Rawls if he can hang onto it, I'd guesss
Vasav
History
- Member for
- 2 years 23 weeks
- Blog
- View recent blog entries
Karma
- Current value
- 1
Recent Comments
| Date | Title | Body |
|---|---|---|
| 5 weeks 4 hours ago | I emailed the athletic department the following: |
I was disheartened to hear about the recent decision to not allow the band to travel to the Alabama game in Dallas. Knowing that our athletic department consistently operates in the black, and seeing the recent increases in ticket prices and the development of season ticket "licenses," I am beginning to wonder if there is a need for me to contribute to the athletic department on an annual basis as I've been doing. My foremost goal in contributing is to graduate student athletes - but there is something that makes Michigan special, and the athletic department seems to be ignoring that specialness with their recent moves. I'm disheartened to see gimmicky uniforms and talk of a mascot in order to raise the bottom line. I'm puzzled by the decision to pipe in music during a game and ruin the classic gameday experience - I don't even know how that helps the bottom line. I am disappointed by the recent pricing initiatives that seem more geared to increasing the bottom line than to filling the stadium and giving everyone an enjoyable experience. I thought the addition of stadium suites was meant to alleviate the pricing pressures on the majority of Michigan fans, while allowing a small minority of fans to pay for a unique experience? And then this latest bit on the Alabama game. I was originally excited to hear we would be playing 'Bama, but disappointed we wouldn't get the classic experience of visiting another campus in a home-and-home series. I was even more disappointed to hear that we'd pay a minimum of $125 for a ticket to the game. And frankly, I'm angry and annoyed that the band is not being allowed to travel to save operational costs - when their seats are written into the agreement to play in Cowboys' stadium. This move removes a competitive advantage on the field, kills the gameday experience for the fans, and is generally in line with the recent moves by the Athletic Department to solely focus on the bottom line, while completely ignoring the fans' experience, the student athlete's experience, and Michigan tradition. I urge you to reconsider this move, and I promise you that if I see more "cost saving measures," I will take that as a sign that the Athletic Department is less reliant on my contributions - in terms of donations, and apparel purchases. I'll still go to the stadium and wear maize and blue - but I'm sure I can get a 3-pack of hanes yellow t's from Meijer |
| 15 weeks 5 days ago | Prepare for bad joke |
Hell on wheels? More like hell on BLADES! amirite? |
| 17 weeks 6 hours ago | 6-8 Teams won't make a 4-team playoff |
In a four team playoff, every conference champion is not gauranteed a spot. Additionally, UCLA would have been 7-6 had they won the Pac 12 - and STILL not been in a four team playoff. They'd have been in the Rose Bowl, which is ridiculous too, but was only possible because the best team in the South Division that caused all those losses was ineligible. Let me give you a reason why I'm okay with limiting it to conference champions - but not letting it be ALL conference champions. This year, Stanford didn't win their division but was ranked ahead of Oregon heading into the bowls, at #4. Why was Stanford ranked higher - despite losing the head-to-head by three touchdowns? Because Oregon had one more loss. One was by 3 to a USC team that Stanford beat (in 3OT) - but since USC was not allowed to be ranked, it really hurt Oregon's computer ratings. The other one was a loss to LSU, the #1 team in the country, and they scored more points on LSU's defense than anybody else had all year. Stanford's out of conference schedule was San Jose St, @Duke, and Notre Dame. While conference title games are not the ideal way to pick a champion, or determine who's best, they are FAR better than polls or computer ratings. In the Pac 12, against nearly identical competition, Stanford had the same record as Oregon, but had a 3TD loss @home against the Ducks. The Pac 12's rules dictated the Ducks were better - which is accurate in my opinion. The Ducks played a tough out of conference opponent and were beaten away from home. The media, coaches and computers felt this loss makes them worse than Stanford - incorrectly, in my opinion. And you're telling me that because Stanford took care of business against SJSU, they're more deserving of being in the national title picture than Oregon? Winning your conference has to count for something on the national stage, or else the national title game will be as unimportant to me as it is right now. |
| 17 weeks 12 hours ago | What a dumb idea |
First off: it was not a catch. I don't think I'll ever understand how cradling a ball between your forearms without your hands on it and then seeing it rotate as it hits the turf can be called a catch by anybody. Secondly, the replay official has the authority because he can see a ton of angles - and he also has the authority to review any play on the field, taking the onus off the white hat. Do both have to be in agreement to review a play, or just to overturn it? Keep it simple, keep one replay official. Quit your whining - bad calls happen all the time, and this one wasn't all that bad. |
| 17 weeks 1 day ago | If I had it my way |
There would be no CCGs. I'm with you on that. But with 12 team conferences, it is probably the best system. (I've had some totally bats ideas myself, but they were totally bats). I get what you're saying about finding the "best" team in the conference - but isn't that for the conferences to decide? I mean, if a conference declares a champion - aren't they declaring that tteam to be the best in that conference? If not, why declare them a champion? Yes, I know there are some predetermined rules thta a team must follow and excel at to "win" a championship - but at the end of the day, a championship means you're the best. If conference's have flawed playoff systems, that's up to them to fix. As for the BCS, I actually didn't hate it that much until this year. Even in 2007 I was all right with it. But after this year, there has to be a better way. And if there isn't, let's go back to the old way then. Let's just admit we've got flaws, let the bowls sign who they want to, and let the AP pick a champ every year and let things be. But when you put "BCS Champion" onto somebody who didn't win their division - I'm sorry there's something wrong with that. I'm intrigued by the plus one system. This post: http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/the-halfway-there-compromise-a-bcs-plus-one-proposal-that-the-big-ten-and-rose-bowl-could-live-with/ actually proposed a plus one that's not a true playoff but that I'd love to see happen. At least when compared to the present. |
