2008 Bowl Game Talk - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to College Football

2008 Bowl Game Talk

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby HskrPwr13 » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:03 pm

I was gonna say that I'll let knapp fight the NU v. Miss battle, but it appears to be over. Just to set the record straight, NU lost 2 games by multiple TDs, not several. :-b

What I will say about MIss is I find it ludicris to start mentioning them with the likes of Fla, OU, Tex, and USC by putting them in the top5. I dont think the rest of the country lost that much talent. Much like many did with the Fla loss to Miss, some want to shove under the rug the fact that Miss DID lose 4 games. It doesn't matter how they lost them other than when it comes to comparing them against teams with similar records/SOS. Nutt has proven to be a great big game coach, but seems to faulter when it comes to getting the team to play at that same level on a consistent basis. His teams have been consistently inconsistent. I cant say how much thats directly related to his style or whether he hasnt been able to recruit well enough against his competition. I think some are going a little nuts looking at 2 games and tossing the rest to make their opinion.
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby HskrPwr13 » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:32 pm

Metroid wrote:
A Fleshner Fantasy wrote:Hskr- what I've gathered from many of your posts is that the biggest issue with a playoff in your mind is that teams like Boise St. will be unfairly left out because they aren't in a major conference, which is a perfectly legit concern. However, while you may not think that an 8 team playoff is perfect, how does a team like Boise St. have less of a chance to compete for the finals when 8 teams are considered than when 2 teams are considered? Surely they have a better chance at making the 8 team playoff than at making the 2 team championship. So how is the playoff not better (in that respect) than the current system?

Totally Fleshner. There will never be a perfect system, but we can make it better and more fair by giving more teams who performed well during the season a chance to compete for a National Championship.

Or maybe we should just throw our hands up in the air and say if we can't fix it all the way we should just leave it the way it is.


My issue is that I dont want a non-deserving (based on the regular season) national champion, and yes, I'd rather keep things the way they are than for cf to make a half-hearted effort to apease the masses. They've tried that. Its called the BCS. Many complained about why we had to have split NCs or more than one undefeated team not get a piece. So the BCS was born to get 1 v 2 and many were still upset. So they've been tweaking ever since only to get further and further from a model that I didnt think was all that bad at its inception. I believe anything they implement will be a further boondoggle that could water down the national champion much like the Super Bowl champion has been, and many fans will still complain. I also think that however the powers decide to set it up, theres a very real possibility that the regular season gets devalued. I'm obviously in the minority that are concerned about these points becoming a reality or feel that these concerns outway any positive that could come from what the powers that be will implement. For the sake of cf I hope I'm wrong.
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby knapplc » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:18 pm

HskrPwr13 wrote:My issue is that I dont want a non-deserving (based on the regular season) national champion...

Isn't that to imply an amount of validity to the regular season that really doesn't exist? I mean, we put Penn State in the BCS based on their regular season which consisted of beating up a bunch of stiffs from the Big 10. How valid was that? We put a one-loss Florida team up against a one-loss Oklahoma team, ignoring an unbeaten Utah team (which is still unbeaten) based on their regular season work, but as it turns out, Utah may have been legit. Based on the regular season, they got shafted.

In a tournament, Utah has a chance to vie for the title that they may have deserved this year. Under this vote-based system, they never had that chance.
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

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby Metroid » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:55 pm

HskrPwr13 wrote:
Metroid wrote:
A Fleshner Fantasy wrote:Hskr- what I've gathered from many of your posts is that the biggest issue with a playoff in your mind is that teams like Boise St. will be unfairly left out because they aren't in a major conference, which is a perfectly legit concern. However, while you may not think that an 8 team playoff is perfect, how does a team like Boise St. have less of a chance to compete for the finals when 8 teams are considered than when 2 teams are considered? Surely they have a better chance at making the 8 team playoff than at making the 2 team championship. So how is the playoff not better (in that respect) than the current system?

Totally Fleshner. There will never be a perfect system, but we can make it better and more fair by giving more teams who performed well during the season a chance to compete for a National Championship.

Or maybe we should just throw our hands up in the air and say if we can't fix it all the way we should just leave it the way it is.


My issue is that I dont want a non-deserving (based on the regular season) national champion, and yes, I'd rather keep things the way they are than for cf to make a half-hearted effort to apease the masses. They've tried that. Its called the BCS. Many complained about why we had to have split NCs or more than one undefeated team not get a piece. So the BCS was born to get 1 v 2 and many were still upset. So they've been tweaking ever since only to get further and further from a model that I didnt think was all that bad at its inception. I believe anything they implement will be a further boondoggle that could water down the national champion much like the Super Bowl champion has been, and many fans will still complain. I also think that however the powers decide to set it up, theres a very real possibility that the regular season gets devalued. I'm obviously in the minority that are concerned about these points becoming a reality or feel that these concerns outway any positive that could come from what the powers that be will implement. For the sake of cf I hope I'm wrong.

I value your opinion on the subject a great deal, I always enjoy reading your posts in this forum. You've obviously thought a great deal about it and make very solid points. I guess we differ on our view of National Champions. You don't like the idea of a team getting hot at the right time and making a run at an NC which seems like one of your major oppositions to a playoff system. I actually like that a team gets rewarded for playing their best football at the right time. Thats just me though. I think if you're the best team during the regular season you will be rewarded with a high seed in the playoffs, and if you're truly the best team you should take care of those "hot" subpar teams. If not maybe they're not really the "best team."
Image
Metroid
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicCafe RankerGraphics ExpertEagle Eye
Posts: 22544
Joined: 9 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Bringing the funk in P-Town!

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby HskrPwr13 » Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:58 pm

Metroid wrote:
HskrPwr13 wrote:
Metroid wrote:Totally Fleshner. There will never be a perfect system, but we can make it better and more fair by giving more teams who performed well during the season a chance to compete for a National Championship.

Or maybe we should just throw our hands up in the air and say if we can't fix it all the way we should just leave it the way it is.


My issue is that I dont want a non-deserving (based on the regular season) national champion, and yes, I'd rather keep things the way they are than for cf to make a half-hearted effort to apease the masses. They've tried that. Its called the BCS. Many complained about why we had to have split NCs or more than one undefeated team not get a piece. So the BCS was born to get 1 v 2 and many were still upset. So they've been tweaking ever since only to get further and further from a model that I didnt think was all that bad at its inception. I believe anything they implement will be a further boondoggle that could water down the national champion much like the Super Bowl champion has been, and many fans will still complain. I also think that however the powers decide to set it up, theres a very real possibility that the regular season gets devalued. I'm obviously in the minority that are concerned about these points becoming a reality or feel that these concerns outway any positive that could come from what the powers that be will implement. For the sake of cf I hope I'm wrong.

I value your opinion on the subject a great deal, I always enjoy reading your posts in this forum. You've obviously thought a great deal about it and make very solid points. I guess we differ on our view of National Champions. You don't like the idea of a team getting hot at the right time and making a run at an NC which seems like one of your major oppositions to a playoff system. I actually like that a team gets rewarded for playing their best football at the right time. Thats just me though. I think if you're the best team during the regular season you will be rewarded with a high seed in the playoffs, and if you're truly the best team you should take care of those "hot" subpar teams. If not maybe they're not really the "best team."


Post of the year alert!!! Post of the year alert!!! :-b

Seriously though, I appreciate the kind words. The respect is mutual. Thats why I discuss here. ;-D
You nailed it. We have philosphical differences on what constitues a championship. It wont happen tomorrow, but I believe that as early as 10 years from now, some addtion to the current format will be added. No matter what changes happen in the future, there will be both good and bad intended, and unintended, consequences. I believe we'd agree that we just hope the good outway the bad. ;-D
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby Metroid » Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:09 pm

HskrPwr13 wrote:
Metroid wrote:
HskrPwr13 wrote:
My issue is that I dont want a non-deserving (based on the regular season) national champion, and yes, I'd rather keep things the way they are than for cf to make a half-hearted effort to apease the masses. They've tried that. Its called the BCS. Many complained about why we had to have split NCs or more than one undefeated team not get a piece. So the BCS was born to get 1 v 2 and many were still upset. So they've been tweaking ever since only to get further and further from a model that I didnt think was all that bad at its inception. I believe anything they implement will be a further boondoggle that could water down the national champion much like the Super Bowl champion has been, and many fans will still complain. I also think that however the powers decide to set it up, theres a very real possibility that the regular season gets devalued. I'm obviously in the minority that are concerned about these points becoming a reality or feel that these concerns outway any positive that could come from what the powers that be will implement. For the sake of cf I hope I'm wrong.

I value your opinion on the subject a great deal, I always enjoy reading your posts in this forum. You've obviously thought a great deal about it and make very solid points. I guess we differ on our view of National Champions. You don't like the idea of a team getting hot at the right time and making a run at an NC which seems like one of your major oppositions to a playoff system. I actually like that a team gets rewarded for playing their best football at the right time. Thats just me though. I think if you're the best team during the regular season you will be rewarded with a high seed in the playoffs, and if you're truly the best team you should take care of those "hot" subpar teams. If not maybe they're not really the "best team."


Post of the year alert!!! Post of the year alert!!! :-b

Seriously though, I appreciate the kind words. The respect is mutual. Thats why I discuss here. ;-D
You nailed it. We have philosphical differences on what constitues a championship. It wont happen tomorrow, but I believe that as early as 10 years from now, some addtion to the current format will be added. No matter what changes happen in the future, there will be both good and bad intended, and unintended, consequences. I believe we'd agree that we just hope the good outway the bad. ;-D

Absolutely. I have to think it'll get better than get worse....I hope. :-o
Image
Metroid
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicCafe RankerGraphics ExpertEagle Eye
Posts: 22544
Joined: 9 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Bringing the funk in P-Town!

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby Free Bagel » Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:26 pm

Get a room you two :-b
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

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby Metroid » Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:38 pm

Free Bagel wrote:Get a room you two :-b

You're just jealous. :-]
Image
Metroid
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicCafe RankerGraphics ExpertEagle Eye
Posts: 22544
Joined: 9 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Bringing the funk in P-Town!

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby BritSox » Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:51 pm

Metroid wrote:
BritSox wrote:So that's the answer for anyone who has an opinion on a playoff, is it Knapp?

Huh? He's a playoff supporter too. He just randomly took the top eight BCS teams to use in his example, thats all.


:-?

I'm a playoff opponent. I think a playoff would ruin the things I love most about College FB. I love the Pats more than I care about any specific college, but I prefer NCAA football as a whole, and I think the system which makes pretty much every game the big teams play a playoff is a big part of it. I just advocate +1 to avoid the 'play no-one all season' syndrome.

Did you see knapp said this?
Don't take my comments lately too literally.


Well, true. But I couldn't think of a metaphorical way of disagreeing with him. ;-)

knapplc wrote:
Metroid wrote:
BritSox wrote:So that's the answer for anyone who has an opinion on a playoff, is it Knapp?

Huh? He's a playoff supporter too. He just randomly took the top eight BCS teams to use in his example, thats all.

I'm confused, too. Brit and I aren't arguing, we're on the same side of this. We both want a playoff. I just chose some two-second random example to illustrate what one might look like, that's all. This is some kind of misunderstanding. Gotta be. :-b


The misunderstanding appears to be that you think I'm a playoff supporter. Look, one of the big problems I have with a playoff is that there's no system that I think would be both fair, and produce lots of good matchups. If you have the model you suggested, you still exclude unbeaten teams and two BCS conferences in favour of putting in three Big XII teams. If you go with the six BCS champions, plus unbeaten non-BCS types, then your playoff looks vaguely like this:

Boise @ Florida
Cincy @ Oklahoma
Utah @ USC
VTech @ PSU

Three of those I think end in blowouts, and the winner of the other gets blown out in the round of four, imho. Which produces maybe three good games. Also, if you have three unbeaten non-BCS teams, one has to miss out. For me, the only way a playoff can be 'fair' is if it's so big it completely devalues the regular season.

knapplc wrote:Playoffs are designed to determine a champion. We know the playoff system is the best way to determine this because, over the last 10,000 years of organized sport, nobody has come up with anything better. Every major and minor sport since the Greeks first held the Olympics have used a form of a playoff format to determine champions.

Why the NCAA is making us debate this in 2009 is beyond me. It's a pretty clear-cut situation.


Pretty much any system produces a 'champion.' I believe the BCS, and specifically BCS +1, is more likely to result in the best team winning than a playoff. I think it also makes for a much better regular season. The disadvantage of the BCS is that sometimes, an unbeaten team that no-one really thinks is the best doesn't get the chance to prove they're not the best and b) that you often end up having to decide between teams with the same record with almost no common opponents.
(I tried on another forum to make Husker's argument about LSU being more likely to actually be the best team than the Giants last year, but everyone just said I was a bitter Patriot fan arguing that the Pats should have been the champions. Which is crap, since objectively, it's the Cowboys and not the Pats who were most obviously better than the Gnats).

Metroid wrote:And see with the system the way it is now only 2 of the best regular season teams get to play each other for the National Championship. In most years there can be as many as 4 or 5 teams where it's debatable who the best is. How is it fair that only 2 get the chance at being crowned National Champ?


Plus-one model plus-one model plus-one model. :-b

HskrPwr13 wrote:
I guess to sum up my stance, I dont want to see a #8, multiple loss, or whatever, team that we'd all agree has no business being there, get hot, and slink away with our national title. Its a posterity thing for me. I think in some yeras the playoffs will give us the type of champion we all want, and in other years were going to get a fluke champion. As much as I dont care for the voters, I will admit that I'm generally fine with who gets crowned champ at the end.


This sums it up perfectly.

knapplc wrote:I'm cool with your idea except I'd take it a step further - cut the Division 1-A teams in half. 120 teams is WAY TOO MANY. There is no way Wyoming can compete on the same playing field with Nebraska, not in recruiting, talent, cash, nothing. Make more divisions, and make them smaller.


I have some sympathy with this. Though I think I'd go with an 80-team 1-A. Then, you have eight divisions of ten, div winners only playoff - of course, this is completely impractical. And means more games, unless you want to eliminate OOC entirely.
"I can't say that. I'd have to say having Ryan Leaf quarterback us to a 1-15 record is probably the biggest challenge."

Rodney Harrison, on whether losing Tom Brady to injury was the greatest challenge he has faced in football.
BritSox
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar

Posts: 374
Joined: 5 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Dark Side

Previous

Return to College Football

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 9:59 hours
(and 37 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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