LONG OVERDUE
Unverified Voracity, Founded 1982
Filed under:
I would pay in diamonds if this was Michigan related. Someone found this in Thailand:
![tumblr_lvfmbuQaIv1r1ogzto1_500-480x360[1]](http://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/tumblr_lvfmbuQaIv1r1ogzto1_500-480x3601.jpg "tumblr_lvfmbuQaIv1r1ogzto1_500-480x360[1]")
Thailand: not just for sex tourism anymore. That is amazing. The people who take these pictures immediately clean out the store, right?
Well, you can't say never anymore. Since Dave Brandon created The Horror II there is no nonconference scheduling scenario that you can entirely rule out. A six-game series with Washington State on the moon? Someone call Richard Branson to see if that's been floated.
Still, this seems pretty implausible:
"His expression to me was he felt he had a better chance to win the national championship at Arizona [than Tulane] if he recruited properly and they promised him they would put Michigan on the schedule within three years."
That's a Louisiana high school explaining to Tulane boosters why Rich Rodriguez took the Arizona job over Tulane. (He could have just gone with "duh.") So this is a second-hand account of a one-sided promise that Arizona may or may not have actually offered presumably made without actually talking to anyone in Ann Arbor, involving Michigan playing a real nonconference opponent.
If there wasn't a risk of enormous humiliation I'd say there was a zero percent chance of that happening. Since there is, ballpark it at 10%.
Yerk. UMHoops with the grisly numbers from yesterday's game:
Michigan was never able to find an offensive rhythm against Virginia’s Packline defense. The Wolverines scored just .93 points per trip despite shooting 45 percent from three point range. Michigan, obviously bothered by Virginia’s physical play, was unable to convert the two point shots that carried the offense in Maui and converted just 42% of its two point looks. That lackluster two point shooting was accompanied by first half turnover woes and little to no production on either the offensive glass or at the free throw line.
Dylan says the offense "devolved into glorified isolation plays most of the night," and it's hard to disagree.
I am surprise. The guy who runs the book at the Wynn on Hypothetical Sugar Bowl Everyone Is Projecting:
SUGAR BOWL, JAN. 3
Michigan Wolverines (+4.5) vs. Houston Cougars
…
“The Cougar football program gets center stage for the first time,” Avello said. “The Wolverines have struggled in bowl games losing eight of their last 10.”
Houston's offensive numbers are gaudy as all git out but the one BCS team they played was UCLA, who they scraped by 38-34. I'd think that line would go the other way.
That's the ticket. The #1 Meyer won't destroy us theory is that he doesn't scout, choosing instead to use recruiting lists from the gurus and annihilating the programs he leaves with his crappy recruiting. That's grasping at straws, as all reasons Meyer will not succeed are, but given what went down with Jerimy Finch I think you can make the case Meyer recruits a lot of flakes. Por ejemplo:
One day after the coach who recruited them to Florida was introduced as the new boss at Ohio State, once-hyped recruits Joshua Shaw and Lyndren Trail announced plans to transfer from Gainesville, making them the ninth and tenth members of Urban Meyer's 2010 recruiting class to leave the team in less than two years.
Florida's roster is down to 68 scholarship players. A bunch (11) have taken off since Muschamp arrived, but Jebus, man.
Speaking of flakes, Rich Rodriguez and Urban Meyer are desperately clawing to hire… Tim Brewster. TRY FIGHT WHAT
Hatchdate. Hatch will not play high school basketball this season:
"Austin continues to make great strides in his rehabilitation; this first year is vital to the recovery process," the statement begins. "As a result, it is unlikely that Austin's physicians will clear him to play basketball this season."
I assume this means he's reclassifying to 2014, which would clear any scholarship logjam in future seasons unless no one goes pro or transfers before the 2013 class hits campus—unlikely to say the least.
