Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Official (2014-2015) College Football Thread Florida State#1


  • Please log in to reply
2989 replies to this topic

#1171 lordopus99

lordopus99

    Training for the silver

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 November 2010 - 04:25 PM

32 teams is too many. One of the big issues is the number of games being played and the health of the student athletes. 5 (4) extra games will not happen. The most likely is probably a 8 team playoff, which only results in 3 extra games, which is really only 2 extra when you factor in the bowl game.


In the pros, they can play a total of 23 games (4 preseason, 3 playoffs). Asking college teams to play an additional 4 games (the lucky 2) is nothing when you consider they max play 14 games (some conference don't even play that many) currently on the season (9 less than the pros). If anything, it is conditioning these athletes for a future career in the NFL. Hockey, a sport just as physical, plays 3 times the amount of football games in college (34+4 playoffs).

#1172 A Happy Panda

A Happy Panda

    not as happy as you think

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 November 2010 - 04:50 PM

That's all fine and good...but the health of players is still the big factor you know that right? All the opponents of the playoff system lean on that, and I can see their point, as much as I want the BCS to die.

The NFL thing is a bad example. The players were not happy that their regular season got extended to 17 games, why? Health reasons. These guys endure enough injuries throughout the season, and so many of them experience such terrible health conditions after their careers, I again see their point. You know why the Pro Bowl is the worst all-star event in pro sports? No one wants to play. Why? Injuries. Also, asking a STUDENT to play more games is completely different than asking a PROFESSIONAL to play more games. The pro gets paid and its their job. The student athlete plays enough games to have good conditioning, and they also play enough games to get noticed by NFL scouts, and even then, what, less than 8% of college football players in all levels of college football have a NFL career?

Comparing hockey to football in terms of physicality and the toll that it takes on a player's body is just ludicrous. I'm willing to bet everyone in this thread agrees with me on that point.

#1173 BlueLobstah

BlueLobstah

    Do you...want my carrots?

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 November 2010 - 04:50 PM

Realistically a 8-16 playoff would be ideal, do you really need more than that? The good team are bound to be well within that range and you would only be adding 3-4 games, and that's only for the teams that go all the way. Otherwise the rest are going to have 1-2 additional games.

Another argument against 32 team playoff would be injuries. These are student athletes who don't get paid for their time. Do we really want to extend a season by 4-5 more games and have a much greater risk of a player getting injured?

Posted Image

SSBB: blue - 4897-5594-5432
MKWii: Jason - 0344-9687-4928


#1174 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 04 November 2010 - 04:57 PM

Yeah, 8-16 team playoffs at most. More than that is too long, and waters down the regular season too much.

I get the player health concerns, but the lower levels do a 16 team playoff with no real complaints about injuries etc. That's the real valid comparison that makes concern about injuries, missed classes etc. moot--not silly comparisons to the NFL. The lower levels that have real student atheletes do it with no problems.

It could also be paired with shortining the regular season down to 10 or 11 games to help off set it.

College football needs a playoff soon or I'm going to give up on the sport. I'm already paying MUCH less attention to it than I did years ago. Just a bunch of pointless exhibition games at the end of the day until there's a playoff.

3DS Friend Code: 2595-0524-8826

Bluray Collection
DVD Collection


#1175 A Happy Panda

A Happy Panda

    not as happy as you think

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 November 2010 - 05:08 PM

It could also be paired with shortining the regular season down to 10 or 11 games to help off set it.


I would say get rid of the non-conference games. Everyone ends up at around 11 games, and at most, say with a 16 team playoff, you play 4 extra games, which in reality is 3 since one would normally be a bowl game. Also by eliminating the non-conf. teams, teams can't pad their records, and those non-conf. games would be made up for during the playoffs.

But even then, 16 team playoff seems excessive. Who in their right mind is talking about the 16th ranked team and how THEY deserve a title shot? I think with 8, you typically have 8 legitimate teams who all have a right to be considered.

#1176 MasterSun1

MasterSun1

    Already Guilty

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 November 2010 - 05:51 PM

Florida has the fastest players in college football (they have won Track championships) in Chris Rainey and Jeff Demps and you see what has happened this year to UF. At one time, people believed Urban Meyer was the genius. No Tebow and he now looks like a guy who doesn't develop players. As for SEC overrated, strong talk for a team that plays no one and when they played someone in the recent years (Boise St, Ohio St) they came up real short.


That's called bad recruiting to not have a QB that fits your system. Not a bright move letting Cam Newton leave. That's on the coach and his staff.

