OT: Great Super Bowl follows fairly meaningless regular season.

81 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
February 5th, 2012 at 11:33 PM
#1
wolverine1987
wolverine1987's picture
Joined: 07/07/2008
MGoPoints: 2928
OT: Great Super Bowl follows fairly meaningless regular season.

While I freely admit I am not a Giants fan and was rooting for our boy Tom and the Pats to win, this game also reminded me why college football is IMO superior. Specifically, the fact that in the NFL a 9-7 regular season gets you a chance to be crowned World Champs. When people talk about not wanting a broad playoff in the top level of college football because it would detract from the meaning of the regular season, this is what they mean.

I am NOT against a playoff in college football, let that be stated (I like Brian's proposal or various 4 team proposals). But contrary to the opinion of most that a playoff is always more fair, I think it can be less fair--the Giants played like crap most of the year (much like Arizona a few years back and others) slip in at 9-7 and then get hot and win it all. If the regular season is a warmup to get ready to qualify for the playoffs that's fine and all, but I prefer a system where every loss is a potential killer. That's just me, I'm not dismissing anyone's contrary opinion, (many love the fact that a low ranked team gets hot and wins it all) but I prefer a system where the best teams in the regular seaon are rewarded with more than playing a game at home (sometimes not even that, see 12-4 Pittsburgh this year playing at 8-8 Denver in the playoffs).  

"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." 

Top
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:35 PM | Oklahoma State, Auburn, USC, (Score:-1 Trolling)
February 5th, 2012 at 11:41 PM | Just win (Score:5 Normal)
Space Coyote
Space Coyote's picture
Joined: 06/18/2009
MGoPoints: 4378

For the most part, just win.  You have no excuses if you lose a game.  As much as I wanted Michigan in the MNC in '06, you know what, if they don't lose they have a shot.  Is that always fair?  No.  But it's pretty much the truth.

And a 4-team playoff would pretty much take care of the years when there are a few undefeated teams without something like this happening.  Those teams you listed can hypothetically disagree all they want, but for most of them if they just would have won it wouldn't have been an issue.

4/23/13 - Denard Robinson's NFL Future, Part II

February 5th, 2012 at 11:54 PM | You say "for the most part, just win" (Score:-1 Trolling)
February 6th, 2012 at 1:56 AM | But the Giants didn't just win the first 14 games (Score:5 Normal)
Space Coyote
Space Coyote's picture
Joined: 06/18/2009
MGoPoints: 4378

They were 7-7, they lost just as many as they won, which makes that much less meaningful than what college football is, which is essentially lose a single game and you have no reason to bitch.

And you're barking up the wrong tree on this blog saying the NFL is a more enjoyable game to watch.  Obviously the talent is superior in the NFL (honestly not even sure why you brought this point up) but to most around here the college game in general is much more fun to watch.  For my reasons it is because of the diversity, traditions, and probably most importantly, as you point out, the passion.  I like the NFL, but I think most around these parts, including myself, find the college game superior in enjoyment value.  You can use the amount of fans that fill the stands on Saturdays as evidence that many agree with this line of thinking.

4/23/13 - Denard Robinson's NFL Future, Part II

February 6th, 2012 at 1:01 PM | Re: your second paragraph (Score:0 Trolling)
February 5th, 2012 at 11:36 PM | Welp (Score:4 Funny)
invisiblespoon
Joined: 12/03/2011
MGoPoints: 9

I'm just proud of my Redskins for beating the Super Bowl Champs.

NOMNOMNOMNOM

February 6th, 2012 at 12:10 AM | take your victories where you (Score:1 Normal)
SysMark
SysMark's picture
Joined: 11/15/2008
MGoPoints: 5566

take your victories where you can...kudos

February 6th, 2012 at 9:49 AM | That's like the Rams in 99. (Score:2 Normal)
DrunkOnHiggins
DrunkOnHiggins's picture
Joined: 06/16/2011
MGoPoints: 683

That's like the Rams in 99. Completely unstoppable throught the regular season and playoffs. The Greatest Show on Turf...

Some people forget the Lions beat them that year.

"And if that doesn't wet your appetite, you're watching the wrong channel."

