Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
Author Message
dbackjon Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,503
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 196
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 12:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 11:31 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 11:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 08:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.

I guess there should be data on whether there are more injuries in FBS or FCS? If, because FBS athletes are bigger/faster/stronger than FCS athletes, injuries are more frequent in FBS, then that would support the notion that a 16 or 24 team playoff isn't a good idea from a health POV for FBS.

If not, then not.
There is. The three service academies have done their own homework and have concluded that playing against the larger players in the P5 and top G5 schools is not sustainable for their athletes if those schools comprise the majority of their annual schedules. The average 80lbs of weight they give up across the O & D lines has significantly raised their number of injuries.

Then they should drop to FCS, or sit out the playoffs.

I think they will be in the FCS some day. But it's probably a point of contention with the old guys and new commandants. The younger leadership sees it as counterproductive to the mission of the school to play in the G5/P5 in as much as they are heavily invested in the cadets who play and when they suffer a "career" ending injury that investment is lost. The objective remains producing career military officers. They see sports, especially football as being good for the development of character under pressure and leadership. But their height and weight restrictions put them at a severe disadvantage in the days of 6'7'' 350lb defensive ends.

the benefits of football are just the same at the FCS level.
12-06-2017 12:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,062
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 604
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #42
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 11:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 08:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.

I guess there should be data on whether there are more injuries in FBS or FCS? If, because FBS athletes are bigger/faster/stronger than FCS athletes, injuries are more frequent in FBS, then that would support the notion that a 16 or 24 team playoff isn't a good idea from a health POV for FBS.

If not, then not.

There is. The three service academies have done their own homework and have concluded that playing against the larger players in the P5 and top G5 schools is not sustainable for their athletes if those schools comprise the majority of their annual schedules. The average 80lbs of weight they give up across the O & D lines has significantly raised their number of injuries.

That's interesting, but that's more of a FCS vs FBS thing, small playing against big, since the Navy athletes are probably FCS sized.

But the issue here is more along the lines of, is there a difference in injuries in FCS vs FCS games, small vs small, compared to P5 vs P5, big vs big? That's what would help us know if there's a health issue if P5 went to a 16 game playoff or something like that.
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2017 12:45 PM by quo vadis.)
12-06-2017 12:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,807
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 488
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #43
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 10:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 08:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.

I guess there should be data on whether there are more injuries in FBS or FCS? If, because FBS athletes are bigger/faster/stronger than FCS athletes, injuries are more frequent in FBS, then that would support the notion that a 16 or 24 team playoff isn't a good idea from a health POV for FBS.

If not, then not.

I think 8 is more than enough. The 5 P5 champs and the top G5 would be acceptable. When you add in the top two non-champs, you then eliminate any chance that the top 2 schools could possibly be left out of the playoffs. I think that model is not too big—not too small—and minimizes the subjective influence of the committee while guaranteeing that the top two teams can’t be left out due to a CCG upset. It may not be the perfect model, but it’s darn close, 04-cheers

I disagree with that. We've seen both in the NFL playoffs and the NCAA hoops tourney that in recent years, teams that were ranked/seeded outside the top 8 have won the title.

So if we have 8 teams, we can't have a G5 auto-bid, that trades off too much predictive power for diversity/inclusion.

Coming from the perspective of someone that is generally accused of being a P5 apologist, I think having a G5 auto-bid is fair. We could make the same argument that a P5 champ could be outside of the top 8, too. My overall point is to limit the use of rankings altogether in the first place: the P5 should have each of their champs in the playoff and the G5 should have its best champ in the playoff... and all of it should be without qualification of being above #12 or any other number (or else we're just making the same subjective arguments in an 8-team playoff as we do now in the 4-team playoff). The 2 at-large bids still ensure that teams like this year's Alabama team and last year's Ohio State team can still be included. Finally, if a team that's ranked below #8 ends up beating 3 elite level teams in a row in the playoff, that may simply just show that such team was underranked in the first place. Note that the NCAA Tournament has figured out how to seed non-power teams much better in recent years, where a midmajor that used to get a double digit seed years ago just because of its league and then go on to "upset" higher seeded teams may now be a few spots higher as a more accurate reflection of its true strength. That may eventually happen in the CFP context with respect to G5 teams (although you have to see G5 teams beating higher ranked P5 teams consistently).
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2017 02:23 PM by Frank the Tank.)
12-06-2017 02:22 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 26,743
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 617
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 08:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.

