Jump to content

HailtotheYo

The Donators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,261

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by HailtotheYo

  2. 2016 College Football Thread

    in Myke's Sports Bar

    Posted

    Gotta disagree on the '97 Heisman.  I mean you could argue Peyton wasn't the best QB in '97.  You could also argue that most people thought he should win it for his career and not just for the 97 season.  You talk about the one game ... but in honesty when you're talking about Heisman players it often is about the collective PLUS did they do it in the "big one" for their team?  Woodson did (and displayed ALL of the aspects that won him the award) and Manning didn't. 

    I mean Tee Freaking Martin took the exact same team the next year and did it all .... just saying. 

    • Like 1

  6. 2016 College Football Thread

    in Myke's Sports Bar

    Posted

    He's in the conversation because he's the best athlete in college football.  He's the BIG10 Special Teams, Linebacker, and Defensive Player of the year.  He also won the Paul Hornung Award (most versatile player). 

    Also, this is the most shit year for standout players I can remember in a loooooooooooong time.

    • Like 1

  7. The Best MLS Season Ever Thread (2016 obviously)

    in Myke's Sports Bar

    Posted

    IVES reporting that ATL and CLB have agreed on a trade sending Parkhurst to ATL and Allocation Money to CLB.  ATL also reportedly chasing 3 players from Newell's Old Boys (coach Tata's old team)

     D Justin Davis and D Kevin Venegas are officially Minnesota's first MLS players.

    Swiss international Blerim Dzemaili being linked with Montreal at the close of the Serie A season (plays for Bologna, also owned by Saputo)

    Darlington Nagbe "seriously considering" move to Celtic

    RSL and 'Burrito' Martinez mutually agree to part ways

     

     

     

  8. 2016 College Football Thread

    in Myke's Sports Bar

    Posted

    Salaam :( 

    11 hours ago, GhostMachine said:

    Jalen Hurd may try to go pro, rather than going to another school.

    Yeah, good luck with that. Being a quitter is going to cast a long shadow. 

    It's ok, ya'll just landed Trey Smith (no 1 recruit in ESPN top 300) so concentrate on the good news!

     

     

  11. 2016 College Football Thread

    in Myke's Sports Bar

    Posted

    Tell that to Oklahoma and Penn State

    I was speaking merely to the point of OhioSt/Mich being downgraded because they might meat again in a playoff. 

    I strongly disagree. Because Dallas plays Washington twice. Chicago plays Green Bay twice. Baltimore plays Pittsburgh twice. You lose the first game, you still get another shot. Michigan doesn't get to host Ohio State to try to get that loss back. It's done. It's over.

    But the playoffs don't do anything to diminish those meetings (which is what you're debating on with the college match ups).  1993 Season saw Dallas go to play the Giants in the last game of the season with the NFC East on the line.  Both teams were in the playoffs already as the loser would be the wildcard and there was a potential rematch.  That game was quite the opposite of what you're saying would happen with an OhioSt/Michigan match up.  Same thing just last year with Minn/GB last week of the season ... absolutely nothing taken away from that game.

    I never said FCS, D2, or D3 regular seasons are meaningless. But if Villanova or Sam Houston State loses two or three games, they know that they can get hot and still win the national championship. And rightfully so, because a lot of FCS schools play FBS teams and it'd be unfair to count those loses against them. 

    Exactly ... for some reason it's only Division 1 football where this matters.  It doesn't make sense.  Even if you take away 1 loss for every team in FCS due to playing an FBS team, you'd STILL have 3 loss teams in the playoffs ... but there's not a problem there.  Nobody has an issue with it.  The regular season is still meaningful.  Why is that?  Why is it an issue for Division 1 only?  That just doesn't make sense.

