(09-25-2010 08:16 PM)SouthGAEagle Wrote:  Another team didn't get the Sagarin memo....

Northern Illinois 7
Minnesota 3
14:11 2nd

You crazy Huskies! How dare you try to beat the obviously better Big Ten opponent!

You're right! Upsets never happen! That's exactly what I said! Let's just take the rankings from pre-season, shut 'er down, and declare the season over!

(09-25-2010 08:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 08:16 PM)SouthGAEagle Wrote:  Another team didn't get the Sagarin memo....

Northern Illinois 7
Minnesota 3
14:11 2nd

You crazy Huskies! How dare you try to beat the obviously better Big Ten opponent!

You're right! Upsets never happen! That's exactly what I said! Let's just take the rankings from pre-season, shut 'er down, and declare the season over!

Would this really be an upset? Minn. has already lost to a I-AA team this year.

(09-25-2010 08:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You're right! Upsets never happen! That's exactly what I said! Let's just take the rankings from pre-season, shut 'er down, and declare the season over!

But. . . but. . . . but. . . . They've got one of those spiffy AQ patches on their jerseys. That makes them more deserving of access to money and prestige, win or lose, right?

(09-25-2010 09:12 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 08:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You're right! Upsets never happen! That's exactly what I said! Let's just take the rankings from pre-season, shut 'er down, and declare the season over!

But. . . but. . . . but. . . . They've got one of those spiffy AQ patches on their jerseys. That makes them more deserving of access to money and prestige, win or lose, right?

No, it just means that, statistically speaking, they're probably going to be a better team.

I see the WAC hard-on BCS-is-the-man-keepin-you-down crowd hasn't got much to say over mighty Ole Miss punishing Fresno State right now. Or that Kansas team you like to bring up so much blowing out New Mexico State. So allow me:

Ole Miss 48
Fresno State 24
8:30 4th

Kansas 42
New Mexico State 16
Final

Minnesota 16
Northern Illinois 20
2:30 3rd

California 3
#14 Arizona 0
9:50 2nd ... somebody forgot to tell Arizona you still have to play after big wins

(09-25-2010 06:56 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 05:59 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I see nobody has noticed this score...

UCLA 34
Texas 12
FINAL

I sent a text to a guy that works for me about that one.....

He wasn't happy

I've got a friend who graduated from Texas. I've already messed with him. And like your employee, he wasn't at all happy about that game...

(09-25-2010 09:55 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 06:56 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 05:59 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I see nobody has noticed this score...

UCLA 34
Texas 12
FINAL

I sent a text to a guy that works for me about that one.....

He wasn't happy

I've got a friend who graduated from Texas. I've already messed with him. And like your employee, he wasn't at all happy about that game...

He's a huge UT fan and came to us from Austin, Texas :D His jeep is that burnt orange too...

(09-25-2010 08:19 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 06:28 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 06:09 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 03:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 02:49 PM)SouthGAEagle Wrote:  Oh yeah. The Big XII and SEC have an unfair disadvantage too.... Why can't they get the easy OOC schedules that the WAC get?

P.S. Whatever helps you sleep at night, GTS.... Give C-USA a $17 million/year check and lets see where we stand.

It's a free market. Let them earn it. Go collect a BCS payday ... it's not that hard relatively speaking for non-AQs to do anymore.

The BCS is NOT a free-market system. Yes it is still hard for non-AQs to get a BCS check. All it takes is one loss, regardless of opponent or margin of loss, and there's no chance. Meanwhile, a four loss ACC or Big East team can make it instead, just because they are members of the cartel. And there are BCS leeches that get big chunks of $ from the successes of the conference mates.

It is indeed a free market. If you control the TVs you control the system. Unless you think we're all just buddy-buddy with Notre Dame?

Let me ask you this: would Boise State EVER ... EVER play in the Fiesta Bowl if there were no BCS?

Playing in the Fiesta Bowl is not the ultimate goal in CFB. Winning a national championship is. With the BCS, non-AQs can win every game on their schedule and not have a chance to win one. Before the BCS, BYU won one by playing in the Holiday Bowl.

All the cartel members have to do is refuse to play them, then say "Oh, well they haven't played anybody. Better put a three loss $EC team ahead of them." In a free market, firms are not blocked from competing with industry leaders.

Free Market and BCS used in the same argument? I won't doubt some conferences are tougher than others and I won't doubt some teams are better than others but the perpetuation of the system saying only 6 conferences are worthy to be guaranteed bids in a pool of teams to make substantially more than others is very biased. Then you also perpetuate the fact that those magical six are "better" conferences so they get rated a higher SOS, the money from the BCS keeps their finances going to get better recruits.... the BCS system perpetuates the haves and have nots regardless of whatever spin you want to put on it.