With the Poke and the man. Oh, good lord, Michigan just recruited a 1996-born hockey player. His name is Dylan Larkin and all you get is stats:
His 13 goals this season is tops on the team, which leads the Great Lakes Division of the MWEHL with a 14-0-3 record. The next highest on the team has 9 goals. He's also second in points (Kyle Connor has 21). Surprisingly, only one of his 13 goals has come on special teams, so he's getting it done at even strength. He also leads the team with 4 game-winning goals.
This is because he is a 2014, Michigan's first. Presumably he's pretty good.
In other hockey news, crap crap crap crap crap. Michigan's losing streak has hit four, the defense is totally clueless, Hunwick isn't exactly bad but he's not playing to last year's standard, and a lot of the games have embarrassingly thin crowds. It's not so good.
Not having Merrill is obviously a big problem. Brennan Serville had his pocket picked for Union's second goal Sunday and sat until the 13 minute mark of the third period. Their third pairing is terrifying and I'm not so sure about the second one, honestly. Not skating Burlon in the title game and the fallout from that, plus the Merrill thing has turned the defense corps from the deepest in the country to one pairing and then Katie bar the door. I don't even know, man. Michigan plays a Michigan State team this weekend that's not much better on paper but has actually won some games recently; if I'm back in the MGoDitch feebly trying to have a real good time after this weekend you know what happened.
The bombs, even more targeted. Dan Wetzel wrote "Death to the BCS," so his take on the latest BCS debacle is not a surprise. It is also not wrong:
No matter what it says, the BCS is not a system designed to choose a championship matchup. It is merely a tool to stave off the inevitable playoff bowl directors fear will cut into their millions in tax-free profits, a casino-style distraction to placate the masses.
It is what it is, and until it collapses (even a four-teamer is a major, positive step), college football is stuck.
That said, if the BCS somehow survives in its current incarnation, the formula to determine 1-2 must be scrapped.
It currently consists of two-thirds human opinion polls that are ripe for political foolishness, full of oft-uneducated voters and subject to groupthink.
I'm waiting for the championship games to play out before doing the Official Tedious Thing I always do around this time, but imagine a six-team playoff with no autobids with the first two rounds played at home sites and the final at the Rose Bowl. Tentative version of that this year:
1. LSU vs 4. Oregon/5.Wisconsin
2. Alabama vs. 3. Oklahoma State/6. Stanford
Or something along those lines. What matters? This weekend. Who can complain about the outcome of that? No one. What does it do the bowl system? Hardly anything. What does it do to the importance of the regular season? Increases it.
Bowls are parasites on college football.
Etc.: Spencer Hall hits up the last Texas-Texas A&M game. Bust details. Rumors that Dayne Crist is going to use the fifth-year transfer rule to become Wisconsin's next free agent quarterback abound. The Big Ten has denied they are employing seat fillers for the championship game, which is true in a narrow technical sense only.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:09 PM | 
I can complain about that system
I can complain about that system
November 30th, 2011 at 3:49 PM |
Sorry
Sorry
Your premise makes little sense.
You tout the fact that the current system makes the regular season more meaningful because OSU-Iowa St is very exciting. I understand the point you are trying to make, but the fallacy is this. You get 3 to 5 of those games a year. Maybe. With a playoff you would get 50 games that would give you the same juice.
How about the Michigan/Nebraska game? Fairly meaningless other than Michgan's pride. With a playoff that is an elimination game with Mich fans still clinging to multiple scenarios to get us in with a win. Under the current system after week 6 or 7 it is pretty clearly defined which 5 teams or so have a chance so each one of their games is important. Those games are exciting but for the rest of college football you are playing for pretty meaningless stuff. The amount of games with playoff implications down the stretch would be much more interesting.
The only possible downside is teams locked into playoff spots possibly taking a game off....just like this year. When Clemson, Michigan State and LSU played games with virtually no meaning. This would be rare and mitigated by the use of byes and home field as Brian has pointed out.
Playoff is the only option.
