The Georgia Bulldogs, the Boise State Broncos, "The Godfather, Part II," and What Makes Life Worth Living: Five Questions for OBNUG
As you know, I answered some questions for Kevan over at OBNUG, while also entering into an agreement---not a wager, I tell you!---that has earned me some criticism in certain circles. In any case, the Labor Day weekend edition of "Too Much Information" has been bumped to mid-day, in order for me to bring you my interview with Kevan Lee of One Bronco Nation Under God. Enjoy:
T. Kyle King: I don’t mean to burst your bubble, but there’s basically no reason to think we don’t stink. The Bulldogs have seen their year-to-year win total decline every season since 2007, Mark Richt is entering the autumn on the hottest seat any Georgia head coach has occupied on Labor Day weekend since 1995, the Red and Black lost ugly games to Colorado and Central Florida last fall, the team’s most experienced returning running back is an injured linebacker, no statistical progress was made in the first year of Todd Grantham’s 3-4 defense, the ‘Dawgs have lost their best offensive player and their best defensive player from a year ago, and the Classic City Canines are relying upon a bunch of true freshmen to come in and meet immediate needs. On what planet is this game possibly a big deal for Boise State?
Kevan Lee: Wait a minute ... is this some sort of Mark Richt reverse psychology? Lulling me to sleep with compliments and reassurances? Ha, that hasn't worked on me since my eighth grade crush. Her loss, by the way.
This game is a huge deal to Boise State for the simple reason that it is a game and the Broncos can't afford to lose any of those. That it comes against an SEC school and one of the two best teams on BSU's schedule means even more. Win on Saturday, and the Broncos can keep the BCS dream alive. Lose, and the Broncos can keep the MAACO Bowl Las Vegas dream alive.
Kyle: On a scale of Mafia movies, with "Married to the Mob" being rock bottom (notwithstanding Nancy Travis’s nude scene, of course) and "The Godfather, Part II" being the top of the mountain, how well will the Boise State defensive front perform against the Georgia offensive line?
Kevan: I say this both because I don't know any other Mafia movies except for "The Whole Nine Yards" (starring Matthew Perry of "Friends" fame and no other fame) and because I think the comparison is apt: the Boise State defensive line will "Godfather II" the Georgia offensive line all game long. Boise State's D-line is as talented and deep as they come. The backups will hold their own against the Georgia O-line and the starters will wreak havoc all game long. It helps the Broncos that Georgia's big uglies have felt the harsh hand of attrition. If it were 100-percent-best-case-scenario Georgia O-line, then the matchup wouldn't be so easy for me to call. As it is, this one's a "Godfather" mismatch.
Kyle: You’ll have to pardon us; we really don’t know you that well, but the first thing we see when we look at you is, well, orange and blue. Frankly, that doesn’t sit well with us. Our oldest rival wears orange and blue. The rival with whom we have struggled most mightily over the last two decades also wears orange and blue. Convince me that I should root for the Broncos after September 3, despite their color scheme.
Kevan: Rooting for the Broncos is like rooting for America. You do like America, don't you?
Specifically, there are a lot of reasons to root for the Broncos - their dorky quarterback prodigy, their Rodney Dangerfield level of respect, their classy coach, their sensational team blogs. But I'll go with this one - root for the Broncos to keep driving the NCAA toward that mythical playoff. The more the Broncos win, the louder the cries get for some sort of rational postseason. Even if you don't think the Broncos deserve a chance at a national championship with that Mountain West schedule, I think you can agree that college football fans deserve a system better than the BCS. Boise State can be the straw that broke the camel's back (I like to picture Jim Delany as a camel in this scenario).
Kyle: Time for a little morbid role-playing: It’s Saturday night, and Boise State has just beaten Georgia. The Bulldogs have just become the first SEC team to lose to the Broncos, and they have opened the autumn 0-1 after finishing 6-7 last year and 8-5 the year before. Give me three good reasons---football-related, mind you, not theological---why I shouldn’t take my own life.
Kevan: Reason No. 1: The Broncos beat everyone they play, except when they throw Nevada a pity win. This is not the same team that lost to Georgia and other SEC schools half a decade ago. This is a team that has proved it belongs with BCS competition in wins over Virginia Tech, Oregon, Oklahoma, etc. It would have happened to an SEC team sooner (like Ole Miss, definitely).
Reason No. 2: Georgia plays in an AQ conference. Who cares about non-conference results when you can sweep your conference and still play for millions of dollars in a BCS bowl? Now, if you lose to South Carolina the next week, then I might suggest avoiding high places.
Reason No. 3: It's the season opener. I find that season openers can be hit-or-miss when projecting how a team's season will go. There are 11 games left and plenty of time for Isaiah Crowell to find his way out of the backfield. YOUR LIFE IS WORTH LIVING, KYLE. THINK OF YOUR BLOG!
Kyle: Now reverse the roles: It’s Saturday night, and Georgia has just beaten Boise State. I’m your last friend in the world, or, at least, it feels that way to you at the moment. What do you need me to say to you to convince you that your life is still worth living?
Kevan: How far after the game are we talking here? If it's five minutes, you'll need to tell me that Boise State just got invited to the Pac-12 or else I'm looking for the nearest jug of Drain-O. I tend to sober up after about an hour or so, you know, remembering family and things that are important. An hour afterward, you could just remind me that if Boise State were to lose any game on its 2011 schedule and still hope to make a BCS bowl, this game would be it. Voters have about a two-month attention span, so by November, this loss would be expunged from their minds (one month sooner for octogenarian Harris Poll voters).
My thanks go out to Kevan for being a good sport and a good colleague here at SB Nation. Though there has been some spirited sparring (and a handful of bannings) between our two weblogs, I think both sides largely have shown a healthy respect for one another, and for the game. Here’s hoping we see a quality contest between a pair of college football heavyweights. I would say, "May the better team win," but I think we all know that’s not the way I’m rooting.
Go ‘Dawgs!
252 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Overall the Boise folks seem like a good bunch
they approach things differently than us (to be expected) and can be annoying at times (can’t we all?) but overall I think they are good people and I hope they run the table after we beat them Saturday.
You know what a consultant is, don't you? A consultant is a guy that knows 100 different sex positions but doesn't know a woman.
-Erk Russell
by Dawg in Beaumont on Sep 2, 2011 9:05 AM EDT reply actions
So if I don't want a playoff....
does that mean I can continue to root against Boise State in every single game they play?
I’m not sure if I agree with the “Rodney Dangerfield level of respect” thing. They lost some pretty key players yet are still a top 5 preseason team. They’re being picked many to go undefeated this year. Maybe a Rodney Dangerfield sized chip on their shoulder……..
Maybe so, . . .
. . . but I agree with you on both points (though I will be rooting for Boise State in every game but the first one).
Go 'Dawgs!
I'm just tired of Boise and this chip on their shoulder nonsense
In college football you have to earn a spot in the National Title game, and a team in the SEC/Big 12/Big 10/Pac-12/ACC who plays 7-8 real games and loses one has earned it more than a team from the WAC/MWC who plays 2 games per year and has lost none. All their undefeated seasons don’t amount to a hill of beans: until they play a real schedule against real opponents, they don’t deserve to get a spot in the BCS title game over someone who does play such a schedule. End of story. Complaining will not help, it just detracts from the respect they get for their play.
I’m just tired of the complaining. You are a well respected program, that’s why you get a spot in 2 Chick-Fil-A kickoff games, a top 5 ranking, a BCS bowl, national media attention, nike pro combat uniforms, and, best of all, a continuously successful program that gives you enjoyable football seasons every year. 115 out of 120 teams would kill for that, yet they call us SEC fans entitled.
by elfcrash on Sep 2, 2011 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It's the players who have the chips on their shoulders
and for good reasons. Most of them were completely over looked by big conference teams and they hear constantly how small, slow, and less athletic they are compared to teams such as Georgia. I don’t think anyone thinks that Boise should go to a national championship because of an undefeated season. However, you can make an argument for them to go after as many undefeated seasons as they’ve had in the past 5, 6 years. Don’t say it’s easy to do either otherwise more schools (even in those terribly weak non-aq conferences) would do it. I agree we have gained some nice respect as a program, but there is plenty of disrespect still aimed at us and especially where our players are concerned
by 4EverBleedBlue on Sep 2, 2011 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
How many times you've gone undefeated doesn't matter
This is college football, teams change dramatically from one season to the next. I don’t care how you did or who you played in 2009. I want to know who you’re playing this year and how you played against them. That’s like saying “Well Georgia was one of the top teams from 2002-2005, they should have gotten to play for the BCS in 2006.” No, that doesn’t work. If it did, Bama and Florida should have played for the SEC title again last year. The past should have no bearing on who goes to the championship game.
by elfcrash on Sep 2, 2011 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Had this debate the other night on their blog
They were advocating doing away with strength of schedule as a factor in the BCS rankings. I actually think the SOS in the rankings de-subjectifies (probably not a word) the whole rankings process a little bit.
To be fair though, you failed to include the Big East in that sequence of conferences. At this point, I see no reason why the Big East is more deserving of a shot at the BCS than a Mountain West team. The competition in both conferences are inferior to the other AQCs. Each conference has one or two standout football teams but the competition overall is weaker.
I’m curious about scheduling. SOS is something you can actually change by scheduling tough non-cons. BSU has always claimed people won’t play them and won’t travel to Boise. No one is ever going to travel to Boise, unless BSU is paying them to, but I’m wondering if it is really true that “no one will play us” given that we scheduled them.
by WindyCityDawg on Sep 2, 2011 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
That's why I didn't include the Big East.
I always like the “no one will schedule us” thing, especially when they go and schedule Toledo and Tulsa for back to back weeks. Plenty of teams are willing to play them, as evidenced by the past few years, but they seem to want their easy games too.
Games are scheduled years in advance.
BSU scheduled their games against Tulsa and Toledo years ago before they were a top ten team. BSU has been extremely fortunate to enjoy the success they’ve have over the past few years. When they scheduled Toledo and Tulsa they were a great fit at the time….fast forward a few years and not so much (no disrespect to those teams, Tulsa only lost to Boise by 7 in 09). Also to BSU’s defense 8 of the teams on this years schedule played in bowl games last year…not sure how many teams can say that. Kellen Moore has been a huge reason why they’ve enjoyed the success they have. This is his last year, so I wouldn’t be surprised if BSU drops to the high teens in years to come. Well, until Grant Hedrick takes the helm anyway.