I guess there should be data on whether there are more injuries in FBS or FCS? If, because FBS athletes are bigger/faster/stronger than FCS athletes, injuries are more frequent in FBS, then that would support the notion that a 16 or 24 team playoff isn't a good idea from a health POV for FBS.

If not, then not.

The biggest issue is injuries in practice.
12-06-2017 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 26,743
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 617
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 12:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 11:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='goodknightfl' pid='14869199' dateline='1512567308']
health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.

I guess there should be data on whether there are more injuries in FBS or FCS? If, because FBS athletes are bigger/faster/stronger than FCS athletes, injuries are more frequent in FBS, then that would support the notion that a 16 or 24 team playoff isn't a good idea from a health POV for FBS.

If not, then not.

There is. The three service academies have done their own homework and have concluded that playing against the larger players in the P5 and top G5 schools is not sustainable for their athletes if those schools comprise the majority of their annual schedules. The average 80lbs of weight they give up across the O & D lines has significantly raised their number of injuries.

That's interesting, but that's more of a FCS vs FBS thing, small playing against big, since the Navy athletes are probably FCS sized.

But the issue here is more along the lines of, is there a difference in injuries in FCS vs FCS games, small vs small, compared to P5 vs P5, big vs big? That's what would help us know if there's a health issue if P5 went to a 16 game playoff or something like that.
[/qu

There are a lot of big players in FCS. I think the real difference is speed.
12-06-2017 02:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 26,743
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 617
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 02:22 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 10:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 08:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.

I guess there should be data on whether there are more injuries in FBS or FCS? If, because FBS athletes are bigger/faster/stronger than FCS athletes, injuries are more frequent in FBS, then that would support the notion that a 16 or 24 team playoff isn't a good idea from a health POV for FBS.

If not, then not.

I think 8 is more than enough. The 5 P5 champs and the top G5 would be acceptable. When you add in the top two non-champs, you then eliminate any chance that the top 2 schools could possibly be left out of the playoffs. I think that model is not too big—not too small—and minimizes the subjective influence of the committee while guaranteeing that the top two teams can’t be left out due to a CCG upset. It may not be the perfect model, but it’s darn close, 04-cheers

I disagree with that. We've seen both in the NFL playoffs and the NCAA hoops tourney that in recent years, teams that were ranked/seeded outside the top 8 have won the title.

So if we have 8 teams, we can't have a G5 auto-bid, that trades off too much predictive power for diversity/inclusion.

Coming from the perspective of someone that is generally accused of being a P5 apologist, I think having a G5 auto-bid is fair. We could make the same argument that a P5 champ could be outside of the top 8, too. My overall point is to limit the use of rankings altogether in the first place: the P5 should have each of their champs in the playoff and the G5 should have its best champ in the playoff... and all of it should be without qualification of being above #12 or any other number (or else we're just making the same subjective arguments in an 8-team playoff as we do now in the 4-team playoff). The 2 at-large bids still ensure that teams like this year's Alabama team and last year's Ohio State team can still be included. Finally, if a team that's ranked below #8 ends up beating 3 elite level teams in a row in the playoff, that may simply just show that such team was underranked in the first place. Note that the NCAA Tournament has figured out how to seed non-power teams much better in recent years, where a midmajor that used to get a double digit seed years ago just because of its league and then go on to "upset" higher seeded teams may now be a few spots higher as a more accurate reflection of its true strength. That may eventually happen in the CFP context with respect to G5 teams (although you have to see G5 teams beating higher ranked P5 teams consistently).
I don't know where you are seeing that in the basketball tourney. I still see a lot of #12-#14 seeds win.
12-06-2017 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 16,181
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 882
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 12:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 11:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 08:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.