You can usually find me bumping some Reggae, hammered on Higgins Lake with the goon squad. #HALOL

Go Blue!

February 5th, 2012 at 11:38 PM | I think each playoff team (Score:2 Funny)
TheGhostofYost
TheGhostofYost's picture
Joined: 04/20/2011
MGoPoints: 2560

I think each playoff team should start the game with the same number of points as their advantage in regular season wins.  Patriots up 4 to start the game.

February 6th, 2012 at 12:05 PM | They went 13-3, (Score:1)
the bee train
Joined: 08/10/2011
MGoPoints: 14

didn't beat a team with a winning record until the playoffs, and lost to the Giants at home during the regular season, and you want to spot them 4 points? This might be the worst idea in the history of mankind.

poopface

February 6th, 2012 at 12:20 PM | The only team that the Giants (Score:1)
joeyb
joeyb's picture
Joined: 10/12/2008
MGoPoints: 11303

The only team that the Giants beat with a winning record was the Patriots, so you're kind of counting that one twice. Had the Pats gone 16-0 again, they would have had exactly 1 win over a team with a winning record. Don't get me wrong, it's a stupid idea, but using wins against teams with winning records as a measuring stick in the NFL is kind of stupid.

February 6th, 2012 at 12:33 PM | That's not the point (Score:1)
the bee train
Joined: 08/10/2011
MGoPoints: 14

The point is the Giants had a much more difficult schedule than NE and made the playoffs. As many have already pointed out in this thread, NY was ravaged by injuries which very possibly could have been the difference in games lost against winning teams like @SF (27-20) and GB (38-35). My point is that awarding teams points based on victories against anything other than common opponents is an absolutely horrible idea. In fact, it's a horrible idea to award points for victories against common opponents as well. You may not have dug my example, but you seem to have missed the point of my post.

poopface

February 5th, 2012 at 11:40 PM | meaningless season? (Score:5 Normal)
timtebro
timtebro's picture
Joined: 06/08/2010
MGoPoints: 1012

tim tebro thinks NOT

god bless

You're HIV-Aladeen.

February 5th, 2012 at 11:41 PM | OT, but does anyone have a (Score:5 Normal)
carlosspicyweiner
carlosspicyweiner's picture
Joined: 09/29/2010
MGoPoints: 399

OT, but does anyone have a gif of the Patriots linebacker jumping the completely wrong way on that slant TD to Cruz?  It looked like what I do sometimes on NCAA when I push the wrong button and my guy dry humps the air.  

"Tears are salty.  Sweat is salty.  One gets you pity, the other gets you results"  

 

-Former Michigan soccer coach Steve Burns

February 5th, 2012 at 11:57 PM | Or if you accidentally tap (Score:1)
Lionsfan
Lionsfan's picture
Joined: 06/03/2011
MGoPoints: 3908

Or if you accidentally tap the hit stick too early/late and your guy will suddenly bend over forwards and tackle the air

If you're doing nothing, how do you know when you're finished?

StraightDave owes me a steak dinner

February 6th, 2012 at 1:48 AM | I'm convinced the Super Bowl (Score:2 Normal)
MichiganITtoWINit
MichiganITtoWINit's picture
Joined: 01/27/2011
MGoPoints: 202

I'm convinced the Super Bowl was just a beta test for Madden 2060.

"This is Michigan for God sakes" -Brady Hoke

February 5th, 2012 at 11:44 PM | Straw man (Score:4 Normal)
The Tater
The Tater's picture
Joined: 04/03/2009
MGoPoints: 2

This argument always strikes me as a bit of a straw man.  The NFL playoffs take 12 out of 32 teams for the playoffs (37.5% of teams).  For a proportionally similar playoff (and thus a proportionally meaningless regular season), college football would have to have a 24 team playoff (and that's if we're limiting it to BCS conferences).  Nobody is actually suggesting that kind of playoff.  Every reasonable suggestion is for somewhere between 4 and 8 teams. 

An 8 team playoff in college football (12% of BCS teams) would be like the NFL having a 4 team playoff.  In that case, the regular season would be incredibly meaningful.

