Jesse Palmer is a 17ing idiot. That is all
- Thread starter stateforlife03
- Start date
and Jesse Palmer has been an announcer for a few years. Has it really taken this long for you realize that?
and barely got by KY. Later he back tracked and said the SEC is the one conference where an AL might jump TCU and Boise. I'm not sure he even knows what he is talking about.
Boise by Palmer and others (i.e. Herbstreit) boggles my mind. Playing 1 or 2 tough games a year is not enough to be ranked like they are.Sometimes I think the only reason the media guys hype Boise so much is to show their displeasure with the BCS system.
Auburn needs style points, but he doesn't care about Boise State's strength of schedule?<div>
</div><div>What a tool.</div><div>
</div><div>Herbstreit "wondering" if Bama winning out will be enough to jump Boise, TCU and Utah. Are you serious? If Bama beats LSU, us, Auburn and wins the SEC championship, then they most definitely should be in the championship game. Without question. There is nothing to "wonder" about.</div><div>
</div>
</div><div>What a tool.</div><div>
</div><div>Herbstreit "wondering" if Bama winning out will be enough to jump Boise, TCU and Utah. Are you serious? If Bama beats LSU, us, Auburn and wins the SEC championship, then they most definitely should be in the championship game. Without question. There is nothing to "wonder" about.</div><div>
</div>
Has Peterson ever came out and said he doesn't like the BCS system? Seems like it would play in Boise's favor if they could ever get into the Championship game. I believe Boise could beat anyone if they have a month to prepare for them, but if they go to a playoff system they will have to play good teams several weeks or at least 2 weeks in a row and that will be hard for them to handle.
KingoftheDawgs said:
For some reason, some people think that there must be a multi round playoff system to get a "true" champion. I'm not against a playoff, but I'm not anti-BCS either. Thing is, the BCS works more times than not whether they want to admit it or not. And when it doesn't work, it gets tweaked. Right now, would there be much arguement that Oregon and Auburn are the top two teams in the country?
The reality is both have their pluses and minuses. A multi round playoff isn't really the "cure-all" that they want people to believe. I mean, I kind of like watching that 1 vs 2 match-up of the two best teams in Oregon vs Auburn as opposed to say Oregon vs "Cinderella" Boise State. With a playoff, there's a possibility that you could have a National Champion in say Alabama- a team that might not even make the SEC Championship Game much less win the SEC. How is that any better than the BCS? To me, that doesn't prove that Alabama is the best team, that proves to me that they were the hottest team.
To me, the real problem is there are too many D-I teams/leagues. They need to come up with a division I-A and a division I-B. The BCS teams should be in I-A and play for the national championship, and I-B could be conferences like the WAC, C-USA, etc. and they play for their own championship. They should have a system where conferences are rated, so that conference like the Mountain West can move up, or a conference like the Big East could be moved down.
If the Rangers win the World Series, they would do so despite having the lowest regular season winning percentage this season of all the teams that made the playoffs.
but like I said, I like the fact that the two best teams in the regular season play for the Championship. Save the cinderellas for March Madness.
and there never will be an answerbecause the schedules are just too imbalanced. Just look at MSU and Ole Miss last year. Postseason computers ranked MSU's schedule #1 in the country and ranked OM's #61 and we play in the same conference.
All you can hope for, and all you can ask out of the voters is that they place the 2 most deserving teams in the BCS championship game. Deserving being the key word because rarely will we know if they are truly the best teams.
Boise State is a good football team. They can play with any team in the country on a given night, but you can say that about 30 or 40 teams in the country. The bottom line with Boise is this: they don't deserve a shot at the national title because they don't play one single "letdown game" all year and they don't play a single road game against a tough opponent or a hostile crowd. They could have taken steps to play a difficult road game against a AQ power but they chose not too because the publicity they gain from being undefeated is just too valuabe for their university.
All you can hope for, and all you can ask out of the voters is that they place the 2 most deserving teams in the BCS championship game. Deserving being the key word because rarely will we know if they are truly the best teams.