I guess there should be data on whether there are more injuries in FBS or FCS? If, because FBS athletes are bigger/faster/stronger than FCS athletes, injuries are more frequent in FBS, then that would support the notion that a 16 or 24 team playoff isn't a good idea from a health POV for FBS.

If not, then not.

There is. The three service academies have done their own homework and have concluded that playing against the larger players in the P5 and top G5 schools is not sustainable for their athletes if those schools comprise the majority of their annual schedules. The average 80lbs of weight they give up across the O & D lines has significantly raised their number of injuries.

That's interesting, but that's more of a FCS vs FBS thing, small playing against big, since the Navy athletes are probably FCS sized.

But the issue here is more along the lines of, is there a difference in injuries in FCS vs FCS games, small vs small, compared to P5 vs P5, big vs big? That's what would help us know if there's a health issue if P5 went to a 16 game playoff or something like that.
Well that's precisely what the academies were looking at Quo. Only they were gauging G5 vs G5 against their kids vs P5. They found a difference there. And in most sports it's a matter of simple physics to make that determination. When velocity x mass=ft.pounds of energy that exceeds joint and bone tensile strength injuries occur. That's why 50% of all falls from 10ft are fatal. A collar bone breaks at about 3lbs of direct pressure. You can look up the stresses that bones can take as they are fairly standard. Joints depend on a lot more. How much muscle mass supports the tendons and ligaments and how flexible is that muscle around the joints. But weight is a primary contributing factor to injuries.

Those injuries caused by a force creating unnatural movement of a bone or joint obviously cause injuries at all levels. Big people inflict more injury on smaller people due to mass x velocity. Your automobile proves that when a truck hits it. In those kinds of collisions it is the inflexible parts of the vehicle (frame) that suffers the most. In humans that would be bones.

Having been a lineman I can tell you that in the trenches getting rolled up on from behind while tackling a force moving into you can do a lot of damage due to the forces to unnaturally move your joints and direct pressure against bones. My right knee can attest to that. No running back did that to me however and it didn't happen in a game. It happened in a tackling drill at practice utilizing other linemen as the ball carrier. I squared him up and his guard hit me in the side of the knee on a missed block and the tear could be heard by all on the field.

In the line people get hurt all of the time and those inflicting the injury in the vast majority of instances never intended to cause injury. I can't imagine playing against a line 80lbs heavier per man game in and game out and lasting the season.

I strongly suspect this is why they are looking to end kickoffs. 20 yards of distance to get up to full speed before the first collision is fairly brutal. Remember that in a head on collision you add the speeds of the two opposing forces. So if I can sprint at 17 mph for short distances and hit a guy head on doing the same speed that's the equivalent of a 34 mph accident. For a body that's significant. It's twice as dangerous as running into a tackling dummy at full speed.

Now with brain injuries speed and mass are a factor as well.

So I think we probably accelerated the injuries in the game when we moved to padding so efficient that it enabled faster collisions. The equipment today is also lighter which improves the players speed. So as with our society it is possible that our technology has once again and unintentionally made our lives more complicated and dangerous.

While I hated the heavy pads I had to wear back when, they did limit speed. And the helmets were so flimsy in my day that none of us were ever taught to hit with them.

I know that doesn't answer your question but maybe it will help you to get a feel for the problems. It really is fairly hard and fast from a physics standpoint.

Remember one of the finest athletes to ever dawn pads had his hip broken (roughly 15 lbs of direct pressure) and that probably couldn't have happened in the normal game if he hadn't been so muscular as to create the resistance that led to the injury. The ability to move with a hit normally keeps those kinds of pressures from being attained. But, Bo Jackson was Herculean compared to most.
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2017 03:26 PM by JRsec.)
12-06-2017 03:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,062
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 604
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #48
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 02:22 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 10:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 08:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.