Hope to see a good, clean and injury free game!
35 bowl games?
I think this is the current number. It is virtually impossible to keep track these days. I don’t think volume of bowl teams necessarily translates to quality when 70 teams make bowl games.
Sure Toledo played in a bowl last year against FIU, a team that Louisville is going to beat by 20 next week. Toledo got dismantled by a pretty good team…Northern Illinois. San Diego State played in the prestigious San Diego Credit Union Bowl. Weird how they made that bowl eh?
I’ll be interested to see how much of BSU success is tied to Moore and how much is tied to your receivers. Hopefully all that success is attributable to guys in the NFL.
To a good game.
by WindyCityDawg on Sep 3, 2011 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions
Can you please list your 7-8 real games?
Did you see that Kentucky – WKU game last night?
by ce'sped azul on Sep 2, 2011 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions
This year's list:
BSU, USC, Florida, Auburn, Miss St., Ga Tech, Tennessee. You can leave Kentucky off.
by first and thom on Sep 2, 2011 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Tennesse and Ga Tech are stretches...
I’ll give you either 5-2 or 7-5 ( “Real” games for UGA-BSU) this year, but what I’m saying is there is no way it is 8-2. If you count Ga Tech and Tennessee (and most likely Auburn when you play them), then I’m counting AFA, SDSU, and Nevada (who are all ranked just as high postseason 2010 and preseason 2011)
Hahaha, sure
Those are definitely equivalent. Not like Tennessee will have more people in the stadium than all three of those games combined, or that GT is our in-state rival, or Auburn our oldest rival. Definitely the same thing.
Two things
1. This is our first Chick-Fil-A kickoff game, not second
2. Your post is an example of the “Rodney Dangerfield level of respect”: I agree that we are getting much more respect than we used to get, especially from many in the media (Craig James not withstanding), etc. However, almost every article I read about Boise on the internet is followed by comments of “get a real schedule”, “join a real conference”, “Boise would go 4-8 if they played an SEC schedule”, etc. Besides the fact that each of these statements are flawed in several ways, it goes to show that many fans simply think the Broncos are just not that good, which is where I take issue. Do I agree our SOS makes it significantly easier to go undefeated? Of course I do, I’m no idiot. Nor do I think we should just waltz into the NCG. However, I have no question that our team is damn good and regardless of schedule, belongs in the conversation just as much as anyone else (which at this time of year could be 15 different teams).
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
I think he was referring to the upcoming 2014 Chick-Fil-A kickoff against Ole Miss
when he mentioned getting 2 spots in Chick-Fil-A kickoff games.
Sacrificing goats, chugging Maker's Mark, and walking underneath The Arch.
Ok. My bad.
I didn’t realize the Ole Miss game was Chick-Fil-A. Doesn’t really seem like it should be actually (do that many people want to watch Ole Miss?)
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
I was kind of surprised too (mostly just due to location)
But maybe they’re figuring all of Houston Nutt’s oversigning will pay off by 2014.
Sacrificing goats, chugging Maker's Mark, and walking underneath The Arch.
Maybe it's because Nutt used to coach Boise?
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
It had to do with our game tomorrow
Ole Miss was supposed to get Boise at home tomorrow. In exchange for switching the game up, Boise got BYU at home instead and was promised a spot in the ’14 game.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I think some of that talk is hyperbole to counter
the extremist arguments of how great Boise is. I don’t think they’d be 4-8 in the SEC, but they’d have a lot, and I mean a LOT, fewer 10 win seasons.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
I actually agree with that
But also think that after a few years of SEC recruiting (assuming Petersen is still the coach) they would be in the mix every year
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
Hey, if we have another 6-7 season...
we may be willing to give him a few million dollars a year to test that theory out. We can let he and Dan Mullen fight to the death for the honor.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not that simple
recruiting kids like y’all do now is very different from the beast that is recruiting in southern states. It’s fiercer, it’s dirtier, and some people just can’t make that adjustment. It’s not an apples to apples comparison of saying, he has a good eye for talent here, imagine what he’d do with the talent he could get there. It just doesn’t work that way as countless coaches have proven. Peterson may or may not be able to, and from his nature, I’d say he’d have a hard time adjusting to the much more cuthroat and competitive SEC. That’s a personality thing though, not a quality thing. Good coaches don’t work everywhere. He has a good fit in school and culture at Boise. The culture of the south probably wouldn’t be a good fit, just like some of our more successful coaches would be bad fits in their environs.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Sep 2, 2011 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
it goes to show that many fans simply think the Broncos are just not that good
Actually, that’s not what people are saying at all. They’re saying BSU (conference-wise) is a big fish in a small pond, and that you guys enjoy such circumstances more than you’d care to admit.
"It's in the field manual - you can check it out if you want to."
"Uh, we seem to be out of field manuals, sir."
So, let's review...
… the Bronco D-line is going to “Godfather” our O-line, we should not be sad about losing to Boise, since HEY EVERYBODY DOES IT, and we should be cheering for Boise after this game because it leads us more towards a playoff.
Kevan Lee isn’t making the most persuasive argument he could to endear the Idahoans to our hearts. :-)
My thoughts exactly as I read this.
The closer this gets and the more their fan base talks, the more I want the Dawgs to destroy this team.
Success is never final. --Winston Churchill
by Inteljumper on Sep 2, 2011 9:28 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Kevan is good people, as is most of the OBNUG crowd.
I found his confidence surprising, but not off-putting, though, like you, I disagreed both with that point, and with the point in favor of a playoff, though making Jim Delany unhappy would make me happy.
Go 'Dawgs!
Yeah, Kevan is a good guy.
I’ve definitely come to respect him from his OBNUG work.
by vineyarddawg on Sep 2, 2011 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions
I would also say that from reading his work on OBNUG every day
That there’s always a bit of a tongue in cheek (or sometimes plain off the wall) quality to most of what he writes…but he’s serious about the D-Line.
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
Not feeling the same confidence as Kevin
I will say that I am more confident in Boise’s D-line than I am in other area, but to suggest they’ll handle’em (and I know Kev was being sarcastic), well you’d have to be a little crazy. Georgia has top notch recruits, so saying that any D-line in the country has the advantage is a pointless arguement. Pay no attention to rankings, BSU is the underdog in this match and will be for years to come. It takes decades to build a consistant program and get the same quality recruits year after year. BSU has been very fortunate to find the occasional diamond in the rough and they have to search hard to find them. Where Georgia is a factory pumping out quality athletes year after year.
I enjoyed that...
but I’ve gotta say this statement is not merely Nestea bold. It’s Mr. Boston Bold with a Meister Brau chaser:
the Boise State defensive line will “Godfather II” the Georgia offensive line all game long. Boise State’s D-line is as talented and deep as they come.
WoWzEr!
In the event of a Boise State victory (or a water landing…) I have no qualms with this:
But I’ll go with this one – root for the Broncos to keep driving the NCAA toward that mythical playoff. The more the Broncos win, the louder the cries get for some sort of rational postseason.
Good stuff, Kyle and Kevan.
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
I liked the O-line thing too
Apparently our D-line and O-line’s size will be negated by a serious lack of skill. I mean, why even try at this point? I’m sure our players have seen all those hype videos too.
Certainly
based on last year’s general offensive line performance, I can see why Kevan would feel so confident. And perhaps he’ll be proven correct.
On the other hand, if our guys up front haven’t improved their S&C over the last 9 months to at least achieve a stalemate (which assumes there isn’t any talent or technique involved) and if Will Friend’s philosophy of drive blocking isn’t any better than Stacey Searels philosophy of “just occupy some space and let the running back do the rest”, then we’re in deep doo doo.
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
by DavetheDawg on Sep 2, 2011 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
the one concern i have
is because they are smaller they may also be quicker than our boys and that could hurt us.
I can bake like a demon.
podunk...
Boise’s guys really aren’t any different than every other team we’re gonna face in our Conference. Sure, they might have an SEC caliber-type D-Line…but our O-line guys are well-versed in what to expect. We’ll be fine.
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
He thinks it'll be Godfather II
I think it’ll be

Hyperbole’s fun.
Sacrificing goats, chugging Maker's Mark, and walking underneath The Arch.
Good Choice
We could also go with
![]()
+1 for James Caan, -1000000 for Hugh Grant
Sacrificing goats, chugging Maker's Mark, and walking underneath The Arch.
And BTW
I don’t care what anybody says… Godfather II can’t be the top of the mountain because Godfather is the top of the mountain.
Anyone who disagrees is ignorant and morally reprehensible.
Sacrificing goats, chugging Maker's Mark, and walking underneath The Arch.
This.
Success is never final. --Winston Churchill
by Inteljumper on Sep 2, 2011 9:34 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
It's a legitimate argument . . .
. . . about which I honestly go back and forth. On any given day, I could be convinced of the superiority of either of the first two films over the other.
The only redeeming characteristic of “The Godfather, Part III,” however, is the dorsal shot of Bridget Fonda rising from the bed.
Go 'Dawgs!
See I didn't hate Part III like a lot of people
I’m still of the opinion that people would have thought it was a pretty good movie if it didn’t have “Godfather” in the title. Good… not great. Compared to the first two its garbage, but most things are. Its aight. Except for Sofia Coppola… I’ve never been so happy to see a character get killed off.
Sacrificing goats, chugging Maker's Mark, and walking underneath The Arch.
I thought the most redeeming thing about Part III... (SPOILER WARNING)
… was that Sofia Coppola’s character died at the end.
Really, she was horrible in that movie. She almost singlehandedly destroyed the whole thing.
by vineyarddawg on Sep 2, 2011 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions
It just occurred to me that, between the Nancy Travis reference . . .
. . . and the Bridget Fonda reference, I’ve inadvertently inserted a fair degree of dorsal nudity by wholesomely hot actresses into this discussion. Hm.
Go 'Dawgs!
