With all the running backs we have, and JT Barrett throwing the ball so well, I'm not sure we won't have a QB controversy on our hands next year. Braxton is a hell of an athlete, but his strength is making broken plays work. Between using the intermediate pass more, the o-line stiffening up, and having all those great backs, I'm not sure we don't need the better passer in the game. Its a long season, but I really hope JT gets good enough this year to make it a question.
Exactly. We should expand to 24 teams and put a system of relegation in place. If you're not in the top 12, you're not sharing the big money.
We don't need 8 teams. Most years there aren't even 4 that are deserving of a shot. If you want more teams, the conf championships should be round 1. Take the best 4 conference champs. Or do a series of inter-conference games at the start of the year that determine which conference champs go to the playoffs.
For now I see nothing to complain about until a 4th seeded team actually wins a national title.
Misspelling it wrong? Is there a correct way to misspell it?
Its funny how its better for your image to go to a BCS bowl and lose to Boise State than it is to lose in the NCG.
That said, the Silver Bullets are rolling as of late, giving up an average of just 17 yards per game.
They've been good, but not quite that good. Should that have been 170?
(I still don't get the whole conference standing, i.e. "champion" thing. It's supposed to be the top four teams. A dominant conference could fairly and squarely produce two of the four best resumes in football in a given season.)
They could, and I don't see them ruling that out, but if its a close decision between a team that won its conference vs a team that didn't I'd take the conf champion every time. The team that didn't win its conference controlled their own destiny and failed, the team that won their conference did everything they could.
When a cyclist yells on your left, its really to let you know they're passing so you don't swerve left just as they're speeding by you. The slower you're going the more likely they are to yell, because the speed difference is greater and a slower bike is a less stable bike. Most of the time its not intended to be rude, but there are some assholes out there.
As far as the lycra goes, its to prevent chafing. A pair of regular athletic shorts will bunch and wrinkle in your taint area. It won't bother you on a casual ride, but a couple hours going hard and you'll feel it.
I ride 60-200 miles a week throughout the summer, and I got to tell you some cyclists really do suck. Please judge us all individually though. Right now its especially bad because many people that aren't part of the normal cycling culture are out training for Peletonia. Most good cyclists will stay right and ride single file when a car comes up behind them. They'll also avoid high street and the olentangy trail if they can.
Edit: I don't mean to sound like I'm hating on Peletonia, its a great cause. There just happens to be more novice cyclists on the road because of it.
The athletic departments for many of these schools operate at a loss, but I'd bet a large portion of them actually make money on their football programs. Its just offset by the amount they lose on track, water polo, curling, etc. All of those are things those schools would likely want to keep and pay for even if there was no football program.
If each major conference partnered with a smaller conference there could be a play in method. The lowest ranked team in the higher conference would have to drop to the lower and the lower conferences champion could be raised to the higher. Keeps teams competitive in the upper conference and gives the lower conferences something to fight for.
There's just not enough data points for +/- to work out in college BB. I think it may work better in the NBA or in the NHL, but college ball is too random. Check out this article on Kenpom: http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/a_treatise_on_plus_minus/.