Boise State is a good football team. They can play with any team in the country on a given night, but you can say that about 30 or 40 teams in the country. The bottom line with Boise is this: they don't deserve a shot at the national title because they don't play one single "letdown game" all year and they don't play a single road game against a tough opponent or a hostile crowd. They could have taken steps to play a difficult road game against a AQ power but they chose not too because the publicity they gain from being undefeated is just too valuabe for their university.
The NCAA tournament is one of the most beloved sporting events in America. A football playoff would exceed it. There are enough smart people in the world to figure out how to determine the winner on the field while maintaining the history of the bowls. Everyone involved probably has to be willing to concede a little bit to make it work, and that's probably part of the problem. No one wants to concede anything.
it's a great 2 weeks. Do you know whatpeople don't love....the entire regular season. There's not another sport in the country where the regular season matters as much as college football.
Also, comparing BB to FB is pretty silly. You can't have a 68 team football playoff. Not only that, but the NCAAT doesn't always produce the real champion anyway. Was George Mason one of the best 4 teams in the country? NC State won a national title, Villanova with 10 losses, I could go on and on. The NCAAT is about having a good draw and getting hot at the right time. Unlike the NBA, where the best team is going to win.
</p>
Also, comparing BB to FB is pretty silly. You can't have a 68 team football playoff. Not only that, but the NCAAT doesn't always produce the real champion anyway. Was George Mason one of the best 4 teams in the country? NC State won a national title, Villanova with 10 losses, I could go on and on. The NCAAT is about having a good draw and getting hot at the right time. Unlike the NBA, where the best team is going to win.
</p>
Auburn and Oregon would play for the NC... what about TCU and Boise (or Utah).. they're PROBABLY not as good as Auburn or Oregon but HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE? So it's not really about who the best team is.. there's really no fair way of determining that .. it's about who EARNS IT.. Ron Washington said it in one of the post-game pressers during the Yankee series.. you don't have to be the best team, you only have to be the best team on that particular day.. and that's what matters. Otherwise, we could just take the recruiting rankings and use them to put together the NC game.
People don't love the regular season? Someone better tell ESPN they need to pull the 8 million games they pay to televise and the 25 million people who paid to attend a regular season game last year. I won't argue that the college regular season means more, but don't diminish the basketball season. Look in our own back yard. The regular season has cost us the last two years. Two years ago, if not for a four games in four days streak, we would have been in the NIT. This year, we were in the NIT thanks to losses to Rider, at Auburn, at Bama and UT at home, among others.
No one asked for a 68 team football playoff. That would be silly. You telling me we can't pick eight teams and play it off? Is there going to be controversy about number 9 or 10? Sure! But at least you get a more true representation of the best teams beyond the top two. I'm pretty sure the 04 USC team was the best team in the country, but I also think Auburn should have had a chance to see how they stacked up that year. USC had beaten them in 02 and 03, but that was a different Auburn team in 04. We'll never know.
George Mason played the games that were in front of them. If I recall they even had a player suspended for the first game, and still won. An 8 team football playoff would never have a Cinderella like that, or like NC State or Nova. You can't be 12-0 or 11-1 or even 10-2 and considered a Cinderella. Bad comparison. However, I don't hear ANYONE complaining that NC State or Nova was not the "real champion." Never have, never will. Because they won it on the court. It's that simple.
No one asked for a 68 team football playoff. That would be silly. You telling me we can't pick eight teams and play it off? Is there going to be controversy about number 9 or 10? Sure! But at least you get a more true representation of the best teams beyond the top two. I'm pretty sure the 04 USC team was the best team in the country, but I also think Auburn should have had a chance to see how they stacked up that year. USC had beaten them in 02 and 03, but that was a different Auburn team in 04. We'll never know.
George Mason played the games that were in front of them. If I recall they even had a player suspended for the first game, and still won. An 8 team football playoff would never have a Cinderella like that, or like NC State or Nova. You can't be 12-0 or 11-1 or even 10-2 and considered a Cinderella. Bad comparison. However, I don't hear ANYONE complaining that NC State or Nova was not the "real champion." Never have, never will. Because they won it on the court. It's that simple.
This may be one of the stupider things ever said here. They televise mid-night practices the very first day they are allowed. They televise hundreds of games a year. The regular season in NCAA basketball matters a ton because you have to get into the tournament. The bubble games and the conference championships (regular season and tournament) are some of the most competitive and entertaining games of the year. The only thing you can argue is that an individual game in basketball doesn't count as much as football, and that is true, but that's strictly a numbers game. If your basketball regular season was only 12 games they would all count as much as football.Columbus Dawg said:
I've always said they need a 16 team playoff. 11 conference champs, 5 at large determined by BCS rankings.
What about that would make the regular season not matter? You are playing to win your conference and have a shot at the national championship, or you are playing to have a shot to be one of the five best that didn't win the conference. How does it make it less important? As it stands, there are pretty much only five teams with seasons that have any national championship meaning left. The rest of us are just playing for bowl position. With a 16 team playoff, MSU would actually still be in the hunt. Win out and who knows, do we become one of the 5 at large teams? Plus, how much more interesting would the small conference championship games be if the winner was going get to have a shot at Oregon, Auburn, Oklahoma, etc. in the first round. Much more meaningful than a spot in Detroit against whoever managed six wins in a big conference.
A playoff would make the regular season that much more exciting. I have yet to see a good argument as to how it would make it less meaningful, so I'll sit here and wait on you to give one.
What about that would make the regular season not matter? You are playing to win your conference and have a shot at the national championship, or you are playing to have a shot to be one of the five best that didn't win the conference. How does it make it less important? As it stands, there are pretty much only five teams with seasons that have any national championship meaning left. The rest of us are just playing for bowl position. With a 16 team playoff, MSU would actually still be in the hunt. Win out and who knows, do we become one of the 5 at large teams? Plus, how much more interesting would the small conference championship games be if the winner was going get to have a shot at Oregon, Auburn, Oklahoma, etc. in the first round. Much more meaningful than a spot in Detroit against whoever managed six wins in a big conference.
A playoff would make the regular season that much more exciting. I have yet to see a good argument as to how it would make it less meaningful, so I'll sit here and wait on you to give one.
I am not totally against a playoff but only a small number of teams should be allowed in, probably no more than 8 teams. I don't want to see the 16th best team in the nation have a shot a title.
I am also not saying that the basketball regular season does not matter but the importance is not even close to that of football. Does anyone remember who beat Duke and Butler during the season last year? For many teams, once they make the NCAAT the regular season is forgotten.
I am also not saying that the basketball regular season does not matter but the importance is not even close to that of football. Does anyone remember who beat Duke and Butler during the season last year? For many teams, once they make the NCAAT the regular season is forgotten.
because it's probably going to happen this year. The winner of the TCU-Utah game this week is going to have an inside track. I really doubt both Auburn and Oregon finish undefeated. If they do, they'll keep the TCU-Utah winner out. If they don't, the only team I see supplanting the winner of that game would be a 1 loss Bama team if they win out.
In my eyes, that leaves basically 3 teams that I think have a shot to keep TCU or Utah out of the title game. If, hypothetically Oregon loses to Arizona or Oregon State, Auburn loses to Bama, and Bama loses again in the SEC title game, I could see a scenario where the winner of TCU-Utah plays Boise for the national title.
That's my dream scenario right now. If you want the BCS to be destroyed, as I do, all you need is for the championship game to be between a MWC school and a WAC school. That would be great.
In my eyes, that leaves basically 3 teams that I think have a shot to keep TCU or Utah out of the title game. If, hypothetically Oregon loses to Arizona or Oregon State, Auburn loses to Bama, and Bama loses again in the SEC title game, I could see a scenario where the winner of TCU-Utah plays Boise for the national title.
