[jjbrr]

And AJ's girlfriend is real as far as I can tell

(mom's pretty hot too)

[Bbradley62]

mike777, on 2012-November-26, 14:30, said:

btw ND graduation rate is 97%.

What's the graduation rate for their fictitious girlfriends?

[jjbrr]

eh, i was quick to take shots at manti, but from what we've learned the dude is some sort of psychopath, retard, liar, embarrassment, whatever. he's been exposed as a sham on the field and a complete nutcase. it's sad and pathetic.

so let us not lose focus on the important issue at hand

[jjbrr]

bump

SEC set the record with 8 teams in the top 25

confirmed rigged

[mike777]

eh, i was quick to take shots at manti, but from what we've learned the dude is some sort of psychopath, retard, liar, embarrassment, whatever. he's been exposed as a sham on the field and a complete nutcase. it's sad and pathetic.




why too hate the internet....destroy a young man

[Bbradley62]

jjbrr, on 2013-October-13, 23:19, said:

bump

SEC set the record with 8 teams in the top 25

confirmed rigged

And their overall performance in the upcoming bowls game will likely once again demonstrate that they are not over-rated.

[jjbrr]

Auburn, Bama, Mizzou, LSU, TAMU, Ole Miss, Miss St

UGA, USC, Vandy

I suspect they'll all open as favorites except Auburn

[Bbradley62]

jjbrr, on 2013-October-13, 23:19, said:

confirmed rigged

I believe polls can be rigged, or at least influenced by political considerations, but I also believe that the average of computer ratings is (virtually) completely objective.

[jjbrr]

Something I suppose we should get accustomed to:

Who are your 4 playoff teams this year?

[mike777]

I think all agree..


gamble is most important...rest not.

we want to win prop bets..etc bets.


If you don't want to win ok.

[Bbradley62]

I don't know whether the 4-team playoff, which starts next year, allows more than one team from a conference. If it doesn't, the answer is clear: Florida State, Auburn, Michigan State and Stanford. If both Alabama and Auburn could be in it, then I'd pick Stanford over Michigan State as the fourth. It's easy to see why Stanford's computer rating is higher; they played a tougher schedule. I'd have to look more closely at their non-conference games before saying something like "it's the Spartans' own fault", since most of their schedule is obviously dictated by their conference.

[jjbrr]

"There will be no limits on the number of teams per conference, in a change from previous BCS rules."

[billw55]

IMO by far the best playoff system I have heard of is this:

16 teams including all "FBS" conference champs and the remaining slots as at-large bids. Currently that would be 10 champs and 6 at large bids. Selection and seeding are by committee as per basketball. Rounds one and two (and maybe three) are home games for the higher seed. Finals (and maybe semifinals) are neutral site. Simple, fair, and zero good reasons for anyone to complain about being excluded. If anyone still wants to stage "bowl games," they are free to invite any team not in the field of 16.

A playoff would make massively more money for the NCAA than the bowl system. It's really a disgrace that the bowls lasted this long, both financially and competitively.

[GreenMan]

billw55, on 2013-December-09, 13:53, said:

IMO by far the best playoff system I have heard of is this:

16 teams including all "FBS" conference champs and the remaining slots as at-large bids. Currently that would be 10 champs and 6 at large bids. Selection and seeding are by committee as per basketball. Rounds one and two (and maybe three) are home games for the higher seed. Finals (and maybe semifinals) are neutral site. Simple, fair, and zero good reasons for anyone to complain about being excluded. If anyone still wants to stage "bowl games," they are free to invite any team not in the field of 16.

A playoff would make massively more money for the NCAA than the bowl system. It's really a disgrace that the bowls lasted this long, both financially and competitively.

This is nice in theory, but either the teams in the final have played 4 games beyond their 12-game regular season (possibly 5 if they play a conference championship), or the playoffs have to start earlier, resulting in a shorter season.

The second would never happen, because the games produce too much money for people in suits.

The first would mean a greater burden on the actual players, who are already not paid for their work.

[billw55]

GreenMan, on 2013-December-09, 14:08, said:

This is nice in theory, but either the teams in the final have played 4 games beyond their 12-game regular season (possibly 5 if they play a conference championship), or the playoffs have to start earlier, resulting in a shorter season.

The second would never happen, because the games produce too much money for people in suits.

The first would mean a greater burden on the actual players, who are already not paid for their work.

If really necessary, they could cut one game from the regular season. The playoff money would outweigh the loss IMO. But I don't think they really need to. And my nickel says the players themselves would welcome a full playoff with enthusiasm. Remember, they have real playoffs in the lower divisions, so arguments about it being too hard on the players don't hold water IMO.