I guess there should be data on whether there are more injuries in FBS or FCS? If, because FBS athletes are bigger/faster/stronger than FCS athletes, injuries are more frequent in FBS, then that would support the notion that a 16 or 24 team playoff isn't a good idea from a health POV for FBS.

If not, then not.

I think 8 is more than enough. The 5 P5 champs and the top G5 would be acceptable. When you add in the top two non-champs, you then eliminate any chance that the top 2 schools could possibly be left out of the playoffs. I think that model is not too big—not too small—and minimizes the subjective influence of the committee while guaranteeing that the top two teams can’t be left out due to a CCG upset. It may not be the perfect model, but it’s darn close, 04-cheers

I disagree with that. We've seen both in the NFL playoffs and the NCAA hoops tourney that in recent years, teams that were ranked/seeded outside the top 8 have won the title.

So if we have 8 teams, we can't have a G5 auto-bid, that trades off too much predictive power for diversity/inclusion.

Coming from the perspective of someone that is generally accused of being a P5 apologist, I think having a G5 auto-bid is fair. We could make the same argument that a P5 champ could be outside of the top 8, too. My overall point is to limit the use of rankings altogether in the first place: the P5 should have each of their champs in the playoff and the G5 should have its best champ in the playoff... and all of it should be without qualification of being above #12 or any other number (or else we're just making the same subjective arguments in an 8-team playoff as we do now in the 4-team playoff). The 2 at-large bids still ensure that teams like this year's Alabama team and last year's Ohio State team can still be included. Finally, if a team that's ranked below #8 ends up beating 3 elite level teams in a row in the playoff, that may simply just show that such team was underranked in the first place. Note that the NCAA Tournament has figured out how to seed non-power teams much better in recent years, where a midmajor that used to get a double digit seed years ago just because of its league and then go on to "upset" higher seeded teams may now be a few spots higher as a more accurate reflection of its true strength. That may eventually happen in the CFP context with respect to G5 teams (although you have to see G5 teams beating higher ranked P5 teams consistently).

Conceptually, I'm all in favor of limiting the use of rankings. Ideally, we'd have a playoff that guarantees that every team controls its destiny from day one: Don't lose, and you are guaranteed to make the playoffs. That's the way it is in every other major sport (and minor one i can think of, for that matter). I think it's that way in every other college football division as well.

But 8 teams wouldn't guarantee that either, we'd need at least 16 to make that work. Guaranteed spots for all 10 conference champs, and then 6 at-large bids.

IMO, if we are stuck at 8 teams, then the benefits of auto-bid for the G5 are outweighed by the costs, namely keeping a better P5 team out.
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2017 05:13 PM by quo vadis.)
12-06-2017 05:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,001
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 298
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-06-2017 05:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, if we are stuck at 8 teams, then the benefits of auto-bid for the G5 are outweighed by the costs, namely keeping a better P5 team out.

In the strange alchemy of college football, that's actually a benefit. It means that even an 11-0 No. 1 can't count on a spot if they lose their last big game. They're *probably* going to get a spot, but you never know what will happen in 5 CCGs. Which protects the value of those regular season games.
12-06-2017 05:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SC-KNIGHT Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 126
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 3
I Root For: USC-RUTGERS
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
Agree with everything Dodd said. Four is enough. 05-stirthepot 05-stirthepot 05-stirthepot 04-jawdrop 02-13-banana 02-13-banana COGS COGS 04-cheers
12-06-2017 06:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,771
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 394
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
Post: #51
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
Just a remarkably poor effort by Dodd. Each one of his points as easily debunked. I’m not going to even waste my time explaining why as I’m sure others have throughout this thread.
12-09-2017 08:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,948
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
I am for two FBS divisions at 5 conferences in each, I say mix up the 10 conferences
It doesn’t have to be one division with only the current autonomous conferences together
Divisional playoffs and the two division champs play a college football super bowl
End of committees for good....
Just my idea...and a damn good one...
12-09-2017 06:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 4,167
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 117
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #53
Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
Do this:

All P5 champs that are in the top 12 of the playoff ranking. That way the #17 down year champs don't foul up the deal.

