Sugar Bowl - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to College Football

Sugar Bowl

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby knapplc » Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:25 pm

ShoelessJoe wrote: Playoffs do NOT always prove who is the best team, there are tons of extraneous variables that affect who wins those playoffs, lots of times the better team doesnt win.
CC wrote:
knapplc wrote:
CC wrote: ...does anyone think that the 10 loss champs from Villanova in the 80s were the best team?
Clearly they were, since they won.
They lost 10 games, getting hot at the right time doesn't mean you are the best team IMO.


If all of this is true, then why do they give the trophy to the team that wins the tournament? Wouldn't it be better to play the tournament, then have people vote on who should be #1 based on the tournament? That way if UConn gets upended by a "lucky" George Mason, UConn can still land in the top five like they deserve.

Is that what you guys are advocating? :-?
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Postby steelerfan513 » Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:31 pm

knapplc wrote:
ShoelessJoe wrote: Playoffs do NOT always prove who is the best team, there are tons of extraneous variables that affect who wins those playoffs, lots of times the better team doesnt win.
CC wrote:
knapplc wrote:
CC wrote: ...does anyone think that the 10 loss champs from Villanova in the 80s were the best team?
Clearly they were, since they won.
They lost 10 games, getting hot at the right time doesn't mean you are the best team IMO.


If all of this is true, then why do they give the trophy to the team that wins the tournament? Wouldn't it be better to play the tournament, then have people vote on who should be #1 based on the tournament? That way if UConn gets upended by a "lucky" George Mason, UConn can still land in the top five like they deserve.

Is that what you guys are advocating? :-?


There is a different atmosphere in the postseason. The best teams can overcome this change in atmosphere and win. Yes, there are a lot of variables, but the best teams should be able to overcome those changes and win.
Image
Image
Kudos to Leber for the amazing sig and to Metroid for the userbar and making them both fit
2008 and 2009 Defunct Dynasty League Champion
steelerfan513
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeMatchup Meltdown Survivor
Posts: 11906
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby A Fleshner Fantasy » Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:01 pm

steelerfan513 wrote:
knapplc wrote:
ShoelessJoe wrote: Playoffs do NOT always prove who is the best team, there are tons of extraneous variables that affect who wins those playoffs, lots of times the better team doesnt win.
CC wrote:
knapplc wrote:
CC wrote: ...does anyone think that the 10 loss champs from Villanova in the 80s were the best team?
Clearly they were, since they won.
They lost 10 games, getting hot at the right time doesn't mean you are the best team IMO.


If all of this is true, then why do they give the trophy to the team that wins the tournament? Wouldn't it be better to play the tournament, then have people vote on who should be #1 based on the tournament? That way if UConn gets upended by a "lucky" George Mason, UConn can still land in the top five like they deserve.

Is that what you guys are advocating? :-?


There is a different atmosphere in the postseason. The best teams can overcome this change in atmosphere and win. Yes, there are a lot of variables, but the best teams should be able to overcome those changes and win.


Well yeah, but upsets do happen...
Image

Thanks to abrunn for the awesome sig
A Fleshner Fantasy
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 7746
Joined: 11 May 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: The Big House

Postby aldridg6in » Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:50 pm

Yes...another fun night of watching Notre Dame being beaten down in a BCS game. This is one of my favorite times of the year.
aldridg6in
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar

Posts: 889
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Faith, NC

Postby ShoelessJoe » Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:55 pm

knapplc wrote:
ShoelessJoe wrote: Playoffs do NOT always prove who is the best team, there are tons of extraneous variables that affect who wins those playoffs, lots of times the better team doesnt win.
CC wrote:
knapplc wrote:
CC wrote: ...does anyone think that the 10 loss champs from Villanova in the 80s were the best team?
Clearly they were, since they won.
They lost 10 games, getting hot at the right time doesn't mean you are the best team IMO.


If all of this is true, then why do they give the trophy to the team that wins the tournament? Wouldn't it be better to play the tournament, then have people vote on who should be #1 based on the tournament? That way if UConn gets upended by a "lucky" George Mason, UConn can still land in the top five like they deserve.

Is that what you guys are advocating? :-?


They do vote on it. It's just that the people always vote for whoever wins the tourney. And just like you said, UCONN did finish top 5 last year in the final ESPN poll. And George Mason actually finished 8th. The coaches still vote in College Basketball even after the tourney is over... it's just that people only care about who's at the top.

link: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/rankingsi ... nYear=2006
Go Gators
ShoelessJoe
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1621
Joined: 1 Oct 2002
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Gainesville, FL

Postby Free Bagel » Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:00 pm

knapplc wrote:If all of this is true, then why do they give the trophy to the team that wins the tournament? Wouldn't it be better to play the tournament, then have people vote on who should be #1 based on the tournament? That way if UConn gets upended by a "lucky" George Mason, UConn can still land in the top five like they deserve.

Is that what you guys are advocating? :-?


What the heck kind of a point is that? You're contending that BECAUSE the winner of the tournament gets the trophy that means they ARE in fact the best team.

In such a case, how can anyone EVER complain about the BCS? It DOES match up the "two best teams" yet people complain that those aren't really the two best teams.

You're saying one team is the best because the system used says so. That's not even an argument especially in the context of the discussion. So if UF beats OSU can I just say they are obviously actually the best team otherwise they wouldn't give them the trophy? Nah.

There is no system that always picks the best team, and playoffs are no exception. I've always said playoffs are the most fair, and least often correct system. To argue that the winner of a playoff is automatically the "best" team in reality just seems absurd to me. One team can be so much better than another that they'd beat them 99 out of 100 times, if that one loss happens to come at a certain time that makes them worse?

The St. Louis Cardinals were not the best team in baseball this past year. The Pittsburgh Steelers probably weren't the best team in the NFL. The Gators probably weren't the best team in NCAA basketball last year.

Teams go on winning streaks all-the-time.
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Postby HskrPwr13 » Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:07 pm

At the end of the season I'm gonna post a likes/dislikes of the season thread. Playoffs will certainly be a topic. Save some of your ammo! :-b
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby dgan » Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:54 am

Who says you get credit for being the best team? You get credit for winning, and winning the championship. No one has ever claimed that because a team wins a championship, they would now suddenly go undefeated for the rest of their life because they are the best team.

That's why the BCS is a crock. I don't care who the best team is. I want several teams that could possibly be the best (or beat the best) a chance to play and win the Championship.
Image
dgan
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 2941
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: The frozen tundra of Lambeau Field

Postby Free Bagel » Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:27 am

dgan wrote:Who says you get credit for being the best team? You get credit for winning, and winning the championship. No one has ever claimed that because a team wins a championship, they would now suddenly go undefeated for the rest of their life because they are the best team


Might want to read through again as that's pretty much exactly what knapp and a few others have said actually ;)
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Postby knapplc » Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:15 am

Free Bagel wrote: What the heck kind of a point is that? You're contending that BECAUSE the winner of the tournament gets the trophy that means they ARE in fact the best team.
Not much of a point, actually. And no, I'm not contending that. In fact I'm contending the exact opposite, if you relate it to “our discussion of the uses of irony.” ;-)
Free Bagel wrote:In such a case, how can anyone EVER complain about the BCS? It DOES match up the "two best teams" yet people complain that those aren't really the two best teams.
Of course it does - that's why nobody was upset to see Nebraska play Miami in 2001, right? ;-7
Free Bagel wrote:You're saying one team is the best because the system used says so.
Mostly I’m saying that a playoff is the most fair system to determine the winner. The discussion of who is the “best” is irrelevant. Nobody really cares who the “best” team is in any sport. It’s who wins the championship. “Best” is a term best used in discussions like this amongst armchair quarterbacks and Mini Managers.
Free Bagel wrote:That's not even an argument especially in the context of the discussion. So if UF beats OSU can I just say they are obviously actually the best team otherwise they wouldn't give them the trophy? Nah.

Well you could, but you’re right – you’d be wrong. The BCS is an inherently flawed system (see 2001).
Free Bagel wrote:There is no system that always picks the best team, and playoffs are no exception. I've always said playoffs are the most fair, and least often correct system. To argue that the winner of a playoff is automatically the "best" team in reality just seems absurd to me. One team can be so much better than another that they'd beat them 99 out of 100 times, if that one loss happens to come at a certain time that makes them worse?
Agreed in total. But again, playoffs are not a way to determine who is “best,” just who won.
Free Bagel wrote:The St. Louis Cardinals were not the best team in baseball this past year. The Pittsburgh Steelers probably weren't the best team in the NFL. The Gators probably weren't the best team in NCAA basketball last year.

Teams go on winning streaks all-the-time.
Sorry if my farcical attitude threw you off totally. I’m cracking wise against the BCS because it’s such a joke. I apologize if that didn’t come through.

To be clear – Any system wherein opinions are used to determine a champion is flawed. At best polls should be used to determine who gets into a playoff, and even then it’s a screwy system.


The larger problem here in my opinion is the fact that Division I-A is too large. 117 schools in the pool is just far, far too many. A decision should have been made decades ago to pare that number down to something far more manageable. The reality is that when you have a group of teams that large, you’re never going to have a “clean” champion. Strength of schedule will be too large of a factor, with the disparity between conferences being too great to provide a decent litmus test of who should or shouldn’t go to the tourney.

The NCAA should have pared Division I-A down to no more than 50-60 teams long ago. Teams like USC, UCLA, Washington, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Colorado, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Notre Dame, LSU, Auburn, Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Miami, etc. (and I’m just forgetting tons here, forgive me) have built up programs that far exceed the rank-and-file of the NCAA.

There’s a billboard by Memorial Stadium that I drive by every day on my way to work. It says, “Every program has history. Few have Tradition.” I resent the fact that teams like Oklahoma and Notre Dame and USC and Michigan, who have built programs that have defined the term “excellence” in college football over several decades, whose longevity in the sport is unquestioned, whose commitment to creating this sport’s culture and mystique is unparalleled, have been forced through legislation to pare down their programs because of some arbitrary feeling of “unfairness” towards other schools.

Michigan is simply NOT comparable to Boise State. They’re not even in the same league, unless you handicap Michigan and artificially prop up Boise State. How, I ask anyone, is this fair? Why does Boise State deserve to be on the same “level” of playing field when they were doing NOTHING over the past 70 years to build a powerful, dominant program that defined excellence in college football?

The 1994 ruling limiting scholarships was a travesty of PC BS and has made a murky situation even murkier. What used to be a somewhat orderly group of 15-20 bowl games at season’s end has become a freakin’ mess of 30+ games, many of which are absolutely meaningless. Using my homer-ism, let’s look at the Cotton Bowl. A pairing of Auburn/Nebraska should have produced giddiness amongst college football aficionados, but the result thanks to “parity” was a relatively lackluster game with absolutely nothing compelling the average viewer to watch. The talent on both teams was severely lacking, and the product on the field showed this. There’s no way this happens without that 1994 ruling.

So that’s my rant against recruiting and scholarship limits, and the relative size of Division I-A. Thanks for reading.
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

PreviousNext

Return to College Football

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 6:54 hours
(and 44 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact