View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently November 24th, 2014, 5:52 pm



Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 TCU Won't Play a Rematch Game 
Author Message
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3145
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: TCU Won't Play a Rematch Game
steensn wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
I'm sure I"m going to regret this, but steensn what do YOU consider "the best team" to be? What qualifications are required for a team to be considered the "Best" in your eyes? How do you define the Champion?


I should never be a voter... to be perfectly honest. I would have picked New England with no question in my mind. They beat many VERY good teams, one lose was to a team they also beat and the other was a bad week which everyone has. I would have pit them against Atlanta, for the same reasons. They would have played out, for the championship match up. A champion is a team that within the defined rules wins a defined contest. So it can be a round robin tourney, single elimination, double elimination, play a bunch and pick the top X teams to do a playoff (this is the BCS style with one game only though).

Wow, Atlanta? Really? They beat many very good teams? Let's see about that. I went through their schedule and figured it out. Atlanta won 13 games. Of those wins, only 5 came against teams with a winning record. The did beat New Orleans, Baltimore, Green Bay, and Tampa Bay (twice). But they also beat Arizona, San Fran, Cleveland, Cincy, St. Louis, and Carolina (twice). The combined record of the teams they beat was 91-117. So of their 13 wins, I count only New Orleans, Baltimore, and Green Bay as very good teams.

I also decided to compare Atlanta's wins vs. Detroit's. The combined winning percentage of teams Atlanta beat was 43.75%. The combined winning percentage of teams Detroit beat was 47.92%.

Sorry steensn, they just weren't as good of a team as everyone wanted to believe, and they got exposed for exactly what they were.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


February 14th, 2011, 3:56 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: TCU Won't Play a Rematch Game
Atlanta beat GB who kicked them out of the playoffs. I started my post saying I shouldn't EVER be given a vote... if someone starts out their post like that don't be surprised with what you get... the only reason Atlanta is there is a lack of outstanding team in the NFC. I know GB won... but that wasn't because they were the best team in the NFL and they really didn't beat many more good teams if any.

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


February 14th, 2011, 4:52 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3145
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: TCU Won't Play a Rematch Game
steensn wrote:
Atlanta beat GB who kicked them out of the playoffs. I started my post saying I shouldn't EVER be given a vote... if someone starts out their post like that don't be surprised with what you get... the only reason Atlanta is there is a lack of outstanding team in the NFC. I know GB won... but that wasn't because they were the best team in the NFL and they really didn't beat many more good teams if any.

You're basically arguing who is the most talented team, or who "should" be the best team. The reality is, the champion is decided by a playoff. That is the case in nearly every sporting event, major or minor, in every place on the earth. Whether professional or amateur, in general playoffs are how it works. From little league baseball to the olympics to professional (insert sport here), playoffs are how the champion is crowned. You can continue to say that one system is not any better than another, but at some point when nearly everyone disagrees with you, it can be said with a fair amount of certainty that you're wrong.

In my opinion, if you weren't an OSU fan but rather were a fan of a school that wasn't successful under the BCS format, you would want a playoff too. Of course, that's just my opinion so it's worth about as much as a grain of salt.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


February 14th, 2011, 10:21 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: TCU Won't Play a Rematch Game
All I ask is look at the data and results. In theory, playoffs sound great. You can make it about my team of choice all you want, but it is nonsense. People disagree only because it gives them a level of comfort in a playoff system. What I am saying is that it is false comfort and the proof is in the results and the clear that neither on does a better job at matching up the two top teams in a championship game. The very fact you can re-arrange things, change small things like time, and get a different result doesn't bode well for keeping a playoff system on a high horse.

The ONLY thing making the playoff system SEEM better at what it does is this supposed "fairness" which is a bunch of bologna anyways. Sorry TJ, you can hate the BCS all you want, but it does no worse or any less consistent than a playoff system.

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


February 15th, 2011, 11:01 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3145
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: TCU Won't Play a Rematch Game
steensn wrote:
All I ask is look at the data and results. In theory, playoffs sound great. You can make it about my team of choice all you want, but it is nonsense. People disagree only because it gives them a level of comfort in a playoff system. What I am saying is that it is false comfort and the proof is in the results and the clear that neither on does a better job at matching up the two top teams in a championship game. The very fact you can re-arrange things, change small things like time, and get a different result doesn't bode well for keeping a playoff system on a high horse.

The ONLY thing making the playoff system SEEM better at what it does is this supposed "fairness" which is a bunch of bologna anyways. Sorry TJ, you can hate the BCS all you want, but it does no worse or any less consistent than a playoff system.

Your entire argument hinges on your definition of who the "best" teams are. You keep saying that neither does a good job of matching up the 2 best teams. Based on what? In my mind, having a playoff does determine who the 2 best teams are. They have to play and the winner is the best. Simple as that.

