CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on December 15, 2019, 04:29:21 PM
-
I know we can just look at the committee poll and say "Clemson," but pre-playoff, there is no committee. Clemson is the defending national champion that has a 28-game winning streak. I tend to doubt pollsters would have demoted them, despite their weak schedule.
We all know LSU and OSU have better resumes.
So that's why I think it's poll-worthy. What say you?
-
Of course it would be Ohio State.
-
To a degree, it depends when. If it's 2001, maybe LSU. If it's 2008, when SEC had first dibs on a one-loss spot, obviously LSU. But yeah, Clemson is in.
Good thing there's a playoff.
EDIT: Actually, this brings up an interesting side thing. If there isn't a playoff, are we speaking glowingly of Clemson right now? IN my youth, every massive winning streak had all sorts of meaning heaped upon it. But these days, not so.
-
It would be Clemson. We'd be parsing daylights out of schedule. Clem beat A&M 24-10, LSU hung 50+.... they squeaked by UNC....beat nobody in top X.....etc.
-
AP and Coaches polls both have LSU and Ohio St #1 and #2
-
AP and Coaches polls both have LSU and Ohio St #1 and #2
Sure they do, because the CFP rankings are the rankings of record and those two polls reflect that. Same why they changed when it mattered who No. 2 was when the BCS came around.
-
yup, in the past Clemson might still be #1 in the AP and the Coaches
-
Pre-FSU in 2014 (pre-playoff), yeah, the team with the long winning streak was put on a pedestal. 2014 was the first season I recall that the warts of the still-ongoing undefeated defending NC were discussed and shown through voters moving them down.
Big bad Miami in 2002.
Big bad Nebraska in 1996.
Big bad Miami in 1992.
These teams' losses were so stunning because they were held on-high due to their winning streaks. For FSU in 2014, we were all waiting for them to lose. There's been a mental paradigm shift when it comes to this.
-
Clemson would be out, 99%. The computers would bury them for one thing, and the polls have them at 3. If we go pre-BCS, they wouldn't even face each other in a bowl game. OSU would play Oregon, LSU would play maybe OU in the Sugar, and Clemson would play ... somebody in the OB.
If all three won, Clemson could call itself the "Second UCF National Champion".
-
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/ohio-state-football/2019/12/110226/final-mock-bcs-rankings-of-2019-season
In BCS land, it is not close. Clemson out. Thank god we aren’t doing that anymore.
-
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/ohio-state-football/2019/12/110226/final-mock-bcs-rankings-of-2019-season
In BCS land, it is not close. Clemson out. Thank god we aren’t doing that anymore.
This remains built on the idea poll voters would have Clemson out knowing it would shut them out of the playoff. This feels like a poor assumption. Polls react to their context.
it would be progressive as all heck to shut out Clemson in a BCS arrangement. But I would just be floored if it happened.
-
I'm guessing the undefeated reigning undefeated national champ has NEVER been ranked lower than 2nd in the final poll
-
I'm guessing the undefeated reigning undefeated national champ has NEVER been ranked lower than 2nd in the final poll
But what if they are undefeated?
Double-undefeatedness aside, I suspect that you are right.
-
if they were a one loss national champ the previous season, they will remain #1 or #2 if they are undefeated
-
OSU would hide in the rose and the Clemson would play LSU
-
I'm guessing the undefeated reigning undefeated national champ has NEVER been ranked lower than 2nd in the final poll
Ehh, I already said one - 2014 FSU. After winning it in 2013, Winston threw a bunch of INTs and FSU had a bunch of close games to end the season. They were 3rd in the final playoff rankings.
Those games were against unranked teams....however, Clemson has been destroying everyone down the stretch. Much like Alabama has been given the benefit of the doubt at every turn, so too, would Clemson if this was 2003.
Clemson only moved down to #2 this year after their close win over UNC. The times they moved down to 3 and eventually 4, were after blowout wins. I made this poll because if this was 15 years ago, I don't believe Clemson would move down (the current top-tier Clemson program).
-
I am pretty sure it would be LSU-OSU back in the day, not Clemson. The computers obviously had a role, earlier a big role, in this.
-
Ehh, I already said one - 2014 FSU. After winning it in 2013, Winston threw a bunch of INTs and FSU had a bunch of close games to end the season. They were 3rd in the final playoff rankings.
Those games were against unranked teams....however, Clemson has been destroying everyone down the stretch. Much like Alabama has been given the benefit of the doubt at every turn, so too, would Clemson if this was 2003.
Clemson only moved down to #2 this year after their close win over UNC. The times they moved down to 3 and eventually 4, were after blowout wins. I made this poll because if this was 15 years ago, I don't believe Clemson would move down (the current top-tier Clemson program).
I thought we were talking pre-CFP.
-
I am pretty sure it would be LSU-OSU back in the day, not Clemson. The computers obviously had a role, earlier a big role, in this.
yup, we need a timeframe
before or after computers?
BCS or Alliance or earlier
this year with a committee, just w/o a playoff?
-
If it was before computers/BCS?
OSU would be playing Oregon in the Rose. LSU would be in the Sugar, probably against Clemson.
-
sweet, a split title like 97
-
If it was before computers/BCS?
OSU would be playing Oregon in the Rose. LSU would be in the Sugar, probably against Clemson.