There you go discounting Pac-10 competition. The fact is that Pac-10 is fairly deep majority of the years and pretty much no game is a gimme (except WSU this year). It's why Stanford, OSU, and UCLA have all knocked off USC in the past. If Oregon beats an SEC team this year, I can only hope SEC homers would shut up for a few moments, but it's not going to happen. SEC is a tough conference, but not as tough as all the homers make it out to be. The East Coast bias is still at work. How? Florida, Texas, Georgia were all ranked at the beginning of the season. Arizona and Stanford were not yet are on the cusp of being Top 10 teams. A 1 or 2-loss SEC team would beat out other schools with 1-2 losses for a spot in the national championship game and usually there's not reason for it. See USC in 2003. They had a better "resume" than LSU and Oklahoma, but those 2 teams got the bid. The humans knew this in the AP poll, but the computers who don't actually see the games got it wrong.

I'll give you that Oregon lost to Boise State and Ohio State last year (and BSU the year before that, but there was a big QB injury from an illegal spear, but anyways). Those teams were better than Oregon that day. I would love for Oregon to have a rematch against them this year, but it won't happen. There's nothing to gain from beating them as everyone will just continue to say BSU and Big 10 are overrated. Beat an SEC team and that's a statement.

Preseason rankings are dumb and yet they play a big roll in who gets to the title game.

#1177 lordopus99

lordopus99

    Training for the silver

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 November 2010 - 09:28 PM

That's called bad recruiting to not have a QB that fits your system. Not a bright move letting Cam Newton leave. That's on the coach and his staff.


I agree. No reason for Brantley to show up if not in a system where he sits in shotgun and passes. As for Newton... Newton left when Tebow came back as a Senior. It had to do with him wanting to play. There was no way Meyer was going to bench "the legend Tebow" over Newton.

There you go discounting Pac-10 competition. The fact is that Pac-10 is fairly deep majority of the years and pretty much no game is a gimme (except WSU this year). It's why Stanford, OSU, and UCLA have all knocked off USC in the past.


The Pac-10 normally is run by 2 teams. This year is the exception in which it appears 3 are running it (should have been four but Oregon St hasn't lived up to the hype); granted Arizona still has to play Stanford and Oregon so it could really be just 2.

All good teams could lose on any given day. It doesn't necessarily make the other team a good team.

If Oregon beats an SEC team this year, I can only hope SEC homers would shut up for a few moments, but it's not going to happen.


If they play one of the better teams in the SEC and beat them, then they finally proved themselves. So no hate if that happens. Beating Tennessee is not validation as they are the worst team in the SEC this year.

SEC is a tough conference, but not as tough as all the homers make it out to be. The East Coast bias is still at work. How? Florida, Texas, Georgia were all ranked at the beginning of the season. Arizona and Stanford were not yet are on the cusp of being Top 10 teams.


Like you stated later, it is preseason rankings. They don't matter unless everyone goes undefeated, which doesn't happen. I stated way earlier in this thread prior to the season that I felt Florida was way overrated as they lost every weapon on both offense and defense. I expected them to come back down like my team and Miami have been.

Arizona and Stanford just replaced USC and Oregon St who were both preseason ranked. Just like how South Carolina and Mississippi St replaced Florida and Georgia.

A 1 or 2-loss SEC team would beat out other schools with 1-2 losses for a spot in the national championship game and usually there's not reason for it. See USC in 2003. They had a better "resume" than LSU and Oklahoma, but those 2 teams got the bid. The humans knew this in the AP poll, but the computers who don't actually see the games got it wrong.


USC loss to Cal was a worse loss than Oklahoma losing in the Big 12 Championship. It wasn't like 2004 where Auburn got screwed out of playing USC for the National Championship, when they were a far superior team than Oklahoma.

I'll give you that Oregon lost to Boise State and Ohio State last year (and BSU the year before that, but there was a big QB injury from an illegal spear, but anyways). Those teams were better than Oregon that day.


Illegal spear... You keep telling me teams are more than 1 player so that shouldn't be the excuse :lol:

Comparing hockey to football in terms of physicality and the toll that it takes on a player's body is just ludicrous. I'm willing to bet everyone in this thread agrees with me on that point.


Hockey players get just as many concussions if not more (as alot are not reported). You get hit just as hard when checked into plastic boards by a player just as big as a linebacker going at a higher speed than them due to be on skates. Falling on ice is a lot harder than falling on grass as there is no give. Hockey allows fighting. There is always a risk to a blade cutting someone (youtube it) or getting sliced by a hockey stick. Add in the fact that their protective equipment is alot less than a football player.

Edited by lordopus99, 04 November 2010 - 09:43 PM.


