go back and re-edit my original post :142lmao:
Exactly my point!!!
Kosar,
Do you think.................
Nick Douglas (USC) = Scott4USC (USC) :scared
Read both posts, the similarity in thinking is amazing :142lmao:
Think I might go back and re-edit my original post :142lmao:
They're not the same. I've met Nick and I don't think he'd spend all that time creating a nutty persona like Scott4USC. You're right though, when it comes to all things USC, they sound pretty similar.
I have yet to meet a USC alum that considers the 2002 OSU team better than the 2002 USC team. I doubt I'd meet an OSU alum that considers the 1996 Florida team superior to the 1996 OSU team (I sure don't). It's the nature of college football.
ferd,
I agree that race played no role in the decision to wire Willingham. I would disagree with anyone who states that race played no role in the decision to *hire* Willingham. My point is that if you are going to extend the olive branch and take a chance on a black coach when there are probably white candidates with better resumes, then truly take the chance. Don't just dump him when he does slightly worse than expected.
That is, of course, easy for me to say. I still hate the way it was handled, but in the end we all reap what we sow.
By the way, either I am way out of touch with college football, or Auburn -7 looks like gravy. I, for one, was glad when USC got Oklahoma instead of the Tigers.
ferd,
I agree that race played no role in the decision to wire Willingham. I would disagree with anyone who states that race played no role in the decision to *hire* Willingham. My point is that if you are going to extend the olive branch and take a chance on a black coach when there are probably white candidates with better resumes, then truly take the chance. Don't just dump him when he does slightly worse than expected.
That is, of course, easy for me to say. I still hate the way it was handled, but in the end we all reap what we sow.
By the way, either I am way out of touch with college football, or Auburn -7 looks like gravy. I, for one, was glad when USC got Oklahoma instead of the Tigers.