From 1968 until the Bowl Alliance went into effect, the Orange Bowl included the Big 8 champion. The other team was usually either the SEC runner-up or the ACC champ.
Clemson might have been playing OU in the Orange Bowl.
OTOH, there were times during the pre-Bowl Alliance era when special arrangements were made. #1 Nebraska playing #2 Bama in the 1971 (season) Orange Bowl while #3 Big 8 runner-up OU played SEC runner-up Auburn in the Sugar Bowl is an example.
-
Yeah, I think Clemson would be in the Orange and LSU of course in the SB. The three would not face each other.
-
perfect
They would all have a chance at a title, hoping for upsets if you were #3
or hoping your victory was more impressive regarding opponent to jump the others
-
If the 3 all played in different bowls, it would get REALLY interesting. Clemson (ironically) would face the highest-ranked opponent in OU. OSU vs Oregon, as previously stated. LSU would kind of be screwed, playing a less-highly ranked team in the Sugar.
Either a rematch with UGA, vs Wisconsin, Penn St, rematch with Florida....none of which would overly impress anyone. They'd just hope enough voters keep the incumbent #1 team at #1.
-
If it was during the BCS computer era, 1 vs 2, and big, bad Clemson was left out - do you think it would be enough to create additional tweaks to the BCS system or blow the whole thing up?
-
depends on the conference commish and how much money was left on the table
Michigan and the Big Ten made things happen
-
The whole mindset of the voters is different now, with the playoff. In the past, you'd often (not always) get a pass for a close win. As long as it wasn't a trend, you were safe on your perch. "Everyone has a close call" was an oft-used phrase.
But now, because 4 are 'in' instead of just 1 or 2, they're more likely to demote you for a poor showing...because the consequences are nill.
-
It would have inspired them to implement a 4 team playoff, which would eventually be expanded to 8.
-
Who are the two best teams between these three?
-
From 1968 until the Bowl Alliance went into effect, the Orange Bowl included the Big 8 champion. The other team was usually either the SEC runner-up or the ACC champ.
Clemson might have been playing OU in the Orange Bowl.
OTOH, there were times during the pre-Bowl Alliance era when special arrangements were made. #1 Nebraska playing #2 Bama in the 1971 (season) Orange Bowl while #3 Big 8 runner-up OU played SEC runner-up Auburn in the Sugar Bowl is an example.
It depends who got to pick first. If it was the Sugar, they'd take Clemson.
The Orange Bowl was pretty loose after the XII came into play. Only after about 2002 or so did they make their perma-deal with the ACC, and they also had some sort of agreement with the Big East before that fell apart. Then the XII started going to the Fiesta a lot more often too.
-
If it was during the BCS computer era, 1 vs 2, and big, bad Clemson was left out - do you think it would be enough to create additional tweaks to the BCS system or blow the whole thing up?
The Rematch took care of that for us.
-
One rule I'd have is that a P5 team needs to schedule at least 10 other P5 level teams each year. No 9 and 3s amd certainly no 8 and 4s.
-
Isn't that the rule they already approved of?
-
Isn't that the rule they already approved of?
Not that I know of. Tennessee played only 8 P5 teams this past year, all in conference. They routinely play nine, not ten.
-
Yeah, but conferences have made exceptions for teams like BYU to be considered P5. Minnesota successfully petitioned for Fresno State to be considered P5 and the Big Ten already considered Cincy to be P5.
https://www.mwcconnection.com/2016/10/23/13364748/fresno-state-considered-power-five-program-by-big-ten (https://www.mwcconnection.com/2016/10/23/13364748/fresno-state-considered-power-five-program-by-big-ten)
-
Hahaha, they petition their own CONFERENCE?!? What a joke! I knew about ND and BYU, and that's fine I guess....but damn. If Fresno freakin' State is P5, then 11 of us would be, too.
-
One rule I'd have is that a P5 team needs to schedule at least 10 other P5 level teams each year. No 9 and 3s amd certainly no 8 and 4s.
If we're fantasizing about forcing rules onto other teams, then the first part of this rule would be, all P5 conferences play 9 conference games.
After that one's implemented, then I'd entertain a further rule about forcing teams to schedule 10 P5 teams. At that point, it would be just one more P5 game in the OOC schedule which should be simple enough.
-
It depends who got to pick first. If it was the Sugar, they'd take Clemson.
The Orange Bowl was pretty loose after the XII came into play. Only after about 2002 or so did they make their perma-deal with the ACC, and they also had some sort of agreement with the Big East before that fell apart. Then the XII started going to the Fiesta a lot more often too.
The Big 12 began play in 1996. All the way to the end of the Big 8, with three exceptions, the conference champ played in the Orange Bowl. And the Big 12 champ played there after the 1996 and '97 seasons.
January 1, 1968 #3 Oklahoma 26 #2 Tennessee 24
January 1, 1969 #3 Penn State 15 #6 Kansas 14
January 1, 1970 #2 Penn State 10 #6 Missouri 3
January 1, 1971 #3 Nebraska 17 #5 LSU 12
January 1, 1972 #1 Nebraska 38 #2 Alabama 6
January 1, 1973 #9 Nebraska 40 #12 Notre Dame 6
January 1, 1974 #6 Penn State 16 #13 LSU 9 (Oklahoma was the conference champion but was on probation.)
