Another Jason's picture

Another Jason

Member since 30 August 2010 | Blog

Helmet Stickers: 54 | Leaderboard

Voting Record: 0 / 0

Recent Activity

Comment 24 Jun 2013

I would much rather see some sort of in-season relegation/promotion, so when a mid-major or historically bad program gets a Ben Roethlisberger or a RG3 in their junior years, they can actually leverage that for the season that they have it.

What good does it do those programs to be "promoted" for the next season when all their best players are going to be gone? Ultimately, there's just too much roster turnover for this make any real sense in college sports.

But pros? Yeah, every league should do this.

Comment 07 Jun 2012

Speaking of Urban, there's an element that's almost always left out of the 2006 NC discussion that I think may have played the biggest part in that night.  According to UF players, one of Meyer's motivational ploys was showing them a copy of what he presented as a national magazine covering the championship game.  I'm paraphrasing here, but the gist was "the whole thing is about them, we only got TWO pages."

When I first heard that, I shook my head in awe.  What Meyer was talking about was a special Ohio State-themed commemorative magazine basically put out to cash in on the hype around the team/game.  The two pages on Florida were the only part that was actually a preview of that game, while the rest was a recap of our regular season.  But he sold it to the players as a symbol of widespread national disrespect, on top of the whole Michigan deserves a rematch debate, I'm sure.  That's the kind of motivation that can't be quantified and can make a huge difference in a game.

If you go here and scroll almost all the way down, I'm pretty sure that's it.  I think I still have a copy somewhere, and if I find it, maybe I'll try to hit up Urbz at a signing someday and see if he remembers...

Comment 04 Jun 2012

Unless I've missed something (and that's certainly possible), isn't their story that they ran from the light UNTIL they realized it was the police, at which point they stopped?  If that's true, then I can't really fault them for that.  I would assume that they thought they were running from the business owner (was it a restaurant? don't remember) or some random motorist or something.  The fact that they stopped when they realized it was the cops is a plus in my book.

This is probably the nonnest of non-stories I've heard in a loooooooong time.

Comment 18 May 2012

I remember hearing secondary violation totals ALL THE TIME before "Tat-gate" (are we really still calling it that? sigh).  Relax everybody.  Just because other schools have lower secondary reports doesn't mean they have lower violations.  OSU has long been known to be dilligent about reporting this stuff.

Comment 11 May 2012

I like some sort of system where conference champs are given preference but non-champs aren't entirely ruled out.  By including only 4 out of 120 teams in 11 conferences and a few independents, it makes it hard to construct a fair system that achieves that.

One thing I think people overlook is that if the current BCS system is used to seed the teams, then the results of the human polls will reflect the system in place.  That is, if it's a conference champs only system, then I believe a team like Wisconsin would be ranked higher than #10 in the final polls, simply because of the knowledge that they will be in the playoff.  Their two losses would be argued away as flukes, like LSU's in '07.  If it's a top-four regardless system, then teams from "weaker" conferences will not get high rankings.

If some other method is used to select the field, then who knows?  Ultimately, I think either more teams need to be chosen or fewer need to be chosen from.

Comment 02 May 2012

That's why The Tank's way works.  There's no way that VT team is in the Top 6, so it's not an issue.  Under his system, all four teams could be conference champs or all four teams could be non-champs (although this is highly unlikely as it would mean no conference champ is in the top 6) and everything in between.

Comment 01 May 2012

My problem was this: I mostly agree with BOTH arguments. I think that a conference champs only system eliminates some of the impact of bias and increases the importance of the regular season.  I also cannot imagine a system where a #10 team (regardless of what biases may have placed them so low, it's virtually impossible to argue that a #10 ranked team in ANY system is one of the four best in the country) is playing for a national title.

Then I read this from Frank the Tank's Slant. It's probably the best idea I've read in a looooooooong time.  Basically (for the tl;dr crowd) the idea is this:

Top 3 (by whatever system, even the current BCS) are in automatically.

#4 is in IF they are a conference champ or are independent (necessary concession, not a bad deal really).

If not, then #5 (if conference champ) or #6 (same) is in.

If neither #5 or #6 is a conference champ, then #4 is in.

It's really the best of both worlds.  It prioritizes conference winners, but also makes concessions to highly-ranked non-champions and independents.

Every system is imperfect, but I think this is a great way to make a 4-team playoff a little more perfect.

Comment 07 Feb 2012

Actually, in this case, the wish to maintain the "integrity" of the regular season and the "tradition" of the bowls while creating an opportunity for the subjectively selected "top two teams" to play each other is the one we should be sorry about having been gratified.