November 30th, 2011 at 4:16 PM |
i fear a playoff
i fear a playoff
since i love CFB so much, i fear anything that dramatically changes how it works. i know the bcs has flaws, but every other sport has playoffs and every other sport's regular season is a total snooze, including college basketball. i am ok with the vagueries of selecting the championship teams (which is easy since michigan isnt very involved) and listening to every reporter talking about the sytem and how it works rather than saying "it will get worked out in the tourney, lets talk about LeBron!"
2013 resolution - make it onto the 2014 favorite MGoPosters post, not ironically
November 30th, 2011 at 4:40 PM |
The fact that no team can ever lose
The fact that no team can ever lose
and feel good about its chances means there are like 6-10 games each week that are incredibly meaningful.
By contrast, Ohio State kicked the crap out of Duke last night, and it doesn't really matter, because Duke will still get a 2 seed, and will still have about the same chance of winning the national championship. A world where LSU-Alabama or OSU-Michigan 2006 isn't the game of the century because both teams will still be in the playoff if they win out is not a world I want to live in.
And Michigan-Nebraska would have been equally meaningless in the event of a playoff, because college football is not going to a 16 team playoff.
There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter.
November 30th, 2011 at 4:52 PM |
With a playoff you would get
With a playoff you would get
With a playoff you would get 50 games that would give you the same juice.
Wrong - you might get 50 games with the juice extremely diluted. OkSt.'s entire chance at a national championship rode on that Iowa State game. Not true with a playoff. Shrug, "doesn't matter, beat OU."
"We've beaten Michigan the last four years. So where's the threat?"
- Mark Dantonio
Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com/<
November 30th, 2011 at 5:56 PM |
Well, you are the first person I've ever seen
Well, you are the first person I've ever seen
that argues that a playoff makes the regular season more meaningful. Even playoff advocates grudgingly admit that the regular season would be slightly diminished, but more than made up for by the qulity and intensity of a playoff.
Did you like the LSU/Alabama or Oregon/LSU games? Those games were life and death (at the time) for those teams. Why? NOT because they were high profile teams. It's because each game is critical in today's system. Why were they such huge stories on TV leading up to them? Again, because the regular season in college football is so important. With a playoff the LSU/Alabama game would have been a nice matchup, no more than that. (I'm aware that it tirned out to not mean much due to other teams losing, but at the time of the game it was life or death).
Like arguing or paying attention to the Top 25 ratings, seeing your team crack the top 25? Bye Bye to that under a playoff. In basketball, no one cares about who is #1 or if your favorite team is ranked lower than your rival but has the same record. LSU/Alabama was huge because it was 1 vs. 2. Michigan v. OSU in 2006 was way bigger than it already is--why? Because it was 1 vs. 2 in addition to the hate and rivalry. 1 vs. 2 matters in football, because there is not a playoff.
"Everyone gets dumped Gabe. Let me give you some advice: a little coverup on your Adams Apple will make it appear smaller. Which will make you appear less like a transvestite."
November 30th, 2011 at 3:10 PM |
I've said it before....
I've said it before....
But remember the 1 silver lining of the Bowl System (NOT THE BCS). Having bowls allows 20-some odd teams to finish their season with a win. Without bowls we don't get this:
That said, the BCS is a cartel, screw them... I hope they pick us. That system needs to get blown up.
"Over? Did you say, over? Nothing is over until we decide it is!"
November 30th, 2011 at 3:16 PM |
Yeah, that is a bonus. Why
Yeah, that is a bonus. Why
Yeah, that is a bonus. Why can't we keep the bowls but just add a playoff. It's irritating to read people arguing for either/or when both is the answer
November 30th, 2011 at 3:24 PM |
Yes
Yes
I've always thought that they should turn the BCS into a playoff. The current BCS rules would need a little tweaking so we don't have a 7-5 Big East team sneaking in, though.
I know from experience dude. If you know what I mean.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:53 PM |
Totally agree
Totally agree
Leave the rest of the bowls, use the BCS ones in a playoff system to get a National Champion.
