(03-25-2012 10:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Yes I am a football fan and no I dont give a damn about the polls or computers.

A true football fan would have argued the LSU vs Oklahoma State match-up, not a Wisconsin over Alabama, which is what is killing the chance of a champions only model from possibly occurring in the first set-up of a Final Four, possibly even nixing a Final Four in football altogether if a compromise isn't reached.

Quote:Alabama lost it's chance when they did not win their division. If you want divisions to not matter then push for all divisions in conferences to be scrapped. Divisions are made for a reason and they should be honored. So you had the best two teams according to opinion in the same division. To bad for them, the winner between the two gets to go on and prove the opinionated rankings then. The computer rankings do give sway to polls as well so dont cite them as if they are a completely different thing.

Don't necessarily disagree with any of that, since I have said for a few times already tonight that I have championed a champions only Plus One model long before you even came to these boards.

The problem is that I am also a realist, and can recognize when certain forces are pushing against a particular concept.

Quote:As a football fan I would like to see these conference championships we have unanimously approved of to actually mean something. So sorry you didnt beat LSU and make it to your conference championship Alabama. That is Alabama's fault, no one else's. They did not deserve a mulligan no matter what polls or computers say. They did not win their division and those division games should matter. In this case, it didn't matter at all because LSU's win in it gained them nothing.

Again, I agree. But if the end result is Wisconsin gets in over Alabama, there are far too many who disagree with that. Which is why I think a compromise of the three highest rated champions and for the fourth team either the next highest rated champion or an at-large team that is ranked 'x' spots ahead of that 4th champion, with 'x' still to be determined.

So, in that set-up, last year's pairings would have been:

LSU vs Oregon (another rematch, and any rematch should be anathema not just a divisional one)

Alabama vs Oklahoma State

Quote:I consider seeing the possibility of Wisconsin winning their way into the National Championship as a much better solution than Alabama getting to ignore the fact that they lost to their division rival during the season and showing how LSU's perfect season mattered for nothing because their biggest win of the season was basically nullified by Alabama bias.

There was no Alabama bias except for in regard to Oklahoma State. And had you stuck with that point, everything would have been fine between us. But to use Wisconsin deserving a chance moreso than Alabama is conference homerism. And while a bias may have existed for Bama to be rated #2 ahead of the Cowboys, the Badgers being rated as #8 in the human polls was bias as well, and further from the truth than Bama as #2.

Cheers,
Neil

(03-25-2012 11:11 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-25-2012 10:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Yes I am a football fan and no I dont give a damn about the polls or computers.

A true football fan would have argued the LSU vs Oklahoma State match-up, not a Wisconsin over Alabama, which is what is killing the chance of a champions only model from possibly occurring in the first set-up of a Final Four, possibly even nixing a Final Four in football altogether if a compromise isn't reached.

Quote:Alabama lost it's chance when they did not win their division. If you want divisions to not matter then push for all divisions in conferences to be scrapped. Divisions are made for a reason and they should be honored. So you had the best two teams according to opinion in the same division. To bad for them, the winner between the two gets to go on and prove the opinionated rankings then. The computer rankings do give sway to polls as well so dont cite them as if they are a completely different thing.

Don't necessarily disagree with any of that, since I have said for a few times already tonight that I have championed a champions only Plus One model long before you even came to these boards.

The problem is that I am also a realist, and can recognize when certain forces are pushing against a particular concept.

Quote:As a football fan I would like to see these conference championships we have unanimously approved of to actually mean something. So sorry you didnt beat LSU and make it to your conference championship Alabama. That is Alabama's fault, no one else's. They did not deserve a mulligan no matter what polls or computers say. They did not win their division and those division games should matter. In this case, it didn't matter at all because LSU's win in it gained them nothing.

Again, I agree. But if the end result is Wisconsin gets in over Alabama, there are far too many who disagree with that. Which is why I think a compromise of the three highest rated champions and for the fourth team either the next highest rated champion or an at-large team that is ranked 'x' spots ahead of that 4th champion, with 'x' still to be determined.