#1178 MasterSun1

MasterSun1

    Already Guilty

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 November 2010 - 09:54 PM

USC loss to Cal was a worse loss than Oklahoma losing in the Big 12 Championship. It wasn't like 2004 where Auburn got screwed out of playing USC for the National Championship, when they were a far superior team than Oklahoma.


USC lost in triple OT to Cal and won the Pac-10. Oklahoma got pounded (lost by 28 points) and didn't even win the Big 12. They should have never even been considered to play in the title game. But I do agree that Auburn got screwed by the BCS with Oklahoma going to the title game in 2004-05 and getting destroyed by USC.

#1179 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 04 November 2010 - 10:20 PM

Jesus christ, the two of you have been arguing the same shit in this thread for like a month. Give it a damn rest or take it to PMs already.

3DS Friend Code: 2595-0524-8826

Bluray Collection
DVD Collection


#1180 A Happy Panda

A Happy Panda

    not as happy as you think

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 November 2010 - 11:37 PM

Hockey players get just as many concussions if not more (as alot are not reported). You get hit just as hard when checked into plastic boards by a player just as big as a linebacker going at a higher speed than them due to be on skates. Falling on ice is a lot harder than falling on grass as there is no give. Hockey allows fighting. There is always a risk to a blade cutting someone (youtube it) or getting sliced by a hockey stick. Add in the fact that their protective equipment is alot less than a football player.


Hockey players are as big as linebackers? What planet are you living on right now? I don't recall a lot of 250 pound defense men in the NHL. I also don't recall 220 pound hockey players getting demolished by guys who can weigh more than 100 pounds more than them like in football.

Great. Hockey allows fighting...and? Two guys grab each other's jerseys and play grab ass for 30 seconds before refs come break it up. You really think that if the NHL actually thought for a second that their players could REALLY hurt each other during these fights, they'd let them keep doing it? The only thing I agree with here is the fact that these guys have skates and sticks, which can be very dangerous. I've seen the videos where guys get sliced by a skate, it's a legitimate danger. But Football? You're asked to literally fling your whole body weight as fast and as hard as you can at someone 40 - 50x a game.

#1181 lordopus99

lordopus99

    Training for the silver

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 05 November 2010 - 12:42 AM

Hockey players are as big as linebackers? What planet are you living on right now? I don't recall a lot of 250 pound defense men in the NHL. I also don't recall 220 pound hockey players getting demolished by guys who can weigh more than 100 pounds more than them like in football.

Great. Hockey allows fighting...and? Two guys grab each other's jerseys and play grab ass for 30 seconds before refs come break it up. You really think that if the NHL actually thought for a second that their players could REALLY hurt each other during these fights, they'd let them keep doing it? The only thing I agree with here is the fact that these guys have skates and sticks, which can be very dangerous. I've seen the videos where guys get sliced by a skate, it's a legitimate danger. But Football? You're asked to literally fling your whole body weight as fast and as hard as you can at someone 40 - 50x a game.


You are correct. They are not the same weight as football players. They are just on skates that take a 200 lbs person around 25-30 mph i.e. faster than football players. Since this is a college football thread, I finish this discussion with a hit from last season. I haven't seen anything in football this past season that has been as hard hit as this guy.


USC lost in triple OT to Cal and won the Pac-10. Oklahoma got pounded (lost by 28 points) and didn't even win the Big 12. They should have never even been considered to play in the title game.


If the Big 12 followed the way the Pac 10 and Big 10 determines their champion, they would have won as they had the best record in the Big 12. But they play a championship game...

#1182 MasterSun1

MasterSun1

    Already Guilty

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 05 November 2010 - 05:28 AM

If the Big 12 followed the way the Pac 10 and Big 10 determines their champion, they would have won as they had the best record in the Big 12. But they play a championship game...


Big 10 doesn't play a round robin schedule like the Pac-10 does. You can't say Oklahoma would've made the title game as they don't play everyone in their conference.

#1183 lordopus99

lordopus99

    Training for the silver

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 05 November 2010 - 02:04 PM

Big 10 doesn't play a round robin schedule like the Pac-10 does. You can't say Oklahoma would've made the title game as they don't play everyone in their conference.


Having to play one of the of the better teams in the conference at the end of the year (the pressure of staying undefeated) can cause teams to shake up i.e. Kansas St that year. Kansas St got beat by Texas 24-20; that same Texas team got destroyed by Oklahoma 65-13. The two teams Oklahoma didn't play from their conference that year were Kansas (6 losses i.e. non-factor) and Nebraska (another team that lost to Texas). What benefit is it to show the world you can beat up on Kansas, Washington, etc??? Showing me you can beat the best/2nd best team in crunch time i.e. end of year it shows miles better than winning them early on and walking into bowl season by smashing inferior opponents.