"Over? Did you say, over? Nothing is over until we decide it is!"
November 30th, 2011 at 4:39 PM |
Exactly.
Exactly.
Aren't there 4 BCS games right now? Just make that a three round playoff for the national title. You only would be adding one game, the semifinal, since we already have a MNC game a week after the other bowls. It would extend the college season one week. this seems incredibly easy and logical and wouldn't disturb anything. It would make four teams play one or two more games. I think they could handle it.
November 30th, 2011 at 4:54 PM |
OK, do you see that picture
OK, do you see that picture
OK, do you see that picture of the ACCCG from earlier? That is how many people would travel to a semifinal game. As that entire post and column points out, people will not travel twice. You cannot, cannot, just "use the bowls" as a playoff.
"We've beaten Michigan the last four years. So where's the threat?"
- Mark Dantonio
Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com/<
November 30th, 2011 at 3:10 PM |
Hey Wisconsin
Hey Wisconsin
Hey Wisconsin, you're a perennial top-25 Division 1-A football program. Maybe you should, you know, actually recruit and develop some of your own QB's.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:34 PM |
And stop pretending that
And stop pretending that
And stop pretending that Oregon State is a decent OOC opponent while you're at it.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:12 PM |
The MSU hockey series is the
The MSU hockey series is the
The MSU hockey series is the weekend of the 9th, not this weekend.
"It would be a travesty, it would be ridiculous to all of a sudden come back and get the feeling back, get the health back, feel good again and then all of a sudden go throw some other colors on my shirt and go coach."
November 30th, 2011 at 3:23 PM |
Oh...Brian and his attempts
Oh...Brian and his attempts
Oh...Brian and his attempts to talk hockey continue to fail miserably. Please stop.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:41 PM |
So true
So true
We wouldn't want our nice intimate club of hockey followers expanded by Brian's "attempts to talk hockey." The sport is so much better if nobody knows about it, goes to the games, etc. And anyway, Brian's only been following the team and attending the games for, like, a decade or more, so he can't possibly know what he's talking about.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:14 PM |
The shirt
The shirt
Dear God, my girlfriend is in Thailand right now. I told her if she finds me a Michigan shirt like that, it can be my Christmas and birthday present...for 100 years.
This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, a lotta outs, a lotta what-have-yous.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:20 PM |
So I take it she's not there for the sex tourism?
So I take it she's not there for the sex tourism?
Though I'm not sure Brian's right about that shirt...little do we know what a "flying suplex" means in the bars of Bangkok.
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
November 30th, 2011 at 3:14 PM |
How is Wisconsin the #5
How is Wisconsin the #5
How is Wisconsin the #5 team
In that playoff set-up?
November 30th, 2011 at 3:16 PM |
Regarding The Bowl System
Regarding The Bowl System
Get it down to 4 conferences and then do a +1 playoff. Given all the data on concussions I dislike expanding the CFB season any further. Cut OOC play a bit to make sure you play everyone on a semiregular basis and you're good to go.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:23 PM |
In a few short years
In a few short years
if things continue, 4 conferences will account for about 75% of the CFB teams anyways. Win win...
The Team, The Team, The Team
November 30th, 2011 at 3:16 PM |
Florida
Florida
Florida is an interesting situation
NC coach moves on after he mails in final season.
Philosophy changes
Massive attrition
Lack of scholarship athletes
Devastaing injuries
Guru coach makes questionable coordinator hire on other side of ball.
Freshmen running around everywhere
1st season is a disaster.
Where have I seen this story before? Floida went 6-6, but seems awfully familiar. I know the Florida fans are livid, but I'm not sure where the influential people stand. I really like Muscahmp(much like RR) so I think he'll pull thru, but I wonder if he'll get the time he needs. I love his defense, but you wonder if he and Charlie are in it for the long haul on offense together. They need to settle on a qb and a good one soon or he could be in trouble.