They call me...Tater Salad

February 6th, 2012 at 12:00 AM | "Every reasonable suggestion" (Score:3 Normal)
MaizeAndBlueWahoo
MaizeAndBlueWahoo's picture
Joined: 07/02/2008
MGoPoints: 11821

"Every reasonable suggestion" is a very subjective thing.  This is not a straw man argument, because there are a lot of people out there insisting on 16 teams.  For example, Dan Wetzel, the loudest and shrillest anti-BCS, pro-playoff voice out there.  And even if nobody is suggesting a 24-team playoff, people are suggesting that "if they do it in all the other divisions, why can't they do it in the highest one?"  And I-AA football is a 20-team playoff.  So even if nobody's insisting on a big, 20-24 team deal right now, playoff opponents are rightly concerned that it would eventually become one.

"We've beaten Michigan the last four years.  So where's the threat?"

- Mark Dantonio

Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com/<

February 6th, 2012 at 2:30 AM | That's a fair point. However, (Score:1)
aiglick
Joined: 11/27/2010
MGoPoints: 1442

That's a fair point. However, we saw what thee other end of the spectrum, what we currently have, can do this year. From one perspective, worse loss, clearly Alabama was more deserving than OSU. From another perspective, OSU was more deserving because they had better wins. The best conference this year was probably Big 12 or at least that was the perception. The SEC has great defenses but it helps that their offenses are pretty below average. I remember hearing something about Alabama having never faced an offense better than 75.

Anyway, I think a 4-8 team playoff would still have the regular season be meaningful but it would make it fair for deserving undefeateds and potential one loss teams. Who wouldn't have wanted to see LSU vs. Stanford and Alabama vs OSU. If the rematch happened, then great. If not, well that's the point of playoffs. Whoever is best at the end of the season should be the champion. The rationale behind that is this encourages teams to improve over the course of a season, not regress. The Giants did this. Therefore, they are perfectly deserving of winning the Super Bowl.

I know that I would be absolutely livid if Michigan beats Alabama next year, loses one game somewhere down the line, and does not get championship consideration.

Here's hoping for a bright future. This team does try hard and I will continue to support them.

February 6th, 2012 at 2:41 AM | I would be more in favor of a (Score:3 Normal)
MaizeAndBlueWahoo
MaizeAndBlueWahoo's picture
Joined: 07/02/2008
MGoPoints: 11821

I would be more in favor of a four-team playoff if two guarantees could be made:

1) there would be no controversy or bitching and moaning about deserving teams that are left out.  We would all sit down and agree that the teams that are in deserve to be in over the teams that are out.

2) it would never expand beyond four.

Unfortunately, not only could no such guarantees ever be made.... the reverse of both would come true.  I guarantee there would continue to be controversy and I guarantee it would expand sooner or later.  First to six, then eight, and so on.  The BCS didn't last five years before people got tired of it and wanted something new, and it will probably finish its life at about fifteen years.  If a four-team playoff is put in place like Mark Emmert wants, how long before people get tired of it and want something new..... again?

"We've beaten Michigan the last four years.  So where's the threat?"

- Mark Dantonio

Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com/<

February 6th, 2012 at 9:46 AM | LOL @ your 1).   (Score:1)
cbuswolverine
Joined: 08/14/2008
MGoPoints: 1766

LOL @ your 1).  There will always be controversy and bitching under any system.  You want a guarantee that there would somehow be less than there is now in order for you to support change?  

February 6th, 2012 at 12:34 PM | Correct, there will always be (Score:2)
MaizeAndBlueWahoo
MaizeAndBlueWahoo's picture
Joined: 07/02/2008
MGoPoints: 11821

Correct, there will always be controversy and bitching.  So why should anyone listen when someone says "team X got screwed by the BCS?"  It's just the controversy that comes with any system, right?

"We've beaten Michigan the last four years.  So where's the threat?"

- Mark Dantonio

Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com/<

February 6th, 2012 at 1:20 PM | The larger the playoff, the worse the teams (Score:1)
befuggled
befuggled's picture
Joined: 07/01/2008
MGoPoints: 1021

That are screwed by it.

In a 2-team playoff such as the current BCS, the teams that are screwed by it are the #3 and #4 teams.

In a 4-team playoff, the teams that are screwed by it are the #5 and #6 teams.

In an 8-team playoff, the teams that are screwed by it are the #9 and #10 teams.