Also, as was said earlier, in a playoff style system, all your wins and losses matter, because that determines where you are seeded (i.e. where, when, & who you play). In the BCS, when you lose matters more than just winning. You made the comment that if a team makes 1 slip up they are likely out (i.e. it's rare for a 1 loss team to be in the nat. champ. game). Well, I did a little research. It took all of about 10 minutes. Turns out the BCS puts a team with at least 1 loss in the title game 53.85% of the time. Since it's inception in 1998, the BCS has put a 1 loss team in the championship in:

1998 (Florida State)
2000 (Florida State)
2001 (Nebraska)
2003 (LSU and Oklahoma)
2006 (Florida)
2007 (LSU & OSU) <- LSU had 2 losses this year. OSU had 1
2008 (Florida and Oklahoma)

I even went through and looked at when those teams lost. In most cases, the losses came early. Of the 11 losses, only 4 came in the 2nd half of the season. That works out to 36.36%. So, your theory that the BCS makes every week count isn't true.

The reason why I prefer a playoff is that it removes the money issues and makes champions decided on the field. Yes, there is still a ranking involved, but if you go undefeated or only have 1 loss, you will most definitely be in the playoffs, and have a chance to prove your status on the field. No computer or person determining that you get a bid in the championship. You have to earn it on the field of play.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


February 16th, 2011, 12:00 pm
Profile
Post Re: TCU Won't Play a Rematch Game
I agree with your argument completely TDJ.

Another thing that is puzzling to me is that in the BCS if the #3-#6 ranked team loses to the #1 ranked team they can (and often do) fall out of the BCS bowl games. That seems ridiculous to me. The #3-#6 team is SUPPOSED to lose to a #1 ranked team if the rankings are correct, so why punish them? A team like Alabama shouldn't fall out of the top 10 (or even the top 6) for losing to a #1-#3 ranked team.


February 16th, 2011, 2:33 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: TCU Won't Play a Rematch Game
I have said we should modify the BCS, I don't think it is perfect. I'm talking general picking 2 teams verses a playoff system. The BCS can be improved, the schedules can be improved to help the BCS improve. I'm talking the difference between picking two teams to play for a championship or forcing them to go through a playoff system.

You are taking the data wrong, you need to compare the # of 1 loss teams that don't make it, to the # of 1 loss teams that do make it, compared to the number of 0 loss teams that do make it. You can name lots of one loss teams that didn't make it, OSU last season was sitting # one and dropped out of title contention after one loss. Same with a list of other contenders. A loss is serious, you may get lucky with one loss and most the time a team does get lucky. That allows for a bad week mishap

You contend that the decisions are made "on the field" but do not recognize the decisions made off the field have just as much or more impact than those off the field to the LEVEL of picking the two top teams. The thing is, because it seems "arbitrary" as in no direct correlation or intent is seems better. From a practical solution, it is no different.

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


February 16th, 2011, 3:10 pm
Profile
Post Re: TCU Won't Play a Rematch Game
steensn wrote:
You contend that the decisions are made "on the field" but do not recognize the decisions made off the field have just as much or more impact than those off the field to the LEVEL of picking the two top teams. The thing is, because it seems "arbitrary" as in no direct correlation or intent is seems better. From a practical solution, it is no different.


Steen, I think that's the whole issue though... The playoff system has the teams playing one another, proving their value. The BCS system allows for teams to skate by without playing the top competition, that would never happen in a playoff system. They would be forced to play the top contenders, and they would be forced to prove how good they really are.


February 16th, 2011, 4:10 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: TCU Won't Play a Rematch Game
wjb21ndtown wrote:
steensn wrote:
You contend that the decisions are made "on the field" but do not recognize the decisions made off the field have just as much or more impact than those off the field to the LEVEL of picking the two top teams. The thing is, because it seems "arbitrary" as in no direct correlation or intent is seems better. From a practical solution, it is no different.


Steen, I think that's the whole issue though... The playoff system has the teams playing one another, proving their value. The BCS system allows for teams to skate by without playing the top competition, that would never happen in a playoff system. They would be forced to play the top contenders, and they would be forced to prove how good they really are.


Ask TCU how well a cake schedule helped them out... I think you guys are using opposite ideas to argue the same result. It can't be too "exclusive" and too "inclusive" at the same time. As well, a playoff forces one team to show the best, not pitting the best team with the best team. Because of the structure, the two best teams could face each other is in rounds prior to the final game. Physically, it does not give you the best final game, we can all agree to that based on the physical structure. It does not force teams to go against the best competition because it is possible and OFTEN that a bad matchup forces a better team to go out early and a set of good match ups pushes a lesser team to the front. You can't say Kansas is better than OSU or visa-versa unless they actually play each other is as even an environment as possible.