January 1, 1975 #9 Notre Dame 13 #2 Alabama 11 (Oklahoma was the conference champion but was on probation.)
January 1, 1976 #3 Oklahoma 14 #5 Michigan 6
January 1, 1977 #11 Ohio State 27 #12 Colorado 10
January 2, 1978 #6 Arkansas 31 #2 Oklahoma 6
January 1, 1979 #4 Oklahoma 31 #6 Nebraska 24
January 1, 1980 #5 Oklahoma 24 #4 Florida State 7
January 1, 1981 #4 Oklahoma 18 #2 Florida State 17
January 1, 1982 #1 Clemson 22 #4 Nebraska 15
January 1, 1983 #3 Nebraska 21 #13 LSU 20
January 2, 1984 #5 Miami (Florida) 31 #1 Nebraska 30
January 1, 1985 #4 Washington 28 #2 Oklahoma 17
January 1, 1986 #3 Oklahoma 25 #1 Penn State 10
January 1, 1987 #3 Oklahoma 42 #9 Arkansas 8
January 1, 1988 #2 Miami (Florida) 20 #1 Oklahoma 14
January 2, 1989 #2 Miami (Florida) 23 #6 Nebraska 3
January 1, 1990 #4 Notre Dame 21 #1 Colorado 6
January 1, 1991 #1 Colorado 10 #5 Notre Dame 9
January 1, 1992 #1 Miami (Florida) 22 #11 Nebraska 0
January 1, 1993 #3 Florida State 27 #11 Nebraska 14
January 1, 1994BC #1 Florida State 18 #2 Nebraska 16
January 1, 1995BC #1 Nebraska 24 #3 Miami (Florida) 17
January 1, 1996 #6 Florida State 31 #8 Notre Dame 26 (Conference champion Nebraska played undefeated Florida in the Fiesta Bowl.)
December 31, 1996 #6 Nebraska 41 #10 Virginia Tech 21
January 2, 1998BA #2 Nebraska 42 #3 Tennessee 17
-
How about if you schedule FCS, you're not eligible for the CFP?
Now, that probably won't affect scheduling all that much for most teams. I.e. for Purdue, you're not going to worry about whether you're eligible for a 4-team playoff because frankly it just won't happen. But conferences currently allow for that scheduling, even the Big Ten who tried to go away from it. Apparently they allow it if it's a year you only get 4 conference home games so that you can get a "guarantee" game if you need it for revenue.
So why not make it a CFP requirement?
If you're Alabama, maybe you can't schedule that late-November tuneup against Towson. If you're Ohio State, the conference doesn't let you schedule FCS in years you have 5 conference home games, but maybe you don't schedule Youngstown State in the alternate year.
Yeah, Purdue or Kentucky can add an FCS doormat to try to get closer to bowl-eligibility. But the big boys can't feed on cupcakes.
-
I second your motion, Bwarb.
-
I like it
serious outcry if a team like Minnesota or Baylor gets a few breaks and finishes undefeated with a FCS or two
-
OSU doesn't typically schedule an FCS game. Tressel snuck YSU on there a time or two, but beyond that the only time they have ever played one is Florida A&M, which was a last minute scramble because someone else canceled.
They have yet to schedule one in the CFP era, and there aren't any on the horizon.
-
OSU doesn't typically schedule an FCS game. Tressel snuck YSU on there a time or two, but beyond that the only time they have ever played one is Florida A&M, which was a last minute scramble because someone else canceled.
They have yet to schedule one in the CFP era, and there aren't any on the horizon.
Good. Then I imagine they'll support the proposal to injure the SEC ;-)
-
Yeah, the SEC should at least schedule a Sunbelt team as their late season tune up.
-
Teams are in their conference seasons then, that's the whole reason it's FCS teams. A real suggestion would be to move that type of game up towards the beginning of the season when more teams are freed up.
But again...wanting the SEC to change when what they're doing is working and there are no rules in place to prevent when they're doing is silly. Self-imposing stricter standards has predictable consequences.
-
we're talking about putting rules in place
-
The Big 12 began play in 1996. All the way to the end of the Big 8, with three exceptions, the conference champ played in the Orange Bowl.
Right, which is why I wrote what I did - that the OB was loose after the XII came into play.
-
Teams are in their conference seasons then, that's the whole reason it's FCS teams. A real suggestion would be to move that type of game up towards the beginning of the season when more teams are freed up.
But again...wanting the SEC to change when what they're doing is working and there are no rules in place to prevent when they're doing is silly. Self-imposing stricter standards has predictable consequences.
The FCS teams are "in season" as well, but the ones in the South clear out their schedules in mid-November in order to make themselves available to the SEC. No reason that the Sunbelt of CUSA couldn't form a similar agreement.
-
I like it
serious outcry if a team like Minnesota or Baylor gets a few breaks and finishes undefeated with a FCS or two
But not so much outcry when it's Bama or Clemson. Or OU.
-
we're talking about putting rules in place
I'm 90% sure there's been a rule set for 10 P5 games. Maybe it hasn't been implemented, but it's a thing, I'm sure of it.
-
Right, which is why I wrote what I did - that the OB was loose after the XII came into play.