#1184 MasterSun1

MasterSun1

    Already Guilty

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 05 November 2010 - 08:25 PM

Having to play one of the of the better teams in the conference at the end of the year (the pressure of staying undefeated) can cause teams to shake up i.e. Kansas St that year. Kansas St got beat by Texas 24-20; that same Texas team got destroyed by Oklahoma 65-13. The two teams Oklahoma didn't play from their conference that year were Kansas (6 losses i.e. non-factor) and Nebraska (another team that lost to Texas). What benefit is it to show the world you can beat up on Kansas, Washington, etc??? Showing me you can beat the best/2nd best team in crunch time i.e. end of year it shows miles better than winning them early on and walking into bowl season by smashing inferior opponents.


If we're playing "what ifs", then what if Oklahoma played Kansas State in the course of the regular season instead of the title game? Probably same result, Oklahoma getting smashed. If you beat a team once, you should be able to beat them again. There's no need to play a re-match (reason Ohio State and Michigan didn't play each other in the title game a few years back).

Winning your conference should be a requirement to even be considered for the title game. Oklahoma getting in that year was a sham and everyone knows it. Same with Nebraska in 2000.

#1185 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 06 November 2010 - 03:41 PM

Absurd that the Utah-TCU game is only on CBS-C. Thankfully I get that channel since I have the DirecTV sports pack. But you'd think ESPN or another network would have found a way to get the rights to that game, or ESPN would have moved it or the Bama-LSU game to primetime and shown in nationally etc.

3DS Friend Code: 2595-0524-8826

Bluray Collection
DVD Collection


#1186 fatmanforlife99

fatmanforlife99

    I need a weapon.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 November 2010 - 04:17 PM

Absurd that the Utah-TCU game is only on CBS-C. Thankfully I get that channel since I have the DirecTV sports pack. But you'd think ESPN or another network would have found a way to get the rights to that game, or ESPN would have moved it or the Bama-LSU game to primetime and shown in nationally etc.



Yeah its bullshit, second year in a row they have done this. I mean I am not a TCU fan, but I like to watch them play. I thought they showed MWC and Pac 10 games on Versus, looks at the upcoming games and they do show TCU playing new mexico, how lame.

There are those who said this day would never come. What are they to say now?

 

 

 

 


#1187 lordopus99

lordopus99

    Training for the silver

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 November 2010 - 04:49 PM

Absurd that the Utah-TCU game is only on CBS-C. Thankfully I get that channel since I have the DirecTV sports pack. But you'd think ESPN or another network would have found a way to get the rights to that game, or ESPN would have moved it or the Bama-LSU game to primetime and shown in nationally etc.


CBS always uses their 3:30 slot for SEC games for their game of the week. You can blame the Mountain West for this game not showing. They left the ESPN deal for CBS. CBS has always been home for the SEC so the conference should have realized that it's big games weren't going to get played like they once had with ESPN and that they would be stuck to CBS-C and their MW network (i.e. limiting the amount of people seeing their games). I guess that is why Utah is leaving for Pac-10, BYU is going independent, and now there is rumor that TCU might join the Big East...

#1188 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 06 November 2010 - 04:53 PM

Sure, but CBS could have put this game in prime time if they wanted. No late game on CBS tonight--at least not in my region. Like I said, moot for me since I get CBS-C, but absurd that a match up of #3 and #5 in the BCS is on such a limited channel.

And yep, it seems like the expansion wave may be getting ready to go again. Rumors of TCU to the Big East--with Villanova moving up to D1 and UCF taking their place if they decide not to move up.

And some rumblings on message boards that all that might be the Big East trying to pre-emptively start surviving another ACC raid. I don't put much stock into these rumors yet, but the rumors are that WVU, Pitt, Syracuse and UCONN may be going to the ACC and ESPN offering to up the new TV contract to more than offset splitting money another 4 ways. But just board rumors on a few Big East and ACC team sites at this point, so take it with a HUGE grain of salt.

3DS Friend Code: 2595-0524-8826

Bluray Collection
DVD Collection


#1189 Matt Young

Matt Young

    Follow the buzzards

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 November 2010 - 05:55 PM

Despite always being a big fan of pro sports, I've never really been a big fan of the college game- football or basketball. I keep up with it, but I only watch games occasionally, usually when Illinois is on. But I'm glad I tuned in to Illinois vs. Michigan today.... incredible 1st half; tied 31-31.

