College Football makes me sick
- Thread starter Nick Douglas
- Start date
kosar said:
:142lmao:
By the way, Nick, I love the BCS. That's why LSU was National Champ last year and not USC. Although they did win one out of three polls (AP, Coaches and BCS).
Instant gratification? Ask your fellow alumni at USC why they pushed for a Co-championship or why the Blue State writers voted USC No. 1 even before the actual National Championship game was played last year.
The system is like democracy: It sucks, but it's the best we have. And most usually forget (especially me) that these are college kids playing. If it were pros it would be much different.
BTW, could you go over that "fairness and less fortunate" speech and explain how you managed to use the "Good for all mankind" theory while talking about college foots? :help:
So by your logic, Nick, since I'm an alumnus of a BCS school (Iowa) and I attend games regularly-- (season ticket holder for many years, travel to as many away games as my schedule will allow and I will be in Orlando for the bowl game) then I still get to bitch about how NCAA division 1 should have a playoff?
Cool.....
Nick Douglas for chairman of the NCAAs. Do I hear a 2nd?
Cool.....
Nick Douglas for chairman of the NCAAs. Do I hear a 2nd?
You get to complain, redsfann. Notice what you said about, "as many games as my schedule will allow." That is how most alumni feel, and it would suck if I had to travel to see USC play number 16 (ooooh) to start a bullshit playoff each year. F*ck that. I'd rather see us play in Pasadena as often as possible.
Nosigar,
There are a lot of clowns who complained about last year's situation, but I don't care. We were better than Ohio State in 2002, better than LSU in 2003 and so far we are the best in 2004. LSU plays in a clown conference and they played a trash non-conference schedule in 2003. Their win over Oklahoma was impressive, but nobody gives a shit about 1 piddly national championship at major programs. Real programs want excellence over an extended period of time. The mythical championship means little to me as long as USC plays in and wins a BCS bowl (preferably Rose).
kosar,
I think a playoff will kill all Bowls. Bowls already struggle for attendance, but at least they still happen because there is enough money from television and advertising. If you start a playoff, Bowls may last for a while, but eventually their worth will wane and we will be left with college football being no different than women's water polo or any other sport with an overblown playoff. The regular season won't mean shit (compared to what it means now) and teams with middle of the road programs will rarely, if ever, get to experience the fun of traveling with their fans to watch a bowl game.
Nosigar,
There are a lot of clowns who complained about last year's situation, but I don't care. We were better than Ohio State in 2002, better than LSU in 2003 and so far we are the best in 2004. LSU plays in a clown conference and they played a trash non-conference schedule in 2003. Their win over Oklahoma was impressive, but nobody gives a shit about 1 piddly national championship at major programs. Real programs want excellence over an extended period of time. The mythical championship means little to me as long as USC plays in and wins a BCS bowl (preferably Rose).
kosar,
I think a playoff will kill all Bowls. Bowls already struggle for attendance, but at least they still happen because there is enough money from television and advertising. If you start a playoff, Bowls may last for a while, but eventually their worth will wane and we will be left with college football being no different than women's water polo or any other sport with an overblown playoff. The regular season won't mean shit (compared to what it means now) and teams with middle of the road programs will rarely, if ever, get to experience the fun of traveling with their fans to watch a bowl game.
You are exactly right, Nick, that WOULD suck...
Even if--lets say-- USC is ranked #1 and oh, the MAC winner was #16 and they let USC host the 1st round game, I doubt once that 1st game was over they'd allow the highest ranked teams left to host another one--unless they took the revenue from all these on-campus games and shared it like they do for the basketball tourney.
I sure as hell wouldn't travel to say--San Antonio-- to see the Hawks if there was another game to be played, provided we won the first one. And then if you had a 16 team playoff, you are talking about a round of 8, then the semis and THEN the final game.
In the lower divisions it works because the higher ranked teams host the games, so if you are St John's of Minnesota, who are year in and year out one of the best D-III teams in the country, you are playing a lot of home games--where the cost of a ticket is what? 10-15 bucks?
There is a ton of money at the D-I level, and the only way a playoff would work is to keep the lower bowls, such as the Motor City and whatnot--hoping that the NCAA would send a school like Iowa there (with 120,000 living alumni--we are EVERYWHERE..lol) that might get the local alumni and those within driving distance to show up for it--and hope the other team travels as well as an Iowa does--AND get ESPN and other TV networks to continue to pony up the big $$$$ so that when you play a game like this before 25,000 people in a place that holds 75,000 it still produces the needed revenues.
Here is what screws that up, though. Suppose I'm a wealthy RETIRED alumni who just loves to go to Iowa games. But do I want to go to Detroit in Mid December when the game is on TV? HELL NO!
If we win, we probably play the next week in Florida or Texas, and could you imagine trying to make travel plans on that short of notice?
Just trying to coordinate the schedules of the half dozen of us that are heading to Orlando--from various places in the country-- with 6+ weeks to do it has been a bit of a nightmare as it is.
I, for one, would like to see a playoff system of some sort. But this is only the tip of the iceburg, IMO, of what kind of logistical problems one would have in trying to make this a reality.
Even if--lets say-- USC is ranked #1 and oh, the MAC winner was #16 and they let USC host the 1st round game, I doubt once that 1st game was over they'd allow the highest ranked teams left to host another one--unless they took the revenue from all these on-campus games and shared it like they do for the basketball tourney.
I sure as hell wouldn't travel to say--San Antonio-- to see the Hawks if there was another game to be played, provided we won the first one. And then if you had a 16 team playoff, you are talking about a round of 8, then the semis and THEN the final game.
In the lower divisions it works because the higher ranked teams host the games, so if you are St John's of Minnesota, who are year in and year out one of the best D-III teams in the country, you are playing a lot of home games--where the cost of a ticket is what? 10-15 bucks?
There is a ton of money at the D-I level, and the only way a playoff would work is to keep the lower bowls, such as the Motor City and whatnot--hoping that the NCAA would send a school like Iowa there (with 120,000 living alumni--we are EVERYWHERE..lol) that might get the local alumni and those within driving distance to show up for it--and hope the other team travels as well as an Iowa does--AND get ESPN and other TV networks to continue to pony up the big $$$$ so that when you play a game like this before 25,000 people in a place that holds 75,000 it still produces the needed revenues.
Here is what screws that up, though. Suppose I'm a wealthy RETIRED alumni who just loves to go to Iowa games. But do I want to go to Detroit in Mid December when the game is on TV? HELL NO!
If we win, we probably play the next week in Florida or Texas, and could you imagine trying to make travel plans on that short of notice?
Just trying to coordinate the schedules of the half dozen of us that are heading to Orlando--from various places in the country-- with 6+ weeks to do it has been a bit of a nightmare as it is.
I, for one, would like to see a playoff system of some sort. But this is only the tip of the iceburg, IMO, of what kind of logistical problems one would have in trying to make this a reality.
If you ask me, teams with 6 losses getting Bowl Games, is what's ruining college football.
I am old.......40........I remember when we had three tv stations, and the Bowl games were ALL played on New Year's Day.
(There were 4 games. The Rose, Sugar, Cotton, and some other one????)
I am old.......40........I remember when we had three tv stations, and the Bowl games were ALL played on New Year's Day.
(There were 4 games. The Rose, Sugar, Cotton, and some other one????)
Redsfann,
I don't think the football playoff would be too far removed from the basketball. Not all fans go to the regionals to support their teams, but plenty of locals go see those games. The seats get sold.
There is no iron clad answer.
I don't think the football playoff would be too far removed from the basketball. Not all fans go to the regionals to support their teams, but plenty of locals go see those games. The seats get sold.
There is no iron clad answer.
I dislike mediocre teams getting into bowls, but it is a minor issue to me. If I want to travel to Las Vegas, Hawaii or Seattle to watch 6-6 USC play one year, I can. If not, I can just ignore them. In my opinion it is a small price to pay to keep the system. The good in the system is allowing the fans of teams that go 7-4 or 8-3 most years like Ohio State and LSU plan a trip down to Atlanta or Orlando for a good time once a year in support of their team. In my opinion, the good far outweighs the bad in that way.
And yyz, remember that filling 80,000+ seat stadiums for the first weekend of four is a lot different than filling a 15,000 seat arena for the first weekend of three.
Nick Douglas said:
Franky,
Maybe you were right after all. Maybe this *is* Scott4USC.
Are you f*cking kidding me, Nick?
This again? The 2 loss Trojans were better than the unprecedented 14-0 Buckeyes who beat the supposedly unbeatable Hurricanes, who had won 31 or so straight games, for the NC.
That's funny.
kosar,
You know I am going to believe it until the day I die. The Buckeyes were a great team, but in my opinion not even better than their 1996 squad. Plenty of things had to bounce the Buckeyes' way that season, including not playing Iowa, the 'Canes losing McGahee early and the refs developing a developmental disability without warning on a certain play late in the game. Oh, and I forgot about Dorsey's injury.
I'd buy it if someone said that Miami was better than USC, but not Ohio State. If Ohio State plays Miami 10 times, Miami wins at least 7. Ohio State had everything fall their way and, to their credit, they used every advantage given to them to its maximum potential. They were a great team, but not better than USC. If OSU had gone into Manhattan or Pullman and won going away, I'd grant you the argument. Instead, they played all of their non-conference games at home and they were fortunate to avoid Iowa.
You know I am going to believe it until the day I die. The Buckeyes were a great team, but in my opinion not even better than their 1996 squad. Plenty of things had to bounce the Buckeyes' way that season, including not playing Iowa, the 'Canes losing McGahee early and the refs developing a developmental disability without warning on a certain play late in the game. Oh, and I forgot about Dorsey's injury.