So as the size of the playoff increases, the less meaningful the complaining becomes by the teams that are kept out.

Where's Charlie Bauman when you need him?

February 6th, 2012 at 1:42 PM | But as the size of the (Score:2)
MaizeAndBlueWahoo
MaizeAndBlueWahoo's picture
Joined: 07/02/2008
MGoPoints: 11821

But as the size of the playoff increases, so does the number of "screwed" teams.  If we had had an 8-team playoff this year, the first five spots would probably not be in doubt, and then there would be a minimum of 8 and probably more like 12 teams with legitimate claims to the last three spots.  It would be much more than just #9 and #10.  It would probably go out to #13 and #14.  This would clearly do nothing to resolve any controversy.  It would probably make it worse by adding more voices. 

Eight teams is a number frequently cited as a number that wouldn't ruin the regular season, but you cannot claim both that, and that an eight-team playoff is sufficient to quell the complaints from teams that missed because they are not "meaningful" complaints.  The NFL, time and again, gives us all the proof we need that anyone that gets in can win, so I don't buy that the teams left out have no legitimate beef, even in a larger 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/<

February 6th, 2012 at 11:05 AM | Both of your guarantees are (Score:1)
ForeverBlue
ForeverBlue's picture
Joined: 12/05/2010
MGoPoints: 174

Both of your guarantees are not true about the NCAA basketball tournament. It has expanded throughout its history (albeit many resisted the change) and the last teams out always bitch and complain. The NCAA basketball tournament is doing just fine. While your ideas would be very nice, they aren't necessary to have a better system than we have now.

February 5th, 2012 at 11:49 PM | Remember when we wanted the (Score:2)
MaizeAndBlueWahoo
MaizeAndBlueWahoo's picture
Joined: 07/02/2008
MGoPoints: 11821

Remember when we wanted the Lions to beat the Packers so they would get the Giants instead of the Saints in the playoffs?

"We've beaten Michigan the last four years.  So where's the threat?"

- Mark Dantonio

Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com/<

February 5th, 2012 at 11:51 PM | Just because the Giants won (Score:5 Normal)
redwings8831
Joined: 03/05/2009
MGoPoints: 1016

Just because the Giants won the super bowl doesn't take away from the fact that they were a much better matchup for the Lions than the Saints were.

If you can't get into college go to State.

February 6th, 2012 at 1:58 AM | Yeah (Score:3 Normal)
HartAttack20
HartAttack20's picture
Joined: 06/08/2009
MGoPoints: 1371

Yep, and the Lions lost to the Saints, so it couldn't have been much worse if they played the Giants instead. In fact, it would probably be better if they had lost to the Super Bowl champs.

I can only continue to reference the fact that I live in an onion factory.

February 5th, 2012 at 11:51 PM | I agree with you OP.  I just (Score:4 Normal)
RickH
RickH's picture
Joined: 11/01/2009
MGoPoints: 948

I agree with you OP.  I just think it's unfair that a team that lost 50% of their games get into the playoffs and could win the Super Bowl.  That's just another reason though why I'm a college fan and not a NFL fan.  Every single game is important in college football.

February 6th, 2012 at 10:20 AM | I don't understand the (Score:1)
Greg McMurtry
Greg McMurtry's picture
Joined: 02/25/2009
MGoPoints: 4039

"every game needs to be important" line.  What about baseball?  They play 162 games.  The "best team" usually loses around 60 games or more. How about during the regular season, if you lose a game you can't play any more games--your season's over.  Then the last undefeated team is the best.  That would make the regular season extremely important would it not?  Oh, but that's unfair.  There is no fair scenario. 

As soon as the Giants put together enough wins to get into the playoffs (based on their regular season) it becomes a whole new ball game.  At that point, every team is well aware that it is one-and-done.  At that point, records don't matter anymore.  But if you had a great regular season, you get perks like home field advantage and bye weeks.  I personally think that having a team with a poor record makes the Super Bowl more exciting because that leads many to believe that the lesser team "has no chance" which makes for an inspiring story.  Why did Oklahoma State lose to a 6-7 Iowa State team?  Because football is not always about who is the better team?  The "better team" doesn't always win.

...confidence is the stain they can't wipe off...

February 6th, 2012 at 12:17 PM | It's not quite that simple (Score:1)
the bee train
Joined: 08/10/2011
MGoPoints: 14

You're dealing with a longer schedule, a system in place that allows teams to lose some games and not be totally devastated, and a much more competitive brand of football. The Giants didn't have the luxury of scheduling crappy non-conference games during the weeks 9-14 that included @NE, @SF, PHI, @NO, GB, and @DAL. Still, in spite of that incredibly difficult stretch, they managed to win the NFC East and EARN a playoff spot.

For those of you who are just pissed that a NY team won and are therefore trying to minimize their accomplishment, take a look at their losses. They were swept by Washington, and they lost at home to Philly and Seattle, losses that scream NFL letdown games. If they hadn't been ravaged by injuries early in the season and/or shown up for those games, we wouldn't be having this absolutely ridiculous discussion right now because the 13-3 Giants would have defeated the 13-3 Pats to earn their 4th Super Bowl championship.

poopface

February 5th, 2012 at 11:52 PM | I tend to agree.  There is (Score:2 Normal)
TheGhostofYost
TheGhostofYost's picture
Joined: 04/20/2011
MGoPoints: 2560

I tend to agree.  There is just no way a 9-7 team should be declared Champions of the NFL

February 5th, 2012 at 11:52 PM | To be honest (Score:-1 Trolling)
February 5th, 2012 at 11:53 PM | Uh they were dead last in the (Score:5 Normal)
TheGhostofYost
TheGhostofYost's picture
Joined: 04/20/2011
MGoPoints: 2560

Uh they were dead last in the league in rushing.

February 5th, 2012 at 11:55 PM | Yes (Score:1 Normal)
RollDamnTide
RollDamnTide's picture
Joined: 02/03/2012
MGoPoints: 374

But they made a concerted effort tonight.

Roll Tide.

February 6th, 2012 at 11:27 AM | Good effort though (Score:2 Normal)
TheDirtyD
TheDirtyD's picture
Joined: 07/18/2009
MGoPoints: 944

I like how you were wrong on calling someone out and then just stopped writting additional comments.This is why I really don't like aruging with southern people about football or anything else, their factual information is a bit off. Good effort though I like the concerted effort you just gave. 

If you see someone in an airport with Michigan logos on luggage and they are wearing a pilot uniform come say hello.

February 5th, 2012 at 11:57 PM | That's actually wrong (Score:-1 Trolling)
February 6th, 2012 at 12:00 AM | No they weren't.  They had (Score:2 Normal)
TheGhostofYost
TheGhostofYost's picture
Joined: 04/20/2011
MGoPoints: 2560

No they weren't.  They had the fewest rushing yards in the league during the regular season.

February 6th, 2012 at 12:24 AM | In addition (Score:2 Normal)
MichFan1997
MichFan1997's picture
Joined: 08/04/2008
MGoPoints: 6238

they were dead last in average yards per carry. Don't know what the other guy is talking about with them being "19th" because they were/are nowhere close to that.

Follow me on Twitter @gfraley05

February 5th, 2012 at 11:59 PM | Exhibit A (Score:0 Trolling)
February 6th, 2012 at 12:01 AM | Those would be defensive (Score:5 Normal)
TheGhostofYost
TheGhostofYost's picture
Joined: 04/20/2011
MGoPoints: 2560

Those would be defensive statistics. 

February 6th, 2012 at 12:11 AM | Tell me this (Score:0 Overrated)
February 6th, 2012 at 12:37 AM | Umm no. You are wrong. (Score:4 Normal)
bo_lives
bo_lives's picture
Joined: 04/10/2011
MGoPoints: 394

The giants had the most passing attempts in the league (666), more than even the superpowers, i.e. the Pats and Saints.

They were 5th in overall passing yardage. Meanwhile, they were 22nd in rushing attempts and, as has already been mentioned, dead last in yards gained. That is not a running football team.

Not only that, but they won this game through the air too. Manning threw for nearly 300 yards.

"That's right. It's an off-tackle play. It's coming right over you. And there's not a thing you can do about it."