November 30th, 2011 at 4:15 PM |
It's too bad there's not a
It's too bad there's not a
It's too bad there's not a "fan-insanity" meter that would let us measure the heat Muschamp is getting and compare it to what RichRod felt. I'd be curious to see if the Florida fans are more insane, less insane, or equally as insane as the irrational RichRod hating contingent. I'd bet on equal, but that's just instinct. (all the usual caveats here - I think RichRod needed to be fired - I just think the fans who disliked him for irrational reasons are dumb).
November 30th, 2011 at 3:17 PM |
The houston matchup is not good for UM
The houston matchup is not good for UM
I personally do NOT want to see that game. I would rather play UGA, SCarolina, even Ark in the Capital One.
Houston can air it out and do it in a 3 step drop (basically takes out QB pressure from DL or blitz). As we have seen from OSU our DBs really aren't anything special right now. Plus even if the houston OL really is swiss cheese and we smother them on D then big deal, we beat a non BCS school in a bowl game. This is a no-win situation.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:03 PM |
there- u said what I've been saying...
there- u said what I've been saying...
while going to a BCS bowl is a great feather in the cap, playing Houston is no-win. No glory for beating a non-AQ school ; much derision for losing to one.
Question: who decided the opponent HAS to be Houston? The same people who can't agree if we should root for or against moo u?
November 30th, 2011 at 5:19 PM |
The opponent would be Houston
The opponent would be Houston
The opponent would be Houston because Houston, if they win out, will earn an auto-bid and nobody ever wants to take the autobidded mid-major. But they want the Big East king of the turdpile even less, and the Sugar Bowl has next-to-last pick, so they'd be stuck between Houston and the Big East and they'd take Houston b/c of proximity and Big East suckitude.
P.S. if we go to the Sugar Bowl and beat Houston, "Sugar Bowl champions" has the same ring to it regardless of who you beat.
"We've beaten Michigan the last four years. So where's the threat?"
- Mark Dantonio
Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com/<
November 30th, 2011 at 11:24 PM |
well, no win, other than the fact
well, no win, other than the fact
We might actually get a win. Sure, losing to them is bad, but which is better/worse - a loss to Arkansas (or say Okie State, badly) or a win vs. Houston? Right now, for this program, I'd go for the win.
Though Brian is right...there's no way Vegas gets any action split action with us as a 4.5 pt underdog. It'd all be on us. Casual fans would bet Michigan, and the big Michigan fanbase would bet Michigan. To balance that I'd think we'd be too high a favorite rather than a dog.
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
November 30th, 2011 at 3:21 PM |
The line and Texas Money
The line and Texas Money
Texas is crazy about football, and there is no shortage of fans willing to lay their money down for "their" teams. Texas seems to be one of those places where the people who have money like to toss it around. I wonder how much that affects betting lines on games involving Texas football teams?
November 30th, 2011 at 3:25 PM |
Not to split hairs in your playoff scheme,
Not to split hairs in your playoff scheme,
but couldn't you do that same thing with 8 teams?
"I hate losing more than I like winning." - Zack
November 30th, 2011 at 3:56 PM |
No
No
You've been here since 2009 you should no better.
You need an off number to allow for byes. You need byes to keep the top teams motivated.
You have 3 different levels of motivation...
1 Make Playoffs
2 Get Home Game
3. Get Bye
I personally like 7 teams so the battle for #1 is fierce and the Saturday with games on at 12, 4 and 8 when the 3 1st rd games would be played would be the best day of the year.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:35 PM |
Wisco's QBs
Wisco's QBs
So is Wisco's new strategy is to go after free agent QBs? Russel Wilson was a proven commodity, Crist is not.
"Relax you panic monger" -Megatron
November 30th, 2011 at 3:40 PM |
CORRECTION, BRIAN
CORRECTION, BRIAN
We'd all pay in diamonds (or Krugerrands, or Euros) if we could find Michigan Staee University Spratns gear like that in Thailand.