I have to agree.
Part II got a little too grand for me with all the Vegas stuff. On the other hand, De Niro — how shall I put this? — was at a perfect point in his career to give the film a certain overwhelming aesthetic charm.
by NCT on Sep 2, 2011 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I've always liked Part II better than Part I...
… but that’s kind of like saying I liked the Auburn blackout better than the Sugar Bowl blowout/blackout against Hawai’i. Both were incredibly awesome.
I think the thing that puts Part II over the top for me is the dual storyline. I like having to think about the story as it’s happening and going back and forth between the two timelines and seeing the similarities and differences between them.
And as NCT said, Robert DeNiro was absolutely perfect as a younger Vito Corleone.
by vineyarddawg on Sep 2, 2011 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, not exactly as I said, but
Okay. Sure. We’ll go with that.
by NCT on Sep 2, 2011 10:42 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
See, that's called "Affirmative conclusion from negative premises."
Whoo hoo logic! :-)
by vineyarddawg on Sep 2, 2011 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
I think I just like Young Michael's character arc better than Young Vito's
But its all personal preference anyway. If Godfather is a 10, Part II is a 9.99999 in my book.
Sacrificing goats, chugging Maker's Mark, and walking underneath The Arch.
If you subtract sack yardage (which reduce rushing yards in college, for some reason)...
… Boise State gave up 4.0 ypc last year. They’ve got a Colts DL: build a lead on offense, force the opponent to go pass-happy to keep up, and then send those lineman all-out after the QB every play. Their leading DT – Billy Winn – will be playing DE on Sunday next year. The knock on his game is that he doesn’t anchor against the run, especially against a double team.
Did I mention that Boise plays a 4-2-5, and that they are replacing their NB (which is a CB/S hybrid in their scheme)?
If we can move DL off the ball, I don’t think Boiseh as a plan B to stop us. But that’s an awful big if.
by first and thom on Sep 2, 2011 9:39 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
The reason sack yardage reduces rushing yardage is because it's a running play.
It may not have been an intentional running play, but that is to the credit of the defense. When the defense leaves him unable to throw, the quarterback becomes a ballcarrier. Hence, his tackle for loss counts against rushing yardage.
I know that wasn’t your primary point, first and thom, but, since you mentioned it parenthetically, I felt moved to respond. Quibbles with that thoroughly sensible rule are among my pet peeves; sorry that you happened to be the one that drew the retort on that one! :)
Go 'Dawgs!
I understand the logic...
…but still reject it. A sack happens (generally, see below) on passing plays. The capacities to get to the QB and to cover receivers long enough to break down the pocket are part of a team’s passing defense. For those two reasons, it makes more sense to me to subtract sack yardage from passing yardage.
I understand your contrary argument, and I also understand that it is a tricky thing in the college game to draw a sharp line between running and passing plays. It could go either way.
At the very least, subtracting sack yardage from rushing yardage makes a team with an elite pass defense appear stronger against the run than the results of called rushing plays might suggest. Looking at rushing defense apart from sacks is at least a valuable metric to determine the expected result of a called rushing play.
by first and thom on Sep 2, 2011 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree it's a useful metric.
I just think that method of tracking stats more accurately describes what actually happened on the play, even if it creates some statistical anomalies over the course of the game as a whole. You make some valid points, though.
Go 'Dawgs!
As do you.
One accurately describes what happened, one has more “predictive” value in describing what happened as compared to what was intended to happen.
by first and thom on Sep 2, 2011 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
In recognition of some other Gaels in my family tree,
It wouldn’t hurt my feelings if we went all Miller’s Crossing on their asses.
So, if their D-Line is going to go all Godfather II on us...
I can only expect that we’ll preempt this by going all Godfather on them, as seen here.
Your move, Mr. Woltz.
by hailtogeorgia on Sep 2, 2011 10:01 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
When they touch down in Atlanta...
… Greg McGarity is going to make Chris Petersen an offer he can’t refuse.
by vineyarddawg on Sep 2, 2011 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Nicely done Kyle.
I realize you banned my former being from this blog.
Just wanted to let you know I’ve always followed your writing and you’ve always been very respectful of Boise State, where they have been, and how far they’ve come. Regardless of my previous rants, and special brand of humor, I wish your Bulldogs the best of luck after tomorrow. And I hope Kevan’s right on the “Godfathering” of your O-line.
Until tomorrow…
by Mikrino's Ghost on Sep 2, 2011 10:34 AM EDT reply actions 3 recs
Not sure if this link has been posted here,
but if not, give it a listen. It’s definitely NSFW, but it’s good. Here ’tis.
by hailtogeorgia on Sep 2, 2011 10:47 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Pulpwood is so awesome...
Big Bad Jon = Motel 6, hilarious…..
Been looking for that one
I love the Ray Drew comments. “First he mess you up, then he bless you up.”
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
If possible, I'm gonna try and post that weekly on sportsandgrits
this weeks I linked Tuesday. I think it’s a bit too blue for this site, but fits the tenor of S&G to a t.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Confession
I look forward to Pulpwood’s reviews more then I should
by J.B on Sep 2, 2011 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Etc.=Oregon State
This is a team that has proved it belongs with BCS competition in wins over Virginia Tech, Oregon, Oklahoma, etc.
Other than Oregon State, there is no “etc.” There’s Virginia Tech, Oregon, Oklahoma and Oregon State.
And that’s all.
Boise fans are so weird...
They really do live in an alternate college football universe. A couple of thoughts that pop out immediately:
Rooting for Boise isn’t like rooting for America. That would be more like rooting for Oklahoma or Alabama this year. Rooting for Boise is more like rooting for the Taliban to beat the Soviets.
By the way, if we win, I’ll be happy to root for Boise the rest of the way through the season. It’ll make our win look better. If we lose, though, I’ll be rooting for their opponents until they lose a game. It won’t matter for Georgia, but I’ll be doing it for the greater good of the college football season.
Not everyone desires an expanded playoff and hates the BCS. Sure, it isn’t perfect, but it is better than the NFL postseason format. I don’t want a season where a team (I’m looking at you, Green Bay) can just muddle through the season off and then get hot at the right time and win the whole thing. Those of us who are fans of major teams that play big-boy schedules often care far more about the regular season than we do stupid exhibition Fiesta Bowls where one or both teams may not even care about being there. There is only one bowl game that really matters.
Along those lines, sure, we could win the league (doubtful) or go to a BCS game even with a loss to Boise. Losing to Boise is going to be a black mark on us all season, though. I remember how mad I was at Virginia Tech for losing to them until the Nevada game.
Like it or not and fair or not
A loss to Boise State would be a black mark on us for eternity. We’ll always catch hell if we let a perceived upstart mid-major beat us. Cases in point: UCF and WVU.
by NCT on Sep 2, 2011 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Boise fans are so weird...
They really do live in an alternate college football universe. A couple of thoughts that pop out immediately:
Rooting for Boise isn’t like rooting for America. That would be more like rooting for Oklahoma or Alabama this year. Rooting for Boise is more like rooting for the Taliban to beat the Soviets.
By the way, if we win, I’ll be happy to root for Boise the rest of the way through the season. It’ll make our win look better. If we lose, though, I’ll be rooting for their opponents until they lose a game. It won’t matter for Georgia, but I’ll be doing it for the greater good of the college football season.
Not everyone desires an expanded playoff and hates the BCS. Sure, it isn’t perfect, but it is better than the NFL postseason format. I don’t want a season where a team (I’m looking at you, Green Bay) can just muddle through the season off and then get hot at the right time and win the whole thing. Those of us who are fans of major teams that play big-boy schedules often care far more about the regular season than we do stupid exhibition Fiesta Bowls where one or both teams may not even care about being there. There is only one bowl game that really matters.
Along those lines, sure, we could win the league (doubtful) or go to a BCS game even with a loss to Boise. Losing to Boise is going to be a black mark on us all season, though. I remember how mad I was at Virginia Tech for losing to them until the Nevada game.
Redundancy check...
Check!
"Uvarum, Uvarum Fit, Uvarum.... double Fit..."
- Augustus "Gus" McCrae
by Munson's_Marbles on Sep 2, 2011 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I disagree about the NFL theory
1. The NFL is by far the most popular sport in the U.S. The regular season does matter to fans and teams alike (look at the TV ratings).
2. No team will “muddle through” a season and make the playoffs. At worst you’d have a 3 loss team in there in a 16 team format because when the pool is 120 teams, 8-4 teams aren’t good enough (vs. NFL where a third of the league gets in).
3. If a team gets hot at playoff time and unexpectedly wins…I have no problem with that. Unpredictability is part of the fun of sports (e.g. Butler in the NCAA Tourney).
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
Forgot to hit reply. This was in reply to FisheriesDawg above
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
I don't have a problem with the unpredictability
I have more trouble with the “transitive issue”
Say you have a Final Four following a successful tournament. Cal beats Oklahoma and Central Michigan beats Miami for example. If Central Michigan then beats Cal, does it mean they are better than Oklahoma? Was Miami better than Oklahoma? Was Miami better than Cal? What if Oklahoma was 12-0 prior to the tournament ending their season with a loss to Final Four team Cal while Central Michigan had gone 9-3 with losses to ummm… Eastern Michigan, Syracuse, and Illinois State but still won their conference? Its just awfully flukey. This is my problem with the argument that a playoff “settles it on the field”. I agree that its more appealing than the BCS in many ways, but it still has its drawbacks.
Now if they want to schedule a tournament like in college baseball and give me football until mid-June, I’d be totally ok with that.
Sacrificing goats, chugging Maker's Mark, and walking underneath The Arch.
Those questions will always be unanswerable
Look at UConn in basketball (forget the Fiesta Bowl) this year. They had a disappointing regular season and were middle of the pack in the Big East. Then, they suddenly ran roughshod through the Big East tourney, followed by the NCAA. There’s no question that they were the best team at that time, even if they weren’t for the whole season. I would say the same about Green Bay last season.
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
But someone will always beat someone who beat someone who beat someone who beat the first team
And I agree it proves little.
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
Agreed.
Therefore, it is important to limit playoffs to the degree necessary to prevent “lucky” teams from even getting a shot to screw things up in the first place.
