Want to eliminate pedophiles? As soon as you identify a victim of sex abuse, you should kill them. I am sure some if not all of the readers know where I am going with this. As with most things in life, the issue is complicated and can not be resolved by a one size fits all solution.
The same reason Hollywood actors and actresses cannot seem to avoid it. There is a downside to popularity...
And this brings the number of reasons I hate Kentucky to 3,746!
In the months and years to come, I think we are going to see some real differences between JT's approach and UFM's approach. JT almost excluslively locked up talent from Ohio, which included most of the best players and a bunch of lesser ranked kids. One of the benefits of doing this IMO, is that you are getting kids that grew up in Ohio and probably always wanted to be Buckeyes. UFM's more national approach strikes me of a more risk/reward approach, in that he will probably end up with a more talented team, though the risk is twofold: 1) many of these future players didn't grow up as Buckeyes at heart, so some attrition can be expected; 2) the higher the level of talent, the more the prima donna attitude can be expected to be a factor. Frankly, I guess I just expected that we would see more decomitts and attrition under UFM's more national approach for this reason.
Obviously I am speaking more generally and do not know if there are specific factors that resulted in the last two decomitts. Still, I think there is something to what I have written above regarding the higher risk-reward...
I found this solution on the internet and advocated for it. This is probably the best system. You won't see it because many think it's too complicated, but this is exactly the system that should be used. The year OSU played Miami, we didn't need four teams in the mix. Last year, we did. I also think it would add an element of intrigue going down the season as we see, not just which teams are in the hunt, but which systems would be used.
I want someone to explain to me how a playoff crowns a true champion? Let's say we have a four teamer (and for now, ignore that # 5 will be unhappy, that you still have to use polls to get the top four) and let's say for one hypothetical year, it's pretty easy to agree there are exactly four undefeated teams and pretty much everyone agrees these are the four teams. How do you seed these teams? This is critical in that football is so much a game of x's and o's type matchups. If one beats four, how do we know they would have beat three? What if they never played 3 at any point during the regular season, can you really say 1 was better than 3? Aren't your really seeding the four teams based on your perception of how these teams did mostly against OTHER teams, often teams that aren't common opponents? It's a myth, and it's why I get annoyed when people say "settle it on the field," as if a playoff system isn't using a list of arbitrary factors (arbitrary in that strictly head to head matchups aren't always available) to determine: a) who gets in; and b) the seeding of the teams?
So for this, I'm going to chuck the bowl system and all it's traditions (or at least seriously alter them) so I can have two football leagues that use the same flawed system?
I see the question as a different one--why not make a decision based on all 13-14 games rather than placing the heaviest weight on the last ones (heavily dependent on matchup, who's healthiest, where game is played, etc)? To me, it is far less subjective when it is based on a larger body of work. Why are you so certain OSU wasn't better than Miami? Just curious, since they were 13-0 before that game than beat them? At any rate, even if you are right, I have no problem with it, because they clearly deserved to be there.
You will never be able to accurately determine a champion of 120 some teams by conducting a playoff that let's a small subset participate--too few teams will have played each other to have accurate information. Every fan that pounds the "settle on the field" drum fails to realize that all the winner of a playoff tournament will ever be is that--the winner of a tournament. Does anyone really think the Giants were better than the Patriots the when they played in the Super Bowl the first time simply because the Giants played better than the Pats for one quarter in February? Fiction my friend, under this system or any other with 120 teams.
No one hates ESPN more than this guy. However, one thing to consider: while it would appear the B1G is competition for ESPN, ESPN still holds the primary rights for most of the B1G's games. That's why you see Ohio State on ESPN or ABC pretty much every week (and why you see Purdue, Northwestern, et al. on B1G Network). As such, does it really make sense to tear OSU down when they probably televise 8 OSU games per year? They have it in for OSU IMO, but I can't figure out the source of it.