That's my dream scenario right now. If you want the BCS to be destroyed, as I do, all you need is for the championship game to be between a MWC school and a WAC school. That would be great.
The 16th best team probably wouldn't. Which is beautiful. It creates a Cinderella scenario, but heavily stacks the deck toward the best teams. I didn't mention that the first round should be home games for the higher seed. Suddenly, CUSA regular seasons matter a lot more. SEC seasons matter a lot more because teams like MSU are still in the hunt. I mean, I'm excited as hell about a bowl game and trying to win as many games to go to the best one possible, but imagine if there were still a chance for us to get an at large birth into a 16 team national championship playoff. **** would be crazy as hell right now.Hanmudog said:
Here's how it would look right now, with my assumptions on who wins the conference/conf. champ games:
ACC: VaTech
Big 12: Oklahoma
Big East: Pitt
Big 10: Ohio St..
Pac 10: Oregon
SEC: Auburn
CUSA: Houston
MAC: Northern Ill.
Mountain West: TCU
Sun Belt: Troy
WAC: Boise St.
At large: The five I didn't pick to win the conference as of today's BCS rankings:
Utah
Bama
Nebraska
LSU
Wisconsin
Seeded by BCS:
1.Oregon
2.Auburn
3.TCU
4.Boise
5.Utah
6.Bama
7.Nebraska
8.Oklahoma
9.Wisconsin
10.LSU
11.Ohio St.
12.Va Tech
13.Pitt
14.Northern Ill
15.Houston
16.Troy
First round games:
Troy @ Oregon
Houston@Auburn
Northern Ill.@TCU
Pitt@Boise
VaTech@Utah
Ohio St.@Bama
LSU@Nebraska
Wisconsin@Oklahoma
2nd round, if high seeds win all, and play them at traditional BCS sites:
Oregon vs Oklahoma
Boise vs Utah
TCU vs Bama
Nebraska vs Auburn
high seeds win, play at neutral site:
****, I don't know you can't want something like that. And the regular season to get into a tourney like that would be unreal.
There would be no motivation for a team to play a good out of conference schedule. Maybe even less so than there already is. Teams like Boise, Houston, and N. Illinois would have no reason at all to play a big boy team to prove themselves worthy. They would just fatten up on their weak conferences and 4 nobodies to get a bid.
If I could have my way, I would just add one more bowl game called the College Super Bowl and play it the week before the NFL Super Bowl. It would be the winner of BCS#1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3.
If I could have my way, I would just add one more bowl game called the College Super Bowl and play it the week before the NFL Super Bowl. It would be the winner of BCS#1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3.
...Troy, Northern Illinois, Houston, & Pitt get a chance at a national championship? What have they done to earn that? They are a combined 21-11!<div>
</div><div>If that system were in place, then I'd be leading the charge to get State in C-USA or the 17ing Sun Belt.</div><div>
</div><div>Your proposed system would leave State out but include a team we beat by 23 points on their own damn field.</div><div>
</div><div>Wow. Please give the keyboard back to your husband...</div><div><div>
</div><div>
</div></div>
</div><div>If that system were in place, then I'd be leading the charge to get State in C-USA or the 17ing Sun Belt.</div><div>
</div><div>Your proposed system would leave State out but include a team we beat by 23 points on their own damn field.</div><div>
</div><div>Wow. Please give the keyboard back to your husband...</div><div><div>
</div><div>
</div></div>
That's been my plan all along as well. I would still be in favor of having a BCS ranking system though to determine the seedings and the selection of the at large teams. I wouldn't want a selection committee, because then it would become about money.
The problem would be how you agreed to split up the cash, and that's why the Big 10 doesn't want in on this. They know that they would get less of a split if they had to deal with possibly not getting as much of the pot.