Why should Green Bay have been in the playoffs to begin with? They didn’t win their division. It isn’t like they weren’t given a fair shot at it, either.
I understand why pro leagues have wild cards, and why the NCAA lets everyone and their brother in the basketball tournament-more games = more money. I don’t bedgrudge them for making money, but it makes me laugh when people get indignant about the money the BCS produces and then point to the NCAA tournament and the NFL playoffs as an example of all that is good and holy.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions
This
I don’t bedgrudge them for making money, but it makes me laugh when people get indignant about the money the BCS produces and then point to the NCAA tournament and the NFL playoffs as an example of all that is good and holy.
That’s the exact reason a college football playoff will never stay at that magical 8 team/16 team number. The presidents will continue to expand the size of the field once they realize they can make more money off it and you end up in a situation like the NFL where nobody gives two craps about the regular season and teams like the NY Giants of ’07 and Packers of last year are “champions” because they muddled through the season and got hot at the right time. No thanks. I will gladly take the system we have in place now to avoid that disaster.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
by AuditDawg on Sep 2, 2011 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I realize this point is going to hurt my case because people hate soccer...
… but that’s what right about soccer in most of the world. You have a season, gather points for wins (and a smaller number of points for ties), and the best team over the entire season at the end of the year gets the trophy. They also have a playoff competition (in England this is the FA Cup), but the winner of the playoff isn’t the winner of the league… they’re just the winner of the playoff.
The best team from the season should be rewarded for their excellence, not forced into a one-off situation where they might just have a bad day and come out of a season in which they were clearly the best team empty-handed.
I hate soccer...
but I respect the hell out of the way it is set up. What you’ve described, in addition to the concept of relegation, is utopia. Too bad the sport sucks and it has to be played by Euroweenies.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I love soccer
Watch your US boys play Costa Rica tonight. If you do not, you hate America.
Fact!
"Uvarum, Uvarum Fit, Uvarum.... double Fit..."
- Augustus "Gus" McCrae
by Munson's_Marbles on Sep 2, 2011 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, there is american football also involved...
… so it’s kind of a judgement call when it’s college football (involving actual teams that might be good) against a meaningless international friendly.
(I say this by way of hedging, because I will probably switch back and forth between the two games, myself.)
Regarding the '07 Giants
The possibility of a team like this upsetting a team like the ‘07 Pats is part of what makes sports interesting! No win can ever be taken for granted (e.g. BSU-Nevada). Plus it adds to the legend of the undefeated Dolphins. What happens when there’s three weeks left in the season and the #1 team already has a three game advantage? So much for the integrity of the regular season then (e.g. look at baseball this year. The AL is barely worth watching until playoffs. Given the standings, getting rid of the playoffs and crowning the team with the best record champion would not fix this for the most part, except to make only the Red Sox and Yankees relevant)
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
Regarding the '07 Giants
Remember when the Pats beat the Giants at the end of the regular season? What was the point of that game? (By the way, BSU-Nevada is not a comparison to make here…Nevada shared the WAC title with Boise last year; I’d say that makes the two teams relatively even).
Regarding the baseball playoffs, do you really think there is a need to give the Red Sox or Yankees a second chance to better the other one if they’ve already had 162 games to figure it out? Baseball is a different animal, so you’re not going to have 162 ultra-tense, meaningful games. It does provide one of the best opportunities to know who the best team really is because of the number of games, though. Re-setting the field is an affront to the effort to figure out who is really the best.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Except that I would argue that Green Bay wasn't lucky
I would say the peaked at the right time and were the best team in the playoffs. While I do think accepting a third of the league into the playoffs is a bit much numberwise, I think that the possibility of an unexpected team coming out of nowhere in the playoffs makes it more interesting overall.
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
That's the crux of the problem, though.
“The best team in the playoffs” isn’t necessarily synonymous with “the best team over the course of the entire season,” and, if our notion of a championship isn’t geared toward establishing the latter—-as a playoff proponent’s notion of a championship clearly isn’t—-what possible meaning could a championship have?
Go 'Dawgs!
The truth is this
Who the “best team” is will always be subjective, head to head wins, best record, playoff winner…there’s always going to be something that is worth arguing about.
To me, a playoff gives more (read: not all) teams a chance, creates exciting matchups, adds intrigue with the possibility of wild upsets, and is ultimately more interesting. Whoever mentioned the $$$ above: It’s pretty well known that a playoff will produce much more than the BCS.
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
OK...
Auburn was the best team (forget the allegations of cheating for a minute) in 2010. Tell me they weren’t.
Alabama was the best team in 2009. Tell me they weren’t.
Try it.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions
They never had to prove it on the field against all comers
Tell me how without question TCU couldn’t beat Auburn last year.
Or how, again, without question Boise couldn’t beat Bama in 09?
Unfortunately you can’t, cause the system doesn’t allow us to answer that aside from the subjective eye test and “they played better teams” which is also subjective.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
How much money...
would you be willing to put on either of those wagers? Be honest, please…
Or we can try it another way. Put yourself in pre-BCS championship game mode. Assign percentages for the likelihood that Auburn, Oregon, or TCU and Alabama, Texas, or Boise were the best teams in the country that season.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions
How much money would you have put on the Miracle on Ice?
The Red Sox coming back from down 3-0 against the Yankees? Of a scrappy Boise beating Oklahoma in the Fiesta, or Utah demolishing Bama in the Sugar? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Whether I think they’d win the games or not is immaterial since it’s just speculation. Why do we have to play guessing games and assign percentages when we can just let them face each other on the field, loser goes home and shuts up?
http://sportsandgrits.com/
So...not very much.
Got it.
Can I mark you down in the “supports a 120-team NCAA football playoff” camp?
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Mark me wherever you want
but if you think that’s what I support, you are missing what I’m saying.
And how much did you put on those games I mentioned. I’ll guess the same “not very much”. Didn’t matter in the results now did it?
http://sportsandgrits.com/
So you don't support a 120-team NCAA football playoff?
Why not?
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Logistically, it doesn't work for one, among so many other problems with it
may as well eliminate the regular season if you’re going that big and just have it as a playoff from day 1, with losers able to schedule other losers so they don’t have 1 game seasons.
If we’re making the pool that large, I’d advocate going to a tiered system ala soccer, 15 divisions of 8 teams, everyone plays everyone else home and away, with the bottom teams going down a division, the top teams going up, and the team at the very top deemed “champion”.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Fair enough.
I can’t say for certain that Auburn was the best team in the country last year, but you can’t say for certain that they weren’t.
I, however, have the objective evidence of the season-long results to demonstrate that UConn was not the best team in college basketball last season, that Green Bay was not the best team in the NFL last year, &c.
Go 'Dawgs!
Both were the best team at the end and when it mattered most
I don’t think there was anybody who could have beat UConn at the end of the year in basketball. Of course this is unprovable, but for my money they looked unstoppable. Green Bay, maybe less so, but they still proved to be the best team at the right point of the season.
Seasons don’t happen in one day. They take time. There’s ups and downs. To me, part of the value in a playoff is that it happens at the end, after the team has had a whole season to become what it can become. Cam Newton and Auburn might not have beaten Oregon or Alabama early in the season last year, because as good as Newton was, he got better throughout the season. I see the playoffs as the end of a cumulative process.
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
"best team at the end and when it mattered most"
This right here is what we call begging the question. Yes, being the best team in a playoff matters most when you have a playoff. That fact does not support the assertion that being the best team at a specific time in the season (or post-season) is what matters most under all circumstances and to all people.
by NCT on Sep 2, 2011 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Precisely.
This is why this conundrum ultimately is insoluble; playoff proponents and playoff opponents simply value different things. One side prefers certainty and the perception of fairness, the other side values accuracy and preservation of tradition. Both arguments involve value judgments, and, ultimately, those are subjective, no matter how objective we suppose the means by which we apply those judgments to be.
Go 'Dawgs!
Not only that
I get extra bonus points for correct usage of the phrase “begging the question”, which usage is fast becoming meaningless, much to my disappointment.
by NCT on Sep 2, 2011 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions
"Seasons don’t happen in one day."
Then why are you willing to abide by the results of a playoff that, ultimately, is premised upon the belief that seasons (or, at least, the parts of seasons that matter) do?
Go 'Dawgs!
But they didn't have to be, nor did anyone else.
Green Bay and UConn knew the same thing everyone else did. You play hard in the regular season to put yourself in a position to win a title, and then take care of business in the playoffs. It works in college football (just replace “playoffs” with “conference and BCS championship games”). Duke, or Pittsburgh, or the Falcons or whoever you want to claim was for certain the better team in the country that year, knew the rules of determining the champ as the teams who were crowned did. They lost, those teams won. Too bad, so sad. Wanna be the champ, don’t lose games you have to win, because the champs didn’t.
Out of respect for concision, I’ll belatedly boil my entire argument defeating yours on the UConn, Green Bay, etc issue in a single word. “Scoreboard.”
http://sportsandgrits.com/
I get what you're saying.
As long as you’re OK with an NCAA basketball season that few people pay attention to and an NFL season that lets teams rest starters for the final two weeks of the season, then I see no problem with it.
I don’t want that at all for college football. I take an Auburn or a Boise State getting screwed every now and then to keep sheer exhiliration that comes from Pitt sending the CFB world into anarchy at the end of the regular season.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Who cares what I'm OK with?
those systems are what’s in front of everybody for determining a champion, so that’s how they do it. I’m ok with how college football determines their champ, same as how college basketball determines it. They do it differently, which doesn’t mean better or worse, it just means different. And let’s not use the term “college football” because D1-A is the only one with this system that you are trying to claim is superior to the NFL, D1-AA, D2, D3, every state high school organization, etc. So let’s no lump all levels of college football in to one system since the majority of college football uses a playoff.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
You're not advocating a D-1 football playoff?
What are you advocating then?
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
And I'll offer an even more concise retort:
“Scoreboards,” plural.
More than one game matters, or should.
Go 'Dawgs!
Games matter?