November 30th, 2011 at 4:56 PM |
Baht. Thai baht. Exchange
Baht. Thai baht. Exchange
Baht. Thai baht. Exchange rate: awesome. Price of anything: practically nothing.
"We've beaten Michigan the last four years. So where's the threat?"
- Mark Dantonio
Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com/<
November 30th, 2011 at 11:25 PM |
And you do mean the price of
And you do mean the price of
"anything".
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
November 30th, 2011 at 3:48 PM |
"Parasites" is unfair .... to parasites and bowl games.
"Parasites" is unfair .... to parasites and bowl games.
To say the bowls is unfair to parasites and bowl games.
Both serve useful functions.
Parasites can take down the mightiest of creatures so long as there are enough of them. The social analogy would be corruption. Enough corruption ultimately collapses any system even a very wealthy one.
Bowl games are a legacy of the early years of college football. It helped to nuture and develop the sport and fan interest. But now it is like a vestigial tail that won't go away. Should there be a playoff? Yes. Are the bowl committees standing the way of a playoff? Yes. An anarchronistic remnant of football's evolutionary past, but not a parasite.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:52 PM |
I wouldn't exactly call the
I wouldn't exactly call the
I wouldn't exactly call the last four games as thin crowds. The Ohio State series sold out or was near a sell out. The game against Northestern was close to a sell out, but there was no student section due to the AD voiding all of the student section tickets becasue of Thanksgiving.
However, the attendance at the Union game was embarrasing. It was perhaps the worst crowd I have seen at Yost in my six years of graduate school, outside of the preseason exhibitions against Waterloo.
November 30th, 2011 at 4:24 PM |
I agree. It has made each and
I agree. It has made each and
I disagree. It has made each and every game important for a team with hopes of a National Championship. I used to have a hard on for a playoff sysytem but I do not anymore. The ultimate goal should be, in any sort of "crowning" system, to name the best team over the course of the year. That should be what it's about. No other sport carries the history the BCS does in this. Baseball certainly doesn't. The NFL is almost a game of who is hot/less hurt. Do you want to tell me the Patriots weren't better than the Giants over the course of the year in 2008? They were but have nothing to show. Basketball comes pretty close because they have long series that removes the variablity. Football does not and can not have that.
I'm not saying the BCS is perfect but never have we crowned a champion that we can make an argument against. Sure, there have been scenerios where a team not crowned could make a case, but we have never been able to say with more evidence in our favor that the wrong team was crowned. That is what I like about the BCS. They more often than not will get the right two teams and will crown a team deserving of the trophy. That's what I want.
If I were choosing based on my own entertainment purposes, a playoff would be great. The problem for me arises if, say Boise was in and Kellen Jones got hurt. Now, they have simply made the playoffs and don't have anything to really show for it. Another issue would be if for instance, Alabama beat Stanford but Richardson was hurt late in the game. The Alabama team we saw all year would not be the one represented. Is that a way to crown a champion? I would say no. This year is different. It's a mess with two teams that would perhaps have a shot (Bama, Oregon) that have already had their shot at LSU. I am on the side that thinks there should never be a rematch. Those teams had their chances. Sure, we could say OkSt did too, but that wasn't against the team they will be playing in the future. I don't think it's fair to LSU. If we are under the assumption that the year as a whole matters (which is what proponents of the BCS contend) why should they have to play a team they have beaten when there are other options. I hold a completely different view for conference champions because, well, there aren't as many options.
I just like the sport crowning a deserving National Champion. In Brian's 6 team scenario, Stanford and WIsconsin are not worthy. Wisconsin does not deserve to play for a National Championship. If they wanted to play for it, maybe they should have knocked down the Hail Mary or not slept for a Saturday. If Oregon wanted it, they had a chance to be undefeated. OkSt probably has the smallest bitch because they lost a team (my alma mater) they had no business losing to. That said, if everyone wins, give me OkSt vs LSU. LSU will win and there will be no argument. That is how it should work.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:59 PM |
Perhaps you haven't seen
Perhaps you haven't seen
Perhaps you haven't seen Brian's scenario before, but his major point is that whichever team emerges at the end will, almost by definition, have the best resume of any college football team that year. So it's actually the perfect system to "name the best team over the course of the year" to use your language. If Wisconsin were to win, they would have a resume that includes road wins over LSU and Oregon, and a neutral site win over Alabama (or someone who beat Alabama, at home). Who in the country would have a resume that could touch that? They would absolutely be deserving.