(09-25-2010 09:54 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 09:12 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(09-25-2010 08:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You're right! Upsets never happen! That's exactly what I said! Let's just take the rankings from pre-season, shut 'er down, and declare the season over!

But. . . but. . . . but. . . . They've got one of those spiffy AQ patches on their jerseys. That makes them more deserving of access to money and prestige, win or lose, right?

No, it just means that, statistically speaking, they're probably going to be a better team.

I see the WAC hard-on BCS-is-the-man-keepin-you-down crowd hasn't got much to say over mighty Ole Miss punishing Fresno State right now. Or that Kansas team you like to bring up so much blowing out New Mexico State. So allow me:

Ole Miss 48
Fresno State 24
8:30 4th

Kansas 42
New Mexico State 16
Final

Minnesota 16
Northern Illinois 20
2:30 3rd

California 3
#14 Arizona 0
9:50 2nd ... somebody forgot to tell Arizona you still have to play after big wins

Just wanted to make sure I understand...

That same Kansas team that beat GT also beat New Mexico St. (who just happens to be ranked 180th and worst in the WAC by Sagarin)...shocking.

That Cal team that is beating Arizona 6-0 just happened to lose to lowly WAC member Nevada by 21, just last week.

(09-25-2010 10:33 PM)blah Wrote:  Just wanted to make sure I understand...

That same Kansas team that beat GT also beat New Mexico St. (who just happens to be ranked 180th and worst in the WAC by Sagarin)...shocking.

That Cal team that is beating Arizona 6-0 just happened to lose to lowly WAC member Nevada by 21, just last week.

Of course! Playing through the WAC is like playing through a series of NFL Pro Bowl teams. Arizona is losing because Cal got SOOOOO much better playing the Superfriends that is Nevada. It's tough to win one at the Justice League. I mean just LOOK at the domination going on out there:

Idaho 34
Colorado State 36

Southern Miss 13
Louisiana Tech 12

Kansas 42
New Mexico State 16

Ole Miss 55
Fresno State 38

Utah 56
San Jose State 3

San Diego State 41
Utah State 7

==============

Nevada 27
BYU 13

Boise State 37
Oregon State 24

==============

San Diego State for national champs. If they can blowout the '72 Dolphins caliber powerhouse that is mighty WAC member Utah State ... by golly they'd surely house Alabama.

There you go. Hung up on conferences again. You sure you're not an SEC fan?

Contrary to most SEC fans' opinions, conferences don't play for national titles, teams do.

You're practically defending something that you said sucks. It is a system that perpetuates itself. A system centered around a sport that doesn't play like sports were intended. Fairly.

(09-26-2010 10:44 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  There you go. Hung up on conferences again. You sure you're not an SEC fan?

Contrary to most SEC fans' opinions, conferences don't play for national titles, teams do.

You're practically defending something that you said sucks. It is a system that perpetuates itself. A system centered around a sport that doesn't play like sports were intended. Fairly.

No, I'm giving blah **** because he thinks the WAC is a better conference than the ACC, and just cannot fathom how the Sagarin puts the WAC alot lower than the ACC. This started over me pointing out that Boise State wouldn't be in the title discussion if they played in a BCS conference ... possible exception granted to the Big East and ACC which are both very down this year. But even with VT turning in a terrible game in a down year ... they still nearly beat Boise. My other point was that an undefeated team in the Pac-10/Big-10/Big-12/SEC is more worthy than Boise .... even a 1-loss team in those conferences is ... because they play such a radically more difficult schedule.

(09-26-2010 02:53 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-26-2010 10:44 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  There you go. Hung up on conferences again. You sure you're not an SEC fan?

Contrary to most SEC fans' opinions, conferences don't play for national titles, teams do.

You're practically defending something that you said sucks. It is a system that perpetuates itself. A system centered around a sport that doesn't play like sports were intended. Fairly.

No, I'm giving blah **** because he thinks the WAC is a better conference than the ACC, and just cannot fathom how the Sagarin puts the WAC alot lower than the ACC. This started over me pointing out that Boise State wouldn't be in the title discussion if they played in a BCS AQ conference ... possible exception granted to the Big East and ACC which are both very down this year. But even with VT turning in a terrible game in a down year ... they still nearly beat Boise. My other point was that an undefeated team in the Pac-10/Big-10/Big-12/SEC is more worthy than Boise .... even a 1-loss team in those conferences is ... because they play such a radically more difficult schedule.