How much did the games 2004 Auburn played matter? Or any of the games played by 2008 Utah, 2010 TCU, etc? Or Arkansas/LSU in 07, that game doesn’t matter but others do? Colorado/Nebraska in 01? Miami/FSU in 2000? If games matter, make them matter. How can games simultaneously matter and not matter?
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Auburn
The games Auburn played mattered right up until USC beat UCLA and Oklahoma won the Big XII title game.
The point is that they matter at the time they were played, not that they matter in hindsight.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions
No they didn't...
none of Auburn’s games mattered that year. Lose the opener and the Iron Bowl, no national title. Win every game including the SEC championship, no national title. No matter what the outcome of every game they played that season, they weren’t winning a national title. So no, the games Auburn played that year never mattered. Not when they were played, not after.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Had USC lost to UCLA on the final Saturday...
every one of their games would have mattered immensely. Other than the SECCG, nobody with Auburn knew with certainty that they were getting locked out.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
But they didn't lose, so they didn't matter
yes, if they’d have lost, but they didn’t. So whether Auburn was better than USC or Oklahoma that year didn’t matter, nor did any of their games.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Again, hindsight
doesn’t make those Auburn games any less intense when they happened. I was there in 2004 when they beat us and they most certainly were playing for a national title at that point.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, the fact that our system . . .
. . . allows for other meaningful accomplishments like undefeated seasons, division titles, conference championships, rivalry wins, and bowl wins, rather than reducing everything to the be-all and end-all of the national championship or bust, means that Auburn’s wins meant a great deal; they just didn’t mean a national title.
Compare that to the meaninglessness of winning last year’s Big East basketball championship. I don’t even know who won it, because it doesn’t matter, because UConn (who didn’t win it) won the national championship. There are your meaningless games.
Go 'Dawgs!
It will always be subjective, . . .
. . . but I know that N.C. State, Arizona, UConn, the Giants, the Cardinals, the Marlins, et al., weren’t it. They weren’t even in the conversation. I’ll take subjectivity over blatant absurdity any day.
Many things are pretty well known about a playoff, all which are aided greatly by the fact that none of them has to be tested or proven here in reality, because they are wholly fictional. Trust me, if we had a playoff, the practical problems with it would exceed the practical problems of the BCS, and I am far from convinced that a playoff would be more lucrative. It might be for Boise State, but it easily might not be for Georgia.
Go 'Dawgs!
If they weren't it, why'd they win?
if they weren’t the better team, why’d the better team lose?
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Because any team can beat any other team on any given day.
Rather than judge by the absurdly small sample size of one game, we should judge a team by its body of work, and a team’s body of work is its entire season, from Labor Day weekend until (historically, at least) New Year’s Day.
The team that is demonstrably better over the course of the season loses to the team that is demonstrably worse over the course of the season in every sport. It happens all the time. Only Division I-A college football has the wisdom not to attach outsized importance to discrete instances.
Go 'Dawgs!
It attaches outsized importance to the old eye test, got it
if you want a system that proves who “is demonstrably better over the course of the season” then we need to pare down the teams and adopt a system similar to soccer, home and away against everyone else, best record is champ with a system of promotion and relegation to ensure the top division of teams is comprised of the best teams.
Because college football’s system has repeatedly failed to prove who “is demonstrably better over the course of the season”. Arguments can be made pro and con for TCU last year, Utah in 08, Miami over FSU in 2000, against Nebraska in 2001, for Auburn in 2004, among others thanks to a system that made depended solely on luck and subjective observation to determine “better”.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Your examples...
Who cares if you can make an argument for Miami over FSU or Oregon over Nebraska? In both cases, the undefeated team won the national title and was clearly #1 coming in anyway. That Miami or Oregon didn’t get their second chance and someone else did is just the way the cookie crumbles. Had FSU beaten Oklahoma for the 2000 title? OK, now you may have something.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions
So you're relying on a lucky one game outcome just as much as college basketball now.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
How so?
We’re talking about undefeated and one-loss teams compared to teams that finish 7th in their conference here. One of these things takes a lot more skill than the other.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Because Oklahoma beats FSU in that game, a single game sample
it confirms Oklahoma as the best team that year. But a similar single game sample, if luck saw a different result (and if FSU’s WRs didn’t have Roberto Duran hands, they might well win), the argument can be made? You are relying on a lucky one game.
Let’s try another, 2002. Was Ohio St clearly the better team over the course of the year? Or did they just get a lucky call against Miami, and beat a clearly better team that would win that game 9 times out of 10, but unluckily had that 1 be that fateful January day?
http://sportsandgrits.com/
You're never going to eliminate luck.
I’d rather have an undefeated Ohio State get lucky against an undefeated Miami than an 8-4 ACC champ get lucky against an undefeated Pac-12 champ any day of the week.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
It could
What if the ACC team got hot and came from the other side of the bracket (see: 2008 Fresno State baseball)?
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I fail to understand why that matters to you.
The team that finishes first in the NFC North was demonstrably better over the course of the season than the team that finished second in the NFC North. The team that won the Big East was demonstrably better over the course of the season than the team that finished in the middle of the pack in the Big East. However, you’re willing to cast aside those objective regular-season results, which involve all the things—-head-to-head competition, settling it on the field, giving everyone an even chance—-you claim to value.
Given that, why are you bothered about using an inherently subjective system to decide inherently subjective results? If objective regular-season results don’t matter to you—-and, clearly, they don’t—-why should you care about subjective regular-season results?
Go 'Dawgs!
The NFL is different because of better parity in scheduling, especially in the division...
The problem with the D-1A college football comes in that how do we determine if the team winning the Big Easy is “demonstrably” better than the team that finished second in the SEC? Or the team that won the Mountain West in undefeated fashion is demonstrably inferior to a 1 loss SEC team? I think college football’s system would work a lot better for the NFL, again because of relatively even scheduling, and college football’s scheduling makes it problematic. Take 2006, or was it 08, for example. Because of scheduling differences, we were left with the subjective argument of 1 L Florida or 1 L Michigan playing Ohio St for the title. Thankfully, they chose Florida, or else I’d have to read Fisheries tell me how Troy Smith and Ohio St were clearly the best team in the country that year, because they won the BCS game and went undefeated even thought they got to do so while avoiding the teams actually capable of beating them.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
I hate Florida...
therefore I’d happily make that argument if it meant one less national title for them. That’s compounded by the fact that I moved to Gainesville for grad school less than two weeks after the title game. It was awful.
That said, I couldn’t make the argument for Michigan over Florida for that game. Again, why have the rematch and make the first game pointless? The BCS got it right, as it usually does.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
There's another problem, then...
we’re excluding 2/3 of the NFL teams every season from having a chance to be the best team in the playoffs. Why not shorten the season and expand the playoffs to include every team?
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is why most of us don't want a playoff
There’s no question that they were the best team at that time, even if they weren’t for the whole season.
To me, and many others, the concept of a “champion” is one that was the best for the entire year, not a 5 or 6 game stretch. College football is one of the few sports that gets this right more often than not, unless you truly believe that the Packers last year, Giants in ‘07, UConn basketball last year, et al were the best teams for the entire season (which I highly doubt you believe that). I wish the playoff supporters would quit referring to the hypothetical team that wins a tournament as the “champion” and instead as “the team holding the trophy at the end of the day”, since that’s effectively what they are.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
by AuditDawg on Sep 2, 2011 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I wish the "regular season playoff" proponents
would realize how foolish that argument is. For example, see Nebraska in 2001 after not winning their own division let alone their conference. Or Miami beating FSU, then watching a similar record FSU in the BCS game while they sat at home. Or Auburn 04. Or the repeated undefeated non BCS schools. How do we know how good those non majors are without playing them? How about LSU losing to Arkansas in their last home game, but still being a “champion”?
The regular season in college football does have some degree of importance, but at the end of the day it still has as much subjectivity and debate over who the true “best team” is as those who get hot at the end and win a playoff. The only true “regular season is a playoff” sport is how soccer does it. Every team plays every other team home and away, with the best record determined the “champion”. Logistically, college football can’t do that, but the point remains that our college football “champion” is little more than as you describe other sports title holders, and are just “the team holding the trophy at the end of the day”.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Understood...
but I’ll take subjectivity and debate over 12 games of indifference and maliaise followed by 3 rounds of hyper-excitement. If we think the level of college football discourse sucks now, wait until it becomes DECEMBER MADNESS!
Even in your examples, those teams didn’t know they could lose going in, which is the main difference. It took some good bounces over the course of the season to get them back in the picture, and they had to keep winning the rest of their games. Even when LSU lost their last regular season game in 2007, it took one of the greatest upsets in CFB history to get them back in the MNC game. Whether the regular season was infinitely important or not in hindsight, at least it was at the time of the game.
Btw, Auburn 2004 is the one point I’m always willing to conceded in the BCS argument. Those guys got hosed, and as a result I could probably begrudgingly accept a 4-team playoff. That’s the limit, though, and no wild cards should ever be allowed. In your other two examples, the best team in the country that year (Oklahoma in 2000 and Miami in 2001) ended up winning the MNC anyway. The two teams that got left out (Miami and Oregon) had losses. If you lose, you’re at the mercy of the system and should quit whining.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions
The point is...
if those teams that won played the teams left out, would they win?
And on some points, how does it feel to be a TCU or Boise, knowing whether you win or lose, you’ll never play in a title game. The “importance” of some games, especially late in the year, leads to the complete irrelevance of others so it kind of balances. Where as in a playoff, teams are fighting for seeds at the top and favorable draws. Fighting for a remaining spot at the bottom, and importance stays high. You don’t have 3 dozen meaningless bowls to end a year with only one game mattering. No matter win or loss, you’re “at the mercy of the system” and that’s true now and would be true in a playoff, so where’s the difference. Go undefeated (see Auburn 04, among others including non BCS schools) and you may be trumped by two teams who were higher ranked based on the subjectiveness of preseason rankings who also went undefeated against lesser competition or by schools with 1 loss who were deemed to face more competitive schedules. Lose once or twice, like say Miami in 2000 or LSU in 07 and you’re again at the mercy of the system. What was the difference between 2005 Georgia and every SEC champion since? Just the mercy of the system.