Right. The Big 12 began play the year after the "Bowl Coalition" began operation. By the time we went through the Bowl Alliance and then into the BCS, several traditional bowl arrangements had been cast aside. I don't know if the Big 12 even tried to extend the connection with the Orange Bowl. It ended up aligned with the Fiesta Bowl during the BCS era. Phoenix is about 500 miles closer (1000 miles vs. 1500), but a lot of OU fans would have preferred to have stayed with the Orange Bowl affiliation.
-
People like to crap on SEC scheduling practices, but...
in 2018, teams that scheduled ZERO P5 OOC games:
SEC (1) - Arkansas
PAC (4) - Arizona, Oregon, Utah, Wazzou
B1G (3) - Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin
XII (1) - Oklahoma St
And there's OSU's this year....but they're not alone.
In 2019:
SEC (1/2) - Arkansas, Tenn (if you don't count BYU)
PAC (1/3) - Wazzou, UW & Utah (if you don't count BYU)
B1G (5) - Illinois, Minnesota, OSU, Wisconsin, Indiana
XII (1) - Baylor
If that big, bad 9th conference game means ZERO P5 OOC opponents...then what are ya'll bitching about all the time?!??!!?
-
People like to crap on SEC scheduling practices, but...
in 2018, teams that scheduled ZERO P5 OOC games:
SEC (1) - Arkansas
PAC (4) - Arizona, Oregon, Utah, Wazzou
B1G (3) - Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin
XII (1) - Oklahoma St
And there's OSU's this year....
We've been through this before. It all stems from the SEC only scheduling 8 conference games, while the other three conferences you cite play 9.
You have reasonably enough pointed out that this works well for the SEC, and that other conferences are free to do the same.
But the flip side of that is the fans of the other conferences are also free--free to crap on the SEC's scheduling practices.
Your stats are one side of the story. The number of SEC teams who only play 9 P5 opponents is the other side. And then there's Arkansas only playing 8.
-
Scheduling zero P5 opponents OOC is a bigger sin than not going from 8 to 9 conference games, sorry. When it comes to the conference games, you've got a lot of entities and opinions and powers out of your control.
Your school's OOC schedule is on you alone. You either decide to schedule someone that can beat you or you don't.
-
It all makes sense now, why the Cincinnati win has repeatedly been played up here. OSU played no P5 OOC games, Rutgers, and Maryland.....and last-place N'Western from the B1G West.
Jesus Christ, I'd be pumping up the Bearcats as the second coming of the '95 Huskers, too!
I didn't set out to find this, but damn, it's pretty glaring, tbh.
-
Right. The Big 12 began play the year after the "Bowl Coalition" began operation. By the time we went through the Bowl Alliance and then into the BCS, several traditional bowl arrangements had been cast aside. I don't know if the Big 12 even tried to extend the connection with the Orange Bowl. It ended up aligned with the Fiesta Bowl during the BCS era. Phoenix is about 500 miles closer (1000 miles vs. 1500), but a lot of OU fans would have preferred to have stayed with the Orange Bowl affiliation.
hah, just one more vote that went 11-1 against UNL when forming the Big 12
the fans didn't get to vote
-
They should have only added Texas and aTm.
-
should have only added A&M and Tech
-
hah, just one more vote that went 11-1 against UNL when forming the Big 12
the fans didn't get to vote
I know that a bunch of votes went that way.
But was ditching the Orange Bowl in favor of the Fiesta one of them?
Nebraska would have been better off had the Big 12 been formed back in the '50s. Or even the '80s.
-
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/watchdog-group-commercialization-of-fbs-college-basketball-requires-restructuring-of-ncaa/
It's time.
-
should have only added A&M and Tech
Then the "New Big8" would have died as surely as the old Big 8 did. But you already know that. :)
-
I'm 90% sure there's been a rule set for 10 P5 games. Maybe it hasn't been implemented, but it's a thing, I'm sure of it.
Where has such a rule been made? Who would enforce it? You might be 90% sure there's a rule, but it's most certainly not being enforced. Is there a timeline for implementation?
-
Then the "New Big8" would have died as surely as the old Big 8 did. But you already know that. :)
I didn't think the Big 8 died, but rather they welcomed members of the failed SWC. Am I wrong?
-
I think the Big XII was technically a "new conference" and not an "expansion" of the Big 8.
-
Scheduling zero P5 opponents OOC is a bigger sin than not going from 8 to 9 conference games, sorry. When it comes to the conference games, you've got a lot of entities and opinions and powers out of your control.
Your school's OOC schedule is on you alone. You either decide to schedule someone that can beat you or you don't.
No, it's not.
Going to 9 conference games is the quickest, easiest, surest path to increase the number of total P5 teams on the schedule, because the conference can't control schools' individual OOC schedules but it certainly can control the in-conference schedules.
And the television broadcasting partners-- who wield the most control over conference decisions of ANY oustide entity-- are absolutely on-board with this. In the case of the SEC, it would increase their inventory of SEC vs. SEC games rather than SEC vs. Sunbelt or SEC vs. FCS games. They'd love that, and would pay more for it.
I'm not sure why you bring up fans complaining about the SEC scheduling, when you're complaining about OOC scheduling. Both are issues that can and should be addressed if the goal is to level the playing field.