So, in that set-up, last year's pairings would have been:

LSU vs Oregon (another rematch, and any rematch should be anathema not just a divisional one)

Alabama vs Oklahoma State

Quote:I consider seeing the possibility of Wisconsin winning their way into the National Championship as a much better solution than Alabama getting to ignore the fact that they lost to their division rival during the season and showing how LSU's perfect season mattered for nothing because their biggest win of the season was basically nullified by Alabama bias.

There was no Alabama bias except for in regard to Oklahoma State. And had you stuck with that point, everything would have been fine between us. But to use Wisconsin deserving a chance moreso than Alabama is conference homerism. And while a bias may have existed for Bama to be rated #2 ahead of the Cowboys, the Badgers being rated as #8 in the human polls was bias as well, and further from the truth than Bama as #2.

Cheers,
Neil

Would you get off the Wisconsin vs LSU bull? I stated that because Wisconsin was the fourth rated conference champion. In the other thread I also stated I would have rather watched Virginia Tech vs LSU. I suppose I am homering that one too?

I have said over and over that I believe it should have been LSU vs OSU. No Wisconsin did not deserve to get in over OSU. Now if we had a four team playoff and Wisconsin was the fourth team to get in and then won their way to the championship then you are damn right I would support them being there. As it stands no, OSU should have been there and I by no means stated that Wisconsin should have been there instead.

I simply stated that I would have rather watched Wisconsin play LSU. You took that little statement and blew it up huge as if it was my entire argument. So your whole argument against me is false as you presumed far too much.

You talk about all your posts up until now and how you have been around so much longer. Well I have posted quite a bit about this and always posted how I think it should have been OSU vs LSU so you are just absolutely rediculous to try and say I think it should have been Wisconsin. That wasn't my point at all. Try some reading comprehension there Long Time Poster.

Racial slurs, name calling, this board is starting to devolve.

What do you mean STARTING, XLance?

(03-24-2012 11:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  RE: #1 the ACC
If and that's a big IF, Notre Dame does choose to join the ACC, I think that Navy (or Tulane) would be looked at before Rutgers or especially UConn.
Navy has agreed to venture out with the Big East, so they have demonstrated that they are not opposed to conference affiliation.

FTFY

(03-26-2012 02:27 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  What do you mean STARTING, XLance?

Used to be such a great board too, back when it was a Big East sub-board. Best conference realignment board at that point.

Cheers,
Neil

boo hoo

(03-23-2012 09:20 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 08:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  And all the Notre Dame "fans" say "blame it on the coach" again. If we just had a better coach who could push all of the right buttons and the right time, while maintaining all of the standards, and not changing anything about how we used to do it.
Jeez....a broken record.
I was trying to be nice, and you attack because I struck a nerve? I'm just trying to suggest a path that Notre Dame can return to what they once were, college football needs it. Change with the times and Notre Dame can be great again, or the Irish can keep on with a head in the sand and eventually whither away. It isn't always the coach's fault.

"Oh, how the mighty have fallen" was just you "trying to be nice"?

Sorry, I missed that subtle, gratuitous friendly gesture.

Yes, the astounding post-ND coaching successes of Bob Davie, Ty Willingham and Charlie Weis gives the lie to ND fans' belief that these were lazy, uninspired hires by an ND administration that values winning championships less than other things.

LSU and Alabama before Saban, Southern Cal before Carroll, Oklahoma before Stoops, Florida before Meyer and Ohio State before Tressel all show that hiring the right coach is not the most important ingredient to revive a down, traditional program, correct?

Buck, I don't give a damn about "the rest of college football". Neither do you. You only cared about WVU, not the Big East, during WVU's move to the Big 12.

There is nothing wrong with that. It is perfectly natural and understandable as a fan of that school.

Let's just all be honest about it. XLance just wants ND in the ACC to strengthen the confrerence that Carolina is in, not out of some altruistic motive to help ND or for "the good of the game".

Self interest rules the game, same as everything else in life.