So how is a playoff any different? Both sides have their pros and cons, neither is right and neither is wrong. It’s two different means to an end. But the arguments for the BCS almost without exception, don’t hold up to scrutiny.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Re:
And on some points, how does it feel to be a TCU or Boise, knowing whether you win or lose, you’ll never play in a title game.
That’s not true. If Boise or TCU run the table and there aren’t two other undefeated teams out there, they’ll play for the title.
What was the difference between 2005 Georgia and every SEC champion since?
Uh, there were better teams with better records that were more deserving of playing for the MNC in 2005? Unless you think 2-loss Georgia deserved to jump undefeated USC and Texas, that is.
say Georgia loses to Boise, and wins the rest until Florida. Florida is an important game. But lose it, and the rest become irrelevant. if a playoff was in place, games against Auburn and others would still be relevant as we could be fighting for a playoff spot. So the importance of "every" game, as some regular season is a playoff proponents say, could be countered by not having a single loss early impact the importance of subsequent games.
Games are never going to matter for the crappy teams (see last night’s Kentucky-WKU game as an example). The question boils down to whether you’d rather them matter for the great teams (my undefeated Iron Bowl scenario) or the decent-good ones (your Georgia that lost to Boise and Florida already example). I want the great teams to be the ones with the spotlight on them. The rest can play for bragging rights with their rivals, which is certainly enough to interest the home crowds regardless.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s not true. If Boise or TCU run the table and there aren’t two other undefeated teams out there, they’ll play for the title.
Actually, your statement is the one that’s “not true”, not mine. See 2008 when Utah got left in the cold for a one loss Florida and Oklahoma.
The 2005 point wasn’t to say there weren’t “more deserving” teams than Georgia that year. More to the point that Georgia was just as deserving as Florida in 06 and 08, as LSU in 07, but because the system showed those teams more mercy than it did Georgia that year, they got to play for a title while Georgia did not. It was to show the “mercy of the system” is a factor now just as it would be in a playoff, so that’s not a good reason to hang your hat on.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Was Georgia the best team in the country in 2005?
If not, why give them a chance to play for the title? The answer for those 2006-2010 teams is at the very least “possibly”, so we’re comparing apples to oranges.
And if Boise goes undefeated AND there aren’t two other undefeated teams out there, they’ll play for the title this year.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe they were...
with a healthy DJ, do we beat Florida? Does that Auburn game flow differently if we’re undefeated and end in a win? If there were a +1 or 4 team playoff, would Georgia have beaten USC, then Texas? We can’t know, because we didn’t let them play.
And your final sentence is just opinion, an opinion that has been proven wrong repeatedly over the last several years.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Injuries are part of the season...
and should be accounted for when assessing who should be the national champion. Getting a re-do just because our quarterback got hurt doesn’t make anything less subjective.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
If injuries are part of it...
can we not take them in to account for Green Bay’s regular season losses, and once they were healthy, they were clearly better than anyone else who could come against them.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Not how I meant it.
Injuries are part of the game. Deal with them.
Remember when UF whined about how Tebow was hurt when we beat them in ’07? Should we have given them a second chance later in the season?
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Tebow was hurt because of us, not before
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Sep 2, 2011 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Florida fans claimed he was hiding an injury
You don’t remember that?
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes they were.
And even if he was hurt, injuries are part of the season, just as they were for us in 2005.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Another example
If there had been a playoff last year, my own Boise State Broncos would probably not have been in it due to the Nevada loss. The teams split the WAC title, but Nevada would have gotten the nod over Boise because of head to head. So how does that game become less relevant than it was in reality? With 120 teams, one loss could still eliminate some from playoffs
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
So we're including autobids for every conference in this thing?
OK, make an argument that 6-6 FIU (losses to Rutgers, Texas A&M, Maryland, Pitt, FAU, and MTSU) deserves to play for the national championship. Thanks.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
And they'd probably get eliminated in the first round 9 out of 10 times
Leaving the better teams to survive and duke it out. But then, every once in awhile they might sneak by. You really don’t see the intrigue to that?
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
Nothing wrong with intrigue
I enjoy a good mystery novel or suspense film from time to time. But in my college football? I value different things.
by NCT on Sep 2, 2011 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I don't see any intrigue at all...
…to the idea of giving FIU a chance to beat Auburn. If they lose, it was a waste of a game. If they somehow beat Auburn in the first round, it makes a complete mockery of the regular season.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It wouldn't be a waste of a game
a. To Auburn’s fans who would pack the stadium and relish the likely beatdown
b. To FIU who would have their day in the sun
c. To the millions who would watch it on TV
d. To the networks who would make a ton of money
And if Auburn loses they could only blame themselves for being underprepared and therefore not the best team.
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
None of that has anything to do with...
…figuring out who is the best team in college football in a season. Those are great reasons for making money, and I don’t bedgrudge league owners/the NCAA for going that route (as I acknowledged way earlier in this thread). As a fan, packing stadiums for games against crappy conference champions isn’t my goal.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is the difference between SEC fans and others
Because the SEC is generally considered to be the toughest conference, its champion is practically guaranteed a spot in the NCG. Other conferences don’t have that luxury. If Georgia wins the SEC, they get their chance. If Boise wins the MWC, they almost certainly do not get that chance, unless circumstances are exactly right. But assuming Georgia and Boise were not meeting this year, how would we know which was best? We wouldn’t. And even if a playoff doesn’t answer all of the questions, it at least gives more than two deserving teams (because there are usually more than two) a chance.
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
Georgia has won the SEC twice this decade
In neither circumstance did we play for the national title.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That was before the SEC won five BCS titles in a row
I think the public perception of conference strength has changed a lot in the last five years
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
Yes, and it can change back just as quickly.
Georgia was, in fact, the most recent SEC champion not to play in the BCS National Championship Game (in 2005).
Perceptions can change quickly, too. An SEC team won the title in 2006, and in 2007, Kirk Herbstreit was flapping his lips saying that Ohio State and Michigan should play a re-match for the national title. It wasn’t until the SEC had won about its fourth straight title that people started to assume the SEC champion would automatically be in the title game.
Everyone now takes this as a fact, but all it would take is two seasons without an SEC champion in the final tilt of the season to eliminate this connotation in most people’s minds.
2007 was 2 loss LSU vine
so that makes Herby’s Michigan/Ohio St gum flapping 08 right? Or was it 06?
http://sportsandgrits.com/
That's right,
08 was Oklahoma making it out of the Big 12, I beat one and lost to the other, trio with texas and texas tech.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
All it would take is Oklahoma and FSU going undefeated
and the perception changes. Have two non SEC but BCS conference teams go undefeated the following year, and we hear about how much the SEC has fallen off.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Maybe public perception has changed...
but most SEC fans have felt the same way about the conference since at least 1992.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I absolutely see the intrigue; I've seen March Madness.
It absolutely undermines any claim to legitimacy of the final result, though. It’s one or the other: You can have certainty, or you can have accuracy; you can have the comfort of the Bohr model or the precision of the electron cloud model, but you can’t split the atom.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Sep 2, 2011 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Right.
That’s the problem. Either you have to have undeserving autobids (like the NCAA Tournament) or a subjective selection process. You’re just compounding, not solving, existing problems.
Go 'Dawgs!
How is that different from the current format of college football system...
with autobids in the form of best record amongst teams in a major conference (no matter how strong the individual conferences are) combined with a subjective selection process (the polls and formula that produces the BCS rankings)?
http://sportsandgrits.com/
BCS bowl games don't determine a champion
Autobids have nothing to do with who plays for a national title. They only have to do with who plays in exhibition games.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Your title is ???...
BCS bowl games do determine a champion; one BCS bowl game in particular is established to do precisely that.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
And no conference gets an autobid to that game.
It is the #1 and #2 ranked teams across all of D-1, regardless of conference.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Kinda sorta, not really
the BCS game is not “across all of D-1, regardless of conference”. Again, see 2008 Utah, among others. So you are again mistaken. And the autobid may not be a specific conference, but it is to a very select few teams in a select few conferences.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
No it isn't.
The BCS rankings are a formula. A number of computers and two polls determined that Utah was not one of the two best teams in the country based on objective/subjective criteria. The only thing Utah’s membership in the Mountain West had to do with this was their lack of a resume compared to Florida and Oklahoma.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions
And that Mountain West affiliation effectively
meant they couldn’t be #1 or #2, so it’s not "regardless of conference, when several conferences can’t make it.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
They couldn't be #1 or #2 in that scenario.
That doesn’t mean it is an absolute. I can come up with plenty of scenarios where they would have gotten a shot.
(NOTE: I don’t think Utah was deserving…the Alabama result had more to do with Bama not caring about that game than anything else. Bowl games often come down to motivation and produce weird results)
We could argue conversely that Georgia didn’t get to play for the national title in 2002 because of its conference affiliation, and not getting the chance to play an easier Big East or Big Ten schedule (I think Ohio State’s schedule was actually harder than ours, but you get the point; it is a balancing act).
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions
that's the problem
it’s all subjective. You think Ohio St’s schedule was harder, so they were more worthy. Or that bama laid down, so Utah wasn’t. it’s all perception, and prone to being wrong.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
So?
We vote for presidents based on perception. That doesn’t mean it is wrong, that means you take the best information available to you and make a choice.
Should we have Barack Obama and Mitt Romney fight each other in the Thunderdome next fall so we don’t have to make a subjective choice between the two?
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Didn't mean to stir up the hornets nest with my comments
But I gladly endorse this Thunderdome idea.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
by AuditDawg on Sep 2, 2011 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well said, AuditDawg.
Don’t apologize for stirring up the hornet’s nest. We’ve having a good discussion. Personally, I enjoy an impassioned debate that stays within bounds, as this one has (though I haven’t yet reached the end of the thread).
Go 'Dawgs!
To a degree, it's not, . . .
. . . which is why I prefer the old bowl system to the BCS, but the problem with the BCS is that it is too much like a playoff, not that it is too little like one.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Sep 2, 2011 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Really?
Because the old bowl system, where you can have 94 Nebraska and Penn St, or 90 GT and Colorado, or 96 Nebraska and Michigan, or 82? BYU proves who the best team is over the course of the season? That would be even less determinative of “best” imo than the current set up.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Agreed.