I think it's a brilliant system because the byes & home field make the regular season extremely meaningful, and those very same things ensure that the 5 & 6 seeds will have a brutal path through the playoffs such that they will be deserving national champions if they win it.
December 1st, 2011 at 1:26 AM |
Perhaps I have seen his
Perhaps I have seen his
Perhaps I have seen his scenario before. You would give Wisconsin, who has no right to play for a National Championship, a chance to do it. Why doesn't Boise get that chance? Why not Virginia Tech? You run into the same issue a lot of years if not all. In fact it may be even a closer call between #6 and #10 in some years than it is between 2 and 3. When has the BCS been wrong. I mean absolutely wrong? I can't think of a time. There may have been a time where a third team could make a case but let's say LSU and Wisconsin meet and Wisconsin wins by 1 then get's ripped apart by Bama? My point is that a playoff allows a team who has 2 hiccups throughout the year a chance to win a National Title while it makes a team like LSU who has beaten everyone in their path beat 3 more very high quality teams to do so and if they lose, they may still have been the best team during the whole year. Are you going to put Wisconsin ahead of one loss LSU? I wouldn't because Wisconsin lost games the best team in the Nation should not. LSU losing to Wisconsin is much less damning.
December 1st, 2011 at 1:52 AM |
A highly underrated
A highly underrated
A highly underrated argument. I grant that once a playoff gets to a certain point, teams that are left out probably have a very weak argument for inclusion even though they might be similar-looking to teams that are in. Call it the Virginia Tech principle, since they're getting notorious for being the 69th team in a 68-team tourney. 16 teams is probably that point in football, assuming you don't have a measly five at-larges like Wetzel does.
The thing that's horrible about Brian's plan, though, is that six is the sweet spot for screwing a lot of deserving teams with good argments. Where the hell are Virginia Tech, South Carolina, Boise State, Arkansas, Michigan, Houston, or USC? (Postseason ban notwithstanding on the latter.) Any one of them could take the place of a Stanford or a Wisconsin. We were once told the BCS is unfair and we needed a playoff because undefeated Boise States of the world deserved a shot - so where's Houston? Nobody better give me the "BCS rankings can determine the participants" stuff - if they can't properly choose 2, they can't properly choose 6, especially when there's much less difference among the 4th through 10th teams than there is between 2nd and 3rd.
Brian also likes to imagine that it would stay at six in perpetuity. (Otherwise, why even propose it?) There is abso-effin-lutely no way. If there's that much money to be made in a playoff, everyone in the world knows they would add two more games to bring it to eight. And once there, it's not too far from 10 or 12....
"We've beaten Michigan the last four years. So where's the threat?"
- Mark Dantonio
Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com/<
November 30th, 2011 at 4:26 PM |
whoa, whoa, whoa, stop the clock
whoa, whoa, whoa, stop the clock
Michigan has not lost 8 of its last 10 bowl games.
"I want to go back, I gotta go back, to Mi-chi-gan."
November 30th, 2011 at 4:56 PM |
And even if we had, I'm blown
And even if we had, I'm blown
And even if we had, I'm blown away by the silliness and irrelevance of that argument. Why the hell would that have any effect upon our performance this year?
November 30th, 2011 at 5:01 PM |
True
True
In the last 10 years, we have gone 2-6 with no game in 09 and 08.
In our last ten bowl games we are 4-6 with a 4-2 record against the SEC. 0-2 against Big Twelve (Nebraska and Texas). 0-2 against USC.