Nobody here is disagreeing that the SEC currently has no incentive to do so. That's not the discussion being had.
We're not talking about the current system at all, rather we're fantasizing about implementing new rules to force schools into behaviors that they're currently unwilling to perform, behaviors that are intended to level the playing field and increase the level of competition across all conferences. And if that's the goal, then it starts with creating a rule that forces everyone to play the same number of conference games. And then if schools are still unwilling to schedule a 10th P5 game, the next rule is to to force them to do so.
-
I didn't think the Big 8 died, but rather they welcomed members of the failed SWC. Am I wrong?
Conference name changed, league offices moved, all old records for Big 8 and SWC were frozen and B12 records started new in 1996, many Big8 league rules (like rules around allowing NQ, PQ, Prop48 kids) were dramatically changed, new television contracts were signed.
It was designed to be a new conference. Your perception is certainly up to you, though.
-
Was the Big 8 dying? I don't recall anything about that. My memory is that it was a solid conference, with stable membership, for many years.
-
Was the Big 8 dying? I don't recall anything about that. My memory is that it was a solid conference, with stable membership, for many years.
In the new TV era, it was going to die. That's the reason-- the only reason-- that the B8 decided to merge with the Texas schools in the first place.
If the SWC suffered from a TV market perspective (and it did), then the Big 8 was in a far worse position, with even fewer large TV markets.
Merging the 2 conferences still didn't solve all of those TV revenue problems at the time, which is one of several reasons the B12 remained somewhat unstable in its early years. There were plenty of other reasons of course, not the least of which were the numerous 11-1 votes that Fearless mentioned that went against Nebraska and left the NU administration disgruntled.
And then of course, IMO, the worst decision made was NOT maintaining the old Big8's premier rivalry-- Nebraska-Oklahoma-- as an annual game. I've lamented that one many times, even as a SWC fan through my early years I still always enjoyed the NU-OU game.
-
Yeah, that game should have been protected - or played as a non-conference game, in years it was not a conference game.
-
It should still be maintained as a non conference game.
-
They have it on their schedules as an OOC home-and-home for both 2021/2022, and 2029/2030. I suspect interest for those games will be very high.
-
Depends. One of those programs is not what it was. If OU wants to play Big Red, well, that's in Madison.
-
why don't youse cheeseheads start up a baseball program, might be able to beat you at that
did ya really have to grow the volleyball program to dominate the Huskers??? did ya???
-
What were all the 11-1 votes vs Nebraska?
-
every decision that was made forming the new conference
except revenue sharing - Texas and Oklahoma voted with Nebraska on that one
-
Literally every decision but one?
So Nebraska didn't even vote for "Big XII" as the name?
-
I don't think that one went to a vote
:)
-
why don't youse cheeseheads start up a baseball program, might be able to beat you at that
did ya really have to grow the volleyball program to dominate the Huskers??? did ya???
So long as King Barry is breathing, there will be no baseball in Madison. There really is no appetite for it.
He has to get men's hockey and women's hoops fixed.
-
No Baseball, no lacrosse. Wisconsin spring sports are horrible. Just softball, tennis and track? Yuck.
-
Literally every decision but one?
So Nebraska didn't even vote for "Big XII" as the name?
For the record, the name of the conference is and has been Big 12. "XII" is just a logo, like "B1G."
-
every decision that was made forming the new conference
except revenue sharing - Texas and Oklahoma voted with Nebraska on that one
Ha! I'm not sure that one's entirely true. :)
And also, Texas A&M also always voted for unequal revenue sharing, alongside Nebraska, Texas, and OU.
-
For the record, the name of the conference is and has been Big 12. "XII" is just a logo, like "B1G."
Nebraska wanted the Roman numeral, but got out voted 11-1
-
XI - I
-
No Baseball, no lacrosse. Wisconsin spring sports are horrible. Just softball, tennis and track? Yuck.
no golf team!????!!!
-
Golf is a terrible spectator sport.
-
Golf is a terrible spectator sport.
Better than baseball.
-
Baseball you can watch the whole game in one spot.
Golf you either have to pick someone and follow them around, or sit in one spot and watch everyone play the same hole.
Only rowing and cross country would be worse.
-
I spectated the President's cup
from my recliner, didn't even have to make the long flight
-
Better than baseball.
Uhhhh... no. Can't agree with that take, at all.
Baseball isn't the greatest spectator sport in the world, but it ranks about 157,932 spots above golf.
-
(To be honest, I was being flippant.)
I think golf is a MUCH better game to watch on TV. I can't bear to watch baseball on TV.
I'd say baseball is a better game to watch in person. It's still bloody boring as hell, but it's a lot better than on TV.
-
Heh, I'm just having a little fun. too.
I like college baseball, I don't much care for MLB.
Almost anything can be fun to watch in person, I've been to Dell Match Play here in Austin and that was fun, I've been to pro baseball games and that was fun.
But about all I ever watch on TV anymore is football, futbol, and auto racing.
-
The wife would get tickets to the tennis tournament in Cincy each year, they were in a "box" type area, she raved about it, so I went, one year.
It was somewhat interesting for 5 minutes. They are superb athletes for sure (duh).
