The CardBoard
Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! (/thread-3309.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - oman - 05-16-2012

(05-16-2012, 03:05 PM)terry link Wrote:The premise of a playoff system is that we need a system in which we can guarantee season-ending losses for all the best teams except one, so that only one team is left standing. But it seems to me that there are advantages to having half of the top teams end their seasons with a win. That can be a good thing for the student-athletes, the student body, and the alumni. Think of Stanford's Orange Bowl win a year ago. That was a very satisfying conclusion. Four other teams also ended their seasons with BCS wins. Would the collective experience of those teams and those universities have been better if they had kept playing until all but one of them finished their seasons with a loss? I don't think so.

Boy, cannot disagree with you more.  Winning is always "satisfying", but having to play VaTech rather than an Oklahoma or about two other teams that year was a disappointment.  Losing to a much more legit OSU team this year was to me much more of an event and a challenge than the exhibition that the Orange Bowl turned into.

The interest in the Fiesta Bowl nationwide this year was what -- three or four times -- the interest that the Orange Bowl generated.  You had many folks thinking that the Fiesta Bowl would be the best bowl game of the year.

You think most people would have been less satisfied after the Orange Bowl win with a shot at Auburn or Oregon -- even if it ended with a loss?



Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - akiddoc - 05-16-2012

The goal of every NCAA sporting activity should be to benefit student athletes. If that is not the primary goal of the sport, it should be abolished.

With the current concerns over the future health of football players, the idea of an 8 or 16 game playoff is completely contrary to that goal. Even the idea that playing one game over the current 13 or 14 game schedule played by today's top teams lacks merit. It's already too many. There is a brobdingnagian risk to playing 50 football games while in college. We should not be compounding the problem.

Those who want to see 16 or 17 games played by the top 2 teams have only their own entertainment in mind.

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - oman - 05-16-2012

(05-16-2012, 09:22 PM)akiddoc link Wrote:The goal of every NCAA sporting activity should be to benefit student athletes. If that is not the primary goal of the sport, it should be abolished.

With the current concerns over the future health of football players, the idea of an 8 or 16 game playoff is completely contrary to that goal. Even the idea that playing one game over the current 13 or 14 game schedule played by today's top teams lacks merit. It's already too many. There is a of extremely large proportions risk to playing 50 football games while in college. We should not be compounding the problem.

Those who want to see 16 or 17 games played by the top 2 teams have only their own entertainment in mind.

So ban football or shorten the regular season or limit eligiblity to three seasons.


Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - dabigv13 - 05-16-2012

(05-16-2012, 09:22 PM)akiddoc link Wrote:The goal of every NCAA sporting activity should be to benefit student athletes. If that is not the primary goal of the sport, it should be abolished.

With the current concerns over the future health of football players, the idea of an 8 or 16 game playoff is completely contrary to that goal. Even the idea that playing one game over the current 13 or 14 game schedule played by today's top teams lacks merit. It's already too many. There is a of extremely large proportions risk to playing 50 football games while in college. We should not be compounding the problem.

Those who want to see 16 or 17 games played by the top 2 teams have only their own entertainment in mind.

Yeah, this is a slippery slope to stand on. If we're worried about their health due to football related activity, how can you justify any amount of football- whatever number of games you pick is completely arbitrary.

People get concussions playing soccer not uncommonly; though the numbers are less than football, where do you draw the line with the level of acceptable risk? The concussion issue is tough because the science is still not there to support any conclusions besides that repeated head trauma likely causes cognitive dysfunction in later life, but whether it's the amount of head trauma or number of concussions or time between concussions is still unknown.

We've always known football was a risky activity in some ways, as are many other things college students do. The participants have to understand that there is risk associated with what they're doing and weigh whether the benefits outweigh those risks.

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - OutsiderFan - 05-17-2012

If your desire is to have college sports be all about supporting the educational mission, and not to be commercialized and used to maximize revenues, and you want Stanford to adhere to this ideal, the argument should not be against a football playoff, it should be for Stanford to leave the Pac-12 and join the Ivy League or something similar.

In other words, there are two different world views going on in this discussion.  One is "I'm a college football fan and I want to see the championed determined on the field."  The other is "the mission of college sports should be all about education." 