     

    I can't really argue much against the Boise's, Houston's, Western Michigan's. Hell, had Houston gone undefeated this year, I'd be 100% on board with them going to the playoffs, because they would've had some quality wins against Oklahoma and Louisville. But with Western Michigan this year, there's nothing impressive on their schedule, other than the fact they didn't lose

    and 4 teams only still all but out right excludes them.  If Houston had only lost 1 game this year they'd have been tossed out even though their resume was as good as a few of the other teams in contention for one of the slots.  I completely understand and agree that playing for the National Title is and should be exclusive ... but not so exclusive that you miss the point and lose the plot.

    It sure is. But I'm not the one arguing conference champions should be in, just because they're conference champions.

    My conference champion argument is two fold in reality.  As the system is right now, I feel that Penn State should have been #4 over OST by virtue of winning the conference title AND beating OST.  It's the counter argument to you pointing out the blowout loss to MICH.  What about the fact that OST was lucky to get out of the Mich St (3 win team) game alive while the closest win that PSU had was against 8 win Minn? 

    In an 8 team playoff yes, the Power 5 conference champions should be in ... especially since you (D1 college football) has officially divided the field with this designation.  You've still got three slots for things just like this Penn St/OST bit ... or the TxTech/Ok/OKST 1 loss bit a few years ago.  

    This year it would have been ensuring ALL of the teams that should be in would have been in. Depending on what you consider by "should be in". I'd argue more often than not we'd be looking at four or five, at most, very good teams, and three or four teams that don't belong. I'll even throw in the fact that Notre Dame would've been in an eight team playoff last year, and they got bent over and penetrated by Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. Had that happened you'd have people crying that too many teams made the playoffs, or you'd have people crying that the wrong teams got in because it was so lopsided. You take the absolute best of the best, no fluff just for fluff's sake.

    Taking a look at the last several years and I can easily see 6-8 teams that "should" be in an 8 team playoff.  I certainly see more than 4 that should have had the shot.  You're going to get lopsided match ups regardless of how they're set up.  Bowls system of old, Bowl coalition, BCS, even the playoffs now .... there's no escaping that. 

    Yeah, I know what Penn State did. What about Oklahoma? They lost to Ohio State, but they only had two loses (and one was not 41-10) and they won their conference. But like Penn State, they aren't one of the four best teams in the country. 

    They're the "worst" Power 5 champion this year.  While the score wasn't as bad, Houston ran them off the field (their own field that is) to start the season off.  Houston didn't turn out as planned.  That loss knocked them out of contention in conjunction with the Big 12 just not being good this year.  In a 4 team system they don't have the chops AND they have a common opponent that takes them down a peg. 

    Yeah, but when UF beat FSU it was 12-1 vs. 12-0. And when Alabama and their one loss beat LSU, they were undefeated. It wasn't a rematch of 12-0 vs. 9-3. That's my argument. If Florida, at 9-3, had beaten Alabama, at 12-0, that one win should not have negated what Alabama had done all season, in my opinion. Florida got to the conference championship by being in a weaker division, and still showing up with a worse record. If you're suggesting that that is how it should be, then you're essentially making the conference championship games the opening round of the playoffs and you basically get what you want anyway.

    Fact is though, they already had a head to head and then had a rematch.  Why should LSU have been punished for losing the 2nd game rather than the first?  Why should Alabama have been given that 2nd shot?  Why play the conference title game if the result isn't going to matter for one of the teams anyway?

     

    Ok, so let's say we have 8-teams this year: 1. Alabama 2. Clemson 3. Ohio State 4. Washington 5. Penn State 6. Michigan 7. Oklahoma 8. Western Michigan? Now, since we're putting such a huge emphasis on winning the conference championship, I'm assuming we're giving Ohio State and Michigan two of the three At-Large bids? Why not Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia Tech, Wisconsin, or Colorado? Why are we rewarding teams that didn't even win their divisions? Shouldn't the conference runner-ups be given precedence over Ohio State, who finished second in their division, and Michigan, who finished third? This is what I'm talking about when I say you're never going to satisfy everyone and you can't just make things as simple as "Conference Champs In and some at-larges". Not unless you're going full-out balls to the wall 16 or 32 team tournaments. Because even if you expand to eight, you're going to have arguments of who and why certain teams should get in, and in most years, you're going to have teams that really have no business going for a national title in there too. 