As I said, life is messy, we don’t know where the electron is because it’s really small and moves really fast, and sometimes the answer isn’t clear. Better two arguable answers than one definitive, clearly wrong answer. Again, this is the absolute crux of the difference between pro- and anti-playoff fans: certainty v. accuracy.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Sep 2, 2011 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And I'm on accuracy's side.
Bring back the bowls. There is no objective means of determining a 120-team champion in 13 games. We could design a playoff for each season, customizing it for the number of teams that deserve to get in – but even that sucks.
It’s a subjective sport. I like that. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
by first and thom on Sep 2, 2011 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I just think a playoff would be a lot of fun
And I think if the pool is 120 teams fighting for a small number of spots, the regular season would still provide little margin for error.
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
And that's where we differ.
I value what we’ve got and don’t want to change it. I hear where you’re coming from, and disagree in the most neighborly fashion.
by first and thom on Sep 2, 2011 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not saying you're wrong in that desire
or that it’s a bad system. I’m saying using the term “certainty” or “accuracy” to describe such a champion from such a system are the wrong words.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
You might choose different words, . . .
. . . but that is the dichotomy. You differ over the wording because your value judgments are different from mine. If you want to put it differently, try this: We disagree on the definition of the word “best” and the meaning of the word “championship” in an athletic context.
Go 'Dawgs!
That electron
We do know where the electron is, but we don’t know where it’s going. Or we know where it’s going, but we don’t know where it is. Take your pick. I think. I’m not sure.
by NCT on Sep 2, 2011 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions
It's like the time Heiseberg got pulled over...
The cop said “Son, do you have any idea how fast you were going?” “No,” Heisenberg replies, “but I do know exactly where I am.”
by first and thom on Sep 2, 2011 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Love jokes like this.
Reminds me of the time Descartes made his regular visit to the neighborhood café. The waiter asked, “The usual again today, monsieur?” Descartes thought a moment and said, “I think not.” And he disappeared.
by NCT on Sep 2, 2011 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Awesome
I have realized that the traditional omelet form (eggs and cheese) is bourgeois. Today I tried making one out of a cigarette, some coffee, and four tiny stones. I fed it to Malraux, who puked. I am encouraged, but my journey is still long.
So much win in that piece.
by NCT on Sep 2, 2011 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions
More examples...
say Georgia loses to Boise, and wins the rest until Florida. Florida is an important game. But lose it, and the rest become irrelevant. if a playoff was in place, games against Auburn and others would still be relevant as we could be fighting for a playoff spot. So the importance of “every” game, as some regular season is a playoff proponents say, could be countered by not having a single loss early impact the importance of subsequent games.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
For all that (and there are many valid points there), . . .
. . . this fact remains a fact:
Every college football team to have been named a national champion by the AP or coaches’ poll has had a legitimate claim to the No. 1 ranking. Other teams might have equally good claims, but, while you often can argue another team deserved it, you can’t argue seriously that the team that got it didn’t.
There is no playoff system in America that can make that same claim. What Winston Churchill said of democracy is true of college football’s bowl-and-poll system, as well: it is the worst form of determining a champion, except for all the others.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Sep 2, 2011 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I don't see how your second paragraph is exclusive to college football
since I could make the exact same statement about NFL, NBA, MLB and college basketball champions. Those champions also “had a legitimate claim” to the title (by winning the system put in front of them and everyone else they competed against when the season starts), and “while you can argue another team deserved it, you can’t seriously argue that the team that got it didn’t” (because in a playoff, they either beat the team you are arguing for, or beat the team who beat the team you are arguing for. Unlike college football’s system, the playoffs have an ultimate trump card for arguments about more deserving teams— Win your game, or shut up. Wanna cry you were more deserving of being champ? Well if they hadn’t lost, they wouldn’t be crying so there’s no one to blame but themselves. If only college football’s champ had that trump card always waiting in their back pocket.).
http://sportsandgrits.com/
That is simply not true.
There is simply not a serious argument that UConn, which demonstrably (as determined on the court) was not the best team in its conference last year, was the best basketball team in the country. That is a contradiction in terms.
It won the tournament, so it gets to claim the championship, but, no, you cannot look at the Huskies’ body of work over the course of the season and claim honestly that they were the No. 1 team in the country. That is simply false.
Go 'Dawgs!
When all was said and done, they were the best because they either
beat everyone, or beat the team that beat them. So yes, I can make that argument seriously. Your whole season argument is a war of attrition. The strongest team on opening day isn’t always the strongest team come championship day. Teams grow and improve (like say Georgia 07) or stagnate and get worse (let’s use 99 Penn St since I don’t wanna think about it) over the course of a season. And while you may want to claim a champion over the full season, with it’s ebbs and flows and ups and downs, I’m fine with the champion simply being the best team when all is said and done, having beaten all comers on the field of play.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
I’m fine with the champion simply being the best team when all is said and done, having beaten all comers on the field of play.
You’re advocating allowing more teams that didn’t beat all comers on the field of play, fwiw.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
If you want to limit the championship caliber pool to those teams...
how is 2007 LSU the champion? A playoff system at least allows teams that did beat all comers to play for a title, instead of a bowl system excluding them because they are deemed second class citizens.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
OK, Karl.
2007 LSU was the least bad team in the country in a really weird year. That better, comrade?
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Not trying to get personal
Apologies all around. It was an observation on the “second class citizen” remark. Boise, outside of the teams their conference tells them to play affecting their resume, gets the same chance as anyone else. They’re more than welcome to go independent and play 12 road games against BCS conference schools. The BCS won’t stop them, and if they win all of their games they’ll no doubt play for all the marbles.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
But those teams their conferences tell them to play
impacts that resume, and lowers them to second class status since an undefeated Mountain West isn’t as deserving as a 1 L SEC. It has nothing to do with who is truly the better team. They are a lower class because they aren’t a BCS conference team. The Big East has been arguably worse than the Mountain West, but an undefeated West Virginia doesn’t have to worry about being topped by a 1 L team in a major conference like TCU or Boise would. Oh, but they can go independent you say? That’;s a lot easier said than done, especially in terms of smaller athletic departments like Boise who can’t bank on a conference wanting their non-football teams like they are a similar financial draw to Notre dame.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
and lowers them to second class status since an undefeated Mountain West isn’t as deserving as a 1 L SEC
That isn’t a BCS rule. That is a determination that is made from year to year based on what each team has done through the first week of December.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions
It is based on subjective opinions about the competition in those conferences
since you can’t compare the two teams without putting them head to head.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
While I believe an undefeated . . .
. . . Big East champion certainly would be lapped by a one-loss Big Ten, Pac-12, or SEC champion, and while I believe it is an enormous overstatement to claim that you can’t compare two teams without putting them head to head (a claim that is true as far as it goes, I suppose, but which is nowhere near as true as that definitive declaration sounds, as evidenced by the fact that tiebreaker rules, for instance, serve effectively to compare two teams on other grounds), I agree with Mr. Sanchez’s 5:59 comment regarding the relative merits of an undefeated Boise State or TCU team when compared to a one-loss ACC or Big East champion. I would argue that tweaking, rather than scrapping, the system is required to address this, but I acknowledge the validity of Mr. Sanchez’s objection in this regard.
Go 'Dawgs!
And that is the crux of the difference between our positions.
There certainly is an honest and honorable argument to be made on behalf of certainty—-of the Bohr model of the atom, which tells us exactly where the electron is—-and you make it eloquently.
I simply prefer accuracy, the electron cloud model which is messy and unclear, but which more correctly states that there is a high probability of an electron in this general vicinity.
We value different things, and I respect your decision to value what you do, and your reasons for doing so, while respectfully disagreeing with your rationale.
Go 'Dawgs!
And good arguments against a playoff have molded my values on this debate...
it’s just so rare that those arguments against a playoff hold water in my eyes. The all determinitive regular season, too many games, undeserving champions of the late hot hand, among several others, don’t hold water in my eyes.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
That's really what it comes down to I 'spose
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
Maybe I can talk Castro in to letting Georgia tap that Cuban talent market
or get fired from my side job as department store santa.

http://sportsandgrits.com/
I guess
I have a more liberal view of it: who cares how well you played during the regular season if you choke at the end? To me, if you play well enough to get a spot in the dance, then anything goes.
The conclusion may not be satisfying for some, but the cummulative argument doesn’t mean anything if you can’t close the deal. Choking (or even falling off peak during a playoff) is far more cringe-worthy than a mediocre qualifying run.
And I say this because playoff/championship games have a unique set of dynamics that can be just as challenging to overcome as the day to day ones over the course of a season.
"It's in the field manual - you can check it out if you want to."
"Uh, we seem to be out of field manuals, sir."
Exactly
If a runner in a race, who is clearly the fastest, falls during the Olympics, does he get the gold medal? No. He has to wait four years (as opposed to just “next year” like in football)
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
That is a false analogy to the argument above.
The more correct analogy would be a runner that finishes a 32-person Olympic marathon with the fastest time, then has to immediately run a 100-meter dash against the top 8 finishers from the marathon.
Surely that would be a poor way to determine the winner of the Olympic marathon.
by vineyarddawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
rec'd... but it's even better than that.
It’d be like where sprinters ran earlier races to determine who got a spot in the important race at the end. Let’s call those races “heats.” I’m sure everybody would watch ’em and hang on the outcomes.
by first and thom on Sep 2, 2011 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I like the creativity there
But my point is that sometimes the “best” player, team, etc. loses, and that’s just how it goes. Sometimes they can’t handle the higher pressure. Sometimes they don’t prepare well enough. Sometimes bad luck happens (but I think that’s less than people make it out to be). Sports aren’t meant to be predictable.
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
Actually, a better analogy even still
would be Usain Bolt flashing ahead with a 20 foot lead at the end of a 100m race, only to trip, fall, and have someone else pass him. In that sense, Usain Bolt was clearly the best runner in the race over the course of the race, but bad luck in a small sample size (one step in the last 10m, i.e. the NCAA basketball tourney or NFL playoffs, etc, trumping the clearly superior runner over the first 90m, i.e. the NCAA basketball regular season, NFL regular season, etc).
http://sportsandgrits.com/
You can define the length of the competition down artificially, but you don't have to.
