OT: Blues Forum Lounge (Home of All Things OT) - Part III

[2 Minute Minor]

Too many games at that point. They still are students and you don't want the future NFL players to take an unnecessary hits.

That's baloney. And the last reason to worry about it is for 'future NFL players'.

You heard the argument about all the 'missed class', too, but its a fraction of what basketball players (or other sports with week-day games routinely) miss.

 

[bleedblue1223]

That's baloney. And the last reason to worry about it is for 'future NFL players'.

You heard the argument about all the 'missed class', too, but its a fraction of what basketball players (or other sports with week-day games routinely) miss.

What you are wanting, is for them to play into February. Teams already play 13 games including the conference championship. A 16 team playoff would add an extra 4 games for the final 2 teams. I think 17 games for a college team is too much. For most of those playoff games, they would have a hard time justifying high ticket prices. It would also mean the end of the bowl system because fans won't want to travel that to multiple locations and the universities would never accept getting rid of the bowls.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

I agree. I think it's a crime to keep Northern Illinois out of the BCS hunt, even if they've had an easy schedule. Heck someone on ESPN this morning said they'd put Auburn in the championship over Ohio State if both those teams win. Ohio state hasn't even lost, come on now.

There are 10 conferences and a handful of independents.

Perfect world I'd love to see all 10 conference champs get in, plus 6 wildcards. Sunbelt champ is probably the 16th seed and plays Alabama (or whoever) in the first round, on campus sites. Come on, its only 8 games in the first round....its not a legit argument that this is 'too many games for young bodies'. That's a weak excuse put forward by people who line their pockets on the current bowl system (which should be abolished...too much corruption and too many undeserving teams going to meaningless bowls).

But you could also do a system with 8 teams, where the P12, B10, SEC, B12, ACC all get bids, and then have 3 wildcards and some provision where a champion from a lower conference gets a bid if they have a minimum ranking. (I don't like this that much, but maybe its more feasible right now.)

I DO think Northern Illinois deserves a chance to lose on the field against the other top teams. Teams like Boise State in years past, etc. Moreover, if conference champs are rewarded, there is less incentive for weak scheduling. The regular season becomes more interesting. Teams can be in the running for the NC as long as they're still alive in their conference.

 

[Daley Tarasenkshow]

That's not a bad idea, but it's football, not hockey. It's too many games at that point, it's too crowded and the season is extended for too long.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Bowls won't go away because of the money, regardless if they are pointless or not.

There will never be many entertaining regular season football games like there are in basketball IMO. I think college coaches would rather not risk showing their conference rivals more game film of the plays they would run in meaningful games

Sure, as fans we'd want to see some of the things that you bring up, but I think you have to look at it from the perspective of the people making the decisions. Unless it is going to guarantee more money or help the power conferences, there won't be much change. A 4 game playoff is still focused on the power conferences and will make more money. Anything more than that and it starts to get a bit cloudy.

 

[Falco Lombardi]

I agree. I think it's a crime to keep Northern Illinois out of the BCS hunt, even if they've had an easy schedule. Heck someone on ESPN this morning said they'd put Auburn in the championship over Ohio State if both those teams win. Ohio state hasn't even lost, come on now.

There is not a doubt in my mind that the winner of Auburn/Missouri should go over Ohio State. Not one bit.

You cannot tell me that either Northern Illinois or Ohio State is undefeated in the SEC. Not a chance.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Ohio State struggled to beat a terrible Michigan team and Northern Illinois has played even less competition. That's like saying someone in the regular math class is smarter than someone in the advanced class because they had higher test scores on easier subject matter.

In a worst case scenario, Winston gets charged and suspended and then the national championship won't even be the marquee game anymore.

 

[Falco Lombardi]

I'm not really a Mizzou fan (from Nebraska) but I followed the B8 and then B12 for a long time. I'm kind of sick of the SEC media hype. I'm curious what Missouri fans think about the perception of the SEC being so far above any other conference, and then A&M and Missouri move in and become competitive immediately.

I don't buy that it has much to do with recruiting yet. I think the truth is that the SEC is a good conference, but that ESPN/ABC has an incentive to sensationalize it a bit (due to their contract). But the B12 was never that far behind. (Yes, Alabama has been deserving of its titles.) Bottom line is good for the Tigers, but I think they've also kind of shown that the SEC isn't untouchable in the way its portrayed.

I also love how this must be needling Texas folks, to see A&M and Mizzou succeeding.

I disagree. I think what you saw last year was Big XII Mizzou trying to compete in the SEC.

I think 2013 Mizzou would beat up 2007 Mizzou.

