I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
As you are aware, M hockey takes on Sparty in the 2nd round of the CCHA playoffs. Sparty will be on spring break next week. Even though Munn Ice Arena is already comparable to a library on game days, I feel we can truly outnumber Sparties in their own building all weekend.
That being said, we need a strong Munn invasion to help our chances for a CCHA Semifinal berth.
To get started, here's the link for tickets from MSU's website. Someone else confirm that MGoBlue will be selling our allotment of tickets starting tomorrow, please.
Buy buy buy my hockey brethren and may we flood the green and white with the maize and blue.
I am currently taking my last English class ever(thank god), and one of the final assignments is a 10 page argumentative research paper. For a paper this long i need a topic that I'm truly passionate about; and what better than college football?
Most, if not all, of us know that the great controversy of college football is of course:
the BCS system vs a playoff system
I wrote a shorter 6 page paper on this same topic last semester but I'll re-word everything to avoid that whole plagiarism thing. Onto the whole point to my post...I want to improve my paper but don't want to post it on here so my teacher doesn't Google a section of it and find it on a sports blog. (I almost did, that would have been stupid of me)
At the moment there are no rebuttals to why a playoff system would be bad but from what I've read around here, the BCS makes a lot more money than a playoff would. Is there any factual data to prove that so I could put it in my paper? Also, I understand that a playoff would remove the student athletes from their schools or homes for a longer duration, but doesn't March Madness do the same thing?
So if you could comment on the reasons a playoff system is a better option than the BCS system, it would be greatly appreciated.
- I represent the persecuted minority. Woe is us, the playoff deniers. I recognize that the tide is against those of us who would prefer not to turn to a playoff in college football. In order to pander to the majority, idealogues like Dan Wetzel and Pat Forde condescend to those of us who disagree. I believe that a playoff is inevitable, somewhere down the line, due to the tide of support for it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or not go down swinging. But in order to be heard, it sometimes requires drastic measures.
- Gumdrop rainbow playoff ideas. Hardly a day goes by without someone inventing their own playoff. Having come up with their own special proposal and convinced themselves it's perfect, they become entrenched. "I have a great idea, therefore I'm in favor of a playoff." The problem is, people approach it like this:
- I see problems, X, Y, and Z with the current system.
- Here is a system that fixes X, Y, and Z.
They have given zero thought to the actual realities the NCAA operates under. They might fix X, Y, and Z but they break A, B, and C. They come up with ideas that break NCAA bylaws, ignore the considerations that the power brokers deal with, force unrealistic expectations onto the scene, and generally fail to take into account most of the factors that drive the situation. Some are just playoffs for the sake of playoffs. Extremely rare is the playoff proposal that it's not easy to poke a ton of holes in at first sight. Extremely rare is the playoff proposal that the NCAA and conference commissioners wouldn't round-file the moment they saw it. But everyone from POTUS on down has their gumdrop rainbow idea that they like, and having presented it, they see no reason why it shouldn't be implemented and therefore they are playoff advocates.
Even I have my own gumdrop rainbow idea, but it doesn't make me a playoff advocate - I recognize that what I want and what playoff eventually emerges are likely to be wildly different. I suspect many people will find that the end result is as disappointing to them as the current system. At least, though, I've tried to take what I think is the correct approach when designing a playoff, which is to try to think through what the commissioners and presidents would want out of it and then apply those rules to fit what I want into them, rather than start with my own burning desires and convince myself that the result is workable.
- The BCS folks are idiots. The anti-playoff arguments they come up with are at best hit-and-miss and at worst totally off-mark. They aren't much better at thinking through the eyes of a fan than the fans are at thinking through the eyes of the commissioners. Someone has to take up their slack.
- Get off my lawn. I'm a traditionalist at heart, and college football has the best ones. I don't like the idea that we must tear down the old ways because somewhere along the line, we decided the national title is all that matters. And further, many people think you can have it both ways. Well, you might be able to, but not through the methods most propose. Again, I suspect many would find themselves disappointed when the presence of a playoff removes some aspect of college football they thought would be kept. In any case, though, I'm kind of reflexive about it - the default setting should be to keep what you've got if there are doubts, because once you change, you can't go back.
