Football Display Case
I don't think they changed Les at all actually
national champs baby
Patrick Hruby is doing God's work.
first comment: "EVERY ATHLETE HAS ASPIRATIONS OF WINNING AND WE HAVE OUR FAVORITES BUT IT IS ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO OTHER STUDENTS ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS, TOO!"
stupid Pistons and their refusal to tank properly
rundown of Michigan's riser
needs moar usage
so much for that
This list is completely arbitrary and not a genuine analysis of the relative merits of state fossils.
will be michigan's highest pick in a while
money has to go somewhere
I am only motivated by people who have no opinion about me.
the just released schedules were a flat-out statement that the B10 doesn't believe SOS will matter in playoff selection
but I thought that draft was supposed to be incredibly loaded?
TNIAAM just killed Bill Hancock.
We need a play-off. Boise's trek to the championship is way too easy. Unfair, but true. This is a lesser evil type of scenario, screw 1 team or screw a dozen. Of course, there is another option but cash rules...
The fundamental problem I have with a playoff is that there is too much disparity between the conferences now. So would you have a team that won their weaker conference go over a team that came in second place in their tougher conference? Would you base the rankings on the polls? IF so, how would things be different from the current system?
So would you have a team that won their weaker conference go over a team that came in second place in their tougher conference?
Sure. The undefeated team might (I'll even give you "probably") be beatable. The second-best team in a BCS conference has been already proven beatable.
Would you base the rankings on the polls?
IF so, how would things be different from the current system?
It pretty much all boils down to the fact that picking the "best" sixteen -- or eight -- or even four teams gives you a larger pool from which to potentially have picked the actual best team than does a two-team "championship". Don't make the perfect be the enemy of the good -- no system will be perfect, that's a given; but any reasonable playoff system (okay, "teams whose mascots have red as a color" might not work) will be better than what we have today.
I think the biggest thing holding back a playoff is that most colleges still want the bowl system. The bowls give teams visibility that they wouldn't otherwise have. Because of that, I think in order for any playoff to gain traction, it would have to be within the framework of the bowl system. The most easily worked out solution would be to have two semi-championship bowls that feed into a championship bowl. For instance, you have 1 and 4 in the Rose Bowl and 2 and 3 in the Fiesta Bowl. A week later, the winners of those two bowls face off. A better solution would be to expand that to 4 bowls but that would add another two weeks. An even better solution would be to expand it to 8 bowls. But if were going to do it, those 16 bowls would include all the conference champions and whatever at large bids are left. If that means a MAC team would play an SEC team...so be it. At least the MAC team would have a shot at a championship.
The problem is not that polls are used; they are a reasonably democratic way of seperating wheat from chaff. The problem is that 2 teams get a shot and Boise doesn't no matter what they do. Using the BCS to seed a play-off is better because teams like Boise and TCU don't get screwed. I'm OK with a 1-loss team feeling like they got jipped; they shouldn' have lost.
The conference champions route isn't a bad way to go. Eleven champions, 5 at large. FIGHT! March madness style. Why won't that work? Mid-majors have either been weeded out by the Final Four, or have proven their worth.
How is the FCS tournament run? Do it that way. Screw it. What'smwrong with that?
Frankly, I don't really care how you structure it, just do it. I'll worry about finding the best tournament when we have *a* tournament.