Not saying this is your view, but I'm really frustrated by the view that some seem to have, including those on ESPN (though Kirk Herbstreit obviously biased) that somehow because Mizzou is doing well that the SEC is down and weaker. 3 top 5 teams in the nation, 4 in the top 8.

The top end of the SEC > top end of any other conference (although it's fair to say Florida St is the best single team)

and the rest of the SEC > every other conference with the exception of the Pac 12.

Mizzou, Auburn, and Alabama would have run through the Big XII and Big 10 in my opinion.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

That's not a bad idea, but it's football, not hockey. It's too many games at that point, it's too crowded and the season is extended for too long.

Too many games, but you're only talking about like 4 teams at that point. Its not a realistic argument. If it were, just limit the regular season by 1. But that affects a lot more teams.

Frankly, if you subtract the teams that will no longer be going to marginal bowl games, its LESS overall games.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Ohio State struggled to beat a terrible Michigan team and Northern Illinois has played even less competition. That's like saying someone in the regular math class is smarter than someone in the advanced class because they had higher test scores on easier subject matter.

In a worst case scenario, Winston gets charged and suspended and then the national championship won't even be the marquee game anymore.

I don't think its fair to analyze a team's rivalry game (OSU/Michigan) in the same light as any other regular season game. Those games tend to be tight and difficult for any team. (Who is Missouri's most bitter rival, by the way?)

I don't like OSU, but to keep out an undefeated team is hardly fair. Its a broken system (glad its going away). I'd love to see OSU lose and Missouri win and get in. But I see no way that Missouri gets in over FSU or OSU if they both win their conference championship games.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Too many games, but you're only talking about like 4 teams at that point. Its not a realistic argument. If it were, just limit the regular season by 1. But that affects a lot more teams.

Frankly, if you subtract the teams that will no longer be going to marginal bowl games, its LESS overall games.

Those teams want that money and it's not about overall games, it's about games and how long individual teams will have to play.

Say they add 2-4 more games for the top teams, the top players will be at greater risk for injuries and the potential for lawsuits for either covering for the injuries or just paying them to play will likely increase as well.

And concerning the terrible regular season non-conference games, it's how the lower conference teams are able to fund their athletic programs with the money paid by the major conference teams.

Everything is always about money. It's why the bowls will never go away and the meaningless games will never go away. It's also why the power conferences will always make sure that they have the advantage.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I don't think its fair to analyze a team's rivalry game (OSU/Michigan) in the same light as any other regular season game. Those games tend to be tight and difficult for any team. (Who is Missouri's most bitter rival, by the way?)

I don't like OSU, but to keep out an undefeated team is hardly fair. Its a broken system (glad its going away). I'd love to see OSU lose and Missouri win and get in. But I see no way that Missouri gets in over FSU or OSU if they both win their conference championship games.

We don't really have a rival at the moment, but A&M would probably be the closest. It was always Kansas and Nebraska. Arkansas could develop into one, but it will take awhile before it's an actual rivalry.

If Ohio State beats Michigan State, then I'm fine with them there, I just don't think they get past them. I also think Florida State would smoke them in the championship, so it won't really be a big deal in the end.

I do think Auburn and Mizzou both have much better resumes than Ohio State though. The 4-team playoff would be ideal this season. Florida St vs Alabama and Ohio St vs SEC champ, and then those 2 winners play each other. A 4-team playoff is all you really need in any given year.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Those teams want that money and it's not about overall games, it's about games and how long individual teams will have to play.

Say they add 2-4 more games for the top teams, the top players will be at greater risk for injuries and the potential for lawsuits for either covering for the injuries or just paying them to play will likely increase as well.

And concerning the terrible regular season non-conference games, it's how the lower conference teams are able to fund their athletic programs with the money paid by the major conference teams.

Everything is always about money. It's why the bowls will never go away and the meaningless games will never go away. It's also why the power conferences will always make sure that they have the advantage.

I understand why my proposal is not the way they do it. I just think the bowl system is stupid and run by old money. Lots of small schools actually lose money going to a bowl game, if they can't sell their ticket allotments. But the decision-makers benefit individually. Its not even in the best interest of the players/schools.

I'd love to see it blown up, and replaced with a post-season that has some athletic integrity (a tourney were all teams have a shot).

 

[Falco Lombardi]

I don't think its fair to analyze a team's rivalry game (OSU/Michigan) in the same light as any other regular season game. Those games tend to be tight and difficult for any team. (Who is Missouri's most bitter rival, by the way?)

I don't like OSU, but to keep out an undefeated team is hardly fair. Its a broken system (glad its going away). I'd love to see OSU lose and Missouri win and get in. But I see no way that Missouri gets in over FSU or OSU if they both win their conference championship games.