You’ve got good arguments, and there are good counter arguments. This is neither.
by first and thom on Sep 2, 2011 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Or how about...
Usain Bolt jogging through the first 80 meters, finishing sixth, then winning the last 20 meters in a sprint when they take the top 8 runners and start them even again?
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
1. The NFL is by far the most popular sport in the U.S. The regular season does matter to fans and teams alike (look at the TV ratings).
Yes it is popular. So is Dancing with the Stars. I’m far more interested in college football for a reason, though, and it isn’t because the athletes are superior in college. I know that is probably hard to understand if you’re a Boise fan from NY…I’d have a hard time grasping that concept as well.
2. No team will "muddle through" a season and make the playoffs. At worst you’d have a 3 loss team in there in a 16 team format because when the pool is 120 teams, 8-4 teams aren’t good enough (vs. NFL where a third of the league gets in).
You’d have 4-loss teams that won their conference (ahem, ACC) all the time in a 16-team format. No team with 3 losses should ever get a shot at the title, and only once in a blue moon (2007) should a 2-loss team ever get a shot.
The point isn’t about how many losses matter, though. The point is how much it would devalue the elite games on the schedule. With a 16-team playoff, an Iron Bowl between undefeated Auburn and undefeated Alabama becomes relatively worthless. Who could possibly want that scenario?
3. If a team gets hot at playoff time and unexpectedly wins…I have no problem with that. Unpredictability is part of the fun of sports (e.g. Butler in the NCAA Tourney).
I have a problem with it. I hate the wild card in baseball. I think the NCAA basketball tournament is too large. I think excellence in the regular season should be rewarded if at all possible. A playoff should only be as large as the number of teams that you can make a legitimate argument for being the best team OVER THE COURSE OF A WHOLE SEASON.
My opinion on this really became strong after the 2008 CWS. The number of idiot Nebraskans that adopted Fresno as “their” team was sickening. The only reason they had for rooting for Fresno was that they sucked for most of the season, barely made it into the NCAA tourney, and then got on a lucky streak. That’s just plain stupid. I always think less of people when they tell me they root for the underdog in the absence of any other rooting interest now.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Rebuttal
I know that is probably hard to understand if you’re a Boise fan from NY…I’d have a hard time grasping that concept as well.
Easy with the personal attacks. Do you see me insulting your screenname?
You’d have 4-loss teams that won their conference (ahem, ACC) all the time in a 16-team format.
All the time? I think that’s a bit of an overstatement. If they’re that bad, then wouldn’t they lose at some point in the playoffs? Or would they just be “lucky?”
With a 16-team playoff, an Iron Bowl between undefeated Auburn and undefeated Alabama becomes relatively worthless.
Ask any Bama or Auburn fan if that game would be “worthless.”
I think the NCAA basketball tournament is too large. I think excellence in the regular season should be rewarded if at all possible. A playoff should only be as large as the number of teams that you can make a legitimate argument for being the best team OVER THE COURSE OF A WHOLE SEASON.
You’re entitled to this opinion, but I think the majority of people love the first couple of rounds of the NCAA Tourney more than the end because of the possiblity of big upsets, etc.
My opinion on this really became strong after the 2008 CWS. The number of idiot Nebraskans that adopted Fresno as "their" team was sickening. The only reason they had for rooting for Fresno was that they sucked for most of the season, barely made it into the NCAA tourney, and then got on a lucky streak.
Again with the “luck.” I would call it “getting hot at the right time.” Other than that, I don’t care about college baseball.
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
Re:
Easy with the personal attacks. Do you see me insulting your screenname?
Didn’t mean it to be an insult…I probably phrased things the wrong way. I was trying to put myself in your shoes. You live in a part of the country where the NFL is king (that isn’t remotely the case down here) and you’re a fan of a CFB team that doesn’t have the week-in, week-out grind of a schedule that is great for fans and terrible for teams. It is just a matter of different perspective. Sorry if I offended.
All the time? I think that’s a bit of an overstatement. If they’re that bad, then wouldn’t they lose at some point in the playoffs? Or would they just be "lucky?"
OK, most of the time. Last year you would have 8-4 UConn. The year before would have been Georgia Tech and Iowa (both weak 10-2 teams). The year before that 9-4 VPI, before that, 9-3 Illinois, the year before that Wake (again a weak 11-2), the year before that 8-4 FSU, the year before that 8-3 Pitt, etc.
None of those are teams than any rational person could begin to describe as deserving of a shot at the national title. As to whether they would win, see my 2008 Fresno CWS example. That was a 4-seed (the lowest you can be) that went 33-27 in the WAC over the course of the regular season. There is no way they were anywhere near the best team in the country that year. Lots and lots of luck, iFDho.
Ask any Bama or Auburn fan if that game would be "worthless."
Compared to what it is now? Mostly. They would probably be resting players if they were smart (which isn’t a given considering the source). And the rest of the country would watch if they didn’t have anything else to do, but otherwise they’d just wait for the rematch in the playoffs that actually mattered.
You’re entitled to this opinion, but I think the majority of people love the first couple of rounds of the NCAA Tourney more than the end because of the possiblity of big upsets, etc.
Most of those people also don’t watch any regular season basketball and only follow the tournament until their bracket doesn’t have a chance of winning their office pool.
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
He wasn't insulting your screenname...
he was making an observation about it. You’re a Boise fan (a team that, until recently, hasn’t been a player in the National College Football stage) living in New York (an area that is widely known as being NFL-Centric). There wasn’t a personal attack.
You point to Green Bay last year and say that they got hot at the right time…and you’re not wrong in saying that. However, there’s a significant amount of luck involved. If some idiot for the New York Giants hadn’t elected to punt the ball to DeSean Jackson with time running off the clock, and if DeSean hadn’t made a miraculous punt return for a TD, Green Bay would never even have made the playoffs. That’s not luck?
by hailtogeorgia on Sep 2, 2011 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions
There's always going to be elements of luck
Each team can only control what they do. Chris Petersen has said time and time again "We take care of what we can control and good things will happen."
To me that’s what Green Bay did and I give them credit for it.
Thanks for bringing up the Giants-Eagles…salt in the wound.
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
But that isn't what Green Bay did, not over the course of the entire season.
To give them credit is to acknowledge fairly the Packers’ achievements, but crowning them the world champions after a six-loss regular season and a second-place finish in the NFC North simply makes no sense. How can they be the champions of the NFL if they aren’t even the champions of their division? That’s like saying you’re the tallest man in your neighborhood but the second-tallest man in your household. It’s a non sequitur.
I’m fine with giving them credit for what they did, but giving them excess credit because of a segment of the season given outsized importance severely undermines any argument about giving anyone “credit.”
Go 'Dawgs!
I wrote a comment above that I'm not going to fully re-write
The jist of it is that the season is a process and teams grow as the season goes on. To me it makes sense to reward a team that used the season to be best at the end of it all…within reason though. I’m not saying if the team had a losing record that they should be in a playoff.
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
Understood.
We simply value different achievements—-I believe a team should be rewarded for consistent excellence, not for sporadic achievement, even if that sporadic achievement represents improvement over time—-but that is a fair judgment, given our conflicting value systems.
Go 'Dawgs!
I realize there will never be full agreement on any system
I just think that the playoff gives teams a chance to play it out on the field, put the best against each other, and would be fun as hell.
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
I’m not saying if the team had a losing record that they should be in a playoff
Why not? Isn’t it possible that they could still be the best team at the end of the season? Maybe their best player was injured for most of the regular season? Isn’t it only fair to give them a chance to prove themselves?
by FisheriesDawg on Sep 2, 2011 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Everything doesn't have to be taken to extremes
Otherwise the value of the regular season is diminished. We can argue over formats, autobids, 4 vs. 8 vs. 16 teams, etc., but there’s 120 FBS teams. Even taking 32 of those (which I don’t agree with, but for argument’s sake) is a smaller percentage than the NFL and would not include losing squads.
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
Lets go back to talking about Soccer
I think there is a better chance to convince this community to like this magical sport vs. agree on playoffs or no playoffs in college football.
US men play tonight … give it a try!
Or else, you basically hate America.
Still Fact + Redundancy
"Uvarum, Uvarum Fit, Uvarum.... double Fit..."
- Augustus "Gus" McCrae
by Munson's_Marbles on Sep 2, 2011 6:32 PM EDT reply actions
The playoff/no playoff argument...
These things gotta happen every five months or so, ten months. Helps to get rid of the bad blood. Been ten months since the last one. You know, you gotta stop them at the beginning. Like they should have stopped Hitler at Munich, they should never let him get away with that, they was just asking for trouble.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Sep 2, 2011 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Seriously, how am I the first person to have rec'd this?
That was brilliant, Mr. Sanchez. It is at once an accurate statement of the need to rehash this debate periodically (seriously, search for “playoffs” in the site archives here, and you’ll find me duking it out with SMQ and C&F in multi-part postings) and a fantastic reworking of a great movie line that ties the thread back into the original theme of the posting from which it (quite enjoyably) diverged.
That was 87 different kinds of well done, man. Kudos!
Go 'Dawgs!
I will not talk about soccer
Unless you trick me by referring it by its proper name, “football.”
Is it counterintuitive to root for both Boise State and the Yankees?
The proper name of soccer is "soccer."
This is America, damn it. You people can talk how you want to talk in Europe, but, over here, “Are you ready for some football?” is not a musical question that Hank Williams, Jr., asks before the World Cup.
Unless he does. Honestly, I’ve never watched the World Cup, so, for all I know, he may. Nevermind; call it what you want, just specify that the football you’re talking about is really soccer if you expect me to know what you mean.
Go 'Dawgs!
FYI, . . .
. . . there is a Georgia women’s soccer match tonight, on which I will be reporting later, so there’s that.
I don’t hate America, I just love Georgia. (Actually, come to think of it, that sums up a significant portion of my political philosophy. . . .)
Go 'Dawgs!

by 



