The best UNBEATEN G5. If you win all your games you deserve a shot. No further autobids for unbeatens so you don't incentivize scheduling down in noncon.

At large after that.
12-14-2017 10:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DefCONNOne Offline
That damn MLS!!

Posts: 11,012
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: UCONN
Location: MLS HQ
Post: #54
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-14-2017 10:53 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Do this:

All P5 champs that are in the top 12 of the playoff ranking. That way the #17 down year champs don't foul up the deal.

The best UNBEATEN G5. If you win all your games you deserve a shot. No further autobids for unbeatens so you don't incentivize scheduling down in noncon.

At large after that.

Spoken like the loyal P5 apologist you are. Well done loyal P5 minion, well done. 04-clap2
12-14-2017 12:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 4,167
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 117
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #55
Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-14-2017 12:03 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  
(12-14-2017 10:53 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Do this:

All P5 champs that are in the top 12 of the playoff ranking. That way the #17 down year champs don't foul up the deal.

The best UNBEATEN G5. If you win all your games you deserve a shot. No further autobids for unbeatens so you don't incentivize scheduling down in noncon.

At large after that.

Spoken like the loyal P5 apologist you are. Well done loyal P5 minion, well done. 04-clap2

Nice ad hominem rather than an argument. Do you always attack the messenger rather than the message?

Back to the argument at hand:
Do you think the team with two losses and the 85th ranked schedule deserves a bid over a potential one loss runner up from a P5 who played a top 30 schedule? Or what about a 2 loss non-champ that beat three top 15 teams?
12-14-2017 12:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 25,238
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1050
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
I really liked the idea that the ACC and Sunbelt supposedly supported during the original CFP negotiations in 2012. Four team playoff--just like now. But the #5-#20 were matched up in a series of CFP sponsored bowls. The pairings would be set by the selection committee and would aim to create interesting matchups while respecting geography and tradition.
(This post was last modified: 12-14-2017 12:11 PM by Attackcoog.)
12-14-2017 12:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DefCONNOne Offline
That damn MLS!!

Posts: 11,012
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: UCONN
Location: MLS HQ
Post: #57
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-14-2017 12:08 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(12-14-2017 12:03 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  
(12-14-2017 10:53 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Do this:

All P5 champs that are in the top 12 of the playoff ranking. That way the #17 down year champs don't foul up the deal.

The best UNBEATEN G5. If you win all your games you deserve a shot. No further autobids for unbeatens so you don't incentivize scheduling down in noncon.

At large after that.

Spoken like the loyal P5 apologist you are. Well done loyal P5 minion, well done. 04-clap2

Nice ad hominem rather than an argument. Do you always attack the messenger rather than the message?

Back to the argument at hand:
Do you think the team with two losses and the 85th ranked schedule deserves a bid over a potential one loss runner up from a P5 who played a top 30 schedule? Or what about a 2 loss non-champ that beat three top 15 teams?

When you trot out garbage prerequisites for keeping the G5 on the "plantation", then that's the response you'll get.

When you advocate for the top-rated G5 champ without prerequisites, such as being undefeated and only undefeated, making this possible 8-team playoff, then I'll have an actual substantive response.

Nice victim signalling though. Do they teach that at Baylor?
12-14-2017 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 4,167
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 117
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #58
Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-14-2017 12:15 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  
(12-14-2017 12:08 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(12-14-2017 12:03 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  
(12-14-2017 10:53 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Do this:

All P5 champs that are in the top 12 of the playoff ranking. That way the #17 down year champs don't foul up the deal.