I do agree that having all 11 conferences get a bid is the best scenario though, because I think that enhances the regular season in another way that you didn't even mention. It would put a premium on getting the top seeds. Getting a chance to finish in the Top 3 or 4 would still come with a premium, because you'd get a chance to draw a team from the MAC, Sun Belt, or CUSA, as opposed to a game with an at large Big 10 or Big 12 team.
Think of Auburn as an example. They are 9-0 right now, and they look to be on track to where they'd have an at large locked up even if they lost to Alabama. However, that Alabama game would still carry a lot of weight because the winner would likely get a chance to draw a team like NIU, Troy, or Houston, and the loser would likely draw a team like Ohio State or Virginia Tech. That's a big difference depending on one game. Sure you still get in the field, but seeding would be that much more important.
The problem would be how you agreed to split up the cash, and that's why the Big 10 doesn't want in on this. They know that they would get less of a split if they had to deal with possibly not getting as much of the pot.
I do agree that having all 11 conferences get a bid is the best scenario though, because I think that enhances the regular season in another way that you didn't even mention. It would put a premium on getting the top seeds. Getting a chance to finish in the Top 3 or 4 would still come with a premium, because you'd get a chance to draw a team from the MAC, Sun Belt, or CUSA, as opposed to a game with an at large Big 10 or Big 12 team.
Think of Auburn as an example. They are 9-0 right now, and they look to be on track to where they'd have an at large locked up even if they lost to Alabama. However, that Alabama game would still carry a lot of weight because the winner would likely get a chance to draw a team like NIU, Troy, or Houston, and the loser would likely draw a team like Ohio State or Virginia Tech. That's a big difference depending on one game. Sure you still get in the field, but seeding would be that much more important.
klerushund said:
Do you hate the NCAA tournament? Do you think MSU should have only had maybe 1 or 2 NCAA tourney bids ever?
Those schools would earn their bid by winning their conference in the same manner teams do in basketball. Getting in doesn't give you a realistic shot at the title. Those teams wouldn't have a realistic shot unless they were really that good. They'd get a banner and a game with a big boy, where they'd normally go get slaughtered.
You're probably one of those that complains that the NCAA tournament isn't the best 64, 65, 68 teams in the country. It's real simple. There are two ways to earn a bid. You either win your league, or you do well enough to be one of the top remaining 32 or so teams in the NCAA tournament, or be the Top 5 remaining teams in this scenario. If you aren't, you don't get in, and you didn't deserve it.
Would better teams be left out in favor of lesser teams? Sure, but you'd give every conference a chance to participate, and you'd maintain the value of the regular season by putting an even bigger premium on the top seeds. It's still a huge deal to get a No. 1 seed in the NCAA tourney, because you end up, historically, with over a 90% chance of reaching the Elite 8, or something close to that. In this type of format, getting a Top 4 seed would give you probably a 99% chance of reaching the 2nd round. That's part of what makes the plan great.
...if the NCAA tournament was only 16 teams, State has shown that it doesn't deserve to be there very often (see: Stansbury era). /suddenbloodpressurespike<div>
</div><div>What's funny is that you just showed that a tournament (as the one proposed) completely devalues the regular season.</div><div>
</div><div>Exhibit A (in the proposed plan): Houston gets skull-drug all over their own field and yet come post-season time, they are invited to play for a championship while the team that beat the ever-lovin' fool out of them and has a BETTER RECORD, against BETTER COMPETITION, sits at home.</div><div>
</div><div>The defense rests. A playoff like that dramatically devalues the regular season.</div>
</div><div>What's funny is that you just showed that a tournament (as the one proposed) completely devalues the regular season.</div><div>
</div><div>Exhibit A (in the proposed plan): Houston gets skull-drug all over their own field and yet come post-season time, they are invited to play for a championship while the team that beat the ever-lovin' fool out of them and has a BETTER RECORD, against BETTER COMPETITION, sits at home.</div><div>
</div><div>The defense rests. A playoff like that dramatically devalues the regular season.</div>
My main issue against any long playoff is that you are asking these kids, who are NOT getting paid in correlation to the money they generate, to put their body on the line for 16 to 17 games a season, They already have increased it to up to 14 games in a season. I personally think they are indentured servants. Some people think the education they are paid in is enough. However, pretty much everyone agrees their pay is not commiserate with the monies generated. Now you want to generate even more money, increase their chance of getting injured and hurt there future where they do get paid, and not pay these kids a cent more.
The NFL is going to be in a big fight for increasing from 16 to 18 regular season games. They have a union and agents to negotiate a agreed upon compensation for these extra games. The NCAA players have, by NCAA rules, nothing to protect their well being and future
The tweak you can do within the system is for the NCAA to take two games away from the schools schedule. the NCAA then schedules those two games for each school. This way an Alabama, Oregon or Auburn team is forced to play a Boise, Utah or TCU within the season. This can be done with a flexible schedule where the schedule is done say mid-October for two November dates. It could also be done at the beginning of the season where historically top ranked BCS schools are forced to pick up a home and home with some historically top ranked Non BCS schools. This way some of these matchups will happen in the season.
The NFL is going to be in a big fight for increasing from 16 to 18 regular season games. They have a union and agents to negotiate a agreed upon compensation for these extra games. The NCAA players have, by NCAA rules, nothing to protect their well being and future
The tweak you can do within the system is for the NCAA to take two games away from the schools schedule. the NCAA then schedules those two games for each school. This way an Alabama, Oregon or Auburn team is forced to play a Boise, Utah or TCU within the season. This can be done with a flexible schedule where the schedule is done say mid-October for two November dates. It could also be done at the beginning of the season where historically top ranked BCS schools are forced to pick up a home and home with some historically top ranked Non BCS schools. This way some of these matchups will happen in the season.
I'd put a caveat on it that the conference winner has to be in the top 25ish of the BCS rankings to be invited into the playoff. If not, the spot goes to an at large. Yes, it slants things for the big conferences again, but that's truly where the best football teams are found. There really can be no argument there, as SEC teams routinely beat up on CUSA and Sun Belt teams, and Big Ten teams do the same to MAC teams.
I can see no good reason for the Sun Belt and MAC champs to be automatically included this year. Some years, maybe so. They would have to have scheduling and polling help obviously to get to the top 25ish in the rankings though. I think the next three teams in the current BCS rankings are Missouri, Stanford and Michigan State. I think they have earned their way in moreso than Troy, Northern Illinois, or Houston.
Still, I'd take your plan over the current system but I don't think it's the best.
I can see no good reason for the Sun Belt and MAC champs to be automatically included this year. Some years, maybe so. They would have to have scheduling and polling help obviously to get to the top 25ish in the rankings though. I think the next three teams in the current BCS rankings are Missouri, Stanford and Michigan State. I think they have earned their way in moreso than Troy, Northern Illinois, or Houston.
Still, I'd take your plan over the current system but I don't think it's the best.
There's like three times as many basketball teams as football teams. So really, it's roughly the same.klerushund said:
The only thing that would devalue the regular season would be if the playoff teams were picked before a single game was played. If there were at large spots into a playoff, MSU still has a chance at a National Championship. We are totally out of it right now. And hey, that sucks because somebody like Houston would still have a chance to get in, but that's the way **** works sometimes. The SWAC champ gets a shot every year, and they aren't anywhere close to one of the best 64.
Eh... 12 game season, with almost half the teams playing 13 right now. This would ask eight of those teams to play 14, four to play 15, and two to play 16. You'd basically start the week after the conference championship games, and you could even have the first round losers get invited to bowls. Three more games is a tough ask, and is one of the biggest problems with what I'd like to see. Haven't really looked to see if a bye week is a possibility. Maybe a week after the conf champ games to get ready or something.Bulldog Bruce said:
I'd have to care about college basketball's regular season to hate it. I don't care about it because it means as close to nothing as it possibly can.<div>
</div><div>
</div>
</div><div>
</div>