A playoff does not do that, OSU could lose to the ONE team, their achilles heal, because that is the card they drew. Remove one team to a different leg in the tree and it would spell a drastically different set of results, even a defeat of the winner of the tourney. Physically, it does not meet the requirements you set out to prove the BCS doesn't meet either. You have a HUGE mess of issues with a playoff system no one wants to acknowledge. It only tells you given that exact setup, who ends up winning. Reshuffle, it is totally different, how does that give you a "champion" to the level of confidence you require from the BCS? It doesn't... physically, the mechanism does not give you what you guys claim it does. The actual results are JUST as confident as putting the top ten teams in a bag and pulling a winner out.

The point is, it is only a preference based on what you find exciting. The actual and physical results are very different than the claims.

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


February 16th, 2011, 4:37 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: TCU Won't Play a Rematch Game
Here is a warm welcome for TCU's attempt to become a big time football school

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/ne ... id=6155166

Now they are playing like the big dogs! Theya re STARTING to prove it.

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


February 25th, 2011, 5:54 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9519
Location: Dallas
Post Re: TCU Won't Play a Rematch Game
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... he-tax-man

Quote:
Thanks to critics, bowl system facing questions from the tax man

Big Brother meet big headache. Or if you prefer, it may be time for a more formal introduction: IRS meet BCS.

The potential implications for college football's power elite aren't positive unless you're a fan of tax investigations or audits. Rather suddenly, three of the four BCS bowls (all but the Rose) are alleged to have engaged in "tax irregularities." A political action committee filed a complaint to the IRS in September using those words to describe the operations at the Fiesta, Orange and Sugar bowls. The committee, Playoff PAC, also alleges the Orange Bowl hosted a lavish, all-expenses paid Caribbean cruise for college administrators where no business meetings were scheduled. It also said the Sugar Bowl executive director was paid more than the top three Rose Bowl executives combined.

The complaint attacks the bowls' tax-exempt, nonprofit status. saying, "The BCS Bowl spending calls into question the Bowls' need for the financial government assistance they receive."


Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker is on paid administrative leave amid a probe into alleged improper campaign contributions. (US Presswire)
Separate from the Playoff PAC complaint, Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker was put on paid administrative leave last week amid an investigation into alleged improper political campaign contributions. The bowl has hired Nathan Hochman, a former assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's tax division.

Nonprofit, tax-exempt status designation allows businesses to avoid paying taxes because they are a community trust. The government is obviously interested in such organizations justifying those tax breaks.

Summary: After 13 years of dodging and deflecting every other kind of criticism, the BCS doesn't need a tax law headache. The BCS defending its controversial postseason is one thing. Defending the numbers in its books to an IRS agent is another. Would the IRS hesitate at all in taking on college football's big bowls?

"I don't think they'd blink an eye," said veteran tax attorney Wayne Henry.

Henry, of the national firm Stinson, Morrison, Hecker, should know. He chairs the firm's Nonprofit Tax-Exempt Organizations Practice Group out of Omaha, having formerly worked for the IRS chief counsel's office. That's not to say anything is in the works or that the BCS is even worried. It's just another front opened up on the sport's postseason battlefront.

"The IRS has said [in general], 'We're going to be in the compliance arena now. What was acceptable in the past is no longer acceptable in the future ...' " said Henry, who later added, "There's greater scrutiny by the federal government and state government of nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations, in part, I think ... because there is a large federal and state deficit."

The nation's financial crisis could then touch places that have never had much of one -- the major bowls. The Sugar Bowl, for example, claimed net assets of $32 million in fiscal 2009, according to tax records. The Outback Bowl in Tampa, Fla., is not a BCS bowl, but CEO Jim McVay made $808,000 in the same tax year, more than any of the BCS bowl executives. That figure was inflated that year because McVay earned a retention bonus worth approximately $128,000, according to an Outback spokesman.

There's not anything necessarily wrong with those numbers, unless they can't be justified.

"Now you get to a more subtle question," Henry said. "What is reasonable?"

With a nonprofit, there is no share price to prop up. There can't be private benefits, no donations to political candidates. Essentially, nonprofits must stay true to their "mission." In the case of the Fiesta Bowl, that includes assisting "the cause of higher education with the highest university payouts possible." Junker allegedly encouraged employees to make "contributions to politicians friendly to the bowl," according to the Arizona Republic. Those employees were then reimbursed in the form of bonus checks, the paper said.

Junker makes in excess of $600,000. Sugar Bowl CEO Paul Hoolahan made $645,000, according to the latest tax records. All of the major bowls are believed to use "compensation analysts" who vet those CEO salaries, comparing them to similar businesses, before the money is approved by a bowl's governing body.