The best UNBEATEN G5. If you win all your games you deserve a shot. No further autobids for unbeatens so you don't incentivize scheduling down in noncon.

At large after that.

Spoken like the loyal P5 apologist you are. Well done loyal P5 minion, well done. 04-clap2

Nice ad hominem rather than an argument. Do you always attack the messenger rather than the message?

Back to the argument at hand:
Do you think the team with two losses and the 85th ranked schedule deserves a bid over a potential one loss runner up from a P5 who played a top 30 schedule? Or what about a 2 loss non-champ that beat three top 15 teams?

When you trot out garbage prerequisites for keeping the G5 on the "plantation", then that's the response you'll get.

When you advocate for the top-rated G5 champ without prerequisites, such as being undefeated and only undefeated, making this possible 8-team playoff, then I'll have an actual substantive response.

Nice victim signalling though. Do they teach that at Baylor?


Another personal attack with no justification for it. Are you trying to look insecure?

1- I prefer unbeaten due to extreme differences in SOS. It's simply a different week to week grind injury wise and you can see it at Utah, TCU, and even BYU who is playing what amounts to a P5 schedule since going independent.

2- With that said I would be willing to adjust the G5 requirement to any in the top 12 or top 15 like I did for the P5 champs and keep whichever number even with the P5 champ req. A 1-Loss team from the G5 that scheduled up and got some quality wins would belong. A team that lost a game playing a 100+ ranked SOS likely wouldn't have that argument.

3- I want the best deserving teams in. If you lose twice as a G5 it's hard to argue you deserve it more than a 2 loss nonchamp who played a gauntlet of a schedule. It's also hard for a 3 loss champ to argue as well.
(This post was last modified: 12-14-2017 12:40 PM by 1845 Bear.)
12-14-2017 12:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,948
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
Baylor is headed to C-USA in the next realignment anyway
12-14-2017 01:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,001
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 298
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(12-14-2017 12:33 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Another personal attack with no justification for it. Are you trying to look insecure?

1- I prefer unbeaten due to extreme differences in SOS. It's simply a different week to week grind injury wise and you can see it at Utah, TCU, and even BYU who is playing what amounts to a P5 schedule since going independent.

2- With that said I would be willing to adjust the G5 requirement to any in the top 12 or top 15 like I did for the P5 champs and keep whichever number even with the P5 champ req. A 1-Loss team from the G5 that scheduled up and got some quality wins would belong. A team that lost a game playing a 100+ ranked SOS likely wouldn't have that argument.

3- I want the best deserving teams in. If you lose twice as a G5 it's hard to argue you deserve it more than a 2 loss nonchamp who played a gauntlet of a schedule. It's also hard for a 3 loss champ to argue as well.

I think you could make some headway with the G5 folks with that plan, actually. The next question, of course, is how you pick / who picks the top 12. Because I've already seen G5 fans making detailed cases that the current committee systematically underrates G5 teams. (CFP rankings compared to BCS-simulators, to AP & Coaches polls, computer rankings plus Access Bowl game results where the G5 team has often beaten more highly ranked P5 teams.)

Switch from a committee of one or two dozen to a formula, and you'll get a listen from the G5 folks. SEtting the same bar for a G5 champ as a P5 champ will get you a hearing.

Me, I say one argument for having the G5 autobid instead of a 3rd at-large is that you don't want a wildcard spot to be too easy to get. You don't want teams at the regular season to know, in the back of their minds, that they've already "clinched" a spot the way Alabama would have this year. (They couldn't count on getting into the 4-team playoff, but they would have been able to count on getting into an 8-team playoff--it was hard to write a scenario of "X beats Y in overtime, and M beats N by 50 etc" that left Alabama out of an 8-team field, even after losing the Iron Bowl.
(This post was last modified: 12-14-2017 02:00 PM by johnbragg.)
12-14-2017 01:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.