Utah's Attorney General suing the BCS?
by crushedoptimist on Jan 6, 2009 10:09 PM PST
57 comments
I know this is a bit of a break from our excited chatter...
Comment 1: "We should get a QB"
Comment 2: "No. We should get an OT"
Comment 3: "No. We should get a WR"
It's all a bunch of fun, but instead we could be discussing the asinine BCS system, which for the second time in five years has pushed an undefeated Utah team out of the national title picture. So Utah, home to many angry white people at this point, is pissed, and the Attorney General is trying to bring the long arm of the law into the picture by considering to sue the BCS for federal antitrust violations. The attached link from ESPN goes into some more detail. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3814472
The point itself appears valid. The BCS is basically set up to put every school not in a BCS conference at a competitive disadvantage, Utah being a prime example of such. The BCS also is set up to give more money to an exclusive group of conferences at the expense of mid-majors. These seem to be pretty basic facts. Now, I am not sure whether or not that will be enough for an actual federal case (they left this out of my engineering major), but if the AG has enough to go on, I'd at least root him on.
A place to bury strangers.
0 recs |
57 comments
Email
Print
Comments
If this forces a BCS Playoff, then great.
But Utah could’ve played a harder out of conference schedule. And Utah can’t actually think they’re a possibility for #1, when USC, Oklahoma, and Florida KILLED teams that were ranked 5-10, whereas Utah had some barely wons against the sucky teams in their own conference. C’mon people of Utah, be realistic and grateful that you can even claim a ‘share’ of the national title.
by LantermanC on Jan 6, 2009 11:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well, to be fair....
part of the problem is that no bigtime school WANTS to schedule a Utah in their nonconference schedule. The same thing happened to Boise State until Georgia finally decided to bite the bullet (and then kicked the crap out of Boise State).
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
by Eegah on Jan 6, 2009 11:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They beat 4 ranked teams
and scheduled a game at Anne Arbor against a Michigan team they couldn’t have known would be so bad. They beat a team out of the SEC that was ranked number one for most of the year in their own back yard. Utahs scores against bad teams:
42-21 UNLV
58-10 Utah St
37-21 Weber State
40-7 Wyoming
49-16 Colorado St
13-10 New Mexico
63-14 San Diego State
Looks to me like they took care of business against weaker competition. They may not actually be better than USC or Florida but they’ve done more than enough to earn a chance to prove it on the field with those teams.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 6, 2009 11:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this.
Unlike Boise State who wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on even had they won their bowl game this year, but Utah played a respectable schedule. When I hear people say things like “Alabama laid down in that game,” it makes me shrug and wonder why they play the games at all. The BCS is pointless; if they don’t want to go to a playoff system, than just go back to the bowl games the way they were before; it’s all still based on opinion anyway.
by Azimeir on Jan 7, 2009 12:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Those games are pretty pointless
What exactly did Texas and Ohio State have to play for last night, apart from Ohio State trying to avoid being humiliated again. Texas thought they should be playing for the title. I agree, you can’t maintain the integrity of the Rose Bowl (Big Ten vs Pac 10) and have the BCS at the same time effectively. Either just go with the tradition or go to a playoff. I’m with the playoff, which is why I’m currently a Utah fan.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 7, 2009 12:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, if Texas had beaten OSU by a lot
I would say they could claim the national title without being ridiculed.
by LantermanC on Jan 7, 2009 8:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So... which of those teams were ranked?
USC smoked Notre Dame (I know, not that huge of an accomplishment)
Killed Ohio State.
And then handily beat Penn State (a few late Tds by PSU after the game was already decided makes it look closer).
They could’ve been more ‘gutsy’ (or stupid) like Washington and scheduled games against the likes of Oklahoma, BYU, Boise State, Ohio State, etc. If they big schools won’t play them, then the best of the littler schools should play each other, like Utah vs. Boise State, or Ball State, or Troy, or some other perennial small school power.
by LantermanC on Jan 7, 2009 8:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Those were the bad teams they played
and they beat them soundly. They didn’t barely beat some bad teams. As far as the ranked teams they play, they beat Michigan who was ranked at the time, Oregon St, TCU, and BYU and capped their season off with a win over Bama.
Instead of keeping the Utahs (which is a bigger school than Auburn) and Boise St’s of the world out of nation championship contention why not just have a playoff. It’d lead to a more exciting and legitimate post season and it’d also improve the regular season. If teams were able to afford to lose a game or two in the regular season and still have a chance to play for a championship you’d see better scheduling than Ohio State against Youngstown State. It’d start to look more like the college basketball regular season where the good teams actually play each other.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 7, 2009 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well we're in agreement in one part
if there were a playoff system (which their should be), Utah should be a no.4 seed and be allowed to compete. But for the way the system is set up… I would say no, they aren’t the national champs.
I’m going to discount the win against Michigan simply because early rankings mean nothing (and they only beat them by 2). The other wins are all good, especially the Bama win, but a 3 point squeeker against New Mexico?
Utah Florida USC
Utah @ Michigan 25-23 Hawaii @ Fl 56-10 OhioState @ USC 35-3!
TCU @ Utah 13-10 Fl @ Tenn 30-6 USC @ Oregon 44-10!
BYU @ Utah 48-24 LSU @ Fl 51-21! USC over the dregs UW and WSU 125-0!
OSU @ Utah 31-28 Georgia @ Fl 49-10! ND @ USC 38-3!
Utah vs. Alabama 31-17 SC @ Fl 56-6! PSU @ USC 38-24! (17 pts by PSU in 4th quarter)
So 2 convincing wins. Fl @ FlSt 45-15! Only 3 real tests, and they won 3 blowouts
Fl @ Vandy 42-14
Fl vs. Alabama 31-20.
1 convincing win and 7 monster wins teams against bowl contenders (and I didn’t include a win of Miami because I’m too lazy to check if they are any good anymore.
Again, I’m not saying that Utah sucks, but it seems pretty clear from the scores that USC and Florida (and Oklahama too lazy to put them up) are on a different level in terms of both talent and results this season.
by LantermanC on Jan 7, 2009 9:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hm.... my spaces all got deleted...
too lazy to correct..
by LantermanC on Jan 7, 2009 9:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Regardless of Utah's BCS work...
I will be interested to know if the legal work here actually has legs, or if it is just another publicity stunt like all those congressmen from snubbed states issuing those press releases.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 7, 2009 12:32 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
So...
Are all the Utah boosters out there saying that if Florida/Oklahoma/USC/Texas played Utah at on a neutral field, they’d bet on the Utes?
by cyberwulf on Jan 7, 2009 11:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
They did just beat Alabama in what was definitely not a neutral field
So while they might not be the favorite, it’s not a given they would lose either.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 7, 2009 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Which still just ducks the bigger problem
College Football is not a meritocracy. It doesn’t matter what you do, but what people perceive that you do. Even though Utah beat Alabama people are discounting it as “Alabama laid down”. Personally I think the Arizona Cardinals suck and, were they in College Football, I could still vote to let Atlanta move on because, “Atlanta clearly did not play their best game.” So even when the schools that the media clearly does not felatiate beat those that have been sexually satisfied, it’s entirely within the media’s power to not let them play for the ‘National Championship’.
While any Attorney General should have more important things on his plate, the BCS system is completely fascist.
by Azimeir on Jan 7, 2009 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He definitely does have more important things on his plate.
It’s all a publicity stunt, a thing to put him in good standing with the people of Utah, just like Schultz’s threat to sue the Sonics to undo the deal if the owners approved the move, except for the people of the PacNW instead of Utah.
by LantermanC on Jan 7, 2009 12:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pet Peeve Ignited
This is not Fascist. Fascism is a program of government intervention in the economy and support of favored businesses and trade unions. Usually with a strong component of military spending and focussed on external enemies. It is not, “This thing over here that I don’t like.”
Instead of “fascist,” let’s try a word that has some actual meaning. Like “oligopoly,” or, better yet, “cartelized.” Yes, the NCAA football system is rotten, and the way the media supports the NCAA system is worse, but use your terminology correctly.
Honestly, the bigger problem with the NCAA is how they siphon off millions of dollars of value from student-athletes and return only a fraction of that value in a college scholarship. An often-wasted college scholarship based on rigged grades. And, oh yeah, if you’re a twenty-two year-old linebacker prospect and you blow out your knee? No skin off their back. They’ve taken your prime earning years, siphoned off the largest fraction of your value, and returned you an entirely worthless college degree- and often not even that.
You know what college football needs? To be shot in the head. And then be replaced with a minor league football system, much like in baseball. Then those athletes with talent can be fairly compensated in a free-market system. In cash. And we don’t get the NCAA’s stupid rules to try and protect the “integrity of amateur athletics.”
by robbbbbb on Jan 7, 2009 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pet peeve doused with reality foam.
From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.
There are a select few that control and compete for an award that gives them dominion over others that are led to believe that they are part of a system in which they can benefit from participating in.
Do some research before you try and act like you know everything, ass.
by Azimeir on Jan 7, 2009 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Eh...
rather than this turn into a giant flame war, I think you are both correct to an extent. robbbbbb is right about the truest meaning of the word, something that should be appreciated, as “fascist” is used too often as a charged word irrespective of its real meaning. And Azimeir is right using it exactly for that meaning, with all its awful implications and connotations of Nazism and secret police and such. Different uses to communicate different attitudes about the subject. I’m partial to the more specific application because I think the term “fascist” has lost much of its meaning through repeated use as hyperbole.
No name calling. Ever. I shouldn’t even have to say that.
by John Morgan on Jan 7, 2009 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
...
I think that if someone is going to call someone else out on the incorrect usage of a word they might want to be aware of the definition, or definitions, rather than tend toward a strong dictatorial interpretation of one single limited meaning.
A similar arguement would be to correct someone’s spelling with a different spelling, such as “realize” with the variant “realise”. One can have a preference, but the other is not wrong, and to state such would be to reveal ignorance.
by Azimeir on Jan 7, 2009 5:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're using a conventionalized definition that, while recognized, is a bastardization of the original meaning.
Many writers deplore that. See: Irony, notorious, utilize, etc. It’s not an alternate spelling, it’s a more accurate and truer to source definition of the word. And, really, he has a point. People use charged language like Nazi and fascist and rape and it doesn’t read as poignant or edgy but bland.
It’s a matter of taste and opinion but I do not think either of your are ignorant.
by John Morgan on Jan 7, 2009 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Notorious and utilize?
English lesson please.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 7, 2009 7:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Notoriety is used interchangeably with renown.
When it means known for something ignoble, bad, scurrilous, shameful etc. The functional opposite of renown.
Utilize is often used as a ten cent way to say “use”. It’s debatable, but utilize should refer to using something in a nonstandard way. You use a credit card to pay your bills. You utilize a tire iron to smash someone’s skull.
by John Morgan on Jan 8, 2009 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you gain notoriety for utilizing a tire iron to smash someone's skull to avoid having to use your credit card to pay your bills.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 8, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Every damn day I do.
Every damn day.
by John Morgan on Jan 8, 2009 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, but
I’m not too impressed that they beat ‘Bama. Despite the fact that they were ranked #1 for a good portion of the season, I would have put Alabama as about 10-point ’dogs to Oklahoma/Florida/USC before the bowl games (based on Sagarin’s “predictor” rankings, which are more predictive than the BCS/AP/other media polls). Utah’s much closer to Alabama than Alabama is to OK, FL, USC, and TX.
by cyberwulf on Jan 7, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There are elements of College Football that I like.
However, NCAA football wouldn’t know what competitive balance was if it bit them on the ass. Explain to me why any game played against an opponent that is not eligible to win the ‘National Title’ is considered anything but an exibition game. If the New England Patriots had scheduled a game during their bye week against the London Monarchs and beat them 66-7, that would make them 12-5 and thus should get them into the playoffs over Miami or Baltimore, right? Under the BCS system, shouldn’t Tennessee and New York by playing for the ‘World Championship’ right now? Baltimore could play Miami in the Kotex™ Tampon Bowl and when they win they could celebrate as Kotex™ Tampon Bowl Champions!
And it doesn’t just start with Utah having no chance to ever win a ‘Nationa Title’. Vanderbilt is in the Southeastern Conference. Since Vandy actually requires their players to, you know, go to class , is there any sane person that thinks Vandy is ever going to win an SEC Championship in their lifetime?
The 119 or however many Division I schools should be either divided into three or four divisions more commensurate with their actual level of competition and/or there should be a minimum 8-team playoff. Until that happens the ‘National Championship’ in College Football means the same to me as the ‘National Championship’ in High School Football: Not a goddamn thing.
by Azimeir on Jan 7, 2009 12:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I agree with pretty much everything.
Though I do find it annnoying when Notre Dame talks about how it is unfair since it’s academic standards are so rigorous… I can name so many good academic schools that do well in football, sometimes really well:
Vanderbilt
USC
Stanford
Boston College
Cal
Northwestern
by LantermanC on Jan 7, 2009 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Stanford is brutal at footaball, and BC isn't a top flight university,
but the rest of that is spot on. (boom Go U Northwestern bitches).
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 7, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but Stanford has been good.
BC is pretty good… It’s hard to rank it because it’s such a big school, same for Cal and USC.
by LantermanC on Jan 7, 2009 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If BC isn't a top flight university
then neither is USC (though I’ve heard their film school is top notch, surprise, surprise)
by cyberwulf on Jan 7, 2009 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah USC's film program is, but the rest of the University isn't spectacular.
It is still a good school, just not enough that it’s surprising they have good athletics, especially because it is such a huge school
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 7, 2009 3:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
USC's engineering school, Viterbi
is a top program. Thats a pretty big piece of the pie. I would therefore say that as a whole USC is a very good school.
by michaelfox99 on Jan 8, 2009 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If I'm not mistaken, its somewhere in the mid-20's on the USNWR rankings.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 8, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
How the good the school is for normal students needs to be balanced against whether or not academics are given the same consideration for athletes; USC graduation rate for football players is a paltry 54, while Boston College graduated 92 of its football players.
by Azimeir on Jan 9, 2009 11:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Duke is soon to be on that list.
Thanks to David Cutcliffe AKA the Manning Breeder.
06/07 season + 07/08 season = 1 combined win (which happened to be against pathetic Northwestern)
08/09 season = 4 wins (still sucky, but impressive considering it was done with a bunch of academic all-stars and football non-stars).
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 8, 2009 3:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
While they are already playing bowl games for a month,
why not just cut out some of the crap teams so we don’t have to watch an overrated Ball State team lose to an unknown Tulsa team on ESPN in an empty stadium in the “We Bailed Out GMAC Bowl” in Mobile a week into January. Maybe let them play a “play-in” game before Christmas for the right to get smoked by USC, but a meaningless game in January is pathetic.
by PascoJoe on Jan 7, 2009 12:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I was really hoping Texas Tech and Alabama would fo unbeaten.
Then there would have been no argument at all. Two unbeatens from the two best conferences. Now that you have to compare all these one loss teams, and an unbeated from a non-bcs, yuck.
The problem is you can’t really use the Alabama game to fault the bowl selection because that game hadn’t been played then.. There is no comparison between the schedule Utah played and the schedule Oklahoma or Florida played.
Even a playoff system would have the same problem. Which 4 teams would play? Wouldn’t a lot of teams have a good argument for being the 4th team. Say (this is before the bowl season, so I am ignoring stuff like Utah-Alabama) you made it Florida, Oklahoma, Alabama, Texas. There would be a perfectly good argument for Texas Tech, USC, Penn State, Utah, Boise St. being in there, so a 4 team playoff doesn’t help. If you make it 8 teams then you get: Florida, Oklahoma, Alabama, Texas, Texas Tech, USC, Penn State, Utah, but what do you do about unbeaten Boise St.?
There is no way to do it with 119 teams and really give every team a fair crack at it. The NFL has a much longer schedule and much fewer teams. College football is about every game. You get pumped up and have fun for every game. National Champ crap is stupid. I don’t think Florida or Oklahoma are objectively better or more deserving than Utah or USC. I think it will be an awesome game though and that is what matters.
by michaelfox99 on Jan 7, 2009 1:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I never understood why
they can’t just do a 32 team play off system, copying NCAA basketball? Split it up into 4 divisions of 8 teams each, let them play each week, and in 5 weeks you have a national champion. College makes loads of money because the top teams (the big money makers) will usually go deeper into the tournament and have their large following of fans paying to go to each game. Fans are happy, they get their national champion. Small schools get their chance to make a run. With the nature of football, luck becomes a big factor so there will always be big surprise upsets to talk about. And if you started right after the regular season ended, you would be ending near the beginning of January anyways.
The logistics wouldn’t even be bad, just have the team with the higher seed play the home game. Once you got to the final four, you could either play in the classic stadiums (IE bringing back a use for the Rose Bowl) thus creating neutral sites, or just keep going with the record/strength of schedule tie breaker. Since strength of schedule would have to be considered when seeding, teams would have incentives to not cherry pick and play teams that have no chance against them.
And that’s with 32 teams, which is more then enough to determine a best team. You could probably cut down on the numbers a bit if you wanted to create first round byes for the top seeds. It just seems logical to me, and fair.
by Fear on Jan 7, 2009 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
32 team is WAY too many.
12 or so games normally, plus another 5 if you are the champion?
There are only 7 or so teams that can reasonably claim the title of ‘best team’. Texas, USC, Alabama, Penn State, Utah, and the two in the title game.
That being said, a one game playoff system means nothing in my mind. The best team in college basketball rarely wins, it’s really hard to win 4 games in a row (I’m discounting the first two) against really top 25 teams, so the theory that whoever wins march madness is the best team overall never really did much for me anyways. It’s a bit different for football, since so many top teams never even play other top teams from other conferences.
by LantermanC on Jan 7, 2009 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
17 games is less then the NFL plays
and it’s no different then the theory behind pro football’s crowning the best team in the NFL. The hot team that gets the calls wins the super bowl, not necessarily the team best overall for the whole year. If you really wanted to, you could drop the number of teams to include bye weeks (maybe even multiple bye weeks) to allow the top seeded teams to only have to play 3 games to win it all. The 32 teams was more to keep people from complaining that they were left out. You could easily drop it to half that and make it hard for people to claim they were cheated by the system.
by Fear on Jan 7, 2009 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but theoretically... these guys are amateurs
who have to go to class and all that. Football should only be part of their lives. Professionals who get paid millions play 16 (not including preseason, those don’t count), with a max of 4 games, which is an extra 25, you’re asking for an extra 5/12 which is about 40. I realize it’s only for 2 teams that have to play 5 games, but still, I don’t think anyone in the top 32 can fool themselves into thinking they can be the national champs.
Also, injuries are more frequent in football, no one would to be playing all these extra games, and then get injured before the draft. I’d be fine with 8 or 6 team playoff.
by LantermanC on Jan 7, 2009 4:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the only reason
I don’t like the 6-8 team playoff system is because you’re always going to end up with teams like USC, Utah, and Texas Tech that don’t get a chance. Teams that get ignored because their conference is supposedly week because a couple teams are terrible in it (USC, Pac-10), teams that get ignored because they are in week divisions (Ball State, Utah, Hawaii), and teams that are in divisions that are too strong (Texas Tech). There are always 4-6 teams that clearly deserve to be in the talk, but there are also usually another 8-10 that warrant consideration to at least have a chance in a playoff situation to end up on top. That’s why I prefer at least a 16 team play off situation.
Besides, most of these teams would be practicing for the 3 weeks leading up to the bowl games anyways. Why not stick a few play off games in between? It doesn’t really take any more out of the player’s schedules, gives them more games to show off their skills for the NFL, makes the schools even more money, and gives us a play off system. Seems like everyone is happy.
by Fear on Jan 7, 2009 5:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I, too, support a 16-team playoff system.
2008-2009 Division 1-A Championship Series
1. Oklahoma (12-1) {Big Twelve Conference} [Automatic Bid]
16. Buffalo (8-5) {Mid-American Conference} [Automatic Bid]
8. Penn State (11-1) {Big Ten Conference} [Automatic Bid]
9. Boise State (12-0) {Western Athletic Conference} [Automatic Bid]
4. Alabama (12-1) {Southeastern Conference} [At-Large Big]
12. Cincinnati (11-2) {Big East Conference} [Automatic Bid]
5. Southern California (11-1) {Pacific-Ten Conference} [Automatic Bid]
13. Oklahoma State (9-3) {Big Twelve Conference} [At-Large Bid]
6. Utah (12-0) {Mountain West Conference} [Automatic Bid]
11. Texas Christian (10-2) {Mountain West Conference} [At-Large Bid]
3. Texas (11-1) {Big Twelve Conference} [At-Large Big]
14. Virginia Tech (9-4) {Atlantic Coast Conference} [Automatic Bid]
7. Texas Tech (11-1) {Big Twelve Conference} [At-Large Bid]
10. Ohio State (12-0) {Big Ten Conference} [At-Large Bid]
2. Florida (12-1) {Southeastern Conference} [Automatic Bid]
15. East Carolina (9-4) {Conference USA} [Automatic Bid]
Who, by the way, wouldn’t want to watch a Oklahoma v. Buffalo blowout?
by AK1984 on Jan 8, 2009 4:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The first thing I thought when I read this was , why play the 1v16 game?
Also, that 6 v 11 matchup wouldn’t happen, I’d rather just switch the 11 and 12 seed.
by LantermanC on Jan 8, 2009 8:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cut seeds 9-16
and I think you could argue that everyone else has at least a fighting chance to win it. The rest just don’t have a realistic shot, and most first-round matchups in a 16-team tournament would be blowouts (Oklahoma-Buffalo? Florida-East Carolina? Really?)
by cyberwulf on Jan 8, 2009 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This got me thinking
Who gets an automatic bid in an 8-team tournament? Big 10, Big 12, SEC, Pac-10, ACC? Then 3 at-large bids? Sounds about right to me.
by cyberwulf on Jan 8, 2009 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, if you cut out 9-16, then
the ACC and Big East will complain.
by LantermanC on Jan 8, 2009 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Heck, just cut out seeds 13-16
and give the top seeds a bye week. I may not think Texas Christian or Cincinatti have much chance to win it all, but who honestly thinks the Arizona Cardinals are going to either or that the Vikings had any chance to go deep? This way you have more room for the Utah’s and Boise State’s to make their mark. It’s hard to fit all the teams like Texas Tech, Boise State, and USC into an 8 seed format every year without running the risk of teams getting slighted.
by Fear on Jan 8, 2009 3:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this statement.
A lot of people shrug off the student-athlete concept and say, “oh these guys don’t go to class anyways so who cares about a few hundred more hours of games, travel, and practice?”
That might be true of the handful of players per team that have legitimate NFL aspirations, but it isn’t true for most players. The vast majority of college football players, even on top teams, will have to find work in the real world some day. It is not fair to those players, even if a lot of them don’t study anyways, to take away their chance to succeed in college so that we could ‘have a legit champ’… Why do people care so much anyways?
I argued above that 4 or 8 teams will usually still leave teams with legit gripes. Therefore, you need 16 or 32 and that leads to a significantly longer schedule. The three weeks between regular season and bowls give students an opportunity to catch up on classes, take finals, etc.
I like collegiate sports. It is a fun thing to be a part of in college because it is a more personal connection and community than ‘the town my parents decided to live in’. I hope things stay as they are. A MLB type farm system would be lame and no one would want to watch it. I think college players that have a chance to go to college and learn from that experience, inside and outside of class, are getting a much better deal than MLB players drafted out of high school who have to live and play meaningless ball in some rural town where no one went to college.
I don’t think the players are being shafted by the system. They are getting college scholarships for playing football, sounds good to me. The system generates revenue for the universities which I think are a worthy cause.
by michaelfox99 on Jan 8, 2009 2:20 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Don't get me wrong
I for one believe colleges need to put the student back into student athlete. But in a 16, or 12, team playoff format, the main thing you are cutting into is winter break. As it is, most of the schools run right through their first quarter of school, let their players have a break just in time for winter break, then right as winter break wraps up they go play a bowl game and then go back to school. It depends on the school, but at least at mine they were playing right through finals week. The only way to get those players more time to study would be to either cancel some games near the end of the quarter or move the season further into the player’s summer breaks.
by Fear on Jan 8, 2009 3:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In general, yes college athletes could be held to higher standards.
But you can’t condemn all of them. For instance, one of my friends was a defensive back for 4 years, graduated with honors from the chemical engineering program, and is now doing a phd at Berkeley. Obviously he’s exceptional, but it clearly is possible to be both an athlete and a scholar. (And a gentleman too)
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 8, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