155toba.gif2i6pefo.gif675n9f.gifhsl3pl.gif


#1190 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 06 November 2010 - 06:03 PM

Yeah, this Michigan game has been crazy. Ton of turnovers and big plays in the first half.

3DS Friend Code: 2595-0524-8826

Bluray Collection
DVD Collection


#1191 fatmanforlife99

fatmanforlife99

    I need a weapon.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 November 2010 - 09:46 PM

What a beat down by TCU

There are those who said this day would never come. What are they to say now?

 

 

 

 


#1192 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 06 November 2010 - 09:47 PM

Yep. Guess this wasn't worthy of national TV. :lol:

And what a crazy game UM-Illinois was. 67-65 Michigan in 3OTs.

3DS Friend Code: 2595-0524-8826

Bluray Collection
DVD Collection


#1193 fatmanforlife99

fatmanforlife99

    I need a weapon.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 November 2010 - 09:53 PM

yeah pretty wild game.

There are those who said this day would never come. What are they to say now?

 

 

 

 


#1194 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 06 November 2010 - 11:08 PM

And TCU wins 47-7. LSU knocks of Alabama, so Bama is out of the title hunt.

Hopefully Bama can beat Auburn so at least one of TCU/Boise will get in the title game.

3DS Friend Code: 2595-0524-8826

Bluray Collection
DVD Collection


#1195 fatmanforlife99

fatmanforlife99

    I need a weapon.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 November 2010 - 11:10 PM

TCU will be number 1 this week, but they will need oregon or auburn to loose for the title.

There are those who said this day would never come. What are they to say now?

 

 

 

 


#1196 MasterSun1

MasterSun1

    Already Guilty

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 November 2010 - 11:12 PM

TCU will be number 1 this week, but they will need oregon or auburn to loose for the title.


Umm, no chance TCU jumps Oregon or Auburn. They'll remain #3 in the human polls, but might jump up to #1 or #2 in the computers. That's not good enough to reach #1 or #2 in the BCS.

#1197 A Happy Panda

A Happy Panda

    not as happy as you think

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 November 2010 - 12:00 AM

TCU has to jump to at least 2. It's too hard to ignore a #3 team putting the smackdown on a #5 on the road.

#1198 fatmanforlife99

fatmanforlife99

    I need a weapon.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 November 2010 - 01:02 AM

Umm, no chance TCU jumps Oregon or Auburn. They'll remain #3 in the human polls, but might jump up to #1 or #2 in the computers. That's not good enough to reach #1 or #2 in the BCS.



With all the debating you do in this thread you really have no common sense. Let me break it down for you.

TCU completely demolishes number five Utah, not by 21, 28 or 35, but 40 fucking points. I don't care who you play on your schedule, you will jump from 3 to 1 everytime.

I like Oregon and Auburn, but beating an under 500 Washington and Chattanooga does not make them better this week. I am not saying it will stay this way, but they will be number one Sunday night. I know your going to say Utah was overrated, but that's not TCU's fault. The only people that will be voting Oregon and auburn this week are their home state and conference writers.


edit: Damn A&M, is not playing around

There are those who said this day would never come. What are they to say now?

 

 

 

 


#1199 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 07 November 2010 - 01:32 AM

Margin of victory doesn't factor into any of the computer rankings though, so that's moot. And I doubt the human pollsters will jump them over Auburn or Oregon even with the beat down.

TCU will gain ground in the computers from strength of schedule since they beat the #5 team, while Auburn beat a lower division team and Oregon a bad BCS team. But probably not enough to make up the pretty big gap between them and Auburn in last weeks BCS points ranking.

Just the way it is, not saying that's how it should be.

3DS Friend Code: 2595-0524-8826

Bluray Collection
DVD Collection


#1200 MasterSun1

MasterSun1

    Already Guilty

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 November 2010 - 01:51 AM

With all the debating you do in this thread you really have no common sense. Let me break it down for you.

TCU completely demolishes number five Utah, not by 21, 28 or 35, but 40 fucking points. I don't care who you play on your schedule, you will jump from 3 to 1 everytime.

I like Oregon and Auburn, but beating an under 500 Washington and Chattanooga does not make them better this week. I am not saying it will stay this way, but they will be number one Sunday night. I know your going to say Utah was overrated, but that's not TCU's fault. The only people that will be voting Oregon and auburn this week are their home state and conference writers.


We'll see who has no common sense when the polls are released tomorrow. TCU isn't going to jump to #1 or #2 in the human polls, especially since Oregon and Auburn won their games handily. TCU is a great team, but they exposed Utah as a above average team.