In a perfect world I probably agree with the latter.  However, we live in a far from perfect world, and it doesn't seem to do a whole lot of good to resist the forces pushing for evolution and change.  In other words, if there is an irresistible force pushing toward a playoff, why not try to make it as good as it can be and derive the most benefit from it possible, as soon as possible?  Market forces have dictated that the benefit sought is more money from the college football post-season, so given that, why not try to maximize what can be gained by going in that direction?

Put all the brain power being used to argue against doing what is inevitable toward making the inevitable as good as it can possibly be.  Maybe start a movement to require any playoff participant to have a certain team graduation rate or GPA in core courses :)













Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - dpbrewster - 05-17-2012

Just say no to the SEC and ESPN.

Football is also unique in the physical toll it takes on players.  The more games, the more risk of injury.  With the playoffs, it is nearly a full NFL seasons worth of games. 

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - oman - 05-17-2012

(05-17-2012, 08:48 AM)garvin link Wrote:I'm also surprised to hear that so many people thought the Orange Bowl was a dreary experience. And I foolishly thought I enjoyed myself.

Never heard that.

Just don't buy the idea that losing in a classic game to a well respected team is necessarily worse than beating a perennially overrated team.

You weren't a little disappointed when you found out we would play VaTech?

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - CowboyIndian - 05-17-2012

(05-17-2012, 11:58 AM)oman link Wrote:You weren't a little disappointed when you found out we would play VaTech?

Every pundit out there who had anything to say about that game was picking VT, so it's not like anyone thought they were an inferior opponent, except you, of course. I lo-o-o-o-ved the beatdown but to imply it was a foregone conclusion is revisionist.

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - fullmetal - 05-17-2012

It wasn't a foregone conclusion, but I was pretty confident coming into the game.  Against OK St., I was less confident, but if perhaps for a couple of kicks and an uninjured Fleener...

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - oman - 05-17-2012

(05-17-2012, 12:37 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=oman link=topic=5919.msg43682#msg43682 date=1337281106]
You weren't a little disappointed when you found out we would play VaTech?

Every pundit out there who had anything to say about that game was picking VT, so it's not like anyone thought they were an inferior opponent, except you, of course. I lo-o-o-o-ved the beatdown but to imply it was a foregone conclusion is revisionist.
[/quote]

I don't remember it quite like you, and I'll be open about some bias I have against football north of the Mason Dixon and east of the Mississippi.

First off, I didn't say it was a foregone conclusion.  Second of all, it's absolutely revisionist theory to say that everyone was picking VT.  VaTech was ranked 13th going into that game with two early loses and coming out of a weak conference.  Stanford (ranked 5th) was only favored by a little because the Pac10, as usual in recent years, was deemed soft.  (In AP, bring them two places closer at 12th and 6th, respectively.)

You are also forgetting the griping about the game being on the other side of the country and even some carping about the Rose Bowl.

There will be lots of discussion on a national level lamenting the thought that Stanford fans wouldn't buy enough tickets to warrant a more desirable slot against a better team in the Sugar Bowl or Fiesta Bowl, and griping throughout Cardinal Nation that an obscure clause in the BCS contract kept the team from its rightful place in the Rose Bowl.

http://www.gomightycard.com/orange-bowl/

I can't speak for everyone, but I specifically remember people thinking we would have been better Fiesta Bowl draws (Oklahoma rematch) and either Ohio State or Arkansas in the Sugar (all of these top 10 teams and all based on rankings bigger challenges than VaTech.)

Ohio State and OU and "bigger" opponents from bigger conferences than VaTech.  When they are ranked higher, they are simply better post season opponents.



Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - Roberton3 - 05-17-2012

(05-17-2012, 01:31 PM)oman link Wrote:I don't remember it quite like you, and I'll be open about some bias I have against football north of the Mason Dixon and east of the Mississippi.

I'm not going to comment on the football-related part of your post.  But let me just point out that Virginia Tech is solidly south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - oman - 05-17-2012

I mean the new one.  The one that just surrounds the SEC states.

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - oman - 05-22-2012

Dang.  -4.

I guess the grade inflation I counted on as an undergrad is long gone....

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - fullmetal - 05-22-2012

Errors of fact will sting around here...esp those with any Civil War context =\

Re: Pac-12 and Big 10 to BCS: Drop Dead! - oman - 05-22-2012

(05-22-2012, 12:13 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Errors of fact will sting around here...esp those with any Civil War context =\

No kidding.  But kind of interesting since every pundit back in "61 who had anything to say about the war was figuring on the South winning the damn thing.