"We don't know if or when the IRS will respond to allegations," Hoolahan said. "I know what the level of accountability is going to be if they do inquire. Anybody who is prudent would do their due diligence."

The Orange Bowl is working with a Virginia law firm to analyze the complaint. It has also formed an ad hoc committee of past presidents and treasurers to do the same for those years not involved in the complaint, according to CEO Eric Poms.

"We feel very confident we are operating well within regulations of nonprofit rules and regulations," he said.

Also in the complaint, BCS bowls are accused of a "disturbing pattern" that raises questions about their charitable tax status. Playoff PAC adds that tax-exempt funds have been used for "excessive compensation," to pay registered lobbyists without disclosure "and [to] heap frivolous benefits on bowl insiders."

Speaking of Hochman's hiring by the Fiesta, Playoff PAC founder Matthew Sanderson said, "That is not just someone you hire if the complaint is frivolous. I think they do have reason to be concerned."

The Fiesta Bowl describes itself as operated through four nonprofit organizations. It annually stages two games -- the Insight and the Fiesta. Once every four years, it also hosts the BCS title game. In 2006-07, the last time records are available from a championship year, it had a reported economic impact of $402 million. Established 40 years ago, the Fiesta evolved from a modest mid-level bowl, positioning itself to gain entry into the BCS 13 years ago ahead of the older, more tradition-laden Cotton Bowl. Its profile continued to grow, and it hosted its fourth BCS title game last month. It is considered one of the most highly regarded charitable and sports organizations in the Phoenix area.

All four BCS bowls are seen as local economic engines that help define and enrich the profile of their base cities. The first Rose Bowl was played more than a century ago, while the Sugar Bowl is more than 75 years old. Traditionalists argue that tearing this fabric would wreck college football's long-standing tradition. Opponents argue the big bowls have gotten too fat and powerful.

"The abuses are inherent in a system run by a few power brokers," said Sanderson, a Washington, D.C. campaign finance lawyer.

It's fair to say Playoff PAC is seen as a nuisance by the BCS. But it looked rather amateurish when it released a video calling BCS executive director Bill Hancock "Baghdad Bill." Playoff PAC asks for contributions on its website but Sanderson admits financial support has been negligible. The organization's stated goal is to bring about a college football playoff. Their current effort, though, doesn't necessarily mean that beer (IRS investigation) leads to heroin (playoff).

Worst-case scenario, the bowls could lose their tax-exempt status. But Henry speculates that bowls could still operate without the designation.

"You might owe taxes for a number of years," Henry said. "If they made a lot of money, there could be a big corporate tax liability. In these types of cases, traditionally and typically, there would be some kind of settlement with the government and nothing would come to light. If there is a settlement, they could keep it out of court."

Attacking the BCS on the anti-trust front has been mostly fruitless. BCS commissioners were forced in 2003 to grant better access to BCS bowls to non-BCS schools because of a threat of Congressional involvement by Tulane president Scott Cowen. The Utah attorney general last year asked the Justice Department to look into the BCS over anti-trust issues. But BCS officials remain confident in their legal standing when it comes to talk of a monopoly.

We all know the IRS isn't politicized. It has a mandate from Congress to catch tax cheats of all species. If there is a patron saint of such issues, BCS haters have one. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is known as a powerful watchdog over nonprofit organizations. In the past, he has taken on the American Red Cross and the Smithsonian. To put it in football terms, those aren't exactly Sun Belt schools.

"He was taking them on for very much the same reasons they're taking on the bowls," Henry said of Grassley, "for apparently having big parties and taking cruises everywhere around the world. He said they [allegedly] were paying too [large] salaries and having too [many] perks. They're [IRS] not afraid of any of these organizations."

Noted BCS opponent Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah is now the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax issues. Hatch recently replaced Grassley in that position. If Republicans were to take control of the Senate in 2012, Hatch would be in line to become chairman.

"I'm not surprised there is greater scrutiny," Henry said. "I tell nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations, 'In this environment, you really need a well-run business producing mission-driven, charitable results.' If you believe some of the reports you wonder if their [bowls'] policies for governance were adequate."

That's not to say nonprofits can't make money. Universities, hospitals and churches are among the most common such organizations. But they can't abuse the tax-exempt privilege. Among the Playoff PAC allegations is that BCS bowls used some their funds to fly first-class, pay private club dues and pay for employees' personal income taxes.

Back to that subtle question for the IRS, the BCS and its tax lawyers: What is reasonable?


_________________
Image
LB Tweet


March 2nd, 2011, 6:53 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: TCU Won't Play a Rematch Game
Why the heck are they tax exempt... that is retarded.

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


March 2nd, 2011, 7:13 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


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:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.