Personally, I really don't want Notre Dame in the ACC. Although I do believe that Notre Dame will join the ACC sometime in the future.

This is all a joke. There is no great Conference it is all about the dollar who works out the best TV contract. There is a lot of changes happening and in time the Big East will jump ahead of the ACC. Main reason they are spreding west. Let ACC, SCE,B10,B12 fight it out while they go West with only Pac 12 to worry about which is nothing that great. Time Will tell.

(03-24-2012 03:27 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 02:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 01:53 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 01:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 01:48 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  I thought there was 6 major conferences per the BCS.

ACC
Big East
BIG 10
Big 12
PAC 12
SEC

Which of these conferences did you eliminate from the group of five?

The Big East of course. They are no longer a Major. They are now the Gatekeepers to the Majors.

The era of the BCS is over.

What is the qualification to be in the Majors?

Good question. I guess first and foremost would be stability. Some might say that the Big 12 doesn't have that but I think they do as per all their new agreements. I used to think they were the blood in the water but that isn't the case anymore.

The Big East is not stable. It's TOP teams are taken from it on a regular basis. That makes it a gatekeeper. "You join the Big East then you too might someday be invited to a Major conference".

Also television contracts make a major. If the Big East can sign one with NBC of equivalent value as the other majors then yes I would say there is an argument to be made that they are a major but I do not see them getting that now with the line up they will have.

The ACC and Big 12 successfully reduced the number of Majors from six to five. Now they sit across from each other at the Majors table.

So if stability is what makes you a major why is the MAC not a AQ conference? And doesn't this criteria also eliminates the Big 12 because it has lost four teams and is a Texas away from becoming worse than the Big East.

And you have to got be kidding if you consider the ACC a major conference. They are an absolute joke vs all the other AQ conferences it's at the point to where FSU vs OU is an easy win for OU now.

(04-03-2012 12:20 AM)JohnV123 Wrote:  ...it's at the point to where FSU vs OU is an easy win for OU now.

Historically, even when FSU was playing for national championships they rarely beat Oklahoma. It's a bad matchup for their style of play. On the other hand, Miami still does beat Oklahoma. Va Tech swept Nebraska recently too. Those are good matchups.

Currently nobody matches up well with Alabama or LSU except each other, but even that has not always been true... and it won't last forever.

I'd have to say right now there are clearly 2 top football conferences - SEC and Big12. After that I'd lump Big Ten, Pac12, and ACC together based on regular season (though clearly ACC under performs in bowls).

Big East is a big unknown until they play in 2013, but I have respect for what teams like Boise St and Houston have been able to do so I'm willing to reserve judgment.

I'll even grant Notre Dame one more chance to prove it on the field (they seem to be getting better under Kelly, but they have to win more big games before I'll call them "back").

Cincinnati never won the big game under Kelly either, going 0-2 in BCS bowls, with losses to Virginia Tech and Florida...

(03-25-2012 11:20 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-25-2012 11:11 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-25-2012 10:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Yes I am a football fan and no I dont give a damn about the polls or computers.

A true football fan would have argued the LSU vs Oklahoma State match-up, not a Wisconsin over Alabama, which is what is killing the chance of a champions only model from possibly occurring in the first set-up of a Final Four, possibly even nixing a Final Four in football altogether if a compromise isn't reached.

Quote:Alabama lost it's chance when they did not win their division. If you want divisions to not matter then push for all divisions in conferences to be scrapped. Divisions are made for a reason and they should be honored. So you had the best two teams according to opinion in the same division. To bad for them, the winner between the two gets to go on and prove the opinionated rankings then. The computer rankings do give sway to polls as well so dont cite them as if they are a completely different thing.

Don't necessarily disagree with any of that, since I have said for a few times already tonight that I have championed a champions only Plus One model long before you even came to these boards.

The problem is that I am also a realist, and can recognize when certain forces are pushing against a particular concept.