As an experiment, I ran this playoff format on the current season, choosing at large bids and seedings based solely on the BCS computer averages (no polls). I consider the result a huge success – read my comments and judge for yourself. The field turns out like this:

1. Florida State
2. Auburn
3. Alabama / Stanford
4. Alabama / Stanford
5. Michigan State
6. Missouri
7. Ohio State
8. South Carolina
9. Baylor
10. Oregon
11. Arizona State
12. Central Florida
13. Fresno State
14. Rice
15. Bowling Green
16. Louisiana-Lafayette

As might be expected, the SEC dominates the scenario, earing four bids, all in the top eight seeds, and hence all gaining a home game. SEC haters may cry foul but I think this is eminently fair. They earned it, completely objectively: no polls, no reputation points, no carryover from last year, just on-field results.

The field admits all teams that deserve it. Who are the unlucky left outs? Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Clemson, the next three teams in the computer ranks. Each has two losses, so they had their chances. Oh, you want a better computer rank? So you can jump past Arizona State or Oregon for a bid? Then play better non-conference opponents. Which is another big plus in this format: there is incentive to schedule real games, not 60-0 blowouts of vastly outmanned teams. All three of these left-outs played one real non-conference opponent, and two patsies. Meanwhile ASU faced Wisconsin and Notre Dame (and one patsy). Make your choices guys.

Also, we bring in a little of the basketball magic, with lesser known teams from small conferences getting their shot, and spicing up their conference title games in a big way.

Then let’s compare to the would-be bowl slate. The BCS managed to make one game much more important, but in the process diminished all the others. Only one bowl out of 30+ matters for the big trophy. Whereas, in this playoff, all 15 games feature a potential national champion. Let’s look at just the first round, already we have some stellar matchups. Oregon at Ohio State! Baylor at South Carolina! Arizona State at Missouri! Further down the road you can imagine a whole raft of marquee games. And the winner of all this is a hands down, no argument, 100% legit champion.

Oh but wait, say bowl backers, we must consider the academic schedules of the student athletes. Well, I don't believe they really care about this, but let's consider it anyway. I checked the academic calendar of the major university nearest me. Finals are the week of December 16-20. First day of class in spring semester is January 21 (not that anyone even pretends to care about the start of the term; compare August). We need four games, and they fit nicely on Dec 28, Jan 4, Jan 11, Jan 18.


I honestly don't see what is not to like.

[GreenMan]

billw55, on 2013-December-09, 15:03, said:

If really necessary, they could cut one game from the regular season. The playoff money would outweigh the loss IMO.

The playoffs involve a small number of teams; regular-season games involve hundreds. Check the TV audience numbers for a start, but also figure in merch and concession sales.

Quote

But I don't think they really need to. And my nickel says the players themselves would welcome a full playoff with enthusiasm. Remember, they have real playoffs in the lower divisions, so arguments about it being too hard on the players don't hold water IMO.

As I checked and you apparently didn't, the lower divisions play shorter seasons and start their playoffs in November. Some conferences play longer seasons, so they don't take part in the playoffs.

As for the players welcoming the opportunity to play several extra games essentially for free so the TV networks can make more money, I'm only laughing to keep from crying.

[billw55]

GreenMan, on 2013-December-09, 15:43, said:

The playoffs involve a small number of teams; regular-season games involve hundreds. Check the TV audience numbers for a start, but also figure in merch and concession sales.

As I checked and you apparently didn't, the lower divisions play shorter seasons and start their playoffs in November. Some conferences play longer seasons, so they don't take part in the playoffs.

As for the players welcoming the opportunity to play several extra games essentially for free so the TV networks can make more money, I'm only laughing to keep from crying.

You may have a point about the extra game. But "hundreds" is clearly an exaggeration.

As for the FCS playoffs, I did check. Please look at the bracket. Most of the teams played 12 games already, with 5 rounds of playoffs. That's the same number of games as my proposal. In fact, compared to FBS teams that played only 12 games, it is one game more. And don't say those 12-gamers won't be in the final, look at Alabama.

Last, pro athletes would certainly think the way you do about extra games. But I doubt most college players would. They like playing. I think they would welcome a real championship. Some would see it as extra opportunities to audition for NFL scouts. I'm not laughing

[jjbrr]

I feel kinda strongly that 12 team playoff > 8 team playoff > 16 team playoff

[Thiros]

jjbrr, on 2013-December-08, 22:56, said:

Something I suppose we should get accustomed to:

Who are your 4 playoff teams this year?

Florida State, Auburn, Michigan State, Alabama.

I can't put Stanford in there with two losses.

[Bbradley62]

I'd like to see an 8-team playoff, with teams chosen strictly by the average of computer rankings, with no automatic berths, and no limits on the number of teams from one conference that can qualify.