I really enjoy "playing" baseball these days. I hope to be in decent enough shape that my legs hold out mostly, my shoulder is past redemption. That starts in less than a month now.
-
XI - I
IIXII, 12-2, or 12 (-).
-
I remember when someone told me there was a golf channel - I literally thought they were joking.
*watching paint dry in hushed tones*
Watching golf is basically a lullabye for 50 year old men to fall asleep to. Just stick a mobile over them and call it an afternoon.
-
There is more than one golf channel here. There are 3 or 4 poker channels, nonstop poker tournies.
I can't count how many channels are selling stuff or wanting you to sue Monsanto.
We have channels that are nothing but lawyers wanting to help you sue in a class action, entire 24 hour channels.
Our classical music channel is Number 866, and there are plenty above that I've never even checked. Some of the intervening channels are "premium" including about 50 on porn. Who needs 50 porn channels? Even in my youth I didn't need 50.
-
golf on TV is good for napping
but, I can sleep to a triple overtime NCAA football game in the right situation
-
Heh, I'm just having a little fun. too.
I like college baseball, I don't much care for MLB.
Almost anything can be fun to watch in person, I've been to Dell Match Play here in Austin and that was fun, I've been to pro baseball games and that was fun.
But about all I ever watch on TV anymore is football, futbol, and auto racing.
I loved hockey as a child, then slowly grew away to barely ever watching it. Now as analytics are an increasing part of all sports, I find hockey to be the one sport where they (so far) haven't discovered that the most efficient style of play is a worse version of the sport from a watchability standpoint, I've found myself watching more.
I would love to watch more soccer, but I struggle to get into not having a rooting interest. When I lived in London, Chelsea was the local team where I lived, so I tried to force an adoption, and maybe if I had lived there longer it would have stuck, but it didn't. So I love international soccer, but cant fully get into club play. And by all in, I mean all in. I'm the guy watching Nicaragua-Hondurus Gold Cup pool play games. That's partly why I hate the revamped World Cup format. They basically made two years of qualification games meaningless, to allow more teams into an increasingly fluky tourney.
Golf is the other sport I watch substantially more than I used to. I used to be a Sunday majors only guy, but now, I'll find myself watching Friday coverage of the Houston Open on Golf Network. I wouldn't hate if a few more of these guys had personality though.
-
My sports TV watching is almost only CFB, and some baseball when nothing else is happening. The rest is "well I may watch this for a while". Or not.
The way CFB seems to be headed that could lessen quite a bit as well.
-
Golf is a terrible spectator sport.
Golf is a terrible spectator sport.
You need to go to the Waste Management golf tournament in Phoenix. It is a pretty wild event. Though the spectating is on the spectators. Definitely not your traditional quiet crowd.
-
I think it's great that we have so many options for entertainment, mostly. The wife and I were walking in the park Sunday, beautiful day, and a lot of folks were out and about. And, as you can guess, a large percentage of young folks were walking about with their nose in their phone.
It's great they got out of their apartment, but really?!?!?!
-
I think that if the "don't walk" sign is on at a crosswalk, and the person who goes anyway is on their phone, the driver who hits them should get reimbursed for the dents on his car.
-
The driver is probably on his phone also. I see every day a driver sitting in the left turn lane on his phone, and not going when the light changes.
I use my cell more as a home phone than anything else. I often don't carry it when I'm out. Leave a message.
-
The driver is probably on his phone also. I see every day a driver sitting in the left turn lane on his phone, and not going when the light changes.
I use my cell more as a home phone than anything else. I often don't carry it when I'm out. Leave a message.
This is me, unless I'm on work time. I only have one phone - no extensions at work as I don't really have a base anymore. So, my cell is my home is my work.
-
If we didn't have a playoff, we'd have some split NCs on occasion, and no doubt some minor polls would have their own "champion" (the UCF NC).
I'd be OK with any of that personally. I'm OK with what we have now. I wonder if we had an 8 team playoff if we'd see some "split NCs". The AP/UPI would not be under any onus to agree with the outcome and crown the playoff champion as the Number One.
I can see situations where they might well not.
-
And I'd be okay with that, too.
-
Most folks seem to want to "NFL college football". The 8 team playoff is rather popular, as you all know. It would generate more money, almost certainly, but there is also resistance among important folks. More money usually means things happen, but not in this case. i think the various bowls have some influence in all of this.
The bowls "left out" would be NIT'd.
There is no noun that cannot be verbed.
-
OK, so Mr. "I'm taking this thread off-topic" decides to back on topic.
Well done!
-
OK, so Mr. "I'm taking this thread off-topic" decides to back on topic.
Well done!
I think you mean "Mr. Off Topic'd Re-topic'd."
Or something... ;)
-
"Mr. Change the Topic Back and Forth All over the Place".
-
Domo arigato Mr. Roboto
-
It is interesting that in the pre-BCS system, OU would have a chance at the NC, like they do this year.
Say what you want about the old system, but it HAD to be frustrating to be #2 behind a #1 team who only had to beat #11 or #8 or whatever, due to conference-bowl tie-ins.
-
Some, of us, view bowl games as mostly exhibitions, or something close to that. Today, outside the playoff, they are becoming more akin to that for obvious reasons. It harkens back to when polls were pre bowl and not post bowl and some NCs were won despite a bowl loss.