Quote:As a football fan I would like to see these conference championships we have unanimously approved of to actually mean something. So sorry you didnt beat LSU and make it to your conference championship Alabama. That is Alabama's fault, no one else's. They did not deserve a mulligan no matter what polls or computers say. They did not win their division and those division games should matter. In this case, it didn't matter at all because LSU's win in it gained them nothing.

Again, I agree. But if the end result is Wisconsin gets in over Alabama, there are far too many who disagree with that. Which is why I think a compromise of the three highest rated champions and for the fourth team either the next highest rated champion or an at-large team that is ranked 'x' spots ahead of that 4th champion, with 'x' still to be determined.

So, in that set-up, last year's pairings would have been:

LSU vs Oregon (another rematch, and any rematch should be anathema not just a divisional one)

Alabama vs Oklahoma State

Quote:I consider seeing the possibility of Wisconsin winning their way into the National Championship as a much better solution than Alabama getting to ignore the fact that they lost to their division rival during the season and showing how LSU's perfect season mattered for nothing because their biggest win of the season was basically nullified by Alabama bias.

There was no Alabama bias except for in regard to Oklahoma State. And had you stuck with that point, everything would have been fine between us. But to use Wisconsin deserving a chance moreso than Alabama is conference homerism. And while a bias may have existed for Bama to be rated #2 ahead of the Cowboys, the Badgers being rated as #8 in the human polls was bias as well, and further from the truth than Bama as #2.

Cheers,
Neil

Would you get off the Wisconsin vs LSU bull? I stated that because Wisconsin was the fourth rated conference champion.

I'm confused.

In your first post at the top of this thread...you said: "Yes I am a football fan and no I dont give a damn about the polls or computers".

Now...you suddenly moved Wisconsin to the "4th rated conference champion", obviously based off some type of rank or computer ranking.

So which is it?

(04-03-2012 11:22 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  I'm confused.

In your first post at the top of this thread...you said: "Yes I am a football fan and no I dont give a damn about the polls or computers".

Now...you suddenly moved Wisconsin to the "4th rated conference champion", obviously based off some type of rank or computer ranking.

So which is it?

Therein lies the problem! I keep seeing the argument that conference championships mean more than an "arbitrary" ranking system, but in any 4-team playoff scenario, we still have to use an "arbitrary" ranking system in order to determine which particular conference champions are supposedly worthy. Knowing that we can't just say, "Let's use an 8-team or 16-team playoff instead", we're going to have an "arbitrary" ranking problem with a 4-team playoff no matter what.

Frank, it's not arbitrary if the same kinds of decisions keep being made over and over, in preferring certain schools or conferences over others...

(04-03-2012 11:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 11:22 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  I'm confused.

In your first post at the top of this thread...you said: "Yes I am a football fan and no I dont give a damn about the polls or computers".

Now...you suddenly moved Wisconsin to the "4th rated conference champion", obviously based off some type of rank or computer ranking.

So which is it?

Therein lies the problem! I keep seeing the argument that conference championships mean more than an "arbitrary" ranking system, but in any 4-team playoff scenario, we still have to use an "arbitrary" ranking system in order to determine which particular conference champions are supposedly worthy. Knowing that we can't just say, "Let's use an 8-team or 16-team playoff instead", we're going to have an "arbitrary" ranking problem with a 4-team playoff no matter what.

Another example of why the 4 school playoff/plus-one is a bad idea. TPTB can keep trying to hold on to the old ways but it is a losing proposition and only a matter of time before they are "tweaking" the system. Which of course is going to lead to an 8 school playoff. Why not get ahead of the problem and be remembered as visionary instead of flat footed reactionaries that only slowed progress?

(04-03-2012 11:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 11:22 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  I'm confused.

In your first post at the top of this thread...you said: "Yes I am a football fan and no I dont give a damn about the polls or computers".

Now...you suddenly moved Wisconsin to the "4th rated conference champion", obviously based off some type of rank or computer ranking.

So which is it?