At the moment, it's A&M. It was Kansas and I believe Arkansas will be in the future.

I agree. I think the SEC winner should, but I don't think they will if Ohio St were to win (and I don't think they will)

 

[KirkOut]

Yankees give Ellsbury 153 mil over 7 years (about 22/year average)

 

[Daley Tarasenkshow]

At the moment, it's A&M. It was Kansas and I believe Arkansas will be in the future.

I agree. I think the SEC winner should, but I don't think they will if Ohio St were to win (and I don't think they will)

I don't think there's really a firm Mizzou rivalry right now. It was Texas, OU and Kansas in the B12 but now in the SEC it's still getting started.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

Yankees give Ellsbury 153 mil over 7 years (about 22/year average)

Apparently teams keep forgetting that guys that rely on speed as a huge component of their game slow down quickly after 30. That's a horrendous deal.

 

[Colt 55]

I don't see the NCAA being around much longer so a playoff system like 2MM is talking about isn't that far fetched to me. Also, the FCS on down through Divisions 2 and 3 currently have a playoff system in their divisions, and the students can handle it just fine, the REAL student athletes.

 

[LGB51]

Apparently teams keep forgetting that guys that rely on speed as a huge component of their game slow down quickly after 30. That's a horrendous deal.

Gee imagine that, the ****ing Skankyee's moving in and taking the Red Sox star CF after the Sox got his best years, and a couple WS Championships out of him lol. What a absolutely terrible deal, Ells as injury prone as he is isn't anything more than a 10 mil a year player. 12 per tops, and in most Sox fans eyes that is still drastic overpayment, looks like Johnny Damon Deal 2.0 lol.

Just the Skank's M.O., after they're inability to grow star's from within, SOP really,

1.) wait for Sox player contract to expire.

2.) ridiculously overvalue Sox player on the wrong side of 30.

2a) apparently the more WS rings they win with the Sox, the bigger the offer/overpayment.

3.) Make stupid offer no other team would make, even if they did have that kind of money.

4.) player almost immediately begins to show age, and starts producing accordingly.

Rinse, repeat. Look I loved Ells, most Sox fans did, but our fan-base was about 40/60 against resigning him. Because most weren't willing for the Sox to spend anymore then 10 mil a year to keep him. The guy isn't worth nowhere near that kind of money, he is injury-prone as hell. And that was throughout his 20's, it's only gonna get worse from here.

We got a new young stud waiting in the wings in JBJ, just like Ells was for Damon. The Sox made the right move, Jackie Bradley Jr. is ready, and they'll sign a vet to a short term deal to act as a stop gap if needed.

Such a bad deal for maybe a year, 2 max of prime production years from a huge injury risk player. NY front office never ceases to be predictable...and stupid lol.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

I could see a three or four year deal for Ellsbury at that kind of money. But 7 is just stupid. Time and time again a speed guy slows down after 34 or 35 and is a shell of their former self. And to think the Yankees were supposedly changing their ways...

 

[bleedblue1223]

The funny thing is the Yankees have to make contracts like this to keep attendance up. Yankee fans would almost rather watch a team full of big names instead of a better club with lesser names.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

The funny thing is the Yankees have to make contracts like this to keep attendance up. Yankee fans would almost rather watch a team full of big names instead of a better club with lesser names.

And that's exactly what's wrong with them. Fine by me though. If they want to be stupid and overpay for guys that will soon fall off, then that's less I have to worry about the Cards doing it. On second thought, with MO, I don't think we have to worry about that. Thank god the Cards have competent management.

 

[LGB51]

I could see a three or four year deal for Ellsbury at that kind of money. But 7 is just stupid. Time and time again a speed guy slows down after 34 or 35 and is a shell of their former self. And to think the Yankees were supposedly changing their ways...

Yeah right, did you see the deal they gave McCann? Dude is also a big injury risk, will be 30 before the season starts, and is barely a everyday backstop at this point. 5 years 85 million

For 30 year old, injury prone, streak hitter that's one hell of a overpayment. They're basically paying 17 a year for a decent left hand bat, with decent pop (when his knee's and hips aren't killing him.)

 

[LGB51]

The funny thing is the Yankees have to make contracts like this to keep attendance up. Yankee fans would almost rather watch a team full of big names instead of a better club with lesser names.

Nail on the head the Red Sox have big money to spend too, but whenever possible we use our farm system. The bad part about that is, with all that money to play with, the GM will (every now and then) make a stupid move for a player he's had a boner for forever.

Example- sign a already injury prone (it's 2011, so will be 30 by August) Carl Crawford to a 7 year 142 million dollar contract. He's never even had a season yet, that proves he's worth that much...talk about huge over-payment based off (then) unrealized potential.