I'd buy it if someone said that Miami was better than USC, but not Ohio State. If Ohio State plays Miami 10 times, Miami wins at least 7. Ohio State had everything fall their way and, to their credit, they used every advantage given to them to its maximum potential. They were a great team, but not better than USC. If OSU had gone into Manhattan or Pullman and won going away, I'd grant you the argument. Instead, they played all of their non-conference games at home and they were fortunate to avoid Iowa.
nick,
most of your comments in this thread are ridiculous, especially the last one.
What difference does it make if Miami and Ohio St. played 10 times and Miami would have won 7 (your opinion). You know what.....they played once and Ohio St. won. Did you bet on Miami and it leave a bad taste in your mouth?
If Southern Cal loses in the Orange Bowl are you going to whine and say we could have beaten (AU or OU) 9 out of 10 times? If that makes you sleep easier, say that but it doesn't change one thing. The only games that matter are the ones played on the field, not on this site or in your head.
osc
most of your comments in this thread are ridiculous, especially the last one.
What difference does it make if Miami and Ohio St. played 10 times and Miami would have won 7 (your opinion). You know what.....they played once and Ohio St. won. Did you bet on Miami and it leave a bad taste in your mouth?
If Southern Cal loses in the Orange Bowl are you going to whine and say we could have beaten (AU or OU) 9 out of 10 times? If that makes you sleep easier, say that but it doesn't change one thing. The only games that matter are the ones played on the field, not on this site or in your head.
osc
...to quote kosar.
:142lmao:
...nicky boy, you're getting silly now. I'm done with this thread until Nick starts taking his medication again. :sadwave: :scared :142lmao:
kosar said:
:142lmao:
...nicky boy, you're getting silly now. I'm done with this thread until Nick starts taking his medication again. :sadwave: :scared :142lmao:
Nick,
That's just silly. Never in my life have I ever heard fans of a 2 loss team whine so much and claim that they were the best team in the country. Not just you and Scott$USC, but tons of others. Are you people delusional?
Ohio State played a lot of close games and if you consider winning all of them 'using every advantage given to them', then so be it.
They hit a crucial late, long, 4th down touchdown to Jenkins against Purdue. That was the key play of the season, along with the pass to Clarett against Michigan.
As far as not playing Iowa, give me a break. They beat Miami and Michigan and Washington State and Wisconsin and everybody else, so I assume they'd probably be ok against Iowa.
McGahee was not injured 'early.' It was the fourth quarter.
Dorsey's 'injury', such that it was, didn't affect anything. He was fine and his play was not affected.
I assume you watched the game. Gamble was held. However, OSU did get called for a very questionable pass interference call in the end zone in overtime.
Oldschoolcapper covered the rest of the nonsense.
That's just silly. Never in my life have I ever heard fans of a 2 loss team whine so much and claim that they were the best team in the country. Not just you and Scott$USC, but tons of others. Are you people delusional?
Ohio State played a lot of close games and if you consider winning all of them 'using every advantage given to them', then so be it.
They hit a crucial late, long, 4th down touchdown to Jenkins against Purdue. That was the key play of the season, along with the pass to Clarett against Michigan.
As far as not playing Iowa, give me a break. They beat Miami and Michigan and Washington State and Wisconsin and everybody else, so I assume they'd probably be ok against Iowa.
McGahee was not injured 'early.' It was the fourth quarter.
Dorsey's 'injury', such that it was, didn't affect anything. He was fine and his play was not affected.
I assume you watched the game. Gamble was held. However, OSU did get called for a very questionable pass interference call in the end zone in overtime.
Oldschoolcapper covered the rest of the nonsense.
USC was the best team in the country at the end of the season. Unfortunately for USC, they played the #1 strength of schedule and lost 2 road games by 3pts and 7pts. IN CFB, the regular season is basically a playoff. Therefore USC did not play nor deserve a shot at the title since they had 2 losses. However, at the end of the season, USC clearly was the best team in the country. Majority felt that way including me.
Just because you win a National Championship does not mean you truly were the best team in the country that year. Especially in CFB where there is no playoff system. Not implying OSU played a bad SOS (however they did play $hit load of home games) but here is an example. Team A plays the #1 SOS in the country and loses 1 game by 3pts. Team B plays #60 ranked SOS and goes undefeated and wins the NC by beating team C who plaed a #50 ranked SOS going undefeated.
I would argue Team A might be the best team in the country if they dominated their opponents AND played a much tougher SOS. Just my opinion.
Just because you win a National Championship does not mean you truly were the best team in the country that year. Especially in CFB where there is no playoff system. Not implying OSU played a bad SOS (however they did play $hit load of home games) but here is an example. Team A plays the #1 SOS in the country and loses 1 game by 3pts. Team B plays #60 ranked SOS and goes undefeated and wins the NC by beating team C who plaed a #50 ranked SOS going undefeated.
I would argue Team A might be the best team in the country if they dominated their opponents AND played a much tougher SOS. Just my opinion.
Who does this define?
ELITIST.
e?lit?ism or ?lit?ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
ELITIST.
e?lit?ism or ?lit?ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