    Why not Wisconsin?  Because they lost to MICH, OST, AND PSU ... they have no argument.  Florida isn't even in the conversation.  Neither is VaTech.  Colorado lost to Michigan.  Also, you partly addressed this already.  Sometimes one side of a conference is obviously weaker than the other.  The 2nd best team in the conference might be sitting at home on conference title weekend. 

     

     

    I'm debating only because I advocate for a system that ensures all teams that should have a shot, get a shot.  If that includes a "fluff" as you said, team or two .... I'll take that all day over a system that leaves out 2 or 3 teams that you can easily and legitimately make the case for.  You're right, there is no perfect system and I certainly don't intend to present that there is one.  I will say though, that we have a universally applied system throughout the entirety of our sports make up in this country from youth all the way up to professional levels that is pretty much set in the same parameters.  However, for an inexplicable reason Division 1 college football lives in a bubble where it is viewed and thought of differently.  In the instance of D1 CFB is the only time the majority of these debates happen, do these thought processes apply, or do certain things make a difference.  I simply do not understand that. 

     

    And yes, it is easily the best thing we've had ...

         

     

     

     

     

     

  12. 2016 College Football Thread

    in Myke's Sports Bar

    Posted

    On 12/4/2016 at 11:47, Meacon said:

    Because that Michigan/Ohio State game is nowhere near as big and important if eight teams get in. College football is about those big games. This isn't the NFL. If you want a dozen teams to get a shot at the national championship then you're minimizing the impact of the regular season. You keep it four teams. You force teams to stop playing cupcakes. You start letting in eight teams then you're gonna have three loss teams in the playoff hunt and that's not how college football is suppose to be. It's why college is better than the pros, because every loss has a significant impact on your title hopes. You can go 9-7 in the NFL and still be a Super Bowl champion. To me, that's kind of lame. 

    Even if you let in 32 teams, the 33rd and 34th place teams are gonna feel jipped. You are never going to please everyone regardless of how many teams you let in the playoffs.

    Penn State won their conference, but lost to Michigan 41-10. Had they been competitive they'd have an argument, but a Top-4 team wouldn't have gotten beaten so bad.

    1- Sure it is.  Conference titles matter ... and playoff seeding matters.  No, it isn't the NFL but the number of playoff teams doesn't make Dallas/Washington, Chicago/Green Bay, Baltimore/Pitt any less important, and in fact only ADDS to the significance of those match ups from time to time.  Division 1 college football is the ONLY PLACE where the "minimizing the impact of the regular season" argument lives and the only time people think it.  It's ridiculous, flat out absurd actually.  Ask the D3, D2, or FCS schools how "meaningless" the regular season is because they have playoff fields larger than 4 (and 8 even).  You have way too many schools in D1 NOT to have a larger playing field because any given year one of the power 5 conferences can shit the bed (Big 12 this year) but whatever team sits atop it gets the virtue of being a power 5 champion though and somewhere a Boise St, Houston, etc etc is being shit on.  College Football is about each season individually and it is IMPOSSIBLE to fairly evaluate it with this many schools.  The fairest measure is to give the teams a chance.  An 8 team playoff does that.  You so called "power 5" conferences all get their champions in and you've got 3 places to fill with your Boise State of the year and that one loss Ohio State that didn't win the power 5 conference.  I mean, you want to talk about minimizing things ... that Big 10 trophy Penn State lifted sure is dull as all shit right about now eh?  

    There are 9 teams with 2 or less losses this year (hell there were 4 one loss teams last year and another 5 with two ..... or what about two years ago with an undefeated and SIX one loss teams?).  Even at 8 you're only scratching the surface of questionable in terms of "deserving" in a worst case scenario ... and no, you aren't forcing teams to stop the cupcakes, see: Washington, the SEC.  The playoffs have actually INCREASED the scheduling.  An 8 team playoff opens the door for this year's  

    It isn't about the last teams in with an 8 team playoff, it's ensuring you catch ALL of the teams that SHOULD be there.  8 does that.  8 gets Western Michigan in this year and puts to rest the eternal "Boise St" bit (and I'm sorry but those school rightfully deserve a shot regardless of what conference they're in as they're ALL division 1 teams) while allowing for every team with a legit argument to be in.