Our SEC wins are against Florida (2), Alabama and Auburn. Not bad. The losses were to Tennessee and Miss State.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:02 PM |
True
True
In the last 10 years, we have gone 2-6 with no game in 09 and 08.
In our last ten bowl games we are 4-6 with a 4-2 record against the SEC. 0-2 against Big Twelve (Nebraska and Texas). 0-2 against USC.
Our SEC wins are against Florida (2), Alabama and Auburn. Not bad. The losses were to Tennessee and Miss State.
It would be accurate to say we have only won 2 bowl games in the last ten years.
November 30th, 2011 at 4:30 PM |
Bowls
Bowls
May be a parasite. But the old bowl system would have worked just fine this season, thank you.
LSU would not have to play Bama again. If they lose, can we honeslty say Bama is the better team? When Bama lost at home?
No, the only thing that game will prove is who was better on that day. And that isn't what college football national championships have ever been about.
I don't get why people are all for the differences in college and pro ball (pageantry, bowl games, gimmick offenses, fight song, etc.) except for in the way in which championships are decided. Isn't there something uniquely collegiate about the polls? Isn't that kinda cool?
Why not just go back to the old two-poll method. Multiple national championship? Who cares?
Also, why is it universally agreed that Bama and LSU should play in the championship game (even if LSU loses to Georgia, I hear) when 2006 Michigan was given no chance at a rematch against Ohio? I agree that the rematch shouldn't have happened, for the record (OSU shouldn't have to prove itself twice) but why doesn't someone else get a crack at LSU? Is it all about TV ratings? The BCS is a sham.
But, so would a playoff be. There would still be fights about why the 5th team didn't get in. Nothing would be solved, at all.
"In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity."
November 30th, 2011 at 4:31 PM |
Crist to Wisconsin
Crist to Wisconsin
I am not THE_KNOWLEGE by any means, but I did recently predict that this was the new model for Wisconsin instead of the old fashioned recruit and develop type thing. Dane Crist as the 2012 B1G Offensive POY?
November 30th, 2011 at 4:33 PM |
I went to the Michigan-Union
I went to the Michigan-Union
I went to the Michigan-Union game Sunday(my first of the year), and our defense is horrible. I haven't seen hockey this poor at Michigan in quite some time. The youngsters look good(de Giuseppe?) but the defense is poor. I think the loss of Mel Pearson is being felt more than we would have expected.
November 30th, 2011 at 4:53 PM |
Great call on the bowls. They
Great call on the bowls. They
Great call on the bowls. They are exactly that. Blood suckers robbing the post season cash cow dry. Read Wetzel's book where he digs into their own financials to show you how they rip off the schools and then live fat claiming non-profit status.
To any argument that there would be controversy about who makes a playoff, my answer is "duh". When has interest and discussion ever been a bad thing? There are winners and losers in the current system now. With an expanded playoff, there would be more winners and fewer losers in the process.
The old bowl system was not only failing everyone financially but it had even more guesswork and silliness involved than the BCS. Anytime you are lagging behind what the BCS can do, you are really smelling up the joint.
"because character wins in life and character wins on the football field....." 1-11-11
November 30th, 2011 at 5:01 PM |
With an expanded playoff,
With an expanded playoff,
With an expanded playoff, there would be more winners and fewer losers in the process.
That's a sort of ironic thing to say about changing from a system where half the teams go home winners to a system where 67 of 68 teams (in basketball, anyway) go home losers. I realize we're talking about two different definitions of "winner" here but they're not completely different, either. After all, it's all about the players, really, or it is when we talk about other parts of the system.
"We've beaten Michigan the last four years. So where's the threat?"
- Mark Dantonio
Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com/<
attempting to pick a college football national champion with even the slightest modicum of accuracy is a fool's errand. Given that, the only relevant question is "what system is the most entertaining." For me, the fact that Oklahoma State-Iowa State on Friday night in week like 8 is an impossibly meaningful game is more entertaining to me than a 3 or 4 game playoff would be.
There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter.