View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently April 24th, 2014, 9:54 am



Reply to topic  [ 128 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 2010-11 bowl schedule 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9267
Location: Dallas
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
steensn wrote:
Ok, so what is your point then? If am playoff game is more important than a regular season game, how is implementing playoffs NOT going to kill the importance of regular season games? You made my point for me with your question an answer... in the NCAA right now, every single regular season game is the same importance as a playoff. How is that not something to consider?

Again, you are taking negative side effects of a playoff system and using it as a REASON to have a playoff system!? It's circular reasoning...


And you are ignoring reality. If a playoff system slighty dampens a regualar season game so what. If only 8 teams out of 120+ makes the playoffs you think the regular season is so severly damaged that it isn't worth it - that is just silly now steensn.

You make a very silly assumption in your argument, every game is only important in the regular season if you are undefeated AND one of the "elite" programs in the country. Was every game important for TCU - guess not since they didn't have a chance at the title. What about all the teams with one or two losses - then no as well.

In reality, the regular season becomes much more important because you have teams shooting to make the top 8 which will include a lot more teams. For a team like TCU, much more important to win every game. Take a one-loss MSU team and they can't lose another game. Think how important the last few games for Wisconsin or OSU would be with just one loss trying to make the top 8. Yes, even MORE important. Kinda turns your argument on its head doesn't it...

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


January 6th, 2011, 12:45 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
You get no more effort with a playoff season than you do the BCS system. Everyone is shooting for the bowl games that count. But in that system you only have to shoot for top 8, not top two, putting less importance on the regular season. in Wags suggestion, it is even less exciting as you only have to be the top two in your conference.

Am I missing reality? Why is dampening the regular season not important? You dampen thousands of games for a handful. What is the tradeoff?

I still think you hold playoffs as some high and mighty thing that it isn't, that is why we are so far off. I believe you are unrealistic as to what the playoffs bring.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


January 6th, 2011, 12:59 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11848
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
steensn wrote:
An NFL playoff game because the regular season games are made semi null because of playoffs. The playoffs eliminate the importance of a single NFL game.


Single NFL games mean nothing you say? Try telling that to Seattle or St Louis or Tampa Bay or NY Giants...... Just a couple examples from THIS season alone.

steensn wrote:
I still think you hold playoffs as some high and mighty thing that it isn't, that is why we are so far off. I believe you are unrealistic as to what the playoffs bring.

The feeling is mutual, I think you're putting too mention emphasis on the bowl system and are unrealistically trusting coachs and the computer programmers; not too mention completely discounting programs like Boise, TCU and the like. In the current system they have NO chance whatsoever to even think about competing for the "National Championship."

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


January 6th, 2011, 1:06 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
Seems as if you and Pablo do not agree.

I didn't say mean nothing, just semi-null as in one game doesn't mean anything, the sum of them do. Viewers didn't flock to Seattle's game for a playoff spot because of it's importance to get in. It wasn't a huge game that got a front page look, as one example. Important, sure, for Seattle, but not for most other teams and the national viewing audience. How many of us flocked to that game to watch it? I bet a lot less than watched the Auburn Arkansas SEC game end of the season.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


January 6th, 2011, 1:10 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11848
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
steensn wrote:
Seems as if you and Pablo do not agree.

How so??? Not sure what you're referring to here....

steensn wrote:
I didn't say mean nothing, just semi-null as in one game doesn't mean anything, the sum of them do. Viewers didn't flock to Seattle's game for a playoff spot because of it's importance to get in. It wasn't a huge game that got a front page look, as one example. Important, sure, for Seattle, but not for most other teams and the national viewing audience. How many of us flocked to that game to watch it? I bet a lot less than watched the Auburn Arkansas SEC game end of the season.

So you don't think it was only important for Seattle?? No mention of St Louis, perhaps you just forgot about them and their rookie star QB in the making.....
And you don't think New Orleans and the other NFL playoff teams weren't interested in the outcome of that game??? Um, ok :rolleyes:
I watched Seattle vs St Louis and could care less about Auburn vs Arkansas

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


January 6th, 2011, 1:14 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
I said for example, as in, the number of fans interested in that game (even with the larger fan base) is much lower than the amount of fans interested in a regular season game for a very good college game. I said "as one example." I bet there are some like you, I bet the majority though was opposite. Count me in as an opposite vote from you.

You are not on the same page because you wanted to say a regular season game is just as exciting and he is adamant it is not. You agree on playoffs, but you don't agree on the impact... so your points are not exactly showing themselves valid.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


January 6th, 2011, 3:42 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
wags wrote:
The feeling is mutual, I think you're putting too mention emphasis on the bowl system and are unrealistically trusting coachs and the computer programmers; not too mention completely discounting programs like Boise, TCU and the like. In the current system they have NO chance whatsoever to even think about competing for the "National Championship."


At least you are getting somewhere, it is an OPINION which system is better. It is all about what you are more comfortable with, not the outcome. The outcome is meaningless, it is the acceptance of the outcome that is what really matters. I see at TCU team erecting a winning football program as a process to work their way into the big game. They are moving to the Big East after a few years of success where they will get just as good of a chance now as anyone else. I'm ok with the process, you and others think it should be right away and everyone should conform to the chance that one unknown team might resurrect a top team. I think breaking down the system to check on some maybes here or there is not a positive move.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


January 6th, 2011, 3:46 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9267
Location: Dallas
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
Man it would be great to see TCU, Alabama, Stanford, etc have a shot. What we are likely to get is another crappy game set up by computers - how exciting are these games?

2009: Alabama 37 Texas 21
2008: Florida 24 Oklahoma 14
2007: LSU 38 OSU 24
2006: Florida 41 OSU 14

at least Texas/USC in 2005 was decent, but USC 55 Oklahoma 19 the year before sucked.

Even the game is typically such a letdown cause the system is terrible.

Steesn must be on a bowl committee or something... [-(

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


January 6th, 2011, 3:54 pm
Profile WWW
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11848
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
steensn wrote:
I said for example, as in, the number of fans interested in that game (even with the larger fan base) is much lower than the amount of fans interested in a regular season game for a very good college game.

So now you want to compare the preverbial apples to oranges (NFL to college)??
steensn wrote:
You are not on the same page because you wanted to say a regular season game is just as exciting and he is adamant it is not. You agree on playoffs, but you don't agree on the impact... so your points are not exactly showing themselves valid.

Not sure how us having differing opinions on which game would be more exciting is also not showing my points as valid or not.
steensn wrote:
At least you are getting somewhere, it is an OPINION which system is better.

While that may be true, at least my opinion is backed by 100s of years of repeatable use whereas yours, well, isn't.

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


January 6th, 2011, 3:55 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11848
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
Pablo wrote:
Man it would be great to see TCU, Alabama, Stanford, etc have a shot. What we are likely to get is another crappy game set up by computers - how exciting are these games?

2009: Alabama 37 Texas 21
2008: Florida 24 Oklahoma 14
2007: LSU 38 OSU 24
2006: Florida 41 OSU 14

at least Texas/USC in 2005 was decent, but USC 55 Oklahoma 19 the year before sucked.

Even the game is typically such a letdown cause the system is terrible.

Steesn must be on a bowl committee or something... [-(

No, he just knows that his BuckNuts wouldn't last in a real playoff system :-"

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


January 6th, 2011, 3:56 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
Pablo wrote:
Man it would be great to see TCU, Alabama, Stanford, etc have a shot. What we are likely to get is another crappy game set up by computers - how exciting are these games?

2009: Alabama 37 Texas 21
2008: Florida 24 Oklahoma 14
2007: LSU 38 OSU 24
2006: Florida 41 OSU 14

at least Texas/USC in 2005 was decent, but USC 55 Oklahoma 19 the year before sucked.

Even the game is typically such a letdown cause the system is terrible.

Steesn must be on a bowl committee or something... [-(


And the NCAA playoff has produced these "thrilling" games:

2009: North Carolina 89, Michigan State 72
2007: Florida 84, Ohio State 75
2006: Florida 73, UCLA 57
2005: North Carolina 75, Illinois 70
2004: Connecticut 82, Georgia Tech 73

I could go on... all those game sucked and pretty much give me the same argument as you... most games are a letdown, because the system really doesn't do any better.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


January 6th, 2011, 6:25 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
TheRealWags wrote:
steensn wrote:
I said for example, as in, the number of fans interested in that game (even with the larger fan base) is much lower than the amount of fans interested in a regular season game for a very good college game.

So now you want to compare the preverbial apples to oranges (NFL to college)??
[/quote]

Same way you compared all those other sports to the NCAA. Other sports/etc are only valid if they help your case now huh ;)?

Anyways, % wise if you want to slice it that way, the NCAA STILL has more people watch that are not those teams fans than the NFL could want. Because EVERY game matters.

TheRealWags wrote:
steensn wrote:
You are not on the same page because you wanted to say a regular season game is just as exciting and he is adamant it is not. You agree on playoffs, but you don't agree on the impact... so your points are not exactly showing themselves valid.

Not sure how us having differing opinions on which game would be more exciting is also not showing my points as valid or not.
[/quote]

It matters because you're both using the opposite facts to support the same decision. I am the one that "doesn't get it" yet you didn't even agree to his point. In fact, you argued against it! I can't be right with you two, because you both picked a different side! Yet I'm still wrong on both accounts!

TheRealWags wrote:
steensn wrote:
At least you are getting somewhere, it is an OPINION which system is better.

While that may be true, at least my opinion is backed by 100s of years of repeatable use whereas yours, well, isn't.


100s years of opinion... not fact.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


January 6th, 2011, 6:32 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11848
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
steensn wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
steensn wrote:
I said for example, as in, the number of fans interested in that game (even with the larger fan base) is much lower than the amount of fans interested in a regular season game for a very good college game.

So now you want to compare the preverbial apples to oranges (NFL to college)??

Same way you compared all those other sports to the NCAA. Other sports/etc are only valid if they help your case now huh ;)?

Touche, but at least I have OTHER sports, etc to compare to, where are yours? Surely if your/BCS method were accurate and verifiable if would have been repeated SOMEWHERE in history, no? :wink:

steensn wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
steensn wrote:
You are not on the same page because you wanted to say a regular season game is just as exciting and he is adamant it is not. You agree on playoffs, but you don't agree on the impact... so your points are not exactly showing themselves valid.

Not sure how us having differing opinions on which game would be more exciting is also not showing my points as valid or not.

It matters because you're both using the opposite facts to support the same decision. I am the one that "doesn't get it" yet you didn't even agree to his point. In fact, you argued against it! I can't be right with you two, because you both picked a different side! Yet I'm still wrong on both accounts!

:confused: I didn't realize we were debating which type of game is more exciting, I thought we were debating HOW to determine a true National Champion.
steensn wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
steensn wrote:
At least you are getting somewhere, it is an OPINION which system is better.

While that may be true, at least my opinion is backed by 100s of years of repeatable use whereas yours, well, isn't.

100s years of opinion... not fact.

So what you're saying is throughout history all of the Champions that have been crowned by MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, Olympics and others are false while the BCS has gotten it right? Um...er...uh....:confused:

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


January 6th, 2011, 8:47 pm
Profile
League MVP

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3504
Location: WSU
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
Quote:
And the NCAA playoff has produced these "thrilling" games:

2009: North Carolina 89, Michigan State 72
2007: Florida 84, Ohio State 75
2006: Florida 73, UCLA 57
2005: North Carolina 75, Illinois 70
2004: Connecticut 82, Georgia Tech 73

I could go on... all those game sucked and pretty much give me the same argument as you... most games are a letdown, because the system really doesn't do any better.


Are you seriously arguing against the excitement of the NCAA tournament?


January 6th, 2011, 9:06 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: 2010-11 bowl schedule
All I am saying is pick one story. I don't mind a good debate, this is fun, but I don't really know how to respond to wandering and contradictor "facts." I know Pablo and you are NOT the same person, but there isn't a solid story line to why a large playoff system significantly better than any other system for crowning a champion. Yes it is the most IDEAL way to do it because it is the CLOSEST we can get to objective outcomes. But it does not have a perfect outcome and one has to realize the repercussion of eliminating the current system and changing the sport to fit that. Weighing the two options side by side, the only way I can see a larger playoff without screwing up 100 years of traditions and other things is to turn the BCS bowls into a 4 team playoff. Closest to not killing tradition, use the same ranking, just enlarge it from 2-4. All questions concerning who should be in it ONLY come from a 3rd or 4th ranked team, not from a 5th or later. each year there is a TCU or Boise that gets left out, that would end it without killing too much. We already wait a week for the championship game, so schedules don't get all jacked from it.

But past that, look at the matchups a playoff system has provided in the same number of years as Pablo posted... not any more impressive, cannot argue that.


The issue here is not actual results but acceptance of results. The technical side seems to produce just as good of matchups.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


January 6th, 2011, 9:08 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 128 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.