February 6th, 2012 at 12:53 AM | As mentioned later (Score:3 Normal)
CursedWolverine
CursedWolverine's picture
Joined: 03/13/2010
MGoPoints: 204

With Bradshaw and Jacobs out at the beginning of the year, they were extremely pass heavy to start, but when their running backs came back they evened out. I think the Giants are more of a running team than their season totals indicate.

Hail.

February 6th, 2012 at 4:17 AM | "More of a running team" is not a "running team" (Score:2 Normal)
bo_lives
bo_lives's picture
Joined: 04/10/2011
MGoPoints: 394

which is what the original argument was about. If the Saints had doubled their offensive production on the ground during the second half of the season, that still wouldn't have made them a "running team." The Giants won the Super Bowl and the AFC championship game through the air. I looked up the stats for their last four games of the regular season too, and the most rushing yards they got in a game was 115. Just because they had two okay rushing games out of four in the playoffs does not mean they are or ever were a running team.

"That's right. It's an off-tackle play. It's coming right over you. And there's not a thing you can do about it."

February 5th, 2012 at 11:55 PM | so basically, you want no (Score:2 Normal)
ESNY
Joined: 11/06/2008
MGoPoints: 674

so basically, you want no divisions and 15 teams fighting for one title?   As long as teams don't play the exact same schedule who is to say the Steelers 12-4 is better than the Broncos 8-8 (for the record i have no idea who each played).   You break it into divisions so each team plays a comparable schedule, winner take all and then give 2 add'l teams the chance to get in.   Seems pretty fair to me.  

In the playoffs, after winning the division playing the same schedule as everyone else in the NFC east and coming out on top, the Giants beat the Packers and the Niners, thought to be the 2 best teams in the NFC , on the road, before beating the team thought to be the best AFC team.  

Thats the beauty of a playoff, the gauntlet of a schedule they faced, winning when it counts, you can't deny that the Giants deserve the title, regardless of their regular season record.

February 6th, 2012 at 12:01 AM | The point of the regular (Score:1)
UMxWolverines
UMxWolverines's picture
Joined: 03/01/2009
MGoPoints: 5246

The point of the regular season is to give yourself an easier road to the championship...which the packers had and blew. 

"Ohio is like a giant turd that Michigan just can't pinch off"

February 6th, 2012 at 12:03 AM | This argument... (Score:1)
Michigan Stadiu...
Joined: 07/28/2010
MGoPoints: 232

can be made with any of the major sports though.  Just look at the Cardinals this year...very similar story to the Giants.  Both made playoffs on last day of regular season.  Both were last team in.  Fair record (although 90 wins in baseball is probably considered most respectable than 9 wins in the NFL).  Beat 3 better teams to win.  For that matter, the Cardinals of 2006 also fall into that category.

February 6th, 2012 at 12:25 AM | And this is exactly why the purity of baseball has been ruined (Score:4 Normal)
bo_lives
bo_lives's picture
Joined: 04/10/2011
MGoPoints: 394

The old system, where the two league champs went head to head at the end of the regular season, was better. Now they are adding even more teams to the MLB playoffs. It's a joke. You play 162 games for what, home field advantage? A chance to play a team that might have had a horrendous first half but is now smoking red hot? It's a cliche, but it's truly all about the money. Playoffs bring in the TV $$, and that's all that matters these days.

"That's right. It's an off-tackle play. It's coming right over you. And there's not a thing you can do about it."

February 6th, 2012 at 2:26 AM | Actually, if I understand the (Score:2)
MaizeAndBlueWahoo
MaizeAndBlueWahoo's picture
Joined: 07/02/2008
MGoPoints: 11821

Actually, if I understand the MLB plan right, I'm fully in favor of it.  I believe the only "expansion" is really just adding one more wild-card team, and the wild-card teams will play each other in a one-game series to determine who advances to the real playoffs.  The effect would be to offset the wild card's rotation so they can't start their ace in Game 1 of the A/NLDS.  And that is a great, creative way to nullify the one-hot-team effect where the wild cards keep showing up in the World Series.

They'll hype it like everyone's in the playoffs so that they can get ratings, sell tickets, etc., but I think the real idea is to improve the chances of the better teams, not actually expand the pool of contenders.

"We've beaten Michigan the last four years.  So where's the threat?"

- Mark Dantonio

Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com/<

Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.