Therein lies the problem! I keep seeing the argument that conference championships mean more than an "arbitrary" ranking system, but in any 4-team playoff scenario, we still have to use an "arbitrary" ranking system in order to determine which particular conference champions are supposedly worthy. Knowing that we can't just say, "Let's use an 8-team or 16-team playoff instead", we're going to have an "arbitrary" ranking problem with a 4-team playoff no matter what.

Frank,
We will either have to get to 4 leagues with Notre Dame included in one of them for a four team playoff, or 8 leagues (ND included....with 8-9 members) for an 8 team playoff to eliminate the "arbitrary".
I have often wondered if conferences were getting bigger just so that they can choose-up and start all over in smaller groups.

(04-03-2012 12:03 PM)joe4psu Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 11:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 11:22 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  I'm confused.

In your first post at the top of this thread...you said: "Yes I am a football fan and no I dont give a damn about the polls or computers".

Now...you suddenly moved Wisconsin to the "4th rated conference champion", obviously based off some type of rank or computer ranking.

So which is it?

Therein lies the problem! I keep seeing the argument that conference championships mean more than an "arbitrary" ranking system, but in any 4-team playoff scenario, we still have to use an "arbitrary" ranking system in order to determine which particular conference champions are supposedly worthy. Knowing that we can't just say, "Let's use an 8-team or 16-team playoff instead", we're going to have an "arbitrary" ranking problem with a 4-team playoff no matter what.

Another example of why the 4 school playoff/plus-one is a bad idea. TPTB can keep trying to hold on to the old ways but it is a losing proposition and only a matter of time before they are "tweaking" the system. Which of course is going to lead to an 8 school playoff. Why not get ahead of the problem and be remembered as visionary instead of flat footed reactionaries that only slowed progress?

Wouldn't there have to be a ranking system or some selection committee process involved with an 8-team or 16-team playoff as well?

Cheers,
Neil

(04-03-2012 09:25 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Cincinnati never won the big game under Kelly either, going 0-2 in BCS bowls, with losses to Virginia Tech and Florida...

One small nit, Bit. Brian Kelly did not coach in that BCS game against Florida, having already left for Notre Dame.

Neil, the best ranking system would be one that didn't start ranking teams until about half the seaon has been concluded. That would remove a lot of bias from the system, since there would already be a good sample of games to judge teams by...

Terry, I'll give you that one. But my point still stands. Kelly has never won the big game...

(04-03-2012 12:24 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 12:03 PM)joe4psu Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 11:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 11:22 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  I'm confused.

In your first post at the top of this thread...you said: "Yes I am a football fan and no I dont give a damn about the polls or computers".

Now...you suddenly moved Wisconsin to the "4th rated conference champion", obviously based off some type of rank or computer ranking.

So which is it?

Therein lies the problem! I keep seeing the argument that conference championships mean more than an "arbitrary" ranking system, but in any 4-team playoff scenario, we still have to use an "arbitrary" ranking system in order to determine which particular conference champions are supposedly worthy. Knowing that we can't just say, "Let's use an 8-team or 16-team playoff instead", we're going to have an "arbitrary" ranking problem with a 4-team playoff no matter what.

Another example of why the 4 school playoff/plus-one is a bad idea. TPTB can keep trying to hold on to the old ways but it is a losing proposition and only a matter of time before they are "tweaking" the system. Which of course is going to lead to an 8 school playoff. Why not get ahead of the problem and be remembered as visionary instead of flat footed reactionaries that only slowed progress?

Wouldn't there have to be a ranking system or some selection committee process involved with an 8-team or 16-team playoff as well?

Cheers,
Neil

My preference is the 5 (6?) major conference champions be included automatically. And as I said on Frank's blog, but don't remember mentioning here, the independents, winners of conferences without a CCG and non-division winners selected should have a play-in game, or games, the same weekend that the CCG's are played. Why should teams get a bye? Especially those that haven't even won their divisions?

I MUCH prefer a small committee for seeding and selecting at-large schools. We don't need large groups of guys who haven't seen many of the schools play and may have biases, if not outright motives, voting teams in.