I don't think the BCS is the perfect system, and it could always use a fix here and there. But anti-playoff is not pro-status-quo - an assumption made by too many. That assumption, and others like it, permeate the pro-playoff ranks, and, because those ranks are the majority, are too often accepted as the truth. Too many wrong ideas about why we don't have a playoff and why we should are in every debate. I just can never resist shooting them down.
a little break from basketball for you: alaska just beat osu in the ccha quarterfinals 1-0 with the only goal coming in the last minute of the game. This means we will be playing the nanooks in the semis this friday. This almost definitely ruins tOSU's shot of making the ncaa tournament while simultaneous saving miami after they shot themselves in the foot by losing to northern.
expect a game similar to the ones we just played against western: an over-matched alaska team held in by ridiculous goal tending from chad johnson (ocho cinco) except that johnson is better than riley gill. we split with alaska earlier in the year when we were playing like garbage. it should be much different this time
While we are pending Michigan's invitation to the dance tomorrow, we also should recognize the play of the hockey team, who has swept Western Michigan with a 6-1 win tonight, as reported on MGoBlue.com.
I tried to find a tourney bracket on CCHA's website, but I couldn't find one (horribly designed website, IMO). Does anyone know where I can find a bracket or at least tell me who we are playing next?
Thanks and GO BLUE!
My idea is that there should be an eight team playoff at the end of the season. The winner of every BCS conference gets a spot in the playoff. If there are conference co-champions, such as this year in the Big Ten, the team with the higher BCS rating gets the bid (this year it would be Penn State). The two remaining spots are at-large bids, reserved for schools from non-BCS conferences or independents (so Notre Dame won't cry). These spots are decided by BCS rating (the two highest rated non-BCS-conference teams who win their conference or independents) get the bid. If there aren't any ranked non-BCS-conference teams who win their conference, a selection panel gets to decide which team gets into the playoff.
Also, no conference can have more than one team represent that conference in the playoff. The teams are seated by BCS rank (the highest BCS ranked team would play the lowest BCS ranked team). The teams that do not make it to the championship game get distributed to various bowls. These bowls do not have to be BCS bowls (BCS bowls do not have to be forced to select #19 Virginia Tech).
The regular season would have to be pushed ahead at least one week. That means Championship Saturday would fall on November 29 this year, round 1 would fall on December 6, and round 2 would fall on December 13. The championship game would be played about a week after the bowl games (no change from when it's played now).
Since the majority of games are played against conference foes, the regular season will stay important and the bowl system will still be preserved. And think about the non-conference matchups we would see, since teams aren't as afraid to lose out of conference because the main priority is winning the conference championship to get that playoff spot. Also, the stereotype of which conference is best or worst can be done away with. Because every conference has its shot, we will know at the end of the playoff how strong conferences and teams really were.
This year's playoff teams would look something like this (based on BCS rank):
1. Oklahoma (Big-12)
2. Florida (SEC)
5. USC (Pac-10)
6. Utah (Mountain-West) [at-large]
8. Penn State (Big Ten)
9. Boise State (WAC) [at-large]
12. Cincinnati (Big East)
19. Virginia Tech (ACC)
The match ups would be:
1. Oklahoma (Big-12) vs. 19. Virginia Tech (ACC)
2. Florida (SEC) vs. 12. Cincinnati (Big East)
5. USC (Pac-10) vs. 9. Boise State (WAC) [at-large]
6. Utah (Mountain-West) [at-large] vs. 8. Penn State (Big Ten)
The only problem I see with this system is having to wait awhile before finding out who goes to bowl games. A season running this late would probably be hell for the bowl selection process. If Penn State makes it to round 2 of the playoffs, we would have to wait until December 13 to find out if they are going to the Rose Bowl or if Ohio State is going to the Rose Bowl.
What do you think?