The BCS is the result of our bitching about the old way, where champions were just voted for after bowl games that proved nothing.  It was supposed to be (and admittedly is, albeit only a little) better.  It was our wish ("Split titles? Those suck!") poorly gratified.

This delusion of the "true champion" seems to only exist in the fantasies of college football fans.  No one else cares.  You win enough games or your division (or conference or whatever) and you get a shot at the title.  Whoever wins it is the champion, even if they may not be "the best."

Somehow, every single other sport on the planet has realized that there is no such thing as "the best."  Maybe, finally, our time has come.

Comment 07 Feb 2012

Eh.  I don't hear anyone complaining that their team should have been in the NFL playoffs now that the Super Bowl is over and a 7-loss team won.  In March, we hear all kinds of whining about the fringe teams that didn't make it in.  There is rarely any further discussion of these teams come Final Four time.

38% of NFL teams get a shot at the title.  20% of college basketball teams get a shot.  Currently, <2% of college football teams do.  Even a 16-team playoff wouldn't be as "open" as those two, easily the most popular (and relatively uncontroversial) tournaments in sports.

Comment 12 Dec 2011

I think it's because all anti-playoff arguments are bad.  Plus-One isn't great, but it's better than the BCS because >2 teams would be included.  At this point, I'm for whatever the next step has to be.

Comment 09 Dec 2011

It is even sillier to think that anyone is going to be happier with NO national champion.  You can't unring that bell.  Your point actually makes more sense if you were arguing FOR a playoff.  Since you can't "pick" a champion out of 120 teams who only play a dozen or so games under wildly different circumstances, then you just have to find a way to "pick" the 8, 12, 16, 24, etc. best and let them sort it out by, you know, playing that sport you love to watch.

Best argument for a playoff?  More football > Less football.

Comment 07 Dec 2011

Want to return to the days when winning your conference was important and STILL have a satisfying national championship?  16-team playoff featuring all conference champions.  Yeah, there will be some at-large bids for teams like this year's Alabama and Stanford, who were great, but fell short of their conference championship.  Would that really bother anyone?  They still have to prove themselves against great competition to win the title.

Comment 05 Dec 2011

Every game matters??? How can you even say that right now?

Comment 03 Nov 2011

But if we win out, then doesn't it make the most sense to keep Fickell as HC anyway?  Beating undefeated Illinois, thorn-in-the-side presumed conference champ Wisconsin, sorta-rival Penn State, and actual-rival Michigan with new improved douchebag coach, and then possibly the Big Ten CG and/or decent bowl game isn't enough for him to keep this job considering the circumstances?  Are there really people who think that Urban Meyer is automatically better than that?

Comment 27 Oct 2011

I wasn't suggesting that the pick changed, just that the "computerized stats" did.  Since XC pointed out that they are often accurate, I was simply lamenting (albeit sarcastically, of course) that ours was corrected.

I mean, seriously, what if Steele's computer really was predicting a grand and a half through the air?  How awesome would that be?

Comment 27 Oct 2011

The Big Ten relaxed the oversigning rule slightly a little while ago (2002?) to allow for minor oversigning (by no more than 3) as long as the school providing an explanation to the conference for it.  I can't say that I know who--if anyone--has used it or what their explanation was.

The problem with oversigning is that the process that appears to be used by some SEC coaches (and others) seems to be at the expense of student-athletes who have done nothing wrong outside of not being as good at football as was once believed (or at least as good as a new kid appears to be).  The Big Ten decided, long before Delany or Saban or, that they didn't want any part of that, so they banned it.

Other conferences allow it, because it's not really against NCAA rules (at least not the letter of the rules) and it happens to be a competitive advantage, provided that you actually know what to do with all that talent once you've sifted through it.

Should we be like them and expose more kids to some potentially life-altering decisions (of others) in the name of winning more football games?

Comment 24 Oct 2011

Bumbled expansion?  Compare his road to 12 to everyone else's:

Big Ten: Penn State, Nebraska

ACC: Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College

SEC: Arkansas, South Carolina

Pac-10/12: Colorado, Utah

Big 12: TCU and ? (unless Missouri leaves and they still aren't back at 12)

He revolutionized conference media deals with BTN (and our conference still has the best model simply by virture of not being in bed with ESPN) and brought instant replay to college football.

Does he suck at naming things?  I'll give you that one (and he does botch the PR at times), but he has done nothing but good things for this conference financially.