Teams often are playing short handed, usually the top level teams who have potential first round draft choices. I suspect the minor bowls are still played closer to being "regular games". A 8-4 team would rather be 9-4 than 8-5 (duh), so they all play hard. The NY6 bowl games could see more "upsets" than usual because of this.
Of course, your bowl opponent is likely to be one of the 3 or so best teams you've faced all year, even if they are dogs. Arguably for UGA, you might think Florida, Auburn, ND, and LSU are "better" than Baylor, perhaps, but Baylor is "up there in the mix" I think. They played OU close twice, and had them down bad once. I think Baylor is "misunderestimated" due to helmet, and they may well beat UGA, who is down five starters on offense already.
-
I think only LSU is better than Baylor, out of that list.
-
That could well be true, Florida and Auburn could be viewed as "on a par" with Baylor, maybe ND as well, give or take.
LSu appears to be elite.
-
It is interesting that in the pre-BCS system, OU would have a chance at the NC, like they do this year.
Say what you want about the old system, but it HAD to be frustrating to be #2 behind a #1 team who only had to beat #11 or #8 or whatever, due to conference-bowl tie-ins.
or worse, thinking 1984
-
1984 was a nadir, but 1980 was a something also. Pitt had an excellent team, but lost a game, while UGA skirted with disaster repeatedly but finished 12-0 by beating #7 ranked ND. Had they faced #2 Pitt, well, things might have gone differently.
-
also frustrating if you are #2 and trying to impress voters and get a matchup with a 3 loss AP ranked #12 Oregon Duck team in the 95 Rose bowl
-
I also recall #2 Texas in the Cotton Bowl in 1984. Number 1 had lost earlier in the day, and Texas was crushing an inferior opponent defensively and led 9-3 late in the game and only had to field a punt and run out the clock to win. Muffed it.
-
I also recall #2 Texas in the Cotton Bowl in 1984. Number 1 had lost earlier in the day, and Texas was crushing an inferior opponent defensively and led 9-3 late in the game and only had to field a punt and run out the clock to win. Muffed it.
eff you
-
What if "we" could magically trade a win for a loss? They would have to be equivalent games, major bowl games in particular. You could win one you had lost, but only by losing one you had won.
-
that would be fun
I'd have to trade an Orange bowl win for that 2-point conversion that was missed in the 84 Orange
-
I'll trade the 1/1/2015 Cotton Bowl win for the 12/31/2015 Cotton Bowl loss
-
This is hard, I hate to give up ANY major win of course. :)
I suppose I might trade that 83/84 Cotton Bowl loss to Georgia that CD so politely mentioned above, for the 2004/5 Rose Bowl win against Michigan. As long as Nebraska still lost to Miami that day, and Texas got the MNC.
Although I do really love that Rose Bowl win against Michigan. If Texas had lost that game, it might not have set up the 2005 national championship run.
-
That '84 Texas team was loaded on defense. They clearly should have won. Sorry.
-
That '84 Texas team was loaded on defense. They clearly should have won. Sorry.
heh. That's why they play the games! :)
But yeah that defense was so good. Back then, Texas had good to great defenses EVERY year. I sure miss those days.
-
I do enjoy teams based on strong defenses, so long as the offense is at least middlin'.
-
My researching has revealed 2 things I hadn't realized...
1 - pre-1990, basically everyone ran the ball 70-90% of the time, except for BYU and Miami
2 - most every punt returner stunk and averaged like 4 yards per return.....97% of them were useless.
-
check Johnny "the Jet" Rodgers 1970-1972 Nebraska
Year PR Yds Avg. TDs
1970 - 26 349 13.4 2
1971 - 33 548 16.6 3
1972 - 39 618 15.8 2
Totals - 98 1,515 15.5 7
yes, I noticed you said, "most every"
-
eff you
Of course if we add replay to the mix, or simply Refs paying attention to DBs right in front of them intercepting passes with two feet and entire body roll in bounds, that OU/UT game probably doesn't end in a tie. (of course countless other games would have to be reconciled over history).
-
Of course if we add replay to the mix, or simply Refs paying attention to DBs right in front of them intercepting passes with two feet and entire body roll in bounds, that OU/UT game probably doesn't end in a tie. (of course countless other games would have to be reconciled over history).
You talkin' 'bout 1984.
We're talking about 1983, where the Texas Longhorns dispatched the evil dirt burglars by a score of 28-16.
'84 was a disaster, not even counting that game.
And yeah, you wanna dissect one play like that, and I'll show you 15 more MNCs Texas woulda won. That game could go on all day long.
-
My researching has revealed 2 things I hadn't realized...
1 - pre-1990, basically everyone ran the ball 70-90% of the time, except for BYU and Miami
2 - most every punt returner stunk and averaged like 4 yards per return.....97% of them were useless.
Interesting. The Dawgs had a great one in 1980 that saved them a couple of times, Scott Woerner, 488 yards. I think back then, some teams didn't put much emphasis on special teams play, and a few did.
-
What if "we" could magically trade a win for a loss? They would have to be equivalent games, major bowl games in particular. You could win one you had lost, but only by losing one you had won.
That is an easy one for me, I would trade the early season win over UCLA in 1975 and trade it with a win over UCLA in the Rose Bowl.