How do you know how they'd perform against these teams? History shows them playing fairly well.

(09-26-2010 03:58 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  How do you know how they'd perform against these teams? History shows them playing fairly well.

Being there every week against decent to hard competition is alot more difficult than showing up 3 times a year for decent to hard competition then punching the clock.

It's like when GT had Joe Hamilton as QB in the late 90's. I didn't give a damn about anybody on the schedule except Clemson, Georgia, and FSU. They'd be able to turn in complete filth and still beat the rest of the conference by two or more touchdowns. They rarely turned in a crappy or tired performance against Clemson or UGAg or FSU ... because they were ramping up for it for 2-3 weeks. It's a far different story slogging through the death march of conference play today ... even in today's ACC. Sure ... there are zero and I mean zero elite teams like FSU was in the late 90's. But if you show up and just punch the clock against anybody other than Duke ... you could get embarrassed. It's orders of magnitude more difficult in, particularly this year, the Pac-10 and SEC.

BTW, after that stellar week, the WAC dropped further. Still #9, but C-USA is just a point behind.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

Boise's SOS is 19th ... give it 2 to 3 weeks in WAC play and it will be sub-50. By the end of the year it'll probably be in triple digits.

By virtue of not losing to the MAC, the ACC actually rose to #4. Well, more accurately the Big 10 fell to #5.

(09-26-2010 02:53 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-26-2010 10:44 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  There you go. Hung up on conferences again. You sure you're not an SEC fan?

Contrary to most SEC fans' opinions, conferences don't play for national titles, teams do.

You're practically defending something that you said sucks. It is a system that perpetuates itself. A system centered around a sport that doesn't play like sports were intended. Fairly.

the Big East and ACC which are both very down this year.

this year?

(09-26-2010 05:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-26-2010 03:58 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  How do you know how they'd perform against these teams? History shows them playing fairly well.

Being there every week against decent to hard competition is alot more difficult than showing up 3 times a year for decent to hard competition then punching the clock.

Complete conjecture. We'll never know how they'd play week-in and week-out because the "elite" teams won't play them week-in and week-out. It's a great argument because it can never be proved false.

(09-26-2010 06:48 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(09-26-2010 05:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-26-2010 03:58 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  How do you know how they'd perform against these teams? History shows them playing fairly well.

Being there every week against decent to hard competition is alot more difficult than showing up 3 times a year for decent to hard competition then punching the clock.

Complete conjecture. We'll never know how they'd play week-in and week-out because the "elite" teams won't play them week-in and week-out. It's a great argument because it can never be proved false.

To see my argument in action, look at March Madness. It's actually TO THE ADVANTAGE of the "little guy" there because the number of scholarship athletes you need to field an elite team is FAR lower than football. And still -- how often to the "little guys" make it even to the Elite Eight?

(09-26-2010 08:15 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  To see my argument in action, look at March Madness. It's actually TO THE ADVANTAGE of the "little guy" there because the number of scholarship athletes you need to field an elite team is FAR lower than football. And still -- how often to the "little guys" make it even to the Elite Eight?

Since the odds are already slim, go ahead and make them non-existent.

And they make it often enough. They made it more often before the proliferation of the BCS and commercialization of football on TV. Just like "the little guy" made it more often in FB before the BCS and its predecessors.

(09-26-2010 08:30 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  Since the odds are already slim, go ahead and make them non-existent.

And they make it often enough. They made it more often before the proliferation of the BCS and commercialization of football on TV. Just like "the little guy" made it more often in FB before the BCS and its predecessors.

I don't buy the less often under the BCS argument. And I think the BCS actually raises the ceiling. That's not to say it's perfect -- again... I favor a playoff.

(09-26-2010 08:35 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-26-2010 08:30 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  Since the odds are already slim, go ahead and make them non-existent.

And they make it often enough. They made it more often before the proliferation of the BCS and commercialization of football on TV. Just like "the little guy" made it more often in FB before the BCS and its predecessors.

I don't buy the less often under the BCS argument. And I think the BCS actually raises the ceiling. That's not to say it's perfect -- again... I favor a playoff.

I agree in that, right now, I doubt that the best non-AQ could beat the best AQ. But what we have right now is only going to keep it like that. They draw a clear line between the haves and have-nots. The BCS is better for the smaller teams than what was there before, but in a way, it is worse because it only promotes the idea that the patch on your uniform makes you a better team and program. If you don't have the right patch you have to start at zero to maybe get in the mix (and you take a harder test) compared to the patch that gives you 20 points before you even start.

This is fine in life, because life isn't fair. But sports are supposed to be.