| 17 weeks 1 day ago | Not quite |
UCLA would have been 7-6 with a win over Oregon in the Pac 12 'ship - and I think that in that case, the four teams would have been LSU, OK st, Wiscy, and...TCU? If UGA had won, an 11-2 team that wins its conference doesn't sound great, but to me still sounds better than a 12-1 team that lost its conference. We probably would have had Ok St being #1 in that scenario, with UGA, Wiscy and TCU filling out the bracket. Not great, but honestly it still sounds better than the way things shook out. OK St makes it sound slightly better than 2007. I'm with you that a playoff isn't perfect - nothing is perfect. The only truly fair way to "decide it on the field" is by having every team play 119 games. Heck, there is no system that could make 2007 satisfying - literally everybody would have backed into that playoff scenario no matter how large or small it is. This season the regular season was diminished. Conference championship games have already diminished the regular season. Divisions have already made some conference games more important statistically than others. Limiting a playoff to conference champions, but forcing those champions to earn a bid rather than get "auto-bids," does nothing to diminish the regular season. It's sensible and equitable. Which means it probably won't happen. But I really like your analogy at the end. |
| 17 weeks 1 day ago | To me, that's the point |
In college football, how many times do we say "every game is a playoff?" I think that's why folks like me come up with convoluted ways to have conference championship games that aren't "playoff" games - I personally hate that Sparty and Wiscy played a rematch, and I HATE HATE HATE the way this year's national championship went down for many reasons, the foremost being that it was a rematch. I'd have hated seeing Oregon there too (though not as much). Fans of other sports (namely the NFL) think I'm weird for this - but I really like having a regular season where it feels like every game matters. And I dislike inter-division games being statistically less important, and I dislike a loss being not that big of a deal. It's why 2007 was a horrid year for college football - a two-loss national champion? Pffffft. Obviously, you're of a different mindset - but I think most college football fans do like the fact that "every game is a playoff." Well, except for this season. Which is why I'm willing to blow up the BCS this season. And my argument to Bama would have been: "win your damn conference. or your division. if you're not the best in your conference, you're not the best in the nation." |
| 17 weeks 1 day ago | Agree completely about pro sports |
The NFL I'm willing to cut some slack because of the number of games played versus the number of teams played. But the NHL, NBA, and even MLB (which has now relegated the 162 game season as just a way to pass the time) - way too permissive. And what I love about college football is how selective it is, and that's something I think your proposal does a good job of keeping - ensuring that to be a national champ, you've got to be pretty damn good. |
| 17 weeks 1 day ago | That's for NCAA Playoffs |
The NCAA doesn't run the DI-A postseason - the BCS does. BCS can run their playoffs however they'd like, just like the NIT can run theirs however they'd like. |
| 17 weeks 1 day ago | Four! |
Great work, man! I've been following this series from the start, and have thought about doing something like this but am happy you did it for me. I'm 100% with you that winning your conference shouldn't be enough - and that there are plenty of seasons where you only need two teams. Honestly, before this season's bowls I'd have said "LSU has done enough" and been okay with crowning them champs after they beat us in the Sugar Bowl. A few points of contention - (1) There was nothing that could have solved the mess of 2007. There were no winners that year, and nobody had a season that deserved a Championship. Nobody had legitimate complaint - except maybe Hawai'i until they got smoked by Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. (2) Even though they played a cake schedule, I've got a hard time thinking an undefeated mid-major should ever get passed by a two-loss BCS team. My takeaways from this are that a plus-1 would work fine - top four conference champions, regardless of conference, in the final BCS rankings. If you're complaining that "well we should've been #4" you sound like an idiot - win your games and it's a moot point. 2009 OSU, 2008 Penn State and USC, or 2007 USC don't have too much to complain about. The kicker is 2009 Cincy. They've got a gripe, but are really the only folks in the BCS era who would've been served poorly by a four team playoff. One other takeaway is that I think there is definitely some legitimacy to the "playoff creep" argument. Once upon a time, a two team playoff worked okay - the problem was these bastards picked a stupid team for #2 who didn't win their conference or division. Then there were a few years of mass chaos where there were 3-6 teams that deserved a shot. Until this year where there was a clear #1, and to everybody outside the south a clear #2, and these bastards once again screwed the pooch so royally that we're reacting by going to some kind of a plus-one system. I don't think it's a bad thing, but if there's enough pressure from SEC denizens that they need to have a second team in the playoff - I can definitely see this creeping up to six teams in the near future. Time will tell. Again, great work. And four teams is the truth. |