-
My researching has revealed 2 things I hadn't realized...
1 - pre-1990, basically everyone ran the ball 70-90% of the time, except for BYU and Miami.
"Only three things can happen when you pass and two of them are bad."
-Woody Hayes
-
check Johnny "the Jet" Rodgers 1970-1972 Nebraska
Year PR Yds Avg. TDs
1970 - 26 349 13.4 2
1971 - 33 548 16.6 3
1972 - 39 618 15.8 2
Totals - 98 1,515 15.5 7
yes, I noticed you said, "most every"
Interesting. The Dawgs had a great one in 1980 that saved them a couple of times, Scott Woerner, 488 yards. I think back then, some teams didn't put much emphasis on special teams play, and a few did.
I honestly think HCs just put whoever could consistently field the punt cleanly back there. They didn't care one bit who could do something with the ball once they caught it. Your Rodgers' and Woerners could happen to do both.
-
didn't seem that way to me
saw plenty of punt returns for TDs at Nebraska during the 80s
-
I dimly recall more exciting kick returns in days of yore than today, perhaps because STs were not emphasized on defense either. FG kickers were rare who could boot from 40 consistently. I think soccer has aided that.
-
What if "we" could magically trade a win for a loss?
I've already tossed my old Lotto tickets
-
didn't seem that way to me
saw plenty of punt returns for TDs at Nebraska during the 80s
Yes, one helmet team.
I'm talking about all sorts of teams over all sorts of years - like hundreds of data points.
-
Was there a larger split in talent between elite teams in 1970 and middlin teams, or about like now?
-
before scholarship limits, there was a larger talent gap
-
I think we need to limit OSU to 60 scholarships. That might help level the field in the Big Ten.
-
I think we need to limit OSU to 60 scholarships. That might help level the field in the Big Ten.
Maybe not, but maybe. Their walk ons would be really good probably. They'd lose some depth of course.
I can't recall the MAJOR upsets back in the day that we seem to have now, those 25+ point underdogs winning.
-
Once players can profit off of their name, image, and likeness, I do wonder if some of the big schools may just expand their preferred walk on programs and have some way for boosters to cover expenses for those players without a scholarship. Autographs, jersey sales, or something along those lines.
-
I think that is inevitable. Someone mentioned car dealerships, which abound in larger college towns.
-
Was there a larger split in talent between elite teams in 1970 and middlin teams, or about like now?
Look up the AP Top 10 polls in the 70s. I believe it was the most homogeneous decade ever. ND, USC, Alabama, OU, OSU, Michigan, Nebraska and Texas were basically taking turns in the top 5 every year. It was helmet program heaven.
-
Yeah, that is my recollection as well, a few other teams broke into the top ten at times.
-
Well of course, but it was dominated by those teams. Look:
1970-1979 by win%:
OU
Alabama
Michigan
Nebraska
Penn St
Ohio St
ND
USC
Texas
Arizona St
.
Now look at the 80s:
Nebraska
Miami
BYU
OU
Clemson
Georgia
Penn St
Florida St
Michigan
Auburn
-
Well of course, but it was dominated by those teams. Look:
1970-1979 by win%:
OU
Alabama
Michigan
Nebraska
Penn St
Ohio St
ND
USC
Texas
Arizona St
.
Now look at the 80s:
Nebraska
Miami
BYU
OU
Clemson
Georgia
Penn St
Florida St
Michigan
Auburn
Do you mind posting it with the win% included?
Because as-is, you can make a claim that the helmets just changed. But if the overall win% of the teams in the top 10 dropped, then it would be an indication of more parity.
-
I can, but the point stands. It isn't merely different "helmets," the 70s list are timeless "helmet programs" in any era.
-
70s:
.877 OU
.863 Alabama
.847 Michigan
.820 Nebraska
.814 Penn St
.811 Ohio St
.805 ND
.803 USC
.770 Texas
.763 Arizona St
.
80s:
.837 Nebraska
.832 Miami
.791 BYU
.773 OU
.767 Clemson
.758 Georgia
.756 Penn St
.752 Florida St
.752 Michigan
.731 Auburn
.
8 teams at 80%+ vs 2.
9 all-time 'forever' helmets vs 4.
-
Exactly. It suggests more parity in the 80s. There were still helmets, but they couldn't exert the same level of dominance.
Thanks for posting the win%. It really helps understand the difference between the rule changes.
-
I wouldn't have ASU in that listing. They were in the WAC for most of the 1970's. Same for BYU in the 1980's. All WAC.
-
I agree, but their inclusion doesn't affect the point being made.
-
While unpacking the remaining boxes, I came across this among other awesome things.
-
While unpacking the remaining boxes, I came across this among other awesome things.
That reminds you that there is no perfect justice in this world.
-
I have that paper
-
Awesome.
A few years ago, maybe around 2012 or so, I was helping my friend's parents move. Her stepdad had the 2006 and 2008 Sports Illustrated commemorative issues for the Gators' national championships and I had the one from back in 96. So I bring it over the next day - and after some convincing him to take it, I thought he was going to cry. He was 60+ years old and it was an obvious good deed. I had perused it many times, remembering the good ole days. But for someone else to have it and truly cherish it, that make a lot of sense.