    They beat Ohio State AND won the conference.  

    On 12/4/2016 at 12:46, Meacon said:

    But then you could run into instances of a 12-0 team losing to a 9-3 or 8-4 team in the conference championship. Say in this example, the 12-0 team even beat the 9-3 in the regular season. Should that 9-3 team make the playoffs over the now 12-1 team, just because they managed to win the rematch? 

    I will agree six is better than eight, but I'm absolutely 100% ok with the way it is now.

     BCS had that kind of issue as did the Bowl set up originally ... hell, UF beat FSU in one of the best games ever in the regular season but then had to turn around and play them in the Sugar Bowl (which was the defacto NT game in 97).  In 2011 Alabama lost to LSU 9-6 but got put into the national title game by the BCS computers and won the national title over LSU ....

    21 hours ago, Meacon said:

    But you're assuming a six-team playoff means the five conference champs and one at-large. As I said in a previous post, what would you do if a 9-3 Florida beats a 12-0 Alabama in the SEC championship, when Alabama is quite clearly one of the best teams in the country. You could give them that #6 spot, but say Wisconsin was 12-0 before they lost to Penn State, and they're in the same situation. Should a two or three loss team that happened to get in a conference championship game because their division was weaker than the other side get in over a team that only had one loss all season? That's more flawed than the current system, if you ask me.

    The way I see it is the four best choices made the playoffs this year. If Penn State was truly a Top-4 team, they never would have gotten destroyed the way they did to Michigan. Michigan had a chance straight up to prove they belonged in the playoffs over the Buckeyes, and they didn't pull it off. Ohio State lost one game, on the road, by a field goal. Not 31 points. Michigan had one more loss than Ohio State, and one of those losses was against OSU. 

    Washington's out of conference isn't that great, but if you can sit here and tell me that a USC or Oregon or Stanford that goes 12-1 with the Pac-12 championship doesn't get into the playoffs then I'll say you're wrong. It's a playoff and we have one 13-0 team, two 12-1 teams, and an 11-1 team. This is how it should be.

    And that is exactly why you need 8 ... you're making the argument against your opinion.

    What's the point of conferences?  Divisions?  

    Putting the Power 5 conf champions into the playoff eliminates the year to year debate and bias that exists about the conferences.  You've still got three slots for your examples AND your Boise St or W Michigan or whomever else that has a fantastic season.  

    Also, let's not get carried away with attacking Penn State's loss to Michigan.  Nebraska got to the title game after being steamrolled 62-26, Oklahoma played for a national title after losing 35-7 ..... it happens.  With 8 teams though, that's accounted for.

     

  21. 2016 College Football Thread

    in Myke's Sports Bar

    Posted

    ESPN bit on Tom Herman's first job at TLU - featuring quotes from EWB's own HttK!

    ^ Darren Rovell did a piece on Coach Herman's first year as a coach with us down in D3 land at TLU.  Myself and a few other players and staff were contacted.  I personally spoke with Mr Rovell for about 45m and his mind was blown with what went on.  It was a great conversation and he was genuinely interested in the realities of the situation for both the players and the staff.  It was a fantastic time and it was nice to see him fact checking as he asked myself about instances that the other guys had spoken about.  Really awesome to have some national attention put on my old school and the program.   

    I'm Lyons, for those that don't know.

    • Like 2

  22. 2016 College Football Thread

    in Myke's Sports Bar

    Posted

    The coach after Mack never had a chance at Texas.  They're even further behind where aTm was in catching up to things.  Sumlin would be gone already but he's managed to produce better than expected.  He was just supposed to be the introduction to change but messed up and won some things.  Strong opened the door at Texas and got eyes back on them.  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. To learn more, see our Privacy Policy