bono_212
Blue Crack Distributor
I agree with whatever argument gets Penn State into the rankings.
I agree with whatever argument gets you to join in this conversation
I agree with whatever argument gets Penn State into the rankings.
UCF 2013 Schedule:
5 - 7 Akron
1 - 11 FIU
7 -5 Penn State
11 -2 SCAR (Loss)
3 - 9 Memphis
12 - 1 Louisville
3 - 9 UCONN
8 -5 Houson
2 - 10 Temple
6 - 7 Rutgers
2 - 10 South Florida
5 - 7 SMU
Defeat 11-2 Baylor in the FIESTA BOWL
Where did UCF get boned, exactly? You're complaining about where they started in 2014? Were there NO offseason changes for your team? Did the ranking end up proving to be...oh, I don't know...inaccurate in any way? UCF went 9-4 the following year and their only impressive win was to a highly ranked team in the FCS. AND they lost their bowl.
Actually I was highlighting the Fiesta Bowl because it's a major bowl. Meaning UCF was in zero ways slighted in 2013. Despite the fact that they beat up on a bunch of tiny schools and lost one of the two challenges they had that season (Referring to SCAR and Louisville. The Bowl game obviously doesn't effect your in-season ranking). I don't know why you are still throwing a pity party for yourself over the fact that your team had major successes in 2013.
A 16 team, four round playoff would be "horrific?"
March Madness must be your least favorite time of year.
Football is much more physically straining and exhausting than Basketball. I'm not all about the entertainment factor, I'm about quality of the game. And there is absolutely no way that more than 8 teams deserve a right to play in the playoff.
It would be absurd if teams like FSU, Michigan, Ole Miss, Memphis, etc would be serious contenders for a playoff spot if the season ended today.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Football is much more physically straining and exhausting than Basketball.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
How do you figure? Research shows that there are more injuries in basketball than football.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Why? All of those teams are playing great football...
I don't see a way to avoid making preseason rankings. You're taking a 128-team league and trying to make a definitive ranking based on a 12 or 13-game season. Pretending like that season is occurring in a vacuum only makes your job that much harder. Not giving Ohio State credit for coming off a national title with a lot of that talent still on the roster would be kind of silly.Pity party? I'm not throwing a pity party. I'm using an example that I know well, that demonstrates the ineffectiveness of initially seeding teams. And you, of all people, shouldn't be pointing fingers about a pity party. You bitch every week about where TCU is in the rankings.
Personally, I think you're justified. But yeah, don't do that.
And I was referring to their rankings pre- and post- bowl game. Also, I was making a point over if UCF was initially seeded at 5 and lost to a SC team that was ranked 8 or something like that, they'd be top 5 and a question mark for the BCS.
No, I am not saying they deserved to be there, necessarily. I'm saying the teams that are there will blockade them from even getting close.
I don't see a way to avoid making preseason rankings. You're taking a 128-team league and trying to make a definitive ranking based on a 12 or 13-game season. Pretending like that season is occurring in a vacuum only makes your job that much harder. Not giving Ohio State credit for coming off a national title with a lot of that talent still on the roster would be kind of silly.
Does it hurt up-and-coming teams that lack history, both recent and long-term? Absolutely. But it's essentially impossible to avoid doing it.
I don't see a way to avoid making preseason rankings. You're taking a 128-team league and trying to make a definitive ranking based on a 12 or 13-game season. Pretending like that season is occurring in a vacuum only makes your job that much harder. Not giving Ohio State credit for coming off a national title with a lot of that talent still on the roster would be kind of silly.
Does it hurt up-and-coming teams that lack history, both recent and long-term? Absolutely. But it's essentially impossible to avoid doing it.
What research?
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Well, here for one
http://m.livescience.com/803-dangerous-sports-america.html
It's also in a some sports injuries textbooks that I've read, but I don't have access to them at the moment.
Obviously it's not a contact sport like football, but the frequent stop and go can cause microtears in tissue, leaving the athletes prone to injury.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Mia and Peef. College football thread delivers.
Thanks for the article.
My main point is the fact that there's a reason why basketball is played 3-4 games a week and football only once. It involves a lot more strategy and planning, along with being much more physically demanding.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
And I'm sorry, but it's hilarious that we're arguing about football somehow being above a playoff on account of its mental and physical intensity when the NFL already has a 12 team, four round playoff that literally no one is seeking to shorten. A 16 team tournament would "ruin the sport?" Give me a break.
And I'm sorry, but it's hilarious that we're arguing about football somehow being above a playoff on account of its mental and physical intensity when the NFL already has a 12 team, four round playoff that literally no one is seeking to shorten. A 16 team tournament would "ruin the sport?" Give me a break.
16 team playoff would be absolutely horrific. Way too many teams and would take too long.
Come on. Division 1-AA (FCS), Division 2 and 3 have been doing this format forever.
So what the mighty student athletes of Eastern Washington, Virginia Union etc. can handle it but the poor fragile boys at Alabama can't?
I'd like to know if you have any research on WTF flow is supposed to be.Peef too?? Oh snap!