(07-18-2017 09:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why don't we just say the following?

In the three years of the CFP, the G5 are 2-1, and could've easily been 3-0 and for all intents and purposes, morally are 3-0, against the P5 in the Access Bowl games. One each from the top three G5 conferences (arguably) got a crack, and all three performed very well. Boise beat Arizona, Houston beat Florida St, and W Michigan morally beat Wisconsin.

That's darn good. What's wrong with just saying that? Why do you need more?

I would add UCF over Baylor. I know the AAC technically had the autobid that year from the Big East, but the reconstitution of the conference had already occurred. Which is why UCF was in the AAC anyway. Unless you feel that for that single year the AAC was a 'Power' conference... then the UCF win definitely counts as representative of the G5.

OK, that works for me.

I think suffice to say that the champion of the current G5 confs is going to be a considerable challenge to the P5 team that lands in the Access bowl. You don't need old history of Utah and TCU beating P5's to prove that ... you have all you need in the last 3-4 seasons.

(07-19-2017 02:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  OK, that works for me.

I think suffice to say that the champion of the current G5 confs is going to be a considerable challenge to the P5 team that lands in the Access bowl. You don't need old history of Utah and TCU beating P5's to prove that ... you have all you need in the last 3-4 seasons.

Bottom line, there is more talent available than the set amount of scholarships available at the schools with contract bowls. Until that changes, there will be some powerhouse schools from outside the cartel that can consistently compete......... that is unless the cartel pulls the carpet out and expands their scholarship limit. If and when that happens, there is no more competition.

If anything, think scholarship limits should and will go down. Coaches always scream, no matter what, at any thing, no matter how big or little, that could be possibly perceived as taking some advantage away from them.

Let their screams go unheard.

(07-20-2017 09:43 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If anything, think scholarship limits should and will go down. Coaches always scream, no matter what, at any thing, no matter how big or little, that could be possibly perceived as taking some advantage away from them.

NCAA Qualifier Standards
85 Scholarship Rule
Academic Progress Rate
Oversigning Limit to 25

The trend is cracking down on the SEC and B12 which ran dirty programs (still do in some cases as we are finding).

Rules are to the advantage of the B1G, ACC and PAC plus the G5. That is enough votes to keep adding them.

The SEC and B12 are not any more dirty than any other conference (I say this as a B1G and P12 guy). Rogues have appeared in every P5 conference because it is big time sports and with big time sports comes big time sleaze.

The advantage the SEC has is geographic and in a funny way academic. By having schools with lower standards for general students, let alone athletes, they have a competitive advantage with recruits. A player who cannot get into UCLA, Texas, Georgia Tech or Michigan can get into Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee, or one of the Mississippi schools. It is what it is. The second advantage most SEC schools and states are sitting over the "black belt" region of the US. The African-American makes up the majority of football players


IMO the larger proportion of African-Americans has much to do with college football being bigger in the South. In California where less than 4% of the population is African-American (similar to the entire west coast) college football is much less passionately followed. I am pretty sure the correlation is a factor.

Where to start with your post, Stu?

- I hope you understand, and believe, that if a football, basketball, or whatever athlete is selected by a PAC or Big Ten coach, that athlete only need pass the NCAA clearinghouse and he/she will gain admission to the school. The thing about these large P5 public schools is that their student bodies have such mass that adding what is essentially a handful of students who are several standard deviations below the mean basically has zero effect on the overall numbers. The only schools where there legitimately is an exception to this iare Stanford and Northwestern. Maybe USC, but that school is much closer to a public school by the size of student body.

- Then with the racist comments. First of all: good grief. Second of all ... can't figure out if you're saying that blacks are better at football than non-blacks or if you're saying that blacks follow college football more than non-blacks. Either statement is absurd on its face.

- Finally, the three Pacific Coast states have a combined population of around 50-51 million people. So the percentage you quite is very misleading. That 4% number would mean over 2 million blacks. By comparison, the two deepest south of the deep south states (the poorest and worst educated, on average) - Mississippi and S Carolina - have a combined population of around 8 million, with let's say 35% blacks, or around 2.8M blacks. So not that much different.

(07-21-2017 09:31 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Where to start with your post, Stu?

- I hope you understand, and believe, that if a football, basketball, or whatever athlete is selected by a PAC or Big Ten coach, that athlete only need pass the NCAA clearinghouse and he/she will gain admission to the school. The thing about these large P5 public schools is that their student bodies have such mass that adding what is essentially a handful of students who are several standard deviations below the mean basically has zero effect on the overall numbers. The only schools where there legitimately is an exception to this iare Stanford and Northwestern. Maybe USC, but that school is much closer to a public school by the size of student body.

- Then with the racist comments. First of all: good grief. Second of all ... can't figure out if you're saying that blacks are better at football than non-blacks or if you're saying that blacks follow college football more than non-blacks. Either statement is absurd on its face.

- Finally, the three Pacific Coast states have a combined population of around 50-51 million people. So the percentage you quite is very misleading. That 4% number would mean over 2 million blacks. By comparison, the two deepest south of the deep south states (the poorest and worst educated, on average) - Mississippi and S Carolina - have a combined population of around 8 million, with let's say 35% blacks, or around 2.8M blacks. So not that much different.

While your counterpoints are correct, nothing Stu stated was racist.

Saying black people are better at football than non-black people, is the definition of racist.

Racist comments aren't automatically evil or mean-spirited per se, but generally are absurd.

(07-21-2017 01:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Saying black people are better at football than non-black people, is the definition of racist.

Racist comments aren't automatically evil or mean-spirited per se, but generally are absurd.

Except that he didn't say that.

He did say that, unless you're blind or being obtuse. He posted an image showing where blacks are more concentrated and then noted that was the reason for the SEC's success.

(07-21-2017 01:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Saying black people are better at football than non-black people, is the definition of racist.

Racist comments aren't automatically evil or mean-spirited per se, but generally are absurd.

It was incorrect speculation.

(07-21-2017 02:32 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  He did say that, unless you're blind or being obtuse. He posted an image showing where blacks are more concentrated and then noted that was the reason for the SEC's success.

I'm neither blind nor obtuse. But I can read. He did not say what you said he said, no matter how much you choose to misinterpret what he actually did say.

This has devolved into a Trump rally in here quickly.

(07-21-2017 05:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  He did not say what you said he said

Yes he did, you're wrong and/or a troll